certifired_img

Books and Documents

Radical Islamism and Jihad (29 Apr 2015 NewAgeIslam.Com)




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   450


  • At the time of Khilafat movement which became part of the national independance movement as well ,the leaders did not know about the continuity of Khalifa of Allah SwT or they treated 48th Imam and Fatimid Khalifa as the leader of a sect. Now, 7 billion unity is needed for recognition of 49th Imam and Fatimid Khalifa. Shia, Sunni and all leaders need to pledged allegiance. There is no need to repudiate the Khilafat movement but, one need to recognise the 49th Imam and Fatimid Khalifa existing in the chain from Adam PBUH decreed MUSTAFA in verse 3:33,34. World unity is decreed through unity in recognition, allegiance and obedience to Fatimid Khalifa existing as a chain of Akshar Puroshottam/Afzal minannas ,Noorun ala Noor, Akhand Jyoti.
    By Mukhtar Alam - 4/18/2016 3:30:06 AM



  • Dear Shahin sahib:
    I must congratulate you on this bold effort to confront the malaise that has existed among Muslims for years and due to in-action given rise to extremist groups like ISIS. I comment you for going ahead with this endeavour despite criticism by skeptics (that is people who have done nothing, want nothing done and will not let anything get done for the future generations...).
     
    You are correct in referring to Justices Munir/Kiyani 1954 Report:

    “Nothing but a bold reorientation of Islam to separate the vital form the lifeless can preserve it as a world idea and convert the Musalman into a citizen of the present and the future world from the archaic incongruity that he is today".

    By Arif M Razvi - 4/10/2016 6:34:41 AM



  • REVOLUTIOIN HAS BEGUN:

    facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=462541897251397&id=462078103964443
    By Syed Kamal - 12/5/2015 10:04:57 PM



  • Shahin sahib, Your program is wild and most points (you have suggested) will destroy Islam, for instance, point numbers 3, point no 4 which wants to finish (Quran and Hadith) as a source of law. Also see my comments in third brackets.

    Your article amounts to conspiracy against Islam.

     

    Please see quotations from this article and my comments below them.

     

    Preventing Further Radicalisation Is the Challenge Muslims Must Undertake: Some Concrete Suggestions
    (By Sultan Shahin, Editor, New Age Islam) 

    Now the question is, how do we go forward? If we really want to make a difference, we will have to start a substantive dialogue with the ulema and make sure that they agree to:

     

    1) open the gates of ijtihad, rethinking all tenets of Islam in the light of the situation prevailing today. As we have not done our homework for over a millennium, this will have to be pretty revolutionary

     

    (Door of Ijtihad is open for scholars of Islam, they are exercising Ijtihad in Shariah councils / Fatwa boards of Islamic Banks, OIC, Rabita, etc)

     

     

    2) declare that only constitutive and essential, not the contextual and allegorical verses of Quran, are meant to guide us today.

     

     ( This will open way for dissension)

     

     

    3) compile Qur'anic verses in the order in which they were revealed, thus restoring primacy to Meccan verses that mostly constitute the essential and universal teachings of Quran, as they can be understood without any need for knowing the context in which they were revealed.

     

    ( This will complicate matters. We cannot change arrangement of the Prophet This will create more dissention. It is also purposeless)

     

     

    4) declare that Ahadees cannot be considered any form of revelation from God. Islamic State’s millenarian thesis is almost entirely based on ahadees, though they use some allegorical verses of Quran as well. The claim of al-Baghdadi leading an end-time war, al-Malhama, just before the final Armageddon, has been a big draw. Some Muslims have come to think life on earth has no meaning left in the times of al-Malhama and so are rushing to join the war.

     

    ( Ahadees is Wahi Batin. However Hadith must pass sanad and text checking principles. Baghdadi issue is irrelevant here. Misguided people may use Quran)

     

     

    5) declare that Sharia (fiqh) is not divine. It was created over a century after the demise of the Prophet by ulema who tried to codify laws on the basis of Qur'anic postulates and Arab cultural practices.

     

    ( Fiqh or Ijtihadi findings are changeable)

     

     

    6) declare clearly that Islam believes in co-existence with other religions, not dominion over the world.

     

     ( OK)

     

    7) re-define commonly used Islamic terms like Muslim, kafir, mushrik, ahl-e-kitab, jihad, qital, farz, sunnat, etc. In a word, we must evolve a truly Islamic and a coherent theology o  f peace and co-existence, moderation and modernity, to counter the very coherent theology of violence and xenophobia, intolerance and supremacism that Jihadi ulema have created over centuries. All ulema say Islam is a religion of peace and co-existence. It's time for them to walk their talk. But if they refuse to consider change, we will need to directly reach the Muslim masses. ...

     

    Finally, the larger Indian community too should introspect. As Daniel Pipes said in an international counter-terrorism conference in Jaipur recently, in this war of ideas, the world should not only encourage and support progressive, modern Muslims but also oppose and refrain from supporting the fundamentalists and extremists.

     

    ( You are using western terms. Muslims are fundamentalists but not extremists except some misguided groups. Islamic parties are balanced groups)

     

     

    1) Our national leadership supported Khilafat in 1920s, considering it an essential part of Islamic theology. That was wrong. Now we must repudiate that stance and acknowledge our mistake.

     

    ( Their decision at that time was based on realities of that time. No point in criticizing. Then whole history of mankind may have to be condemned)

     

     

    2) Muslim Personal Law in India has not been reformed even to the extent it has been in Pakistan and Bangladesh. This must change. At least General Ayyub Khan’s reforms in Pakistan must be introduced and Ulema should be told to accept what their Pakistani and Bangladeshi counterparts did decades earlier. This is not a satisfactory solution but at least it will be a start and it is doable.

     

    ( Issues of Muslim personal law should be looked into for ensuring rights of women and children)

     

    3) Madrasa education is a serious violation of the human rights of Muslim children. It destroys their lives and fills their minds with xenophobia and intolerance. Our government not only allows this but partly funds some madrasas. This must stop, unless, of course, madrasas actually change to become modern versions of what madrasas used to be like, in the Golden Age of Islam, and produce scientists and philosophers. A secular, democratic government should not be in the business of funding xenophobia and intolerance.

     

    (This is harsh criticism. Any system requires change from time to time.)


    By Shah Abdul Hannan - 11/19/2015 11:12:24 AM



  • So, what was the outcome? Could Mr. Shahin as editor get the identity of rational mohammad  yunus?
    By Manzurul Haque - 10/26/2015 10:35:33 AM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin,

    Indeed, I have love and respect for you, i have gone through your research, I do agree with you, because I also have the same ideology.

    Because Article and online education gives opportunity to those who already educated and liberal. Since changing the conservative brain is not an easy task, we need to change the brain of newborn brain. Since what are being taught in the early age, could not be changed easily, thousand of reason behind it. Hence target should be to explore the brain  at the early age with the help of liberal and radical Schools and universities. That is the only way out looking. It should be done not for Islam, but for all religion, to save the humanity. So you ought to open such kind of School instead of running Newageislam and educating highly educated folks.

    Till when we all would be behind Name and money.

    Good night...

    O' God help us with right knowledge.


    By Mahound Observer - 10/8/2015 8:10:18 PM



  • Got link of your website somewhere and read your few articles but what is my opinion about you and your website is, There is nothing Called as Liberal or Narrow-minded Muslim…Either you are Practicing, Partial Practicing or non Practicing Muslim….In Islam what Mr Shahin is not what matters..But what Quran/Hadees says matters..Mr Shahin Newage islam can be called as Opportunist/Geographic Islam So since you Leave between Majority Non Muslim you act as Liberal (He will win the Friendship on Indian Govt confused RSS They run the Govt) It seems he want an attention so he is been doing all this because he knows any misrepresentation of islam will get him in Lime light because Muslims will not tolerate any misgivings on islam …..Its critical he understand this soon being a Muslim I will pray for him Insha allah

    By Adil - 8/25/2015 6:02:54 AM



  • First time come and read his website. Like I read almost all islamic websites to know what the “enemy” is thinking. It is rational and reasonable. BUT, but, like written in this article, lots of muslims abuse him, and his reasonable thinking. They want a fanatic version of islam and not his tolerant version. I joined issue with lots of his critics, (whose e-mails were published) asking what is wrong with his liberal version. No reply. Now pleaseeee dont blame me for hating islam.
    By Ramesh chandra - 8/25/2015 5:57:34 AM



  • You have made the following points, Sir with which I wholly agree:

    1.Our national leadership supported Khilafat in 1920s, considering it an essential part of Islamic theology. That was wrong. Now we must repudiate that stance and acknowledge our mistake.</div><div>2. &nbsp; &nbsp;Muslim Personal Law in India has not been reformed even to the extent it has been in Pakistan and Bangladesh. This must change. At least General Ayyub Khan’s reforms in Pakistan must be introduced and Ulema should be told to accept what their Pakistani and Bangladeshi counterparts did decades earlier. This is not a satisfactory solution but at least it will be a start and it is doable.</div><div>3. &nbsp; &nbsp;Madrasa education is a serious violation of the human rights of Muslim children. It destroys their lives and fills their minds with xenophobia and intolerance. Our government not only allows this but partly funds some madrasas. This must stop, unless, of course, madrasas actually change to become modern versions of what madrasas used to be like, in the Golden Age of Islam, and produce scientists and philosophers. A secular, democratic government should not be in the business of funding xenophobia and intolerance.</div></div><div><br></div><div>Gandhi ji was also responsible for supporting what has been mentioned in point No.1 and even the present Govt. has set aside funds for Madarsa education. &nbsp;Madarsa education may be banned and replaced by modern day education where a class of divinity could be held.

    By Satbir Singh Bedi - 8/21/2015 5:49:22 AM



  • Johan says, "All of this would be good of course, but utterly unacceptable to the vast majority of Muslims." . . .

     If something is good, it must be pursued irrespective of the odds. We do what we can, leaving the rest to succeeding generations.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/29/2015 12:53:47 PM



  • Johan summarises my suggestions as "these are “nice” ideas but utterly impractical."

    But the answer lies in breaking what Johan rightly calls "the inertia of 1.6 billion" Muslims. It is this inertia that has to be broken. The stagnation, total lack of any debate, in the Muslim community, just has to be breached and broken. The stagnation suits the extremists who have a very coherent, well-designed, well-thought-out theology of violence and exclusivism, hatred and intolerance, which is also being taught in all madrasahs. Even Sufi madrasahs today teach Syed Qutb on the pretext of teaching Arabic literature. They have abandoned Gulistan, Bostan of Sheikh Saadi, as they say Persian language no longer brings jobs and Arabic does. 

    The result is that when I go to universities and ask them to help organise seminars in which the meaning of Kufr/Kafir in Quran may be discussed and debated in the light of fresh research published in New Age Islam, I get no support whatsoever. The research seemingly proves that these terms only refer to religious persecution or persecutors. And I am not asking for financial support from these Muslim universities, merely an opportunity to present our case in this vital debate and defend it. So we have to continue to hammer and hammer at the inertia, apathy and the stagnation.

    I believe that once a meaningful debate starts,  things will start changing. What appears impractical today, may not remain so tomorrow.


    By Sultan Shahin - 7/29/2015 12:28:51 PM



  • Johan has made valid points.
    it is almost impossible to bring drastic changes in the beliefs of Muslims.

    it can be seen right here. all points suggested by Sultan Shahin have drawn no interest from traditional but peaceful Muslims.
    these are the real issues rooted in Islamic beliefs.


    By rational - 7/29/2015 6:35:00 AM



  • An islamophobe gives his comments about the above seven items  as follows:-

    #1. This is possible – in fact many Muslims today claim the right anyway. The “gates of ijtihad” were closed in response to the Mutazillite heresy which put rational thought above the Koran text (to simplify). Thus scholars would have the right to re-open those “gates”.
    #2. Given that Muslims themselves argue continually about which Koran verse are “Mukham” (clear) and which “Mutashabih” (contextual and allegorical), this one whilst not impossible in theory is impossible in practice – at least in terms of any consensus.
    #3. If the Koran is written down chronologically -the translation of Rodwell does this btw! – then this makes it clearer that the Medinan verses were the last recited. Given the doctrine of abrogation, this would have the opposite effect and reinforce the primacy of the violent Medinan message. To restore primacy to Meccan verses then, one would have to abrogate abrogation or invert it to say that the earlier revelation supercedes the later which is irrational (but we are talking about Islam, so irrationality is no bar I suppose).
    #4. Possible, but this also collapses sharia anyway. Again this would go against ~1200 years of tradition. It also means the Muslims no longer know how to perform their religious rituals (washing, prayer et al) since the Koran contains no details on such.
    #5.This relegates Sharia to the same status as man-made laws.
    Without knowing how to perform ritual and without the buttress of “divine law” #4-5 make it nearly impossible for Muslims to maintain their supremacist positions because there is now nothing “special” about Islam at all. All of this would be good of course, but utterly unacceptable to the vast majority of Muslims.
    #6. Another inversion of of Islamic teaching. You may “declare” whatever you wish, but that does not make it so. This undermines many verses of the Koran itself and so many Muslims would call the author either a hypocrite or an apostate for saying it.
    #7. redefine those words to mean what, if anything. Again it’s hard to see that 1.6 billion Muslims would readily accept that Kafirs aren’t Kafirs or that jihad means the offer of a cup of tea and a slice of cake.

    In summary then: these are “nice” ideas but utterly impractical. Where they done then Islam would cease to exist as Islam – a good and worthy goal, but they neglect the inertia of 1.6 billion people brought up to with a given set of beliefs being asked to change what they believe.
    Thus they are a non-starter for the the majority of Muslims who hold orthodox beliefs – even if without practicing the violent aspects.


    By Johan - 7/29/2015 5:33:07 AM



  • waris mazhari's blog:
    http://warismazhari.blogspot.in/

    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/21/2015 10:35:46 AM



  • Naseer saheb
    is it true you don't read any other book than the Quran? it is difficult to believe. when you quote some names which can't be known through the Qur'an.
    everything is not available in the Quran. Quran only seems to be myth.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/21/2015 10:31:58 AM



  • Naseer saheb
    for fear of my views which can come to my tongue, i maintain distance from maulnas. it can be very dangerous.
    my interaction with them limited to their articles, books, articles on various forums and blogs.
    today i was reading blog of waris mazahari. irony is that email id is missing. in the name of address only Delhi is mentioned.
    Search engine returned no email id.
    i could not get email id of khan saheb too.
    you can contact him on https://www.facebook.com/maulanawkhan

    Al-risal carries only articles of khan saheb. still here is contact to al-risala. please write to them. it may be helpful.
    info@alrisala.org
    cps@alrisala.org


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/21/2015 10:21:19 AM



  • Rational,

    If you can send across the mail IDs, I will send my articles to the two of them.

    The fact is that you were among the first to support my article. Secular Logic also said a few positive things about the article and Hamza commented positively on The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Qu’ran (Concluding Part) Summary

    The others who supported are Siraj, Curious Traveler, and Listener. This is not a bad score at all. 

    The good intentions and peaceful credentials of all those who supported are clear. 

    While no scholar has supported, none have opposed either. That is a positive sign. I think that I should take it to a broader audience by publishing a book.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/21/2015 5:19:53 AM



  • Naseer saheb
    khalid suhail saheb has already posted the views of khan saheb. perhaps veiws of mazahari saheb not available.
    you can directly send your work to khan saheb and mazhari saheb. what stops you?
    however there is very little hope they will say something even against it like Sufis have posted nothing.
    now you should revise your opinions about islamophobes and other enemies of Islam after witnessing the silence of scholars of Islam.
    one can write tons of article and comments on introspection, accepting mistakes, but when he comes across it in real life he wears silence or makes excuses.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/21/2015 4:52:12 AM



  • Dear Secular Logic and Rational,

    I quite agree with both of you. I will do what I think is necessary. However, since Shahin Sb has shown interest in taking it forward, I would be at fault if I refused to take his help.

    The fact of the matter is that my contacts among Muslims is close to zilch. NAI has a good relationship with both Maulana Wahiduddin Khan and Waris Mazhari and their review of my article even if they disagree, could be very useful.

    I had sent it to another moderate Javed Ghamidi. His associate who responded agreed that  not all  Mushrik are Kafir but refused to go beyond because my article goes against the premises and conclusions in  Ghamidi's theory of "The Divine Plan" of Allah which I think is an improvement over what Ghamidi's mentor and teacher has written. In response, I was asked to go through the book containing "The Divine Plan".  I did a critique of it and showed that his theory  is a combination of poor translation and extremely loose and poor logic. I responded with an article  The Story of the Prophetic mission of Muhammad (pbuh) from the Qu’ran 

    to bring out the true nature of "The Divine Plan" and sent a copy to Ghamidi's associate and also a link to the article in NAI inviting his comment/critique. He thanked me for sending the article but did not comment/critique it.


    The problem with all those who have published works is that they cannot support what I say without agreeing that they have themselves erred somewhere in their books which is not easy for them.
      
    Maybe I should just go ahead and write my book.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/21/2015 2:21:39 AM



  • Dear Rational and dear Wajid Hussain, thank you for the comment and for speaking the truth.


    By Khalid Suhail - 6/21/2015 1:17:33 AM



  • Thank you Mr. Khalid Suhail for putting Maulana Wahidudddin Khan Saheb's thoughts in context.This is exactly what Maulana Abul Ala Maududi says in Jihad fil Islam. But, why am I surprised? Maulana was a leader of Jamaat-e-Islami and supporter of Maududi in his early years. They fell out only later. But it seems his understanding of Islam, Quran, mission of the Prophet (pbuh) is still not different from his original thinking. 

    But, yes, one must admit, he does say a lot of very conciliatory things. But moderation, until based on correct understanding of Islam and the Prophetic mission, cannot prove useful in the ultimate analysis.

    By Wajid Hussain - 6/20/2015 1:20:06 PM



  • "Narrated Jubair bin Mutim:
    Allah's Apostle said, "I have five names: I am Muhammad and Ahmad; I am Al-Mahi through whom Allah will eliminate infidelity; I am Al-Hashir who will be the first to be resurrected, the people being resurrected there after; and I am also Al-'Aqib (i.e. There will be no prophet after me)." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 732"




    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/20/2015 11:02:50 AM



  • Dear Khalid Suhail - 6/20/2015 9:55:50 AM
    Neither Islamophobes nor other enemies of Islam are responsible for stagnant Islam.
    You have rightly quoted maulana wahidudden khan saheb the peaceful missionary scholar .
    Not a single Maulana classical or moderate will respond to naseer saheb's theory.
    Kufr is a pivotal theme of Islam. it is exactly same from prophet mohammed to this time.
    To Islam the shirk is a zulmun azeem. and this shirk is synonym of kufr because meccans rejected the message of monotheism of the prophet after supposedly  the prophet proved his prophethood to them.
    so whoever rejected or remained silent after the call to this supposedly truth is a denier/kafir.
    to Muslim scholars this theory must be a fitna like the theory of maudoodi was fitna to some muslims. there is no other reason for silence of them

    Sufis already have worn silence. not a single voice from Sufi and non-sufi scholar in support of naseer saheb.
    i don't know how it will proceed. how non-Muslims will breath freely.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/20/2015 10:30:14 AM



  • “I do not know any alim. You could try the known progressives like Maulana Wahiduddin Khan or Maulana Waris Mazhari.”- By Naseer Ahmed - 6/20/2015 3:31:50 AM

    ---------------

     Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, in his book, “Islam- Daur-e-Jadeed Ka kha’liq”  (“English version-Islam – Creator of The Modern Age”) says,

    Efforts on the part of the prophets over a period of thousands of years had proved that any struggle which was confined to intellectual or missionary field was not sufficient to extricate man from the grip of this superstition (shirk).

    (So) It was God’s decree that he be a da’i (missionary) as well as ma’hi ( (eradicator). He was entrusted by God with the mission of not only proclaiming to the world that superstitious beliefs were based on falsehood, but also of resorting to military action, if the need arose, to eliminate that system for all time.

          This same mission of leading men from darkness to light had been entrusted to all the prophets in turn. The sense, however, in which the Prophet of Islam was distinct from the others was that, in his case, God had decreed-since no Prophet was to come after him-that he should not just communicate the divine message to humanity and leave it at that, but that he should also take practical steps to change the entire existing state of affairs.

          The prerequisites for putting this plan into action were all provided by God. Moreover, God also guaranteed that any shortcoming in worldly resources would be amply compensated for by special help from the angels."

    "This Point Has Been Made In The Hadith In Different Ways. One Hadith In Particular Is Quite Direct In Its Wording: “I Am The Eradicator Through Whom God Will Obliterate Unbelief (Here, he has used the word ‘Kufr’ for unbelief).” Thus The Prophet Was Not Just A Da’i (Missionary) But Also A Mahi (Eradicator).  He Was The Caller To The Faith, But He Had Also To Compel People To Answer His Call. The Qur’an clearly states that besides human beings, God’s angels would also help him in accomplishing his mission.

    This commandment of God was, indeed, realized through the Prophet, so that a whole new era could be ushered in."


    After this categorical statement, how can Maulana Wahiduddin Khan  agree with Nasser Saheb’s definition of Kufr unless he takes a complete U- Turn?


    By Khalid Suhail - 6/20/2015 9:55:50 AM



  • Sultan saheb
    does it ever hurt you that a place of worship where anybody could worship was turned into a place where nobody except Muslim can worship?
    the prophet could spare a space for diverged worship if Allah cares for worship places of non-Muslims where the name of god extolled.

    you should not complain if Wahabis bombed sufi shrines. they tried to remove shirk.
    see, meccans were not deniers of Allah. they only thought that their are some who are near to Allah to intercede for them.
    for example, yaooq, o nasar were rightly guided persons in their lives. meccans thought that being pious persons they will intercede.
    Muslims also believe that prophets and saints will intercede for them.

    in this matter Muslims resemble mushriks.
    since belivers need no reason to believe. Wahabis believe they should clean the Muslims from shirk? do you find something wrong with it in religious domain?

    i personally believe that man must be free to worship or not to worship. if he wants to worship stones, who i am to question him and call him wrong. it is his belief. he finds idols useful, who is the prophet to throw him out. worshiping idol doesn't mean worshiper is immoral.

    But in Islam it is an unpardonable crime. beyond comprehension.
    plunder, killing, rape can be forgiven but not shirk!
    i am unable to digest why you weep for brailvis but not for meccans who were forced to fight through mockery of their forefathers and religion.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/20/2015 5:02:01 AM



  • Naseer saheb
    i agree with secular logic.
    since you believe seriously that your work is original and serious, you must do it yourself.
    since you are a believer in day of judgment where God will deliver full justice and every soul will be rewarded or punished for his deeds, you must do it yourself.
    why you want to share reward with Sultan saheb.
    you often remind me that individual will be asked by God. apply it to yourself.
    if you don't do this you will be punished because you held a thing which is truth to you.
    off course it is very risky, but reward will be highest if that happens in hereafter.

    you must thank sultan saheb, for he has given space to your articles on NAI. He also agrees with your views on kuf and shirk.
    i thank him he didn't expel  me despite the pressure from moderates.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/20/2015 4:38:10 AM



  • Sultan saheb
    Wahabi islam is a islam. its sources are the Quran and Hadith. period.

    sufis are in full conformity with jehad, jizia, supremacy of Islamic sharia etc. there is no proof Sufis went against this Islamic fanaticism. they were front waves of Ghazis.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/20/2015 4:26:27 AM



  • Mr Ahmed, if I may butt in...

    If you want your articles and understanding to be more thoroughly debated, I think you should not put that responsibility on any body. You should send your articles to magazines/Muslim newspapers/ websites other than NAI. Even mainstream publications may pick up a piece or two, given that there is so much interest in Islam currently. Why wait for some person who knows some Alim to intercede and set the ball rolling? Do it yourself. Even Mr Shahin faces his own limitations.

    By secularlogic - 6/20/2015 4:19:43 AM



  • Sultan Shahin saheb- 6/19/2015 1:47:02 AM
    you failed to bring any Sufi scholar who opposed sultans and Emirs. If i can criticize the Qur'an, prophet and islam as whole what will stop me from condemnation?
    Since you fail to recognize the roots in Islamic theology, i need not to carry condemnation of some sects.
    in the history of Islam none is paak saaf.
    how Iran turned into shia majority? with peaceful preaching? shias may be now at receiving ends but were shias tolerant to Sunnis under their rules"
    intolerance has been hallmark of Islam. In 1400 years Muslims fought with each other and with other faiths.
    Top Sufi ibn e arabi justifies jehad/jizia. Ghazali makes it mendatory on every Muslim and you say sufism is free from intolerance.
    for me Islam is intolerant to other faiths. there can be may reasons why they are peaceful with other faiths.
    one is ignorance. They have sugar coated history of Islam. They have false stories of sufis.
    why only Muslims are touchy on every issue? don't brailvis play politics?
    to prophet meccans were mushriks. he eradicated shirk. removed idols from kaaba. mocked meccans for their faiths. in return they fought against mohammed. who started it all.
    if wahabis are doing same, you should not wonder. they are advancing islamic leagcy of killing, loot etc.
    they think they are true followers of Islam, brailvis/sufis are deviants.
    Beliefs are blind. believers need no reason to believe.
    rest peaceful majority of Muslims justify the actions of jehadis. that is why you don't see mass condemnation of any violent action. they are silent supporters of jehadis.
    how can they wholeheartedly condemn what they link to early Islamic period.
    Muslims don't deny for example banu quraiza though they justify it. they don't deny killing of kaab bin ashraf through deceit, though they justify it.
    why moderates have no significant impact on majority of Muslims? because moderates cover the truth. they can't digest what moderates say because it is not what they have believed.

    if you think my ondemnation of wahabis help in any way let me condemn them. but i can't say that is not islam or it is not the history of Islam.
    i can condemn them on humanitarian ground not on religious ground. let it be wahabi, salafi or devbandi.
    there is no proof of pluralistic society in medina where non-muslims could have their worship places to worship their gods.
    Jews were exterminated, and Christians were not in sight. whoever were left were taken care off by khulfai rashideen.
     i can't digest lies like that non-muslims were living with dignity in prophetic or khilfat period.
    those who gave space to non-Muslims for example in baghdad, they were now kings away from Islam.
    this situation disturbed imam ghazali and he pushed Muslims back in time.
    rational Muslims were sent to back-foot by religious fanatics like Ghazali.

    Give power and money to sufis/brailvis, they will not despair. if companions could fight for khilfat why Brailvi would not.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/20/2015 4:12:25 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    I do not know any alim. You could try the known progressives like Maulana Wahiduddin Khan or Maulana Waris Mazhari.

    Why are universities bothered about the backing of ulema when they have their own departments of Islamic studies which are expected to carry out research and publish fresh insights?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/20/2015 3:31:50 AM



  • Shahin Sb Says:

    "Naseer Saheb, I do not understand why ulema of any background will not support your understanding of kufr, kafir, etc.


    You complain, and I am surprised too, that even Sufi ulema,would not support you. But you have no complaints if Salafi-Wahhabi ulema do not support you. A variety of sectarianism?"


    Can Mr Shahin quote my exact words? He cannot because I have not said what he is attributing to me.

    This is what I said:

    Listener is one person who has very categorically and strongly supported my article "Who is a Kafir?" which goes against conventional thinking of all sects and establishes "Let there be no compulsion in religion" and "To (the peaceful rejecter of Islam) be his way and to the Muslim his way" as the universal, unchanging principles from the time of Adam. This has not been supported by a single known Barelvi/Sufi on this site. Clearly, by doing so, Listener has  demonstrated that he is a free thinking Muslim who can go against the tide if he is convinced of the truth of any proposition even though it goes against accepted accumulated conventional wisdom. He also demonstrated by lending his clear support  that he means well by all humanity and does not consider anyone as "Kafir" merely based on the faith the other person professes. With such clear proof of his being among the most moderate of Muslims, you have accused him of trying to spread virulent Salfism only because he said that the article of GRD on the meaning of fitna was sectarian since clearly the article's sole objective was to indulge in sectarian rant ignoring that Sufi/Braelvi scholars were no different on this point. 

    The reason you gave of course was his saying that the best Muslims and those who understood the message of the Quran best were among the earliest Muslims and the earliest  in Arabic means salaf. However, as I showed and proved beyond doubt, the Quran says the same thing and there is also a hadith which says the same thing and this hadith is accepted and quoted on the Sufi/Barelvi sites as well. So from what he said, Listener could belong to any sect since what he said is based on both the Quran and hadith and accepted by all sects of Sunni Islam.

    However, the fact that he opposed Barelvi sectarianism is proof for you that he is not a Braelvi/Sufi and anyone who opposes Barelvi sectarianism is a Wahabi/Salafi as far as you are concerned. This goes to show that at least in your view, every Sufi/Barelvi is a sectarian and unlikely to oppose Barelvi sectarianism. You may be right. I have no way of knowing. Nobody on this site has declared himself a Sufi and then opposed the sectarianism on this site. I could have been one such person, but I do not see myself identifying with any sect because I am a free thinker for whom reason is most important and for Sufis reason is unimportant and that is where I am uncomfortable with what I consider to be their mumbo jumbo. 

    Can you explain Shahin Sb why a sectarian Sufi/Barelvi is a moderate Muslim for you although he does not accept that all non-Muslims are not Kafir and a non-sectarian with demonstrable proof of meaning well by all humanity and opposing the communal rendering of the meaning of the Quran a person to be chased away by slandering him just because he speaks out against the Sufi sectarianism on this site?



    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/20/2015 1:58:59 AM



  • My response to By Sultan Shahin - 6/19/2015 1:10:38 AM

    You have slandered Listener by accusing him of spreading virulent Salafism just because he said that the earliest Muslims understood the message of the Quran the best which as I have proved is borne out by both the Quran, the hadith and accepted by all sects of Sunni Islam including the Sufis that these were the best people. The real reason you slandered him is because he spoke against the sectarian rant in GRD’s article on the meaning of fitna. You will slander anyone who opposes your sectarian agenda.

    You  or anyone else can also try to falsify the Quran as well as the hadith with stories of the worst kind of Muslims of those times about whom also the Quran speaks and which I have covered under the heading:

    Various types of believers in the Prophet’s times.

    Scroll down and read it.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/20/2015 1:51:12 AM



  • Md Younus Rational Saheb, I condemn all those who justify terrorism from Islamic scriptures. No exception. However, this discussion today is taking place in the context of what has come to be known as Islamic or Islamist terrorism.  it just so happens that all the Islamic or Islamist terrorists, each one of them, all over the world, come from one school of thought, the Saudi Arab-promoted Salafi-Wahhabism. So I have naturally studied them in some detail and found out the violence inherent in their ideology. 


    After all, Sufi-oriented people and Shias, etc  indeed all non-Wahhabis are at the receiving end in this civil war.   So I naturally make a distinction. I have no particular reason to study the ideology of people whose names you keep bringing out consistently - you have been doing this for years -  in order to divert the discussion and protect your Wahhabi masters. Bring to me quotes supporting violence, rape, enslavement of other Muslims and non-Muslims from any quarter and I will have no hesitation in condemning that. I condemn them in advance. This is not a general condemnation as you say. You give me a quote of Ameer Khusro or Hazrat Nizamuddin or Khwaja Ghareeb Nawaz calling for violence, killing of innocent civilians, rape and enslavement of women and children, and I will condemn that specifically. 


    You must think, however, why are Sufi shrines under attack from Timbuktu to Malaysia. I am sure you know who are the perpetrators of this violence and what is their ideology. The whole world knows and for a long time now, as this civil war in Islam is going on for decades. 


    It doesn't mean that victims of violence are angels. They too must have their faults and shortcomings like any other human being. But you cannot equate victims with terrorists.  


    Please bring yourself to criticise the ideology that teaches violence, terrorism, intolerance, exclusivism and supremacism. I have not studied Imam Hanbal yet in any detail. I know that Ibn-e-Taimiya and Wahhab, etc. or their families belonged to this school of thought. But I understand that Ibn-e-Timiya and Wahhab were independent ghair muqallid thinkers. However, bring to me some quotation from Imam Hanbal supporting violence against all non-Hanbali Muslims and non-Muslims, I will have no hesitation in condemning that. 


    But Rational Saheb, why do you not want to study the ideology to which you know all Islamist terrorists belong? You claim to have left Wahhabism, but have you? Ask yourself.


    I think we should all study the ideology that terrorists belong to and condemn and refute it using Islamic sources, particularly Quran. Quran and Prophet’s conduct are our main shields. Let us use them. 


    You think no particular ideology of Isla, but Islam itself is an ideology of terror. But the world does not agree with you.How can you forget that the followers of Islam, the overwhelming majority of Muslims, including indeed the majority of Wahhabis, are living and have been living for centuries peacefully around the world. 


    It’s only in the last few decades, particularly since the advent of petrodollars that the Saudi-Wahhabis started spending tens of billions of dollars, plus their clout as big employers, etc. to colonise Muslim minds around the world. In Taimi, Wahhabi interpretation of Islam, the Islamists, with a political agenda, have found fertile ground for violence and terrorism. Osama bin Laden was a Saudi Arab millionaire. Taliban and all other terrorists in Pakistan-Afghanistan are products of Deobandi-Ahl-e-Hadeesi, Jamaat-e-Islami madrasas. All the terrorists involved in 9/11 were products of, and brainwashed by Taimia and Wahhabi ideologies and groomed for terrorism.  Tamia and Wahhab were the most intolerant of all sectarian Islamic ideologues. They would not tolerate even the existence of any other ideology. For them every non-Wahhabi Muslim deserves death.These are facts even the most ardent Wahhabi sectarian dos not, cannot deny.


    I cannot help it Rational Saheb if the truth hurts you so much. Have you forgotten the day Salafi suicide bombers killed dozens at Sufi Data Ganj Baksh shrine in Lahore, Pakistan, among hundreds of other shrines around the world. This vandalism has been going on since the Saudi Wahhabi zealots called Ikhwan emerged from Najd around 1913. You will,however, say the fault lay with the Sufis. What can I say to that. 


    By Sultan Shahin - 6/19/2015 1:47:02 AM



  • I just cannot understand how can Muslims oppose something as categorical as the Quranic verse: "Let there be no compulsion in religion."

    And it turns out that nearly all Muslims, regardless of sect, are opposed to Quran on the issue of religious freedom for Muslims, even for those Muslims who are merely hereditary Muslims, who did not choose to be born in a Muslim family and have never actually chosen Islam as their religion.

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/19/2015 1:32:57 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, I do not understand why ulema of any background will not support your understanding of kufr, kafir, etc.

    You complain, and I am surprised too, that even Sufi ulema,would not support you. But you have no complaints if Salafi-Wahhabi ulema do not support you. A variety of sectarianism?

    The city you live in is full of Salafi-Wahhabi ulema. In fact the whole world is now full of Salafi-Taimi-Wahhabi Ulema. Do please try to get hold of at least one articulate alim who will speak or write in your support. Take his opinion, even if he speaks/writes in Urdu.

    This total lack of support is becoming a major impediment in our project of presenting your hypothesis to the world from others than New Age Islam.

    We need the support of university authorities, and everyone is so scared of any debate on Islamic theology, that they will not go ahead until some recognised alim were to at least consider it debatable. So far no one is willing to even engage with us on this question of who is a kafir or who is a Muslim.

    Ever since I took up this project, I am learning how scared of Islam Muslims in some sort of authority are. Islamophobia is not for Islamophobes alone.
    By Sultan Shahin - 6/19/2015 1:25:38 AM



  • Dear Naseer Saheb, do try to study a little the early history of Islam, if you want to talk about Salafism. We would not be in the mess we are today, had the Salaf not interpreted Islam as a political ideology for dominating the world.

    From the moment the Prophet (saw) passed away, Islam was no longer the Islam of the Prophet (saw) and Quran. I am sure you must know at least a little bit about what happened during the first three generations of Islam. The Salaf massacred the entire extended family of the Prophet, including infants, and installed the killers as their king. Yazid must be the second generation, as his father was a companion of the prophet or may at most be considered the third generation.

    I have referred several times to a brief history of these tumultuous times.

    If we want a peaceful theology, we will have to go back to Quran and the Prophet, and then also take the help of Sufis who actually understood and spread Islam as a spiritual path to salvation of human beings rather than a political ideology of supremacism and exclusivism.

    You will have to clarify in your own mind first, if Islam is a political ideology of dominating the world or a spiritual path. Religions have to have something to do with spiritualism. People who do not have a spiritual concept of the universe have no business being religious. That is why I have always believed religion cannot be and should not be hereditary.

    No religion is or can be a political ideology or even a bland ethical and moral philosophy alone. You must know that the Prophet (saw) himself was a spiritual master, in today's terminology a Sufi saint, a Rishi or Muni. He used to spend weeks after weeks alone in the cave of Hira. What was he doing there? Couldn't be reading books on political, moral, ethical  philosophy. What do saints do in caves or on mountain tops alone. Study the lives of rishis, munis of India or saints from anywhere in the world, you will know. They were meditating, praying for guidance, from a place within themselves. They were seeking to understand who they were, what this world was all about, the perennial questions humanity has always asked. These people did not read books; they went within themselves to find the answers.

    Apparently, through his spiritual practices, the Prophet was able, to access the unknown, the unknowable, the unseen,the unseeable. How can people who use reasoning, logic, rationality alone in understanding things, understand this phenomenon. Spirituality takes you to a realm that lies beyond reasoning, logic and rationality. It never contradicts logic and rationality, but transcends them.
    By Sultan Shahin - 6/19/2015 1:10:38 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    Listener is one person who has very categorically and strongly supported my article "Who is a Kafir?" which goes against conventional thinking of all sects and establishes "Let there be no compulsion in religion" and "To (the peaceful rejecter of Islam) be his way and to the Muslim his way" as the universal, unchanging principles from the time of Adam. This has not been supported by a single known Barelvi/Sufi on this site. Clearly, by doing so, Listener has  demonstrated that he is a free thinking Muslim who can go against the tide if he is convinced of the truth of any proposition even though it goes against accepted accumulated conventional wisdom. He also demonstrated by lending his clear support  that he means well by all humanity and does not consider anyone as "Kafir" merely based on the faith the other person professes. With such clear proof of his being among the most moderate of Muslims, you have accused him of trying to spread virulent Salfism only because he said that the article of GRD on the meaning of fitna was sectarian since clearly the article's sole objective was to indulge in sectarian rant ignoring that Sufi/Braelvi scholars were no different on this point. 

    The reason you gave of course was his saying that the best Muslims and those who understood the message of the Quran best were among the earliest Muslims and the earliest  in Arabic means salaf. However, as I showed and proved beyond doubt, the Quran says the same thing and there is also a hadith which says the same thing and this hadith is accepted and quoted on the Sufi/Barelvi sites as well. So from what he said, Listener could belong to any sect since what he said is based on both the Quran and hadith and accepted by all sects of Sunni Islam.

    However, the fact that he opposed Barelvi sectarianism is proof for you that he is not a Braelvi/Sufi and anyone who opposes Barelvi sectarianism is a Wahabi/Salafi as far as you are concerned. This goes to show that at least in your view, every Sufi/Barelvi is a sectarian and unlikely to oppose Barelvi sectarianism. You may be right. I have no way of knowing. Nobody on this site has declared himself a Sufi and then opposed the sectarianism on this site. I could have been one such person, but I do not see myself identifying with any sect because I am a free thinker for whom reason is most important and for Sufis reason is unimportant and that is where I am uncomfortable with what I consider to be their mumbo jumbo. 

    Can you explain Shahin Sb why a sectarian Sufi/Barelvi is a moderate Muslim for you although he does not accept that all non-Muslims are not Kafir and a non-sectarian with demonstrable proof of meaning well by all humanity and opposing the communal rendering of the meaning of the Quran a person to be chased away by slandering him just because he speaks out against the Sufi sectarianism on this site?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/19/2015 12:01:48 AM



  • Sultan Shahin saheb- 6/18/2015 10:21:24 AM
    for a moment forget me. you charge naseer saheb in the same way though he has condemned terrorism often.
    if you can't except his condemnation, i feel it is useless to condemn it.
    for pointing out the roots to jehad in sufis, you can't say i am a wahabi or ex-wahabi.
    bringing us under the label of wahabism is your way of attack on us.
    if centuries old ibn e tamiyah can be hold responsible why not al-ghazali? why not ameer khusro for corrupt behavior? why not imam reza?

    how can you bring Sufism to replace wahabis if in the past they behaved like fanatics. they believed as wahabies believed.

    your unwilling condemnation of Sufis is not acceptable.
    your concern is Sufism mine is not.
    it also means that your concern is terrorism against Sufis not against whole mankind. iF your Sufis demand death for apostates, it is not your concern but if wahabis do it is your concern.
    i will be with you the day i will believe that you are truly for reform not defending your sect.

    if you feel i am not condemning any ideologue, i too believe that you are not axing the real roots of terrorism.
    if today wahabis are doing, tomorrow sufis will do because the roots are intact in your theology.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/18/2015 9:29:59 PM



  • Dear Naseer Saheb, I am not calling for merely condemning Jihadis and their ideologues, although that too is important.

     I am calling for refuting their ideological positions, their justifications for terrorism, justifications from Islamic scriptures of  killings of civilian killings, raping of women, enslaving of women and children. I am also calling for bringing the focus back on positive features of Islam a la Sufis. 

    In short, I am calling for a completely new, overhauled, theology of Islam, a very coherent narrative of peace and pluralism. 

    That is why I particularly value so much your and Muhammad Yunus Saheb's contributions to the site, among that of many others. I am sure our venture, among that of several others around the world,  will help peaceful, moderate, plural, progressive Muslims gradually evolve a new theology of peace and pluralism. 

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/18/2015 10:45:49 AM



  • Md Younus Rational Saheb, I am bringing the discussion about change and reformation and terrorism and Sufis to a more relevant thread.


     I am not mounting any defence of Sufis. If they did or said something wrong, that was wrong, no matter who did that. I am not engaging in their defence at all. That is not my subject. I am just trying to keep the focus on terrorism and how to fight the ideologies of terror.


    The real issue is that at the moment it is not Sufis who are engaged in killing, raping, enslaving other Muslims, as the Salafis are. They are the victims of this war. Their shrines and their followers are under attack among other people. They are not my focus except as part of a solution. Part, because while they focussed on the positives in Islam, which we too should focus on, they did not go about contradicting, taking issue with the war-mongers of their times,which too we need to do today. In the internet age we cannot hide anything. We should not fight shy of the political, militant, exclusivist interpretations of Islam. 


    We should also relook, whom we can call Sufi. For instance, even Ibn-e-Taimiya, the most political and militant of all, is considered a Sufi by some, and was considered by man in his time. When he died, many men and women came and kissed his face to acquire blessings. Shah Waliullah is considered a Sufi by many in the South Asian sub-continent. If so, where do we put his opinions like the following which we have even discussed before following a posting by Khalid Suhail Saheb in some other thread:




    "نبی کی ذمہ داریوں میں سے یہ بھی ہے کہ وہ اس دین کو تمام ادیان پر غالب کردے اور کسی کو دین کے غلبہ سے باہر نہ رہنے دے، چاہے عزت کے ساتھ یا ذلت کے ساتھ۔ چنانچہ لوگ تین فریق بن جائیں گے۔ ظاہر اور باطن میں دین کی اطاعت کرنے والے مجبور ہوکر اور سرکشی کی طاقت نہ رکھنے کے وجہ سے ظاہر میں اطاعت گزار۔ ذلیل کافرجن کو کھیتی کاٹنے، اناج نکالنے اور دوسری مزدوریوں میں کام میں لگایا جائے جیسے کہ کھیتی کرنے اور بوجھ اٹھانے کے لئے چوپایوں کو کام میں لایا جاتا ہے۔ نبی کے لئے ضروری ہے کہ وہ کافروں پر کوئی زجر اور ذلت کا قانون نافذ کردے اور انہیں مغلوب وذلیل کرکے ان سے جزیہ لے…. قصاص اور دیت میں کافروں کو مسلمانوں کے برابر درجہ نہ دے اور اسی طرح مناکحت اور انتظام مملکت میں بھی کافروں کو مسلمانوں کے برابر درجہ نہ دے تاکہ یہ پابندیاں انہیں ایمان لانے پر مجبور کردیں۔"




    (حوالہ: حجۃ اللہ البالغۃ، جلد1، باب 69، صفحہ نمبر 289)


    Hujjatullahu al-Balighah, volume – 1, Chapter- 69, Page No 289.



    “It is the duty of the prophet  to establish the domination of Islam over all other religions and not leave anybody outside its domination whether they accept it voluntarily or after humiliation. Thus the people will be divided into three categories.



    “It is the duty of the prophet  to establish the domination of Islam over all other religions and not leave anybody outside its domination whether they accept it voluntarily or after humiliation. Thus the people will be divided into three categories.



    “(Lowly Kafir ( unbelievers ),  have to be tasked with lowly labour works like harvesting, threshing, carrying of loads, for which animals are used. The messenger of God  also imposes a law of suppression and humiliation on the kafirs and imposes jizya on them in order to dominate and humiliate them …. He does not treat them equal to Muslims in the matters of Qisas  (Retaliation),  Diyat ( blood money), marriage and government administration so that these restrictions should ultimately force them to embarrass Islam.” (Translation by Khalid Suhail in some other thread.)


    Ref: Hujjatullahu al-Balighah, volume – 1, Chapter- 69, Page No 289. 


    Rational Saheb, you use Sufis, and sayings or doings of some of them merely to divert attention from Jihadism and its main ideologues like the the Khwarij and neo-Khwarij, Ibn-eTaimiya, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Mohammad Ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab, Maulana Maududi, Syed Qutb, etc.


    I maybe wrong, but I do not remember you ever condemning any of these Jihadi ideologues. These are the ideologues that terrorists like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda ideologues and magazines like Azaan or Baghdadi's Islamic State ideologues in magazines like Dabiq or Taliban's propaganda magazines like Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad quote. You do not have a word of condemnation for them. You simply try to divert attention from any criticism made of them. 


    It is not the Sufis or Sufi-oriented people who have turned the beautiful Islam concept of Jihad into a virtual synonym for terrorism. It won't be very rational to claim to be fighting terrorist ideologies and atacking Sufis alone and all the time. 


    You claim to have left Wahhabism now, but apparently the Wahhabi teachings still have an important influence on you.


     Please ask yourself, Rational Saheb, if you really are an ex-Wahhabi or still a Salafi-Wahhabi supporter of terrorism.


    By Sultan Shahin - 6/18/2015 10:21:24 AM



  • Secular Logic Says:

    "you are unable to allow validity to polytheism, pluralism, different conceptions of morality, fluidity of morality, the possibility that ethics are not necessarily connected to religion"

    I have no problems with the existence of polytheism. Who am I to stand in the way when God Himself provides the freedom of choice? I have gone to the extent of saying is that a born polytheist is not necessarily a kafir. Here I am communicating the meaning of the Quran and I have no personal opinions to express. 



    As far as pluralism goes he can read my article:

    The Concept of Unity in the Quran While Celebrating Diversity

    No one on this site has been able to answer the challenge in the two articles and showed one ethical/moral precept that does not owe its origin to religion.

    Religion as a Civilizing Influence

    I have no problems with different conceptions of morality either whether these derive from Buddhism or Hinduism or Christianity or Islam.or whatever or even the man made ones which are again based on what is derived from religion.

    I do not brand a person as moral or immoral based on his profession of belief either. I have said this several times that you, Hats Off and Rational have displayed greater integrity than the others. I go by actual observation and not by any pre-conceived notions.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/12/2015 5:30:26 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    The least that I expect from a man of good sense is that he should show some logical consistency. Stay away from me, my arguments and my thesis by all means. Why did you then have to comment on my comment which was not addressed to you? Why do I have to point out each time the complete lack of logic and logical consistency in you? You behave like a street urchin sniping from the sidelines with a juvenile comment and then run away.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/12/2015 4:54:10 AM



  • Islam in truest sense never allowed a way to polytheism and will never allow though some Muslims may be committing it by worshiping graves.

    Grave worshipers will always be on defending position.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/12/2015 2:23:06 AM



  • second Muslims are reluctant to accept any new idea because old ideas generated by imams the scholars of Islam are engraved in the minds of Muslims.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/12/2015 2:19:08 AM



  • despite new definition of kafir being better but unfortunately it didn't attract any comment from Islamic scholars.

    it is very simple. first Islam speaks in terms of kufr and Iman. Islam is speechless without these terms.

    second Muslims are reluctant to accept any new idea because old ideas generated by imams of scholar are engraved in the minds of Muslims.

    new definition could make situation better but it is not acceptable to those who influence Muslims.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/12/2015 2:17:40 AM



  • Hats off was brilliant, yes. But I have not always shared all his opinions. There is no denying that you have a glib tongue. But the rot of the mind is clearly visible to those who can see it. Your definition of Kafir is only marginally better than the popularly understood one, because even with your understanding of the Quran, you are unable to allow validity to polytheism, pluralism, different conceptions of morality, fluidity of morality, the possibility that ethics are not necessarily connected to religion..... so many things that go against the grain of my being as a thinking person.

    The difficulty in arguing with you is that you start off with certain things as "given" when they are not really "given" at all. You argue in the gaps. X does not say this, therefore he says Y sort of arguments. The whole framework of your reasoning appears nonsensical to me, and dismantling so much nonsense is not something I have the stomach for. If I choose to not engage with you, it is for my peace of mind. Not because you have rendered me speechless. You can call that running away, it will pleas your megalomaniacal ego. I prefer to call it wisdom. 

    By secularlogic - 6/12/2015 1:47:39 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    I can imagine your trepidation. Hats Off, who for you is the  most admired commentator on this site,  had the following to say on the two articles:

    "he also wrote two very brilliant articles which we really struggled to counter."

    I can therefore see why you choose to run away from discussing these two articles when you have debated with me on other articles before and after.



    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/12/2015 1:20:23 AM



  • No, thanks, Mr Ahmad. I dont agree with all your reasoning and stuff and I don't want to argue with you, either. Ideologues scare and bore me. 
    By secularlogic - 6/12/2015 12:47:02 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    You were marked a copy of my correspondence with Shehzad Saleem, as associate of Javed Ghamidi who had referred to his book:

    Playing God: Misreading a Divine Practice

    http://al-mawrid.org/pages/dl.php?book_id=87

     

    Read from page 50, the section subtitled:

    iv. Prohibition of Friendship with Non-Muslims

     

    My article in 5 parts  "The Story of the Prophetic mission of Muhammad (pbuh) from the Qu’ran " is a counter to the Divine practice discussed in the book which I strongly disagreed with.

    I had mailed my article to Shehzad Saleem and invited him to comment on my article but he chose to keep silent.

    My article is a  meticulous presentation of the correct view. Even well meaning moderates have notions which "blaspheme" the Quran and make it a Book of convenience rather than of unchanging universal principles that have validity from the beginning to the end of time..



    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/12/2015 12:45:51 AM



  • Good logic. Let us celebrate life while it lasts.
    By Listener - 6/12/2015 12:25:53 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    You may read and comment on my articles:


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/12/2015 12:20:47 AM



  • Even if that unlikely event happens, Mr Listener, the consequences will only be scary if the said being is a vindictive and cruel one that will send some invisible part of the dead person's being into an invisible hell to be roasted like a baingan for eternity. But then, we say this unseen God is also "benign" . he would understand how difficult it is to believe in his existence. Would probably just have a good laugh at the way he/she/it has confounded mankind for eternity. It is crazy to believe in something so irrational because you are afraid of what will happen to you after your death if you disbelieve. 
    By secularlogic - 6/11/2015 10:33:08 PM



  • Smartest thing one can do is to die believing there is God and then find there is no God. What happens if one dies believing there is no God then after death finds there is God.
    By Listener - 6/11/2015 8:50:10 PM



  • Intellectual mumbo jumbo. 

    That the universe had a beginning and an end does not mean God exists.

    God has never been proved to exist anywhere than inside the human mind.

    All versions of God, all religions, all texts, everything is made by man. Both "God" and the "devil" reside within us. 

    Once this realisation strikes, all religious debates like the forgoing one become superfluous and inane. 

    There is no God, just a human yearning for a paternalistic, miracle performing, justice dispensing being that is in some way more perfect, more powerful, more good than man thinks he can be. This is the fount of all religion. If we can see where God comes from, we will be able to have more empathy for different religions and sects and circular reasoning about ancient texts whose contexts no longer exist will become wholly unnecessary. 

    By secularlogic - 6/11/2015 1:07:13 PM



  • Does this mean Naseer Saheb, that distinguishing words with al- can help us establish which commandments are contextual in nature, meant for the times of the Prophet, and which are of universal value?

    I am asking this as one of the former Muslim Brotherhood extremists, who almost became a suicide bomber, but came back from the brink makes this point  in detail and gives examples of verses in his book which are very revealing.
    Unfortunately I am not in Delhi now and not access the book now. But if someone is interested, I can share this in a few weeks. However, it will be know from you and perhaps Yunus Saheb, if this can be a way of seeing a difference between contextual and timeless verses.

    Could you please send me any link or book reference to to Javed Ghamdi Saheb's writeup.

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/11/2015 12:43:30 PM



  • Shahin Sb,

    There are scholars including Javed Ghamidi who say that the use of Al used with people of a faith  contextualizes the verse to particular set of people or to the people of those times.
     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/11/2015 11:53:44 AM



  • The Shariat of the Quran is of course in accordance with the nature of man but man himself is created. The Quran being a book of guidance for man is therefore not only created but a creation for man. I would therefore think that the creation of the Quran is of  an order lower than the creation of man but this point is hardly material.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/11/2015 11:40:21 AM



  • Dear Naseer Sb, Thanks for your very detailed explanation.
    By Listener - 6/11/2015 11:19:09 AM



  • Does the use of "al" before some words and its non-use change the meaning? To what extent? Does it make a material difference, beyond what happens with use of "the" in English?  Can someone explain to me with some examples. 
    By Sultan Shahin - 6/11/2015 11:14:28 AM



  • Dear Listener,

    There are numerous verses in the Quran that begin with "They ask you ....... Say to them.......

    These are answers to questions asked by both the believers and the non-believers.

    There is a verse which says if any question is asked during the revelation of the Quran, it shall be answered but warns against asking questions which may lead them astray.

    The Quran besides narrating past stories is  interacting with the Prophet on a day to day basis on the issues faced by him and providing guidance. It is providing experiential learning.
     
    To say that this Quran was always there is then to say that everything is pre-ordained and that (God forbid) God is merely playing games with His creation!

    Yes, many of the situations in the life of the Messenger are meticulously planned by Allah to deliver His message but everything is done with perfect justice.

