certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islam and Politics

290 - COMMENTS

  • اسلام میں جمہوریت کا مقام
    اسلام کا مقصد دنیا بھر کے اچھے لوگوں کو ایک مشترکہ مقصد، ناانصافی اور تشدد کے خلاف لڑنے کے لئے متحد کرنا ہے۔ اس کے علاوہ خدا کی ہر مخلوق کے ساتھ حسن اخلاق، مروت اور ہمدردی و رواداری سے پیش آنا ہے۔خدا تعالیٰ کی مقدس کتاب قرآن کریم نے بھی اس بابت واضح اشارہ کیا ہے کہ پیغمبر اسلام کو خالق کائنات نے آفاقی فلاح و بہبود کے لئے ہم عصر ضرورتوں کے تحت صحیح راستوں کی مکمل ہدایت و رہنمائی فراہم کی ہے۔ اسلام ایک جمہوری نظام کا حامل مذہب ہے جو انسانی رواداری اور یکجہتی میں یقین رکھتا ہے۔ جمہوریت کے ناطے دیگر مذاہب کے ان نظریات کو اہمیت دیتا ہے جو خدا کی زمین پر خدا کے مخلوق کے لئے امن و سلامتی کے لئے کوشاں ہیں۔ تکثیریت اور قومی ہم آہنگی پر زور دیتے ہیں۔ اسلامی عقائد ونظریات پر مبنی تہذیب و تمدن آج کے جدید عالمی منظر نامے کے ساتھ ہم آہنگ ہے۔اسی لئے اس کی نشو نما جاری ہے۔قرآن کریم میں اس فلسفے کو بڑے واضح انداز میں بنای کیا گیا ہے۔’’خدا اس وقت تک لوگوں کی حالت نہیں بدلتا جب تک لوگ خد تبدیل ہونا نہیں چاہتے‘‘(القرآن)۔اس کا سیدھا مطلب یہ ہے کہ مسلمان اپنے مذہب کا خیال رکھیں اور اس کی تبلیغ کریں لیکن اس کے لئے تشدد اور انتہا پسندی کی راہیں اختیار نہ کریں کیونکہ کسی کے قلب میں اسلام داخل کرنا خدا کا کام ہے۔ بندوں کا کام صرف اتنا ہے کہ خدا کی بات اس کی مخلوق تک پہنچا دے۔
    اسلام کے مبلغین کے لئے یہ حد درجہ واجب و ضروری ہو جاتا ہے کہ وہ اسلام کی اخلاقیات اور دیگر مذاہب و اقوام کے ساتھ ہم آہنگی کی روایات کی عملی مثالیں پیش کریں۔رفاہی فلاح و بہبود کے لئے پیغمبر اسلام نے دیگر اہل مذاہب کے ساتھ معاہدہ کیا تھا۔ برائی کے خلاف ایک جٹ ہونے تعلیم ہمیں وہیں سے ملتی ہے۔
     
    By Abdul Moid Azhari - 11/20/2018 4:31:07 AM



  • Dear Ghulam ghaus, i am satisfied with your excellent article. By Salim javed - 3/29/2013 8:05:06 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 3/2/2013 8:23:13 AM
    I expressed my views and you yours. Story ends.

    By rational - 3/2/2013 9:15:56 AM



  • How does Allah almighty do justice? The justice is in the fact that the examiner does not burden any one with a test which might be beyond his or her ability. Allah has not given us wings to fly; and therefore, does not ask of us to fly in the air like birds. This is justice. Had He asked us to fly like birds (without giving us the wings), then it would have been injustice. But can we claim that because He did not give us wings (while birds have got it) we have been wronged by God? No. It is His sole prerogative to decide by which test should a par­ticular person be examined. And it is His justice and mercy that He does not demand from anyone more than his or her ability. If He has created a man without hands, He at the same time has exempted him from jihad, wudu and tayammum. Had such a person been required to wage war without hands, then we could have rightly complained. But as long as the responsibilities of an individual are tailored to his abilities, nobody can say that Allah has done injustice By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 3/2/2013 8:29:41 AM



  • Dear Bedi sahab, This world could not work if all people would have been of the same strength, same ability and same life‑span.
    The working of the world requires people of different caliber, strength and ability.
    All are equal in the eyes of the religion and `laws of religion.
    Everybody's responsibilities are tailored to his abilities. And that is the only thing demanded by justice.
    Imam Ja'far as‑Sadiq (peace be upon him) was asked about qada (fate) and qadar (divine decree). He said,
    "When Allah will gather His servants on the Day of Judgement, He will question them about the things which He entrusted them with, i.e., our obedience to the shari'ah which is within our power; but He will not question them about the things which He decreed and predetermined for them, i.e., the conditions of life which are beyond our con­trol.
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 3/2/2013 8:26:23 AM



  • Dear Rational, by the concept of "equality" it does not mean that all human beings are of equal health and strength; nor that all of them are of equal intelligence; nor that all of them are born with equal eyesight, or hearing capacity; nor do we mean that man and woman are equal in physical capacity and biological functions. What we do mean by "equality" is the equality before the law. Rich and poor, strong and weak, all are equal in the eyes of religion; all have to follow the same rules and all are governed by the same civil, criminal and ethical codes. There is neither high nor low, neither favourite nor neglected in the eyes of law. Another meaning is that anybody in Islam can achieve the highest possible honour and office without any distinction of origin, colour or tribe. The criterion of respect in Islam is neither wealth nor strength, neither birth nor colour. The only criterion is the "character." Allah says, "Verily the most honoured before God amongst you is the most pious of you." (49:13 By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 3/2/2013 8:23:13 AM



  • The Prophet Muhammad also declared to his people, who committed racism, that ethnic differences had no importance and that everyone was equal in the eyes of Allah. He repeatedly underlined that all that mattered was having sincere faith.

