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.
Further Radicalisation Is the Challenge Muslims Must Undertake: Some Concrete
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
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
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
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
( 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.)
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
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.
O' God help us with right knowledge.
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.
summarises my suggestions as "these are “nice” ideas but utterly
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.
believe that once a meaningful debate starts,
things will start changing. What appears impractical today, may not
remain so tomorrow.
#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.
Rational and dear Wajid Hussain, thank you for the comment and for speaking the
“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.
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.
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
this categorical statement, how can Maulana Wahiduddin Khan agree with Nasser Saheb’s definition of Kufr unless
he takes a complete U- Turn?
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.
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.
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.
“(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.
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
Is There A Rational Basis For
The Atheists To Oppose Religion?
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.
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.
You were marked a copy of my correspondence
with Shehzad Saleem, as associate of Javed Ghamidi who had referred to his
Misreading a Divine Practice
Read from page 50, the
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..
as a Civilizing Influence
There A Rational Basis For The Atheists To Oppose Religion?
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
The mode of delivery is the recital (Quran) or
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
(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..
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.
Even today, many 'Muslim"
orgainizations are like the mosque described in 9:108 9:107
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
(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
(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
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
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
(56:10) And those Foremost (in Faith) will be Foremost (in
(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.
Is the Quran a Book of Contradictions?
and a comment that I reposted. It may be of help to you in your good work.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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
Sectarianism is God’s plan, hear God out.
Didn’t God choose to make us into different tribes, communities, nations and by
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.
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.
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]
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
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
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.
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.
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…..
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
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.
Saheb has circulated on his mail one of your comments that I had obviously not
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
Salafi Islam: What Exactly is ‘Salafism’? Part-1
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.
5/28/2015 9:18:27 AM
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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). 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. His officers enforced tax payment by beating up Hindu and Muslim middlemen responsible for rural tax collection.
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; 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". At the same time, he confiscated all landed property from his courtiers and officers. Revenue assignments to Muslim jagirdars were also cancelled and the revenue was collected by the central administration. Henceforth, state Kulke and Rothermund, "everybody was busy with earning a living so that nobody could even think of rebellion."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rafiq Lodhia, Sultan Shahin and Muhammad Yunus,
I invite your attention to the following:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
...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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
“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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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:
of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Qu’ran (Concluding Part)
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:
Points for Defeating the Extremist Ideology
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:
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.
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
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
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.
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.” 
“Concepts of prophesy, inspiration and revelation must be re-examined in view of the undoubted revelation of God in Muhammad and the Qur’an.” 
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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
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.
Jaisi Koi Cheez Hai Ka Nahin?
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.”
more thing, why did he missed mentioning about Stages 1 and 2 of James Fowler’s
be, the “Stealth Tablighi,” belongs to the top category! Why not?
Morning Sultan Shahin Saheb,
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?
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.
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.
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/
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
the favor of your early reply.
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.
"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."
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
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.
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?
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
Is A Kafir In The Quran? (Part 2): Muslim– Non-Muslim Relationship
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
The following is a link to a review of James Fowler’s book on the stages of faith:
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.
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.
"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.
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!
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."
Thank you Rational Muhammad Unus saheb for your
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
“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:
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 Islam. Kufr 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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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?
Jan K. Keeler – May 5, 2015
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.
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).
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).
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.”
Saheb, knowing well that both these commentators being heavily influenced by the
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
“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 stateon 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.
Mr Shahin looks visionary and be encouraged to bring muslims in mainstream education and compete in the market.
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.
"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:
Dear Shiva Shankar,
people are lost in the wilderness. Perhaps, this brief video of Dalai Lama might
enlighten their minds!
DO YOU THINK? DO YOU AGREE?”
Sultan Shahin Saheb,
As an ardent admirer of Dalai Lama, I have to wholeheartedly agree
with Shiva Shankar about Buddha’s teachings of universal compassion and peace.
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.
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.
Look Mr. Shahin, with difficulty I look at your mails, often
virulent and abusive of other faiths, though you pretend some elementary
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
"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.
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 ...
My Mind,” in order to try to comprehend three of “Ex-Tablighi’s,”
remarks as follows:
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.
the presentation made by you in an international conference in Jaipur (India) between
the 19th and 21st of March, you stated as follows:
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.”
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.”
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
question of the day is, “Who is leading people to Gumrah?”
you in anticipation, I remain
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.
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.
Islam is a complete deen...If something is to be changed then change yourself...
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.
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.
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.