    There are all kinds of people who together carry out Allah's plan. Each one is rewarded or punished according to his intention. The result of our efforts is  therefore rarely in our hands and the Messenger is also told the same that he will not be able to make those whom he loves accept the faith.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/11/2015 10:59:03 AM



  • Dear Listener,

    Only God is uncreated. Everything else is a creation of God. To say anything more than this is blasphemous irrespective of which scholar or imam said what. This debate is unislamic and Muslims got into it when they came into contact with people of other religions and cultures who have such views regarding their scriptures.

    I reject all religious mumbo jumbo without ceremony irrespective from where it comes. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/11/2015 10:35:01 AM



  • Dear Naseer Sb, Your approach to study of Quran is intellectual rather than religious. This is also a acceptable way if a person is capable of which you have in plenty. I was just wondering if you during the course of study established how Allah describes His book. You did give explanations. The closer explanation I learned is that Quran is the command of Allah addressed to mankind to be implemented. I will let you know in due course verses relevant to this. It is not a very big matter though and not a reason to debate but just to bring our understanding as close to the truth as possible. May Allah increase you in knowledge of book.
    By Listener - 6/11/2015 9:43:41 AM



  • Dear Listener,
    I am not sure why you have asked this question but in a comment I have said that the Quran is the created word of God.
    Hadith is used in the Quran for:

    a)      The message, the recital or the speech of Allah including revelations in the form of dreams

    b)      For true stories as a synonym for the other Arabic words used namely “naba” and “qisa”

    c)      It also refers to the discussion between two or more persons or to the theme of the discussion.

     It also refers to a person's statement(s) or an account of his deeds.

     i)                    The Quran contains stories or narrations (qisas, naba) of previous prophets, people etcetera

    ii)                  Moral lessons through parables which constitute Al Hikmah.

    iii)                The unchanging laws and the sunnat of Allah are part of the Al Kitab.

    The mode of delivery is the recital (Quran) or hadith.

    The Quran is however created by Allah as the Quran itself affirms unequivocally

    (10:37) This Qur´an is not such as can be produced/created/invented (yuftara) by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.

    The word yuftara also occurs in the verse below:

    (12:111) There is, in their stories, instruction for men endued with understanding. It is not a tale invented (yuftara), but a confirmation of what went before it,- a detailed exposition of all things, and a guide and a mercy to any such as believe..

    Besides,

    The closest to being called uncreated is the Al Kitab part of the Quran but this is like saying that Allah had no choice in the matter of creating the universe in any other manner and with laws different from what they are except the way they are. This is the position that the atheists take. They simply say that things are what they are because there is no other way they could be and there is no God. The positions that the atheists take would have been strong for an “uncreated universe”. The cosmologists and the physicists have however spoilt their story by talking about creation of the Universe as a distinct event and of the beginning and end of Time.

    Verse 11:107 and 108 also talk about “as long as the heavens and the earth endure” which could metonymically  mean forever, or until end of Time after which perhaps there may be a new creation which is not talked about as that would make little sense to us.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/11/2015 7:41:22 AM



  • Rational,
    I have not read a single book of Sira in original or in translation nor any book of ahadith nor the books of any Islamic scholar or the Tafsir of any Muffasir except in the form of some article here and there or when I needed to get a cross section of views on any verse for my articles. My knowledge of history is from the accounts of western authors/historians. I Only speak from one Book and that is the Quran.
    The original  question that was being addressed was whether the early Muslims were among the foremost in nobility of character and sincerity of belief  and the Quran provides the answer in no uncertain terms. All of the vanguard Muslims were among the foremost without doubt and among those who came later, those who followed their example. Beyond this there were some who followed the middle path and some who were hypocrites.
    Beyond this I would not like to discuss any further. Those who would like to falsify the Quran with stories from wherever, and vain arguments,  are entitled to do so.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/11/2015 7:31:07 AM



  • Naseer Sb, I am not aware if wrote an article on this subject "Is Quran the created word of Allah ?"
    By Listener - 6/11/2015 7:26:54 AM



  • "So those who are not able to read you must leave in darkness." must be read ""So those who are not able to read you must live in darkness."
    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/11/2015 6:31:31 AM



  • Naseer saheb
    let the Quran be a book of guidance to people like you who have higher level of intelligence.
    the destiny of common Muslims is to follow a scholar. now scholar can convince a common man to believe in anything.
    one shouldn't wonder about what is happening in Islamic world.

    So those who are not able to read you must leave in darkness.



    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/11/2015 6:29:55 AM



  • naseer saheb
    i have no objection to your comment on different types of believers.
    murder of apostates and strict purdah originates from abu bakr and umar farooq respectively.

    One shouldn't wonder if Muslims demand death for apostates and want to keep their wives in strict purdah.
    it was umar farooq who was not happy with some freedom womenfolk was enjoying.
    the prophet couldn't maintain that freedom for long.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/11/2015 6:18:22 AM



  • naseer saheb
    to avoid the facing of reality moderates Muslims including you rejected Islamic history recorded by Muslims. you rejected hadith because of this reason.
    this story is troublesome so you question the historians.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/11/2015 6:05:32 AM



  • Naseer Sb, The one line statement on nobility spawned a huge debate. What it proves is that a person whose heart is attached to Quran will immediately find validation for the statement or proof that it is partly correct or that the statement is totally incorrect in the verses. Others will look into evidences in man made historical records which are likely to be incorrect and get confused or make wrong conclusions. It is no brainer to see which approach is correct. Thanks for spending so much time and effort on the issue.
    By Listener - 6/11/2015 6:05:05 AM



  • naseer saheb
    who is scholar? do you count yourself as scholar? how do you feel if i say you are a scholar? Is mohammed yunus a scholar of the Quran? Has he distorted the understaning of the Quran as you say that distortion started with scholars.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/11/2015 5:50:20 AM



  • Naseer Ahmed - 6/11/2015 4:46:07 AM
    you are totally wrong. what ever is in the film is based on history of Muslims written my Muslims.
    Islamophobes quote from the authentic sources of islam. you have proved nothing.
    regarding twisting of verses there is no parallel of Muslims.
    you prove my point by saying that in 1400 years Muslims have understtod the Quran incorrectly.
    you said that entire Sunni theology is wrong, means majority of Muslims have twisted the Quran.
    who can be more imaginative than Muslims on everything. be it paradise, or hell, or adhab e qabr or anything.
    you have proved not the work of islamophobe wrong but the work of islamic scholars in 1400 years.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/11/2015 5:47:03 AM



  • Secular Logic and Rational can scroll down and read By Naseer Ahmed - 6/11/2015 12:13:42 AM

    Rational ca read Various types of believers in the Prophet’s times.

    Read the complete  argument starting with By Naseer Ahmed - 6/10/2015 11:29:16 PM

    Rational, As regarding the distortions by the Islamophobes, it was proved with evidence how they distort even Quranic verses.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/11/2015 4:46:07 AM



  • Ah, the joys of building and living in a parallel universe of ones imagination, where nothing violent, unjust, cruel ever happened, is happening, or will happen. The pinnacles of glory were reached through non violent satyagraha. Perhaps some people have reached Jannat alive. 
    By secularlogic - 6/11/2015 4:26:17 AM



  • Rational,

    What you say only proves my point. 

    Did not Afaqsiddiqui sb also say that the video "innocence of the Muslims" was based on facts?

    The inferences that the Islamophobes draw are purely the work of their own imagination.

     


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/11/2015 4:00:49 AM



  • Naseer saheb
    "Shahin Sb's understanding of the early Muslims appears to be based on the accounts of the Islamophobes."
    i didn't expect a blatant false charge on islamophobes.

    history of islam is written by muslims not by islamophobes.
    Islamophobes are right in quoting Islamic history and drawing their conclusions which you hate.

    Did Daniel Pipe/Ali Sina/Robert Specner, Syed Kamran Mirza killed hz uthman, Ali, Hasan and husain and their families?

    Was America/israel responsible for that mutual bloodshed?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/11/2015 3:32:51 AM



  • Naseer saheb
    was no scholar of the Quran in prophetic time?
    who is a scholar then?
    why Islam lived a short life of 150-200 years?

    Fight of abu bakr against people who refused to pay zakat is a proof that Islam prescribed death penalty for apostates.
    those people were called apostates and they were killed at the hand of early Muslim .
    this is one of the reason of why Muslims demand death punishment for apostates. it is an answer to why it is impossible for Muslims to give up punishment for apostates.
    what is wrong if Al-baghdadi start killing apostates? He will be following abu bakr.
    actions of al-baghdadi are sunna of the prophet and early Muslims who understood the Quran without any corruption.

    it also means if somewhere islamic state comes into existence, it can impose jizia and kill the people who refuse to pay zakat.
    who killed hz uthman? were not those sons of sahaba?
    how can you ignore the bloodshed in early history of Islam.
    Ameer Muviyah was a sahabi. was his understanding of the Quran wrong?
    why his understanding of the Quran could not stop him from bloodshed?

    if the Quran could not make all early Muslims good Muslims why we can expect it today?
    the fact is as Sultan saheb said that many of them accepted Islam because no option was left to them. Islam was the guarantee of worldly rewards, justfication it provided and guarantee of rewards in hereafter.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/11/2015 3:26:59 AM



  • To wind up this discussion, the correct understanding of the Quran depends upon having the nobility of character of the vanguard Muslims and sans the scholarly works of later times which distort the message.

    I therefore fully endorse what Listener said.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/11/2015 1:31:00 AM



  • Islam took the Muslims to the pinnacle of glory the like of it was not witnessed before. And Allah does not change the grace which He had bestowed on a people until they change what is in their (own) souls. (8:53). So if we have fallen from grace it is because we have changed.

    Sectarianism is a punishment from Allah (6:65) Say: "He hath power to send calamities on you, from above and below, or to cover you with confusion in party strife, giving you a taste of mutual vengeance - each from the other." See how We explain the signs by various (symbols); that they may understand.

    Let not NAI become the mosque mentioned in 9:107 - to disunite the believers and for fomenting sectarian strife.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/11/2015 1:16:54 AM



  • Correction:

    Even today, many 'Muslim" orgainizations are like the mosque described in 9:108 9:107




    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/11/2015 12:48:08 AM



  • Various types of believers in the Prophet’s times

     

    (35:32) Then We have given the Book for inheritance to such of Our Servants as We have chosen: but there are among them some who wrong their own souls; some who follow a middle course; and some who are, by Allah´s leave, foremost in good deeds; that is the highest Grace.

     

     

    (49:14) The desert Arabs say, "We believe." Say, "Ye have no faith; but ye (only)say, ´We have submitted our wills to Allah,´ For not yet has Faith entered your hearts. But if ye obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not belittle aught of your deeds: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

    (15) Only those are Believers who have believed in Allah and His Messenger, and have never since doubted, but have striven with their belongings and their persons in the Cause of Allah: Such are the sincere ones.

    (17) They impress on thee as a favour that they have embraced Islam. Say, "Count not your Islam as a favour upon me: Nay, Allah has conferred a favour upon you that He has guided you to the faith, if ye be true and sincere.

     

     

    (9:98) Some of the desert Arabs look upon their payments as a fine, and watch for disasters for you: on them be the disaster of evil: for Allah is He That heareth and knoweth (all things).

    (99) But some of the desert Arabs believe in Allah and the Last Day, and look on their payments as pious gifts bringing them nearer to Allah and obtaining the prayers of the Messenger. Aye, indeed they bring them nearer (to Him): soon will Allah admit them to His Mercy: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

    (100) The vanguard (of Islam)- the first of those who forsook (their homes) and of those who gave them aid, and (also) those who follow them in (all) good deeds,- well-pleased is Allah with them, as are they with Him: for them hath He prepared gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein for ever: that is the supreme felicity.

    (101) Certain of the desert Arabs round about you are hypocrites, as well as (desert Arabs) among the Medina folk: they are obstinate in hypocrisy: thou knowest them not: We know them: twice shall We punish them: and in addition shall they be sent to a grievous penalty.

    (102) Others (there are who) have acknowledged their wrong-doings: they have mixed an act that was good with another that was evil. Perhaps Allah will turn unto them (in Mercy): for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

    (103) Of their goods, take alms, that so thou mightest purify and sanctify them; and pray on their behalf. Verily thy prayers are a source of security for them: And Allah is One Who heareth and knoweth.

    (104) Know they not that Allah doth accept repentance from His votaries and receives their gifts of charity, and that Allah is verily He, the Oft-Returning, Most Merciful?

    (105) And say: "Work (righteousness): Soon will Allah observe your work, and His Messenger, and the Believers: Soon will ye be brought back to the knower of what is hidden and what is open: then will He show you the truth of all that ye did."

    (106) There are (yet) others, held in suspense for the command of Allah, whether He will punish them, or turn in mercy to them: and Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.

    (107) And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity - to disunite the Believers - and in preparation for one who warred against Allah and His Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But Allah doth declare that they are certainly liars.

    (108) Never stand thou forth therein. There is a mosque whose foundation was laid from the first day on piety; it is more worthy of the standing forth (for prayer) therein. In it are men who love to be purified; and Allah loveth those who make themselves pure.

    (109) Which then is best? - he that layeth his foundation on piety to Allah and His good pleasure? - or he that layeth his foundation on an undermined sand-cliff ready to crumble to pieces? and it doth crumble to pieces with him, into the fire of Hell. And Allah guideth not people that do wrong.

    (110) The foundation of those who so build is never free from suspicion and shakiness in their hearts, until their hearts are cut to pieces. And Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.

     

    The ridda wars were against the type described in 9:98. Even today, many 'Muslim" orgainizations are like the mosque described in 9:108

     


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/11/2015 12:43:38 AM



  • Mr Shahin,

    You are making the mistake of treating all the early Muslims among the good Muslims. Some of them were among the best and many of them were the worst in hypocrisy even in the Prophet's (pbuh) times.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/11/2015 12:18:50 AM



  • The scholarly works of Islam available to us start more or less from the times the Ahadith were compiled which is a good 150 to 200 years after the Prophet's death. Until such time, people appear to have understood the Quran well and felt no need for any scholarly works to understand it. Even today, it can be best understood by cutting out all the noise from all the scholarly works which is what I do. 

    The scholarly works also appear to have had a motive to alter the religion to suit the ruler and other vested interests including the clergy.

    So, the proper understanding and practice of Islam is without doubt in the first 100 to 200 years after which the "corruption" started.
     
    Shahin Sb's understanding of the early Muslims appears to be based on the accounts of the Islamophobes. This is not to deny certain events. The ridda wars can be said to be sanctioned by the Quran. When the Quran asks the Muslims to fight the people of the Book until they agree to pay jizya, it is understood that Muslims who refuse to pay zakat will similarly be fought against. Even today, any citizen who refuses to pay his taxes will find himself in prison and his assets will be confiscated. If a local commander exceeded his brief, Hazrat Abu Bakr cannot be blamed for it and restitution did take place for the excesses.

    If there are any lessons from the earliest period, it is that the best of people can make mistakes. The battle between Hazrat Ali (RA) and Hazrat Ayesha (RA)   is based both on misunderstanding and the work of mischief makers. It did not lead to any lasting enmity and Hazrat Ali (RA) did not act as victor in any manner after defeating Hazrat Ayesha's forces.

    Yazid and his father Muawiyah were usurpers who changed the Khilafat to a dynasty and the ultimate decline and fall of Muslims is on account of the change from a Shura based selection of the Khalifa to a dynasty. The Muslims took this change in a fatalistic manner as if it was the decree of Allah! Those who praise these usurpers today continue to think in the same fatalistic manner. The lesson that we can draw from this today is to value, safeguard and nurture democracy (which we do not have anyway in most Islamic countries) and not to be fatalistic.
     
    But to curse the early Muslims is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/11/2015 12:13:42 AM



  • If "Sahaba and the next two generations were best in understanding Quran and acting on its commands," why was this period so full of wars, among Muslims and apostates, and among Muslims and Muslims, many of them Sahaba themselves. What did Quran teach them? To kill apostates? To fight among themselves? To slaughter the family members of the Prophet including infants and establish hereditary, monarchical, dictatorial, authoritarian Khilafat? Did these come from their correct or faulty understanding of the Quran? If all this came from the best and most correct understanding of Quran, then one can easily understanding why most Muslims are unable and unwilling to condemn "Khalifa" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and other terrorists today. Why a categorical condemnation has to be forced out of them.

    I would suggest we re-look at the view that the Salaf's understanding of Quran was correct and the best possible.

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/10/2015 11:55:39 PM



  • Mike and Shahin saheban,

    Listener said: “The understanding of Quran is not related to your experience but to ones nobility. This explains why Sahaba and the next two generations were best in understanding Quran and acting on its commands.”

    His views are in accordance with the Quran and has little to do with any sectarian view. A person who rejects it is a rejecter of the Quran.

     There are several verses of the Quran that talk about the grading of the believers. The best of creatures referred to in 98:7 are the same as:

     

    (9:100) The vanguard (of Islam)- the first of those who forsook (their homes) and of those who gave them aid, and (also) those who follow them in (all) good deeds,- well-pleased is Allah with them, as are they with Him: for them hath He prepared gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein for ever: that is the supreme felicity.

     

    This verse adds those who follow them in good deeds but 98:7 is talking about Muslims at a particular point in time which included only the vanguard and there is little doubt that in terms of grading, the best of creatures are those specific Muslims 98:7 talks about.

     

    Others can only hope to get near them but where is the opportunity for them to make the supreme sacrifices the earliest people made based totally on their faith in the Prophet?

     

    The Surah 98 Al-Bayyina / The Evidence is an early Medinian Surah revealed before the permission to fight was given. After the first battle of Badr, the fortunes appeared to be changing for the better for the Muslims which then attracted the opportunist freeloaders called the Munafiqin or the hypocrites.  Until such time, the Muslims were only among those Meccans who had sacrificed everything for Islam and even left their homes and migrated to Medina and the Ansars or the Medinians who had provided support and shelter. They are therefore called the best of creatures and the contrast with the worst of creatures who were the knowledgeable people expecting a prophet but rejected after seeing the clear evidence  is perfect. The best of people never had any expectations of a Prophet coming but when he did come, they believed and suffered torture and persecution in Mecca for 13 years and were finally compelled to migrate leaving behind their homes and businesses. The Medinians made huge sacrifices and provided support and shelter to the immigrants. These were true believers and supporters of the Prophet and Allah and clearly selfless, sincere and devoted and beyond doubt among the best of creatures.

    The description of "the best of creatures" will remain exclusively for the vanguard of Islam.

     

    Further proof that the earliest Muslims were the foremost in faith:

    (56:10) And those Foremost (in Faith) will be Foremost (in the Hereafter).

    (11) These will be those Nearest to Allah:

    (12) In Gardens of Bliss:

    (13) A number of people from those of old,

    (14) And a few from those of later times.



    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/10/2015 11:29:16 PM



  • Dear Mike,

    You say: "Naseer – no problem with your understanding of Sectarianism"

    I don't have my own private understanding of sectarianism. I have used the word exactly as it is understood by the rest of the world and quoted its dictionary meaning.

    Thanks for your clarification on Bush. Your are doing great work which needs to be done. Wish you all the best. Hope you have read my article:

    Is the Quran a Book of Contradictions? 

    and a comment that I reposted. It may be of help to you in your good work.



    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/10/2015 11:09:03 PM



  • Dear Mike, Thanks for responding. I am in full agreement that there is no "hereditary nobility in Islam". That was never implied nor I believe in that. We are all responsible for our own actions. 
    Appreciate your efforts in US for improving interfaith relations.

    By Listener - 6/10/2015 8:46:33 PM



  • NASEER SAHEB - ABOUT BUSH

    Ive written extensively about Bush - both good and mostly bad after his reckless invasion.

    Here is one where I quit being a member of the Republican party in Ocrober 2014.   http://centerforamericanpolitics.blogspot.com/2014/10/republican-no-more-i-have-gone.html

    By Mike Ghouse - 6/10/2015 8:24:34 PM



  • PLEASE NOTE 

    Each one of us is occupied with many things, we all make time, from time to time and we should not expect anyone to respond right back

    By Mike Ghouse - 6/10/2015 8:14:32 PM



  • Naseer – no problem with your understanding of Sectarianism

    Listener – there is no heredetic nobility in Islam, all are created equal – the idea of nobility is repulsive to the essence of Islam – no one is superior to the other.  Even Prophet is not superior to other anbia.

    Naseer – Bush has been condemned by me so many times –every opportunity I get, I nail him. Indeed, several newspapers did not publish my pieces because of that. In fact that is the only thing I am guilty of – my dislike for him, normally I do not allow hate to make home in my heart.

    The topic I wrote was about Baghdadi, and everything will be about him. I have held him responsible for the creation of evil ISIS.  Go to TheGhouseDiary.com or CenterforAmericanpolitics.blogspot.com – both are my sites and check it out.

    Articles and press releases are written a word limit – you want to keep it to the theme and not jump from branch to branch. 


    By Mike Ghouse - 6/10/2015 8:12:34 PM



  • Naseer Ahmed: "Now do we teach correct science or fight bad science? "
    Naseer Saheb, if bad science is killing thousands, raping women, enslaving whole populations, we must fight it with all our might, while teaching good science.

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/10/2015 8:38:36 AM



  • "This explains why Sahaba and the next two generations were best in understanding Quran and acting on its commands. "

    By Listener - 6/10/2015 1:28:29 AM


    If that were to be accepted, it would mean that what Islamist terrorists are doing today is in conformity with the "best in understanding Quran and acting on its commands. “


    Sahaba rule started with Ridda wars in which Arabs who had left Islam as soon as the Prophet (saw) fell ill and then passed away were brought back to the fold of Islam forcibly on pain of death and slavery of their wives and children. Apparently initially too these Arab tribes had accepted Islam not so much as a spiritual path, for their salvation, but because for them it must have become a politically dominant ideology difficult to resist. If Sahaba perceived Islam as a spiritual path, they would have left these Arab to their faith.


    Then there are murders of Khalifas, battle between Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Aisha, Muawia-Ali battles, Khwarij killing a hundred thousand Muslims both from Hazrat Ali and Muawia camps, then Muawia’s son Yazid getting the entire family of the Prophet massacred, then most Arabs accepting Yazid as Khalifa. 


    This, of corse, is a very short summary of what our salaf did.

     Today, it’s followers of these salad who are creating mayhem in the world, students of Salafi madrasas, readers of Salafi books and websites who are joining terrorist groups. The most popular televangelist Zakir Naik, another Salafi, calls Yazid rahmatullillah, sends God’s blessings on the killer of the Prophet’s family, and his popularity among Sunnis grows. 


    By the way, now, Listener Saheb, I can understand the meaning of your use of “we” and your agenda of spreading virulent Salafism.


    By Sultan Shahin - 6/10/2015 8:35:44 AM



  • At one level, Mike is saying the same thing as Rational. Everyone is right!

    At another level, he is saying that right or wrong depends upon which side of the political spectrum you are. 

    For example, as a politically correct American Muslim he has condemned Al-Baghdadi's obviously unislamic understanding of Islam. However, he will not condemn Bush for his wars which created groups such as the ISIS. The killing of 2 million (mostly civilians) in the unjust wars sits lightly on his conscience. The use of drones that results in deaths of many innocents does not bother him. Maybe, he has condemned Bush also and spoken on these issues. In that case, I will be glad to take back my words. But if he has been selective, then he is a hypocrite like many others on this site.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/10/2015 1:58:51 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    Our great scholars  also write on science. For example Raza Ahmad Khan Barelvi, a contemporary of Einstein wrote extensively on science and "proved" that Newton and Einstein were all wrong. His follower on this site also strongly supported the geocentric view of the world.

    Now do we teach correct science or fight bad science? There is only one most correct answer until it is improved by a better idea  and millions of wrong answers. We can only disseminate the right knowledge and hope that it will dispel the wrong ideas.

    Anyway, to you be your way of disseminating and then fighting the bad ideas and to me mine of spreading the good ideas.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/10/2015 1:41:51 AM



  • Dear Listener,

    Mike is not talking about the correct understanding. He is talking about the understanding of each person whether that is perfect or not is another matter. For example, Al-Baghdadi has his understanding which appear to have changed dramatically as  a consequence of his experience of the war and his stint in the prison and association with those who had spent years in Abu Ghraib. He is  asking that we should be tolerant of the different opinions since everyone is a prisoner of his own experiences and faculties. Am I right in understanding your inclusive and tolerant understanding? Or did I get you wrong because you wrote an article which is contrary to this. So please explain what exactly do you mean. Let me not put words in your mouth.




    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/10/2015 1:36:11 AM



  • Mike says "he knew that each one of going to understand little differently based on his or her experience." The understanding of Quran is not related to your experience but to ones nobility. This explains why Shaba and the next two generations were best in understanding Quran and acting on its commands. 


    By Listener - 6/10/2015 1:28:29 AM



  • 1.     Dear Mike Ghouse,

     

    Since you are experiencing difficulty understanding what I say, this is what I am against: 

     

    Sectarianism, like racism, is a form of bigotry, discrimination, or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion, nationalism, class, regional or factions of a political movement.

     

    I am not against the existence of sects. Get it?

     


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/10/2015 12:58:18 AM



  • Dear Mike Ghouse, Explain what do you understand by:

    "There can be a thousand sects. I have no problem with that. But sectarianism - no."


    Have you read:

    The Concept of Unity in the Quran While Celebrating Diversity?


    Please avoid straw man arguments arguing against something I never said because that is all that you can argue about. 




    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/10/2015 12:53:28 AM



  • Dear Rational – It is the not the question of desirability, he has created each one of us to be unique, what is desirable to the creator is that we learn to respect the otherness of others and preserve the balance with which he has created an integrated world (Q55-7-11).

    Dear Naseer - Sectarianism is not Kufr, it is human, it is the nature of humans.   I may be repeating this, when Prophet said he was leaving Quran for us to read – he did not assign any one to read for us or interpret for us or said his and her interpretation would be the right one… what he said was you read it! Then Islam is deen of fitra for those who believe – he knew that each one of going to understand little differently based on his or her experience.  


    By Mike Ghouse - 6/10/2015 12:29:39 AM



  • Dear Mike Ghouse,

    Please learn to make a distinction between sects and sectarianism, between elite and elitism etc.

    My comment was very clear and I am surprised that you still did not get it!


    "There can be a thousand sects. I have no problem with that. But sectarianism - no."


    If you still have doubts about my views, read:




    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/10/2015 12:21:22 AM



  • Dear Naseer Saheb, We should not only be tolerant of other viewpoints, other schools of thought, other sects, and religions, etc, but we should actually accept and embrace diversity. However, we cannot tolerate intolerance as an ideology.

    Tolerance is absolutely fine, indeed it should be acceptance and embracing of diverse viewpoints, but tolerance cannot be extended to intolerance.

    Ideas like the following cannot be tolerated. We have to contest and fight them.
    A sample of intolerance in Wahhabi sectarian philosophy and Saudi school text books that is leading to terrorism is given below. Do you think they should be tolerated and embraced as an example of diversity? If we really want to save our children and youth from getting radicalised, we have no option but to fight these interpretations of Islam, such intolerant, xenophobic exhortations to our people. 

    Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab said:

     “Even if the Muslims abstain from Shirk (polytheism) and are Muwahhid (believer in oneness of God), their Faith cannot be perfect unless they have enmity and hatred in their action and speech against non-Muslims. (Majmua Al-Rasael Wal-Masael Al-Najdiah 4/291)
     
    A Qur'anic verse that followers of Shaikh Abdul Wahhab quote profusely and out of context and want to be considered as of universal application says:

    (V-28) Surah Al-Imran, “Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Auliya (supporters, helpers) instead of the believers, and whoever does this will never be helped by Allah in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allah warns you against Himself (His punishment), and to Allah is the final return.”

    Also repeatedly cited in Wahhabi literature is the following verse, again, out of context, and populated as having universal application, though it was revealed in a certain context and was valid as guidance only for that situation:

    “Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. “(Surah At-Taubah, V-29)

    Maulana Abul Ala Maududi in Jihad fil Islam:
    “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet.... because the entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme [of Islam] ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad'. .... The objective of the Islamic ‘jihad’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule.”
       --- Maulana Abul Ala  Maududi in Jihad fil Islam

    Professor Abdella Doumato in an essay on Saudi school text books in a book edited by her and titled "Teaching Islam.”: “In the Fiqh and Hadith texts, imitating the Kuffar (unbelievers) is presented as morally corrupting. Women who dress like foreigners, for example, invite temptation and corruption, so the fabric of Muslim women's dress must be thick enough not to show any skin and wide enough to conceal the contours of the body, and the face must be covered to protect her personality.

    “Imitating the Kuffar is an insult to God because Muslims are supposed to love what God loves and hate what God hates. If a Muslim joins in holiday celebrations with the Kuffar or shares with them their joys and sorrows, he is showing them loyalty (10b: 118).

    “To say Id Mubarak happy holiday) to the Kuffar is as bad as worshipping the cross; it's a worse sin against God than offering a toast with liquor; it's worse than suicide and) worse than having forbidden sex (Artikab Al-Farj Al-Haram); and many people do it without realizing what they have done (10b: 118).

    “Imitating the Kuffar by using the calendrical designation "A.D." instead of the Hijra year is another problem, because A.D. evokes the date of Jesus' birth and shows an affinity with unbelievers. At Christmas time, Muslims are not to dress like the Kuffar or exchange gifts or attend a feast or display ornaments. The holidays of the Kuffar should be like any other day for Muslim. As Ibn Taimiyya said, "Agreeing with the Ahl al-kitab (People of the Book) on things that are not in our religion and that are not the customs of our ancestors is corruption. By avoiding these things, you cease supporting them." Some even say, the lesson warns, that if you perform a ritual slaughter on their day, it's as if you slaughtered a pig.

    “The textbooks evoke the past as a warning for the present. A section of the chapter called "Judgment About Making Use of the Kuffar in Employment and Fighting and Things Like That" quotes Ibn Taimiyya  as saying, "Knowledgeable people know that the protected people among the Jews and Christians (ahl dhimma min Yahood wa Nasara) wrote to people of their own religion giving secret information about the Muslims" (10b: 119). The principle is to not to cooperate with or trust the Kuffar:

     "O you who believe! Do not take for intimate friends those other than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still" (Quran 3:118).
    “One should not employ an unbeliever if there is a Muslim who can do the job, and if they're not needed, one should never hire them because the Kuffar can never be trusted (10b: 121). Nor should a Muslim accept employment from an unbeliever, for a Muslim should never be in a position of subservience to the Kuffar, who would surely show him disrespect. Nor should he be put in a position requiring him to deny his religion.

    “A Muslim should not live permanently among Kuffar because his faith will be compromised and that is why God required Muslims to migrate from a land of unbelief (Bilad al-Kufr) to a land of belief (Bilad Al-Islam). As for those who would rather work for the Kuffar and live among them, this is - the same as showing loyalty to them and agreeing with them. This is apostasy from Islam. And whether one were there out of greed or for comfort, even were he to hate their religion and protect his own, it is not allowed. Beware of the worst punishment. (10b: 121)

    “The chapter warns against music, laughter, and singing, the proscription of which, under the Al Sa`ud-led nineteenth-century commentators to liken the Wahhabis to Calvinists. Proscriptions on joyous behaviours, according to the text, are meant to encourage Muslims to invest all their being in thoughts of God and not expend energy in frivolous activities.”

    However, the significance of such proscriptions shifts to contemporary concerns about the new enemy, the cultural invasion from the West. The "worst kind of imitating the Kuffar" is becoming so preoccupied with the unimportant things the Kuffar have promoted in their own societies that Muslims neglect to remember God and to do good works, for God says: "Oh you who believe! Let not your wealth, or your children, diverts you from the remembrance of God" (Quran 63:9; 10b: 124). The lesson explains that the Kuffar assign value to unimportant things because, absent religious faith, their lives are empty.

    “What are these unimportant things? First, there are the performing arts, such as singing and playing instruments, dancing, and theatre and cinema, which are visited-by people who are lost from the truth. Then, there are the fine arts (Al-Funun Al-Jamila), such as painting, drawing, and sculpture. (Despite the prohibition on art, some schools in the kingdom do offer art classes.) Then there are sports, which are sometimes more important to youth than remembering God and obeying him; sports cause youth to miss prayers and ignore school and household obligations. Whether such behaviours are permitted or not, the Muslim nation today should save its energy for dealing with challenges from its enemies: "Muslims have no time to waste on insignificant activities" (10b: 124-125).

    “Forbidding celebrations of birthdays, especially the birthday of the Prophet, and prohibitions against fine and performing arts are all part of the modern fabric and the historical legacy of Wahhabi culture.”It’s hostility to any human practice that would excite the imagination or bolster creativity," says (Dr. Khaled Abou) El Fadl (2003), is "perhaps the most stultifying, and even deadly, characteristic of Wahhabism." Anything that suggests a step toward creativity," he says, "constitutes a step toward Kufr [infidelity].”

    ----- Professor Abdella Doumato in an essay on Saudi school text books in a book edited by her and titled "Teaching Islam."

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/9/2015 10:33:21 PM



  • Naseer Ahmed: "Sectarianism is kufr and a sectarian is an enemy of Allah and his divine purpose. On this there can be no compromise."

    Are you saying that Wahhabi ideologues like Ibn-e-Taimiya, Mohammad Ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab and Qutb, etc. are kafir and "enemy of Allah and his divine purpose?"

    I do not think I have any right to call them kafir; they were outwardly practising Muslims;  but surely as rabid, most extremely violent sectarians, who would not accept the very existence of any other sect or school of thought's right to exist, they were surely " enemy of Allah and his divine purpose."

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/9/2015 10:15:38 PM



  • Sultan shaeb
    i have attended many prayer gatherings. Muslims very seriously pray for unity. The prophet himself prayed for unity but of course his prayer was declined if that hadith is true.
    why Mslims need unity? Why Allah wanted world should follow only last prophet? what was the need of the Qur'an when already many books were available.
    you can't deny Allah is angry with those who don't accept the prophet their prophet.

    Why even peaceful Dawa if all religions are good, preaching moral values?
    any dawa works with a hidden message, that you my religion is perfect and yours is not.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/9/2015 8:18:51 PM



  • dear Mike Ghouse - 6/9/2015 6:47:41 PM
    a small question. is religious sectarianism desirable to God? Do groups based on color, language, geopolitical boundaries have anything to do with religious sectarianism?


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/9/2015 8:05:30 PM



  • ABOUT SECTARIANISM:

    Naseer Bhai,

    Sectarianism is God’s plan, hear God out.  

    Didn’t God choose to make us into different tribes, communities, nations and by extension Faiths?

    Doesn’t Quran mention about other faiths? Not only that, God assures Jews, Christians and others that they need not worry , if they do good to fellow beings, he will recompense them. 

    Did God ever say is there one verse in Quran that tells that after Islam, there are no more races, no more nations and no more faiths?

    Had he wanted he could have punched us all out with factory precision, but did he do that? Wasn’t it God’s plan for each one of us to be unique? No? Why did he create (I hope you believe he created us) each individual with his own thumb print, eye print, taste bud, DNA… etc. Diversity is God’s choice.

    What did the prophet say in his last sermon – that all of them will be there and we should not discriminate any one.

    Didn’t he also say that his Umma will split into many tribes, meaning Islam is a deen of Fitra, it is human to differ and he acknowledged it and asked everyone to race in doing good to fellow beings… Obviously most of them will pass with ranks, first class, second class and third class and a few will fail.

    I hope you got the drift, diversity is God’s plan, Sectarianism is a product of it, not to be ugly to each other, but do compete doing good to fellow beings (not Muslims). Quran is NEVER an exclusive book to a political group; it is for the whole humanity.

    Listen to how God concludes sectarianism – he says, the best ones among you are those who learn about each other, because knowledge leads to understanding and understanding to acceptance of each other, as it is God’s will.  


    By Mike Ghouse - 6/9/2015 6:47:41 PM



  • Shahin Sb,

    Once I have said yes, it is a commitment unless you would like to back out.

    Yes, there are principles on which I do not compromise. Sectarianism is kufr and a sectarian is an enemy of Allah and his divine purpose. On this there can be no compromise.

    There can be a thousand sects. I have no problem with that. But sectarianism - no.



    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/9/2015 11:35:16 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, your non-sectarianism, like Wahhabi non-sectarianism is the extremest form of sectarianism, total intolerance of diversity of opinion. Why do you expect the ulema then to accept your opinion which is different from theirs.

    You want me to lead the charge in making your views acceptable to the 1.6 billion-strong community. You are unhappy with me because, in your views I am not doing that. But, if you think, like Taimiya and Wahhab, that all Muslims should have only one opinion, yours, then why do you expect others to look at your views and interpretations, even debate and discuss them. 
    So I should I take it, with your lakum deenakum,  that you are unwilling to propagate and defend your ideas in a seminar room?

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/9/2015 11:26:05 AM



  • How skillfully the discussion was shifted from an article:

    The objective of which  is sectarian ranting.

    and the subject of the article is - how does it matter what the subject is?

    This is exactly what playing chess with the pigeons means.

    I will not say anything further until GM and Yunus sb have expressed their thoughts.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/9/2015 11:24:40 AM



  • I know Naseer Saheb, some Muslims think that we should adopt the strategy of the Sufis, who merely focussed on the positive aspects of Islam. But such people should understand that tens of billions of petrodollars have been spent on propagating the Salafi-Wahhabi ideologies promoting political Islam, supremacism, xenophobia and intolerance. Tons of extremist material is available on the internet. We are not living in the days of Sufis. We cannot wish away these hundreds of websites, hundreds of printed magazines, thousands of books, millions of text books supplied to madrasas around the world by Saudis.

    Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb, Yunus Saheb, etc. are kindly souls who don't like reading what is being taught in madrasas, who don't like reading what is found in Hadees books and is believed in as a revelation by an overwhelming majority of Muslims.  But they must understand that Ibn-e-Taimiya, Abdul Wahhab, Qutb, Maududi, etc. are being taught in madrasas to millions of children, their write-up, entire books are available on the internet, and these are having impact -- our children are running away from their schools, colleges, jobs, families,wives, kids and going to fight for the Islamic State or Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiyyaba Indian Mujahedin, etc.

    All these children come from families that used to have and a few still have a Sufi orientation of moderation, peace, pluralism. Haven't you seen parents crying over television screens when their children run away to fight and become a martyr or a sex-provider for the soldiers of the Islamic State.

    If you did not read Ibn-eTaimiyya before, read him now. The madrasa in his name in Champaran Bihar, among many others across the globe, is becoming so big, it may rival Darul Uloom Deoband soon. Its degrees have also been recognised by Indian Universities. 

    I am giving below a list of madrasas whose degrees are recognised by India's premier university JNU, and its students, who call themselves Taimi, consider themselves superior to and purer than even Wahhabis, in their rigidity, xenophobia, intolerance, and hatred of all non-Taimis, as Ibn-e-Taimiya taught them.

    Start reading them now. It's our duty to first learn why so many of our children and youths are leaving us and joining Wahhabi-Taimi wars.
    Please check this list and see what is being taught in these recognised, respectable madrasas whose products are now acceptable to mainstream Indian universities:
     JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY Names of Madrasas whose certificates are recognized by the University for admission to B.A.(Hons.) 1st year Existing Madrasas Certificate of Alimiah with atleast 45% marks issued by any of the following Madrasas subject to the condition that the candidate has passed Englishlanguage at the level of Senior Secondary from a recognised Board/University or a three year course conducted by Darul-Uloom Deoband. 1. Darul Uloom Deoband, U.P. 2. Mazahirul Uloom Saharanpur, U.P. 3. Darul Uloom Mau, U.P. 4. Miftahul Uloom, Mau, U.P. 5. Jamia Athria Darul Hadith Mau, U.P. 6. Jamia Faize Am Mau, U.P. 7. Madrasa Alia Mau, U.P. 8. Madrasa Muhammadia, Mau, U.P. 9. Madrasa Faizanul Uloom Bahadurganj, Ghazipur, U.P. 10. Madrasa Ihyaul Uloom Mubarkpur, Azamgarh, U.P. 11. Tauhid Education Trust Ma’hadabad-Khagra Kishan Ganj, Bihar 12. Jamia Imam Ibn Taimiya, Madinatussalam, E. Champaran, Bihar Certificate of Alimiah with atleast 45% marks issued by the following Madrasas 1. Nadwatul Ulema, Lucknow, U.P. 2. Jamiatul Flah, Bilariaganj, Azamgarh, U.P. 3. Certificate of Fazilah from Madrasatul Islah, sarai Mir, Azamgarh, U.P. 4. Madrasa Jamia Islamia, Muzaffarpur, Azamgarh, U.P. 5. Madrasa Eram Convent for Girls and Boys Indra Nagar, Lucknow, U.P. Certificate of Maulvi with atleast 45% marks issued by the Bihar Board of Madrasa Education Newly added Madrasas Certificate of Alimiah with atleast 45% marks issued by the following Madrasas 1. Jamial Muzahrul Uloom (Patna) (Degree of Fazilah) 2. Jamial Darul Huda al-Islamiyah (Certificate of al-Sanaviyah al-Ulia) 3. Darul Uloom Alimia, Jamda Shahi, Basti, UP (Alimia Certificate) 4. Al-Jamia-Tus-Salafiah (Markazi Darul-Uloom) (Degree of Alemiat) 5. Al Jamia Al Islamiya Kerala India (V) ( Preparatoy course which is of 2 years after senior school leaving certificate) 6. Al Jamiatul Ashrafia, Mubarak Pur, Azamgarh UP (Certificate of Alimiat / Fazilat) 7. Jamia Syed Ahmad Shaheed, Vill. Ashmadabad (Katauli) Malihabad, Lucknow UP (Alamiyat degree) 8. Jamiya Misbahul Uloom, Chaukonia Bharat Bhari, Siddharth Nagar, UP (Almiah degree) 9. Jamia Islamiya Sanabil (Aaliya and Fadhil)

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/9/2015 11:17:44 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    I am reminded of a verse from the Quran:

    (39:45) When Allah, the One and Only, is mentioned, the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter are filled with disgust and horror; but when (gods) other than He are mentioned, behold, they are filled with joy!

    When a non sectarian approach is taken you are left cold and unenthusiastic. Just see the lack of your comment in all my articles. But when a sectarian approach is taken you are afire. Just see the debates that you have led and the articles on which you comment.

    So, the type of person described in the verse above will attack the one who teaches belief in one God and a sectarian will attack all those who talk against sectarianism.

    Let us part with:
    لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ

    Lakum deenokum waliya deen.
    To you be your Way, and to me mine.

    Because the twain will never meet.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/9/2015 11:16:49 AM



  • Sultan Shahin Sb, As editor you are at liberty to follow any issue as you think important and set the agenda here. The term we is not used in relation to any group here or anywhere. If I thought you were so touchy about every dot and comma would have used I. Thanks for taking time off from your busy schedule to reply to me.
    By Listener - 6/9/2015 11:01:42 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    I am reminded of a verse from the Quran:

    (39:45) When Allah, the One and Only, is mentioned, the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter are filled with disgust and horror; but when (gods) other than He are mentioned, behold, they are filled with joy!

    When a non sectarian approach is taken you are left cold and unenthusiastic. Just see the lack of your comment in all my articles. But when a sectarian approach is taken you are afire. Just see the debates that you have led and the articles on which you comment.

    So, the type of person described in the verse above will attack the one who teaches belief in one God and a sectarian will attack all those who talk against sectarianism.

    Let us part with:
    لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ

    Lakum deenokum waliya deen.
    To you be your Way, and to me mine.

    Because the twain will never meet.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/9/2015 10:57:49 AM



  • Dear Listener, I find very nice, heart-warming sentiments expressed by Ms Farheen Sultana. But you should know that we are a completely idiotic community. We are still fighting and killing  over who should have been the first successor of Prophet Mohammad after his demise 1400 years ago. Do you expect us to solve this dispute in the near future. 

    Salafis-Wahhabis have found a way for uniting Muslims. Kill all those who doesn't consider Abdul Wahhab a renewer of Islam, next only to Prophet Mohammad (saw), if not more important than him. Perfect unity! They have after all succeeded in uniting Muslims in their land, though some Shias still remain, no matter how badly treated.

    Listener Saheb, the idea of unity is not only a pipe-dream, impossible to achieve, but also a diversionary tactic, taking peaceful Muslims away from the main task today: fight the supremacist, political Jihadi ideology, develop a coherent  spiritual theology of peace and pluralism.

    It's mainly those who want to further the interests of Jihadis, promote their goal of capturing the Muslim mind, who would talk about all extraneous issues. Do everything but do not expose, highlight and refute the Jihadi ideology.

    In your and Ms Farhana's case, it may be inadvertent. You may just have utopian ideas, be nurturing your wishful thinking. It maybe just that you are not practical, that you do not have a Wahhabi agenda of uniting Muslims under one interpretation and killing the rest. You must know that Wahhabism was established in Hejaz by the general slaughter of all those who were not willing to accept the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. If you do not know, please study. So much knowledge is available on internet these days.

    One more question, Listener Saheb, you refer to yourself as "we." Do you belong to some group, sect, organisation? Who are the oters in this "we?"D o you represent some sect?I am asking because I do not know you at all and you are calling yourself “we."

    Forgive me, I have grown very suspicious of people who want us not to refute the Jihadi ideology in whatever name, even unity, which would normally be an admirable goal.

    Unity, yes, but accept diversity. Only refuse to accept intolerance, xenophobia as an ideology.

    We are all one, we all contain the essence of God within us, but God has made us diverse, for a reason, given us all the ability to think differently, form different schools of thought.  

    What is wrong is sectarianism, that is, not accepting diversity,  not tolerating different points of view, trying to create artificial unity by slaughter of all those who do not agree with you. 

    Differences of opinion will remain. 

    See our Naseer Saheb has come up with a new meaning, probably correct meaning of words like Kufr and Kafir. He considers these term faith-neutral, just an equivalent,to my mind, of Salim and Zalimoon. If some people accept his definition, a new sect will be formed. 

    For, it is clear that all Muslims will never accept his definition of kufr, kafir, Kafiroon etc. So far not even one person has accepted. 

    But who knows, tomorrow we will have Naseeri Muslims, who will be closer, in my view, to the spirit of Islam as it emerges from Quran and Prophet Mohammad saw's conduct of affairs, his meesaq-e-madina, for instance, his avoidance of bloodshed wherever possible, his general amnesty post victory and so on.


    By Sultan Shahin - 6/9/2015 10:42:54 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    GM Sb was also compelled to comment on the inadvisability of the series on fatwas and their refutations. And there is a very simple reason which  all good educators know. It is easier to spread good ideas than to fight the bad ones.  Do you have any means of knowing the impact of all your efforts? As far as I am concerned, I had not even heard the name of Ibn Tamiyah before I found this site and I really do not care what an Ibn Tamiyah or an Abdul Wahab says. You have no control over whether your readers are influenced more by the fatwa that you published or by its rebuttal. Our theology being what it is as discussed in detail and endorsed by the ulema cutting across all sects, the extremists may appear to be more Muslim than the rest to those who read the fatwa and the rebuttal may appear as the work of a weak Muslim.

    However, if you work at the most basic foundational level, then all the structures erected by the likes of Abdul Wahab and Ibn Tamiyah topple over without any effort. This approach does not enthuse you however, because it is non sectarian.

    Your approach besides being sectarian is divisive and the proof is that your website does not attract believing Muslims in large numbers be they Brealvi or Deobandi.

    Let me Quote Mr Muhammad Yunus on this:

    "But the paucity of comments even on most critical articles and the decline in the number of objective and intelligent comments has convinced me that the site is deemed too liberal and too critical of Islam and the Prophet for the common Muslims (who love their faith and the Prophet) to have any appeal. I however, convinced Rafiq Lodhia Sahab to open a website 'wethemoderatemuslims.com' with sole purpose of informing the Muslims about the fundamentals of Islamic message and all that is good in Islam. This site unquestionably has a great deal of very good articles, but its commentary section is, to a large extent dominated by some radical and rationalist individuals who singular aim is to malign the Prophet and demonize Islam either by quoting the weakest ahadith or the Qur'anic verses that the Qur'an does not ask us to follow - verses that are of purely academic nature today and misquoted by the terror outfits. While a discussion on these verses as Sultan Shahin Sahab keeps alive is good and needed, it completely overshadows what the Qur'an asks us to follow: its definitive commandments that constitute it message. Accordingly, the Commentary Section hardly focuses on the crux of the Qur'anic message and does not offer any stimulating material to the common educated Muslim readers who have nothing to do with the terrorists. There is also no debate between the ulama and the Muslim intellectual, largely because the intellectuals (not Sultan Shahin Sahab or you of course) are as fanatic in their dismissal of the Qur'an as the mullas are in the veneration of the ahadith as a parallel revelation with the Qur'an and this grouting Islam in the Medieval ages and blocking any fresh insight into the Qur'anic message.  

    The Sites needs healthy debates and that is unfortunately lacking. I wonder what are your views. I will also request you to have a look at the referenced website and will look forward to your comments to clarify my own thoughts."

    I completely endorse the views expressed by Yunus sb above and especially:

    1. focuses on the crux of the Qur'anic message and offer stimulating material to the common educated Muslim readers who have nothing to do with the terrorists.

    2. This grouting Islam in the Medieval ages and blocking any fresh insight into the Qur'anic message must be overcome.  


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/9/2015 10:02:54 AM



  • Sultan Shahin Sb, perhaps this article will explain what we are trying to convey in simple language:
    http://muslimmirror.com/eng/disintegration-of-muslim-societies-unity-is-the-need-of-the-hour/

    We are not even discussing the terrorist groups nor their ideologies. 

    By Listener - 6/9/2015 9:26:41 AM



  • Naseer Saheb asks: Will Mr Shahin lead the charge in the right direction?"

    I am already leading the charge within my means. You posted the first two parts in a comment. I sae that, released its value and posted it on my own in the main paper as articles in two parts.Then you added more parts.Then I requested ulema I know, particularly those associated with New Age Islam to study and comment. Not one did.

     I have kept appealing, now in public. No one is responding. We have requested AMU to provide space and organise a debate on the issue.  I intend to approach Jamia if AMU doesn't respond. I want to distribute a booklet carrying an Urdu translation of these articles to ulema of all schools of thought.

    However, not one Alim is responding. I asked you to approach ulema in your area, and find a few who is willing to debate.I would organise a debate in your area too, if you cold find even one aim who is even willing to debate. No one is forthcoming. You haven't find any even in your own area. In any case changing mindset of Muslims on settled questions like meaning of the word Kufr or Kafir is a long-term plan.

    However, the question in my mind is: why are you so averse to opposing the terrorist ideologues like Ibn-e-Taimia, Abdul Wahhab, Maududi and Qutib etc? This is something we can do immediately. We can and at New Age Islam have been showing the flaws in their arguments point-by-point. This got us banned in Pakistan. Apparently, this strategy of refutation was having an impact. 
    Why don't you want us not to oppose terrorist ideology? why does it become sectarian to quote ideologues like Abdul Wahhab, Ibn-e-Taimiya, Maududi and Qutb? What is your problem? 

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/9/2015 9:10:11 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, why does one become sectarian in quoting and refuting statements like the following from terrorist ideologues:

    Ibn-e-Taimiyya taught Muslims supremacism, intolerance of others and exclusivism. He says: 

    "Whoever does not consider the Jews and Christians to be disbelievers and does not hate them is not a Muslim according to the consensus of the Muslims. One's ignorance of this [rule] does not excuse him. Rather, he is a disbelieving Apostate." - Ibn Taymiyyah (Majmu al-Fatawa 27/264)

    Eighteenth century scholar of Najd Mohammad Ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab adopted and refined Ibn-e-Taimiya's extremist thoughts that demanded complete intolerance of any other interpretation of Islam. He said: 

    “Even if the Muslims abstain from Shirk (polytheism) and are Muwahhid (strict believer in oneness of God), their Faith cannot be perfect unless they have enmity and hatred in their action and speech against non-Muslims (for Wahhab this term includes all those Muslims who are non-Wahhabi). 

    ------ Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, Majmua Al-Rasael Wal-Masael Al-Najdiah 4/291

    Indian scholar and founder-ideologue of Jamaat-e-Islami Maulana Abul A'la Maududi explains his vision in these words: 

    “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. 

    "Islam requires the earth — not just a portion, but the whole planet.... because the entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme [of Islam] ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad'. .... The objective of the Islamic ‘jihad’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule.” 

    -----  Abul A'la Maududi in Jihad fil Islam

    The most influential radical ideologue Sayyid Qutb said: 

     "Islam is not confined to this (mere beliefs and worship rituals). (Fee Zhilal Al-Quran [English trans.], 7/125]

    "Those who think that this religion will confine itself to preaching and to the explanation of its message when the forces of evil try to put every type of impediment in its way have little understanding of its true nature." [Fee Zhilal Al-Quran [English trans.], 7/182

    "We must not be intimidated by the Orientalists' attacks on the concept of Islamic jihad, or allow the pressure of world political powers to weigh heavily on us, so as to seek justification for jihad that do not fit with the nature of Islam." [Fee Zhilal Al-Quran [English trans.], 7/21]

    "We acknowledge allegiance only to an Islamic leadership that strives to re-establish Islam in practical life, dissociating ourselves from all other types of society and leadership." [Fee Zhilal Al-Quran [English trans.], 7/143] 

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/9/2015 8:53:50 AM



  • To provide a simple answer, if our theology says that the Prophet was fighting his battles to end kufr, and by kafir is meant all non-Mulsims, then there cannot be peace until ......

    It is this theology that needs to be attacked by reason and exposed as unislamic or as Satanic.

    As I have shown in my articles, our theology has become Satanic and it is not Islamic and the fault lines are across all sects.

    A satanic theology will result in a satanic Al-Baghdadi when the geopolitical conditions are appropriate and that is what we are witnessing.

    Every Muslim is  vulnerable to it and therefore we should start with ourselves first.

    Do we reject the Satanic theology and adopt the Islamic theology?

    Do we accept the findings in:

    The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (Pbuh) In the Qu’ran (Part 4): The Medinian Period

    The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Qu’ran (Concluding Part) Summary

    Will Mr Shahin lead the charge in the right direction?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/9/2015 8:48:46 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, there may be something in what you say about the meaning of kufr, kafir, etc. I would find it completely consistent with my idea of Islam if it turns out that Kafir simply means zalim, a religious persecutor, and is a faith-neutral term.

     It is wrong to say that New Age Islam does not value your insights. However, these interpretations clearly need to be investigated. However, not one alim has so far showed any inclination to even investigate them. I have already presented this in a major international conference of counter-terrorism experts. Please see the speech posted above. 
    I have appealed and am renewing my appeal to ulema, particularly those associated with New Age Islam including Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi Saheb and Ghulam Ghouse Saheb privately and now even publicly, but they maintain complete silence. The fact that they have not even refuted your pronouncements tells me that they know you may not be entirely wrong. 
    It should not be so very difficult to go through all those passages where the word kufr or its derivatives have been used. It is difficult to see the context, though, as Quran is not yet available in its original arrangement. Quranic verses will certainly need to be organised chronologically to understand well their context and meaning and applicability to us today.