    The Prophet Muhammad also told people that Allah created man from nothing, that everyone is created equal and that everyone will give account of his deeds all alone before Allah. For this reason, he added that it would be a great wrong to look for superiority in one's descent.

    The Prophet commanded thus: "(All of) you are children of Adam, and Adam is from dust. Let some men cease to take pride in others. Narrated by Abu Hurayrah (r.a.), Ahmad, Abu Dawud, 4/331

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 3/2/2013 8:19:05 AM



  • Dear Satbir Singh Bedi, the article also remarks the same points ‘A far-sighted man can naturally embrace the fact that the principles of democracy and Islam have a lot of similarity. For example, democracy lays emphasis on public interests, self-reliance, personality development, protection from oppression and aggression, promotion of peace, mutual harmony, and love for the motherland. More inclusively, the parliamentary system of democracy has flexibility in law and order, responsibility, redressing of grievances, creating educational environment, eradicating violence and moral training of rulers in a focussed way. Liberty, justice and equality, as main principles of democracy, are implemented at all levels -- civilian, economic, cultural, political, social and so on. All these rights and privileges are not only emphasized and included in democracy but also are the basis of Islamic political theory..  Many contemporary Muslim scholars have considered the concept of Shura (mutual consultation) much identical to the principles of western parliamentary democracy. According to them, Islamic Shura is based on three precepts. First, all individuals dwelling in a society deserve equal human and civil rights. Second, the public issues are best judged by majority. Thirdly, the values like justice, equality and human dignity, which represent Islam's moral core, are best actualized, in personal as well as in public life, under Shura governance.
    Muslim democrats argue that the holy Quran points towards some form of democracy, or at least disapprove despotism. These precepts include Shura (mutual consultation), Ijma (consensus), Al-Hurriyya (freedom) and Al-Huquooq Al-Shar’yya (legitimate rights). For instance, Shura includes electing leaders to represent and govern on behalf of the community (Aal `Imran 3:159, Ash-Shura 42:38). Therefore, democracy (a government by the people) is not incompatible with the rule of Islam, while it has also been argued that rule by a religious authority is not the same as rule by a representative of Allah Almighty. However, this viewpoint is disputed by more traditional Muslims.
    It is clear that the concept of democracy in its general and real forms is much identical to the laws of Allah almighty.
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 3/2/2013 8:05:12 AM



  • Dear Satbir Singh Bedi, Indeed Allah has created men, and women with difference in color, height, weight and so on. This difference does not deal with the form of democracy. Apart from difference, Allah almighty beautifies them and endows them with human rights like equality, justice, liberty and positive freedom. He has made such laws where everyone can enjoy equal rights. He provides all the creatures with opportunities to enjoy comfortable life regardless of religion, caste, color, height and weight. 
    The rights, philosophically and scientifically incorporated in the subject of democracy, do not deal with height, weight, color, and richness or poorness but regardless of all these God-made forms. So the form of democracy is not against the laws of Allah   Almighty.
    One of the best forms of equality can be seen while Muslims are performing Namaz with congregation, where there is no discrimination into black and white, the poor and the rich: all are equal in front of Allah almighty. 
    It is another matter that some slaves of Allah almighty reach the higher extent of prestige and respect, because such level can only be achieved by virtuousness, piety and good duties commanded by Allah almighty. As for equality, He almighty gives it to every one to reach that higher extent of prestige. Similarly, the form of democracy gives equal opportunity to every one to make bigger achievements in the life but some become doctors, engineers while some become rickshaw-pullers or illiterate according to their respective efforts.

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 3/2/2013 7:43:32 AM



  • It is said that God created everything in pairs. Muslims put much emphasis on this. But is it really true? I doubt. Are eunuchs created in pairs?

    Why the Quran is silent on this category? It is open partiality and injustice on the part of God.


    By rational - 3/2/2013 5:37:27 AM



  • I beg to differ.  God has not made everybody as equal. He has created unique persons.  Some men are tall, some are small.  Some men are rich, some are poor.  Some men are powerful, some are powerless.  Some people have a high IQ, others are just duffers.  I could go on listing the differences.  Even men and women differ in their physique.  Man is complementary to a woman and vice versa but they cannot replace each other. However, democracy treats everybody as equal giving everybody a single vote.  Hence democracy is against the laws of God and is a humbug. Whether the system is democratic or despotic, cunning, bold and scheming people would continue to run the various countries in the world.  If that were not so, then Dara Shikoh would not have lost his life and Aurangzeb would not have become the king.  Even our democratic rulers are those who are bold, cunning and scheming. Of course, I admit that consultations and consensus is necessary amongst these powerful persons to remain in power.  You may not like my views but this is the truth.  Given the laws of nature or of God, Aurangzeb will always be the winner and Dara Shikoh would always lose. By Satbir Singh Bedi - 3/1/2013 11:32:22 PM