    However, I do not understand why are you so opposed to terrorist ideologues being exposed and refuted.

    We are in the middle of a war. Investigating your claims, and if found correct, turning the entire 1.6 billion community around in their understanding of such basic words as Kufr is a huge task. Not one Alim has shown any inclination so far. We have approached AMU to organise a seminar on the subject. I have requested you to send a revised copy of your presentation, revised in he light of debates on New Age Islam. If AMU doesn't respond, I plan to approach Jamia Millia Islamia. But all this will take time.

    Meanwhile, it is imperative that terrorist ideologues like Ibn-e-Taiiya, Abdul Wahhab, Maududi, Qutb and many others are systematically, point-by-point refuted with the help of Quran, our basic and  only scripture.

    I do not understand your constant support for these terrorist ideologues. Any opposition to them you call "sectarian ranting". Why so?

    Refuting these Taimi-Wahhabi-Salafi-Ahl-e-Hadeesi ideologues of terror is the most immediate task. For some reason, you seem utterly opposed to these people being even quoted.

    You must know that this ideology is being propagated with the help of tens of billions of dollars. Our children are falling prey to this ideology the world over. Why should even one Islamic website not oppose it?

    Why do you want to kill Baghdadi, disarm Taliban, but not oppose their ideology? Let us do what we can do. We can expose and highlight and refute their ideology. We at New Age Islam cannot kill or disarm them. You want to stop us from doing what we can and demand from us things we cannot.

    I do not understand this at all.

    New Age Islam's agenda is clear: present a positive picture of Islam and refute the terrorist ideology that is radicalising our youth, indeed our entire community.

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/9/2015 8:43:50 AM



  • For the information of the readers of NAI, I do not engage with Sultan Shahin. He engages with me because he disagrees with my views and finds them truthful, well researched and well-articulated which cannot be ignored without endangering his rank sectarian agenda. I also expose the sectarian biases and lies in his editorials. You have seen what a brazen liar he is. In the past persons of integrity such as Ghulam Mohyiddin sb and others have spoken. You have however seen how vicious Shahin can be with anyone who says anything against him. They therefore keep quiet having been bitten before. It is significant that none support him either in his vicious slanderous attacks apart from the types of Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia who is himself a slanderer and blackmailer.

    The following is a sampling of what transpired which brings out the vindictive and vicious character of Shahin. It is my decision now to disengage with Shahin and his website because you cannot “play chess with the pigeons”.(to use a simile used by Hats Off)

     

    ….However, I appreciate your efforts to fill the gap caused by Naseer Saheb's silence. All enemies of Islam and humanity, all enemies of peace, all supporters of strife, should help each other. 
    By Sultan Shahin - 4/22/2013 5:18:37 AM

    We may have sharp differences with Naseer Sahab, but there is no justification in counting him amongst "enemies of Islam and humanity, all enemies of peace, all supporters of strife." He has a different perspective from many of us, but he is trying his best in his way to be a good Muslim.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/22/2013 12:48:38 PM

    Mr Shahin, Do you read Mr Nasser's articles? Read them. What you say just not add up. He has called you a liar and provided documentary evidence. You have just ignored it which tells me that you have no defense. So you are not above lying. So why should I believe anything else that you say? By siraj - 6/4/2015

    As for Naseer Saheb's abuses, only some one who is prepared to be called a liar with "documentary evidence," would engage with him in a discussion and criticise him. By Sultan Shahin - 6/4/2015

    Mr Shahin, First of all you are very brazen faced about your proven lie and do not consider it as a problem at all. After having proved your lie, why should anyone bother further with you? Let me admit that the only thing that draws me to this website are Mr Naseer's articles and I have read them all and can say in all honesty that you are indulging in calumny against him. He has responded to your charge about Baghdadi more than once but you choose to ignore it. I am sure he must have answered all your charges in the past as well but you seem to have a habit of bringing them up again and again just like I see you bring up the charge about Baghdadi although it is answered more than once. By siraj - 6/4/2015

    Naseer Saheb, is this Lodhia business another tactic to keep us from discussing Baghdadi's ideology and other substantive issues being raised here constantly…..
    Please ignore irritants like Lodhia Saheb as I ignore your abusiveness. By Sultan Shahin - 6/7/2015 



    Naseer Saheb, your abuses and Lodhia and Ratipnal Saheban's charges agaist each other are not the gravest issues before the community. By Sultan Shahin - 6/7/2015 

    Dear Naseer Ahmed Saheb, I am shocked to find you slandering me in this manner. This is an absolute, and clearly a malicious, motivated lie. I would not use such strong words if the accusation were not so serious. I have never used such words before, even in response to your highly creative abuses.
     Lodhia Saheb has circulated on his mail one of your comments that I had obviously not seen before.
    "Mr Shahin has given a call for an Islamic reformation  ... In the past, he has given a call for the impossible - for revising the Quran, dropping verses from the Book etc. "

    Please let me know Naseer Ahmad Saheb (Observer), when and where did I make such a statement? If I know myself and my views, I simply could not have made such a statement. By Sultan Shahin - 6/8/2015 

    Turns out that Mr Shahin had not missed the comment where the statement is the opening sentence but actually commented back without objecting to it.

    Mr Shahin,

    ·         I apologize unconditionally if what I said is incorrect. It is perhaps an impressionistic statement but since you disown it, I will not argue about it and accept it is my error. I ahve no wish to slanedr anyone even as revenge.By Naseer Ahmed - 6/8/2015

    Mr Shahin,

     

    You have read my comment and responded to it but did not object to what I said then. You are reacting strongly now because Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia is indulging in his blackmail on his blog and putting things out of context. When his antics were confined to me with blatant lies you showed no concern. Now that you are the target, you are so concerned. Neither did you ever care one bit when I accused you of slander and not even when I proved it. You were as Siraj put it quite brazen about it. 

     

    You can see the difference between one who follows the Quran to the letter who does not even bother to argue, make excuses, look for proofs but simply based on your statement that you have been deeply hurt by what he said apologizes unconditionally. You have proof of what it means to be a believer and a reader of the Quran….. By Naseer Ahmed - 6/8/2015

     

    Dear Naseer Saheb, If I am going to continue to engage with you critically, I have to be prepared to be abused. For when you don't have an answer, you start calling people liars, etc. You have done this with everyone, everyone who has engaged with you critically. So most have stopped bothering about you.

     

     Now when I am faced with your slander and your so-called evidences etc, I just grin and bear it. Usually I skip slanderous statements. After all, we are going to come together on The Day Of Judgement in the presence of all-knowing God. So rather than being distracted by you into futile arguments about lies and slander, I leave things to Gos, silently praying for improvement in your conduct……… By Sultan Shahin - 6/8/2015 

     

    Mr Shahin,

    I have said this many times that the biggest abuser on this site is yourself because slander is the greatest abuse one can heap on another. Your slanderous lies are proven but you are unrepentant. You did not mind what you call my abuses but see how you reacted to what you thought was slander. God has manifested the truth to you that there is no greater abuse than slander and that you stand the greatest abuser on this site…… By Naseer Ahmed - 6/8/2015

     


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/9/2015 2:00:02 AM



  • Sultan Shahin Sb, is it not a fact the Allah commands Muslims to remain united and not be divided. The present situation is that we have not only accepted the fragmentation but also flaunt the fact that we belong to this or that sect. The mere act of calling others by sectarian names could also be in violation of Allah's command for a really muttaqi Muslim.
    We blame Saudi Arabia for a lot of things, but can you ignore the fact that every year groups of Muslims from all over the world make a beeline to them with begging bowls. They do get generous handouts both from Saudi Govt and lots of expatriates working there, in the belief that they are discharging their religious duty. This is not to say there is no element of exploitation from both sides. The reason why Allah commands us to remain united is to preserve the strength of Ummah and not allow others to exploit our differences to their own ends. Emergence of Taliban, ISIL, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram etc are well crafted plans to cripple Islam and Muslims if not on a global level at least where it matters most i.e. M.E., and Africa. Would we have found ourselves in this position had Muslims been united. The Hadith of Holy Prophet about how we will be many but will be like straw floating on water is a clear case of prophecy coming true.
    By Listener - 6/9/2015 1:03:32 AM



  • Dear Rational Saheb, I do not recall, what you are referring to here:
    "what was that Mr Mohammed yunus disagreed with you on the Qur'an?
    you said similar if not exact and mr mohammed Yunus objected strongly.
    please recall what was that?"
    You love wallowing in the muck of all sorts. Please find it and report.
    Why do you and your friends have to find extraneous, possibly marginal issues, to distract from the main debate. Focus on what Yunus Saheb said and debate that, praise that or criticise that, if you agree or disagree. 
    Please try to add to our knowledge. You and your company seem to have nothing to say about the crux of the issue Yunus Saheb took. you just want to distract any discussion. Please stay on the subject. 
    My views on the Quran and Hadees and Sira and Sharia are present in as cogent and precise a manner as possible for me. I have no problem at all, if someone disagrees with that. Do that, express yourselves, question me, or Yunus Saheb or Naseer saheb, but please stay on the subject.


    By Sultan Shahin - 6/8/2015 10:45:57 PM



  • That is true Listener Saheb, nowhere do Westerners or others differentiate between different sects among Muslims. when it comes to attacking them or discriminating against them. No one would say this is a progressive Muslim, so spare him. So it is imperative that we moderates and progressive Muslims fight intolerance, xenophobia, supremacism among Muslims. 


    We must present the correct picture of Islam, as we see it, and oppose all those ideologues who present Islam as a political ideology rather than a path to spiritual salvation. 


    Political Islam is represented by Wahhabi-Salafi stream. There are ideologues who are regarded as coming from a Sufi stream and have also talked of political domination or supremacism or intolerance. They too should be opposed. 


    However, you cannot deny that at the moment all the news is about Wahhabi-Salafi terrorists  attacking non-Wahhabi Muslims, Sufi shrines, Shia congregations, Sufism-oriented Muslims, Ahmadi Muslims,  and occasionally non-Muslims too. This is essentially a bloody war within Islam. You see non-Wahhabi Muslims being killed everywhere. Please read newspapers, watch television. You will know. It's not so difficult to find out. 


    All the Muslim  terrorists in all parts of the world come from Saudi-Salafi-Wahhabi schools of thought. This used to be a very very tiny sect until the advent of massive petrodollar funding for the spread of Wahhabism. They used to be treated as pariahs. Wahhabis used to hide their identities. Now you will find, even in India, mosques, bookshops, proudly announcing their Salafi lineage. This is maximum in Kerala, as it has the largest number of Muslims working in Hejaz, now known after its ruling Wahhabi dynasty and called Saudi Arabia. 


    You are right that backlash caused by Wahhabis will be backlash against all Muslims. No way non-Muslims can distinguish between Wahhabis and non-Wahhabi. 


    So it's imperative that those Muslims who have still not converted to Wahhabism and see Islam as a spiritual path disassociate themselves with the ideology of Ibn-e-Taimiya, Mohammad ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab, Syed Qutb,Maulana Maududi, Osama bin Laden, "Khalifa" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Hafiz Saeed, and an assortment of other such odious characters who propagated and continue to propagate the ideological of political Islam. Islam is a religion, not a political ideology. It is a spiritual path to salvation, not a means to conquer the world on behalf of Wahhabi fundamentalist Mullahs. 


    The task before us is twofold: present Islam's positive features, its spiritualism, and denounce the politics and the concomitant violence, intolerance and xenophobia. 


    By Sultan Shahin - 6/8/2015 10:35:22 PM



  • Sultan Saheb
    i am witness there was "Randi"word in the comment of mr mohammed yunus.
    perhaps this was reason Ghulam Ghaus saheb reacted strongly against his nature. most of the time mr ghaus has remained respectful to mr m yunus.

    this comment was an insult to all Muslim women. perhaps this is the reason mr mohammed yunus is absent from the forum not because naseer saheb abused him.

    and please remember mr yunus is not above errors as he is not God.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/8/2015 8:35:02 PM



  • Sultan saheb
    what was that Mr Mohammed yunus disagreed with you on the Qur'an?
    you said similar if not exact and mr mohammed yunus objected strongly.
    please recall what was that?
    any idea about tempering with the Quran is shocking to Muslims.
    what you suggested was not acceptable to Mr mohammed yunus.
    if naseer saheb has got that impression, though it may not be exact but it is quite near to dropping/neglecting some verses.
    since these verses are problematic, mr mohammed yunus and GRD and similar people are reinterpreting the verses.

    Please make your position which created such impression.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/8/2015 8:18:50 PM



  • Sultan Shahin Sb, people in power how to play the sectarian games. But the average non muslim in the west cannot make a difference between a Sikh and Muslim. Did the attackers on Muslims in west identified the sect before attacking them ? Is there any justification in Quran or Sunnah for the division into sects ?
    By Listener - 6/8/2015 7:31:39 PM



  • Dear Listener, as I said before, you are right about Muslims not caring about the oppression of non-Muslims in Muslim lands. I have dealt with the subjects in several articles and many comments. Maybe the following will interest you:

    The Swiss ban on minarets is having an echo in India. Abdul Sami Bubere of the Mumbai- based Sahyog Cultural Society is reported to have said: “The extremely provocative decision undermines the freedom of religion and principle of co- existence. The referendum is akin to tyranny of the majority. It will only encourage fundamentalism. The ban should be immediately lifted as it would serve the purpose of jihadis who misinterpret Islam.”

    Though I won’t use such strong words, I fully agree with the sentiments and thoughts expressed in the above sentiment. The analysis that “it will only encourage fundamentalism” is also correct. It is actually happening. The fundamentalists are taking advantage of the situation created by the Swiss ban on minarets and the French ban on burqas (veils).  But then the question arises in my mind, how come we get agitated only when our own religious freedom is at stake in non-Muslim societies. We do not worry when Muslims themselves, not to speak of non-Muslims, are not allowed religious freedom in Islamic societies.

    We were permitted to defend ourselves with arms (a form of Jihad, albeit a lesser form) because if we had not done so, people may not have been able to worship in temples, monasteries, churches, synagogues, etc., all those places of worship were God is remembered and God’s praises are sung.

    Renowned Pakistani scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamidi writes: “The Qur’ān asserts that if the use of force would not have been allowed in such cases, the disruption and disorder caused by insurgent nations could have reached the extent that the places of worship – where the Almighty is kept in constant remembrance – would have become deserted and forsaken, not to mention the disruption of the society itself:

    وَلَوْلَا دَفْعُ اللَّهِ النَّاسَ بَعْضَهُمْ بِبَعْضٍ لَهُدِّمَتْ صَوَامِعُ وَبِيَعٌ وَصَلَوَاتٌ وَمَسَاجِدُ يُذْكَرُ فِيهَا اسْمُ اللَّهِ كَثِيرًا (٤٠:٢٢)

    And had it not been that Allah checks one set of people with another, the monasteries and churches, the synagogues and the mosques, in which His praise is abundantly celebrated would have been utterly destroyed. (22:40) ...

    Not only that. We have scholars who claim that while non-Muslims have perfect freedom to practice their religion in an Islamic state, (though in practice they are not mostly allowed that freedom), Muslims do not have that freedom. Once born to a Muslim parent, you are doomed for ever to be a Muslim or else. Well, your throat will be slit, no less. Indeed, there are “revered” ulema (scholars of Islam) in various schools of thought who say that if someone is seen so much as not attending Friday prayers, his throat should be slit.

    Sample the following:

    Those who do not attend Friday prayers “should simply be killed. Slit their throats!”: Deoband  

    “A person greatly admires Hazrat Maulana Rashid Gangohi, the outstanding scholar who was one of the founders of the Deoband madrasa. The gentleman to whom I refer is a kindly soul, who can be depended upon for help by others. However, when in the course of conversation I chanced to remark that the most basic virtue lay in kindness towards others, he contradicted me. Kindness, he contended, was reserved for “pious, practicing Muslims”. As for others, they should be given a chance to mend their ways, after which “they would be Wajibul Qatal (liable to be killed)”. Another person I chanced to meet — a finance man, no less — feels that people who do not attend Friday prayers “should simply be killed. Slit their throats!”

    “Now, this kind of sanguinary verbal ferocity is very different from the traditions of quiet piety and gentle acceptance in which most Muslims were brought up.” -- Salman Tarik Kureshi

    http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-tolerance/those-who-do-not-attend-friday-prayers-“should-simply-be-killed-slit-their-throats!”---deoband/d/1795

    also, sample the following from a supposedly enlightened scholar of Islam:

    “Freedom is a neutral word. Accordingly, affixing it with religion would mean a liberty of a  person either to have or not to have a religion, either to practice or not to practise, either to propagate or not to propagate, either to embrace or not to embrace, either to change or not change one’s own religion. If he decides to do so he has the freedom to do it without any interference of others. This is the meaning of freedom as it appeared in the above examples.

    “Is a Muslim allowed to enjoy such freedom? As a matter of fact, under Shariah law, a Muslim is not free to do so, no matter whether he is under Muslim rule or non-Muslim rule except with dire necessity. In fact the meaning of Islam itself, that is submission and surrender to the will of Almighty Allah (swt), is inimical to the vague meaning of freedom (cf. hurriah) in its absolute sense. Thus, a Muslim cannot enjoy freedom in respect of articles of belief (Iman) and practicing of pillars of Islam, (arkan al Islam) and observance of codes of life, because, these are essential of keep him a believer and a Muslim. He may enjoy a guided freedom with regards to those matters that do not fall under the basic and obligatory tenets and pillars of region.” – Freedom Of Religion in Shariah by Dr. ABM Mahboobul Islam of the International Islamic University of Malaysia....

    I hope Mr. Abdul Sami Bubere of the Mumbai- based Sahyog Cultural Society and other people who are bothered about the Swiss ban on minarets or the French ban on burqa or India’s Hindu Right demanding the abolition of Muslim Personal Law will also express their disgust, if they feel it, over the lack of religious freedoms to non-Muslims and more so Muslims in so-called Islamic societies. So-called Islamic scholars go to great lengths to prove that Quranic dictates like “La Ikraha fid Deen” (There can be no compulsion in religion) or Lakum Deenakum waleya Deen (For you your religion and for me mine) have no meaning and relevance for the Muslims today and should be banished from our consciousness. Shame on such scholars!!!

    Until we start fighting for religious freedom in our own societies (of both Muslims and non-Muslims), our struggle for religious freedom in non-Muslim societies will be rightly treated as just an instance of Muslim hypocrisy. -- Sultan Shahin, Editor, New Age Islam


    http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-pluralism/religious-freedom-is-indivisible--muslims-should-seek-it-in-islamic-societies-too/d/2451

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/8/2015 11:11:31 AM



  • Mr Shahin,

    I have said this many times that the biggest abuser on this site is yourself because slander is the greatest abuse one can heap on another. Your slanderous lies are proven but you are unrepentant. You did not mind what you call my abuses but see how you reacted to what you thought was slander. God has manifested the truth to you that there is no greater abuse than slander and that you stand the greatest abuser on this site. 

     

    I apologized merely on your saying that you had been slandered without bothering about proof etc. It goes only to prove that I am neither given to lies nor slander or that I am capable of causing any intentional harm or injury to anyone.

     

    On seeing the comment, I realized that you had not only seen my comment but responded to it without objecting to what you now claim is slander. Pray, can you explain why? I had not put anything in quotes which makes clear that it was an impression you created on me based on exactly the same words or something close. The fact that you did not deny it also goes to show that you did not consider what I said to be off the mark.

     

    Mr Yunus and you were simply asked to confirm whether the “R” word was changed to whore in his article or not. Why is it a problem to say yes or no for both of you? Where is the allegation?

     Then you have Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia, partner and friend of Muhammad Yunus and your accomplice who has clearly slandered and is unrepentant. This did not matter to you until he tried to post something that you found uncomfortable. Those who cannot think of others and their feelings the same way as they do for their own feelings can hardly be called Muslims. I am not sure if our exegete friend has used his influence over Lodhia to stop him the way he rushed to his aid each time. From the results, it does not appear that he did anything.




    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/8/2015 10:47:52 AM



  • Dear Listener you say, "Sultan Shahin Sb, the world does not care the names we give to our groups. For them it is all about Muslims and Islam."

    I don't think that is correct. Today's world is very knowledgeable. That is why in this internet age,mow here a lot of knowledge is available very easily, it's not possible to follow the Sufi practice of just focussing on the positive aspects of Islam.

    We also need to refute the extremist ideologies. The world knows the name of this extremist ideologies. Just read newspapers, even a glass of news or even headlines from New Age Islam's world Islamic news section will tell you that Salafism-Wahhabism is not an enigma anymore.

    The world is denouncing Ibn-taimiya and Mohammad Ibne Abdul Wahhab's  extremism. Maulana Maududi and Syed Qutb  are invariably referred to as fathers of contemporary Islamist terrorism.

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/8/2015 10:47:19 AM



  • Dear Naseer Saheb, If I am going to continue to engage with you critically, I have to be prepared to be abused. For when you don't have an answer, you start calling people liars, etc. You have done this with everyone, everyone who has engaged with you critically. So most have stopped bothering about you.

     Now when I am faced with your slander and your so-called evidences etc, I just grin and bear it. Usually I skip slanderous statements. After all, we are going to come together on The Day Of Judgement in the presence of all-knowing God. So rather than being distracted by you into futile arguments about lies and slander, I leave things to Gos, silently praying for improvement in your conduct. 

    But when it was brought to my attention that you have accused me of calling for revision of Quran and dropping of verses from the Book, I had to ask you to explain where and when I had said that.  

    You have apologised unconditionally for this motivated, malicious lie but are not happy about having to apologise, so naturally you are on the prowl for an opportunity to come up with another slander and lie. I am waiting for another avalanche of lies, slander, abuse, but I am still prepared to engage with you.

    Yunus Saheb has explained to me in a private mail why he has stopped interacting with you on that issue despite your allegations.  I would have liked him to continue debating the issue, but I cannot stop you from abusing him and I cannot ask him to grin and bear it like I do. That is a personal choice.

     I think it is in the interest of readers to ignore your abusive, arrogant nature and continue debating, asking questions. For, you clearly study Quran, unlike most Muslims, and come up with flashes of insight sometimes that must be taken seriously despite your abusiveness. What is God's purpose in creating a creature like you is for him to know. It's not for me to dispute with. I am too tiny a creature to seek to understand God's purpose behind everything he does.

    You see, Naseer Saheb, God has made all sorts of people and all His creatures have some function and purpose known to Him alone. There is not the seemingly most useless of his creatures who has no use. All of us creations of God have some vital purpose, whether we humans understand that or not. Bearing your abuse is, for me, a test of my commitment to help readers engage with Quran in new ways. You are at least focussing attention on Quran, our only scripture and link to God.

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/8/2015 10:15:52 AM



    • Mr Shahin,


    You have read my comment and responded to it but did not object to what I said then. You are reacting strongly now because Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia is indulging in his blackmail on his blog and putting things out of context. When his antics were confined to me with blatant lies you showed no concern. Now that you are the target, you are so concerned. Neither did you ever care one bit when I accused you of slander and not even when I proved it. You were as Siraj put it quite brazen about it. 

    You can see the difference between one who follows the Quran to the letter who does not even bother to argue, make excuses, look for proofs but simply based on your statement that you have been deeply hurt by what he said apologizes unconditionally. You have proof of what it means to be a believer and a reader of the Quran.

    Mr Muhammad Yunus asked me "where is the R word" and accused me of distorting what he said. I asked three times to list the changes made to the article but neither of you responded. He used a lie and you covered for him.

    Integrity is most certainly an issue on this website and you have not set a good example. Nor has Mr Yunus 



    • Observer Saheb, if you are not even willing to put your name to this thesis, how can a discussion be organised. I am willing to fund such a discussion in your city with the ulema there in the month of April. I don't have people to organise any such discussion. You can do that. I can also get copies printed if you approve of the Urdu translation of this article on New Age Islam. Many ulema in your city do not know English. But I need a name and a face to discuss this. Pseudonyms can't be called to defend their thesis.

      If Deobandi ulema agree to participate, great. As for Bareilwis, you have already seen that even those on the site are not willing to comment. Please talk to some people and see how they respond. I can at least organise in the meantime to send to you some spiral bound photocopies of the article in English and Urdu to be given to some people in your city. [But for this you will have to give me your address.] If there is response and Ulema are willing to discuss this question in an open forum, we can get it printed too. But the first question is: are you willing to go out on a limb, perhaps  putting  your head on the chopping block?


      By Sultan Shahin - 2/28/2015 7:59:11 AM



    • Mr Shahin has given a call for an Islamic reformation but when a clear path is shown for the same, I find that he has lost interest. In the past, he has given a call for the impossible - for revising the Quran, dropping verses from the Book etc. Now that it is shown that none of that is necessary and it is the Sunni theology that needs to be reformed in the light of the Qu’ran, which is doable, he does not appear keen to do anything about it.

      It is the theology of holding all `non-Muslims’ (in the narrow sense of those who are not followers of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)), as kafir that is responsible for even the partition of this country besides providing ideological support to the extremists. How can Muslims live with the kafir with whom the Quran forbids friendship? For this reason, every sect of Islam (except the Deobandis) fought for the partition of this country.

      It is to the credit of the Deobandis that not only did they make common cause with the Hindus and fought under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi for the freedom of this country but after independence, they remained faithful to the cause and remain nationalists to this day. The Jamiat of their ulemas has propounded a theological basis for its nationalistic philosophy. Their thesis is that Muslims and non-Muslims have entered upon a mutual contract in India since independence, to establish a secular state. The Constitution of India represents this contract. This is known in Urdu as a mu'ahadah. Accordingly as the Muslim community's elected representatives supported and swore allegiance to this mu'ahadah so it is the duty of Indian Muslims is to keep loyalty to the Constitution. This mu'ahadah is similar to a previous similar contract signed between the Muslims and the Jews in Medina. In 2009,Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind announced that Hindus cannot be termed kafirs, even though they are Non-Muslim. The Deobandis can therefore be expected to take necessary steps and support a change in the Sunni theology by defining the terms kufr and kafir in a faith neutral way as these terms are used in the Quran. If the Deobandis support it, can the Barelvis afford to be seen as dragging their feet? Indian Muslims can show the way to the World and NAI can take the lead.

      A start could be made by NAI by circulating copies of the article to the ulema and arrange for discussions and take the subject of Reformation forward.

       


      By Observer - 2/28/2015 5:47:37 AM

    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/8/2015 2:33:13 AM



  • Mr Shahin,

    I apologize unconditionally if what I said is incorrect. It is perhaps an impressionistic statement but since you disown it, I will not argue about it and accept it is my error. I ahve no wish to slanedr anyone even as revenge.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/8/2015 1:56:33 AM



  • Mr Shahin,

    I apologize unconditionally if what I said is incorrect. It is perhaps an impressionistic statement but since you disown it, I will not argue about it and accept it is my error. I ahve no wish to slanedr anyone even as revenge.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/8/2015 1:54:30 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, It is not Mr. Lodhia who is making this statement. He has only brought to my notice and that of others on his mailing list including you the following slander posted by you:
    "Mr Shahin has given a call for an Islamic reformation  ... In the past, he has given a call for the impossible - for revising the Quran, dropping verses from the Book etc. "
    By Observer - 2/28/2015 5:47:37 AM
    Please let me know Naseer Ahmad Saheb (Observer), when and where did I make such a statement? If I know myself and my views, I simply could not have made such a statement. 

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/8/2015 1:52:35 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, It is not Mr. Lodhia who is making this statement. He has only brought to my notice and that of others on his mailing list including you the following slander posted by you:
    "Mr Shahin has given a call for an Islamic reformation  ... In the past, he has given a call for the impossible - for revising the Quran, dropping verses from the Book etc. "
    By Observer - 2/28/2015 5:47:37 AM
    Please let me know Naseer Ahmad Saheb (Observer), when and where did I make such a statement? If I know myself and my views, I simply could not have made such a statement. 

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/8/2015 1:52:34 AM



  • I must thank Mr. Lodhia for highlighting a serious slanderous statement made by Naseer Ahmed Saheb against me that I had missed out. 
    What kind of Muslim will even conceive of this idea of dropping verses from Quran? Naseer Saheb alone can do that. His arrogance has no bounds. 

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/8/2015 1:46:07 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, don't run away from the question as usual. I do not have the money tongue you. But you are going to sue Lodhia Saheb, and I think he will use your calumny in his defence. 
    Please enlighten me: 
    When did I make the statements that Quran needs to be revised and some verses should be dropped?

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/8/2015 1:39:27 AM



  • I do not hate Tablighis. I cannot. One of my brothers, my elderly cousin, etc are old Tablighis. 
    However, Tablighism was never apolitical. It's one purpose has consistently been to help impose Arab culture in the garb of Islam over all Muslims, wean them away from their original cultural roots. Islam and Arab culture should not be synonymous. With the free-flowing petrodollars, their influence has grown. They are supremacists, obscurantist, fundamentalist Wahhabis. How can they be compared with Sufis when their prime task is to take Muslims away from their reverence for Sufis.

    No Muslims in general are Sufis. They are or used to be in the pre-petrodollar era, a people who revere or revered Sufis, something Wahhabis, Tablighis, Deobandis frown at and propagate against, while Jihadis kill themselves for stopping people to go to Sufi shrines.

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/8/2015 1:32:06 AM



  • Mr Shahin,

    Why are you reacting to what Mohammed Rafiq Lodhi is circulating? Did you not say forget him? So forget him and what he is saying and putting in his blog.




    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/8/2015 1:29:44 AM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed Saheb, I am shocked to find you slandering me in this manner. This is an absolute, and clearly a malicious, motivated lie. I would not use such strong words if the accusation were not so serious. I have never used such words before, even in response to your highly creative abuses.
     Lodhia Saheb has circulated on his mail one of your comments that I had obviously not seen before.
    "Mr Shahin has given a call for an Islamic reformation  ... In the past, he has given a call for the impossible - for revising the Quran, dropping verses from the Book etc. "
    By Observer - 2/28/2015 5:47:37 AM
    Please let me know Naseer Ahmad Saheb (Observer), when and where did I make such a statement? If I know myself and my views, I simply could not have made such a statement. 

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/8/2015 1:15:54 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    I would like to correct you. I have great respect and reverence for the few genuine God fearing, humanity loving sufis which I have expressed on several occasions. My efforts in finding common grounds with the rest of the humanity and universalizing the message of the Quran is in conformity with the values such great persons represented. I also have no hesitation in dedicating all my works to the memory of such great people. 

    However, who are the sufis today? Everybody calls himself a Sufi. Who was the teacher of Aurangzeb but a Sufi.  What was Aurangzeb then but a Sufi. What did all the Muslims call themselves except Sufi? What are you?

    The only identifiable group of persons who are practicing sufis today are the members of the Tablighi Jamat whom you hate although they have an impeccable record of being apolitical, quietest and peace loving. And your hate for them is entirely based on sectarian considerations.

    There is not a single person in this world who calls himself a Wahabi. As far as the Salafis are concerned, most of them are peace loving and quietist. Read the article and stop stereotyping. It is because of my extreme aversion to all forms of stereotyping that I could write an article like "Who is a Kafir?"


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/8/2015 12:55:33 AM



  • Sultan Shahin Sb, the world does not care the names we give to our groups. For them it is all about Muslims and Islam. I agree this sectarian mentality has gone down too deep and will not be easy to erase. However if we agree in this forum and show others we are a united lot however small, won't Allah help our efforts. I look forward to views of our more knowledgeable commentators in this forum even if they have expressed them before.
    By Listener - 6/8/2015 12:10:51 AM



  • Dear Listener, even if all commentators on this forum accept that, how will that stop the world using names like Wahhabi-Salafi to describe the terrorists?

    Then how will you discuss anything. If all commentators were to be called, say Muslim or Human,  and not  by their proper names, how will you distinguish between them, how will you respond to them, how will you know which Human said what.

    As I said problem is not with sects, the problem is the extreme violent sectarianism of Wahhabis, which calls for violent elimination of all sects.

    Normally, if  a sect wants peacefully to spread its message, you cannot object. That is everybody's right, acceptable to nearly all.

    But here is a sect whose basic message is elimination of all other sects and religion and thus dominate the world.
    The world has to come together and destroy this Islamic form of fascism.

    Unfortunately, this sect has the support of the sole super power of the world. You see, 16 of the 19 terrorists involved in 9/11 were Saudi-Wahabis, and yet the West led by America has consistently protected this state and allowed it to spend tens of billions of dollars to spread its venom, while it has at the same time destroyed all secular dictatorships in the Muslim world on one pretext or the other.

    So we Muslims are on our own. If we have to survive, and our religion has to survive, as a spiritual path to salvation, that it is, we have to think hard and act. There is no time to lose.

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/7/2015 11:44:18 PM



  • Dear Listener, when one sect of Islam and its derivatives and collaborators are bent upon destroying all other Muslims, demolishing shrines revered by millions of Muslims and non- Muslims alike, how do you report this event. In journalism, we are taught to be as specific as possible. That is the only way to provide correct information. 

    After reporting, comes the task of analysing and then for opinion-makers condemning the killers. How do you do that. Do you simply say miscreants, extremists, terrorists. What do these words convey? Not very much. If you really want to make a difference, you have to be specific. 

    There are millions of Wahhabis who think that merely avoiding going to shrines is Wahhabism. But this is a far cry from what Wahhabism actually is. No sensible person would have a problem if some people were simply propagating against showing excessive reverence akin to worshipping at Sufi shrines, as some uneducated Muslims' practices may amount to. 

    But that is not what Wahabism is about. Abdul Wahhab and his ally Saud dynasty mercilessly massacred Arabs to establish Wahabism.
     Now they are spending tens of billions of dollars to spread their venom. Whenever an idea comes to the world, schools of thoughts, also called sects emerge. It is a natural process. Different people interpret the same thing differently. But the problem is not with sects but with sectarianism, and in the case of Wahhabism, extreme violence. For, this sect calls for the elimination of all other Muslims and non-Muslims, all those who do not have their peculiar ideas of tauheed, oneness of God.
     Abdul Wahhab was first of all opposed by his father and brother who were qazis of their area. 
    Wahhabis were able to gather very few followers until the advent of massive amount of Petrodollars. 

    Now, of course, the situation has changed dramatically.
    While this war within Islam is raging, and one side is winning hands down, the losing side cannot talk of unity. It has no meaning. We have to think why we are losing. Is it just petrodollars? That is not possible. So what is it? In my view, it is the fact that the core concepts of Wahhabism are not very different from the core beliefs of most Muslims. 
    So the non-Wahhabi Muslims, the victims of terrorism today, have to reflect on what can be done to create an alternative theology of peace and pluralism that undercuts the basis of the acceptability of Wahhabism or Salafism. I have made some suggestions in the above article. You may like to go through them and give your own suggestions.

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/7/2015 11:31:04 PM



  • Sultan Shahin Sb, Thanks for your reply. As a first step can we request all commentators to stop slotting people by their group names.
    By Listener - 6/7/2015 11:27:30 PM



  • Dear Listener, I have been pointing this out for a long time. When Teesta Setalvad fights for our rights, we call her Mujahida and Mujahid, with reverence, but when Taslima Nasreeen appears to be fighting for the rights of Hindu minorities, our elected legislators throw rotten eggs at her face; we demand that she be expelled from India or her visa be cancelled. I believe human rights are indivisible. Have written on the subject profusely. 

    like you, I am glad too Rational Md Yunus Saheb agrees with the main thrust of my comment posted a little earlier, though I can understand, not with all the sentiments expressed here.

    "Thank you Naseer Saheb for a categorical and unequivocal statement, though still peppered with your usual abuse.

    The difficulty arose because you did not feel the outrage that I did over the Baghdadi statement that Islam has never been a religion of peace, not even for a day. You would have felt the same degree of outrage as mine if some "Other" like Bush or Blair or some Yadav or Chaddha had made the same statement.

    Not only you my entire community would be up in arms.

    "Look at the ferment and the protests in Muslim media over the issue of a mosque in Haryana. Have you noticed any Indian Muslim being outraged at a teacher's hand being chopped off in Kerala by Muslim fundamentalists? Have you ever found any Indian Muslim protesting at temples being demolished, Hindu girls being kidnapped, forcibly converted and raped in Pakistan? 

    "Have you come across any Muslim protesting at the xenophobic content of what is taught in our madrasah? I gave you samples of what Taimi, Wahhabi, Salafi ideologues have written and what is taught in our madrasas. Did that evoke any protest even in this forum. Well I have just seen one comment now.

    But the Muslim community has no issue with anything Muslim ideologues do and say. They are outraged only when the same thing is said by others.

    You talked about the righteous anger you felt at being in your perception vilified. I am outraged by my religion being vilified by practitioners of the same religion. I am outraged at the rest of the community for remaining silent.

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/5/2015 11:00:53 AM"

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/7/2015 11:01:13 PM



  • Sultan Shahin Sb, slotting Muslims under different labels is not part of Islam nor was ever practised by early Muslims.I wish this practise to be discouraged, why can't we all call ourselves Ummati Rasulallah. I see consensus between commentators here that Muslims care very little for the rights of non-muslims.

    We are in fact in forefront of demanding our rights everywhere we live but give very little back to the same societies in demanding fair rights of other groups. Is that not the basic message of Islam and is that not we should be working on both on national and global level ? Why are we wasting our time, energy and intellectual capital in things which only serves to divide us further. At this moment we need to show some practical efforts to the world  apart from just condemning wanton acts of violence by Muslims. If I am not wrong Rational Sb has been pursuing this point for a long time and this matter has a lot to do with his disillusion with Muslims, I hope not with Islam. Kindly give a thought how to highlight this matter in different forums.Thanks.


    By Listener - 6/7/2015 10:44:55 PM



  • Naseer Ahmed Saheb, you have Masha Allah graduated from Mafia Don Dawood Ibrahim to Mohammad bin Qasim, Ibrahim Lodhi, Sher Shah and Babar, who were for you the prime examples of Sufi saints.

    "What was this unislamic conquest except a Sufi conquest since the Muslims in India were 100% sufis then?" asks Naseer Saheb.

    Height of non-sectarianism, I suppose!

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/7/2015 10:34:19 PM



  • I also agree with both Rational and Listener. The Muslim conquest of India was unislamic as there was no Islamic reason justifying it. They were nothing but warring hordes. The Muslims could have redeemed themselves by bringing up the downtrodden classes. They did precious little. As a matter of fact they, practiced their own class system which as Aftab pointed out in his excellent article, was based on the Iranian pre-Islamic practices.  

    What was this unislamic conquest except a Sufi conquest since the Muslims in India were 100% sufis then? 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/7/2015 9:21:16 PM



  • "Why are Sufi shrines being demolished, visitors being killed across the world."
    who was yusuf bin hallaj? a wahabi/salafi/devbandi?
    what he did to khana kaaba. he catapulted stones and set fire.
    khana e kaaba has been attacked before. if hana e kaaba can be attacked, why not any masjid or shrine?
    if masjid e zarar can be demolished under the name of munafiqat, why can't Sufi shrines can't be under the name of qabraparasti?
    after all Sufis are deviants.
    Sufi Islam is an alien plant in the soil of Islam----Mufakkir Islam, Allama iqbal.

    belivers has done this before and will continue to do so.




    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/7/2015 9:15:54 PM



  • Rational,

    Please do not compare me with Sultan Shahin. He is a compulsive liar and a slanderer and this has been proven by me and also Siraj. I have never lied. Let alone lying, you will not find even logical inconsistency across all my articles and comments. This is impossible except for a person of exceptional integrity and prudence. People like Shahin will find inconsistencies such as my saying that Lodhia tried to get  me to write for his blog and since I refused, he then tried to wreck the website and then saying that he  worked as Shahin's accomplice. That is the fickle nature of Lodhia who swings from one extreme to another and Shahin has used him well!

    I never abuse. That would be transgressing the limits. I do not go beyond stating what clearly appears as fact. I never violate the Quran either. The Quran does not expect you to not stand up to tyrants and put them down. 

    As far as the intimidating aura that you talk about, I am never less than courteous to those who carry on a normal conversation. When they step out of line and stay out of line, I give them a sharp rap on their knuckles to bring them back to normal behaviour. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/7/2015 9:12:26 PM



  • Dear Sultan shahin
    you can read real Sufi masters in "criminals of islam" by Dr shabir.
    How logical, how beneficial ere those statements of real sufis to Muslims.
    in self-glory none equals to peeron ke peer abdul qadir jeelani the dastgeer.

    Please provide a quote from abdul qadir jeelani that he ever stood for the rights of non-muslims as non-muslims stand for Muslims in present time.



    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/7/2015 9:02:31 PM



  • Sultan Shahin Sahib, I am in full conformity with Rational Sb on the question of fighting for the rights of oppressed non-muslim. In a country like India there are millions such people. What I see is mostly Muslims demanding their rights on personal laws, minority rights etc. Does not the Quran teaches us to fight equally for everyone's right. How many Muslims are engaged in this, would it not have set a wonderful example to all especially in a country like India and would have enhanced the prestige of Islam and Muslims no end. Was this not what the Prophet and early Muslims were striving for?
    By Listener - 6/7/2015 8:56:48 PM



  • Mr Sultan Shahin,

    You need to go through the archives and read up everything I have said with an open mind. You will find the answers. You will also find an answer in an article that you thought was a Talibani view although it is exclusively based on what very prominent Americans say.

    Spare me your repetitive questions. At some level, you and your accomplice Lodhia are at the same level. What you cannot grasp the first time, you will never grasp it. And both have the annoying habit of understanding just the opposite of what was said and going around in circles ad nauseam.

    As far as Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia is concerned, it is mission accomplished for you. So you have distanced him for now to be used again when the need arises. Your use and throw strategy for over aggressive pariahs  on the website is  well known. These are people dying for attention and some importance being given to them. When the Editor throws the bait, they fall for it hook line and sinker. You pump them up with praise to get them on your side and when the job  is over you throw them out. The moment I saw your following comment pumping him up, I knew that you were planning an assault on me:

    5/28/2015 9:18:27 AM

    Sultan Shahin

    Rafiq Lodhia Saheb has done well to remind us of the following quote from . Dr K. G. Saiyadain (May Almighty Allah rest his soul in peace): .........

     

    You are predictable Shahin. You used the same trick with your previous foul mouthed accomplice. It worked a few times but he disappointed you on the last two occasions. You have no use for him now. When he made a few attempts to get back, everyone ignored him and he withdrew.
     
    Ironically, you have commented on Lodhia's comment on my article "Is a woman's testimony worth half that of a man's?" but had nothing to comment on my article which makes a very dramatic point that Muslims have regressed to a position far behind pre-Islamic times on women empowerment when the Quran tried to take them ahead!



    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/7/2015 8:49:16 PM



  • Sultan saheb
    Generally i don't complain because i return commentators what they say to me. if somebody calls me a liar, it is in fact not a big issue at all. but threats can't be ignored.
    in religious debates commentators often abuse each other. for example you and naseer saheb compulsory turn abusive to each other. Is it the outcome of the Quran reading?
    Lodhia whether you called him or not is a dangerous man because no other commentator has responded in the manner he has. not even Sadaf in past.
    i consider two men dangerous here, One lodhia and other mohammed yunus.

    you call my posting about sufis fault finding with Sufis. Is it not a distortion of fact. why you are disturbed on this issue.
    Have you given any example to prove that Sufis stood for poor people.
    they stood for conversion not to fight for their rights as non-muslims.

    you must not walk away from this question of mine.
    your sufi ameer khusro took 100 tanakas from Sultan alauddin khilji and recorded his plunders in vivid details. what kind of behaviour is this? does it match with Sufi teachings?
    why there was no voice from sufis against jizia imposed by islamic rulers?
    Sufis enjoyed maal -e ghanimat without any reservation.

    i am waiting for examples i have asked for.
    Quote me one Sufi who wept for plight of non-muslims under Muslim rule.
    some kings were kind enough to their non-muslim subjects, but their efforts were sent to dustbins of history by Islamic mujaddids.
    please don't try to divert under the name of al-baghdadi.

    i don't bother if you think i am partener of naseer saheb.
    other readers too have liked him, it doesn't mean they are his partners.
    please come on, show me what sufis have done except delivering lungers and then conversion.
    Naseer saheb too didn't provide any answer to some difficult questions. like him you are running away from questions on sufis.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/7/2015 8:23:02 PM



  • Naseer Saheb, your abuses and Lodhia and Rational Saheban's charges against each other are not the gravest issues before the community.

    Let me try and bring to your attention a grave issue that requires your attention.

    Across various threads you have said recently that "there are no differences across sects." 
    If that is the case why are Wahabbi-Salafi Jihadis killing non- Wahhabis, all non- Wahhabi Muslims and where possible non-Muslims?

     Why are Sufi shrines being demolished, visitors being killed across the world.

     What is the ideology of Boko Haram, al- Shabab, Taliban, ISIS and so on? Is it the same as that of Sufi-oriented Muslims?

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/7/2015 5:55:57 PM



  • Mr Shahin, You are the one digressing and trying to save your accomplice. You have the gall to talk as if he is my partner! Do you take all your readers to be stupid to swallow all your nonsense?


    The least I would have expected from an editor whose website has been misused by Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia was to post a rejoinder on his blog for his blatant distortion of what I said in a comment to Muhammad Yunus and warn him against repetition of the same behaviour. If Lodhia refuses to post your rejoinder I would expect you to report him for abuse of your website and your "guset, commentator and major contributor" to "Wordpress.com". That is the decent and proper thing to do.


    Now can I expect you to do the right thing not only for me but for what is right for you and your website? Otherwise all the readers of NAI will know that Lodhia is only following in your footsteps with your blessings and you do not want to do anything that will prevent your using him again.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/7/2015 7:12:53 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, is this Lodhia business another tactic to keep us from discussing Baghdadi's ideology and other substantive issues being raised here constantly.


    Rational is looking at the fault of Sufis. Is he doing that on your behalf? He says he had turned Wahhabi before leaving Islam. Is this the trajectory you too are following?


    I asked Lodhia Saheb categorically to stop stalking guests on the site. Now Rational calls him a hidden terrorist, as you call him blackmailet, snooper and perhaps spy too. This gives him opportunity to come back with further nonsense. Please, all of you stop this absurd conversation. I pursued you on an issue of substance. You questioned Mike Ghouse's integrity in his condemnation of Baghdadis statement that Islam was not a religion of peace, even for a day. I questioned your statement. You started abusing me as you had no real answer.


    However, you have finally condemned Baghdadi. Since then I am trying to take back the discussion to the issues of substance. But you remain focussed on Lodhia Saheb. At the moment we are trying to discover if even Sufiae Karam were xenophobic. Rational claims that. May we have your opinion on Islamic mystics please. The real masters, not the self-proclaimed followes.
    Do you find Wahhab and Ibne Taimiyya like xenophobia in Hazrat Abdul Qadir Jilani and other Sufis too. Being from a family of Qadris, you must have some opinion.


    Or do you want to continue discussing Lodhia Saheb's mission of wrecking this website now that he has failed to take you away fromhere to his own blog? Please focus on the substance. We are passing through very difficult times. Islam is beginning to get banned from different societies. We must fight xenophobia and intolerance in our society. We should work towards creating a theology of peace and pluralism.


    Please ignore irritants like Lodhia Saheb as I ignore your abusiveness. Focus on the issues of substance, please. Respond to Rational now.


    By Sultan Shahin - 6/7/2015 6:36:31 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, you reported Lodhia Saheb tried to wean you away from this website. Having failed to do that, he is trying to wreck the website.


    Now since you were asked to condemn Baghdadi categorically you are saying he is my bloodhound deployed to hound you out. Please reveal which of your statements is correct. If you can't see any contradiction, please, let me know. I will try to explain in simpler language.


    By Sultan Shahin - 6/7/2015 6:01:44 AM



  • Rational, Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia has taken objection to your calling him a hidden terrorist!Mr Shahin wants to know where you have said so. Mr Shahin has no problem when the same Rafiq calls me a stealth Jihadist and much worse in many of his comments on NAI which he has also done in his blog. Shahin has no response to my comment inviting his attention to the blog where he uses the name of NAI as well. Readers of NAI.


    Shall we focus on what Rafiq has done and cut out all other discussions please? He was brought here by Shahin, allowed to freely intimidate every commentator some of whom like Curious Traveler appear to have been driven out. Shahin partnered with Lodhia to hound me with his lies and slander. The criminal acts have now gone a stage ahead with blackmail and threats from his pupil.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/7/2015 12:43:15 AM



  • Correction: please read as 'why don't you call imam sarhindi and shawaliuulah Sufis' why do you expel them from the pale of sufism?
    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/6/2015 11:31:04 PM



  • Sultan Shahin saheb- 6/6/2015 11:11:52 PM i posted long back the fatwa of jeelani on shias. it can be searched in archives of NAI. i will search on net and will post again. who is Sufi? why don't you call imam sarhindi and shawaliullah from the pale of sufism? just because they are now exposed. Your GRD called me liar on quoting Imam sarhindi. why should i listen to these Sufis. Is not this GRD a Sufi? Yes, Ghulam Ghaus saheb is a fair person. he is just a nice person though we may disagree on everything.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/6/2015 11:27:50 PM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin I will give one example of Alauddin khilji and Sufi Ameer khusro: "Alauddin Khilji enforced four taxes on non-Muslims in the Sultanate - jizya (poll tax), kharaj (land tax), kari (house tax) and chari (pasture tax).[30][31] He also decreed that his Delhi-based revenue officers assisted by local Muslim jagirdars, khuts, mukkadims, chaudharis and zamindars seize by force half of all produce any farmer generates, as a tax on standing crop, so as to fill sultanate granaries.[32][27][33] His officers enforced tax payment by beating up Hindu and Muslim middlemen responsible for rural tax collection.[27]


    Furthermore, Alauddin Khilji demanded, state Kulke and Rothermund, from his "wise men in the court" to create "rules and regulations in order to grind down the Hindus, so as to reduce them to abject poverty and deprive them of wealth and any form of surplus property that could foster a rebellion;[30] the Hindu was to be so reduced as to be left unable to keep a horse to ride on, to carry arms, to wear fine clothes, or to enjoy any of the luxuries of life".[27] At the same time, he confiscated all landed property from his courtiers and officers.[30] Revenue assignments to Muslim jagirdars were also cancelled and the revenue was collected by the central administration.[34] Henceforth, state Kulke and Rothermund, "everybody was busy with earning a living so that nobody could even think of rebellion."[30]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khilji_dynasty" Alauddin Khalji gave him 100 tanka (gold coins) annually, and Hazrat Khusro, as a token of acknowledgement, recorded all the conquests of the king in beautiful masnavi called "Khazain-ul-Futuh" Another masnavi "Taj-ul-Futuh" commemorates the victories of Jalaluddin Firuzshah in 718AH (1318 AD). Hazrat Amir Khusro also dedicated his masnavi "Nuh-Sipihr" to Qutubuddin Mubarakshah.

    http://www.sufiwiki.com/Amir_Khusro from this it is evident that ameer khusro recorded history of khilji in poetry and prose in exchange of money. can you provide any example of where ameer khusro revolted against cruelties of sultan alauddin khilji he inflicted on hindus? did he ever say that what khilji was doing is against the teachings of the Quran and sunna. if the prophet was a sufi as you claim, where is the condemnation of khliji sultan by a sufi ameer khusro? Did he ever register any complaint against the plunders of Aluddin khilji? please keep his other qualities aside we are not disusing them. he was a poet f great repute. there is no question about it. i often listen to his kalam. Please give some examples where sufis stood for cause of poor Hindus. one sufi who opposed jizia on non-Muslims. forget about wahabis and ahl e hadithhes.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/6/2015 11:21:18 PM



  • Dear Rational saheb. Pls send me Hazrat Àbdul Qadir Jilani's quote against Shias. Have you found anything else in the writings of real Sufi masters ( i gave you some names other than Jilani too.) And do not bring in Shah Waliullah and Ghazali or Sarhandi. These are big names and you can always quote them for their xenophobia or sectarianism, if any, but not as Sufis.
    By Sultan Shahin - 6/6/2015 11:11:52 PM



  • Takfirism cannot be fought with Takfirism.

    We cannot wash our hands off Islamist terrorists by calling them Kafir.

    However, if Naseer Sb's definition of kufr in Quran is considered correct then Baghdadi can be considered a Kafir, though in a spiritual sense, he will remain a Muslim.
    By Sultan Shahin - 6/6/2015 10:51:03 PM



  • naseer saheb i stand by you for your work though i am doubtful about it. perhaps my comprehension ability is far low compared to anybody on the forum. i think reinterpretation is not a right tool. without inventing new definitions reform is an impossible task. you conveniently left many questions unanswered.


    there is some aura around yourself that is intimidating. you need to take notice of it. if your work becomes available in book form, i will be happy to propagate it though it is highly risky. only hitch for me is why this was hidden to billions of Muslims covering 1400 years if the Quran is a universal clear guide to all. my firm conviction is that anybody can derive any meaning from verses of the Qur'an because of their nature. for benefit of Muslims to become peaceful thinking individuals i am ready to take your side. for me unbelief is just fine because i am not convinced with beliefs in unseen. lodhia is a hidden terrorist.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/6/2015 10:39:57 PM



  • sultan saheb i never condemned al-baghdadi on religious ground. he can't be called kafir. Mr yunus or GRD or any other moderate can't call him kafir. mr yunus is himself a takfeeri because he is calling him kafir though bahgdadi never declined beliefs in Islamic fundamentals. his interpretation is as val;id as of others. yes, i condemn him for his cruelties to humankind. His understanding of the Quran though valid but doesn't stop him from evils. thus a believer is not a bench mark of good behavior.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/6/2015 10:21:08 PM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin thanks for quoting imam taimiyah, wahab and others. i came acroos ibn e tamiyah and wahab when i started reading brailvi literature. Brailvis couldn't convice me because their complaint was about condemnation of fuzuliyat like, urs, peeri mureedi, ilm e ghaib, halwa parantha, qabraparasti etc by wahab. after their literature i came to know that i am a wahabi. for me wahab was a reformer. you will not like it. he wanted to make islam pure from shirk. but was it not the sunna of the prophet? didn't he freed kaaba from shirk? did he not bring reform. now i don't stand as Muslim Wahab or his couter parts are all alike for me. a common thread runs through them all that is supremacy of Islam over all other faiths.


    A common hate runs through majority of Muslims. if prophet was right in condemning meccans for their various shirks, tamiah and wahab were also right to bring reform in Muslims. if shawaliullah can be called reformer, taimiah and wahab were also reformers. Now i don't believe in any unseen as truth. they may be may not be. most probably there is no God, hence, no holy prophet, no holy book. what i am saying is just a quote to what books and Muslims say.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/6/2015 10:14:25 PM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin thanks for taking my complaint. you conveniently ignored two Mujaddids of Islam who were Sufis. Imam Sarhindi and Shahwaliullah. these two persons were not aira ghaira nathhu khaira but revivers of Islam. you also failed to quote imam ghazali the hujjat ul islam. what else you need?


    i request you to give some example where Sufis stood against the maltreatment of non-muslims at the hands of Muslim rulers. please give some examples. they stood for conversion(peaceful ok. when i quoted some verses of great ameer khusro's poetry, Mr GM reacted violently saying that those were hyperbolic verses of the poet. why should i consider them hyperbolic? why not as truth that happened at the hands of Muslim rulers. those Muslim rulers who were kind to non-muslims were opposed by mujaddid sufis. they put a end to efforts of Akbar. as a result king jahangir was not as kind as his father was. you forgot to mention hasan al banna modern jihad ideologue father of "brother hood". Let us agree to GM's defense of hasan al banna saying that he left Sufism? but why?


    Sultan sahib everything about Islam is not gold. there is brass too that glitters like gold. sufis who were belivers in wahdat ul wujood were tolerant to diverse faiths but they never launched their jehad against persecution of non-muslims. or you want to say Muslim rulers were completely innocents. i too have lived among Brailvis. My maternal relatives were brailvis. they considered left over water and food by Hindus nappak. on the other hand devbandis took them halal.now they are devbandis. one of them who served in ONGC is almost a baghi of traditional debandi and brailvi school. another uncle is busy in jhaar phoonk but is devbandi now.


    i have given again and again disturbing accounts from Sufi school but you perhaps as sectarian ignored them. what else you need? is quoting mujaddids not enough? is quoting abdul qadir jeelani on shias not enough ? once i provided a link to sufi site, you just said that these issues can be taken later. Great Sufis struggled for implemetation of classical Sharia. they never uttered a single word against classical sharia you want to change. i will keep giving examples from sufis.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/6/2015 9:48:28 PM



  • Thanks Asif Merchant Saheb. This is one of those points on which I have little support from the community. So your support is specially welcome.

    I do not really have the resources to undertake this project. I am finding it difficult to even run the website in its present diminished state. You know, I have closed several sections and had to part with some valued colleagues.

    Anyway, on my own I am trying to collect essential,  constitutive verses of  Quran in their correct order as far as possible. However, as most Muslims feel they don't need to read, study, understand and follow the Quranic guidance, but only revere and worship it as an uncreated being, akin to another God.

    Of course, Quran is word of God, as revealed to Prophet Mohammad (saw) and collected by his followers from the parchments, etc where it had originally been written down. But if you want to study and benefit from it generally you need it in the order in which it came.

    Of course, there scholars who say they have no problem in finding meaning in Quran, but not everybody can spend a lifetime studying scripture.That is why Hadees is so popular among Muslims. Easier to understand stand-alone narratives, moral lessons, stories of war, sex, instructions to kill kafirs, apostates, and so on.

    Anyway, thanks again. If do have the resources I will certainly undertake the project, at least a small book of essential reading in my view, but the order of verses put in the order in which they came, to the extent possible

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/6/2015 10:01:21 AM



  • @test, Thanks for sharing your reflections. Learnt something new. Could you post some specimens of al -Khamsa's elegies. We are dealing with a self-styled Khalifa whyo has studied Islamic theology for decades. 

    We must increase our own knowledge.


    By Sultan Shahin - 6/6/2015 8:42:59 AM



  • Dear Md Yunus Rational, your complaint was addressed by me in the Jaipur speech posted above. I am quoting that specific portion below for you to read and find fault with. I studied Wahhabi theology in some depth as I found the Islamist terrorists belong to this sect. Then I found you and Naseer Saheb complaining that I was leaving out Sufi ideologues. I requested both of you time and again to write on Sufis and give me specific instances of intolerance in the writings of Sufis like Hazrat Abdul Qadir Jilani, Hazrat Data Ganj Baksh, Khawja Ghareeb Nawaz of Ajmer, Hazrat Nizamuddin of Delhi, Hazrat Ameer Khusro, Mansour bin Hallaj, Hazrat Arabia Basri, Mirza Ghalib Shaikh Saadior Sufi scholars like Ibn Arabi and so on. I requested again and again. But none of you could.

     What you two two talked about was Baraivi Takfirism. I condemned that scores of time and promptly. However, I said that since all Muslim sects are takfiris, our task should be to first fight the violent takfiris, the Islamist takfiris, while condemning non-violent takfiris too, as even non-violent takfirism is in fact violence. But one does prioritise one's work. 

    However, since your agenda is to prove correct your own decision to leave Islam and show that there is no possibility of a peaceful, moderate Islam, you were never happy. 
    Moderate Islam is the target of all Islamophobes. 

    Nor was Naseer Saheb happy, as I continue to condemn and refute the ideologies of terror emanating from Salafism-Wahhabism. However, my offer still stands. Write on Sufi extremism, give specific quotes from real Sufi masters, not from Sarhandi or Waliullah, etc, who were essentially the Wahhabis of their time.

     I have pointed out to you that these Wahhabi-Sufi boundaries are blurred as far as ideologues, analysts, writers are considered. After all, even Ibn-e- Taimiya was considered by some in his time as Sufi. Wahhab came from a Sufi background, so the first people to castigate him were his father and brother.

    Now I give you the quote I promised about my analysis as well as some quotes from Wahhabi ideologues whom terrorists have studied and internalised, causing mayhem in the world today. Your job is to find similar quotes from real Sufi saints, and if you can't, stop vilifying them time and again. I condemn in advance any preachings of intolerance, supremacism, exclusivism, xenophobia, that you can find from any Sufi masters and ideologues.

    What I said in my speech above on the issue is as follows:

    "While the task of creating Jihadi literature was assigned to Deobandi and ahl-e-hadeesi madrasas during the Afghan war against Soviet Union in 1980s, Barelwi madrasas too had by and large discarded Sufi literature and adopted Dars-e-Nizami curriculum long ago. Developed under Emperor Aurangzeb Dars-e-Nizami had abandoned Sufism and inclusive, pluralistic teachings of great Sufi saints. Some Sufi-Barelvi madrasas had continued to teach 13th-century Persian poet, theologian, and Sufi mystic Maulana Rumi's Masnawi and one of the greatest poets of the classical literary tradition Sheikh Saadi Shirazi's Gulistan and Bostan in their Islamic ethics and Persian classes. But when proficiency in Arabic became linked to jobs in the Gulf, even these madrasas stopped teaching Persian and Sufi classics. But worse, in the name of teaching Arabic literature, they started teaching even Syed Qutb, considered the father of modern Islamist terrorism in the Middle East. Introducing young impressionable minds, even in Sufi-Barelvi madrasas, to Qutb in the name of teaching literature was a very unfortunate choice. Wahhabi-Salafi madrasas have, of course, been teaching Ibn-e-Taimiya, Mohammad Ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab, Syed Qutb, Maulana Abul Ala Maududi and other extremist ideologues for a long time.

    "Thus the media discourse and school curriculum emanate from the prevalent Islamic theology and it is the theology we have to focus on. It's gratifying that even a conservative Muslim scholar like the head of Jamia Azhar, the oldest seat of Sunni Islamic learning, is now willing to admit a link between terrorism and Islamic education and theology. Jamia Azhar's Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb did that recently and of all palaces at a counter-terrorism conference in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Needless to say, the significance of this admission lies in the fact that Saudi Arabia has been the fountainhead of extremist education and biggest exporter of intolerant, xenophobic text books. This is also an admission that mere tinkering with Islamic text books is not working. Saudi Arabia had engaged in some reform of its text books in 2002.

    "Fourteen years after 9/11, in which 16 of the 19 terrorists were Saudis, the world is facing a more complex, more diverse and a more dangerous threat. Part of the reason certainly is that the international community has not clamped down on Saudi export of text books containing lessons in xenophobia, intolerance, exclusivism, supremacism and hatred of and enmity towards all non-Wahhabis, as mandated by Mohammad ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab. A mere look at some portions of Saudi text books meant for impressionable young minds will tell us why so many youths, particularly from Saudi Arabia and other countries where these texts are taught are leaving their homes and schools for doing what they consider Jihad in the so-called Islamic State.

    "But what did  Taqi-ad-Deen Ahmed Ibn-e-Taimiyya and Mohammad ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab teach and what is being taught to our children today across the Islamic world and, indeed, even in the West? One of the most important lessons in these text books is expressed through the concept of Al-Walaa' Wa Al-Bara (which essentially means showing loyalty towards Wahhabi Muslims and bearing enmity towards everybody else). Ibn-e-Taimiyya taught Muslims supremacism, intolerance of others and exclusivism. He says:

    "Whoever does not consider the Jews and Christians to be disbelievers and does not hate them is not a Muslim according to the consensus of the Muslims. One's ignorance of this [rule] does not excuse him. Rather, he is a disbelieving Apostate." - Ibn Taymiyyah (Majmu al-Fatawa 27/264)

    "Eighteenth century scholar of Najd Mohammad Ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab adopted and refined Ibn-e-Taimiya's extremist thoughts that demanded complete intolerance of any other interpretation of Islam. He said:

    “Even if the Muslims abstain from Shirk (polytheism) and are Muwahhid (strict believer in oneness of God), their Faith cannot be perfect unless they have enmity and hatred in their action and speech against non-Muslims (for Wahhab this term includes all those Muslims who are non-Wahhabi).

    ------ Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, Majmua Al-Rasael Wal-Masael Al-Najdiah 4/291

    "Indian scholar and founder-ideologue of Jamaat-e-Islami Maulana Abul A'la Maududi explains his vision in these words:

    “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State.

    "Islam requires the earth — not just a portion, but the whole planet.... because the entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme [of Islam] ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad'. .... The objective of the Islamic ‘jihad’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule.”

    -----  Abul A'la Maududi in Jihad fil Islam

    "The most influential radical ideologue Sayyid Qutb said:

     "Islam is not confined to this (mere beliefs and worship rituals). (Fee Zhilal Al-Quran [English trans.], 7/125]

    "Those who think that this religion will confine itself to preaching and to the explanation of its message when the forces of evil try to put every type of impediment in its way have little understanding of its true nature." [Fee Zhilal Al-Quran [English trans.], 7/182"

    "We must not be intimidated by the Orientalists' attacks on the concept of Islamic jihad, or allow the pressure of world political powers to weigh heavily on us, so as to seek justification for jihad that do not fit with the nature of Islam." [Fee Zhilal Al-Quran [English trans.], 7/21]

    "We acknowledge allegiance only to an Islamic leadership that strives to re-establish Islam in practical life, dissociating ourselves from all other types of society and leadership." [Fee Zhilal Al-Quran [English trans.], 7/143]


    Teaching Islam: Saudi School Text Books
    ........ (Please see above in the article for more. I think there is something in the comment section too.)


    By Sultan Shahin - 6/6/2015 8:00:56 AM



  • You are absolutely right when you say the Holy Quran should be made available in the order in which it was revealed.

    Why isn't it available? Surely some scholar would have thought of compiling it in that order. I realize it would be a big project to make such a compilation, but that is something only you with the resources at your disposal can do. Please give it a thought if you haven't already. It would be the greatest service you can do in the cause of rescuing Islam.


    By Asif Merchant - 6/6/2015 6:31:29 AM



  • Rational, While Mr Shahin had tons to say about how I taunted Lodhia for his faults, he only encouraged his bloodhound.


    Lodhia has been intimidating to all commentators but never was warned or reprimanded. Criminal behaviour was encouraged on this site and with the Editor himself leading the charge on more than one occasion, Lodhia was only following his mentor. See how Shahin crows that he got me to condemn Baghdadi after doggedly chasing me.


    I only explained what was already on the record to a moron who could not understand what it meant. He is just saving his face because he was proved a liar all over again by Siraj. I can take him to the cleaners on all his false, criminally motivated, trumped up charges.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/6/2015 12:14:24 AM



  • Lo & Behold! Whatever happened to the cause of “Freedom of Speech.” Sultan Shahin, the Editor has censored me from posting any comment.


    Now, I am free to post anything I want on my blogs. Call it stalking or whatever you all desire. If everyone seems to have a right to insult and abuse, then why should, Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia be stopped from posting his own opinions on his blogs? If you all are on the right path, then why worry? Keep on insulting and you shall see the cut and paste of your remarks on my blog for all the Muslim readers around the world. Don’t forget. I also have Facebook pages to advertise the vulgar languages. Give me one good reason not to, please.


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 6/6/2015 12:11:03 AM



  • lodhia how you are different than those who run riots in the name of insulting Islam? you clearly stand with those who murdered people who in their views mocked Islam in past and present. i consider you one similar terrorist. Al-baghdadi is an open enemy of humankind but you are in the garb of moderate.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/5/2015 11:59:59 PM



  • Lodhia whether the Quran prescribes death penalty for abusers/defamers or not but it is sure that you like Tahil ul Qadri a Sufi saikh ul Islam wants its application in full. if it were in your hands, you have sent not only me but naseer saheb too to the chopping block of Islam.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/5/2015 11:43:28 PM



  • Naseer Ahmed - 6/5/2015 10:44:01 PM i fully support you. i stood firm against name calling and other abuses from moderates like GM, Sadaf and others.


    I feared first time when top scholar mohammed yunus saheb called me internal evidence against Islam. it sent shiver of fear through my spine. it gave an impression that i have disclosed some secrets of Islam to its enemies.it was a clear message to me stay away and be ready for worst consequences. it gave me message that how questioning Islam is a crime equal to gaddari to a country or any cult.


      Second time it was Lodhia's comment to you that made me shivering. Posting of comments is very dangerous even on NAI, keeping in mind we have commentators like yunus saheb and lodhia. i threatened none but was threatened by so called Quran readers. i don't know whether the Quran speaks in temporal or spiritual domains but if we want to bring reforms to Muslims for peaceful coexistence, new ideas like you have brought must be considered sincerely.


      If the Qur'an is not peaceful, it must be made peaceful. this is a gigantic task full of dangers not from external causes but from internal causes. i never highjacked the site, i never threatened anybody, i posted only waht was in Islamic theology. i bear no regret on what i posted because it was posted not created by me but by scholars of Islam. What Lodhia is doing is a serious threat to people like us.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/5/2015 11:29:06 PM



  • Sultan Saheb i may be angry with Islam but not with Muslims as human beings. I didn't declare my unbelief for the reasons you know well. in that way I am a Muslim but anybody from my comments anybody can declare me qabil e gardanzadni. Qabil Gardanzadni may not be a big issue but its consequences are worst than gardanzadni.


    i have problem with you only that though all Sufis hold same beliefs as saafis/wahabis but you only target wahabis/salafis. i have no problem if you leave out generalization if you dislike generalization about Islam and Muslims. condemn the evil wherever it is. then who are the obstacles in the path of reform?


      i think obstacles are Sufi scholars who believe as Wahabis/devbandis/salafis, represent themselves as tolerant, progressive, peaceful etc but refuse to post any comment in favor or disfavor of new ideas in the Islamic thoughts. they are range siyaar. Forget about whabis if you are allergic to word wahabi. let us say they are rotten apples. take care of range siyaars in your words majority of peacful Muslims who never raise a voice against atrocities even if they have means to fight against.


    I think naseer saheb has condemned al-baghdadi enough. if my repetition is bad it is bad of others too. you should focus on what he has framed for reform. instead of cutting the branches of thorny bush, axe its roots which are in Islamic theology. i hope you will focus more on actions than on what naseer saheb condemns or not. through long association with nasser saheb on this forum, i may not agree with all his explanations, and he may has shown aggressiveness on some occasions, his efforts are laudable. knowledge many times brings some roughness/ego which you can witness in almost scholars. very few scholars remain humble enough.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/5/2015 10:54:25 PM



  • Rafiq Lodhia, Sultan Shahin and Muhammad Yunus, I invite your attention to the following: https://myfellowmuslims.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/2031/ Rafiq Lodhia has taken a comment from NAI under my article : Action Points for Defeating the Extremist Ideology and written a highly defamatory article. My article talks about three points – definition of kufr, objective of wars waged by the Prophet, and apostasy and punishment for it.


    These three points have been discussed from the perspective of current theology and views of influential ulema and the correct position as per the Quran covered in my various articles. It has also been shown that the extremist ideology is not different from current theology. The article makes out a case to spread the correct notions on these three points as brought out in my articles so that the fault lines in our theology that make extremism possible are fixed.


      In the comment, I was showing Mr Yunus, how the extremist ideology is not different from current theology by arguing as “the devils advocate” to show that extremists are only extreme in what they do but otherwise they cannot be faulted by the Ulema because their theology is the same. For this reason, the Ulema are unlikely to issue fatwas against ISIS etc. Lodhia has taken those arguments of “the devils advocate” as my arguments and has written a highly defamatory piece. It should have been obvious to him that my views are the opposite of the “devil’s advocate” since the purpose of the article as evident by its title itself is to defeat the “devil” Lodhia had threatened to do what he has done although he was warned that posting anything in his blog out of context is a criminal act. He has not posted my article because then my views are very clear. This is clearly a case of a pre meditated crime of deliberate defamation. Lodhia also tried blackmailing me in two of his emails with cc to those who are addressed in this comment.


     His obsession with the real identity of the people behind their screen name is to eventually defame them or blackmail them. Lodhia is a Pakistani and a college dropout and from all indications a blackmailer and a dangerous predator. He could be an informer or snooper who traps innocent victims and then reports them to the authorities as dangerous people. Mr Muhammad Yunus is his partner in wethemoderates blog. They support each other on this site.


    Lodhia was brought to NAI by Mr Shahin according to Lodhia which was not denied by Shahin. Mr Shahin has also clearly taken his help in attacking me with his false trumped up charges. Lodhia has prevented any comment on his blog. Now he can post this comment on his blog or face the consequences of his criminal act.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/5/2015 10:44:01 PM



  • Ahadith no matter what it contains, forces readers to read even if they don't want to read. Regarding repetitions, you and Naseer saheb keep repeating your statements. you from beginning keep repeating Sufis are only tolerant, peaceful Muslims and many other false statements.


      i have no mastery over English, if it is jarring i regret. i may not say ugly things in beautiful words or i am unable to sugarcoat the bitter pills but my comments are able to covey what they are intended to. what the difference between me and other commentators having good English is that i am not polished but they are. if abuses are good in polished language, i certainly lack in this art.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/5/2015 10:25:32 PM



  • Mr. Rational, please read my comment again.
     I am disappointed with the entire community, not just Wahhabis, Salafis, Taimis, over their silence on the Al-Baghdadi comment that Islam was not a religion of peace even for a day. Also, on other issues. 
    Excerpts: 
    "Thank you Naseer Saheb for a categorical and unequivocal statement, though still peppered with your usual abuse. The difficulty arose because you did not feel the outrage that I did over the Baghdadi statement. You would have felt the same degree of outrage as mine if some "Other" like Bush or Blair or Yadav or Chaddha had made the samestatement. 

    Not only you my entire community would be up in arms.
     Look at the ferment and the protests in Muslim media over the issue of a mosque in Haryana. Have you noticed any Indian Muslim being outraged at a teacher's hand being chopped off in Kerala by Muslim fundamentalists? Have you ever found any Indian Muslim protesting at temples being demolished, Hindu girls being kidnapped, forcibly converted and raped in Pakistan? Have you come across any Muslim protesting at the xenophobic content of what is taught in our madrasa?
     I gave you samples of what Taimi, Wahhabi, Salafi ideologues have written and what is taught in our madrasas. Did that evoke any protest even in this forum. Well I have just seen one comment now. But the communuty has no issue with anything Muslim ideologues do and say. 

    They are outraged only when the same thing is said by others. You talked about the righteous anger you felt at being in your person vilified. I am outraged by my religion being vilified by practitioners of the same religion. I am outraged at the rest of the community for remaining silent. I feel outraged at" 
    By Sultan Shahin - 6/5/2015 11:00:53 AM 

    Also, Rational Saheb, I do not hold any brief for Maulana Tahirul Qadri or any other Barailwi or self-styled follower of Sufism. Maulana Tahirul Qadri wrote a brilliant fatwa on Jihad and Qital spanning over 600 pages. I liked that and admire him for that. As a politician, he tried to derail democracy in Pakistan. I criticised him for that. I object to even the word apostate being used by any Muslim, for, it is not for us Muslims to judge. Some people use the word for you. I never have. I continued to treat you as a questioning, sceptical Muslim. It was only when you asked me why do you call me a Muslim that I stopped that practice. Even now I call you ex-Muslim and you seem to have no objection.
     If Maulana Tahirul Qadri or any Barailwi calls for death to apostates, my curse on them. I would condemn that in the strongest terms. They have no business doing that. Quran does not prescribe any punishment for apostasy. In any case it is not for any Muslim to judge any other Muslim.

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/5/2015 10:09:48 PM



  • lodhia Al-baghdadi is a beliver in the Quran. whatever he does can be traced in the Quran and sunna of the prophet? if you are not a Muslim of his caliber what can anybody do about that? He never declined his faith in essentials of the Islam. Taste the fruits of Islamic beliefs.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/5/2015 9:58:00 PM



  • Lodhia you, sultan saheb, and Naseer saheb and Al-Baghdadi as readers of the Quran are example to whole world that the Quran is not a guarantee of good humble behavior. your foaming at mouth in rage is a bench mark of mean behavior. it is indeed a living lesson to unbelievers.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/5/2015 9:50:18 PM



  • Sultan saheb no any voice from Muslim community against chopping of hand, kidnapping og hindu girsls and stealth conversion is a bloat on Muslim community as whole not on a single sect you want to condemn. Is there any khanqah/Sufi scholar who has come forward to condemn? Your Tahir ul qadri prescribe death penalty for apostates and you call Sufis tolerant peaceful people. where is yours or Naseer Saheb's humbleness as a reader of the Quran. The Qur'an or any religious book is not a guarantee of good behavior. where is the humbleness of lodhia a reader of the Quran? anybody can see how readers of the Quran are behaving?
    By Rational mohammed yunus - 6/5/2015 9:44:09 PM



  • Fair enough, Sultan Shahin Saheb. In future, I will try to send you my comment and expect you to approve it first. This way, you will not accuse me of stalking your respected guests. Agreed! Merely stating that, “I don't want to say anymore,” sounds like you do not have any answer either. It will be greatly appreciated if you can enlighten me. What is baffling is that you have not been able to define how do you relate the word stalking to my comments? What you are basically telling me is not to review the comments and turn a blind eye towards those who insult Islam and Holy Qur’an. You reminded me, “But please don't stalk people under an agenda.” What kind of agenda are you talking about, Sultan Saheb? I have never stated that I will not “Stalk,” given that I do not yet know how do you define the meaning of stalking. Again, I respect your good words about my blogs, however, be mindful that I will post false comments about Islam and Qur’an by any of your guests on my blog in a heartbeat. In fact, I am on the verge of posting a letter about the subject matter “Kufr,” with reference to my exchanges on the New Age Islam forum. Don’t worry. It is all in a good spirit. I know well that many of your forum’s readers will not care, as they are only interested in reading all the negative stuff. Have a blessed day or night, wherever you are.
    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 6/5/2015 9:40:13 PM



  • Lodhia Saheb, I do not consider rational md yunus' comments absurd, as yours, for instance. His English is very bad and it jars, coming from such a knowledgeable person. He also got once obsessed with posting the same or similar pornographic passages from ahadees and I suggested he should see a psychiatrist for his obsession with Islam after leaving the religion. But he was making a valid point about ahadees. Only his repetitions were not needed. He could have continued discussing after posting just a link to such ahadees.

    I have said repeatedly that I will not ban quotations from Quran and Hadees.. But there is a limit to everything. However his point was not absurd. He is an intelligent person with a questioning mind. He has gone through madrasa education, lives among Muslim relatives, whom he finds unthinking followers of Islam, and has found in his studies that Islam is not the religion he was told about in his early age and Tablighi days. He is a genuine, thinking, ex-Muslim.

    We must learn from him what are the questions we Muslims are not able to answer satisfactorily and causing many Muslims to leave Islam.

     He is the only person on the site to show immediate interest in Naseer Saheb's research which showed that the term Kafir is faith-neutral and only means religious persecutor in Quran. However, when he found that no theologically knowledgeable Muslims are accepting this, he has probably stopped looking at this. I wanted a broader debate and suggested seminars or distributions of booklets containing this thesis, hoping that some genuine aaim will show interest. Unfortunately, to my great disappointment even ulema, fuzala associated with New Age Islam have shown not the slightest interest. They have translated all these articles to Urdu,  Hindi, Arabic. So obviously they have read these articles thoroughly and yet are not the slightest interested.

    However, the fact that they are not even disputing the claim made by Naseer Saheb that not once has kafir or its derivatives been used in the Quran for any one except religious persecutors tells me that there is some ulterior reason behind this silence.

    Please see that I personally and I believe the site benefits from all the commentators but everybody has to stay within some limits. So, as I said, before, if you want to contribute something positive, which you have before, please continue, otherwise leave. No stalking of people under an agenda, please.

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/5/2015 9:29:53 PM



  • Lodhia Saheb, you have seen how doggedly I pursued Naseer Saheb when I felt outraged at his questioning the integrity of Mike Ghouse who had merely responded as every Muslim should have to the Baghdadi statement but hadn't. 
    But your agenda is different. I don't want to say anymore. 
    You offered to stop stalking the commentators here and I thanked you for the same. But you have continued. I didn't say anything further as generally I don't like the idea of stopping people from making comments, neither the brainless ones, nor the abusive ones. They all say things I learn from. You, for instance, are good at finding excerpts from great minds of the past and pointing to links of worth reading articles from current media outlets. As long as you contribute this, you are welcome. 
    But please don't stalk people under an agenda. As I said before, I don't want to say more. Please don't force me. 
    You are doing a very good job in your moderate blogs, please continue that. You have my prayers and blessings.

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/5/2015 8:53:16 PM



  • Sultan Saheb, May I politely ask, “What makes you think that I am stalking?” Give me a good example, please. Are you saying that I am not supposed to raise a question to a given commentator? You are in full support of “Freedom of Speech,” when it comes to someone who insults Islam. When Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia asks a question pertaining to any Qur’anic verse, I am considered as a “Stalker.” You are an Editor, you read what I wrote, “Well then, how can Naseer Ahmed Saheb, so confidently declare that, “the Verses - 8:36 to 8:38 is thoroughly analyzed in my article.” What am I missing here, Sultan Saheb? Are you trying to convey a message using the word “Stalking” to discourage me to point out your star commentator’s mistake? If that be the case, then why don’t you try to be brutally honest and say so? You are using the same word as Naseer Ahmed. It seems like you are also in line with his thinking too. Little wonder that you can take all the insults and abuses. By the way, when any guests on your forum do not want to respond to a legitimate question, then they should say that they do not want to answer. Why do you take it personally? You have no problem posting all the absurd comments of “rationalmohammedyunus.” However, you certainly do have a serious problem when a fellow Muslim ask a genuine question to your guests? I only wonder what kind of reform are you trying to promote? I will most certainly appreciate if you can be honest to pinpoint my mistake. I do want to learn from you so that in future my comments will be in line with your forum’s guidelines. Let’s hope that you will set the same guidelines for those who abuses other fellow Muslims too.
    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 6/5/2015 8:11:34 PM



  • Lodhia Sb, your latest comments are in very bad taste. Please stop stalking the guests on this forum.
    By Sultan Shahin - 6/5/2015 7:25:18 PM



  • Sultan Shahin, You wrote, “I am outraged at the rest of the community for remaining silent … I feel outraged at … ” Glanced at the blog: www.whythesilence.com. Kindly correct your statement. Then you went on to say that, “you are outraged by my religion being vilified by practitioners of the same religion.” You encouraged those who smear the religion of Islam to openly express their utmost hate not only on Islam, but also on Qur’an too. You also know that it continues on even till this day by one of the mentally deranged “Ex-Tablighi” with his non-stop jibber jabber. Hence, why are you so outraged? It will indeed be wise to continue to learn about the extent of “Ghetto Thinking,” that has become so widespread that it is unbelievable. Do not forget that for the selected few, New Age Islam is a perfect forum to spread hatred. Your forum notorious commentator lashes out with his insults and abuses. What is more shocking is that his admirers, such as, Siraj and Listener endorses such an immoral act from a learned Muslim who constantly remind the readers that he is the only one who has been able to translate the Holy Qur’an perfectly well ever since it was revealed to Prophet of Islam. What will it take for matured Muslims to grow up? I guess they would rather follow the “Pied Piper,” like Naseer Ahmed who will continue to mislead them. Then again, we the Muslims are most famous to cover up the sins of our own people. What a shame?
    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 6/5/2015 6:58:00 PM



  • Folks! At long last, Naseer Ahmed was compelled by what he calls a nut case and a bloodhound Lodhia to finally make him to identify Al-Baghdadi as an oppressor, and also, what he calls it as “Kafir,” in the temporal sense (whatever that means?). Hold one! Now comes the hard part. How can Naseer Ahmed write about terror, terrorists and terrorism? Let’s see what Qur’anic verses he can relate to identify the heinous crimes of ISIS and Boko Haram. Watch out for more abuses coming my way. Of course, “His Holiness,” have a full right to abuse his fellow Muslims. Why not? Perhaps, certain Qur’anic verses do not apply to Naseer Ahmed. Who knows?
    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 6/5/2015 6:37:24 PM



  • Ibrahim Awwad Ibrahim Ali Muhammad al-Badri al-Samarrai- Born: 28 July 1971 (age 43) Near Samarra has three names: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi al-Husseini al-Qurashi, Caliph Ibrahim Abu Du'a and 'The Invisible Sheikh'. The question of the day is, “Which one of this name, the star commentator Naseer Ahmed of New Age Islam will use to call out Baghdadi as “Terrorist”? Knowing that the learned man has juggled with his own true identity, then one should know how hard it will be for folks like him to discredit the murderous Caliph by his name. I continue to wonder why Muslims who preach the Qur’anic messages to their fellow Muslims hide behind their own shadow. Is the man “The Invisible Scholar,” similar to what Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi who also wants to be known as “The Invisible Sheikh.” Think about it. There is a striking similarity between these so-called scholars and sheikhs.
    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 6/5/2015 12:31:30 PM



  • Mr Shahin, What use is all your outrage? Do something positive as I have done. Have you read my article "Action Points for Defeating the Extremist Ideology"? It deals with the fault lines in our existing theology cutting across all sects. If this is taken care of then the likes of Bush and Al Baghdadi cannot succeed. Have you read "The Much discussed and debated Medinian Verses Relating to Fighting"? It shows with evidence from the Quran that qital fi sabi lillah is to fight to end oppression irrespective of the faith of the oppressor and the oppressed. You should read and understand this article.
     This is the basis for saying that it is incumbent on all legitimate rulers to wage war to end the oppression of Al Baghdadi since his is both oppression and religious persecution and the faith of the oppressor and the oppressed is immaterial. There is no need to declare him kafir either. He is kafir in the temporal sense and that is what matters for us to act. His actual faith and belief is immaterial. 
    Oppression is the greatest kufr in the temporal world against which fighting is ordained as a duty for the believers. Also, there is nothing like defensive or offensive war in Islam. Fighting Al Baghdadi will be offensive war for those against whom Al Baghdadi has not declared war. This is immaterial. 
    Can you find another Muslim who will say the same thing? So what really is your problem? Is what I write beyond your comprehension? Or you simply don't read it. Or is it that you both read it and understand it but are driven by some perversity? The comment of GM Sb on this article “Food for thought from Naseer Ahmed sb. It would be interesting to know what the other scholars in the forum think. Naseer Ahmed sb.'s intent and endeavors are appreciable. It would be good if such a universalist perspective finds wider acceptance”. 
     So is your outrage superior to what I have contributed? For you a ritualistic expression of outrage is all that is required which any hypocrite can express. Everyone can then go back to doing what they were doing earlier. And do you think a person who is unconcerned with what is going on can think and write what I write? 
    The way you have been carrying on to get me to say something stupid and superfluous since I have gone much beyond that - if you displayed a fraction of that energy to lead the discussions on my articles, it would have yielded some good results. 
    Also read my article “Who is a Muslim in the Quran?”. It shows with evidence from the Quran why a person like Baghdadi is a kafir in the temporal sense who must be rendered harmless.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/5/2015 12:23:09 PM



  • To those readers who read my comment, if any – My response to the so-called man who has a nasty habit of abusing others without any remorse, is to ask him to clarify “He is an enemy of Allah and Allah’s religion.” “I consider him an enemy of Allah.” Now, can anyone in his/her right mind ask this fella to whom the word “He” is referred to? Why is it so much difficult for this learned man to spell out the full name of “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi al-Husseini al-Qurashi.” All of his behavior shows that just like he relish to cover up his name, likewise, he feel reluctant to spell out the name of the world’s most ruthless terrorist. Then again, most of the readers know that this chap has a real issue with the three words, “terror, terrorists and terrorism.” Go figure it out as to what causes such an irrational behavior in those who claim to know the true meaning of the Qur’an message.”
    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 6/5/2015 11:53:25 AM



  • Thank you Naseer Saheb for a categorical and unequivocal statement, though still peppered with your usual abuse.

    The difficulty arose because you did not feel the outrage that I did over the Baghdadi. You would have felt the same degree of outrage as mine if some "Other" like Bush or Blair or Yadav or Chaddha had made the same statement.

    Not only you my entire community would be up in arms.

    Look at the ferment and the protests in Muslim media over the issue of a mosque in Haryana. Have you noticed any Indian Muslim being outraged at a teacher's hand being chopped off in Kerala by Muslim fundamentalists? Have you ever found any Indian Muslim protesting at temples being demolished, Hindu girls being kidnapped, forcibly converted and raped in Pakistan?

    Have you come across any Muslim protesting at the xenophobic content of what is taught in our madrasah? I gave you samples of what Taimi, Wahhabi, Salafi ideologues have written and what is taught in our madrasas. Did that evoke any protest even in this forum. Well I have just seen one comment now.

    But the Muslim community has no issue with anything Muslim ideologues do and say. They are outraged only when the same thing is said by others.

    You talked about the righteous anger you felt at being in your perception vilified. I am outraged by my religion being vilified by practitioners of the same religion. I am outraged at the rest of the community for remaining silent. 

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/5/2015 11:00:53 AM



  • Mr Shahin, I think your behaviour is both moronic and like a fascist. When I have said that he and his band deserve to be liquidated and such an effort would be fighting the cause of Allah, what do you understand by it? Can you explain that to me? Let me understand the precise nature of your difficulty in comprehending something that is so clear and categorical. It goes beyond mere condemnation. It means that he is an enemy of Allah and Allah's religion and that he must be defeated. Do you get it? I know that you are not going to fight against him but do you get it that I consider him an enemy of Allah and Islam? I think your moronic behaviour is deliberate. Now all your other allegations are denied as your lies and slander. I have already proved with evidence that you are a habitual liar. I will not respond to anymore of your nonsense.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/5/2015 10:21:01 AM



  • Dear Naseer Saheb, I wonder if you were inspired to call me fascist moron while reading Quran this morning. 
    Anyway, I notice that you still can't bring yourself to condemn Al-Baghdadi categorically and unequivocally. You have to find excuses for him. Baathism, Western Imperialism, Bush, and so on. I told you he was a student of Islamic Studies and did PhD, like the other fellow Qahtani who led the siege of Kaaba Sharif in 1979.

    I have given you glimpses of what is taught in Saudi schools and now in Muslim schools and madrasas world over.

    Baghdadi is a product of this theology of violence, extreme sectarianism, xenophobia, supremacism and intolerance. He has a millenarian vision. He thinks he is fighting the end-time war.

    It's the theology of Ibne Taimiya and Abdul Wahhab that has created him and a whole generation of Islamist terrorists. This is what has to be condemned categorically and unequivocally.

    I am not forcing you into anything. You started all this debate by questioning Ghulam Ghouse's motivation and sincerity by bringing in Bush into the issue.

    You could not tolerate even one Muslim condemning Baghdadi's outrageous statement. You had the choice to remain silent like the rest of the community.

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/5/2015 9:51:04 AM



  • I have been wondering since I read this article if some action will be taken against Maulana Abdul Aleem Islahi and his women's madarsa. I have not read anything so far in the newspapers.
     It seems like the Congress, BJP too wants Muslim to stew in their own juice. Deal with your terror ideologues yourself, the government seems to be saying. But it should know, well actually it already does, that these characters are not only enemies of women and men professing Islam but also of society. It should know Muslims will never deal with this issue. If they are happy suppressing women in general, why should they worry if some women are turned into terrorists too here in India as they are in most Muslim countries as well as Europe.

    Modiji, think again. It's the government that will have to change Muslim Personal Law and shut down terror factories like Islahi's madarsa.

    I read the entire booklet that has been quoted by Sultan Shahin.

    It's appalling, unbelievable that Muslims will allow something like that.

    I hear Shahin shouting but nobody is listening. Not even the government.

     I am glad Shahin is becoming realistic. He is realising he doesn't belong to mainstream Islam. He is in a tiny minority, maybe just exceptional. We Muslim women have of course known this for long.

    By Shaista - 6/5/2015 8:17:09 AM



  • Mr Shahin, If it pleases you then I have no problem saying it. Yes, I do condemn Al-Baghdadi for what he says and does and he in no way represents Islam. I must say that I find your insistence strange and overbearing and more in line with the man being condemned.
    By siraj - 6/5/2015 7:48:25 AM



  • Aren't you behaving like a fascist asking people to say exactly what you want them to say and when you want them to say it or threatening to slander them otherwise. Are you also a nut case like your bloodhound Lodhia? A secular Baathist turned radical on account of war and prison related brutalization will never represent Islam should be obvious to everyone and does not require to be said. When it has been said that fighting against him to end his oppression by legitimate rulers would be qital fi sabilillah what do you understand by it? Does that sound as endorsement of what he is doing you fascist moron?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/5/2015 7:23:15 AM



  • Siraj Saheb, I still don't know your own views on the Baghdadi statement. Please reveal yourself too. Or should I think that like Naseer Saheb, you will not condemn Al-Baghdadi without also condemning Bush in the same breath? I am interested in knowing your own views. Do you agree with Baghdadi? Is Islam a religion of war and conflict? Has Islam never been a religion of peace, not even for a day, as Baghdadi says?


    Forget Naseer Saheb, what do you think? Should Muslims not protest against this statement? Should we only protest when Westerners or others say that? This is the issue we are discussing. Neither Naseer Saheb nor you have come up with your views.


     Please come out of denial. Find the devil within and ostracise it. We are not in the business of killing Baghdadi or disarming the Taliban, as Naseer Saheb suggested. A simple condemnation of Baghdadi's views of Islam is beyond most Muslims, including you. That is the least we should be doing.


    Yes, Naseer Saheb, we are only in the business of paper war. We are not in qital, that you suggest. Condemn Baghdadi first, without bringing in any extraneous issue. Condemn him categorically, if you do not agree with him that Islam has never been a religion of peace, even for one day. Where is your outrage? Bring it out.


    By Sultan Shahin - 6/5/2015 6:09:35 AM



  • Siraj, What have you been reading lately? You wrote, “I also find Mr Naseer is the only person who responds patiently to every question of every commentator. There is no other person who engages with your readers as he does.


    So, Mr Shahin, that is the way the cookie crumbles.” Your hero with a split personality has totally brainwashed you. Sure, the man engages with those readers who bow down to “His Royal Highness.” The moment you criticize, then all sorts of insults and abuses will be thrown. You’re just another “Yes Man,” who blindly follow someone without thinking. Your guru stated that, “It was on part 3 of my article "Who is a Kafir" and your question lead to my writing part 4.” That’s splendid way to boost the ego of his followers, isn’t it? You must be enthused to hear such a comment. Do you know that “Mr. Know-It-All,” goofed big time? If not, then read the following – “Well then, how can Naseer Ahmed Saheb, so confidently declare that, “the Verses - 8:36 to 8:38 is thoroughly analyzed in my article.” It is possible that my vision is not that good at an age of 63, but I will surely appreciate if any Muslim reader will comb through the five articles as mentioned above. My fellow Muslims, something is not right.


    For now, merely reflect upon a remark of Naseer Saheb as follows: “I am trying to bring out the truth (???) covered under centuries of "Muslim Kufr" for changing attitudes of the Muslims without which the Muslim society is doomed. If you cannot lend a helping hand, stop obstructing and diverting peoples attention also.” All in all, it is the task of Sultan Shahin, Editor of New Age Islam and his dedicated staff to look into this matter. Just to be in the business of circulating the same old debates over and over again, is now proven to be sheer insanity. Worst of all, boasting about the “Truth,” and then not realizing that it is a cover-up to deceive the readers is an unforgivable act, so to speak. The word to the wise is sufficient. By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 4/11/2015 12:25:36 AM”.


     Siraj, try not to be arrogant like your hero, please. What truth is the man claiming to bring out, when he hides his own true identity? What have you been smoking lately?


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 6/5/2015 1:45:53 AM



  • Thanks Siraj Sb for speaking up. I remember your advice very well. It was on part 3 of my article "Who is a Kafir" and your question lead to my writing part 4 which was not planned earlier. Many of your comments have lead me to explore new areas which lead to significant fresh insights. Your comments have directly contributed to a few of my articles. The reason I continued with NAI is because there is tremendous power in a democracy for bringing about change or reform.


     However, NAI is run by an autocrat using the outward structures of democracy. That I presumed was changeable when the readers realize that they are not clients or customers but the real owners who can set the norms and editorial standards of integrity for the website. You are the only person who speaks and behaves like a person in a democracy should speak and behave. If there were more like you, it would mean either the end to the fascist behaviour of NAI's editor or that it change its format to an undemocratic one. Like somebody said, "One swallow does not make a summer", I guess change is not going to come easily.


     However, since I have found all your suggestions very helpful and valuable, I think I must heed your very first suggestion also. Thanks and may God bless you.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/5/2015 12:55:02 AM



  • Ok Mr Shahin, thanks for the clarification. I generally find myself in agreement with your views, and it was alarming to read such an uncharacteristic statement from you.
    By secularlogic - 6/5/2015 12:36:14 AM



  • ...And Mr Shahin, I do not have to go to your archives to get to know how Mr Naseer behaves with other commentators. I have seen enough to see what kind of a person he is. In the discussion about the book "Denied by Allah", he was falsely accused of misogyny and using obscenities. He showed remarkable restraint and did not challenge the commentator or abuse her but continued to carry on until it was clear to him that it was going nowhere.


     There were about 10 others who jumped in offering their support to the lady and none who spoke for Mr Naseer except Listener. Mr Naseer did not respond to any of those 10. I also find Mr Naseer is the only person who responds patiently to every question of every commentator. There is no other person who engages with your readers as he does. So, Mr Shahin, that is the way the cookie crumbles.


    By siraj - 6/5/2015 12:16:13 AM



  • Mr Shahin, First of all you are very brazen faced about your proven lie and do not consider it as a problem at all. After having proved your lie, why should anyone bother further with you? Let me admit that the only thing that draws me to this website are Mr Naseer's articles and I have read them all and can say in all honesty that you are indulging in calumny against him. He has responded to your charge about Baghdadi more than once but you choose to ignore it. I am sure he must have answered all your charges in the past as well but you seem to have a habit of bringing them up again and again just like I see you bring up the charge about Baghdadi although it is answered more than once. I am pasting a part of the same: "No matter who and what is responsible for Baghdadi becoming what he has become, my verdict is clear on him:


    To nail Mr Shahin's lie, the following is my comment in which I clearly say that it is "qital fi sabi lillah" or a religious duty incumbent on all legitimate rulers of legitimate countries to fight Baghdadai/ISIS to end their oppression. 5/19/2015 3:42:32 AM Naseer Ahmed ................."


    I have advised Mr Naseer in the past to write for academic journals since all his articles are very original. He will gain recognition and his ideas will spread more widely. For some strange reason he has ignored it. I hope he will heed now and not bother about this website which is out to hound him out. Mr Shahin, your readers are not stupid. It is clear that you want to continue unopposed with your lies and sectarianism and you find Mr Naseer a thorn in your side.


    By siraj - 6/4/2015 11:42:55 PM



  • Sultan Saheb you said: "You call me sectarian because I call Wahhabism-Salafism-ahl-Hadeesism, etc, responsible for this ideology of terror.


     I cannot help it if all the terrorists come from this stable." can we extend this logic to Islam? why majority of terrorists come from stable of Islam? what if some non-Muslims accuse Islam for producing terrorists? Have you ever seen non-Muslims quoting from their holy books to justify their extreme actions? The Quran is a cryptic unclear book which can be interpreted in any equally valid way. your debate with Naseer saheb always lead to slander and counter slander. you both exhibit religiously induced behavior.


    Scholars develop ego, jealousy and hatred in themselves though they can keep writing to eradicate these evils. If 99.99% Muslims are peaceful,gender neutral, just and honest why to worry? why reform?


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/4/2015 10:34:29 PM



  • Dear Naseer Saheb, Muslim intellectuals should not encourage denial of the ideological roots of Muslim terrorism. Muslim intellectuals should not encourage Muslims pointing fingers at others for their plight. This is the hallmark of failures.

    Those who fail and have no desire to succeed always points fingers at others. This victim mentality only helps us become even bigger failures.

    Muslim intellectuals should introspect and encourage introspection. Look at the following brief quotes from Wahhabi-Salafi Islamist ideologues. This provides the context that gave birth to the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Sipah-e-Sahaba, Lashkar-e-Jhangavi, Islamic State’s Khalifa al-Baghdadi, Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Indian Mujahedin, SIMI, and other Islamist terrorists. Baghdadi is a PhD in Islamic Studies from Baghdad university. He is a product of Salafi-Wahhabi literature. All his followers have studied this literature, and been brainwashed into Salafism-Wahhabism.

    This Jihadi ideology is not only propagated through madrasa and school text books s but also through print and online journals. According to a BBC Urdu programme Sairbeen broadcast recently, the Islamist militant journals freely distributed in all cities of Pakistan are: “monthly Al-Shariat”, "Azaan", “Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad”, “Hateen”, “Murabetoon”, “Al-Qalam”, “Zarb-e-Momin”, “Al-Hilal”, “Sada-e-Mujahid”, “Jaish-e-Muhammad” and “Rah-e-Wafa.” Then there are scores of television channels now available worldwide that are radicalising the Muslim pollution across the globe. No country can remain immune. But this radicalism is not being challenged in a significant way.

    While the radical narrative is sharply defined and massively propagated from all available media, no alternative moderate narrative is available to common Muslims. Individuals have tried to refute radical ideology but they do not have governmental or other support available to propagate their ideas at any comparable level. —-

    Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab said: “Even if the Muslims abstain from Shirk (polytheism) and are Muwahhid (believer in oneness of God), their Faith cannot be perfect unless they have enmity and hatred in their action and speech against non-Muslims. (Majmua Al-Rasael Wal-Masael Al-Najdiah 4/291) 

    A Qur'anic verse that followers of Shaikh Abdul Wahhab quote profusely and out of context and want to be considered as of universal application says:

    (V-28) Surah Al-Imran, “Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Auliya (supporters, helpers) instead of the believers, and whoever does this will never be helped by Allah in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allah warns you against Himself (His punishment), and to Allah is the final return.”

    Also repeatedly cited in Wahhabi literature is the following verse, again, out of context, and populated as having universal application, though it was revealed in a certain context and was valid as guidance only for that situation: “Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. “(Surah At-Taubah, V-29)

    ———- Maulana Abul Ala Maududi in Jihad fil Islam: “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet.... because the entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme [of Islam] ...

    Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad'. .... The objective of the Islamic ‘jihad’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule.” --- Maulana Abul Ala Maududi in Jihad fil Islam ———

    As books provided by Saudi Arabia are most widely available around the Muslim world, I would like to quote here some paragraphs from a study of Saudi school text books by Eleanor Abdella Doumato in a book edited by her titled “Teaching Islam.” I would consider this book as essential reading for anyone interested in the phenomenon of spreading Jihadism. Professor Abdella Doumato comments: “At every grade level the books assert that there is one Islam, that all Muslims are united in one Umma (community of believers), that Saudi Arabia holds a special and sacred place in the Muslim world, and that its royal family fulfils the necessary requirements of legitimate Muslim rulers.

    Schoolbooks condition students to respect authority, to confuse opinion with fact, and to see ethical questions in black and white, as if Islam were a single, stagnant body of knowledge with obvious and immutable answers to all life's questions. At the same time, the kingdom, like the rest of the Muslim world, is ethnically diverse and divided by sectarian orientations. Although an estimated 10 per cent of its population is Shiite, Saudi Arabia is also home to Sunni Muslims whose religious practices, such as Sufi mysticism, shrine visitation, and veneration of saints, are condemned as polytheism in the schoolbooks…. Although the texts claim authenticity in ancient roots, they espouse an Islam that is a modern amalgamation of home-grown Wahhabism, the Salafism of the Muslim Brotherhood, and a pan-Islamic agenda that inhabits the texts along with the Saudis' own state-building agenda.”

    Professor Abdella Doumato has reached her conclusions by reviewing ‘the books of Fiqh (jurisprudence), Hadith (authoritative anecdotes from the life of the Prophet), and Tawhid (Islamic monotheism) for grades nine through twelve, which were used in the school years 2001/2002 and 2003/2004, and the Tawhid texts for elementary grades three, five, and six and intermediate grades seven, eight, and nine, used in the 2003/2004 school year.

    In addition, the 2003/2004 texts for courses that incorporate religion into the subject matter have been reviewed: Civics for grades four through Six and eight through twelve and The Life of the Prophet and the History of the Islamic State for the tenth grade. The high school religion textbooks include versions produced by both the Ministry of Education and the General Presidency for Girls.' After proclaiming that there is only one Islam for all and there is no room for other interpretations, the schoolbooks lead to the message that philosophy and logic lead to schism, and are therefore especially to be avoided.

    Professor Abdella Doumato quotes the following paragraph from the text of (10b: 14): [W]hen some people built their creed . . . from metaphysical speculation [Iilmal Al-Kilam] and systematic logic [Quwaa 'Ad Al-Mantiq) inherited from Greek and Roman philosophy, they produced deviations and divisions in the creed, and there resulted arguments and divisions in the community and cleavages in building Islamic society. "Deviation from the correct creed," indeed, spells "disaster [Mahlikah] and perdition [dayaa'1" (10b: 15).5 Abdella Doumato comments: “The message is that intellectual debate and individual reasoning must be sacrificed on the altar of communal harmony and political unity. The lesson is literally a textbook illustration of what Khaled Abou El Fadl describes as the anti-intellectualism of contemporary Saudi Islam's "supremacist, puritanical orientation," which retreats to the "secure haven of the text," where it can safely dissociate itself from critical historical inquiry (El Fadl 2003).

    The name he gives to this supremacist, puritanical orientation is "Salafabism," a combination of the words "Salafi" and "Wahhabism," the home-grown Najdi version of Islam that the schoolbook employs to locate the one Islam in Saudi Arabia and legitimize its present rulers. “One chapter, in the tenth-grade Tawhid textbook (the unrevised edition), titled the "Call [Da’wah] of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab," describes the progenitor of Najdi Islam as the historical rectifier of deviations in the peninsula, drawing a parallel between al-Shaikh, as he is known in Saudi Arabia, and the Prophet Muhammad.

    The lesson explains that Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (hereafter MIAW) came as a mercy from God to renew the religion of this Umma, his call for renewal fitting an established pattern: the Prophet Muhammad was sent by God to renew for mankind the creed that had been altered by deviations and innovations over time.

    Although Muhammad is the final prophet, God produces from time to time individuals from the Ulema to renew the struggle against innovation, to rectify the creed and protect the Sharia from change, and to "bring the light of God to people of blindness" (10b: 19).

    Such a person appeared in the twelfth century of the Hijra (the eighteenth century of the Common Era); he was al-Shaikh al-Islam, al-Imam the Renewer (Al-Mujaddid) Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and he appeared in Arabia when it was steeped in ignorance and practicing greater and lesser kinds of polytheistic practices (shirk).

    But what did Mohammad ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab teach and what is being taught to our children today across the Islamic world and indeed, even in the West?

     One of the most important lessons in these text books is expressed through the concept of Al-Walaa' Wa Al-Bara (which essentially means showing loyalty towards Wahhabi Muslims and bearing enmity towards everybody else). Let me again quote from this chapter of Teaching Islam; “The hostility toward the outsider expressed through Al-Walaa' Wa Al-Bara has a history, and the recipients of Wahhabi enmity shift over time.

    For example, David Commins (2002) shows that the duty to bear enmity was used to rally resentment against the Ottoman Turks in the 1880s. In contemporary Saudi Tawhid schoolbooks, the objects of enmity range from Jews, non-Wahhabi Muslims to Western civilization in general. In the 'eight grade Tawhid text, for example, the concept is presented as showing love and friendship to right-thinking Muslims and enmity toward (or breaking off relations with) those who disagree with correct faith.

    The tenth-grade (Tawhid textbook uses its chapter on "showing loyalty and bearing enmity to name the outsiders, delineating the thoughts and actions that separate the believers from their enemies. …

    “The textbook used in 2002 explains that anyone who practices non-conformist thought or action among Muslims should not only be corrected but also despised. Non-Muslims are not to be befriended or tolerated; nor can they be simply ignored. They are to be hated. "It is a law of Tawhid that one should show loyalty to the Unitarian (Muwahhid, Wahhabi) Muslim and bear enmity toward his polytheist (Sufi, Non-Muslim) enemies," says the text. Only God is your Wali and His Apostle and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow. And whoever takes God and His Apostle and those who believe for a guardian, then surely they are the party of God and shall triumph.

    (Quran 5:55-56) You shall not find a people who believe in God and the last day befriending those who act in opposition to God and his Messenger, even though they were their own fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kinsfolk.

    (Quran 58:22). “Additional proof texts (evidence from Quranic verse or Hadith to prove a point) refer to specific events during the Mecca wars but are presented without historical context to show that disassociation between Muslims and non-Muslims is a universal and eternal condition set forth by God (10b: 109-110).10

    "The place of Al-Walaa` Wa Al-Baraa` has great standing in Islam," the lesson says, "as the Prophet said: 'The strongest bond of belief is loving what God loves and hating what God hates,' and with these two one gains the loyalty [Wilaayya] of God" (10b: 110).

    The lesson elevates enmity for the sake of God above the pillars of Islam: "[T]he Prophet said: 'Whoever loves for the sake of God and hates for the sake of God and shows loyalty for the sake of God and enmity for the sake of God, he will achieve the loyalty of God by that, and unless he does so, no worshipper will ever find the taste of faith even if he is excessive in prayer or fasting — (10b: 110).