  • sadaf I said ban raha hai, not you are. By rational - 3/1/2013 12:41:52 AM



  • @Ghulam Gauss, Rational just remarked about me of being Sufi. By the way some sufis were known to be very harsh in their saying, but did good things and had good heart. By sadaf - 3/1/2013 12:32:48 AM



  • Dear Sadaf, those who are intellectual and have knowledge, should remember the following Hadiht.
    The prophet pbuh said "Learn whatever you wish to learn, for Allaah will never reward you until you do deeds."
    The Messenger of Allah said: "Learn whatever you wish to learn, for Allaah, Mighty and Sublime, will never benefit (i.e. reward) you until you act upon what you know."
    Abul-Hasan 'Alee bin Ahmad bin 'Umar Al-Muqree informed us, saying: 'AbdulBaaqee bin Qaani', the Judge, informed us: Al-Husayn bin 'Alee bin Al-Azhar narrated to us in Koofah: 'Ubaad bin Ya'qoob narrated to us: Abu Dawood AnNakha'ee narrated to us: 'Alee bin 'Ubaydillaah Al-Ghatfaanee narrated to us from
    Saleek that he said: I heard the Prophet say: "When a scholar knows (something) and fails to act (on it), he becomes like a lamppost which sheds light for the people yet burns itself out."
    The Messenger of Allah said: "The example of a scholar that teaches the people good but forgets (it) himself, is like the example of a lamp that sheds light for the people but burns itself out."
    Learning anything is very easy but to keep it up is rather uphill task. Today we have lots of knowledge but are far away from practicing them. We have theoretical Islam but need practical Islam as we found in the life of Sufis By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 3/1/2013 12:27:04 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Gauss
    Suna sadaf ne kya kaha.
    Jitnaa aur jaisa Islam aap mujhe padha rahe ho wo main pahle padh chuka hoon.
    aur sun lijiye jo science aap mujhe padhani chahte hain woh bhi main phle padh chuka hoon.
    By rational - 2/26/2013 11:46:20 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/26/2013 9:17:55 AM
    Keep preaching. I am listening to you.
    By rational - 2/26/2013 10:48:06 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/26/2013 9:17:55 AM
    Keep preaching. I am listening to you.
    By rational - 2/26/2013 10:46:26 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/26/2013 9:17:55 AM
    Keep preaching. I am listening to you.
    By rational - 2/26/2013 10:45:59 AM



  • People needing some heavy dosage of Islam are generally not on this website. By sadaf - 2/26/2013 9:32:09 AM



  • Ghulam Gauss, go and teach Islam to Muslims. They need it more than others. By sadaf - 2/26/2013 9:28:20 AM



  • When Allah says: “…if any one kills a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed the whole humanity: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole humanity…”.[Sura Mai’dah 5:31], then why Muslims are into terrorist activity and why those who aren't support such activity even if they do so in their heart or in their drawing rooms.

    More important than asking why do they do so, they should be wiped off the face of the earth. But then why should their sympathizers jump up trying to save their children. Are their children more innocent than their victims children? When they go about indiscriminately bombing, why cannot they be bombed indiscriminately? Just because their bombers are not on Islam while they claim they are on Islam? 
    By sadaf - 2/26/2013 9:27:18 AM



  • Patience is what the Prophet of Islam taught Muslims. It is never justified in Islam that you rob another person if you are robbed by someone else. Wronging someone because you were once hurt or harmed yourself is not allowed or pardoned in Islam. Whatever be the injury you may be nursing, resorting to a path of violence or wrongdoing is abhorred. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/26/2013 9:22:27 AM



  • Dear Ratioanl you are right that terror is a weapon of mass destruction. Why not to come together and eliminate it? But how to eliminate it, how to get it done is uncertain. Let us come to know what the holy Quran says "Allah does not love those who do mischief…” [Sura Mai’dah 5:64].  In this verse, the Arabic word used for “mischief” is fasad. It has got several meanings: Murder, Violence, Evil, Corruption, etc. So, it is clear that when Allah does not love those who do fasad on earth, how will he legislate violence as a part of His religion.The biggest form of violence is killing innocent people. The Holy Quran uses such powerful language to denounce innocent killing, that it leaves no room for any further argument. Allah says: “…if any one kills a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed the whole humanity: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole humanity…”.[Sura Mai’dah 5:31]
    It is thus clear that the sanctity of life is always protected by Islam. Even in retaliation a Muslim is not allowed to murder innocent children, women and elderly people. In a Hadith, the Prophet said: “Go out in the name of Allah and by the help of Allah, following the way of the Messenger of Allah. Do not kill any old man, infant, child or woman… spread goodness and do good, for Allah loves those who do good.”(Abu Dawood 
    The Quran and Hadith condemn terrors and violence but it is people who are committing the act of terrorism. We all can eliminate it being united, because the act of terrorism has no relation with a particular religion but it is killing lives without identifications including muslims, non-muslims men women and children.
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/26/2013 9:17:55 AM



  • Aur rational hone ki baat karta hai. By sadaf - 2/26/2013 9:01:29 AM



  • "The sun one day will be at sawa neza distance and heads of people will boil. All natural physical laws will be no more valid."
    Kaun padhaya hai tereko yeh sab? By sadaf - 2/26/2013 9:00:19 AM



  • http://prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_12_Delusions_of_Grandeur.Islam

    By rational - 2/26/2013 8:57:19 AM



  • It is quite possible that natural laws stopped working when the holy one was at work. Then secretions of the holy body smells musk and are sacred.

    The sun one day will be at sawa neza distance and heads of people will boil. All natural physical laws will be no more valid.
    Indeed Allah has power on everything.
    By rational - 2/26/2013 8:55:46 AM



  • to mr sultan shahin, i browse google and yahoo news regularly.
    i am giving a random site that was the top of the list for the search key words "suryanelli rape case" on google.
    __http://www.niticentral.com/2013/02/25/suryanelli-rape-case-111-people-booked-for-anti-kurien-post-49954.html__
    (please delete the leading and following two underscores to make the text an active link)
    please do not be alarmed SIMPLY on account of some comments between mr rational, sadaf and myself.
    it is more or less common knowledge which i posted about 111 cases having been booked is was reported in the various internet news sites. a hundred cases being booked for comments about a major political person IS definitely alarming. this is not similar to what i alluded to. the case of two mumbai girls being arrested after comments on facebook.
    please do a google search for suryanelli rape case and you will see what i posted at about the top five of the results.
    i thought it well within my thinking that i ought to warn vehement critics that vehemence could be cause for police action.
    this is all. by the way, this is nothing for an editor to worry about (please excuse my presumptuousness). the commentators are more liable for the comments they post than the editors that carry them on their site. i suggest you consult lawyers among your friends to see if a web site disclaimer about the liability of the authors for their comments will extenuate any potentially inflammatory content posted by commentators on an open forum and inadvertantly carried by the site.
    sorry to be bothering you, i reamain sincerely yours. By hats off! - 2/26/2013 8:51:37 AM



  • Ro raha hai rational. Par kar bhi kya sakta hai? By sadaf - 2/26/2013 8:51:17 AM



  • Dear hats off.
    You are victorious before you fight if blasphemy law is at your back.
    By rational - 2/26/2013 8:46:41 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUSS. You have given all answers. I submitt mysaelf to you. I swear Earth is flat. Geo-Centric model is proved. Imam Rabbani promoted peace. Ghulam Ghauss was peeron ke peer. Aala Hazrat is great great scientist of no parallel.
    Terror is the biggest WMD. Cure of all questions. Thanks for being kind. By rational - 2/26/2013 8:05:04 AM



  • Dear Hats off, This has reference to your comment starting with: "sorry for cross posting, but seeing that this is a very active thread, i thought it was the best place to post the following."

    Have I missed something? I am travelling. The UNHRC Feb-March 2013 session has started and I am busier than usual in the next few weeks. Please forgive me for not being quite up-to-date. What occasioned your warnings and Mr. Rational and Mr. Sadaf's response? Please enlighten me. I went a little down in the comment order but couldn't find anything alarming. I have got death threats to some of my contributors before but have not posted them, except one, in which the writer himself wanted it posted along with his response. Have other editors on the website missed something that shouldn’t have been posted. Do you suggest we should start monitoring again?

    By Sultan Shahin - 2/26/2013 8:01:32 AM



  • What is the crime of the people who are killed by terrorist attacks? No Crime.
    Let us suppose men women punished for their sins.
    Do not suppose. They are not punished but oppressed by those who are sinning by attacking them. Rise up and get away from your Jahil background. Do not suppose what is absolutely clear.
    What about the children?
    Children are always innocent. They can only be oppressed against but cannot be punished as they cannot commit any crime.
    Allah's divine plan?
    Yes. Allah's divine plan. For others to see that what is oppression and against what Muslims must rise.
    What they are punished for?
    Absurd Question. Children cannot be punished as they cannot commit crime.
    Where is the mercy of Allah?.
    Allah's mercy will be on them in Heaven, where children will forever seen innocent, while their murderers will as a general rule be seen foreever Jahannami.
    Is the death of those people is mercy of Allah in anyway?
    Death is Bar Haq  (Inevitable). One way or the other. At young age or old age. But those who will die innocently will be considered innocent foreever and thus Jannati, while those who will kill innocents they will be considered Jahannami forever. Isn't that Allah's mercy? If death become a ground that Allah Himself is murderer by taking away lives, then one should remember that nobody can give life like Allah and it is He alone who has given life and now if He is taking it away, what problem you have in dying. Tumhara tha kya jo kho jayega, tum kya le ke aaye they, jo tumhara chala jayega. Remember Gita's lesson. By sadaf - 2/26/2013 6:29:21 AM



  • Dear to make you understand take an example that applying fragrance is sunnah of the prophet Muhammad pbuh. According to some Ahadith he had natural smell as well.             A sweet fragrance was naturally emitted from the blessed body of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). In a narration Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) says that, 'I did not smell anything more fragrant than the fragrance of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). The fragrance was better than Amber and Musk'. Subhanallah!                                                                             Jabir Ibn Samura (may Allah be pleased with him) said that, 'The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) touched my cheek and I felt a cool sensation and his hand were scented. It was as if he had taken his hand from a bag of perfumes.' Subhanallah! This was the natural fragrant from the Prophet's (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) hands.
    Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) states that, 'I have never smelt any 'Itr or fragrance better than the fragrance of the Messenger of Allah's (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) blessed perspiration.'
    Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) states that when a companion would desire to visit the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and would not find him, they would track him by his fragrance in the streets.
    Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) said that, 'When the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) went down the road, anyone who had followed him knew that he had passed that way because of his scent.'
    If the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) shook hands with a man, his beautiful scent would remain on that man's hand for the rest of the day, and if he placed his hand on the head of a child, that child would stand out from others by virtue of his sweet fragrance.
    Now come to my point that if applying fragrance disturbs or annoys any human being or leads to any kind of diseases, it becomes Wajib for the one to stop applying fragrance, let alone sunnah. Similarly caw sacrificing hurts the sentiments of our Hindu brothers, so we must avoid it.  By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/26/2013 5:45:08 AM