    “Who are the polytheist enemies against whom the monotheist Muslim must bear enmity? To MIAW (Abdul Wahhab), polytheist enemies were other Muslims, especially the Ottoman Turks, Shi`a, Sufis, and anyone who wore amulets or practiced magic.

    The school text specifies new ways to become an enemy, explaining why Muslims must be alert to show hostility toward the offender. Student should recognize hypocrisy (al-Mudaahana) when they see it.

    If a person socializes with moral deviants but thinks himself immune to their 'deviancy, he's being hypocritical, and by not breaking off relations with them and showing them hatred he is showing disloyalty to God (10b: 111).

    The poof text is the story of Abraham, who broke off from those who did, not believe in the one God but instead worshipped idols."11

    “In the Fiqh and Hadith texts, imitating the Kuffar (unbelievers) is presented as morally corrupting. Women who dress like foreigners, for example, invite temptation and corruption, so the fabric of Muslim women's dress must be thick enough not to show any skin and wide enough to conceal the contours of the body, and the face must be covered to protect her personality.

    Imitating the Kuffar is an insult to God because Muslims are supposed to love what God loves and hate what God hates. If a Muslim joins in holiday celebrations with the Kuffar or shares with them their joys and sorrows, he is showing them loyalty (10b: 118).

    To say Id Mubarak happy holiday) to the Kuffar is as bad as worshipping the cross; it's a worse sin against God than offering a toast with liquor; it's worse than suicide and) worse than having forbidden sex (Artikab Al-Farj Al-Haram); and many people do it without realizing what they have done (10b: 118).


    “Imitating the Kuffar by using the calendrical designation "A.D." instead of the Hijra year is another problem, because A.D. evokes the date of Jesus' birth and shows an affinity with unbelievers. At Christmas time, Muslims are not to dress like the Kuffar or exchange gifts or attend a feast or display ornaments. The holidays of the Kuffar should be like any other day for Muslim. As Ibn Taimiyya said, "Agreeing with the Ahl al-kitab (People of the Book) on things that are not in our religion and that are not the customs of our ancestors is corruption. By avoiding these things, you cease supporting them." Some even say, the lesson warns, that if you perform a ritual slaughter on their day, it's as if you slaughtered a pig. “The textbooks evoke the past as a warning for the present.


    A section of the chapter called "Judgment About Making Use of the Kuffar in Employment and Fighting and Things Like That" quotes Ibn Taimiyya  as saying, "Knowledgeable people know that the protected people among the Jews and Christians (ahl dhimma min Yahood wa Nasara) wrote to people of their own religion giving secret information about the Muslims" (10b: 119). The principle is to not to cooperate with or trust the Kuffar:  "O you who believe! Do not take for intimate friends those other than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still" (Quran 3:118). “One should not employ an unbeliever if there is a Muslim who can do the job, and if they're not needed, one should never hire them because the Kuffar can never be trusted (10b: 121). Nor should a Muslim accept employment from an unbeliever, for a Muslim should never be in a position of subservience to the Kuffar, who would surely show him disrespect. Nor should he be put in a position requiring him to deny his religion. “A Muslim should not live permanently among Kuffar because his faith will be compromised and that is why God required Muslims to migrate from a land of unbelief (Bilad al-Kufr) to a land of belief (Bilad Al-Islam). As for those who would rather work for the Kuffar and live among them, this is - the same as showing loyalty to them and agreeing with them. This is apostasy from Islam. And whether one were there out of greed or for comfort, even were he to hate their religion and protect his own, it is not allowed. Beware of the worst punishment. (10b: 121) “The chapter warns against music, laughter, and singing, the proscription of which, under the Al Sa`ud-led nineteenth-century commentators to liken the Wahhabis to Calvinists.


    Proscriptions on joyous behaviours, according to the text, are meant to encourage Muslims to invest all their being in thoughts of God and not expend energy in frivolous activities.” However, the significance of such proscriptions shifts to contemporary concerns about the new enemy, the cultural invasion from the West. The "worst kind of imitating the Kuffar" is becoming so preoccupied with the unimportant things the Kuffar have promoted in their own societies that Muslims neglect to remember God and to do good works, for God says: "Oh you who believe! Let not your wealth, or your children, diverts you from the remembrance of God" (Quran 63:9; 10b: 124).


    The lesson explains that the Kuffar assign value to unimportant things because, absent religious faith, their lives are empty. “What are these unimportant things? First, there are the performing arts, such as singing and playing instruments, dancing, and theatre and cinema, which are visited-by people who are lost from the truth. Then, there are the fine arts (Al-Funun Al-Jamila), such as painting, drawing, and sculpture. (Despite the prohibition on art, some schools in the kingdom do offer art classes.)


    Then there are sports, which are sometimes more important to youth than remembering God and obeying him; sports cause youth to miss prayers and ignore school and household obligations. Whether such behaviours are permitted or not, the Muslim nation today should save its energy for dealing with challenges from its enemies: "Muslims have no time to waste on insignificant activities" (10b: 124-125). “Forbidding celebrations of birthdays, especially the birthday of the Prophet, and prohibitions against fine and performing arts are all part of the modern fabric and the historical legacy of Wahhabi culture.”It’s hostility to any human practice that would excite the imagination or bolster creativity," says (Dr. Khaled Abou) El Fadl (2003), is "perhaps the most stultifying, and even deadly, characteristic of Wahhabism."


    Anything that suggests a step toward creativity," he says, "constitutes a step toward Kufr [infidelity]." --- An open letter on behalf of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan to the non-Muslims (Shia sect) An advertisement in Urdu, in Pakistan’s mainstream Daily, The News,Islamabad To, Masjid Imambara Jafaria Colony, in particular. All the Kafirs (Shias) living in the state of Pakistan are hereby informed that majority of the people living on this land are Muslims and the followers of Islam. The non-Muslims (Shias) are in the minority and all the sects of Islam follow the true Deen (religion) except the Kafirs, that is the Shias, who are causing severe damage to and maligning Islam in the name of Islam.


    Therefore, the Tehreek invites all the Kafirs (Shias) to accept Islam and warns them that if the Kafirs (Shias) want to live in peace in this region, they should follow one of these three conditions: i)       Accept Islam ii)      Pay Jizya iii)     Or migrate Failing to obey any of the three above-mentioned conditions, the properties and Imambaras of Shias will be seized and the women of the Kafirs (Shias) will be held in mutah (temporary marriage). The children will be enslaved and will either be converted to Islam or used as bonded labours (slaves). If the Kafirs (Shias) do not obey this proposal of the Tehreek, the killing of the Kafirs (Shias) will be lawful for the Tehreek and the Shias will themselves be responsible for all the loss. From: Muslim Khan, Commander Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (Translated from Urdu by New Age Islam Edit Desk)


    By Sultan Shahin - 6/4/2015 10:26:27 PM



  • @naseer ahmed, why should people not believe that some verses have been abrogated, if quran itself tells of bringing n better verses in place of old, or on second thoughts. 
     What does it mean when mr. sultan shahin demands: "declare that only constitutive and essential, not the contextual and allegorical verses of quran, are meant to guide us today."  Is he calling for abrogation of what he calls contextual verses, of war, intolerance and xenophobia?
     I think there is a consensus of ulema now that meccan verses of peaceful conduct have been abrogated by the medinan verses of war and intolerance of the others.

    By Sohail Ahmed - 6/4/2015 7:33:47 PM



  • SecularLogic and Md Yunus Rational, I am not at all presuming "that atheists set the benchmark for low morals against which believing people must match themselves."


    I am only refuting Naseer Saheb's view that one has to be a believer to be moral. If anything our experience tells us otherwise. Possibly the less religious or irreligious are more moral. However, the fact is the percentage of good and bad people is more or less the same in every group. Neither religion nor lack of it has any impact.  

    Humankind appears to have defeated all philosophers, saints, rishis, munis, prophets. No group can claim to be morally superior. This generalisation is, however, based on personal observation, anecdotal evidence, not an academic  study. 


    By Sultan Shahin - 6/4/2015 7:09:48 PM



  • Siraj Saheb, I read and value Naseer Saheb's articles enough to publish them in the main paper even if they have been posted as comments. The series of articles on who is a Kafir in Quran were originally posted as comment. I posted them in the main paper as articles. I am now organising a seminar in AMU with the help of Ghulam Ghouse Saheb who knows AMU authorities better to discuss the subject. I am also planning to publish this series in a booklet form in Urdu and distribute in various madrasas and other Islamic institutions. If Naseer saheb’s finding that the word Kafir has been used in Quran only to describe a religious persecutor and is a faith-neutral term, this will help us deal with a lot of issues. This definition also agrees in my view with the spirit of Quran that one gathers by a general reading. That’s why I quoted this in a major speech I made before an international audience of counter-terrorism experts in Jaipur. You can see that above in the present thread.

    But what we are discussing here is different and in a different context. You tell me, your own view: should we Muslims condemn self-styled Khalifa al-Baghdadi for calling Islam a religion of war or not? What is your view. Mike Ghouse had just done that and Naseer Saheb started questioning his integrity and asking him to condemn Bush first or something like that. If Ghouse had written a 10,000 word paper or even a 5,000 word essay on al-Baghdadi and not criticised Bush for the illegal invasion of Iraq, and highlighted the situation in which Baghdadi phenomenon emerged, I would have questioned him myself. But when he is writing a few hundred words criticising and condemning al-Baghdadi for saying that Islam was not a religion of peace even for a day, why should he or anybody else bring in Bush who said even on 9/11 that Islam is a religion of peace?

    You give your own opinion, please. Only a supporter of Baghdadi would do that, in my view. Since I have known, and you can get documentary evidence from New Age Islam archives, that he invariably does that whenever Wahhabi-Salafi ideologues are questioned. What should one make of such a person?

    As for Naseer Saheb's abuses, only some one who is prepared to be called a liar with "documentary evidence," would engage with him in a discussion and criticise him. As long as you praise him, he will be fine with you. I am inured to his abuses. He does that only when he has no answer to the questions pt to him. You check the present thread itself. Has he replied to any questions put to him. He has no answers, he resorts to calumny. I am glad, he stays at that, some other Muslims would resort to violence. 

    There is no one on the site who has disputed his views and not been abused. You can use our internal search engine and search is name in the comments section, you will learn soon enough, although you will have to go to older pages for his abuse of other commentators. Now, of course, no one who knows him, engages with him. When you are searching, you should also look for his name Observer which he used for a year or two.

    But most of all, I am interested in knowing your own views. Do you agree with Baghdadi? Is Islam a religion of war and conflict? Has Islam never been a religion of peace, not even for a day? Forget Naseer Saheb, what do you think? Should Muslims not protest against this statement? Should we only protest when Westerners or others say that? 


    By Sultan Shahin - 6/4/2015 4:37:32 PM



  • Mr Shahin, Do you read Mr Nasser's articles? Read them. What you say just not add up. He has called you a liar and provided documentary evidence. You have just ignored it which tells me that you have no defense. So you are not above lying. So why should I believe anything else that you say?
    By siraj - 6/4/2015 12:24:22 PM



  • Naseer Saheb, you are not branded supporter of al-Baghdadi for saying hang Bush. That is no issue at all. The Iraq war was illegal, conducted under false pretexts. Many in the world including Americans believe this was a war crime and in a just world, Bush and Blair would have faced trials in an international court of Justice.

    However, the reason you are being branded supporter of Baghdadi and other terrorists is that you always have tried to divert any criticism of Taliban, al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group or ideology into  other channels. Archives of New Age Islam provide ample testimony to that. Let any one criticise Ibn-e-Taimiyya or Abdul Wahhab or Taliban, and you will come up with hang Bush first or Sufi-Barailvis too are terrorists, etc.

    Al-Baghdadi said that “Islam has never been a religion of peace, not even for a day. It has always been a religion of war and strife.” Instead of being outraged, as one wold expect, nearly the entire Muslim community remains a silent supporter of this statement. There is no criticism. One Urdu columnist in India alone questions this statement. All ulema remain silent. In this situation, American Muslim activist Mike Ghouse, condemns Baghdadi. You say, hang Bush first or something to that effect. I question this diversionary tactic. I ask you where does Bush come into the picture in this context. To this day you have not condemned Baghdadi. Whenever we discuss the ideology of Taliban, you adopt the same tactic. Whenever we condemn radical ideologies, you come up with your anti-West agenda or an accusation of sectarianism as a diversion.

    The point Naseer Saheb is that Bush is not responsible for you going into a mosque and blowing yourself up, killing yourself and fellow namazis, thinking that by this act you will go to Heaven where 72 houris are waiting for you. Bush or the West have nothing to do with this. It's our ideology that is causing this mayhem. People may utilise our ideology if it they find it useful in their imperialist games, but it is not their ideology. It is our ideology and we should do something about it.

    You call me sectarian because I call Wahhabism-Salafism-ahl-Hadeesism, etc, responsible for this ideology of terror. I cannot help it if all the terrorists come from this stable. You say Sufis-Barailvis too are terrorists and as an example you bring in Mafia Don Dawood Ibrahim as he used to visit Sufi shrines. You almost present him as an ideologue a la Ibn-e-Taimiyya, Abdul Wahhab, Maududi, Qutb. If I criticise any of these worthies you bring in Dawood Ibrahim as an example of  a Sufi terrorist. What do you think one would make of it?

    How else does one treat you except as a terrorist ideologue, if you won't allow even one Muslim to condemn Baghdadi for saying that Islam has always been a religion of war.
    Have you till date expressed any criticism, condemnation, outrage at this statement of Baghdadi? Have you ever criticised Ibn-e-Taimiyya, Abdul Wahhab, Maududi, Syed Qutb and other terrorist ideologues? Have you not always brought in Sufi-Barailvis into the picture, if not Bush or America, whenever any one dares criticise Wahhabism-Salafism whose offshoots these Talibani ideologues of terror are?

    Unlike the majority of Muslims, you are not even a silent supporter of self-styled Khalfa Al-Baghdadi. You actively hinder any discourse that would lead to a straightforward condemnation of Baghdadi, saying that Islam is a religion of war. You even supported, defended, Salman Nadvi, the first Indian aim to write to Baghdadi, addressing him as Ameerul Momineen, when New Age Islam exposed his perfidy? This letter is still on Nadwi’s Facebook page and no Indian Alim has condemned him for that. However, others remain silent, you are vociferous in your support and defence of these rogues and their ideology.

     Imagine if some Christian or Jewish head of state or even a mere columnist or cartoonist had made the same statement that Baghdadi has. Th world would be burning by now. Why are we so hypocritical? 

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/4/2015 11:31:19 AM



  • Dear Siraj Saheb, Thanks for your comment. But I say so many things. What exactly do you find impossible to believe?
    By Sultan Shahin - 6/4/2015 10:54:12 AM



  • Dear Listener, You mean well but you are new to the site unless you have been only a silent listener for a very long time. Just consider what triggered this war. My saying that Bush is responsible for the creation of the IS monster which every sane and honest American also says and accepts but when I say it, I am branded the supporter of Al Baghdadi!
    Why this extreme intolerance of my view point? Why this concerted attempt to discredit me? Don't get taken in by what his father said to him. His father failed to make a truthful person out of him. he also failed to warn him of the righteous anger of a righteous person when slandered nor taught him to respect the Quran much less those devoted to its reading, understanding and dissemination.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/4/2015 8:15:43 AM



  • Kutbah of Mufti Menk on the importance of bonding the hearts of Ummah. It worth listening to by commentators here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk1vTNAWFkQ
    By Listener - 6/4/2015 7:15:16 AM



  • Rational, The Quran itself teaches what qualities of head and heart must be developed to understand the Quran and to grow in knowledge, understanding and wisdom. The Quran does not begin to reveal its meaning unless the starting point is a complete faith in each and every verse without considering any verse as abrogated. One must also be open to receive its meaning unencumbered by all per-conceived notions. Now how many people are there who do not consider any verse as abrogated? So if a person has a knowledge of every other subject but starts with a belief that some of the verses are abrogated, he will never understand the correct meaning. What is beyond his understanding will then be taken as abrogated or not worth making the effort to understand! Islam did away with the clergy but the clergy has clawed back in the form of scholars who have erected "entry barriers" by talking about the 80 sciences etc. so that they have both monopoly and control over the people in matters of faith.

    Without doubt “Opinion-based argument about the Qur’aan is kufr.”
    Where is the scope for either opinion or even interpretation when it is a Book that makes everything clear? A very important quality of truth is that while it may be invisible in foresight, it is amply clear in hindsight provided one is open minded. Else, the universe continues to be geocentric for many people to this day!

    Take any example: say, the question "is a woman's testimony equal to half that of man". Once explained, the true meaning and implication of the verse 2:282 is clear and acceptable to those who are willing to accept the role of reason in understanding the Quran. Those who believe in blind taqlid will simply not accept anything different from what they are taught. The science that is most important according to me, is logic which can be learnt but also requires one to be naturally gifted just like one cannot gain mastery in mathematics without being naturally gifted for the subject.

    A simple test of whether one has the mental aptitude (besides the qualities of head and heart) for understanding the Quran are the four verses on inheritance. Based on these four verses, if a person can answer any question on inheritance, then he has the required mental ability. Finding an answer to any question requires considering all verses related to any given subject/question before providing the answer.

    Consider the question on the fate of Christians in the hereafter that I addressed in the article "Is the Quran a Book of contradictions?" The answer is unequivocal and clear once explained but simply not available even if you have read the Book a thousand times. The Book is not a flat text for a very good reason. The ordinary man only needs to know what is right belief, conduct and action which is easily understood. He does not have to bother about the fate of Christians or whether a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man or how to divide the inheritance. Rational, you have accused the Quran of containing many contradictions. The fact is there are none and we have covered much ground on this question.

     So, even the Quran has been accused of "lack of integrity" but on closer scrutiny turns out that this was based on incorrect understanding and drawing illogical inferences. People lacking in required mental ability and the required qualities of head and heart will find it a difficult book beyond the simple verses on the right conduct. Such people will not only misjudge the Book but will misjudge most things. If you want to discuss this further, please choose an appropriate thread.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/4/2015 5:23:41 AM



  • i find a huge gap between what believers say and what they act upon. there are countless believers who are sinners/criminals and there are countless unbelievers who are just good moral people. calling atheists low in moral fiber is an offensive statement of Sultan saheb.

    i just can't imagine how a person who represents himself as moderate, tolerant, reform oriented person, can be so much sectarian. on reform agenda not a single Sufi scholar is with him. it is true face of Sufis. these debates have uncovered them otherwise the site was controlled by them. Now they are silent on important issues.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/4/2015 2:22:32 AM



  • "Indeed, what makes religion or belief itself useful if it keeps people at the same moral level as that of atheists? This is an extremely offensive statement, Mr Shahin. I wish you would retract it. You cannot presume that atheists set the benchmark for low morals against which believing people must match themselves.
    By secularlogic - 6/4/2015 1:18:06 AM



  • Thanks Siraj Sb for speaking up. In the past also Ghulam Mohyiddin Sb, Secular Logic and Rational Mohd Yunus spoke up when Mr Shahin went overboard with his patently false and falsifiable accusations.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/4/2015 12:51:13 AM



  • Mr Shahin, I simply find it impossible to believe what you say.
    By siraj - 6/4/2015 12:24:09 AM



  • Dear Naseer Sb, I have great respect for the scholarly work you are doing and agree it is something beyond lot of people even scholars. Sincerely hope you continue enlightening us with your research work in the interest of Ummah. My best personal regards to you,
    By Listener - 6/3/2015 11:59:44 PM



  • Dear Listener, Mr Shahin has a very clear sectarian agenda and I oppose it. He wouldn't bother about what I say unless what I say is both true and exposes his deliberate lies. Each time he tries his trick he comes a cropper. It must be very frustrating for him that he is unable to pursue what appears to be the main agenda of NAI which is to create sectarian strife.


     In the past Mr Muhammad Yunus and Mr Ghulam Mohyiddin also tried to speak against sectarianism but Mr Shahin reacted so strongly that they no longer speak about it. I am the only one who continues to oppose it. He therefore has a need to discredit me. I have already established that he is a deliberate, motivated and habitual liar. Let Shahin, with all his staff find one deliberate lie from me or even logical inconsistency across my thousands of comments and more than 25 articles.


     Maintaining logical consistency across several thousand comments and more than 25 articles is humanly impossible except by a person of exceptional personal integrity who always speaks what he believes and considers to be the truth and only after due consideration of all available facts. Such a person can be taken at face value. It should be easy for Mr Shahin to prove otherwise. His several charges without providing evidence are just more of his motivated lies.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/3/2015 11:12:36 PM



  • violent interpretation will continue to inspire jehadis for various internal and external reasons. Syed Qutub, Maudoodi and Baghdadi are also right in their interpretations.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/3/2015 10:36:27 PM



  • So without Ulema having mastery on 80 sciences nobody is able to comprehend the Quran. Is Naseer Saheb master on 80 sciences? Is his understanding opinion based? Was God not interested in guidance of humankind? why few thousands of early Muslims and one now is able to understand the Quran correctly?


    Since the Qur'an can only be understood by scholars, Muslims will continue to depend on their right or wrong interpretation.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/3/2015 10:33:25 PM



  • Sultan Shahin Sb, Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us and taking time to respond. There is no problem of understanding the fault lines here, it is not the understanding of the verses.


    Uloom Al Quran is a very vast subject and it is said it is beyond the capabilities of any one individual to master all. It is also said there are fifty sciences and in another 80 sciences in this field of study of Quran. Therefore the study of Quran under the guidance of a qualified teacher is of utmost importance. The teacher firstly identifies the moral or social shortcomings of the student and corrects them before the formal study starts. In the case of self study these shortcomings are not even understood by the individual nor their impact until very late. The Ulema therefore do not encourage nor support such self taught individuals findings be debated publicly as such inviduals will end up creating more disputes and divisions in the Ummah. I end this topic with the following Hadith : “Opinion-based argument about the Qur’aan is kufr.” He repeated it three times, then said, “What you know of it, act upon; and what you are ignorant of, refer it to one who knows.”


    What is said above is no reflection on anyone and not a discouragement on personal efforts to enhance their knowledge.


    By Listener - 6/3/2015 10:12:51 PM



  • Dear Listener, sorry for a delayed response. I have been constantly travelling. 

     First, thanks for your understanding and advice. 

    My respect for Naseer Saheb's erudition is unconditional, and I have always expressed it, unlike, I may add, that of several other commentators who either stopped engaging with him altogether or became very selective, knowing that engaging with him guarantees being abused eventually at some point. I intend to continue to engage with him, though cautiously, only when absolutely necessary. 

     I think I have been kind of brainwashed by my Maulvi father as well as Sanskrit teacher Panditji into believing that scholarship makes one humble, and that a regular study of Quran (with understanding, of course,) improves your character, stops you from being abusive, arrogant, etc. Panditji used to quote Kalidas and Sri Ramakrishna: 

     “Fruit-laden trees bend down to earth. Water-laden clouds hang low. Good men are not puffed up with power. The selfless are by nature humble.” — Kalidasa 

    "Spirituality automatically leads to humility. When a flower develops into a fruit, the petals drop off on its own. When one becomes spiritual, the ego vanishes gradually on its own. A tree laden with fruits always bends low. Humility is a sign of greatness." — Sri Ramakrishna 

     My father used to quote an Urdu couplet with similar meaning. Similar thoughts, I later found, have been expressed in most cultures. 

    This is also one's experience in life. 
     Indeed, I have come to believe that a Muslim is some one with high moral character, who has been asked to hide other people's faults, even if he discovers one, not some one who will taunt others' with their infirmities, even if true, not to speak of making false accusations. 

    My father used to tell me as a child that the very purpose of Islam is to improve moral character. That is why I have been questioning Islam-supremacism from my boyhood, as I did not see Muslims having a higher moral character from others in my mixed Indian society. 

     I see most Muslims do not have a high moral character, but then they also do not study Quran with meaning and understanding.

     However, I get outraged when I see some one, claiming to read Quran with meaning and understanding, everyday, and behaving in the most atrocious fashion with all those who would question his understanding or say, his support for evil characters like al-Baghdadi, Taliban, etc, or his questioning the integrity of those who would condemn Islamist terrorists. 

    I know I should stop having such a high opinion of students of Quran, among other Muslims. I should try to change. But perhaps childhood indoctrination is difficult to erase. 

    What makes Islam a better religion than others, if it produces people with the same moral character, and at the same spiritual level as others. 

    Indeed, what makes religion or belief itself useful if it keeps people at the same moral level as that of atheists? It is absurd to claim, as Naseer Saheb does somewhere, that believers are better people, more moral. Can one be so divorced from reality?

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/3/2015 2:05:53 PM



  • Does that not apply to you Shahin Sb? Anyway, you have not told me how it applies to me so I cannot respond.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/3/2015 1:43:02 PM



  • Dear Naseer Saheb, I learn from a letter sent by you to Lodhia Saheb and kindly forwarded by him to me that you have recently come across the following constitutive verse in Quran. 

    I wish you too were to follow the guidance provided in this verse:

     (Quran 49:12) O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much (as possible): for suspicion in some cases is a sin: And spy not on each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, ye would abhor it...But fear Allah: For Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful."

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/3/2015 10:44:05 AM



  • And the irony is that all of my articles tread a new path and clearly show that I am not a follower of any school of thought or jurisprudence and repeatedly show that all the great imams of the past have erred. Shahin himself has said recently, that my efforts to push through my ideas could result in physical liquidation. 
    Now I am supposed undertake this task with a man who spares no effort to vilify me, just because I have said that Bush is responsible for the creation of the IS monster. Just google on "is us responsible for isis" and see how many responses you get. 
    Now why would Bush or any other President not say that Islam is a religion of peace? It is ridiculous in the extreme to expect any US president to criticise Islam and make every Muslim an enemy. 
    So how is it relevant what Bush said? It is a completely irrelevant and nonsensical argument. Without the war on Iraq, by Bush's own admission in an interview, Al Qaeda would not have been in Iraq. And without this war, Al Baghdadi would have been a secular Batthist and lived an uneventful life. There are two sides to this argument and the other side is that the US has merely exploited the fault lines in our society and theology. 
    I am blaming the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for their faults and the Muslim society and theology for their faults. Irrespective of what has made Baghdadi what he has become, my clear verdict on him is that legitimate rulers of legitimate countries are bound to wage qital fi sabi lillah against him and end his oppression. What perversity then makes Shahin go on and on to vilify me?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/1/2015 1:37:30 AM



  • Sultan Shahin calls me a Wahabi. It is a derogatory term and an abuse. He knows that it is a lie. And yet he repeats this lie every time. A deliberate liar is by definition a scoundrel. It is also slander. 

    When I call Shahin a two faced lying slanderer and scoundrel, it is not abuse. It is fact. Facts however should be provable and proven. Unless they can be proved, it is my character which is in doubt.
     Now what is the choice open to me? 
    Any sane person on this forum who is honest also knows that Shahin is lying. But they will not speak up. After all, he is the Editor. I can go on presenting evidence and Shahin can by turn use his twisted logic, digressions and when all fails, keep repeating three or four irrelevant questions even though I answer them half a dozen times and act stupid. 
    This is how he has behaved in the past. In the hereafter, these devices are not open to him and his own self will give testimony against him as to the truth. He will then stand a liar who deliberately denied the truth and covered it with his elaborate arguments. That by definition is kufr which makes him a kafir. But that is in the hereafter. 
    How do I prove it here and now that he is a compulsive liar?

     If he was a believer in the hereafter he would not have been a liar.

     Now you know why belief is so important and why non-believers find it difficult to be moral. 

     Nothing will work except to make his own self reveal what he knows and believes to be the truth. But that is something only God can do.  
    There is however a ray of hope. Just like lunatics have moments of lucidity, compulsive liars also have moments when they reveal what they hold to be the truth and in a manner which is unmistakable. Anyone can then know what the person knows and believes to be the truth. 
     This is what he said in one of his rare moments of honesty: 12/16/2012 7:57:26 PM Sultan Shahin 
    "Dear Mumraz Hussain Saheb, Naseer Sahib is not wasting his time on one person whosoever he might be in your view. He has many more readers. Some have even asked for him to keep on fighting this battle of ideas. Many Muslims consider this important that answers be given to questions and doubts arising in Muslim or ex-Muslim or non-Muslim minds or accusations of Islamophobes and other enemies of Islam. 
    "I once called Naseer Saheb Wahhabi/Salafi, perhaps exasperated at his gestures and gyrations in what I considered his defence of Wahhabis. He had gone to the extent of bringing in Mafia Don Dawood Ibrahim to show that even Bareilwis are killers. I am not mentioning this to exhume an old and buried issue. I am doing so to take my words back. I was clearly mistaken, though he had in my view gone too far in his efforts. 
    "But the effort he is making now to defend his beliefs could itself jeopardise his life. Wahhabis/Salafis as Khwarij before them absolutely abhor ilmul kalam or Islamic dialectics. Ilmul Kalam is described in Wikipedia as: “Islamic philosophical discipline of seeking theological principles through dialectic. Kalām in Islamic practice relates to the discipline of seeking theological knowledge through debate and argument.” Another website MuslimPhilosophy.com says: “'kalam is the science which is concerned with firmly establishing religious beliefs by adducing proofs and with banishing doubts' (from the Mawaqif of al-_dhi, 8th/14th cent.). Similar definitions are to be found in Ibn khaldun, and again in Muhammad 'Abduh: they summarize a long elaboration, but add nothing new. 'Ilm al-kalam is the discipline which brings to the service of religious beliefs ('aqa'id) discursive arguments; which thus provides a place for reflexion and meditation, and hence for reason, in the elucidation and defence of the content of the faith. It takes its stand firstly against 'doubters and deniers', and its function as defensive 'apologia' cannot be over-stressed.” 
    "Since discursive arguments have to be of necessity based on “aql” (wisdom or rationality), and aql is supposed to have no place in religious discourse in the view of most Muslim schools of thought, ilmul kalam has been frowned upon. Mutakallims have been considered deserving of death, even if all they are doing is defending Islam through rational arguments. Hanbalis were greatly opposed to it. 
    "The mentor of Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahhab was Ibn-e-Taimiya, a Hanbali. Imam Hanbal himself was flogged for opposing the doctrine of the 'created Qur'an which had been imposed by then secularists. So no one in the Muslim word has avoided the temptation of imposing one’s religion through force or defending his religion through discursive arguments and yet rational arguments have been punished with flogging and worse. There are fatwas galore that mutakallims deserve death by beheading. So let us salute Naseer Saheb for putting his neck on the chopping block. Reasoning has never been easy in our Muslim world. 
    "Rationality is considered a great sin by most schools of thought, except perhaps Mu'tazilites who have been wiped out: they were given this name which means withdrawers, secessionists (not different from Khwarij, though ideologically poles apart) by Imam Hasan al-Basari in the first century Hijri when the founder of this school of thought Wasil ibn `Ata differed with him on a religious interpretation. 
    "With Wahhabi religious police roaming practically everywhere in the world, with Deobandi fatwas hanging as swords of Damocles, Naseer Saheb is showing great courage. Let us not forget that we are in the 21st century now. Even in seventh century AD some Muslims showed the inclination to reason and present rational arguments in theological disputes. Please don’t shut him up. He has many more readers than merely those he seems to address."

    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/1/2015 1:12:04 AM



  • Sultan Shahin Sahib : your statement:"I have violent disagreements with him, but he is an expert in Quran. He has spent far more time studying Quran than I have so far. So I must respect him. He is blessed with flashes of insight that are valuable and need to be nurtured and taken further. I intend to do that regardless of his conduct. Many great intellectuals and poets were blessed with the vilest of temperaments, but we respect and benefit from them nevertheless." 

    You went up in my estimation couple of notches with that statement. It shows you have lots of wisdom and leadership qualities and maybe best suited to take this matter to conclusion. My sincere advise to Naseer Sahib to concentrate on the core issue of understanding verses relating to Kufr and Kafir and not get hijacked into unrelated issues. He can choose what comments to respond to or ignore or selectively answer a part of the comment which is relevant to the issue. May Allah bless your efforts with success.

    By Listner - 6/1/2015 1:01:22 AM



  • Sultan Shahin Saheb, You probably do not know that one point in time, it was Mike Ghouse who was unable to answer my questions. That’s when he blocked my emails to World Muslim Congress.

    The problem is that so many of the known writers, journalists, pundits in the Islamic world, prefer these days to learn from every Tom, Dick and Harry. You missed the point, as you also got carried away with what Mike Ghouse stated in his response. You are also in the same boat as you have encouraged learned men like Naseer Ahmed to continue on and on and on with no end in sight. Mike does the same thing as he likes to embrace all without thinking that at times one has to stand tall.

    Since 911, what have all the American Muslim leaders and pundits like Mike Ghouse accomplished? You tell me, Sultan Saheb. Are you telling me that thinkers like Mike Ghouse did not even tried to learn about Islam on his own for the past one decade? Does he need Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Bill Maher to teach him about Islam? The showmanship must go on in order to be on the spotlight in the U.S. media. That’s the name of the game. I have witnessed this trend over and over again.

    Why not glance at your own New Age Islam forum. How many capable commentators have posted their respective comments? What do you mean by stating that, “You, of course, do not need to learn anything from anyone.” That’s such a dishonest statement. You do know that I have a blog which is appropriately named as “KnowledgeIsPower.Global.” Now, tell me what made me do that? I did it for all of my Jewish and Christian customers, and also, Muslim and Hindu friends, who are much eager to learn from the best business minds in the business world. Did anyone of you acknowledged it? Nope! Seeking knowledge is something every Muslim must do, but claiming proudly that learning knowledge from that Islamophobes is what stimulates the minds of the Muslim Intelligentsiaif something beyond my comprehension. Now that also includes you and Mike Ghouse too.

    Hence, carry on as usual. More power to you. I am afraid that I cannot contribute to New Age Islam forum. I shall also remove your good name out of my email distribution list. There is more to life than indulge in the affairs of “Intellectually Dishonest” folks. Have a blessed day.


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/31/2015 11:13:07 PM



  • Lodhia Saheb, Thanks very much indeed for your concern for my vilification and defamation at the hands of Naseer Saheb. Anyway, don't worry. I take that as a compliment. It shows that I had made that person lajawab. The fellow is unable to come up with a rational answer and so is resorting to vilification, innuendos, personal attacks, lies, and slander and so on. 


     By the way Lodhia Saheb, your own slander of and innuendos about Mike Ghouse are in the same category. What Mike said was the most sensible thing. I too learn from every Tom, Dick and Harry or for that matter, every Lodhia, Naseer and Rational. Indeed there is no one in the world who has nothing to teach me. And I am not being humble. This is a statement of fact. You, of course, do not need to learn anything from anyone. That sort of brain is a gift from God that I have not been considered worthy of


    Now I want to repeat a request. Please do not use Naseer Saheb’s official name on this forum. Iftekhar Hai saheb sent it to you in good faith. Don’t exploit that to spite Naseer Saheb. I have violent disagreements with him, but he is an expert in Quran. He has spent far more time studying Quran than I have so far. So I must respect him. He is blessed with flashes of insight that are valuable and need to be nurtured and taken further. I intend to do that regardless of his conduct. Many great intellectuals and poets were blessed with the vilest of temperaments, but we respect and benefit from them nevertheless. 


    I have deleted his official name from your comments perhaps 25 times. Please don’t let me do any more of that. 


    You can consult your lawyer and carry on your campaign, but please don’t let New Age Islam be a part of that. 


    As far as I am concerned, the best thing to do with him at this juncture would be to search for and present before him the vilest attacks he has made against Sufis and Baralvis, just in reply to the legitimate criticism of Wahhabism, show him what an intolerant sectarian he is. 


    Naseer saheb has never said that any of my quotes from Abdul Wahhab or Ibn-e-Taimiyya or Maududi or Qutb or Saudi text books are wrong. He could not say that, so he started the vilification of Sufis whom, he knows, I respect. However, there are Sufis and there are Sufis, just as there are Wahhabis and there are Wahhabis. We cannot generalise. Even the ideology of Wahhabism-Salafism has some good points worthy of emulation. But, over-all, it is a violent, intolerant ideology.  Hence the criticism. Not all Wahhabis, however, even know what Wahhabism stands for, just as hardly any Muslim knows what Islam is. 


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/31/2015 10:43:51 PM



  • Sultan Shahin Saheb, I can understand the hideous nature of our learned Muslim men. Little wonder that ordinary Muslims are doomed because of the major flaw in their characters. You instructed me not to use the real name of you know who. Good. 

    I shall do so. However, I want to alert you that I will be making another blog in which I will post all the nasty comments of the schoolyard bully using his screen name. Let the world know about this dubious character. 

    By the way, let him cook up a class action suit as he has threatened to do so. Surely, you are not going to stop me from posting such remarks in bold. I will consult my U.S. lawyer so that I will be prepared to take him on. The rude Muslim surely deserve to be taught a lesson. 

     Here is the first remark, “Mr Shahin, You are nothing but a cheap liar with little integrity and a deliberate one at that.” One more thing, how can a person with a screen name come to the U.S. court of law, or any court of law for that matter. His identity is unknown till he steps into the court. Let us then see who is an idiot and stupid to relentlessly continue to insult and abuse others.

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/31/2015 10:01:45 PM



  • Naseer Saheb, the ideology of terrorism is indeed an offshoot of Salafi/ Wahhabi/Ahl-eHadeesi/ Deobandi ideology. This is so well-known and well-established now that it needs no further elaboration. However, the moment this is brought up, or if I quote Wahhabi ulema of yore or present-day fundamentalists, you go into overdrive, trying to protect them and their ideology of hate, violence, intolerance, xenophobia, supremacism and so on, which has led to today's terrorism. This is a pattern we have seen over and over again.


    Sufism is at the receiving end from terrorists and their ideological supporters like you. Only a couple of days ago, Naseer Saheb, you went into paroxysms of rage when Mike Ghouse condemned al-Baghdadi for saying that Islam was never a religion of peace even for a day and that it is a religion of war and violence. I would have thought every Muslim wold condemn Baghdadi. Imagine if bush or Obama had said something like this. But few Muslims have expressed any outrage. The majority is, however, at least silent and can claim ambiguity on the issue. But you came out all guns blazing at Mike Ghouse, demanding that he first condemn Bush and expose his crimes. You could not tolerate even one Muslim condemning Baghdadi. 


    Yes, there maybe individual Sufis who were violent or the professed  followers of some Sufi school of thought who may make violent statements or indulge in violent acts. Some Wahhabis may even be considered Sufis due to some of their practices. Indeed, some consider Ibn-e-Taimiya himself to be a Sufi. That is neither here nor there. Practically every Muslim was a Sufi at one time. But violence and Sufism are worlds apart. Sufis were spiritual people, like Prophet Mohammad, who believed that all that is is God. Wahdatul Wajood. Unity of Existence. 


    Most of the Wahhabis of today come from Sufi stock. They have been brainwashed by the Petrodollar version of Islam, popularly known as Wahhabi Islam. 99.9 percent of the South Asian Muslims believed in Sufi traditions until a few decades ago. With the advent of Wahhabism under the protection of Western imperialism, originally British, but now, American, what used to be Sufi Islam has now largely turned into Wahhabi Islam. The situation is so bad that not one Muslim is prepared to condemn Baghdadi even after he makes the most outrageous statement about Islam possible. Well, of course, there a few moderate exceptions to this rule, but you are still not one of them. You have still not condemned Baghdadi. You did make a rhetorical flourish, hang Baghdadi but  hang Bush first or at the same time, the Bush who had repeatedly said even on 9/11 that Islam is a religion of peace.

     

    Yes, you have come up with research that you claim shows that Kafir is a faith-neutral term. I have been publicising that and intend to do much more. I spoke to Mike Ghouse  only a few hours ago and requested him to talk to AMU authorities whom he knows, having been invited to speak there recently, to help me organise an event in which you will make the presentation of your research and answer questions put forth by ulema and members of the faculty and students of Islamic Studies Department. 


    I am personally quite excited about this finding and would pray that it holds under expert scrutiny. So far I do not have even one Islamic scholar supporting this thesis, not even ulema associated with New Age Islam. You will remember that you made this claim in a comment posted on New Age Islam and I brought it out and published that as an article in a series of four or five on the main page. I believe that your conclusion suits the temperament of Quran, God's message of peace in Quran, spread throughout the book,  and in the way Prophet Mohammad conducted himself, his avoidance of bloodshed at Khandaq, his peace at Sulh-e-Hudaibiya, his general amnesty at Mecca following complete victory and so on. 


    But at the same time, here we have a character like Baghdadi who presents  Islam as a religion of violence both in words and deeds and you want to protect him from any criticism at New Age Islam, instead of criticising him yourself. 


    What do you think one should make of you?


    Yes, you have made noises of peace occasionally; indeed, all Wahhabis used to do that. It was part of their training to present Islam before non-Muslims as a religion of peace and pluralism but stay away from other communities, not trust them, not interact with them, not work with them, not employ them, instead hate them, treat them as enemies and show their hatred and enmity in words and deeds, and so on, if they wanted to be loved by God and considered a Muwahhid. This is an express teaching of Mohammad ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab and his mentor Ibn-e-Taimiyya that I have highlighted time and again. But that has no impact on you. You merely criticise Sufis and Barailwis, the few that are left and are victims of violence in the South Asian sub-continent. Yes, victims of violence, too may have shortcomings, even serious ones like their own brand of takfeerism, but is that a justification for violence against them, when they are not going around killing people. 


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/31/2015 9:26:25 PM



  • Mr Shahin, Regarding Political Islam of Maududi: Khalid Suhail, Did you miss the following from my comment?  
    2. Political Islam is not rooted in Islam or its history but in the fascist and totalitarian philosophies of Europe of the 19th/20th century. 
     3. Maududi had to find fault with even the Khalifa e Rashidun, all the ulema and the history of Islam to justify his philosophy. Clearly therefore his ideas are out of tune with Islam. 
     4. The ideas of political Islam must be resisted and defeated just as fascism was defeated in Europe. By Observer - 8/16/2014 9:35:26 AM 
     Mr Shahin, Yes, I have also praised Maududi for the right things. I am not a binary person like you to only praise or condemn. I cannot come down to your level of immaturity only to please you.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/31/2015 9:07:34 PM



  • Mr Shahin, this is what you said to Noor Alam: 2/24/2015 2:04:13 AM Mr. Noor Alam, please don't put words into my mouth. When you want to quote me, please copy from my articles/comments and put inverted commas on both sides of the quote. That's the way to go about quoting others' opinions. Why don't you follow your own advise? Why do you make accusations without evidence and make me call you a liar and then accuse me of abusing?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/31/2015 8:40:48 PM



  • Mr Shahin, You are nothing but a cheap liar with little integrity and a deliberate one at that. Show me if I have attacked Sufism except as a response to blatant sectarianism on this site by you and others. 
     I have always held Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the US responsible. So that is another lie. If I criticse US you will vilify me. We have seen that. I have condemned and dissociated with all your sectarian terminology and always insisted on using sect neutral terminology like I do even today. You have always twisted that around to falsely accuse. 
     Who has come up with the comprehensive plan to defeat extremist ideology except me? You have also agreed that it is Islamic theology across the board covering all sects that is fuelling extremism. So was it not rank sectarianism that made you call it the Salafi/Wahabi/Deobandi ideology? Your lies are established Mr Shahin and these are deliberate knowing that the truth is otherwise. The more you lie the more you debase yourself but perhaps you are at rock bottom and cannot go lower.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/31/2015 8:08:01 PM



  • Lodhia Saheb, Naseer Saheb and his identities and names and pseudonyms are not the chief problem facing the global Muslim community. Please focus on the real issues. For instance, you have rightly asked why Muslim intellectuals like him avoid calling terrorists terrorists. Why they would not name the ideology that is behind terrorism. Why they would not call Saudi Arabia the fount of terrorist ideology that it is. 

     I am sure you have come across anti-Sufi, anti-Barailvi statements made by Naseer Saheb, which he does not consider sectarianism. But when someone quotes Wahhab or Ibn-e-Taimiyya, Maududi or Qutb, and blames Salafism or Wahhabism for the present crisis, he is outraged and immediately that person is attacked as a sectarian. If this person happens to be me, then, of course, New Age Islam, too becomes sectarian. Naseer Saheb would not allow even one Muslim in India to condemn Baghdadi for saying that not for a day was Islam ever a religion of peace. His personal lack of outrage at this and attempt at stopping others from doing so, or at least questioning the integrity of those who do so, are issues that expose the fundamentalists and should be taken up. 

     Many people including me have family names, caste names, etc. that they do not want to use and keep a takhallus, if they are poets or a pseudonym if they are writers. It's becoming difficult and even dangerous for progressive Muslims to be identified these days, even in India. 
     You see these bloggers in Bangladesh may be alive today, if the fundamentalist marauders could not have reached them. So there may be a variety of reasons why a writer may not want to use his official or family, caste name, address, photo, etc. 

     If you really want to hold a mirror to him, show him the virulent anti-Sufi Barezilwi comments he keeps making, bring out some of them at least. I know you are a great researcher. You won't need to go far.Just search in New Age Islam comments section through our internal search engine.  That might stop him from going about his anti-sectarianism. But debating his name, exposing his official name, which might endanger him, is really unethical. Take up issues, Lodhia Saheb, and there are many, not names. Names don't matter. What is there in a name? A thorn by any other name would be as painful to deal with.

     I am trying to delete his official name from wherever you have used it. Plz let me know if some remain. Let us be civil about it. 

     However, if Naseer Saheb continues to use his official name in communicating with people, it's bound to get exposed. If you really want to hide something, hide it well, don't tell any one at all.

    By Sultan Shahin - 5/31/2015 7:37:45 PM



  • Naseer Ahmed, How is it that an idiot like me can figure out as to why you avoid using the word “terrorists.” Why not “Terrorists Ideology”? You continue to say “to those who are attracted to extremism.” Wouldn’t it be wise to identify those who are attracted towards terrorism as terrorists, murderers, killers and barbarians. Extremism means the holding of extreme political or religious views. Terrorism means to use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. 

     Now, let this idiot tell you that ISIS, Boko Harams, Al-Qaeda and their likes are terrorist organizations as they use violence and intimidation to justify their bloody Jihad. Muslim Ulemas are not going to acknowledge the flaws in their own theology and neither will they disavow anything. 

     The Islamic world has now come to a point where only the common Muslims will have to have a rude awakening to set things in order. You also wrote, “the extremists are only extreme in their actions.” Why are you so fearful to jot down what do you mean by extreme in their actions? Are you fearing that someone will come after you? 

     It was George Bush who once remarked, “The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics - a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children.” Read it carefully and you will come to know that even George Bush knew well how to clearly differentiate between the two words, “terrorists” and “extremism.” In your article, you stated that the correct position to defeat the extremist ideology is Number No 1. “Only the oppressors and persecutors are Kafir.” Why not let the readers know who are the oppressors and persecutors? 

     No doubt, American as a super power has its own faults, but no Christians can be held responsible for the distorted teachings by those who claim to know about Islam. It is not by redefining the word “Kufr,” which you claim can solve all the problems. 

     It is by respecting the “People of the Book,” and all of our fellow humans hailing from other faiths based upon the teachings of our Holy Qur’an which will help to wipe out the deadly mindset. What you are trying to do is to indirectly preach the supremacist ideology by giving a signal that only Muslims are pure in heart and the rest of the mankind can be termed as “Worst of Creatures.” How sick can a learned Muslim get? That’s a million dollar question. 

     Trust me. No readers of New Age Islam forum will dare challenge you. All because of your arrogant and egotistical response to anyone who dare question your intelligence. In addition, how about identifying who are the terrorists and barbarians? Are you going to give a pass to ISIS and pretend that they are only extremists? Furthermore, I continue to wonder as to what stage of James Fowler chart you belong to? By the way, in Stage No. 1, Fowler proclaims that “Adults preaching about the negative aspects of religion - the devil and the evils of sin - can cause great harm to a child of this age, leading him toward a very rigid, brittle and authoritarian personality as an adult.” One thing for sure, it is the majority of Muslim Ulemas, Imams, Aalims, and Mullahs who have been solely responsible for severely damaging the minds of Muslim youths owing to their “Hare’ Em & Scare’ Em” (to harass and frighten) tactics while preaching the basic tenets of Islam. I am afraid, your mind has been exposed to such a stage during your childhood days, which has made you to harass, insult and abuse your own fellow Muslims in your adult lilfe. In short, you have become a rigid, brittle and authoritarian personality. How on earth are you dreaming to reform the minds of Muslims? Like I questioned you earlier, what are you smoking Observer/Naseer Saheb ???????

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/31/2015 11:25:04 AM



  • Munazrah (Debate) with Munkireene Hadees - Shaikh Jalaluddin Qasmi @Parbhani https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=IMSSfqQo3rI Imam Shafai aur Imam Malik ka ek dilchasp waqia - Allama Jalaluddin Qasmi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= K6MY9vo3buo
    By Iqbal - 5/31/2015 7:20:05 AM



  • Unfortunately for you Lodhia, you once again prove to be a complete idiot because Mr Shahin is on the same page as I am on this question. I cannot humour you beyond this.


    Md Yunus Saheb: "The question is: Are the Muslim Ulema going to allow a faction of Muslims (ISIS and its ideological affiliates) to demonize Allah, their Prophet and faith without voicing any loud protest at the community and grass root level as they do when a book or cartoon is published by some individuals who do not claim to represent Islam and do not commit any crime against humanity under the banner of Shahadah."


    My answer is: yes. The ulema are allowing, have allowed and will continue to allow terrorists to "to demonize Allah, their Prophet and faith without voicing any loud protest at the community and grass root level as they do when a book or cartoon is published by some individuals who do not claim to represent Islam and do not commit any crime against humanity under the banner of Shahadah."


    The reason is not far to seek. The ideology of ulema, nearly all ulema, coming from nearly all schools of thought, is the same as that of the terrorists. [Caution: This is a generalisation ad like all generalisations contains exceptions that merely underline the truth of the generalisation.] By Sultan Shahin - 4/25/2015 3:02:02 PM


    Shahin Sb, That is exactly what I have said in my article: Action Points for Defeating the Extremist Ideology The extremists are only extreme in their actions and not beliefs from the rest of the mainstream of every sect. To those who are attracted by extremism, the extremists are more Muslim than others. If the Ulema pass fatwas of apostasy against them without first publicly acknowledging the flaws in our theology and disavowing these, they will only appear as hypocrites. Their fatwas will make matters worse and not better. They need to first clean up their theology and publicly admit the mistakes and clean up the cumulative muck from the past. By Naseer Ahmed - 4/26/2015 1:41:43 AM


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/31/2015 2:21:30 AM



  • Naseer Ahmed, You wrote, “Declaring him as outside the pale of Islam will only make those who declare him so appear as hypocrites or apostates. This will only make matters worse.” So are you telling the readers that if Muslims condemn the evildoers, then we will appear as hypocrites or apostates. Vow! That’s such an absurd statement which is unbelievable. I am now beginning to wonder what did you learned from the Holy Qur’an? 

     Sultan Shahin Saheb is absolutely right. You are indeed misleading the readers. May be, it is high time for you to think as to who is a complete idiot? Look into the mirror and think about it. Let’s see if you will be able to ignore this very comment. Don’t act like Chicken George. Answer the questions that have been repeatedly asked for the past one year. If you can’t take the heat, then be a man and say so. Don’t you worry, there are many of your admirers on this forum who will forgive your sins anyway.

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/31/2015 1:11:57 AM



  • Naseer Ahmed, “re·gur·gi·tate” means to repeat repeat (information) without analyzing or comprehending it. You are dead wrong. I am not repeating the information. I am only trying to bring to your kind attention, the comments which you miserably failed to answer. 
     Hell, if an idiot like me can pinpoint what is wrong with your head, then you ought to do far better than me in recollecting what you have done. Well then, before you start insulting and abusing, try to think twice and be a “Man,” to answer the tough questions bravely. You are nothing but a “Three Dollar Bill,” by carrying the three names. Observer/Naseer/ Aren’t you ashamed at all? 
     Oops! I forgot. You will hit right back with another viscous attack to degrade your fellow Muslim. Is that what you have learned from the Holy Qur’an, aside from portraying your fellow humans as belonging in the category of Kufr? Who are you to decide their fate? What kind of demagogue are you, Naseer Ahmed Saheb?

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/31/2015 1:00:34 AM



  • Respected Readers, What nonsense? If there be any run-away artist, then it is the trio known as Observer/Naseer/. Where was this dubious personality when Saddam Hussein was oppressing the Shias and indiscriminately killing them? Want to bet! This person will bark back again and terrorize the minds of so many readers with this routine jibber jabber of who is Kufr and who is not? Talking about sick mind, there you have it. Yeap! So many are impressed as this man continues to boost the egos of those who believe in the supremacy of Islam and nothing else.
    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/31/2015 12:44:03 AM



  • As far as Mr Shahin and his man Lodhia regurgitating old comments is concerned, they can go through my responses which I have already given. Their antics show the vicious nature of these bloodhounds. They do not deserve any further response and I will have to ignore them.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/31/2015 12:16:17 AM



  • No matter who and what is responsible for Baghdadi becoming what he has become, my verdict is clear on him: To nail Mr Shahin's lie, the following is my comment in which I clearly say that it is "qital fi sabi lillah" or a religious duty incumbent on all legitimate rulers of legitimate countries to fight Baghdadai/ISIS to end their oppression. 5/19/2015 3:42:32 AM Naseer Ahmed


    Please read my article:

    Who is a Kafir in the Quran? (Part 4) Defining Kufr

    Defining Kufr What passes for Islamic theology today is that all non-Muslims are Kafir or infidels. This is of course incorrect but it is the belief of the mainstream of every sect of Islam.  

    Please also read my article:

    The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Qu’ran (Concluding Part) Summary

    The mainstream of every sect consider that the Prophet (pbuh) was fighting to end kufr or infidelity. This is again incorrect but is the belief of the mainstream of every sect. Baghdadi's beliefs are therefore not very different from that of the mainstream of all sects of Islam although he is extreme in his actions. It is a different matter that the mainstream of every sect carry wrong beliefs. Declaring him as outside the pale of Islam will only make those who declare him so appear as hypocrites or apostates. This will only make matters worse.