  • Dear rational, I have already given the remarkable answer to your question.  Sacrificing caw is not obligatory (farz) or Sunnah (the practice of the holy Prophet Muhammad pbuh). Sheikh sarhindi (may Allah be pleased with him) has neither made it obligatory nor ordered any muslim to sacrifice it. (If he said surely) He might have pointed out to the practice of the then Muslims. He might have said so just as news. Even then now it is not allowed for muslims to sacrifice caws, because it may lead conflict or bloodshed or hurt to our Hindu brothers.

    The religion says if any practice hurts others, that practice must be abolished By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/26/2013 5:25:33 AM



  • If we do not entangled in words like the most of the Islamic radicals and Salafies, rather we could see the spirit of Islamic system which was represented by the holy prophet himself, and then by the four pious Rashidun Califs, then we can conclude that Islam and Democracy and even Islam and secularism could be accommodating to each other
    Mohammad Ghitreef
    By Mohammad Ghitreef - 2/26/2013 5:24:31 AM



  • Yes, Allah has face, hands, shin, feet. He is like Adam. He sits on the throne. He will descend from the heaven like a man descends on the day of Roz-e-jaza.

    For details: www.mukto-mona.net/Articles/kasem/book/Allah.pdf

    By rational - 2/26/2013 3:15:16 AM



  • sadaf - 2/26/2013 2:28:36 AM Ghalib ka sher nahi Suna. Dard ka had se badh jaana hai dawa ho jaana.
    Please take this mission in your hand. Long back you hinted it. What if i face accident when I walk on road. What if I fall in the bathroom. What if I am there where explosive is triggered by your brothers. What if your brother keeps his identity in my car and I am caught by Police. What if I offer a lift to a person out of human concern and later he proves to be terrorist.
    There are so many risks in the life.
    What should I do? Ghar se nikalna chhod doon? Tumahari sharan men aajaoon.
    OK suicide bombers are doing as you have said. The religion is not behind it.
    Let's see it by another angle.
    What is the crime of the people who are killed by terrorist attacks? Let us suppose men women punished for their sins. What about the children? Allah's divine plan? What they are punished for? Where is the mercy of Allah?. Is the death of those people is mercy of Allah in anyway? By rational - 2/26/2013 3:07:48 AM



  • The fanatics doesn't represent Islam, they just believe they do. So Islam may not rake up the issue of blasphemy, but fanatics are non-Islamic actors acting on behalf of Islam. Humari gaadi kisi ki gaadi se takra jaye, ya kisi ki gaadi humari gaadi se takra jaaye, takkar agar hui, to apna nuqsaan to tay hai. Fanatics are suicidal. They will die in effort of killing you. But your life is precious if not for others then for your immediate family and you. I wish you be not harmed in anyway. But can we trust that your IP. address cannot be leaked from New Age Islam's office? The editors may not get sold, but won't they even get scared? By sadaf - 2/26/2013 2:28:36 AM



  • @Sadaf. you won!! Congratulation. For what? Creating terror.
    If Mohammed Yunus writes thousands and one articles Islam doesn't prescribe the death penalty for blasphemer/murtad the reality will not change. Terror is the best WMD. Do you need physical WMD? certainly not
    Whether Iraq had it or not Muslims have. Very living, everywhere, every time always available to believers, sanctioned by influential people.
    Is really religion benign?
    Thanks Sadaf
    By rational - 2/26/2013 2:11:54 AM



  • Tumhari zindagi ab bas editor ke haanth mein hai. Editor ki zindagi fanatic ke haanth mein hai. Fanatics ki zindagi Allah ke haanth mein hai. Allah ke haanth bhi hota hai kya? By sadaf - 2/26/2013 1:36:25 AM



  • Dear hats off.
    Yes Editor can't do that even if he is sincere, kind man.
    By rational - 2/26/2013 1:28:02 AM



  • @sadaf
    Fear factor always works. It was/is/will be the loyal servant of the religion.
    You deserve some thanks.
    By rational - 2/26/2013 1:24:05 AM



  • Dear hats off. I was forgetting the survival techniques.
    Thanks a lot for the comment.
    By rational - 2/26/2013 1:21:29 AM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed - 2/26/2013 1:05:31 AM

    I agree with you. That I am doing in practice in real life. We are paying for the narrowness of our own brothers.
    By rational - 2/26/2013 1:18:16 AM



  • Rational. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" applies to Muslims under non-Muslim rule. We have the example of Jesus suspending divine laws of punishment which ran contrary to the law of the Roman rulers. 
    What I have said above is what I have said multiple times on this site. By Naseer Ahmed - 2/26/2013 1:05:31 AM



  • I fear for your life rational. Someone may hurt you or kill you believing that you have blasphemed. It is not very difficult to get your identity and exact location from I.P. address. If not willingly, then may be the editor will be forced to disclose it. Isn't it? For winning a place in heaven, their are many suicidal fanatics roaming streets. How much would I be able to save you? Saving you will put my life as well in risk. But still you can take heart with the fact, that as a true Muslim, who is just practicing Taqqiya, you will be martyred in eyes of those who can see your view point. Dil ke khush rakhne ko, Jannat ka khyaal zaroori hai. By sadaf - 2/26/2013 1:03:33 AM



  • to mr rational, there is nothing wrong at all in being very very careful. especially with blind, emotionally charged believers armed with syllogisms and irrefutable texts. blind belief is never a problem until the believers want to blind you.
    "the trouble with the world is that, the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" bertrand russel.
    as for your suggestion about the editor's responsibility, i beg to differ. it is almost impossible to monitor comments in real time. the alternative is to have team that deletes words that might irritate the big brother and then re-posting them. it was like that before, but the policy has changed.
    as commentators, we ought to.. what they say, caveat emptor or "buyer beware". ignorance of law is generally not a good defense.
    nothing to be alarmed. you just have to use the acronyms after islamic greats. like pbuh, ra, saw just like everybody else (i will learn too). not much of a problem as far as i see. next precaution might be to point to references rather than type them out in the comment box. never, - ever get provoked (very very difficult). adding sri before any names of hindu gods and goddesses.
    (by the way, at a complete tangent, when we were in school they took us to an industrial estate as part of an educational tour. we visited a lot small factories. i can never forget one particular factory manufacturing plastic toys. the name of the factory was ag plastics. underneath this big name of the firm, they had painted in large blue letters "manufacturers of plastic toys, decorating items and gods and goddesses". it was a wonderful first lesson in theology)
    ce la vie. we live, learn, relearn and re-live. sometimes we live by shouting, at times we must survive through silence. By hats off! - 2/26/2013 1:03:14 AM



  • Dear hats off, You may be charged for I...phobia. This site is very tempting and may lead to addiction.
    Who knows where the danger is lurking? I did some experiments on this site. The result is it is always dangerous to interact with blind believers with blind reverence . A doubtful person may correct his mistake, but how one can who think he is only on the right path. Therefore I prefer doubt over blind belief.
    One more interesting point is no believer thinks that he is on wrong path. He is so certain. He is so sincere that he can sacrifice his life and takes others lives.
    Some commentators though call themselves moderates, tolerant, propriety holders of the truth are very dangerous.
    I recall the words of Richard Dawkins about the moderates in "The God delusion".
    of course there are some real kind and persons but are they products of the beliefs?
    The debate wahabi vs Brailvi and Waseela (crude on my part as I am not trained in debates), may be a useless exercise for some commentators. It showed conclusively that majority of so called moderates are but blind believers. They are using some jargon of words like democracy, tolerance, justice, respect for women, human rights. Most of them wants the Sharia/khilafat an ideal they suppose was in existence long back.They are forced to use these words by circumstances.
    One commentator said "Ruler is to be obeyed" I asked "does it include non-Muslim ruler". Pin drop silence.
     Anybody can find the spots where they inject their own dearest prejudices.
    Some responsibility is on the Editor also. He must take every caution for the safety of the commentators as this site is open to criticism (mockery in the eyes of believers). Else he should allow only certain kind of people.
    If we want to be on this site, we have to be very careful. By rational - 2/25/2013 11:40:00 PM



  • Dear hats off! - 2/25/2013 10:32:52 PM
    Thanks a lot for words of caution.
    Sometime I feel fear. Who knows what may be going in the background?

    By rational - 2/25/2013 10:41:35 PM



  • sorry for cross posting, but seeing that this is a very active thread, i thought it was the best place to post the following.
    i hope our dear commentators would have noticed that 111 people were "booked" for making "derogatory" remarks against mr pj kurien on a facebook page. as far as i could gather, most of the cases were from kerala. whether they were arrested and remanded is not clear from the news story. this coming after the deplorable incident with two girls on the death of a recent politician in mumbai is perhaps a kind of warning to temper internet discussions.
    big brother is watching.
    i would say, many commentators (myself included foremost) will have to reckon with the venerable khaki's tap on the door if we don't watch our keystrokes also known as shooting off our mouths.
    being a very sanguine forum, i think "certain other" commentators had better remember big brother. i hope mr rational, you and i would for example, better temper our fierce tongues and flying fingers.
    i hope mr rational will take it in the right spirit. i mean no insinuation. khaki is a color best avoided as far as is possible for a citizen of democracy. so is olive green camouflage pattern. By hats off! - 2/25/2013 10:32:52 PM



  • Dear Mohd Abis
    "I will request very humbly that he should remain objective in his assessment and should leave small things for other commentators."

    Yes I must be objective. I owe thanks to you for pointing out it.
    By rational - 2/25/2013 9:22:53 PM



  • Bas mere aagey nahi chal rahi hai rational ki because I have no idol in my heart as he expected. Rather i have found that his God is hypocrisy. Be a Muslim, and pretend not to be. Taqqiya practising Muslim he is. By sadaf - 2/25/2013 12:46:45 PM



  • Yaani Rational ki nahi chali, blind believer as per him, ke aagey. Bas humare hi saamne yeh naachta hai. By sadaf - 2/25/2013 12:26:31 PM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS
    I am ending this debate, but leaving some questions to your consciousness if it is not crushed entirely by your blind reverence. It will be one sided if you do continue it.
    I know it is very hard if not impossible to overcome the blind reverence.
    Have nice time.
    By rational - 2/25/2013 12:20:35 PM