    What is required therefore, is for the mainstream of every sect to acknowledge openly that their beliefs so far have contradicted the Quran and no non-Muslim can be considered a Kafir and the term Kafir used in the Quran is faith neutral and has been used for people among the Muslims, Jews, Christians, Polytheists etc for their "kufr". The Quran does not say directly or imply indirectly that all people of any faith are Kafir. Also the Prophet fought wars "in the cause of Allah" and the only "cause of Allah" for which fighting is permitted, is to "end oppression or religious persecution". Specifically, there is no verse in the Quran that says directly or implies indirectly that the "cause of Allah" for which fighting is permitted is: 1. Ending Kufr or infidelity 2. Establishing the faith of Islam Therefore, what Baghdadi is doing is clearly "oppressing people for their religion" and fighting against him to end his oppression would be fighting in the "cause of Allah" which is incumbent on all legitimate rulers of legitimate countries.

    These points are covered in my article:

    Action Points for Defeating the Extremist Ideology

    View Article


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/30/2015 11:51:06 PM



  • How is Bush responsible for a Baathist and therefore apparently non-religious person becoming what he has become? Read on 5/20/2015 3:51:12 AM

    How do people miss the point that among the many influences acting on Al Baghdadi which made him what he has become, the most significant are his experiences as an Iraqi, whose country was ravaged by a most unjust war. The following is from an article in Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/12/19/who-isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-290081.html He (Al Baghdadi) was always known “for being so quiet you could hardly hear his voice,” says a former neighbor, Tareeq Hameed. “He was peaceful. He didn’t like to chat a lot.” Acquaintances say he grew up studious, pious and calm. He was introverted, without many friends.

    London-based Iraqi analyst Sajad Jiyad from the Iraqi Institute for Economic Reform says “I would be surprised if he was a religious person, as most of the Iraqis who became involved in jihadist groups were secular Baathists before 2003”. LinkedIn for Terrorists The origins of al-Baghdadi’s ruthlessness lie in the bloodshed unleashed after the U.S. invasion to topple Saddam. The Sunni insurgents who stayed began their deadly attacks, initially targeting U.S.-led forces. It is believed al-Baghdadi helped establish the terrorist group Jamaat Jaish Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jamaa. In either 2004 or 2005—like most things about al-Baghdadi, the dates are unclear—he was captured in Fallujah by U.S. forces, apparently part of a sweeping roundup to capture an associate of the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al- Zarqawi.

    After his arrest, al-Baghdadi was detained in Camp Bucca, a facility in southern Iraq, near Umm Qasr, where many former Abu Ghraib detainees were also held. His status was that of a “civilian internee,” which meant he was linked to a terrorist group but had not been caught actively engaging in terrorist activities. The exact amount of time al-Baghdadi spent at Camp Bucca is unclear. Some U.S. military officials who worked at the prison remember al-Baghdadi being there between 2006 and 2007; others say he was there between 2006 and 2009. Whether he spent one or two years there, it was a fruitful time for him. Camp Bucca was like a summer camp for ambitious terrorists. Under the eyes of the Americans, the inmates interacted, traded information and battle tactics and made important contacts for the future.

    They were inspired by the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the success of al-Zarqawi and the discontent among Sunnis. Historian Jeremi Suri calls the prison “virtual terrorist university.” “Camp Bucca was a place where a lot of jihadists got to know each other and a lot of former Baathists radicalized and linked up with Islamic groups,” saysAron Lund, editor of the Syria in Crisis website. “Lots and lots of Islamic State leaders passed through here.” Jiyad says it’s unlikely al-Baghdadi was an active militant prior to the U.S. invasion, and he believes Camp Bucca was a turning point for al-Baghdadi. So it is not Islam which has made him what he has become. For those who would like to exonerate the role of the US in fomenting extremism, it is possibly a necessary fiction to blame Islam for it.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/30/2015 11:45:12 PM



  • So Naseer Ahmed Saheb (Observer) thinks the Taliban, Boko Haram, Pakistani Taliban, Afghan Taliban, Taliban (Mehsud group), Jamia Islamia of Indonesia, Indian Mujahedeen, etc. are extraordinary criminals, not criminals, but then how can these extraordinary criminals be dealt with by the law and order machinery which is merely equipped for dealing with common criminals.

    However, Lodhia Saheb, you have to understand that all these attempts by Naseer Saheb including his constant abuses are merely diversionary tactics. He doesn't like Taliban and Boko Haramis being criticised and always tries to deflect this criticism in some other direction including on himself. If you criticise him for being abusive, all that is happening is your attention is getting diverted from the real issue that the Jihadis are a cancer of the Muslim society and it is for us to work towards curing ourselves.

    If you want I can delete the abusive expressions used by Naseer Ahmed Saheb in his various posts. But, though offensive, they reveal the man and I think, should be left there. For this man is not a common criminal, well a common abuser; he is a Quran expert. He reads no books from Islamic literature. Only the Holy Quran. And this is not an empty boast either. He does come up with some useful insights from Quran too. So we cannot really treat him as a common criminal, well abuser. Like the Taliban and Boko Haramis, he is a Quran expert too and hence extraordinary. However, as I said before, let us focus on the cancer in our spiritual body and seek to cure that rather than play in the hands of the defenders of Jihadism by getting diverted from the main issue. By Sultan Shahin - 5/29/2014 8:02:05 AM


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/30/2015 8:42:53 PM



  • Naseer Saheb, you continue to mislead readers. No one is supporting Bush or launching a campaign against you. You say: “I have no problem with anyone supporting Bush or the US but to be intolerant of fair criticism to the point of launching a campaign of vilification against anyone who does so, is just too much to put up with.”


    The issue and sequence is as follows. Your Khalifa Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi says Islam is a religion of violence. New Age Islam publishes an article by an America-based Indian Muslim peace activist Mike Ghouse condemning Baghdadi. All ulema and Muslim intellectuals, particularly in India remain silent. One Urdu journalist alone criticises this statement in Urdu Press. You question Ghouse’s condemnation saying something like Bush should be condemned along with Baghdadi. 


    I recall that Bush had repeatedly said even 9/11, the day Islamist terrorist had killed 3,000 innocent American civilians, that Islam is a religion of peace. I pointed this out to you, wondering how can Bush be criticised in the same breath as Baghdadi, if the two had diametrically opposed view of Islam. You are either with Bush, in this context, or Baghdadi. Since you cannot tolerate a single Indian Muslim condemning the Baghdadi statement that Islam is a religion of wars and violence, and want Bush hanged (clearly in this context, it would mean, for saying that Islam is a religion of peace even on 9/11), I was naturally outraged. I asked you if Bush had created the Khwarij, the ideologies of Taoism, Wahhabism, Maududism, Deobandism (the original Boko Haram), Qutbism, and the like, of which Baghdadism is a a more outrageous (or perhaps just more honest) offshoot. 


    So I asked you where does Bush enter into the picture in this condemnation of Baghdadi for calling Islam a religion of violence and wars. Most Muslims around the world have silently endorsed Baghdadi. Recall the Cartoon protests, Salman Rushdie protests, etc. There is not even a squeak, but when there is a squeak on New Age Islam, Naseer Ahmad Saheb, is outraged. He brings in Bush to divert the issue from a condemnation of Baghdadi and his ideology to extraneous, completely irrelevant issues. This has been your tactic permanently, Naseer Saheb. Any reader wanting to know more can visit the thread with headline:


    Do Muslims Need To Disassociate Themselves From Salafi, Wahhabi Ideologies Of Permanent War With Non-Muslims And Moderate Muslims? A New Age Islam Debate

    http://newageislam.com/debating-islam/do-muslims-need-to-disassociate-themselves-from-salafi,-wahhabi-ideologies-of-permanent-war-with-non-muslims-and-moderate-muslims?-a-new-age-islam-debate/d/9188


    Since you have no answer, the slander starts. You bring in my children studying in he United States and so, in your ignorance of how American universities work, my need to please Uncle Sam and stuff like that. Please stop slandering American universities in your need to abuse me.


    Apparently you do that because you have no rational answer. Surely Bush’s statement calling Islam a religion of peace is  is not responsible for Baghdadi saying that not for one day has Islam been a religion of peace. So what can you do except divert, bring in extraneous issues and slander. 


    At this stage I am reminded that you are not only calling Mike Ghouse’s integrity into question for having dared to criticise Baghdadi, but had actively, vociferously defended the Nadwi Maulana, the grandson of Maulana Ali man, no less, when New Age Islam exposed his support for Baghdadi and condemned him for that. You say he retracted or something like that. Actually, when our story was picked up by national and international media, he did try to deny in a ham-handed manner in a conversation with a journalist, but he continues to trumpet his letter to Baghdadi, addressing him as Ameer-ul-Momineen on his Facebook page and has no announcement that he has withdrawn his support to the so-called Khalifa. More worrying than Maulana Salman Nadwi’s address to “Khalifa” Baghdadi or your defence of Nadwi, is the fact that no Indian Muslim institution has condemned this support, not even Nadwa has disassociated itself with the statement, nor has he been punished in any way for one to assume that some action has at least been taken. 


    You are under fire Naseer Saheb as you are doing outspokenly and honestly, what the rest of the Muslim community is doing silently. You cannot even tolerate one Indian-Muslim, though based in America, criticising and condemning Baghdadi for saying that Islam is a religion of war and violence and that it has not been a religion of peace even for one day. It seems, like the rest of the community, you are delighted, that at least one Muslim has got the courage to say loudly what they all believe silently. 


    You remind me that you have asked for Baghdadi also being hanged, though along with Bush. “Na nau man kraajal hoga na Radha nachegi, I had heard in my childhood. So your point is, since the international community will not hang Bush, Baghdadi is automatically safe. You are saying, “don’t fight Baghdadi, fight Bush first. Don’t  criticise and condemn Baghdadi, criticise and condemn Bush first.” 


    However, I believe, Islam will not survive as a spiritual path to salvation unless we Muslims, the few that are left, fight tooth and nail the Baghdadis of this world and their protectors and supporters, silent or outspoken. Islam, for me,  is not a way to conquer the world, as it has been historically for many Muslim imperialists, from the day the Prophet passed away, particularly since the massacre of Prophet’s family at Karbala. It is not for nothing that the most popular televangelist in the Muslim world today is the person who routinely sends God’s blessings on the Khalifa who had ordered the massacre at Karbala, Khlaifa Yazid, grandson of the most inveterate enemy of Islam during the time of the Prophet. This person, Dr. Zakir Naik, is also the recent winner of Saudi Arabia’s highest award, Shah Faisal Award. He cannot utter the name Yazid without adding rahmatullah (may God bless him). 


    Naseer Saheb, You criticise New Age Islam and call it sectarian, for being opposed to the ideology of violence, xenophobia, intolerance and violent takfeerism emanating from Salafism, Wahhabism, Ahl-Hadeesism, Deobandism and their myriad offshoots, so vociferously supported and practiced by terrorist ideologues. I agree that all Islamic sects are takfiri; yes, that is correct and I condemn all of them, but have decided to fight the violent takfiriss first. What is wrong with that? Why should one not choose to fight the bigger evil first. 


    You say I am not supporting your research on coffer and kafir. Just read the above article, a slightly updated version of my speech before an international group of experts on counter-terrorism. I brought it up and lamented the support for it. I have been planning to publish it in a booklet form in Urdu and distribute around Madrasa centres, hoping it will perchance catch the eye of some right-minded Alim. You want to discuss it with ulema, I want that too. But there have to be a few ulema to  discuss this with. You find 4/5 ulema,jut willing to discuss, and I will organise the event, in Patna or Delhi. But what can I do if no aim, not even those associated with New Age Islam Foundation are willing to discuss. All ulema are happy with a xenophobic definition of coffer and Kafir, etc. 


    Your another grouse is about non-publication of your article on Islamist terrorism. I never said, No. I only said, I will have to use it as a Talibani, fundamentalist viewpoint, as this not a New Age Islam viewpoint, even tough all articles published by us do not necessarily represent our viewpoint But I am willing to post it now as a popular Muslim viewpoint. If that suits you, send it back to me with an updated version. I did not know then that Baghdadism was so popular with Muslims. I used to think that I belong to the mainstream Muslims who consider Islam a religion of peace. Apparently that is not the case. Hardly any Muslim seems to be outraged with Baghdadi even after he says Islam was not a religion of peace even for a day. So a Talibani viewpoint can be called a popular Muslim viewpoint now.


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/30/2015 5:03:34 PM



  • Thanks, Yunus Saheb, most useful information.
     I am posting below another response, but to Dr. Khan's comment: 

     Hasan Mahmud to Kamran, Mohammed, Khan, 

     Dear Dr Khan, I believe you dare missing the point. What Mr. Hai is pointing to is the Q. verses that were historically abused and still are being abused by some of us, Muslims, to commit horrible violence. Oh - many a so-called "Alims" from our side replied to the accusations but that never met the standard of logic, Human Rights and common sense.
     Am I right. Mr. Hai? 
     Best. 
     Hasan Mahmud 
     A strong warrior against the institution of Sharia law.

    By Sultan Shahin - 5/29/2015 10:21:54 PM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin Sahab, I earlier responded to Iftekhar Sahab on the long list of allegedly defective verses of the Qur'an that he wanted someone to clarify - and interestingly, your comment is just a very condensed version of my somewhat detailed commentary as follows:


    "Dr. Zaki Naik makes a lot of claims which are in conflict with the Qur'anic message. For example he categorically says that the Qur'an commands women to cover their head, Now the Qur'an uses the word 'zinat' which based on the Qur'anic vocabulary is the personal charm of women - their private parts. This is expounded with Qur'anic illustrations in Chap. 28.3, of our book. Mufti Muhammad Shafi in his 8 volume Muarif al Qur'an connotes zinat with those parts of the body that can be beatified. He therefore advocates the covering of even fingers and nose - practically the whole face leaving a narrow slit for the eye.


    Everyone is free to use his imagination to interpret the Qur'an the way he wishes and he can always find an scholar of the past era or a hadith to support his views. So in the first place the translated Qur'an itself may be a distorted version of the Arabic Qur'an Now if we try to defend the Qur'an as interpreted by say Zaki Naik against charges by people who have not achieved mastery in Arabic language and are studying the Qur'an in light of pious gossips passed down some seven to eight generations and venerated as hadith - we will be tired as those who want to dismiss the Qur'an can find innumerable flaws in the Qur'an as interpreted by Zaki Naik. The fact is the Qur'an does not claim to be a text book on science or any other field of knowledge. It claims its inter-consistency.


     If some Arabic scholars of the Qur'an can find the inconsistencies it it, they can jolly will produce a book - "the inconsistencies in the Arabic Qur'an" and defeat Islam by pen. If 100,000, people find inconsistencies in the Qur'an but none acclaimed for mastery in Qur'anic Arabic, we must leave them alone and quote the following endorsement of the Qur'an from two of the most outstanding scholar s of Arabic Qur'an from the Christian West to reassure ourselves that the Qur'an is indeed the word of God and let people say whatever they want to say: “What happens in the Qur’an is deeply related to the travail of our time, and we need the Qur’anic word in the face of it. This would be true, of course, if only for the reason that multitudes of mankind, to be guided or persuaded about modernity at all, will need to be guided and persuaded Qur’anically.....


    Even where secularism has gone far among them or irreligion presses, their judgments and their sanity, their priorities and their ideals, will always be in large measure within the mind of the Qur’an.” [1] “Concepts of prophesy, inspiration and revelation must be re-examined in view of the undoubted revelation of God in Muhammad and the Qur’an.” [2] 1. Kenneth Cragg, The Event of the Qur’an, Oneworld Publications, USA 1974, p. 22/23. Geoffery Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, Oneworld Publications, U.S.A., 1996, p.173.


    By muhammad yunus - 5/29/2015 8:13:42 AM



  • Mr Shahin, You can go on and on with your straw man arguments and pretend that I am accusing Bush of things he did not do and that I am not blaming Muslims for their faults both of which are untrue. That is your style. Lies and slander and yet it is me you accuse of abuse and do not consider your lies and slander as abuse! Why don't you just publish my article "Understanding the problem of so called Islamic Terrorism” and then find fault with what I have said?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/29/2015 7:58:33 AM



  • One valuable response to Iftekhar Hai Saheb's worrisome questions on Mr. Lodhia's mail: 

     Dear Mr. Hai, While your Arabic lines are from the Quran all your translations are the wishful thinking of Islamic scholars who preach Muslim supremacy. 
    I have devoted a large part of my life to seeking the correct meaning of these verses. If you seek the true meaning independent of scholars and Hadith you will reach it. If you use Hadith and very violent divisive Islamic history to reach the meaning this is what you will get. 
    Best of Luck. 
     DR. KAMRAN A. KHAN M.S.(TATA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL) SURGICAL ONCOLOGIST DIRECTOR AND PARTNER ONCOLOGY CARE ASSOCIATES GASTROINTESTINAL,HEAD AND NECK, BREAST, GYNAECOLOGY AND THORACIC ONCOLOGY. SAIFEE HOSPITAL: TEL 67570111 RAHEJA HOSPITAL: 66529999 ASIAN INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY SOMAIYA HOSPITAL: 24066830 KOHINOOR HOSPITAL

    By Sultan Shahin - 5/29/2015 6:38:07 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, abuse me as much as you like, but do inform us how George W. Bush or his father Bush senior are responsible for the theology of violence and intolerance fostered by Islamist ideologues from the very beginning of Islam. Did Bush create the Khwarij? 

    Did Bush create Shia-Sunni hatred and intolerance? Did Bush foster Takfirism of practically every Muslim sect? Did Bush create the violent Takfirism of Salafism-Wahhabism? 

    British imperialists did encourage the Wahhabi massacres of mystical and cosmopolitan, pluralistic and tolerant Arab Muslims of what is now called Saudi Arabia. Then Americans have inherited the British mantle and in their greed or need for oil have continued to protect Saudi Wahhabism and allow it to spend tens of billions of petrodollars in spreading the Wahhabi ideology of xenophobia and totalitarianism.

     Of course, imperialists of all hues will play their game. But they did not create Quran and Hadees and Sharia and our belief in their total immutability. 

     Have Americans created our belief that statements concocted centuries after the demise of the Prophet are akin to revelation? Imperialist and colonial powers have not created Wahhabi sectarianism that is tearing the Muslim community apart. They have encouraged it and they will play their games to achieve their objectives. 

    But does that mean we should not introspect and look at our own idiocies, our racism, inherent streak of violence, our total intolerance of a viewpoint even slightly different from our own? 

    Even after 9/11, in which 16 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi, America continues to protect Saudi Arabia. But America believes that Islam is a religion of peace. 

    All American presidents in recent past have said so repeatedly. How can they be held responsible for our own murderous behaviour? Khalifa Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi says that not for one day has Islam been a religion of peace and that Islam has always been a religion of war and strife. Almost the entire Muslim community agrees. 

    There has not been a single Sunni Alim, Fazil, Mufti in India or for that matter anywhere else that I know of, who has disagreed. 

    New Age Islam posts a denunciation of this statement from an America-based Indian Muslim peace activist and you bring in alleged crimes of Bush. What has Bush got to do with this ideology of intolerance?

     Maulana Maududi said something to the effect that Islam spread only after the Prophet started wielding his sword, before that there were few takers for this religion. Is Bush responsible for that? 

    I have known that you and most other Muslim intellectuals cannot tolerate any criticism of Khalifa Baghdadi. Your client Salman Nadwi of Nadwatul Ulema had taken the first opportunity to post his allegiance to Khalifa Baghdadi and you had taken the role of his lawyer when we exposed and condemned him. 

     My children are studying in America on their own merit. If they do well, their universities will continue their scholarships;if they don't even Bush cannot save their scholarships and university jobs with which they support their studies. 

    I am certainly grateful to Americans for creating a merit-based society free from racial, class, caste and creed bias. Americans are not racists as, say Arabs. You serve Arabs for a century; they will not give you so much as a residence permit in their countries, not to speak of citizenship. One of my daughters was studying at MacGill University. Canada gave her Permanent Residence Card even before she had finished her MA, in less than two years. Why should I not admire this society.  This is the closest to an Islamic society of Prophet Mohammad's conception. 

    Even on 9/11, when America was seething with anger against Muslims and Islam, President Bush said Islam is a religion of peace and Muslims are peaceful people. These terrorists are an aberration. Why should I not remember that when you bring him out on Mike Ghouse condemning Baghdadi's statement about Islam being a religion of violence? 

     Naseer Saheb, come out of denial. We Muslims are ourselves responsible for creating Baghdadi's ideology. We have never opposed intolerance, xenophobia and racism in our society vociferously enough. One cartoon in an obscure paper brings us all out on streets. Muslims raping and murdering other Muslims and non-Muslims doesn't bring out even a squeak from us. 

    One Muslim in America criticises Baghdadi and you bring out crimes of Bush in defence of Baghdadi. Where are we going? If intellectuals among us are so adamant to protect the marauders among us, what is going to happen to this community, our religion. Already, there is talk of Islam being banned in France in a few years. With people like you defending Baghdadi, should the world not fear Islam?

    By Sultan Shahin - 5/29/2015 6:07:38 AM



  • Sultan Shahin is back to his nonsensical rants and straw man arguments. He cannot tolerate any criticism of the US or of George Bush. He refused to publish my article "Understanding the problem of so called Islamic Terrorism” on the causes of terrorism but published another almost identical article by Brahma Chellaney.

     The difference was that Brahma did not write for NAI and therefore it did not affect Shahin. He has no problem publishing articles that have first appeared elsewhere but an article critical of the US will not be first published by NAI Maybe he has a need to prove his loyalty to Uncle Sam because he goes there often, his children are studying there and planning to settle there or he has ambitions getting some UN related work etc. 

    It is understandable that Indian Americans cannot be openly critical of the US or US presidents but for an India based web forum that calls itself NewAgeIslam and projects itself as representing the Muslims, this is nothing short of betrayal of the trust of Muslims to be totally blind to the role of the US in fostering terrorism as a deliberate policy to achieve their political ends. The other side of the coin is of course that they could not have achieved their ends if there were no fault lines in Islamic theology and narratives. I have covered this part of the story also comprehensively in my article: Action Points for Defeating the Extremist Ideology

     http://newageislam.com/islam,terrorism-and-jihad/action-points-for-defeating-the-extremist-ideology/d/102366 

    Sultan Shahin ignores it because then his straw man argument falls apart. Sultan Shahin pretends that he is for reform. However, when I presented him with a complete program for reform, he has done nothing to take it forward. He is just a pretender and nothing more with his own axe to grind.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/29/2015 12:18:45 AM



  • Apropos my earlier communication: 
    Iftekhar Hai Saheb has sent an explanation to the why of his earlier question: 
     Rafiq Saheb: All the questions I sent are not from me. They are from Muslim Atheists and Hindus. Two Buddhists are also there. I could have ignored their questions and also not bothered to send to your email list of scholars.
     It is okay if nobody wants to answer. But it would be a good help to answer them. 
    All Muslims should know how to answer those verses. I am not a scholar as people who are on this forum. I just do simple interfaith meetings, panel discussions and also Q & A sessions. Most of my work is on my website. 
    By the way I get 300 hundred emails everyday. It is impossible to answer and read each one of them. 
    PLEASE DO NOT TAKE IT PERSONALLY..............

     Now I know there are violent verses in Bible and Torah, I also have copy of what you exacting send me. But Christians & Jews say. They were good for those times. Not for this 21st century.

    When I gave this answer to 89 Muslim email list. ISLAMISTS WERE CALLING ME BLASPHEMER WHO WILL BURN IN HELL. 
    WE MUST FOLLOW ONLY THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN TO US BY MUSLIM SCHOLARS EXPERT IN HADITHS.

     THESE HADITH SCHOLARS LIVED 800 YEARS AGO.
     WOULD THIS BE APPROPRIATE EXPLANATION? 

    Iftekhar Hai, 
    President UMA Interfaith Alliance www.umaia.net

    By Sultan Shahin - 5/28/2015 10:33:04 PM



  • Lodhia Saheb, You have sent me a letter circulated by a concerned or, let me say, bewildered American Muslim activist, Mr. Iftekhar Hai, to Muslim intellectuals. 

     Let me pass this on to Naseer Saheb, who will be able to explain this better or at least refer to one of his articles in which it has already been explained to the satisfaction of all. At the vey least he will be able to tell him that it was George W. Bush who conspired to put these verses in the Holy Quran or it was his job and he failed to explain the real meaning and context of these verses to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. 

     Maybe Naseer Saheb can also explain to Iftekhar Hai Saheb, how George W. Bush and before him Bush senior created the Shia-Sunni hatred, encouraged the Ridda (Apostasy) wars, the ideology of the Khwarij, the scholarly but intolerant and xenophobic discourse of Ibn-e-Taimiyya, his protege Abdul Wahhab and their followers like Qutb, Maududi and a host of others, and so on and so forth. 

    Naseer Saheb will surely be able to explain how American propaganda machinery has brainwashed Muslims into believing that contextual verses of the Quran, Ahadees and Sharia are divine and akin to revelations from God that should be followed even today in the 21st century . I am sure he will be able to explain how Bush instilled into Muslim minds the idea that all non-Muslims are Kafir, deserving beheading, that for Salafi-Wahhabis all non-Salafi-Wahhabi Muslims too are Kafir and deserve death by beheading. And so on. 

     From: Iftekhar Hai [mailto:iftekhar.hai@gmail.com] 
    Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 8:22 PM T
    o: Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia; yunus mohammed; Ashfaque Syed; Muqtedar Khan 
    Cc: Iftekhar Hai 

    Subject: How can Muslim answer these questions on Quran...
    Need help 
     This is the only other set. 
     Please help me 
     Iftekhar 

     PLEASE ANSWER. ! Can this teach love to the entire mankind? Please judge yourself. 

    Allah will throw fear into the hearts of the disbelievers, and smite their necks and fingers. Original: إِذْ يُوحِي رَبُّكَ إِلَى الْمَلآئِكَةِ أَنِّي مَعَكُمْ فَثَبِّتُواْ الَّذِينَآمَنُواْسَأُلْقِي فِي قُلُوبِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ الرَّعْبَ فَاضْرِبُواْ فَوْقَالأَعْنَاقِ وَاضْرِبُواْ مِنْهُمْ كُلَّ بَنَانٍ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 8:12 

    The fires of hell will be fueled with the bodies of idolators and unbelievers. They will experience an ever-greater torment. Original: وَأَمَّا الْقَاسِطُونَ فَكَانُوا لِجَهَنَّمَ حَطَباً وَأَلَّوِ اسْتَقَامُوا عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ لَأَسْقَيْنَاهُم مَّاء غَدَقاً لِنَفْتِنَهُمْفِيهِ وَمَن يُعْرِضْ عَن ذِكْرِ رَبِّهِ يَسْلُكْهُ عَذَاباً صَعَداً The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 72:1517 

    Smite the necks of the disbelievers whenever you fight against them. Those who die fighting for Allah will be rewarded. Original: فَإِذا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَضَرْبَالرِّقَابِ حَتَّىإِذَا أَثْخَنتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنّاً بَعْدُ وَإِمَّافِدَاء حَتَّى تَضَعَ الْحَرْبُأَوْزَارَهَا ذَلِكَ وَلَوْ يَشَاءُ اللَّهُ لَانتَصَرَ مِنْهُمْ وَلَكِن لِّيَبْلُوَبَعْضَكُمبِبَعْضٍ وَالَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَلَن يُضِلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 47:4 

    Those who conceal Allah.s revelations in the Book, and purchase for them a miserable profit,- they swallow into themselves naught but Fire; Allah will not address them on the Day of Resurrection. Nor purify them: Grievous will be their penalty. Original: إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ مِنَالْكِتَابِ وَيَشْتَرُونَ بِهِ ثَمَناً قَلِيلاً أُولَـئِكَ مَا يَأْكُلُونَفِي بُطُونِهِمْ إِلاَّ النَّارَ وَلاَ يُكَلِّمُهُمُ اللّهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِوَلاَ يُزَكِّيهِمْ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 2:174 

    O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty. Original: يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْكُتِبَعَلَيْكُمُ الْقِصَاصُ فِي الْقَتْلَى الْحُرُّ بِالْحُرِّ وَالْعَبْدُ بِالْعَبْدِوَالأُنثَىبِالأُنثَى فَمَنْ عُفِيَ لَهُ مِنْ أَخِيهِ شَيْءٌ فَاتِّبَاعٌ بِالْمَعْرُوفِوَأَدَاءإِلَيْهِ بِإِحْسَانٍ ذَلِكَ تَخْفِيفٌ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَرَحْمَةٌ فَمَنِ اعْتَدَىبَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَلَهُ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 2:178 

    Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. Original: كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِتَالُ وَهُوَ كُرْهٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تَكْرَهُواْشَيْئاً وَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تُحِبُّواْ شَيْئاً وَهُوَ شَرٌّ لَّكُمْوَاللّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 2:216 

    Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe: A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you. Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe: A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever, even though he allures you. Unbelievers do (but) beckon you to the Fire. But Allah beckons by His Grace to the Garden (of bliss) and forgiveness, and makes His Signs clear to mankind: That they may celebrate His praise. Original: وَلاَ تَنكِحُواْ الْمُشْرِكَاتِ حَتَّى يُؤْمِنَّ وَلأَمَةٌ مُّؤْمِنَةٌ خَيْرٌمِّن مُّشْرِكَةٍ وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَتْكُمْ وَلاَ تُنكِحُواْ الْمُشِرِكِينَ حَتَّىيُؤْمِنُواْ وَلَعَبْدٌ مُّؤْمِنٌ خَيْرٌ مِّن مُّشْرِكٍ وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَكُمْأُوْلَـئِكَيَدْعُونَ إِلَى النَّارِ وَاللّهُ يَدْعُوَ إِلَى الْجَنَّةِ وَالْمَغْفِرَةِبِإِذْنِهِوَيُبَيِّنُ آيَاتِهِ لِلنَّاسِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَذَكَّرُونَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 2:221 

    Some of them believed, and some of them averted their faces from him: And enough is Hell for a burning fire. Original: فَمِنْهُم مَّنْ آمَنَ بِهِ وَمِنْهُم مَّن صَدَّ عَنْهُ وَكَفَى بِجَهَنَّمَسَعِيراً The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 4:55 

    Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. Original: إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ بِآيَاتِنَا سَوْفَ نُصْلِيهِمْ نَاراً كُلَّمَانَضِجَتْجُلُودُهُمْ بَدَّلْنَاهُمْ جُلُوداً غَيْرَهَا لِيَذُوقُواْ الْعَذَابَ إِنَّاللّهَكَانَ عَزِيزاً حَكِيماً The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 4:56 

    They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks; Original: وَدُّواْلَوْتَكْفُرُونَ كَمَا كَفَرُواْ فَتَكُونُونَ سَوَاء فَلاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ مِنْهُمْأَوْلِيَاءحَتَّىَ يُهَاجِرُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْاْ فَخُذُوهُمْ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْحَيْثُ وَجَدتَّمُوهُمْ وَلاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ مِنْهُمْ وَلِيّاً وَلاَ نَصِيراً The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 4:89 

    Allah has stirred up enmity and hatred among Christians. Original: وَمِنَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّا نَصَارَى أَخَذْنَا مِيثَاقَهُمْفَنَسُواْ حَظّاً مِّمَّا ذُكِّرُواْ بِهِ فَأَغْرَيْنَا بَيْنَهُمُ الْعَدَاوَةَوَالْبَغْضَاء إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ وَسَوْفَ يُنَبِّئُهُمُ اللّهُبِمَا كَانُواْ يَصْنَعُونَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 5:14

     Christians are disbelievers for believing in the divinity of Christ. Original: لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَآلُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُابْنُ مَرْيَمَ قُلْ فَمَن يَمْلِكُ مِنَ اللّهِ شَيْئاً إِنْ أَرَادَأَن يُهْلِكَ الْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَأُمَّهُ وَمَن فِيالأَرْضِ جَمِيعاً وَلِلّهِ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِوَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَاللّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 5:17 

    Disbelievers will have a painful doom. Original: إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ لَوْ أَنَّلَهُم مَّا فِي الأَرْضِ جَمِيعاً وَمِثْلَهُ مَعَهُ لِيَفْتَدُواْ بِهِ مِنْعَذَابِ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ مَا تُقُبِّلَ مِنْهُمْ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 5:36 

    Those who make war with Allah and his messenger will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. That is how they will be treated in this world, and in the next they will have an awful doom. Original: إِنَّمَاجَزَاء الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الأَرْضِفَسَاداً أَن يُقَتَّلُواْ أَوْ يُصَلَّبُواْ أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْوَأَرْجُلُهُم مِّنْ خِلافٍ أَوْ يُنفَوْاْ مِنَ الأَرْضِ ذَلِكَلَهُمْ خِزْيٌ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَلَهُمْ فِي الآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 5:33 

    Disbelievers will want to come out of the Fire, but will not. Their will be a lasting doom. Original: يُرِيدُونَ أَن يَخْرُجُواْ مِنَ النَّارِ وَمَا هُم بِخَارِجِينَ مِنْهَاوَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ مُّقِيمٌ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 5:37 

    Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, and tooth for tooth. Non-muslims are wrong doers. Original: وَكَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمْفِيهَا أَنَّ النَّفْسَ بِالنَّفْسِ وَالْعَيْنَ بِالْعَيْنِ وَالأَنفَبِالأَنفِ وَالأُذُنَ بِالأُذُنِ وَالسِّنَّ بِالسِّنِّ وَالْجُرُوحَقِصَاصٌ فَمَن تَصَدَّقَ بِهِ فَهُوَ كَفَّارَةٌ لَّهُ وَمَنلَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 5:45

     Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, and tooth for tooth. Non-muslims are wrong doers. Original: وَكَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمْفِيهَا أَنَّ النَّفْسَ بِالنَّفْسِ وَالْعَيْنَ بِالْعَيْنِ وَالأَنفَبِالأَنفِ وَالأُذُنَ بِالأُذُنِ وَالسِّنَّ بِالسِّنِّ وَالْجُرُوحَقِصَاصٌ فَمَن تَصَدَّقَ بِهِ فَهُوَ كَفَّارَةٌ لَّهُ وَمَنلَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 5:45 

    Jews and Christians are evil-livers. Original: قُلْ يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ هَلْ تَنقِمُونَ مِنَّا إِلاَّأَنْ آمَنَّابِاللّهِ وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْنَا وَمَا أُنزِلَ مِن قَبْلُ وَأَنَّ أَكْثَرَكُمْفَاسِقُونَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 5:59 Christians will be burned in the Fire. Original: لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَالْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ وَقَالَ الْمَسِيحُ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ اعْبُدُواْاللّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبَّكُمْ إِنَّهُ مَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللّهِ فَقَدْ حَرَّمَ اللّهُعَلَيهِالْجَنَّةَ وَمَأْوَاهُ النَّارُ وَمَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ مِنْ أَنصَارٍ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 5:72 

    Muslims that make friends with disbelievers will face a doom prepared for them by Allah. Original: تَرَى كَثِيراً مِّنْهُمْيَتَوَلَّوْنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ لَبِئْسَ مَا قَدَّمَتْ لَهُمْ أَنفُسُهُمْأَن سَخِطَ اللّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ وَفِي الْعَذَابِ هُمْ خَالِدُونَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 5:80

     Disbelievers will be owners of hell-fire. Original: وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ وَكَذَّبُواْبِآيَاتِنَا أُوْلَـئِكَ أَصْحَابُ الْجَحِيمِ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 5:86 

    Those who disbelieve will be forced to drink boiling water, and will face a painful doom. Original: وَذَرِ الَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُواْدِينَهُمْ لَعِباً وَلَهْواً وَغَرَّتْهُمُ الْحَيَاةُ الدُّنْيَا وَذَكِّرْ بِهِأَن تُبْسَلَ نَفْسٌ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ لَيْسَ لَهَا مِن دُونِ اللّهِ وَلِيٌّوَلاَ شَفِيعٌ وَإِن تَعْدِلْ كُلَّ عَدْلٍ لاَّ يُؤْخَذْ مِنْهَا أُوْلَـئِكَالَّذِينَ أُبْسِلُواْ بِمَا كَسَبُواْ لَهُمْ شَرَابٌ مِّنْ حَمِيمٍ وَعَذَابٌأَلِيمٌ بِمَا كَانُواْ يَكْفُرُونَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 6:70 

    Disbelievers will be excluded from heaven. Theirs will be a bed of hell. Original: إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُواْبِآيَاتِنَا وَاسْتَكْبَرُواْ عَنْهَا لاَ تُفَتَّحُ لَهُمْ أَبْوَابُ السَّمَاءوَلاَ يَدْخُلُونَالْجَنَّةَ حَتَّى يَلِجَ الْجَمَلُ فِي سَمِّ الْخِيَاطِ وَكَذَلِكَ نَجْزِيالْمُجْرِمِينَ لَهُم مِّن جَهَنَّمَ مِهَادٌ وَمِن فَوْقِهِمْ غَوَاشٍوَكَذَلِكَ نَجْزِي الظَّالِمِينَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 7:4041 

    Allah turns Jews into apes! Original: فَلَمَّا عَتَوْاْ عَن مَّا نُهُواْ عَنْهُ قُلْنَا لَهُمْ كُونُواْ قِرَدَةًخَاسِئِينَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 7:166 

    Those that the Muslims killed were not really killed by them. It was Allah who did the killing. Original: فَلَمْ تَقْتُلُوهُمْ وَلَـكِنَّ اللّهَ قَتَلَهُمْ وَمَا رَمَيْتَ إِذْ رَمَيْتَوَلَـكِنَّ اللّهَ رَمَى وَلِيُبْلِيَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْهُ بَلاء حَسَناًإِنَّ اللّهَ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 8:17

     The angels smite the face and backs of disbelievers, saying: "Taste the punishment of burning!" Original: وَلَوْ تَرَى إِذْ يَتَوَفَّى الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ الْمَلآئِكَةُ يَضْرِبُونَوُجُوهَهُمْ وَأَدْبَارَهُمْ وَذُوقُواْ عَذَابَ الْحَرِيقِ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 8:50

     Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Original: فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُالْحُرُمُفَاقْتُلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْوَاقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلاَةَوَآتَوُاْ الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 9:5

     Christians and Jews are perverse. Allah himself fights against them. Original: وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللّهِ وَقَالَتْ النَّصَارَىالْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللّهِ ذَلِكَ قَوْلُهُم بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْيُضَاهِؤُونَ قَوْلَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِن قَبْلُ قَاتَلَهُمُاللّهُ أَنَّى يُؤْفَكُونَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 9:30 

    Those who oppose Allah and His messenger will burn in the fire of hell. Original: أَلَمْ يَعْلَمُواْ أَنَّهُمَن يُحَادِدِ اللّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَأَنَّ لَهُ نَارَ جَهَنَّمَ خَالِداً فِيهَاذَلِكَ الْخِزْيُ الْعَظِيمُ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 9:63

     Fight the disbelievers and hypocrites. Be harsh with them. They are all going to hell anyway. Original: يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ جَاهِدِ الْكُفَّارَ وَالْمُنَافِقِينَ وَاغْلُظْ عَلَيْهِمْوَمَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 9:73 

    Believers must fight for Allah. They must kill and be killed , and are bound to do so by the Torah, Gospel, and Quran. But Allah will reward them for it. Original: إِنَّ اللّهَ اشْتَرَى مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنفُسَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمبِأَنَّ لَهُمُ الجَنَّةَ يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَيَقْتُلُونَوَيُقْتَلُونَ وَعْداً عَلَيْهِ حَقّاً فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالإِنجِيلِوَالْقُرْآنِ وَمَنْ أَوْفَى بِعَهْدِهِ مِنَ اللّهِ فَاسْتَبْشِرُواْبِبَيْعِكُمُ الَّذِي بَايَعْتُم بِهِ وَذَلِكَ هُوَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 9:111

     Disbelievers will have a boiling drink and a painful doom. Original: إِلَيْهِ مَرْجِعُكُمْ جَمِيعاً وَعْدَ اللّهِ حَقّاً إِنَّهُيَبْدَأُ الْخَلْقَ ثُمَّ يُعِيدُهُ لِيَجْزِيَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَعَمِلُواْالصَّالِحَاتِبِالْقِسْطِ وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ لَهُمْ شَرَابٌ مِّنْ حَمِيمٍ وَعَذَابٌأَلِيمٌ بِمَا كَانُواْ يَكْفُرُونَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 10:4

     Allah made a roof fall in to kill unbelievers. "And the doom came on them whence they knew not." Original: قَدْ مَكَرَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْفَأَتَى اللّهُ بُنْيَانَهُم مِّنَ الْقَوَاعِدِ فَخَرَّ عَلَيْهِمُ السَّقْفُمِن فَوْقِهِمْ وَأَتَاهُمُ الْعَذَابُ مِنْ حَيْثُ لاَ يَشْعُرُونَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 16:26 

    Allah has prepared a Fire for the disbelievers. When they want a shower, Allah will give them a shower of molten lead to burn their faces. Original: وَقُلِ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكُمْ فَمَن شَاء فَلْيُؤْمِنوَمَنشَاء فَلْيَكْفُرْ إِنَّا أَعْتَدْنَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ نَاراً أَحَاطَ بِهِمْ سُرَادِقُهَاوَإِن يَسْتَغِيثُوا يُغَاثُوا بِمَاء كَالْمُهْلِ يَشْوِي الْوُجُوهَ بِئْسَالشَّرَابُ وَسَاءتْ مُرْتَفَقاً The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 18:29 

    Disbelievers will not be able to put out the fire on their faces and backs. They will be stupefied and no one will help them. Original: لَوْ يَعْلَمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا حِينَلَا يَكُفُّونَ عَن وُجُوهِهِمُ النَّارَ وَلَا عَن ظُهُورِهِمْ وَلَاهُمْ يُنصَرُونَ بَلْ تَأْتِيهِم بَغْتَةً فَتَبْهَتُهُمْ فَلَايَسْتَطِيعُونَ رَدَّهَا وَلَا هُمْ يُنظَرُونَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 21:3940 

    Disbelievers will wear garments of fire, boiling fluid will be poured on their heads, their bellies and skin will be melted, they will be tormented with iron hooks, and when they try to escape they will be driven back with the taunt: Taste the doom of burning. Original: هَذَانِ خَصْمَانِ اخْتَصَمُوافِي رَبِّهِمْ فَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا قُطِّعَتْ لَهُمْ ثِيَابٌ مِّن نَّارٍ يُصَبُّمِن فَوْقِ رُؤُوسِهِمُ الْحَمِيمُ يُصْهَرُ بِهِ مَا فِي بُطُونِهِمْوَالْجُلُودُ وَلَهُم مَّقَامِعُ مِنْ حَدِيدٍ كُلَّمَا أَرَادُواأَن يَخْرُجُوا مِنْهَا مِنْ غَمٍّ أُعِيدُوا فِيهَا وَذُوقُوا عَذَابَ الْحَرِيقِ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 22:1922 

    Those who believe in another god are doomed. Original: فَلَا تَدْعُ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَهاً آخَرَفَتَكُونَمِنَ الْمُعَذَّبِينَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 26:213 

    Allah cast panic into the hearts of the disbelievers. He killed some, and enslaved others. Original: وَرَدَّاللَّهُ الَّذِينَكَفَرُوا بِغَيْظِهِمْ لَمْ يَنَالُوا خَيْراً وَكَفَى اللَّهُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَالْقِتَالَوَكَانَ اللَّهُ قَوِيّاً عَزِيزاً وَأَنزَلَ الَّذِينَ ظَاهَرُوهُم مِّنْأَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ مِن صَيَاصِيهِمْ وَقَذَفَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمُ الرُّعْبَفَرِيقاً تَقْتُلُونَ وَتَأْسِرُونَ فَرِيقاً The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 33:2526

     Ignore disbelievers and their poisonous talk. Original: وَلَا تُطِعِ الْكَافِرِينَ وَالْمُنَافِقِينَوَدَعْ أَذَاهُمْ وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ وَكِيلاً The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 33:48

     Those who oppose Islam will be slain with a fierce slaughter. Original: لَئِن لَّمْ يَنتَهِ الْمُنَافِقُونَ وَالَّذِينَفِي قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٌ وَالْمُرْجِفُونَ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ لَنُغْرِيَنَّكَبِهِمْ ثُمَّ لَا يُجَاوِرُونَكَ فِيهَا إِلَّا قَلِيلاً مَلْعُونِينَأَيْنَمَا ثُقِفُوا أُخِذُوا وَقُتِّلُوا تَقْتِيلاً The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 33:6061

     Allah has destroyed many generations. Original: كَمْ أَهْلَكْنَا مِن قَبْلِهِم مِّن قَرْنٍ فَنَادَوْا وَلَاتَ حِينَ مَنَاصٍ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 38:3 

    Those who deny the Scripture and Allah's messengers will be dragged through boiling water and thrust into the Fire. Original: الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوابِالْكِتَابِ وَبِمَا أَرْسَلْنَا بِهِ رُسُلَنَا فَسَوْفَ يَعْلَمُونَ إِذِ الْأَغْلَالُ فِي أَعْنَاقِهِمْ وَالسَّلَاسِلُ يُسْحَبُونَ فِي الْحَمِيمِ ثُمَّ فِي النَّارِ يُسْجَرُونَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 40:7072 

    Non-muslims will be tormented forever in the Fire. Allah will not have any mercy on them. Original: فَإِن يَصْبِرُوا فَالنَّارُ مَثْوًى لَّهُمْ وَإِنيَسْتَعْتِبُوا فَمَا هُم مِّنَ الْمُعْتَبِينَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 41:24 

    Allah will taunt the disbelievers that he torments in the fire, saying: "Taste the doom for that ye disbelieved." Original: وَيَوْمَ يُعْرَضُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواعَلَى النَّارِأَلَيْسَ هَذَا بِالْحَقِّ قَالُوا بَلَى وَرَبِّنَا قَالَ فَذُوقُوا الْعَذَابَبِمَاكُنتُمْ تَكْفُرُونَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 46:34 

    Smite the necks of the disbelievers whenever you fight against them. Those who die fighting for Allah will be rewarded. Original: فَإِذا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَضَرْبَالرِّقَابِ حَتَّىإِذَا أَثْخَنتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنّاً بَعْدُ وَإِمَّافِدَاء حَتَّى تَضَعَ الْحَرْبُأَوْزَارَهَا ذَلِكَ وَلَوْ يَشَاءُ اللَّهُ لَانتَصَرَ مِنْهُمْ وَلَكِن لِّيَبْلُوَبَعْضَكُمبِبَعْضٍ وَالَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَلَن يُضِلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 47:4 

    On the Last Day good Muslims will not love their non-Muslim friends and family members, not even their fathers, sons, or brothers [or their mothers, daughters, or sisters]. Original: لَا تَجِدُ قَوْماً يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ يُوَادُّونَمَنْحَادَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَلَوْ كَانُوا آبَاءهُمْ أَوْ أَبْنَاءهُمْأَوْ إِخْوَانَهُمْ أَوْ عَشِيرَتَهُمْ أُوْلَئِكَ كَتَبَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمُالْإِيمَانَ وَأَيَّدَهُم بِرُوحٍ مِّنْهُ وَيُدْخِلُهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِيمِن تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُواعَنْهُ أُوْلَئِكَ حِزْبُ اللَّهِ أَلَا إِنَّ حِزْبَ اللَّهِ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 58:22

     A hypocritical Jew looks like an ass carrying books. Those who deny the revelations of Allah are ugly. Original: مَثَلُ الَّذِينَ حُمِّلُوا التَّوْرَاةَ ثُمَّلَمْيَحْمِلُوهَا كَمَثَلِ الْحِمَارِ يَحْمِلُ أَسْفَاراً بِئْسَ مَثَلُ الْقَوْمِالَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 62:5 

    Those who do not believe in Allah will be chained up and cast into hell-fire where they will eat filth. Original: خُذُوهُ فَغُلُّوهُ ثُمَّ الْجَحِيمَصَلُّوهُ ثُمَّ فِي سِلْسِلَةٍ ذَرْعُهَا سَبْعُونَ ذِرَاعاً فَاسْلُكُوهُ إِنَّهُكَانَ لَا يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ الْعَظِيمِ وَلَا يَحُضُّ عَلَى طَعَامِ الْمِسْكِينِ فَلَيْسَ لَهُ الْيَوْمَ هَاهُنَا حَمِيمٌ The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 69:30,35

     The fires of hell will be fueled with the bodies of idolators and unbelievers. They will experience an ever-greater torment. Original: وَأَمَّا الْقَاسِطُونَ فَكَانُوا لِجَهَنَّمَ حَطَباً وَأَلَّوِ اسْتَقَامُوا عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ لَأَسْقَيْنَاهُم مَّاء غَدَقاً لِنَفْتِنَهُمْفِيهِ وَمَن يُعْرِضْ عَن ذِكْرِ رَبِّهِ يَسْلُكْهُ عَذَاباً صَعَداً The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 72:1517 

    Those who disobey Allah and his messenger will dwell forever in the fire of hell. Original: إِلَّا بَلَاغاًمِّنَ اللَّهِ وَرِسَالَاتِهِ وَمَن يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَإِنَّ لَهُنَارَ جَهَنَّمَخَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَداً The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 72:23 

    Allah has prepared chains, manacles, and a raging fire for the disbelievers. Original: إِنَّا أَعْتَدْنَا لِلْكَافِرِينَ سَلَاسِلَا وَأَغْلَالاً وَسَعِيراً The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 76:4 Allah plots against non-Muslims. Original: وَأَكِيدُ كَيْداً The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 86:16 

     -- Iftekhar A. Hai 
     UMA Interfaith Alliance www.umaia.net

    By Sultan Shahin - 5/28/2015 10:10:16 PM



  • Sultan Shahin sahib is right. The only way for Indian Muslims to reform their personal laws is by bypassing the AIMPLB. The reformed Hindu Code was imposed by an act of Parliament in spite of opposition from right wing Hindu groups. Perhaps that is the only was to do it.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/28/2015 2:49:38 PM



  • Rafiq Lodhia Saheb has done well to remind us of the following quote from Dr. K. G. Saiyadain (May Almighty Allah rest his soul in peace): 

    "Islam indicated clearly enough the direction of advance and left it to the intelligence of its interpreters and scholars to redefine the position of women in the evolving pattern of society through the centuries. Where they have failed to do so they must bear its responsibility." 

    As I said in the above article, we must all work for progress and reform of Indian Muslim Personal Laws. I had suggested reform on the lines of President Ayyub's reforms in Pakistan only because it may be more doable for the government in India. A demand for reform is not going to come from male chauvinist ulema. It will have to be imposed from above.

     Reforms acceptable to ulema in Pakistan and Bangladesh can be more easily imposed on Indian ulema as they come from the same stock and have similar beliefs. Otherwise, recent progress made in Morocco appears to be the best available reform at the moment. 
    Anyway, I am suggesting that we at least make a beginning with family law reforms acceptable to Pakistani, Bangladeshi ulema. But it's the government that will have to take an initiative in this regard. Our community is too stagnant, despite the recent initiatives of some Muslim women, to be proactively demanding reform. 
    Reform of Muslim Personal Law may be a move in the direction of fulfilling one of the dreams of the makers of our Constitution too.

    By Sultan Shahin - 5/28/2015 9:18:27 AM



  • lodhia
    kiya ho gaya bhai. kyon deewanon jaisi baaten kar rahe ho.
    aapke gurudev khan saheb bhi tablighi rah chuke hain. aur waqtan fawaqtan apne risaale men tablighi jamat kee khoobiyon ka zikr karte rahte hai.

    unse kahiye aisa na karen. yaa phir aap umse kuchh to seekhen. main dekh raha hoon ki aap unki taalem ko zarra bhar bhi tawajjoh nahi de rahe ho.
    choonke abhi aap baligh nahi hue isliye abhi waqt hai kuchh seekh len.

    faqat aapka khwah
    ex-tablighi

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/20/2015 1:23:42 AM



  • Respected Readers,

     

    As-Salaam Alay-Kum

     

    The more Naseer Ahmed Saheb find ways to accuse “A Complete Idiot,” like me, the more he will confirm the suspicion that he is indeed a “Stealth Tablighi.”

     

    Look out for one thing. He will never utter one word against Maulana Tariq Jameel. Why should he? He is in the same “Tablighi Boat,” too. A person can only fool so many for so long.      

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia  

     

    cid:image007.jpg@01D07C89.00C57A10  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/19/2015 11:59:35 PM



  • Respected Readers,

     

    As-Salaam Alay-Kum

     

    The more Naseer Ahmed Saheb find ways to accuse “A Complete Idiot,” like me, the more he will confirm the long held suspicion that he is indeed a “Stealth Jihadist.”

     

    Look out for one thing. He will never utter one word against Maulana Tariq Jameel. Why should he? He is in the same “Tablighi Boat,” too. A person can only fool so many for so long.      

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia  

     

    cid:image007.jpg@01D07C89.00C57A10  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/19/2015 11:57:46 PM



  • Yeh Pakistani America jake neocon ban gaya aur Urdu bhi bhool gaya!



    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/19/2015 11:48:32 PM



  • Sultan Saheb,

     

    Here comes another twister using your own use of the word “Disgusting. How else can Naseer Saheb cover up Maulana Tariq Jameel? Slap on another label on “A Complete Idiot.” That’s a relatively easy task instead of answering uncomfortable question, isn’t it?   

     

    Guess what! Which right wing supporter is the “Tablighi” referring to? It is truly amazing as to how one so-called Islamic scholar covers up the sins of another Islamic scholar?  All due to thinking in their own sick minds that the rest of their fellow Muslims are just plain old idiots.  

     

    Sharam Jaisi Koi Cheez Hai Ka Nahin?

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia   

     

    cid:image007.jpg@01D07C89.00C57A10  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/19/2015 11:42:42 PM



  • What is clear is that Lodhia who has found verses from the Quran "disgusting" on more than one occasion must be a stealth Islamophobe. Is he also not a supporter of Right Wing politics? 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/19/2015 11:29:13 PM



  • Sultan Saheb,

     

    Kindly look into your forum’s archives and pull out the debates about “Tablighi Tour.” It seems like Naseer Ahmed Saheb is totally incapable of understanding anything that pertains to “Tablighi Jamaat.

     

    One more thing, why did he missed mentioning about Stages 1 and 2 of James Fowler’s theory? May be, the “Stealth Tablighi,” belongs to the top category! Why not?

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia  

     

    cid:image007.jpg@01D07C89.00C57A10  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/19/2015 11:21:24 PM



  • What disability do the American Muslim students suffer from that they cannot go on a Tablighi tour for 40 days?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/19/2015 11:12:51 PM



  • Good Morning Sultan Shahin Saheb,

     

    As-Salaam Alay-Kum

     

    New Age Islam star commentator, Naseer Ahmed who has labelled this ordinary Muslim, “A Complete Idiot,” somehow has failed to read the three words, “American Muslim Graduates. How on earth can the Muslim youths living in the United States of America go on “Tablighi Tour, for 40 days? What has this man been smoking for so long, Sultan Saheb?