  • Dear Mohd Abis - 2/25/2013 2:54:19 AM, You rightly said I have tarnished my image. I will try to remain away from silly ideas.
    However eb\very thing has a reason behind it. I just tried prove that no one is tolerant if one is busy in blind reverence. There are many idols in the hearts of those who claim they are free from the idol-worship.
    Thanks for the advise to remain away from the silly discussions. By rational - 2/25/2013 11:26:11 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/25/2013 6:55:33 AM, You brought nothing important in your peer's defense.
    Will you agree if I bring non-Muslim against this Quotaion of the Yohanan Friedmann.? You will cry then.
    I asked what is in the Maktoobat?. Why are you saying this and that? Bring the real defense not this Yohanan Friedmann. By rational - 2/25/2013 11:12:08 AM



  • to mr ghulam ghaus, how flexible is islam with respect to homosexuality, lesbianism and bisexuality?

    why is batchabazi so common in kabul?
    By hats off! - 2/25/2013 11:10:42 AM



  • Flexibility of Islam is motivated in one of the hadiht. 'The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “Religion is very easy, and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded.” Bukhari:V1N38 By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/25/2013 10:35:55 AM



  • @Harsh,I think I will enjoy debating with you. You say to Mr Yunus that the more he reads the more he will learn. To deconstruct your sentence, according to Derrida, reading need not always lead to learning, it may even lead to forgetfulness, as in Psychology, and I hope and assume that you know it, that in terms of memory construction, when there is interference in learnging anythiing new then the old things will be mixed up and hence there will low retrieval.

    There is also one more to deal with it, suppose you read poor literature, I know you will ask 'what do you mean by "poor litereature" so here is my replly, by poor literature, I mean those written material that has low level of wisdom and goes against the established facts.

    By Aiman Reyaz - 2/25/2013 8:25:43 AM



  • @Harsh, ok sir, I will keep this in mind. But again I have to say that your sentence that one should not uplift someone so high that the fall becomes nasty. There are gems in your words, without any exaggeration. I feel that somehow you are quite interested and understand the language of Philosophy. I too am a keen learner of Philosophy. But sir,applying your own standards of using terms, would you contradict yourself by saying that you feel that some writers have "intellectually void". It is your interpretation and you are no authority on philosophy, hence you, too can commit errors. It is your statement, hence your "irrational mind" may have "tricked" you into believing such a thing, but in reality, the reality may have been totally different. By Aiman Reyaz - 2/25/2013 8:20:57 AM



  • Dear rational, the following is in response to your accusation and irrational understanding of one of remarks or news perhaps made by Shaikh Sirhindi ra.
    First we must remember that Islam is a practical and flexible religion. The teachings of Islam with its clear principles and flexibility concept possess the power to appeal to every age. In many cases there is discount for muslims according to circumstances.  
    The second is that sacrificing caw is not obligatory (farz) or Sunnah (the practice of the holy Prophet Muhammad pbuh). Sheikh sarhindi (may Allah be pleased with him) has neither made it obligatory nor ordered any muslim to sacrifice it. (If he said surely) He might have pointed out to the practice of the then Muslims. He might have said so just as news. Even then now it is not allowed sacrificing caw, because it may lead conflict or bloodshed or hurt to our Hindu brothers.
    The third is that you have quoted a point against Shaikh Sarhindi regarding caw sacrifice but see what Friedmann, who was a great scholar and who focused on the history of Islam in India, says in his book. His dissertation on Muslim religious thinker Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi was approved in 1966. ^ Review by Simon Digby of Yohanan Friedmann Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi: an outline of his thought and a study of his image in the eyes of posterity"Yohanan Friedmann has argued that there is no evidence that Sirhindi or his disciples spread "anti-Hindu sentiments wherever they went”.
    The fourth is that islam promotes peace and love and never allows creating disorder in the land. The Quran and the Hadith command muslims to prevail peace and tranquility in and around the world. The Quran says “On account of this. We wrote for the children of Israel that whosoever killed a soul not to retaliate for a soul,nor for creating disorder in the land, then it is as if he had killed all mankinds. And whoso gave life to one soul,then it is as if he had given life to all mankinds. And undoubtedly, Our Messengers came to them with clearproofs then undoubtedly, many of them after that commit excess in the land”.
    The fifth is that there are four sources in the Islamic shariah the Quran, the Hadith, Ijmaeummat and reason (Qayas). In all the sources, Caw sacrificing is not made (farz) obligatory for muslims.
    Cow sacrificing hurts our Hindu brothers and their sentiments. Islam says not to hurt anyone’s sentiments. By doing Qayas (reason) in the light of the order of the holy Quran, it is not applicable for muslims to sacrifice caws. Given the gravity of situation, because it leads conflict and bloodshed among muslims and Hindu brothers, muslims must avoid caw sacrifices. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/25/2013 6:55:33 AM



  • Dear Harsh Chaturvedi,
    I like your remark to me: "I think you will benefit more if you read more. Because if you read and study only one thing, you will end up knowing only one thing, and that too, you will never know it in entirety,"

    The truth is with the inherent limitations of my mind, I do not even know the one thing, I am focusing on late in the day, in its entirely. As I said, I have a clear agenda and am trying to do the best in my limited capacity and with even more limited resources. i have indeed gone through the stage of enlightenment/ skepticism captured in the realization, cogito ergo sum, but at this moment I am now far more concerned about the the petrifaction of the faith of one third of humanity (the focus of my 'one thing') and its internal and global fallout rather than expanding the horizons of my knowledge. Besides, the domain of knowledge is so enormously, vast, that few people can claim or pretend to be knowledgeable and even if I devoted long hours of study every single day of my remaining life, i will attain a marginal increase in knowledge given that I am on the reverse track of creation. But your point is taken, the more I read, the more knowledgeable I become. Thank you and good bye.    
     