     

     

    Quite frankly, I always remain dumbfounded whenever “Tablighis,” dare give their ill-advice to their fellow Muslims. One near perfect example is of one famous Maulana Tariq Jameel, the “Chief of Tabligjhis” in Pakistan. THE SMOOTH STORYTELLER. Listen to how this Tablighi translated Surah Al-Duha coupled with giving a bizarre example of “A Womanizer.Trust me, you and the rest of your forum’s readers will be shocked.

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVXhZ3VIo94&feature=youtu.be

     

    Countless millions of Muslims in Pakistan gleefully listens to this so-called Islamic scholar. The fact is, most of my own people, that is, “Memons,” admires this Maulana immensely. I might be an idiot according to New Age Islam forum leading “Stealth Tablighi – Naseer Ahmed,” nonetheless, I will be much eager to read his comments about Maulana Tariq Jameel’s translation of Surah Al-Duha in Urdu.

     

    For the sake of comparing Maulana Tariq Jameel’s translation with the actual meaning of Surah Al-Duha in English, then click on: https://mohammedrafiqlodhia.wordpress.com/al-duha/

     

    Sultan Saheb, please do me a big favor by asking Naseer Saheb, as to which “Stages of Faith Development,Maulana Tariq Jameel will fit in. It will be interesting to know how he will come to the defense of his fellow “Tablighi.” You continue to emphasize the importance of stretching the minds, then you should seriously start to think about sickening the minds of New Age Islam readers?  

     

    Awaiting the favor of your early reply.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

     

    cid:image007.jpg@01D07C89.00C57A10  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/19/2015 10:42:24 PM



  • Parially correct.

    But I think when it comes to taking up Arms and joining militant outfits, Poverty plays a role.

    The Medressah students and products are more likely to engage and be purchased for sectarian Goal achievement. Their education is limited to certain schools  of religious  thought. A great change in Pakistan has come because of injection of funds by SALAFISTS AND GCC COUNTRIES STARTING FROM THE SEVENTIES.

    THE IMAM KAABA WHO HAD AN EXTENDED VISIT TO PAKISTAN ONLY MET AHLE HADEES AND JAMAAT I ISLAMI LEADERS.

    HE WAS PLAYED HOST BY THE PAKISTAN GOVT.

    REMEMBER LAL MASJID AND IT'S AFTERMATH.THE VILLAIN BECOMING THE VICTOR.

    THE LAW ENFORCER BECOMING THE VILLAIN.

    SPEAKS VOLUMES.THEN WE WONDER WHY SHIAS,ISMAILIS,CHRISTIANS,SUNNIS ARE BEING ATTACKED.


    By SHAMS - 5/19/2015 1:27:12 PM



  • "Nayyar and others say it's ironic that people in the West equate madrassas with radical Islam since the vast majority of school-age kids in Pakistan go to public schools.
    "Madrassa enrollments at most were about 1.5 percent. So think of it as, you know, kind of a fringe experience," said Jishnu Das, a senior economist at the World bank.
    Das has done a lot to debunk what's called the "madrassa myth."

    pri.org/stories/2013-08-21/madrassa-myth-pakistan-public-schools-may-be-problem

    Most of my relatives had/ are receiving  government education. Seems to me what is happening is that there is uneven quality. Part of problem may also be not enough properly trained teachers.

    No wonder education infrastructure is poor. Even in reformed local government, most of the revenues went for salaries! I was shocked when I read paper that discussed this.

    "Ninety percent of the education budget in Pakistan goes toward paying salaries of approximately 1.5 million teachers in public and private sector schools.  The fact that students’ learning outcomes are mostly not up to the mark can only mean that something is amiss in teacher’s performance because it is reflected in the student’s learning."
    https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/10/29/teachers-hold-key-student-learning-education-review

    Teachers Hold the Key to Student Learning: Pakistan Education Sector Review

    "A World Bank-financed study that was published in April raises further doubts about the influence of madrassas in Pakistan, the country where the schools were thought to be the most influential and the most virulently anti-American. Contrary to the numbers cited in the report of the 9/11 commission, and to a blizzard of newspaper reports that 10 percent of Pakistani students study in madrassas, the study's authors found that fewer than 1 percent do so. If correct, this estimate would suggest that there are far more American children being home-schooled than Pakistani boys attending madrassas."
    The Madrassa Myth nytimes.com/2005/06/14/opinion/14bergen.html


    By F Mayra - 5/19/2015 1:18:55 PM



  • The following statement too needs to be focussed on. I fully agree with Naseer Saheb on this: "Nurturing talent  is important even in a country like the US. The talented are helped through scholarships to receive education at the best schools and universities.
     
    "A talented madrassa student may however just get beaten up to make him conform to the madrassa system, which is also true for most other schools.

    "We certainly do not need the armies of Hafiz-e-Quran the madrassas produce and forcing young children to do hifz may be a violation of their rights especially in the case of the children of the poor."


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/19/2015 5:40:25 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    Working directly with stage 3 people is a complete waste of time.

    We should work with people like Maulana Waheeduddin,  Waris Mazhari, Yusuf Hamza etc. These people have credibility as scholars and are progressive.  Once there is consensus among recognized scholars on the critical issues, change can be expected to percolate downwards.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/19/2015 2:14:07 AM



  • Rational,

    Dawa and spreading the message of the Quran is incumbent upon the Muslims. Have I not said this to you several times?

    The Quran is meant for all mankind and and it is from Rabbul Alimeen and not from Rabbul Muslimeen. It provides guidance for success both in the world and the hereafter.

    The Messenger was also tasked with conveying the Message alone and not beyond that.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/19/2015 1:52:23 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

     The Quran conditions the Muslims against 'Shirk' to such an extent that they automatically assume that all Mushrik are Kafir.

    Take the discussion on Surah 98 and verse 98:6. I have shown with textual analysis and with comparison with another verse that the expression "the kafaru among" covers both the groups - People of the Book and the Polytheists. I have shown how the verse would have been worded if the intention was to mean all Polytheists and not just the Kafaru among them. I have shown that there are many translators/ scholars who have understood the meaning just as I do including Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Yusuf Ali etc. I have identified this group of Kafaru not only with the help of Surah 98 but the Kafaru among the Polytheists referred to in this Surah in Surah 37 verses 167-170. Surah 98 also pronounces the judgment of Hell on these Kafaru just like it does for Abu Lahab and the judgment of Heaven on the "best of creatures" in 98:7 . It is not a mere warning but a judgment and the distinction between the two is very clear and such judgment is not found in any other verse of either Hell or Heaven on any other group of people. Once the judgment of Hell/Heaven is announced, the kafaru will not believe or the believers disbelieve even if they live for another 1000 years. The “best of creatures” are the vanguard Muslims before the battle of Badr who are also identified by 9:100. The verse 9:100 confirms judgment of Heaven on them.  Both the groups of the best and worst are very specific and exclusive groups of people. After Surah 98 was revealed most of the “Mushrikin” who survived the battles accepted Islam which again goes to prove that not all of them were included in 98:6.

    There is also evidence in Suarh Al Kafirun which was revealed 8 to 9 years before Hijra and is addressed to the Kafirun and not the Mushrikun and ends with “To you be your deen and to me mine”. If Kafirun meant all the Mushrikun, there was nothing left for the Prophet to do except look after those who had already accepted Islam. But he continued to do dawa to the Mushrikun.

    Verses in Surah Taubah also make a distinction between the mushrikin and the kafaru among them. This is the second last Surah in chronological order after which there is only a small 3 verse surah An-Nasr.

    There is no verse that says all Mushrikin will be in Hell. The only verses that talk about the Mushrikin and Hell are 98:6 which is only for the Kafaru among them and 48:6 which is a warning to both the Mushrikin and the Munafiqin  involved in the incidents leading to the treaty of Hudaybiyah.

    Not only I, but other scholars are in agreement that 4:48 and 4:116 describing shirk as an unforgivable sin cannot be applied to those born Mushrik. What does this mean except that a Mushrik is not automatically a Kafir? There is also no doubt whatsoever that the Kafirin are destined for hell and this group includes those among the Muslims, Jews, Christians, Polytheists, Atheists, Agnostics, etc. The Quran indeed uses the word “kafir” in a faith neutral way meaning that it does not care what faith the Kafir professed but not in a faith neutral way to mean what faith he practiced. It is what one practices that makes one a ‘momin’ or ‘kafir’ and not what one professes. To state the point unambiguously, not all mushrikin ……etc are Kafir.

    And yet, if some Muslims remain deaf and blind to all this evidence and cannot accept that not all the Mushrikin  are necessarily Kafirin, it cannot be helped.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/19/2015 1:43:51 AM



  • "Why should a common Muslim worry about what will happen to the Christians or Jews or the Polytheists? Or about waging war or punishing the "sinners". That does not come under the duties or the concerns of common Muslims and in fact he would be transgressing his limits if he gets involved in any of these things."
    this question can be asked to Maulana Wahiduddin khan Saheb.
    and should Islamic scholars must be worried about faith of others? Common Muslims can be excused for their misunderstandings but what about scholars.
    Are not scholars behind this indoctrination of common Muslims? Who are telling them that they should worry about others faiths?
    Let me tell how people are convinced to care of  faiths of others.
    Will a mother not rush to save his child from live oven? Will you allow a blind person to fall into well?
    here the fire and well are places where people are punished for their wrongs or even ignorance. Muslims have been told that their duty is to do Dawa. Invitation to light from darkness.
    what is light and darkness? it is Islamic belief which is light and bliefs of non-Muslims which is darkness. Islam is light and rest is darkness.
    when this is the case why Muslims shouldn't engage in Dawa.
    Maulana khan saheb has large following. His readers are not Islamic scholars. His followers are common literate people.
     
    From the prophet and till this day Muslims are taking care of faiths of others which is can be found in Islamic teachings.
    the prophet was worried for faiths of people and he left this legacy for Muslims to carry it on. if he could restrict himself to his person, no war had been fought. and there could be no enmity between Muslims and non-Muslims.
    If there are ceratin verses for individuals, there are verses which command Muslim to spread Islam, stop evil and promote good. Same verse is used by Tablighis.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/18/2015 11:27:27 PM



  • Dear afaqsiddiqi - 5/18/2015 12:32:22 PM
    Majority of Muslims as it is, believes right or wrong that the prophet was engaged in ghzawas. Ghazwas in Arabic means raids not defensive wars.

     During the time of the Prophet (S) government in Medina, Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), himself participated in 28 wars which are called Ghuzwa, and sent troops 54 times for different wars making someone else as a commander. These 54 wars are called Sareea and Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) did not participate in them. 

    well one can differ on numbers but the fact is these wars were fought.
    you rightly quoted thay if they don't do what Allah demand fopm they, Allah will replace them with better ones.Now who are those betters?
    Can we say that non-muslims will replace them? but by following what? Will there be mass conversions? or they will replace following theor own corrupt scriptures?
    thanks for giving input. i hope it is true but history of Islam doesn't match with it.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/18/2015 11:05:29 PM



  • I agree Naseer Saheb, surely a Muslim should not worry about others' fate and think of himself fate. But perhaps we Muslims are too altruistic to think of ourselves first. We are far more worried about the faith and fate of others, even other Muslims than ourselves. The problem is it is these Muslims the world and Islam is to be saved from. The question is how do we go about it. So you see, even those who believe in reform are thinking of others rather than themselves.

    All Muslims seem stuck at stage 3 and they will remain there. So how does one engage with people stuck at stage 3. Any ideas?


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/18/2015 2:36:17 PM



  • Dear rational Yunus sahib,
    I have realised that Allah hates war,massacre,program,ethnic cleansing of his poor worshippers
    That is why He always keeps Himself  away from such evil things.  He has never arrived between two warring factions to give his judgment.He says follow the book which  I have given you and the Prophet is with you see how he followed  my commands. That is all.Perhaps he is no more interested who does what.
    He has warned Muslims that he will replace them if they disobey as a believing. Community by a more faithful and sincere people.
     I am hopeful a better substitute is waiting the Devine command to go and push back the hoax Muslims in to a harsher dessert life.



    By afaqsiddiqi - 5/18/2015 12:32:22 PM



  • Shahin Sb,

    Surely a common Muslim's concern should be confined to whether he will go to heaven or hell and not bother about others. For this, there are very clear verses that deal with moral and ethical standards that are expected of a Muslim, the prohibitions and what is permissible, the various duties. and the good acts that are pleasing to God.

    Why should a common Muslim worry about what will happen to the Christians or Jews or the Polytheists? Or about waging war or punishing the "sinners". That does not come under the duties or the concerns of common Muslims and in fact he would be transgressing his limits if he gets involved in any of these things.

    A ruler need to understand that "there is no compulsion in religion" and every peaceful "rejecter" of the faith is entitled to practice his way unhindered. In all other secular matters, he should render perfect justice.  This is told plainly in the Quran.

    Even a ruler need not bother about who goes to hell or heaven except what happens to him if he fails as a ruler to rule justly.

    As far as war "in the cause of Allah" is concerned, the only "cause of Allah" mentioned in the verses  is  "to end oppression". Fighting is also permitted against those who fight you. It may be noticed that the first one could be "offensive war". India's intervention in Bangladesh comes under the description of  fighting "in the cause of Allah" since it ended the oppression of  Pakistan's army against the people. The Quran simply describes those that fight "in the cause of Allah" which means "those who fight to end oppression" as the "momin" and those who fight in the cause of "evil" as the "Kafirin".  Very clearly we know who was 'momin" and who was "kafirin" even though in a limited temporal context in this war.

    Then there are matters that are for God alone and how He will judge the various people. What is Hell and what is Heaven. What does abadan abada mean? etc. Here the Quran is anything but a plain flat text and understandably so. In order to understand the true meaning, you need to be capable of performing a mental balancing act similar to  the physical act of balancing in the following video:
     Balance
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KVPA-9hofw


    A flat text of yes or no creates no tension and is incapable of  driving people towards the desired goal of correct belief. What I write creates more tension than what others write for the simple reason that it makes people think. It was very easy for the readers to dismiss as laughable nonsense articles that said all non-Muslims are kafir and will go to hell.

    The goal of the Quran is clearly to invite all to accept Islam or move towards the common terms described in 3:94. At the same time,  the Quran does not expect all to accept Islam either and not necessarily because people are evil but because their doing so may not even be  considered desirable. Diversity is clearly there by design to create necessary tension so that people compete with each other in the good works. There can be  no excellence in anything without  diversity.



    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/18/2015 10:14:08 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    The logic of dividing the verses of the Quran into those that deal with the temporal and spiritual dimension becomes clear once you read all the four articles or the paper that I sent you.

    Who Is A Kafir In The Quran? (Part 1): 'Kafir,' 'Mushrik' and 'Idolater' are not synonyms

    Who Is A Kafir In The Quran? (Part 2): Muslim– Non-Muslim Relationship

    Who Is A Kafir In The Quran? (Part 3): Why Kufr Is A Relative Concept While Shirk, Idol Worship Etc. Have Fixed Meanings

    Who is a Kafir in the Quran? (Part 4) Defining Kufr

    In the article Who is a Muslim in the Quran?    I have examined when a Muslim is not a Kafir in the temporal dimension.

    This further lead to answering the question Is Islam Secular?

     


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/18/2015 9:14:35 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, I fully agree that only 0.1 per cent of people maybe thinking individuals and the rest non-thinking. Quran is, however, meant for all people in all times and from all intellectual, cultural and civilisational backgrounds, from an illiterate Bedouin in 7th century Arabia to a philosopher or scientist in 21st century India or America. Indeed, it should remain relevant and make sense to illiterate peasants and scientists even in the 31st century, assuming there are still illiterate people then. 

    Quran addressed directly the illiterate and unthinking people. For any reform to succeed even today, reformers will have to address the same unthinking people. As the ratio of thinking and unthinking has not changed in the last several millennia, one can safely assume the situation will remain the same even in remote future. 

    So reformers in Muslim society today will have to speak in a language that makes sense to the common, unthinking people. Most Muslims agree, though they may not admit, when Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-styled Khalifa of all Muslims and chief of ISIS, says: 

    'O Muslims, Islam was never for a day a religion of peace. Islam is the religion of war." 

    Muslims obviously agree because they find this closer to their understanding of Quran and Hadees. One cartoon in an obscure paper in an obscure corner of the world and the entire global community rises up in protest. Baghdadi calls Islam a religion of war, not one Muslim anywhere calls him Islamophobe. 

    You say nowhere in Quran is the word Kafir used for "non-Muslim." It is a faith-neutral terms, meaning anyone who persecutes people for following a religion or a religion different from his own. Religious persecution is therefore kufr. 

    This seems to me to be correct. As when Muslims were for the first time permitted to fight 13 years after the advent of Islam, they were told by God in Quran they were being permitted to fight so as God continues to be remembered in monasteries, synagogues, churches, temples and mosques. Muslims had been asked to fight for religious freedom per se, not only for the religious freedom of Muslims. This was thus a fight between those who were fighting for religious freedom of all humanity, and those who were opposed to the human right of religious freedom, the kafirs. 

    So it would be in the fitness of things if the word kafir continued to be defined as religious persecutors  and Muslims continued to champion human right of religious freedom for all religious communities and sects on earth and beyond. 

    However, the reality is very different. Muslims are today the biggest violators of human rights of religious freedom and not one Muslim has so far come forward to accept the definition of Kafir as a religious persecutor.

    The question then is, how do those few Muslims who view Islam as a religion of peace and religious pluralism go about bringing the 99.9 per cent of unthinking Muslims to their understanding of Islam and Quran. 

    I think more research is required for proving that at no place does the Quran use the term kafir for merely a non-Muslim. Probably we will need to come out with a detailed study of all those verses where the term kafir, kufr, kuffar, kafireen, kafiroon, etc. have been used. For, after all, we have to deal with the overwhelming majority of Muslims whose natural inclination is for war and confrontation, not peace and dialogue. The Salafi Muslims did not value Mohammad as a peace-maker. They wrote his biographies declaring him a champion of war and bloodshed. They called his biography Maghazi (accounts of war), even though the man had avoided war and bloodshed whenever and in whichever way possible. It’s the petrodollar-funded Khwarij that rule the Muslim mind. The Arab Khwarij colonisation of the Muslim mind is almost complete. We must keep this in mind while coming out with any peaceful proposition.


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/18/2015 6:25:03 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, thanks for introducing me to Fowler's fascinating study. I will try to get hold of his book.
    Please help me with a question in my mind for several days. You are making distinction in the meaning of Islamic terms in spiritual and temporal dimensions. Is this distinction your ijtihad or is it based on Quranic teachings regarding how to read and understand the holy Quran?

    By Sultan Shahin - 5/18/2015 5:19:39 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    Since you run a website devoted to ushering reforms in Islam, it is important to understand the behavior of people from a psychological standpoint. James Fowler’s “Stages of Faith Development” provides a useful framework.  

    James Fowler's Stages of Faith Development

    Stage 3 - Synthetic, Conventional Stage

    A person will normally move into the third of James Fowler's Stages, the Synthetic, Conventional stage around puberty but apparently, many adults never move beyond it.

    Here authority is located outside the self - in the church leaders, in the government, in the social group. Religious concepts are what Fowler calls "tacitly" held - the person is not fully conscious of having chosen to believe something. Thus the name "Synthetic" - beliefs are not the result of any type of analytical thought. Any attempts to reason with a person in this stage about his beliefs, any suggestion of demythologizing his beliefs is seen as a threat.

    The name "Conventional" means that most people in this stage see themselves as believing what "everybody else" believes and would be reluctant to stop believing it because of the need they feel to stay connected with their group. It turns out that most of the people in traditional churches are at this stage. And in fact, Fowler comes right out and states that religious institutions "work best" (p. 164) if the majority of their congregation is in Stage 3. (Now THAT explains a lot of the preaching we hear that sounds destined to discourage people from questioning! To properly assure their continuance, churches apparently need people to remain in Stage 3. )

    When a person cognitively realizes that there are contradictions between some of his authority sources and is ready to actually reflect realistically on them, he begins to be ready to move to the fourth of James Fowler's Stages.

    Stage 4 - Individual-Reflective Faith

    According to Fowler, it is ideal that a person reach this stage in their early to mid-twenties, but as has already been discussed, it is evident that many adults never reach it. If it happens in the thirties or forties, Fowler says, it is much harder for the person to adapt.

    In Individuative-Reflective faith, what once was tacitly held becomes explicit. The faith the person never reflected about, and was not completely able to articulate how he arrived at it, becomes filled with both a freedom that he now CAN reflect on it, and the burden that he now feels he MUST examine. The responsibility of this can be frightening, and it seems religious groups are always trying to discourage people from making this examination (of course, because it threatens the viability of the institution if people start questioning!)

    Fowler's Stage 4 faith requires that the person be willing to interrupt their reliance on external authority and relocate the source of authority within himself. Fowler calls this the formation of an "executive ego," which is not a bad thing, like the other kind of ego. It just means the person is more able to govern himself without the need for rules from the outside. In Fowler's Stage 4, meanings in stories are separate from the symbols themselves, so the stories are demythologized. (In losing the literal meaning of the religious symbols, people can - I think often! - at the same time lose ALL meaning of the symbol and that is how you wind up with so many atheists and agnostics at this stage.)

    Loss or demytholization of the symbols can result in grief and guilt in some cases, and the process can take up to seven years to complete. But in the place of the literal symbol, the person gains the ability to make comparisons and whatever meanings they retain are explicitly held (and thus more authentic in that they are personal.)

    The strengths of this stage lie in the capacity for critical reflection (and the willingness to face truths that may cause distancing from comfortable thought patterns and thus pain.) But a weakness of this stage is that the person may put excess confidence in the rational, conscious mind, thus ignoring unconscious forces that become more prominent in the next stage.

    Stage 5 - Conjunctive Faith

    According to Fowler, when the person in Stage 4 becomes ready to attend to the "anarchic and disturbing inner voices" of the unconscious mind he becomes ready to move on to Stage 5. Such a move is unusual before mid-life. Here the person begins to expand their world beyond the "either/or" stance of the prior stage toward a "both/and" orientation where the answers (and the power of the rational mind to figure them out) are not so clear.

    People in this stage are willing to engage in dialog with those of other faiths in the belief that they might learn something that will allow them to correct their own truths. To get to this point, it is critical that the person has moved through the stage of demythologizing phase of Stage 4 where they could move away from the literal meanings.

    The person in Stage 5 has already had their symbols broken by rational inspection and consciously wills themselves to a more comprehensive (dare we say metaphorical?)interpretation of the symbol. "...doesn't matter what you call it. Whether you call it God or Jesus or Cosmic Flow or Reality or Love, it doesn't matter what you call it. It is there. And what you learn directly from that source will not tie you up in creeds....that separate you from your fellow man." ( p. 192) So the Stage 5 person in Fowler's system is learning how to reengage with some type of faith that is beyond their rational control, can recognize the partial truths that any given religious tradition might offer but may choose to re-engage with it anyway. He can appreciate and recognize symbols as such, without holding to their literal meaning and is committed to a form of justice that extends to those outside the confines of tribe, class, religious community or nation.

    With this very inclusive worldview, people at Stage 5 are in an excellent position to make huge contributions to society but alas! often give in to a paralyzing passivity out of fear for their own comfort and well-being or are paralyzed by the huge gap between reality and the view they would like to hold as real.

    Stage 6 - Universalizing Faith

    The final of James Fowler's Stages - Universalizing Faith is reached only by the very, very few.

    Apparently people in this stage are able to overcome the action/inaction paradox of Stage 5 and are able to sacrifice their own well-being to that of their cause. NOT in the sense of a soldier going off to war. This is very different! Fowler uses the word "subversive" to refer to these people because their contributions are so radically different from the views of the rest of society. Such people commit their total being to their identification with persons and circumstances where the futurity of being is being crushed, blocked or exploited. (They risk their own safety in order to help the helpless in unexpected ways.)

     

    Clearly people who are stuck at stage 3 will not even feel confident to discuss anything beyond what their teachers have taught them. My discussions will make sense to all those who are at stage 4 and above but will cause acute discomfort to those who went off the rails at stage 4. These people would like to keep the discussions at stage 3 since then they can feel superior and also can poke fun now and then. They are therefore extremely tolerant of views at stage 3 or lower.

     

    Discussions at the level of stage 5 make the believers turned atheists/agnostics very uncomfortable since they are then filled with doubts whether their going off the rails was justified. The reason why these people visit this site is to seek reassurance that they did not make a mistake going off the rails. They therefore make every effort to drag the discussion back to stage 3 and keep it there.

     

    Take up any of the posts of Khalid Suhail.  He will cite the well-known views of conservative scholars that people at stage 3 blindly believe and follow to say that this is what Islam is. His comment is then hailed by the others who now begin to breathe more easily as he has sought to restore the discussion back to stage 3. This is a game that has been played out several times.

    .

    If I have persisted in patiently answering Rational, it is because I had hoped that he may get back on track and advance to stage 5. Indeed he and KS both showed signs of getting back on track but have relapsed to their earlier behaviour. 



    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/18/2015 3:05:24 AM



  • As far as education goes, the truth lies somewhere in between. There are very few individuals, maybe 0.1%,  who are truly capable of thinking for themselves. The rest are mostly the Hafiz-e-Science or the Hafiz-e-Maths types even from good schools.

    Original thinking  is however not just in subjects such as the Sciences or Maths. A person can be creative in the arts as well. The educational system should encourage creativity in diverse fields. A student who shows good thinking skills may be poor in drawing and painting and vice versa or even good at both or poor at both. People skills and not so much thinking skills are important in business and management where many of the Hafiz-e-Science types do well.

    Since the truly talented are few and uniformly distributed across all social classes, a good system is one which identifies talent and provides them the best education possible rather than allow this scarce resource to be frittered. In Pakistan, it appears, that the talented only among the elite class come up and the rest are lost.

    Nurturing talent  is important even in a country like the US. The talented are helped through scholarships to receive education at the best schools and universities.
     
    A talented madrassa student may however just get beaten up to make him conform to the madrassa system, which is also true for most other schools.

    We certainly do not need the armies of Hafiz-e-Quran the madrassas produce and forcing young children to do hifz may be a violation of their rights especially in the case of the children of the poor.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/18/2015 1:12:46 AM



  • Chomsky slams modern education:designed to control and create conformity

    In a wide ranging interview Noam Chomsky attacks education for creating conformity."It does not matter what a course covers, it's what a student discovers," he says.

    Instead of teaching us “how to learn on our own.” education has become “indoctrination, with people placed in a framework where they follow orders.

    “For example, after the activism of the ‘60s there was great concern across the education spectrum that young people were getting too free and independent and the country was getting too democratic,” he says.

    The result is the existing system which consists of vocational training designed to control and create conformity.

    “It’s a constant struggle – do you train (students) to pass tests or train for inquiry- this goes all the way through to graduate school. … Powerful structures in society want people to conform and be obedient and not shake systems of power and authority.”

    Professor Chomsky also deplores the idea of education as an engine of economic growth as the antithesis of its real role, “to create better human beings.”

    “Do we want to have a society of free, independent individuals able to appreciate and gain from the cultural achievements of the past and add to them or do we want people who can increase GDP?” he asks.

    And he dismisses the emphasis on metrics as politically powerful but of little use in education, “a person can do magnificently on tests and not know very much.” 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/18/2015 12:37:39 AM



  • The following is a link to a review of James Fowler’s book on the stages of faith:

    http://www.exploring-spiritual-development.com/JamesFowlersStages.html

    Dr James Fowler's work is presented in a Judeo-Christian religious context and is based on his interviews with men, women, and children aged four to eighty-four, including Jews, Catholics, Protestants, agnostics, and atheists.

    Most people remain at stage stage 3 which is characterized as:

    “Here authority is located outside the self - in the church leaders, in the government, in the social group. Religious concepts are what Fowler calls "tacitly" held - the person is not fully conscious of having chosen to believe something. Thus the name "Synthetic" - beliefs are not the result of any type of analytical thought. Any attempts to reason with a person in this stage about his beliefs, any suggestion of demythologizing his beliefs is seen as a threat.

    Meaningful dialogue with such people beyond reiterating what they already believe to be true is difficult.

    The Agnostics and the atheists are those who went off the rails in stage 4.

    My discussions will not make sense to people who went off the rails in stage 4 or those who are at stage 3 or lower. It is meant for those who are between the stages 4 to 6 and have the potential to reach stage 6.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/17/2015 11:22:01 AM



  • Naseer saheb

    you are deliberately ignoring the facts. God demanded declaration of truth by the tongues. if hidden iman on truth was acceptable, there was no need for companions to put their lives in trial.
    the prophet tried till last breath of abu talib that he changes his mind. He wanted his declaration even if he could whisper into his ears.
    if people can live to their respective religions without angering Allah, Dawa is its refutation.
    by any mean God wants people be Muslims ie believers in the last prophet.
     Belief in last prophet is the only criteria to escape from hellfire.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/17/2015 11:15:34 AM



  • Naseer saheb
    you may be wrong in understanding the mercy of God because of your limited capacity of understanding. what if he wants to roast disbelievers. Have you read his mind? these verses are windows to his schemer mind.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/17/2015 11:04:26 AM



  • "It is amusing when two ex Muslims try to prove that Gandhi Ji and Acharya Vinobha Bhave will go to hell and congratulate each other for their comments!"

    It is amusing also when invention is only the way to show the Qur'an is inclusive. No wonder nobody gave it a thought in Jaipur. Neither there is a chance.

    It is a common practice of Muslims to accuse the accuser to drive away the attention from the trouble spot i.e the Quran

    The Qur'an is shouting and you are muffling this sound.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/17/2015 10:58:19 AM



  • dear khalid suhail
    this the exact point where the problem is. this the element which cancel the verse "la ikraha fid deen".
    i don't know why Naseer saheb is not able to see this point.
    my whole emphasis has been on this very element of Islam. this is the reason which stops me from excepting naseer saheb's new definition of kufr.
    it is the Quran which is speaking against naseer saheb not us.
    repeatedly i have said there is nothing better than if the quran allows other faiths to exist.
    this is the reason classical scholars like GRD and GG are silent. one zia spoke but couldn't stand.
    The Quran stops them from accepting the work of naseer saheb. this is fitna e azeem for them. they want to be silent because they have geard te prophet saying that many fitnas will rise near the Qayamat.
    Classical scholars saw this danger in Qadyaniyat and they in single voice called them apostates and demaned death panety for them.
    I don't know how this idea of naseer saheb will take roots.

    the event of Nazran christian is quoted by Musims to show that how the prophet and companions were great in tolerance. Alas! they remained on their religions by paying humiliating jizia. this refutes every possibility of what naseer saheb proposes that one can stay in their religion and yet can enjoy the blessings of Allah.
    the verse which is quoted about religious diversity has nothing to do with religious diversity. that speaks about the diversity of people based on geography, colour, customs etc. In mecca before Islam diversity was in full bloom, but Islam came and religious diversity disappeared.
    again diversity appeared in Baghdad in abbasid time but very soon those motazilas who created some space for diversity were sent to back foot, and they were replaced by traditionalist scholars like imam ghazali.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/17/2015 10:51:42 AM



  • Mr Khalid is absolutely correct. That is the faulty reasoning I have been trying to point out in Mr Naseer Ahmad's hypothesis. I hope Mr Khalid will be taken more seriously than I was. 
    By secularlogic - 5/17/2015 10:31:27 AM



  • KS,   Read my comment By Naseer Ahmed - 5/16/2015 12:08:54 AM especially the last para.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/16/2015 1:39:03 PM
    Following is the last para that you have refered.
    “Ultimately, only those who move towards the common terms in 3:64 will be successful. Those who resist or reject after knowledge has come to them, will be treated as those who resisted or rejected.  The beauty is that no one need change his religion since every religion has elements that make it both possible and easy to move towards the common terms enunciated in 3:64” - By Naseer Ahmed - 5/16/2015 12:08:54 AM
    Let us see what this verse really says,
    3:64. Say: "O people of the Scripture: Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allah the same, wand that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah.'' Then, if they turn away, say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims.''
    Tafseer Ibn Kathr,
     This Ayah includes the People of the Book, the Jews and Christians, and those who follow their ways (polytheists, zoroastrians and people of other relgions as Muhammad Asad has explained in his tafseer),
    The above verse mean, "O people of the Scripture: Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship neither a statue, cross, idol, Taghut (false gods), fire or anything else. Rather, we worship Allah Alone without partners, and this is the message of all of Allah's Messengers.
    Muhammad bin Ishaq and other scholars said that the beginning of Surah Al `Imran, and more than eighty verses thereafter; were revealed about the delegation of Najran. Az-Zriuh stated that the people of Najran were the first people to pay the Jizyah (tax money paid to the Muslim State).
    Naseer Saheb, is 1oo% correct. This is what I am trying to prove that anybody who rejects the Islamic monotheism ( and the prophethood of Hazrat Muhammad as I have proved in my comment By Khalid Suhail - 5/16/2015 12:57:19 PM ), will be treated as Kafir.
    You said in the last sentence of the above comment, The beauty is that no one need change his religion since every religion has elements that make  it both possible and easy to move towards the common terms enunciated in 3:64”
    Amazing! If a polytheist is asked to give up worshiping his multiple gods, and a Majusi (Zoroastrian) is asked to give up worshiping the Holy Fire, then what is left in his religion. He will be no more a hindu  or majusi as he, in that case, will have changed his relgion! Where is the beauty? Where is the principle of, “ There is no compulsion in religion” and above all where is the freedom of relgion?.
    Although,  the people of Najran were not forced to change their religion, but in lieu of that they had to pay Jizya. Still you say, “The beauty is that no one need change his religion since every religion has elements that make  it both possible and easy to move towards the common terms enunciated in 3:64”
    It is also clear now that, what the editor of New Age Islam Sultan Shahin saheb quoted you in his Jaipur speech; (the Quran does not identify kafir by his/her belief or faith but by certain specific characteristics that make the person an active enemy of Religion, God and the people of faith. In Quran, a kafir is one who actively hinders people from practicing their faith, persecutes people of faith, opposes humanitarian practices such as giving of charity, shunning usury etc. A kafir could be a Muslim, Jew, and Christian, polytheist or atheist. The term is faith-neutral.) was totally wrong.
    By Khalid Suhail - 5/17/2015 9:14:58 AM




  • Shahin Sb,

    The definition is valid in the temporal dimension. God does not call the Mushrikin of Mecca Kafir except those who were the open enemies of Islam and those covered by 98:6 for the reasons mentioned in Surah 98.

    As far as the spiritual dimension is concerned, the definition of Kufr is faith relative as shown in my articles:

    Who Is A Kafir In The Quran? (Part 3): Why Kufr Is A Relative Concept While Shirk, Idol Worship Etc. Have Fixed Meanings

    And

    Is the Quran a Book of Contradictions?

    "shirk" is an unforgivable sin for the Jews and the Muslims, but this is lightened for the Christians who may be forgiven for their "shirk" and therefore for the born "Mushrik" there will be further leeway.

    There is no verse in the Quran that closes the door on those born Mushrik who die without reciting the Shahadah.

    The door is closed only on the rejecters and those who die rejecting. The Quran also describes the characteristics of the rejecters. Khushwant Singh did not display those characteristics. People lay undue emphasis on what people say with their mouths when many of those we consider believers will stand in the ranks of the Munafiq or the disbelievers. So when believing with our mouths is not the criteria, I guess disbelieving with our mouth but showing gratitude and paying back to society in ample measure should count more than what people say with their mouth.

    We humans can never read God's mind or comprehend His wisdom or have any idea of His mercy.

    Suffice it to say that there is no verse in the Quran that closes the door of forgiveness for people of any faith but only on the unjust, the arrogant and the oppressor and on those who after accepting the faith and receiving the knowledge, violate its injunctions and prohibitions. As long as people follow in a selfless  manner what they truly know and believe to be the truth, and do not reject any truth when it becomes plain to them, and do good deeds , they will be successful.

    It is amusing when two ex Muslims try to prove that Gandhiji and Acharya Vinobha Bhave will go to hell and congratulate each other for their comments!


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/17/2015 8:58:40 AM



  • Perwez Hoodbhoy provides further evidence from his personal experience why Madrasa education is a serious violation of the human rights of Muslim children, as I pointed out in the above article, as well as in one of my interventions in a debate in the UN Human Rights Council a couple of years ago. Read this excerpt from one of his latest articles:

    "The impediment to learning proper math is just one — wrong learning goals, wrong attitudes. Mathematics does not require labs, computers, or fancy gadgetry. But it does demand mental capacity and concentration. Nothing is true in math unless established by argumentation based upon a rigorous chain of logic, with each link firmly attached to the preceding one. The teacher who cannot correctly solve a math problem by following the defined logic will suffer loss of face before his students.

    "Contrast this with the madrasa model wherein truth is defined by the teacher and prescribed books. The teacher’s job is to convey the book contents, and the student’s job is to appropriately absorb and memorise. There are no problems to be solved, nor is challenging suppositions or checking logical consistency either encouraged or even tolerated.

    "Limited to religious learning, such learning attitudes are perfectly fine. But their absorption into secular parts of the education system is disastrous. The hafiz-i-science or hafiz-i-math, which are copiously produced, carry exactly zero worth.

    "Giving logic a back seat has led to more than diminished math or science skills. The ordinary Pakistani person’s ability to reason out problems of daily life has also diminished. There is an increased national susceptibility to conspiracy theories, decreased ability to tell friend from foe, and more frequent resort to violence rather than argumentation. The quality of Pakistan’s television channels reflects today’s quality of thought.

    "For too long education reform advocates have been barking up the wrong tree. A bigger education budget, better pay for teachers, more schools and universities, or changing instructional languages will not improve learning outcomes. As long as teachers and students remain shackled to the madrasa mindset, they will remain mentally stunted. The real challenge lies in figuring out how to set their minds free."


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/17/2015 7:48:09 AM



  • Rational Yunus Saheb, I am only wondering if Naseer Saheb's definition of kufr, kafir and derivatives I quoted in my Jaipur speech still holds: “the Quran does not identify kafir by his/her belief or faith but by certain specific characteristics that make the person an active enemy of Religion, God and the people of faith. In Quran, a kafir is one who actively hinders people from practicing their faith, persecutes people of faith, opposes humanitarian practices such as giving of charity, shunning usury etc. A kafir could be a Muslim, Jew, and Christian, polytheist or atheist. The term is faith-neutral.” 
    Not accepting or even rejecting and actively hindering people from practicing their faith, persecuting them, etc are not the same thing. Late journalist Khushwant Singh, for instance, did not accept, indeed outspokenly rejected religion itself, but never hindered people from practicing faith or persecuted them for the same, so which category he will be put into?
    While Naseer Saheb is right not to judge individuals, but understanding and spreading the understanding of  who is and who is not a kafir has become necessary as Muslims consider all non-Muslims kafir and many even consider them wajibul qatl (deserving death). Indeed, some sects even consider most Muslims kafir and Wajihul qatl. This is what is resulting in daily massacres of mostly Muslims by Muslims in different parts of the world.
    So this is not an idle philosophical or theological question that can be settled at leisure or left unsettled.  This is why I am so disappointed that ulema including some associated with New Age Islam will not discuss the issue. An Alim should have the courage of his convictions. If he thinks what the Islamist terrorists are doing in the name of removing kufr from from the face of the earth and establishing the "sovereignty of God" are doing the right thing, they should come out and say so. But they prefer silence even on a basic questions like who is a Muslim, who a kafir, who is ahl-e-kitab, what is this absurdity of Hindus being "Shibh ahl-e- kitab, etc.

    By Sultan Shahin - 5/17/2015 6:54:36 AM



  • Naseer saheb
    Who am I to call them Muslims? They lived and died as Hindus. They didn't give any hint that they should be called Muslims.
    Allah is not going to accept what is in heart. First believe in heart then bring it on tongue. Then you become Muslims.
    You can't check hearts. Therefore oral declaration is compulsory.
    If hidden iman was acceptable there was no need for companions to put their lives on trial.
    They were on trial because of their declaration of iman.
    Every body could be happy with hidden iman.
    Those who had iman but didn't go for jehad were treated harshly.
    Both of them left no will that they should be called Muslims.
    In fact you are becoming witness against them in day of judgement day. According to you truth was clear to them but they never accepted it.
    You are proving how intolerant Islam is by showing unless a person doesn't submit to Allah is not worthy of blessings.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/17/2015 6:15:26 AM



  • Those who were ruling NAI in the name of moderates, advocators of peace, inclusiveness went into exile the moment they were brought under trial of kufr a shirk.
    According to hadith near qayamat many fitnas will appear. It seems classical scholars considered took the new defintion of kufr and shirk as their  trial, they flowed the advise of the prophet to save their Islam by keeping silence.
    We are told that iman is never stationary. It goes in increasing decreasing. Getting engaged in such debates they felt that their iman is under trial


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/17/2015 5:37:30 AM



  • convoluted not consulted
    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/17/2015 5:29:06 AM



  • Sultan saheb
    The very same question has come to your tongue I am asking why intellectuals who quote non-muslim scholars and scientists who found miracles in the quran don't answer why they didn't accept Islam as their religion.
    Naseer saheb is adament on words 'acceptance' and 'rejection'.
    From perspective of the Quran once truth is clear it must be accepted else it is a form of rejection? Do you see any logic in it?
    What can be more kufr than believing something true and not accepting it.
    It is not like gifting something and not accepting.
    Even people are offended if they give some gift and others doesn't accept it.

    Some scientist were on payroll of Saudi kings. If they really found scientific miracles in the God's book why they didn't accept Islam? What stopped them? Didn't they willingly invited the wrath of god because after the truth clear to them they didn't accept it.
    Acceptance is not enough. Declaration of iman I believe in one god, I believe I his book is compulsory. Without it nobody become Muslim.
    So Gandhi ji or vinoba and similar people stand rejctors of truth. There is hardly a difference in nonacceptance and rejection.
    The position of Abu talib is doubtful. 
    Can we say Abu talib died as Muslim? What the prophet wanted from him? It was declaration. Something in heart was not sufficient to become Muslim.
    If that was the case companions perhaps would have not faced the trial. They could live in comfort. Declaration was their trial. 
    The Quran has uncompromising stand on accepting or not accepting the truth.
    Consulted logic and piles of words can't cover this simple and obvious truth.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/17/2015 5:08:13 AM



  • Rational,     What makes you think that a Hindu cannot fit into the definition of a Muslim? I am not talking about any Hindu but one who believes in a God without associating partners and in the consequences of his deeds in life beyond this world and does good deeds for the sake of God or goodness? He does not reject other scriptures or prophets either.
    Now whether Gandhiji and Acharya Vinobha Bhave fitted this description or not is not my concern nor will I comment on it because that amounts to playing God and judging others on matters of faith.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/17/2015 4:48:45 AM



  • Rational,

    From where do you get the nonsensical notion that fighting is incumbent on a Muslim? If that were so, there wouldn't have been the treaty of Hudaybiah.

    Fighting was made incumbent under conditions where fighting was unavoidable.

    The Quran clearly favours treaties and alliances over fighting and there is a clear verse which makes it incumbent to accept an offer of peace.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/17/2015 4:40:39 AM



  • Naseer saheb
    Apne HK jaal men khud ulajh raho ho.
    Nobody accept what is in heart. It has to come on tongue.
    What god will say to dwellers of hell? Why didn't you become Muslim when truth was clear to you?
    No, Naseer saheb. No matter how much they respected Islam they never declared it? 
    What you say is mere a conjecture. 
    Did Yusuf hamza become Muslim just believing in heart witout declaring it?

    When prophet Abraham saw the truth he said I am a believer in one God, I have nothing to do what idol worshippers do?
    You are wrong just wrong. You are pulling wool over the eyes.
    Is there any escape for a man not to accept once truth is clear to him. No escape.
    Sorry. Your claim is outlandish far from truth.
    Allah demands declaration of truth. If not all Muslims including peohets were wrong.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/17/2015 4:40:00 AM



  • Naseer saheb
    Selective quoting is not monopoly of yours. It happens for various reasons. You discard hadith when it doesn't serve you. Plain and simple.
    We have read many views of ghazali. What do you say about his fatwa that once in a life a Muslim should go for jehad. Here jeahd is not striving to overcome evils of self but it is fight.
    Since rejection of truth is evil in Islam so jwhad(fight) is duty on him.
    From your perspective there is nothing wrong with Islam and their scholars.
    We can excuse every scholar because under their  circumstances whatever they did is just fine. Slowing you will wash every scholar of Islam.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/17/2015 3:55:07 AM



  • Rational,

    KS has quoted parts of what I said and parts of what Yusuf Hamza has said to say what he wanted to say!

    He omitted the following from Yusuf Hamza for example:

    "There is no doubt that the disbelievers are in the Inferno, but Imam Al-Ghazali is explaining that “Kufr” is an active denial, not a passive state of ignorance. That is denial must follow a clear understanding of what one is denying. Moreover, for those who are sincere, it is not only understandable but necessary that they would search for the truth."

    As far as what rejection means, I have quoted the relevant verses from the Quran in part 3 of my article and pointed to the section in this article subtitled:
    When does rejection of the `Truth’ brought by the Messenger become kufr?

    Whether Gandhiji and Vinobha Bhave rejected "the truth" after the truth became clear to them or not, is something I have not commented on because that is not for any person to judge. It is very clear to me however, is that they did not reject.  Their understanding could well have been that Prophet Muhammad was indeed a Prophet of God but so were also those that they followed. That they showed respect to the Quran and the Prophet was apparent. 

    Unlike the article by Yusuf Hamza, which is more of the opinions of scholars, my articles are logical inferences derived from relevant Quranic verses. When we are both saying the same thing, what I say is far stronger and with conviction because it is based on very clear verses whereas what Yusuf Hamza says remains a tentative opinion. 

    Take for example the beginning of the article where he says:

       "According to the Quran, polytheism is the greatest sin against God. Surely God will not forgive “shirk”, but He will forgive anything less than it for whom He pleases (4:116). The majority of orthodox scholars do not apply this verse to polytheists who have never heard a true message about God".
     
    I say the same by inferring logically from a group of verses that apply separately to Muslims, Jews, Christians and the rest.

    You are the one who is going around in circles asking the same questions such as "why is dawa required?"

    Dawa is required because the Quran is for all mankind and it is incumbent on the Muslims to spread the message. Whether people change their religion as a result of the Dawa or make necessary adjustments to their own beliefs or reject the message is not the concern of the Dai since even the Prophet was asked only to convey the message. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/17/2015 3:33:52 AM



  • Thank you Rational Muhammad Unus saheb for your supporting comment.


    By Khalid Suhail - 5/17/2015 3:27:14 AM



  • "By the One in whose Hand is Muhammad’s soul, no one from this community (ummah), whether Jewish or Christian, will hear of me and then die without having believed except that he is apportioned among the denizens of the Inferno."
    In this hadith true spirit of the Qur'an is reflected. it is in full agreement with the Quran.
    the rule says only Hadith which contradicts the Quran is false. This Hadith by no mean ontradicts the quran?

    If jews and Christians could be left on their scriptures there was no need of inviting them to Islam. there was no need to tell them if you reject the message you will go to hell.
    no matter how much Islamic scholars run in circles, they can't eliminate this spirit of the Quran unless they start unbelieving in it.
    Till they believe that the prophet and the Quran are infallible there is no hope for non-Muslims.
    The Quran is called al-furqan. so those who beilive in the quran are Muslims and those don't are kafirs. and all know what the abode is for kafirs.
    plain and simple.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/17/2015 1:52:44 AM



  • The prophet subdued and killed kafirs in this temporal world. in spiritual world their sin/crime of kufr will roast them for ever.
    this is the total sum of Islam on kufr.
    regarding your definition it is good if it is true and acceptable to Muslims. however it doesn't solve the problem completely.
    only you have managed to include Muslims into kufr and shirk. There is some truth in it because many beliefs of them are shirk and many actions are kufr.
    it has failed to spark any debate on practical real ground. Let us see if finds some space within Muslims. and remember there are billions of people who will not like to be called Muslims even if you declare them Muslims based on your definition, for loyalty to their beliefs, culture is most important.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/17/2015 1:41:41 AM



  • Dear Khalid Suhail - 5/16/2015 12:57:19 PM
    Thanks for a excellent comment.
    From the Quran, Hadith and ijma of scholars it is beyond doubt that from very beginning if prophet-hood is true that kafirs were those who rejected prophets and Muslims were those who accepted them. whether they belonged to Moses, jesus or mohammed.
    there were only two categories in Semitic religions believers and disbelivers in prophets.
    After hz mohammed became prophet, made truth manifest (Muslims think so), again remained two categories of people. Believers in Hz Mohammed and Disbelievers of hz Mohammed.
    Former bound to paradise(may be punished for sometime or can be forgiven completely) and disbelievers who are bount to hell fo forever.
    Naseer saheb can go in circles but the fact is as we mentioned.
    His new defintion of kufr and shirk though extraordinary but is not true.
    i wish it were true but it is not.
    Who were those kafor among the ahl e kitab. they were deniers of truth the prophet brought. this truth was against the sonship of jesus and Tinity.
    anybody whether he fought or not fought against the truth brought by the prophet is kafir if he refised to believe in hz mohammed's truth.
    Naser saheb is trying hard to establish his discovery but its successes is almost impossible because it is against the very true siprity of the Quran kufr and shirk on which Islam stands.
    How millions of Muslim scholar fail to understand a fundamental of Islam? How they can't see it? How the Quran produces one scholar who only understands it correctly.
    Gandhi ji or any other non-muslim who had great respect for Islam is a kafir by a very fact that belief in hz mohammed as a prophet makes some Muslim or kafir.
    if a non-Mulim believes that certain truth hz mohammed brought, and brought reform but refused to accept him as prophet is a kafir.
    By very definition of Naseer Saheb, hz mohammed made the truth manifest but any one rejected among ahl e kitab were kafir.
    who can be worst creature in the eye of God than that who rejected the truth his prophet brought and made it clear to him.
    The verse is clear no need to camouflage to it by dubious means.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/17/2015 1:19:54 AM



  • Dedi Azaan Masjidau may humnay 'HAIYALAS SALAH HAIYALAS SALAH'

    Aur likh diya bahar - andar na aayen falan aur falan.


    Khauf hota hoga shaitan ko bhi aaj ka Musalmaan dekh kar ,

    Namaaz bhi padta hai to Masjid ka naam dekh kar.


    Musalmaanau kay har firqay nay ek doosrey ko kafir kaha

    Bus kafir hi hai jis nay hum sub ko Musalmaan kaha


    By Listener - 5/16/2015 10:32:18 PM



  • KS,

    Read my comment By Naseer Ahmed - 5/16/2015 12:08:54 AM especially the last para.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/16/2015 1:39:03 PM



  • “I quoted you in my Jaipur speech, on which the above article is based, as concluding: "the Quran does not identify kafir by his/her belief or faith but by certain specific characteristics that make the person an active enemy of Religion, God and the people of faith. In Quran, a kafir is one who actively hinders people from practicing their faith, persecutes people of faith, opposes humanitarian practices such as giving of charity, shunning usury etc. A kafir could be a Muslim, Jew, and Christian, polytheist or atheist. The term is faith-neutral.………..”Now while I hope to be wrong, it seems that the discussion has led to a sort of conclusion or consensus that any one who has come across or understood the message of Prophet Mohammad and still refuses to accept it can be considered a kafir………There are many non-Muslim intellectuals who are very admiring of Islam's many qualities, and have done tremendously valuable work in this direction, and yet not embraced Islam. Should they be considered Kafir?

    For instance, Sant Vinoba Bhave spent an enormous amount of time studying Quran and made a selection of the essential verses in his view. Should we consider him kafir? In your view and understanding, of course.  By Sultan Shahin saheb - 5/15/2015 2:50:44 PM

    Naseer Ahmad Saheb responds by saying,

    “Shahin Sb, Your question regarding Acharya Vinobha Bhave etc is covered in the article:

    Is the Quran a Book of Contradictions?

     and in a comment under the same article as follows:

     

    Rational, You are missing the subtle nuances. Verse 5:118 holds out a very strong hope that those Christians who were guilty of the kufr/shirk mentioned in 5:72, 5:73 out of ignorance and not out of willful "denial of the truth" will be forgiven.”

    He further says,

     With reference to God, a non-believer Is guilty of kufr if he rejects the “truth” out of envy, insolence, arrogance rather than for lack of required evidence or conviction…….He becomes a kafir after the truth becomes manifest to him where his mind and heart acknowledges the “truth” and yet he rejects it…….A non-believer has time upto his death to accept "the truth" and he does not die a Kafir unless he has rejected the truth and died rejecting it”.

     ---------

     Hamza Usuf writes in his book, “ Who are disbliever, “The Prophet said, “Three among my community are not responsible: the sleeper until he wakes, the child until it reaches puberty, and the deranged person until he recovers his sanity.” “…….Scholars differentiate between idolatry (shirk) and disbelief (kufr). Every shirk is kufr, but not every kufr is shirk. For instance, in the dominant position of the scholars, neither the Jews nor the Christians are considered idolaters; they are, however, considered disbelievers once they hear of the message of the Prophet Muhammad  and reject it. The sound hadith in Muslim’s collection is clear on this matter: By the One in whose Hand is Muhammad’s soul, no one from this community (ummah), whether Jewish or Christian, will hear of me and then die without having believed except that he is apportioned among the denizens of the Inferno.

    Hamza Usuf commenting on the above Hadith, says,“Two extremely important points are elicited from this hadith. The first is that when the Prophet  says, “from this community,” he is referring to all people of the entire world from the time his message began. His community is divided into two groups: one is the community of acceptance (ummah al-istijabah), which includes those who answer his call of submission to God, and the other is the community of invitation (ummah al-dawah), which includes those who are invited but have not responded yet. The second important point is that the final judgment on a person’s state cannot be determined until the end of that person’s lifetime. In this hadith, the Prophet said, “no one…will hear of me and then die without having believed….” In other words, once the message is heard, a person has the rest of his life to accept or reject it. This understanding is enforced by several verses in the Qur’an, such as, “Surely those who disbelieve (kafaru) and then die in a state of disbelief, upon them is damnation from God, His angels, and all of humanity (2:161)”. The Qur’an clearly states that one must die in a state of disbelief to be in a state of perdition.Their disbelief is not in God but in a messenger of God, and disbelief in Islam is defined as denial of God or denial of any of His messengers and what they brought.”......"The term kufr has several different definitions (hadd). Ibn Furak defines kufr as, “Ignorance concerning God, concerning His attributes, and a denial and rejection of that is understood to be included in that ignorance.” What this definition implies is that a man who denies God or associates something else with God is ignorant of God, and his ignorance has led him to reject what is true about God. Ibn Furak quotes Abul-Hasan al-Ashari as saying, Kufr is an ignorance of God , and it is one quality that is the opposite of knowledge of God. It resides in the human heart and is in understanding and not in action. Moreover, the ignorance of God is a hatred of God and a puffed up attitude toward God, a mocking of God, and a rejection. (This is the most straightforward and clear feffinition of Kufr, After this definition, nothing remains to be defined?.  It is noteworthy that Hamza Usuf himself claims that he is an orthodox Sunni muslim and a  follower of Abul Hasan Al- Asha’ri – emphasis mine)

     Abu al-Baqa defines kufr as “a single system of belief opposed to the undoubtedly true sacred law of Muhammad .” He explains further: Who Are the Disbelievers?  People are categorized into two groups: those who accept Muhammad’s way, and they are called believers (mu’minun); and those who reject it, and they are called disbelievers (kafirun). From this point of view, the kafirun comprise one group even if they differ among themselves; in that way, they are like the sectarians among the Muslims: that is, they have different beliefs within the religion of IslamKufr itself can be both in word and in deed. A word is one that necessitates kufr: that is, a rejection of something agreed upon by consensus among the Muslims [is kufr], irrespective of whether it is from a belief, resistance, or derision. An action that results in a judgment of kufr would be one that was done intentionally and indicates clear contempt for the religion (of Islam- emphasis mine), such as prostrating to an idol or throwing a Qur’an in the garbage.

    Hamza Ususf’s comment on the above quote, “ This definition is consonant with most modern Muslim understandings of kufr. It is simplistic, black and white, and assumes that everyone has heard the message, thought about it, and made a final decision on it. The legal term kufr means “a rejection of what is necessarily known from the religion of Muhammad, that is, [kufr is] to reject the existence of the Creator or the prophetic mission of Muhammad  or the prohibition of fornication and anything similar in enormity.”

    The legal status of a kafir is important to ascertain, as a kafir does not inherit Muslims, nor do Muslims inherit from a kafir.  Moreover, a kafir is not buried according to Islamic funeral rites, nor is he or she prayed for after death by Muslims.

    Now it is crystal clear, in the light of the above that any one who has come across or understood the message of Prophet Mohammad and still refuses to accept it can be considered a kafir ( if he dies disbelieving in his prophet-hood- emphasis mine).

     Definitely, Vinoba Bnave and  Gandhiji were not ignorant people( if somebody thiks so, he is ignorant himself).They knew and heard of Islamic requirement of accepting Hazat Muhammad as the last prophet of Allah, yet they did not embrace Islam not out of envy, insolence, arrogance or lack of required evidence (as Naseer Ahmad sahib says), but because they saw him just as a reformer not as a Nabi . Since they were not  buried according to Islamic funeral rites they died disbelieving in the prophet-hood of Hazrat Muhammad, Therefore they are Kafir and they are among dwellers of Hell.

    Note : This is not my belief like rest of the muslims( I profoundly respect them), but this is the judgement of Islam.


    By Khalid Suhail - 5/16/2015 12:57:19 PM



  • Lodhia Sb,  What you have asked for is the best advice that a Tablighi can give to those who are graduating.
    I must therefore put on my Tablighi hat/cap/turban. The best (and also the only) advice that any Tablighi can give to such a group of young persons is to go on a Tablighi Tour for 40 days so that the students can learn how to orient themselves to the source of all wisdom. They will then learn how to be guided by what God expects of them so that they can dedicate their lives to accomplishing the purpose for which God has sent them into this world. With God as their friend and helper, nobody can then stop them from achieving the goal of  self-actualisation, which as you know is far beyond money, power, fame and influence - these will come but only as something incidental to what is far greater.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/16/2015 12:58:01 AM



  • Shahin Sb, Your question regarding Acharya Vinobha Bhave etc is covered in the article:


    and in a comment under the same article as follows:

    Rational, You are missing the subtle nuances. Verse 5:118 holds out a very strong hope that those Christians who were guilty of the kufr/shirk mentioned in 5:72, 5:73 out of ignorance and not out of willful "denial of the truth" will be forgiven.

    Verse 5:72 talks about how  Jesus warned his people about the consequences of "shirk". By giving the message indirectly, God has not made the consequences of shirk detailed in the verse  incumbent upon Himself. He has left the door open for forgiveness. So also 5:73 which is not specific as to what the grievous penalty will be and whether in this World or in the hereafter. There is no escape for those who willfully violate these injunctions but hope for those who do it out of ignorance.
    Verse 4:48 is categorical and it is for the Jews. There is no escape for them if they commit any "shirk". There is an identical verse 4:116 which is for the Muslims. The Muslims also have no escape if they commit "shirk". You can see the function of repetition here. It makes clear that 4:48 is binding on the Jews and 4:116 on Muslims. Are these verses not binding or applicable to others? These become equally binding to those who have understood the true nature of God and the implications and consequences of shirk. If this was meant for all mankind, the verse would have begun with "O ye mankind!" and it would not have been repeated. If 4:48 was meant only for the Jews it would have begun with "O Children of Israel". Although it does not begin with a direct address, since it is among the group of verses for the Jews, it is as binding on the Jews as if it had begun with a direct address to them. At the same time by avoiding addressing people of a specific faith, it is also binding on others who understand its purpose and implications.

    So also 4:116 which is found in a group of verses for Muslims. It does not begin with "O ye who believe" and yet there is no doubt that it is binding on the Muslims.

    Neither verse 4:48 or 4:116 can be applied uniformly  to people of any other faith as we have seen in the case of the Christians where their "shirk" which is unintentional and from ignorance can be forgiven.

    That is why I have said that in my article Who Is A Kafir In The Quran? (Part 3): Why Kufr Is A Relative Concept While Shirk, Idol Worship Etc. Have Fixed Meanings that Kufr in the spiritual dimension is also not absolute but faith relative.

    Those who try to apply 4:48 which is identical to 4:116 to people of other faiths will end up with contradictions. We can see how these two verses "contradict" the implication of 5:118. This is an apparent contradiction which then makes us understand 4:48 and 4:116 and its limits. 

    It is now easy to see why the Mushrikin cannot be considered as Kafirin unless they reject faith and die rejecting. To the Mushrikin what is relevant is 3:91 "As to those who reject Faith, and die rejecting,- never would be accepted from any such as much gold as the earth contains, though they should offer it for ransom. For such is (in store) a penalty grievous, and they will find no helpers."

    And what is rejection? This is covered in the article cited above.

    Islam is truly a universal religion and makes allowances for people of other faiths.

    Ultimately, only those who move towards the common terms in 3:64 will be successful. Those who resist or reject after knowledge has come to them, will be treated as those who resisted or rejected.  The beauty is that no one need change his religion since every religion has elements that make it both possible and easy to move towards the common terms enunciated in 3:64 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/16/2015 12:08:54 AM



  • Shahin Sb, In part 4 of my article, I have clearly defined it as follows:

    WHO IS A KAFIR IN THE QURAN? DEFINING KUFR.

    We are now in a position to define the term kufr as used in the Quran based on the discussions in the previous 3 sections of this paper. This definition varies from the definition we find in Sunni theology which is also discussed.

    DIMENSIONS OF KUFR

    From the discussion so far, we see that there are two dimensions to kufr:

    Kufr relating to man, society, the world or the temporal dimension

    Kufr relating to God or the spiritual dimension

    KUFR RELATING TO THE TEMPORAL DIMENSION

    The Quran recognizes certain human rights:

    Right to belief and pursuit of one’s beliefs without obstruction or persecution

    Sanctity of life and property

    Mutual rights and responsibilities emanating from commonly accepted norms of civil society, agreements, contracts and the laws of the society in which one lives.

    KUFR RELATING TO GOD OR THE SPIRITUAL DIMENSION

    The Quran also recognizes the “Rights of God”

    The spiritual dimension is covered by the scriptures which inform the believer about his covenants with God and the duties and responsibilities emanating from these.

    The believer invites a nonbeliever to become a believer and accept these covenants and become the recipient of divine blessings and guidance, showing gratitude for the blessings of God and fulfilling his part of the covenant by conducting his affairs in accordance with the guidance provided in the scriptures.

    Besides God’s blessings common to all, God is “shaa’ker” (giver of thanks) which God does through His rewards for the acts of man that are for pleasing God. Man is required to reciprocate with `Shukr’ (giving thanks) through worship and acts that please God such as spending on charity. For the sins of man against God, his reckoning is with God alone, who will punish him in the hereafter.

    With reference to God, a non-believer

    Is guilty of kufr if he rejects the “truth” out of envy, insolence, arrogance rather than for lack of required evidence or conviction.

    He becomes a kafir after the truth becomes manifest to him where his mind and heart acknowledges the “truth” and yet he rejects it.

    A non-believer has time upto his death to accept "the truth" and he does not die a Kafir unless he has rejected the truth and died rejecting it. Unless a person has openly rejected "the truth", it is only God who  knows who is a kafir and who is not in the spiritual dimension. In the case of Meccan Polytheists, we know that God did not treat all of them as Kafir even in verses 9.1 to 9.6 of Surah Taubah that announce the judgment for the vanquished Polytheists. The punishment is only for the Kafirin among them.

    Professing faith is not enough as we know from the verses regarding the hypocrites. Even in case of those who profess faith with their mouths, we know nothing about what they believe with their hearts. Apart from doing Dawa, another person's faith should not be anyone's concern.

     A believer is guilty of kufr if he violates the prohibitions and injunctions in the scriptures.

    PUNISHMENT FOR KUFR

    A violation of the rights of man and/or God is kufr.

    The Quran prescribes hadd punishments only for kufr in the temporal dimension. Kufr in the temporal dimension is also kufr in the spiritual dimension but not vice versa.

    Hadd punishments for kufr relating to God or the spiritual dimension are not prescribed in the Quran as that would violate the right of conscience that the Quran clearly grants to man.

    Some forms of Kufr may appear to stride both the dimensions - for example, an apostate who turns hostile and carries on activities harmful to a section of the society or the state. Such a person can be punished for the harm that he has caused or can potentially cause but not for apostasy. Apostasy is merely incidental and irrelevant to the case as apostasy is not kufr in the temporal dimension.

    Usury, if it does not contravene laws of the land, will only be kufr in the spiritual dimension. Through legislation, usury could be made a punishable offence since it is injurious to man as well but it is not hadd. Legislating punishments for kufr related to the spiritual dimension alone, violate the freedoms granted to man by the Quran and is kufr.

    The following is from part 3

    MECCAN POLYTHEISTS

    The Meccan polytheists we are told by the Quran, were not a people to whom a messenger was sent before, nor did they have a Book of revelation like the Christians or the Jews. The Quran describes them as an ummi nation and their state as of Jahaliya or ignorance. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse but there was no divine law for them at all. For these people therefore, shirk, idol worship, adultery was not kufr.

     (36:6) In order that thou mayest admonish a people, whose fathers had received no admonition, and who therefore remain heedless (of the Signs of Allah).

    This verse is regarding the Meccan Mushrikin and implies that the earlier people cannot be held guilty of the Kufr of Shirk and will be judged by what they knew and believed to be “the truth”.

     (20:134) And if We had inflicted on them a penalty before this, they would have said: "Our Lord! If only Thou hadst sent us a messenger, we should certainly have followed Thy Signs before we were humbled and put to shame."

    The above verse makes the point clearer. If no penalty could be inflicted in this world for the Kufr of Shirk on the earlier people, how can they be punished for it in the hereafter?

    What was kufr for them was solely violating self-evident truths or what was accepted by their own society as a serious crime. The only deeds for which the Quran treats the Meccan pagans as kafir are for:

    1.         Persecuting the Muslims for no other reason other than for their faith

    2.         Fighting the Muslims for their faith and driving them out of their homes. Breaking peace treaties and aiding the enemy.

    The Meccan pagans  are uniformly referred to as the Mushrikin except those standing against the Muslims in battle, those that practiced persecution, or those who broke their treaties with the Muslims. The Quran also confirmed the Kufr of Meccan pagans covered by 98:6 and declared their punishment also besides that of Abu Lahab. These exceptions, who were the enemies of the new faith of Islam, apart from those who conspicuously rejected the faith after initially inclining towards it based on the expected coming of a Prophet covered by 98:6, are referred to as the kafaru among the Mushrikin, clearly implying that not all the Mushrikin are Kafirin.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/15/2015 11:57:35 PM



  • Sultan Shahin Saheb,

     

    Subject: THE BEST GRADUATION ADVICE  

     

    Is there any way you can politely request your two most celebrated commentators on New Age Islam forum to write a brief advice to give to the American Muslim graduates based upon their understanding of the Qur’anic wisdom. The Chosen One (Observer/Naseer Ahmed) is likely to ignore this request, whereas, The Defiant One, (Irrational Mohammed Yunus – Ex-Tablighi) will find faults in the Qur’an as always. Nevertheless, it is worth a try.     

     

    In any case, here are few paragraphs from the article titled, “Graduation and the best advice”

     

    A Christian Science perspective: Where does the best graduation advice come from?

     

    By Jan K. Keeler – May 5, 2015    

     

    Graduation season is upon us. It is always interesting to read the inspiration shared about success and the sage advice given by accomplished, noted speakers. Yet, I was talking to a recent graduate who commented that it is difficult to know just what to do with all of the recommendations about decision-making – especially when some of the advice seems contradictory.

     

    I agreed with my friend that it can be tricky to navigate these varying opinions, but said that if you get very still and listen for God’s guidance, you will be led in a unique direction that makes perfect sense for you. God is divine Love, who is forever telling us, “This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left” (Isaiah 30:21).

     

    From this and other biblical directives about looking to God when making decisions, Mary Baker Eddy, the Discoverer of Christian Science, wrote: “God is All-in-all.... He is all the Life and Mind there is or can be.... Now this self-same God is our helper. He pities us. He has mercy upon us, and guides every event of our careers” (“Unity of Good,” pp. 3-4).

     

    These truths have brought me great comfort several times when I felt as if I was at a crossroads. After I tried to silence my ego and pride that wanted to keep comparing myself to others, and when I stopped worrying about others’ opinions, then I was ready simply to ask God, my loving Father, to help me understand Him as divine Mind – the only Mind – and my mind. Divine Mind has created me and has a vision for me, and He is always unfolding His purpose for me. Because I am the offspring of Mind, God’s spiritual idea, I cannot be separate from His perfect wisdom and His impeccable direction. I can never be overwhelmed, confused, fearful, or indecisive.

     

    Link to the article.

     

    Sultan Saheb, knowing well that both these commentators being heavily influenced by the “Tablighi Jamaat,should be able to provide us with the clue of their thinking pattern, the moment they come up with their own version of the best graduation advice for the young American Muslims. This task should be relative easy, provided they are genuinely concerned about the Muslim youths around the world.      

     

    Let’s face it, Naseer Ahmed has been pretty much persistent on a daily basis to teach “Ex-Tablighi” about the core message of our Holy Qur’an. For all that I have read thus far, I am unable to grasp what is in their respective minds. Yes, we all know that “Kufr & Shirk, are the two main topics they prefer to debate all year long. Perhaps, their valuable input can guide the followers of “Tabligh Jamaat, and of course, the Madrassa graduates in India and Pakistan as well.  

     

    By the way, everything is related to this thread. The reason being that in your Jaipur speech you highlighted the importance of addressing the Madrassa teachings which in your own words, “leads to destroying their lives and fills their minds with xenophobia and intolerance.” Granted that most of the readers on New Age Islam forum do respect your concerns to reform the Muslim minds, hence, why not start by discussing about “THE BEST GRADUATION ADVICE.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia  

     

    cid:image007.jpg@01D07C89.00C57A10  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/15/2015 7:29:56 PM



  • Naseer Saheb has written: "I am trying to make the people unlearn the incorrect meaning of kufr and kafir and relearn the correct meaning, but just see how some of the extreme illiterates of the 21st century attack my efforts!"

    True, I am watching this from the very beginning. Most deplorable was the attitude of classical Islamic scholars, products of Sufi madrasas, including those associated with New Age Islam, who simply refused to engage with the subject.

    But, Naseer Saheb, please clarify for me something that I am perhaps getting confused about as a result of the discussions that have ensued since on various threads.

    I quoted you in my Jaipur speech, on which the above article is based, as concluding: "the Quran does not identify kafir by his/her belief or faith but by certain specific characteristics that make the person an active enemy of Religion, God and the people of faith. In Quran, a kafir is one who actively hinders people from practicing their faith, persecutes people of faith, opposes humanitarian practices such as giving of charity, shunning usury etc. A kafir could be a Muslim, Jew, and Christian, polytheist or atheist. The term is faith-neutral.”

    Now while I hope to be wrong, it seems that the discussion has led to a sort of conclusion or consensus that any one who has come across or understood the message of Prophet Mohammad and still refuses to accept it can be considered a kafir. It doesn't follow, of course, that by virtue of being a kafir one becomes also "wajibul qatl (deserving to be killed)," as many Muslims and non-Muslims appear to believe. Yet, should these people who have studied Islam, for instance non-Muslim professors of Islamic Studies,  or authors like Karen Armstrong, and not accepted Islam, be considered Kafir. There are many non-Muslim intellectuals who are very admiring of Islam's many qualities, and have done tremendously valuable work in this direction, and yet not embraced Islam. Should they be considered Kafir?

    Is there any other scriptural word for non-Muslims that we can apply to them? The general Muslim belief is that any one who is not a Muslim or indeed anyone who doesn't belong to my Islamic sect is a kafir, including other Muslims, ahl-e-kitab, religious people, saints of other religious persuasion, etc. For instance, Sant Vinoba Bhave spent an enormous amount of time studying Quran and made a selection of the essential verses in his view. Should we consider him kafir? In your view and understanding, of course. As for most Muslims, as I said before, practically everyone in the world is a kafir. Every Muslim is a kafir in the eyes of some or the other Muslim.


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/15/2015 2:50:44 PM



  • Lodhia Saheb, Rational Mohd Yunus is convinced with your comment that "it shows the verse about "worst creatures" is very true, indeed those who question  Islam are "worst creatures" and wajib ul qatl."

    Maybe Rational Saheb is wrong and he has got a wrong impression about you. Maybe you are not among the millions of Muslims who do consider any one who speaks critically of any Islamic tenet as wajib ul qatl."

    But don't you think we should discuss these issues and clear the cobwebs? Do you think banning a discussion would solve our issues? Is it possible for any community today to live completely separately from all other communities?

    Can we just say that this discussion quoting some contextual Quranic verses is disgusting and so we will just remain silent.  Is silence the answer to the cacophony around us?


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/15/2015 2:15:43 PM



  • Lodhia Saheb, You have been reminding me of my duties as editor, which in your opinion seems to be to stop Quran's verses that embarrass you being quoted on the forum. I believe these verses need to be discussed and their context and meaning explained to the readers, so that misunderstandings are removed.

    Let me quote in full a reader, a Buddhist scientist, Mr. Shiv Shankar's  comment in full, so that you review your opinion in the mater. Do you think we should reply to and try to explain the problems our non-Muslims and, of course, ex-Muslims, and sceptical Muslims have towards these verses of Quran or simply ban any discussion.

    --------

    Mr. Shiva Shankar wrote:

    "Look Mr. Shahin, with difficulty I look at your mails, often virulent and abusive of other faiths, though you pretend some elementary tolerance.

        According to the Quran, polytheism is the greatest sin against God. Surely God will not forgive “shirk”, but He will forgive anything less than it for whom He pleases (4:116). The majority of orthodox scholars do not apply this verse to polytheists who have never heard a true message about God….

     

    As a Buddhist (and a scientist), I consider polytheism to be as valid as any other faith. The above paragraph has caused me great anguish, and I do not wish to recieve any further mails from you.


     I shall similarly remove your address from my list, for your injunctions are anathema to the Buddha's teachings of universal compassion and peace.


     From the above paragraph, Islam does seem to be the antipode of Buddhism, preaching as it does hell and fire and brimstone for people of other beliefs and traditions, especially the non Semitic ones.

    By Shiva Shankar - 5/12/2015 8:30:25 AM


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/15/2015 2:02:39 PM



  • lodhia
    "Not only this, you further compared this humble Muslim to another Muslim (Ex-Tablighi) who have been relentlessly engaged in smearing Islam and mocking Qur’an for quite a long time."
    thanks for speaking of your mind. you gave me a window to heart of a humble Muslim.
    it shows the verse about "worst creatures" is very true.
    indeed those who question the Islam are "worst creatures" and wajib ul qatl.
    only you have don't reack to my neck to hack it.
    if somebody do this you will be forst person to garland the murderer and rest of your brother will bw watching video like ISIS issues and Muslims enjoy.
    The verse is extremely disgusting to those who don't believe in Islam.

    I want you keep posting your childish whining comments.
    you have no problem with disgusting verses of the Quran but have all problem with those who expose them.
    i acknowledge your right to protest against so called mocking of the Quran which mocks unbelievers and apostates.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/15/2015 2:12:22 AM



  • Shahin Sb,
    "The illiterate of the 21st century are not those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn"
    That is a great quote. I have changed the tense of the quote since we are already in the 21st century.
    I am trying to make the people unlearn the incorrect meaning of kufr and kafir and relearn the correct meaning, but just see how some of the extreme illiterates of the 21st century attack my efforts!

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/15/2015 12:51:27 AM



  • Good Morning Sultan Shahin Saheb,

     

    As-Salaam Alay-Kum

     

    For long, I was under the impression that as a founder and editor of New Age Islam, and more importantly, possessing ample wisdom, you will help instill “Positive Thoughts. If you revisit the blog: www.fellowmuslims.com and reflect upon my letter with a subject title, “I Want To Die An Educated Man. dated August 19, 2011, you till surely catch the drift of my message directed to you.

     

    Quite frankly, on reading your response, I was shocked to know that for whatever reason, you were trying to use the word ”Disgusting,” with a cynical approach. If you are “A Journalist of Integrity,” then I challenge you to pull out from your forum’s archives, any of Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia’s comments about the Qur’anic verses. Your blatant accusation, “If some verses of Qur’an disgust you, say so, in so many words,” is totally ridiculous so to speak.

     

    Not only this, you further compared this humble Muslim to another Muslim (Ex-Tablighi) who have been relentlessly engaged in smearing Islam and mocking Qur’an for quite a long time. In my letter back in the year 2011, I specifically pointed out to you, the words of wisdom of Alvin Toffler, an American writer and futurist. In fact, after reading your “Distorted,” comment, I am now going to illustrate another quote of Alvin Toffer in a shape of a  digital image.     

     

     

    Sultan Saheb, the question of the day is, “How long will you continue to recycle the same old repetitive debates over and over again?” As a wise journalist, one should be able to differentiate between the prudent comments versus the disgusting comments against the Qur’anic verses by a handful of your forum’s regular commentators. You know precisely what I am referring to. The problem is that, in order to run your forum’s commentary column, you would much rather prefer to glorify the indecent comments of those commentators who are actively engaged in demoralizing the Muslim readers.

     

    For all I know, by openly claiming to be an ardent believer of “Freedom of Speech,” you should also appreciate that with the speech and/or debate comes, “Freedom to Protest,” too. What’s more baffling is your “Intellectually Dishonest,statement, “You surely don’t want me to ban Qur’an altogether from an Islamic website.” That’s simply uncalled for. No, Sultan Shahin Saheb, I say, try not to suppress the thoughts of “Moderate Muslims. Is that too much to ask?

     

    All in all, I request you and the rest of “The Readers, of New Age Islam forum to read my letter once again, where I specifically pointed out a remark of another Islamic scholar, who is residing in the United States of America as, “Will you please ask Lodhia to take care of his house and leave the Muslim world alone.” With the very same spirit, you are also trying to do the same by twisting my comments, so that you will eventually compel me to move on. Sorry, Sultan Shahin Saheb. That’s just not going to happen, until and unless, you jot down in writing that my comments are no longer welcome in your forum, and at the same time, you will inform all the readers.  

     

    Very respectfully yours,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

     

    cid:image007.jpg@01D07C89.00C57A10  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/14/2015 7:03:26 PM



  • Good thought.., but Nobody from Muslim Community can come forward , as he/she will be declared an Apostate under their Blasphemy law...!!!
    By Anil Kumar Shukla - 5/14/2015 2:05:29 PM



  • Indian scholar and founder-ideologue of Jamaat-e-Islami Maulana Abul A'la Maududi explains his vision in these words:

    “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state
    on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State.


    By Soumyakanti Chakraborty - 5/14/2015 1:51:20 PM



  • Mr. Sultan Shahin, Editor, New Age Islam, in the article has made valuable and right suggestions, which Muslims should pay attention to at the present circumstances of Islamic terrorism.

    By Badal Majumdar - 5/14/2015 1:49:04 PM



  • Successive Indian Govts instead of addressing the problems of Muslims, continued to harp that muslims are poor , illiterate, uneducated and they require reservations in job , admission to educational institutes, subsidies in various forms.

    Mr Shahin looks visionary and be encouraged to bring muslims in mainstream education and compete in the market.


    By Sudhaker Chintawar - 5/14/2015 1:44:19 PM



  • Mr Shahin,

    Islam is NOT tolerant of other faiths. It would rather have that everybody converts to Islam, or if it can't be done, Muslims live with a constant sense of superiority and entitlement over others. You know as well as I do what the Quran says about disbelievers, what it says about women, what it says about interfaith relations. You know how rigid it is in its injunctions and how cruel in its punishments. You know how dissent is tackled and how apostates are prescribed to be dealt with. This was the work of Mohammad, and the havoc we see in the world today, which has its basis in this Islamic vision, is the result of this fascist ideology. To say Mohammad had nothing to do with it is like saying Marx had nothing to do with communism, or Hitler with Nazism.

    I have no objection to the word Islamophobe provided it is a correct description. A person who knows nothing about Islam and holds an unreasonable phobia about it is an Islamophobe. I know about Islam - I have not only read a lot of the Quran translations, but have for two years observed the discussions around Islam not just on this site, but on others as well. If I reach an informed opinion about  Islam on this basis, it is not a phobia. It is the position of a critic. You are learned enough to know the difference.

    Your suggestion that I should try to make a difference in my own community smacks of the 'mind your own business' attitude. I would, if what muslims did did not affect the rest of the world. As things stand, Islam induced violence is the biggest threat civilisation faces today and it is hence everybody's business. The troubles of my community do not harm anyone but ourselves. 

    I am mostly with you on your quest for reform. But that reform will not happen unless you admit there are problems with the basic foundations, and since you cannot change those foundations, at least say this is wrong, this is obsolete, lets let this slide and move on towards more harmonious and less violent behavior. Reconcile for the wrongs done in the past. Allow the Hindus to build the Ram Temple. Help them build it. You don't have to carry the burden of Babar's sins. This single act will win Muslims many hearts. 

    As of now, do you see any Muslim even admit to any wrong? Do you see any Muslim initiative that is designed to foster love in non Muslim hearts? Do you see any attempts at reconciliation? How can we love somebody who thinks we are the worst of creatures who deserve to roast in hell, and who must,if Muslims ever become politically strong enough, convert, pay jizya or die? 

    You must look at Islam through the eyes of a Hindu to understand this. You are so close to it that you can only see the good. The bad is blurred for you. Only honesty can be a lasting foundation for reform. 

    By secularlogic - 5/14/2015 9:39:46 AM



  • You are right Mehar, but all these fights have to be fought. 
    By Sultan Shahiin - 5/14/2015 8:29:01 AM



  • secularlogic  shaeb, I don't know what you are referring to that Prophet Mohammad (saw) did which you consider fascistic. He brought a book that said: La Ikraha fid Deen (There is no compulsion in ways of life that includes religion). How can this be an example of fascism? Yes, Muslims have and continue to  perpetrate evil in the name of Islam as they brought great learning and science and religious pluralism to the world too after they became Muslims. Muslims have and continue to co-exist in harmony with vast populations, all over the world. We should fight the evil and encourage the positives. A wholesale condemnation of an entire community or the founder of its religion does not help. It will only infuriate them and impede the progress. 
    You have problem with the word "Islamophobe." But please tell me how will you describe someone who goes into paroxysms of rage when he hears some Muslim saying something nice, moderate, tolerant. I know Islamophobe is not a good word. But, secularlogic  shaeb,  please find me a better word to describe such people. 

    However, secularlogic  shaeb,  it takes all sorts to make the world so interesting and so fascinating. So I have no problems with Islamophobes. They are my brothers and sisters and neighbours and colleagues with whom I interact on a daily basis. I try to allay their fear of Islam and Muslims, I own up a responsibility as a Muslim for their fears to a certain extent, and I tell them it is wrong to be on the side of the evil people among Muslims as they are and also wrong to discourage the moderates and progressives among Muslims, if their purpose is to establish peace and prosperity for all in our world. After all, we all have to live together. 
    Before we do anything, take any position we should ask ourselves, what is our real purpose, do we want to encourage evil, or do we want to encourage the good. Both good and evil exist everywhere. Do criticise, expose, condemn the evil, for sure, and condemn it wherever you see it, particularly in your own self, and in your own community first, but also encourage the good wherever you see it, provided, of course, you are able to see good in something.

    By Sultan Shahiin - 5/14/2015 8:26:49 AM



  • You want to open their minds, they want to open your minds. Every time a new fight will come into existence. 
    By Mehar - 5/14/2015 8:05:04 AM



  • Thanks Madhav Rudraksh Sadhanaji, I know the task of reform in popular Islamic theology is difficult, particularly as vested interests have got involved. Terrorists have their own interests. Mullah, maulvis their own. Madrasa owners use it to make money. Halala committees function in many towns, even in Europe, where the richest member of the committe gets to do halala on the most beautiful women whose husbands and their families have been convinced that they have been divorced and if halala is not organised their families will face social boycott for continuing to live together after uttering triple talaq even under very dubious circumstances. So on and so forth. The list is too long and depressing. But reform is never easy. In any community and religious theology. So one should go on despite the odds. Unconditional support from the likes of you is, therefore, most encouraging. But I repeat fascistic methods have never worked and will never work
    By Sultan Shahiin - 5/14/2015 7:53:54 AM



  • Sultan Shahin ji, Your intentions are sincere but looking at the outbursts of Muslims on this post your task seems very difficult.
    We are with you anyway.

    By Madhav Rudraksh Sadhana - 5/14/2015 7:30:56 AM



  • Lodhia, what is your say on following extreme contrast?

    3) Madrasa education is a serious violation of the human rights of Muslim children. It destroys their lives and fills their minds with xenophobia and intolerance. Our government not only allows this but partly funds some madrasas. This must stop, unless, of course, madrasas actually change to become modern versions of what madrasas used to be like, in the Golden Age of Islam, and produce scientists and philosophers. A secular, democratic government should not be in the business of funding xenophobia and intolerance.

    Sultan Shahin

    Q: Do you think that all Madrasas should be converted into good, secular, modern schools?

    A: No. Never. Madrasas are doing good service, in their field, to provide people with religious knowledge. That’s also an important need. I don’t complain against madrasas. I only say that there is another field of learning—modern, secular education—which is directly related to jobs and other opportunities that needs to be also promoted. I don’t subscribe to the notion that madrasas should be ‘modernised’. No, not at all.  Maulana Wahiddudeen khan

    now you find yourself in knotty situation.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/14/2015 1:34:15 AM



  • Mr Shahin,

    And what Prophet Mohammad did in his times was not fascism? Strange definitions you have. When others do it, it is fascism; when Muslims do it, it is noble.

    By secularlogic - 5/13/2015 11:36:37 PM



  •  If Muslims properly follow the Quranic instruction as well as prophet's Hadith truly radicalsation and differences will come to ZERO as per my opinion.
    By Mortooz Ali Laskar - 5/13/2015 3:32:52 PM



  • Sultan Shahin saheb, I have discovered Imam led Islam as a solution to all the cries. Dump all worshipping the idols of usurpers of the identity of Khalifa and Imam decreed in posterity of aal e Imraan.
     Muhammad Mukhtar Alam,Ph.D., Managing online networks for Movement for Transition to Post Carbon Green India
    By Dr.Muhammad Mukhtar Alam - 5/13/2015 9:52:41 AM



  • Mr. Madhav Rudraksh Sadhana,   Fascism has never solved any problem. Hitler, Mussolini's didn't and yours won't. I am aware of the seriousness of the issue and the difficulties we face in bringing Muslims to the idea of serious reform. But your solution is far more impractical.
    By Sultan Shahin - 5/13/2015 7:10:45 AM



  • "Bear in mind that as an Editor of New Age Islam, it is you who initiated an endless debate on the subject matter, “Worst of Creatures. What you should be encouraging on your forum, is for the commentators to have a lively discussion about how Muslims should help in promoting “Compassionate” 

    and “Merciful,” acts towards humankind. " -- Rafiq Lodhia


    Please guide me Lodhia Saheb as to how I should go about having a lively debate on how Muslims should help in promoting “Compassionate” 

    and “Merciful,” acts towards humankind. 

     

    "Referring to theword  “Disgusting,  which you pinned d own upon me; I must say that an honest-to-goodness criticism from Shiva Shankar questioning your judgment is what one can classify as “Disgusting,” Sultan Shahin Saheb." -- Lodhia

    Please help me understand if you are calling Mr. Shiv Shankar's comment as disgusting or the Quranic verse regarding Shirk being unforgiveable as disgusting.

    Even before you appeared to have considered some other Quranic verses as disgusting but you never say so clearly and honestly as say Rational would. Please let me know clearly if you consider some Quranic verses disgusting or the fact of my allowing them to be discussed on this forum as disgusting? 

    Please give me a list of what you consider "disgusting" Quranic verses, so I can try and keep them out of discussion. I know now that the verse about "worst of creatures" is one such verse that disgusts you. The other must be the following that even Mr. Shankar finds objectionable and wrote angrily to me: 

        "According to the Quran, polytheism is the greatest sin against God. Surely God will not forgive “shirk”, but He will forgive anything less than it for whom He pleases (4:116). The majority of orthodox scholars do not apply this verse to polytheists who have never heard a true message about God…."
    But I am sure there must be some more verses of Quran that disgust you Mr. Lodhia. Please furnish a list so I can see if they can be somehow kept of any discussion on Islam and Quran. You surely don't want me to ban Quran altogether from an Islamic website. Some people wanted me to ban Hadees, now the demand is about banning Quran. Please guide me in a more precise fashion how do I go about doing my job. Your vague comments and attempts to fire from other commentator's shoulders are not very helpful. If some verses of Quran disgust you, say so, in so many words. Be honest like Rational Mohammad Yunus Saheb is. 

    By Sultan Shahin - 5/13/2015 7:04:50 AM



  • Suggestions are impractical.It is just not possible that muslims anywhere in the world will ever agree to reform Islam.

    They are used to subjugating others, dominate others, winning by terrorising others, killing murdering just anyone ,having killer
     knives as home use weapon, performing and watching halal killings .............

    They will never ever agree to reform any teaching of kuran.Kuran is in their favour.They are winning anyway, just in all their missions.They have converted half the world and are conquering every culture. 

    They can be reformed only and solely by Force, by the laws that spurn their evil acts, by stern punishments, by putting strong strict restrictions on them, by penalising, imprisoning and by capital punishments.Follow china, follow angola, follow japan or ......

    By Madhav Rudraksh Sadhana - 5/13/2015 6:17:20 AM



  • My Dear Shiva Shankar,

     

    My people are lost in the wilderness. Perhaps, this brief video of Dalai Lama might enlighten their minds!  

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20MnLcOL7Ks

     

    “WHAT DO YOU THINK? DO YOU AGREE?”

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia   

     

    cid:image007.jpg@01D07C89.00C57A10  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/12/2015 9:50:51 AM



  • MrShiva Shankar - 5/12/2015 8:30:25 AM

    I can feel your anguish. With the Quranic statement that polytheism is unforgivable sin and crimes/other sins can be forgiven is the main obstacle in the path of universal peace.
    If Muslims can't maintain peace within themselves it is very remote possibility that they will maintain with other faiths.
    I fully agree that polytheism is equally valid and useful doctrine. Polytheism is not the source of evils. Pure monotheism is not able to bring peaceful coexistence. And impure monotheism is not acceptable in Islam.

    Have good days.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/12/2015 9:46:48 AM



  • Sultan Shahin Saheb,

     

    As-Salaam Alay-Kum

     

    As an ardent admirer of Dalai Lama, I have to wholeheartedly agree with Shiva Shankar about Buddha’s teachings of universal compassion and peace.

     

    https://ciccib.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/14th-dalai-lama-quotes-13.png

     

    Bear in mind that as an Editor of New Age Islam, it is you who initiated an endless debate on the subject matter, “Worst of Creatures. What you should be encouraging on your forum, is for the commentators to have a lively discussion about how Muslims should help in promoting  “Compassionate” and “Merciful, acts towards humankind.

     

    Referring to the word “Disgusting, which you pinned down upon me; I must say that an honest-to-goodness criticism from Shiva Shankar questioning your judgment is what one can classify as “Disgusting,” Sultan Shahin Saheb.

     

    Very respectfully yours,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia  

     

    cid:image007.jpg@01D07C89.00C57A10  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/12/2015 9:18:27 AM



  • Look Mr. Shahin, with difficulty I look at your mails, often virulent and abusive of other faiths, though you pretend some elementary tolerance.

     

        According to the Quran, polytheism is the greatest sin against God. Surely God will not forgive “shirk”, but He will forgive anything less than it for whom He pleases (4:116). The majority of orthodox scholars do not apply this verse to polytheists who have never heard a true message about God….

     

    As a Buddhist (and a scientist), I consider polytheism to be as valid as any other faith. The above paragraph has caused me great anguish, and I do not wish to recieve any further mails from you.


     I shall similarly remove your address from my list, for your injunctions are anathema to the Buddha's teachings of universal compassion and peace.


     From the above paragraph, Islam does seem to be the antipode of Buddhism, preaching as it does hell and fire and brimstone for people of other beliefs and traditions, especially the non Semitic ones.


    By Shiva Shankar - 5/12/2015 8:30:25 AM



  • "But if you are depending on clerics to evolve this theology in contravention of their own  theology of violence and intolerance, you are clearly mistaken. The experience with seeking to discuss the meaning of kufr in Quran is very instructive. It shows what is in store for your reformation project.

    "But I agree that something will have to be done in this regard. I don't think any university will also help. Recent "brainstorming" of Muslim intellectuals from around the world in AMU also went along predictable lines -- nashistand wo guftand wo barkhastand. You should think of something fresh."

    By Salman Asif - 4/30/2015 1:10:50 PM

    ---

    I fully agree that neither ulema nor Muslim intellectuals, certainly not Indian ulema or Indian Muslim intellectuals, are going to help create the theology of peace and pluralism that we need and need urgently. But Salman Asif saheb, we have to start somewhere. We do not have the resources to go the community directly. We do not have the resources of Dr. Zakir Naik or other Salafis. That is why if we are able to debate a question like who is a kafir in Quran or is there any punishment for apostasy or blasphemy in Quran, etc in a university campus and put it out on YouTube, we may start a debate, something the community needs badly. It's not so much the question or the nature of debate but debate itself that I believe will open the closed minds of Muslims. Our minds have been largely closed for over a millennia. We better open it and soon. For instance, we can at least show the discrepancy between compassionate and reasonable Qur'anic injunctions and the absurdity inherent in some ahadees and some so-called divine Sharia laws. That's why I put so much stress on debates on New Age Islam too.


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/11/2015 12:55:15 PM



  •  Thab tak Maqaam ibrahim pe nahi pohochoge Hal nahi milega.
    By Ibrahim Mohammed - 5/11/2015 11:06:31 AM



  •  Mr. Shahin u seem to be guided by enemies of Islam. U want to please them. Acts of radicals and fanatics have been condemned by Ulama. If you have courage criticize and condemn the imperialistic policies of West.
    By Usmankhan Umarkhan - 5/11/2015 11:05:04 AM



  • Alhamdolillah, Aameen summa Aameen
    By Md Farooque Zakiullahi - 5/9/2015 9:16:02 AM



  •  Mr Sultan Shahin, Manzar Jameel and others are invited to talk peacefully if you need to understand ISLAM, QURAAN or Deen.
     We love and respect you all.
     Kiyon ke Huzoor paak ki Ummat me Aap bhi hai bhai.
     Allah ham sabhon ko Hidayat ata farma!
    By Md Yahya Zakiullahi - 5/9/2015 9:13:52 AM



  •  Quran z the book wthout any substitute nd z writen by Almighty Allah.
    Mr. Sultan Shahin, it z totaly contradictory nd it z creatng doubt of us being muslims if we do as per ur view.
    each nd every verse of this book z valuable nd if we wl give stress on some verses nd lagging some behind then we cant make an islamic society or we cant use shariah on ths land.
    each verses of quran has its own value nd z compulsory fr us. the main reason fr muslims being so backfoot s we r nt reading quran in an explinatory way nd at the same time we ve to read quran thinking it has been send to me to read it nd use it meaning in our society to create an islamic state nd use islamic sharia.
    numbr second z hadith we cant do any thing wthout hadith, if quran provids us the base fr islam or islamic society but the entire frame z provided by hadith so both quran nd hadith s must wt ever sutiuation it z.
    By Wani Younus - 5/9/2015 9:06:52 AM



  •  Islam me Terorist ki jagah nahi he.
    Jo terorist he woh muslim nahi he. Islam ko reform korne ki jorurat nahi kuch Muslim ki such ko change korne ki jarurat he .

    By Ahmed Mustafa - 5/9/2015 9:03:26 AM



  • Lodhia
    Your mentor wahiduddin khan saheb don't see any of problem in madarsa and madarsa education.
    He doesn't want any change in madarsas. Read his interview on this forum.
    Do you not boast of close relations with khan saheb? Write to him to change his views.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/8/2015 10:19:06 PM



  • Lodhia
    The Quran itself admits that it misguides people. For this purpose Allah has included unclear verses. What is if it is not gate to misinterpretation? Don't you say people misinterpreted the Quran? All believers accuse each other.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/8/2015 10:06:40 PM



  • Muslims certainly need to come out of MULLA Islam and sharia made by jurors from Arab countries centuries ago The reversal to simple Islam as was during the time of Prophet saw and our rightly guided khulfa will revive our faith
    By Akhtar Sahab - 5/8/2015 2:24:53 PM



  • अत्यन्त साहसिक एवं सामयिक तथा प्रगतिशील सुझाव।
    By Krishna Shukla - 5/8/2015 1:54:12 PM



  •  follow quran and hadith strictly
    By Mehraj Din Munshi - 5/8/2015 1:50:10 PM



  •  Radicalisation master were d British and British agent...Leninism ..Stalinism ...Darwinism.. they were d mentors of fanaticism...so more and more Muslims radicalise...as Islam strictly forbid fanaticism...in Islam d words have no place...
    By Gayatri Laishram - 5/8/2015 1:48:33 PM



  • We shall have a forum world over to prevent any aggression between Muslims we shall have method of resolution of the grievances between parties. Between the rulers and the people. What we see is political issues confronting the Muslim world. Not religious issues.
    By M Sultan Lone - 5/8/2015 1:45:31 PM



  • Let's make a better world.
    By Mohd Arman - 5/8/2015 1:40:28 PM



  • If someone burn our kuran so what we do????
    By Muneer Ahmad - 5/8/2015 1:37:00 PM



  •  Unless & until u can paint Muhammad & his deeds in d negative ....Islam can never change.
    By VikramAditya JungBahadur Rana - 5/8/2015 1:35:09 PM



  • Muhammad & his deeds must be divorced from d Koran ...or else Islam will remain d same ...& u must allow for d freedom of d mind ...train followers 2 be rational ...


    By VikramAdityaJungBahadur Rana - 5/8/2015 1:33:26 PM



  • Good Morning Sultan Shahin Saheb,

     

    As-Salaam Alay-Kum

     

    Stretching My Mind,” in order to try to comprehend three of “Ex-Tablighi’s,” remarks as follows:


           

     

     

     

     

    You being an ardent supporter of such Muslim commentators, should at least enlighten your forum’s readers about the exact translation of what the perverted “Madrasa Educated Muslim,” is, trying to convey to his fellow Muslims.  

     

    During the presentation made by you in an international conference in Jaipur (India) between the 19th and 21st of March, you stated as follows:

     

    “Madrasa education is a serious violation of the human rights of Muslim children. It destroys their lives and fills their minds with xenophobia and intolerance. Our government not only allows this but partly funds some madrasas.”

     

    Sultan Saheb, the point I am getting across is that, you have one relentless commentator who is absolutely intolerant with a deadly aim to plunge New Age Islam into Dark Age Islam. It will be much appreciated if you can “Stretch Your Own Mind,” a little and share your thoughts on the three remarks made by the the ”Ex-Tablighi.”

     

    More importantly, why are you blaming the Government of India? Aren’t you, as an Editor of New Age Islam also allowing such “Hatemongers” to pollute the minds of your fellow Muslims?  The question of the day is, “Who is leading people to Gumrah?”

     

    Thanking you in anticipation, I remain

     

    Very truly yours,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

     

    cid:image007.jpg@01D07C89.00C57A10  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/7/2015 11:05:52 PM



  •  Islam is a complete and it has no confusion Regarding Quraan & hadith...
    Say *Asthagfirullah*
    By Imran Khan - 5/7/2015 1:25:06 PM



  •  क्या हज़रत सलल्लाह वले मुहम्मद अपने बंदों को ,हज़रत अली के पैरोकारों को मारने देते?! क्या जिहाद अपनी बुराई से लडा़ई है या दूसरों की बुराई से ।
    By Vijay Prakash Gupta - 5/7/2015 1:19:39 PM



  •  अल्लाह ने कहा कुछ बंदों ने बदल डाला ,आज मुहम्मद ही मक्तूल है मुहम्मद के नाम पे ?!
    By Vijay Prakash Gupta - 5/7/2015 1:17:33 PM



  •  Perhaps, conservatism can be delinked from religion. Religion need not be the focul point of one's life.

    To prevent any child from veering to the right wing it is essential that parents explain to their kids very early that religion is a personal matter and need not be the basis of political identity.

    One thing that is often not discussed is radicalisation of Hindu youth by Hindutva groups. That is also a matter of equal concern.


    By Soumyakanti Chakraborty - 5/7/2015 8:55:44 AM



  • Dear GG
    Your beliefs are on stake on this site. So any suggestion to change anything about the Quran is a stab to your heart.
    And those who suggested are stabbers in your heart.
    Luckily they are peaceful moderates not enemies of islam or islamophobe.
    You are good on commenting on certain sects of Muslims. Otherwise you believe Islam as it is, is just fine.
    You perhaps doesn't believe in reform in Islam.
    The steps in the way of reformation are stabs in your faithful hearts.
    The religion you inherited from imams,  sufis is under the question.
    Why you remained silent on new definition of kufr and shirk by NA.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/7/2015 8:55:09 AM



  • Anand Kumar: " Preventing Islamic radicalisation is an urgency as it is forcing Hindus, Christians and Jews also to radicalise as a safety measure."

     I agree. But perhaps safety measure would be an inaccurate description. A more apt description would be that it is fueling the religious right among non Muslims. It's creating an atmosphere where they can justify their views.


    By Soumyakanti Chakraborty - 5/7/2015 8:47:26 AM



  •  Dixit Any reform is impossible in moslems' way of life, unless great revolutions, contemplation starts. 
    If at all this should be viewed as ridiculous claim of Muhammad, who declared himself as last prophet, ... which were certainly filled with hatreds n don't recognise coexistence. 
    Since Quran n it's guidelines serves well for the terrorists and they have hijacked Islam n they now control it at this moment, imams r merely puppets in the hands of these powerful terrorists organisations.

    By Santoshkumar Dixit - 5/7/2015 7:13:21 AM



  • Islam is a complete deen...
    If something is to be changed then change yourself...


    By Shahed Attar - 5/7/2015 6:58:08 AM



  • It is deeply disheartening to read any suggestion calling for any kind of change in the order or anything of the Quran. I feel like someone has given one strong stab to my faithful heart.     


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/7/2015 1:27:23 AM



  • Change your mind. Look in the correct perspective. We are living in the 21st century. This is not the time of Babar ruling when there was no voice of common people. This is the right time to think over peacefully as Shahin suggested.
    By Rakesh Bhadauria - 5/6/2015 11:26:32 PM



  • Truth is always not easy to digest it is always very very bitter.
    By Rakesh Bhadauria - 5/6/2015 11:18:17 PM



  • Shahin tried to get Padamshri and still busy in doing un-Islamic activities so please ignore him and his followers may be they will consider him new god so please let him go to hell.
    By Saif Malik - 5/6/2015 11:11:52 PM



  • You are right Shamim. Muslims are not guilty of anything. What they are doing is just establishing khilafat in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. And if in this course if some Muslim women, children and old people are killed its not their fault.Every Muslim should just wait for the orders of khalifa whatever he will order a Muslim will do and will not have his own conscience.Khlalifa will decide if a Muslim will have beard or not. Yazidis are killed, Muslims are killed by Boko Haram. Girls are being abducted in hordes and raped but people like you do not say a word of condemnation where as Islam says that if you cannot stop oppression, you should at least condemn it. Girls are lured in the name of jihad for sexual exploitation. In their captured areas, girls are forcibly marrried to fighters. All this is Jewish conspiracy to you. In Pakistan, they kill Muslims and non-Muslims alike. And you say Muslims are not guilty of anything. 
    By ahmad - 5/6/2015 11:01:59 PM



  • Shahin is nothing but an Israel and west agent.I had written a comprehensive letter but he did not replied basically I wants Muslims to adopt western values women produces babies out of wedlock,roam on road semi nude,people may indulge in all type of corruption like boozing etc etc.Basically he appears to be a non practicing Muslim like Taslima and Salman Rushdie and they are only after some worldly gains....let them enjoy ultimately they may face consequences of there deeds on the day of judgement... Oh they may not have iman on that also.
    By Shamim Rahman - 5/6/2015 10:55:50 PM



  • Shahin is an Islamophobe.. who wants to make muslims feel guilty for nothing...
    By Shamim Ali - 5/6/2015 10:50:02 PM



  • Nice thinking Mr Sultan, but if your dreams come true, won't Islam be dismantled?
    By Vinod Sharma - 5/6/2015 4:09:12 PM



  • This uprising has rather destroyed the image of Islam.
    By Sham Jetely - 5/6/2015 4:08:04 PM



  • Thanks for raising your voice in a correct way. Today in the present era there should be following for the well being of humanity not fanaticism. We will be more happy if everyone in the world be happy. It is the only question how? So bring the peace & progress.

    Good luck Sir.


    By Rakesh Bhadauria - 5/6/2015 4:06:59 PM



  •  Why there is so much intolorence in France and other self so called developed countries against the basic tenets of Islam? What about the bar culture, nude culture and disco culture which ruins the local culture of whole world? What about the thinking of the president of a super power that 'either you are this side or that side of war'? What about the media who are only and only one sided? There are only a few in billons of Muslims who are engaged in war but the whole world barring a few are against all the Muslims from east to west and from north to south and calling them jehadi.

    Mr Shahin First try to give lessons to the so called developed countries to come out of shell and try to understand Islam with an open heart and open mind and not to see Islam as their forefathers were during crusade in 12th century.


    By Pervez Ahmed - 5/6/2015 4:05:36 PM



  •  History is replete with innumerable incidences which only go to prove that islam has come to be fundamentally designed to stay what it is...there:s no moderate islam...it's just islam to sway the planet called 'earth', by hook or crook..!

    By Sidhnath Gupta - 5/6/2015 4:03:46 PM



  • I think it is the fault of some illiterate or conservative religious people who don't have have enough knowledge to understand the prevailing situations in modern time........they easily misguide the people who are very simple traditional in the name of haram and gunah so the contacted or affected people becomes narrow minds which always creates problems ......it is totally wrong that Muslims are terrorists and they are fundamentalist ........they are misguided to behave like this so it is the duty of each and every muslim to implement things after their accuracy....or by confirming it from ahadees ...I mean it should not be accepted blindly ....but must be accepted rationally and logically.......automatically bad things will be removed from the minds of people.....
    By Arif khan Alig - 5/6/2015 4:02:09 PM



  •  Science is the best religion.
    By Narendra Sengar - 5/6/2015 3:56:02 PM



  • I am worried about worldwide religious terrorism. It is said that nothing moves without the will of Allah. Then Muslims in Muslim countries (Pakistan Afghanistan Iran Iraq) are being killed by Allah's will. What is this nonsense. Madarsa education is the worst thing. This produces mad men ,harmful to others. Iran was beautiful country before madarsa men took over. These madarsa men killed lacs of Muslims. Unfortunately Madarsa produces highly intolerant mad man. Almost all the discoveries in this world are done by Whites (non muslims) then why Allah is allowing whites to progress more. Why are muslims suffering while so called Kafirs are more happy.Why a man can marry with four why not woman.
    By Narendra Sengar - 5/6/2015 3:54:57 PM



  •  Truly New Age Islam. Like Hinduism, Islam to has to keep pace with the changes n realities of our times. Hindus have discarded Manusmirti about 50 yrs back n are governed by the State enacted laws. Its a great initiative, Muslims world over have a re look.

    By Umesh Sharma - 5/6/2015 3:53:19 PM




  • نہ سحر کی تمنا انہیں نہ مجھے چراغ جلانے رینگے ــ ظلمات کے یہ خوکر روشنی کے باغ جلانے دینگے ــ کافر ہوتا اسکا بت میں توڑبھی دوں ــ واے دین ملا کے بت ہیں فتاوع کی آگ جلادینگے ـ العطش العطش ابھی کربلا میں فکر حسین کی ندا ـ ـ ہے ملوکی جام لہو ساقئ کوژرکا ایاغ جلادینگے ــ کافر سرحدوں میں شاہِ انا سے محملِ وصل رجم ہوا ـ واعظ ِچیستان کے رستۂ ہزاری سے لہو کے داغ جلادینگےــ رفیق الحسن
    By Rafiq Ulhasan رفیق الحسن - 5/6/2015 3:52:14 PM



  • मंजिल यूही नहीं मिलती राही को जुनून सा दिल में जगाना पड़ता है. पूछा चिड़िया को की घोंसला कैसे बनता है? वो बोली तिनका तिनका उठाना पड़ता है...!
    By Mahendra Maheshwari - 5/6/2015 3:50:57 PM



  • GRD
    i think you are busy somewhere.
    please answer when you see my comment and of Sultan saheb.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/6/2015 12:09:10 AM



  • What is this new age islam? I guess it is a ploy to defame Islam & to confuse ordinary Muslims. The fact is Extremism is not linked to Islam alone... We have Hindu , Christian ,Jewish & Buddhist extremists as well. So extremism or t