    By muhammad yunus - 2/25/2013 6:13:42 AM



  • Aiman Reyaz,  don’t uplift me to a pedestal that my fall becomes very nasty. I, too want to discuss and learn but I have to be honest, I am not quite satisfied with the articles and comments on this site, meaning I feel a sense of intellectual void in many of the commentators. I don’t want to take anyone’s name but they, who will be reading this comment will know what and whom I mean.

    Muhammad Yunus, I would have preferred the word ‘atheist’ there, instead of agnostic. I do not like agnostics or do I? I don’t know, I am confused. Sometimes I think they ought to be sure about their belief or disbelief but then I correct myself, as in, am I sure about anything? I am not even sure about m own existence so how can I be sure about the existence of God. Anyways, be it agnostic or atheist, if he is an agnostic/atheist, then I see no reason for him to pray; since he does not hold God/gods to be his source of authority. I agree with you that a believer, however wrong he may be, feels comfort in the promise of the next life. In theology, especially in the Islamic theology, scholars say that both pain and pleasure is a form of test and this ‘collective chastisement’ could mean the end of test. Giving pleasure may be a form of test or a type of test, same is the case with pain.

    To be honest with you, I am disappointed with your comment. I thought that you would elaborate more, and objectively have a say on my comment. Or maybe I am in the wrong, you would not go outside the limits of your “objectives” and dive in and taste a bit of philosophy. I suggest you to broaden your reading material and besides reading and researching on Islam, which is a good thing to do, you should also read other things and other people, besides your Prophet. Don’t think I am down-rating your work, for most of the commentators of this site you are ‘The Scholar of Islam’, I think you will benefit more if you read more. Because if you read and study only one thing, you will end up knowing only one thing, and that too, you will never know it in entirety, because there is no end to knowledge; but if you read more things then you will have more knowledge of more things. Keep up the good work and I am eager to learn from you about Islam and other things.

    By Harsh Chaturvedi - 2/25/2013 4:30:04 AM



  • hats off! My just posted comment below is for you mistakenly directed to Rational. By muhammad yunus - 2/25/2013 4:12:16 AM



  • Dear Rational, I agree with your following remark: "if there are so many embarrasing bits and peieces of religious texts, its time we realize that its probably time to ignore them. maybe reform has to wait for another prophet, which possibility is anyway blocked. so perhaps ignoring religious texts is the way to go."
    I have put this in a different way in an article for a different and much wider forum:
     "The truth is, as in all ancient religions, theological discourses are embedded with legends, fantasies, fables, tales, parables and all forms of embellishments, characterized by the era in which they evolved. The embellishments were incorporated as part of the literary culture and paradigms of the era - to aggrandize and lionize the founder of the religion and its leaders, to demonize the perceived enemies, to fire the imagination of common-folk and to fill them with awe and admiration for their prophet/ religious leaders. Islam has been no exception. The only exception is that all major religions have, for all practical purposes, leapfrogged the theological phase of their faiths and are now focusing on the core and universal message intrinsic to their faiths as required by the today’s globalised high paced world. But the Muslims are tenaciously clinging to their theological roots and turning a blind eye to the core, universal and humanistic trajectories of their faith, which fortunately for them, is preserved in the Qur’an. As a result, they are going round and round like the oxen of a medieval oil Mill – in the poetic imagery of Altaf Hussain Hali [19], debating exactly the same thing century after century and never moving forward – as polemics overwhelm the mind and prevent any advancement of thoughts. It is therefore high time for the Muslims in general and the Arab world in particular to focus on the universal dimensions of their faith and shift their theological disciplines to the margins of their religious thoughts." By muhammad yunus - 2/25/2013 4:08:24 AM



  • Dear Harsh Chaturvedi. The last line of my previous comment may be elaborated as follows:
    About 2% human off-spring are likely to be mongoloids, many are born with congenital defects, all of us are bound to grow age, suffer degeneration and see our next of kin facing inescapable sufferings and beside a sudden misfortune like a heart attack, brain haemorrhage can strike any of us or our beloved ones – all connected with our genes. Prayer to God/gods, regardless of its/their form or formlessness is a free of cost consolation for the agnostic, a security for the believer. Collective chastisements are the calamities of nature – earthquake, tsunami, hurricane and so forth. Thank you. By muhammad yunus - 2/25/2013 3:56:49 AM



  • I think we have a very learned commentator, Mr Harsh Chaturvedi and we can learn from him a lot. His debate with Naseer Ahmed on the topic of Free Will: Really? is incredible and I am looking forward to learning from him. On this thread also he has made two comments and both of them are very good, according to me. I think he has strong command over philosophy and psychology; although I am also a keen student of both the subjects I would like to discuss with him on these and other subjects, especially religion. His views on religion is very interesting. By Aiman Reyaz - 2/25/2013 3:38:16 AM



  • I have been keenly reading comments on various issues on this website from several star commentators particularly from Rational who in my opinion was an asset to new age islam. He was always able to inject fresh life in all discussions but now by indulging in wasteful discussion of waseela, he has tarnished his image quite a lot. I will request very humbly that he should remain objective in his assessment and should leave small things for other commentators. I pray to God without waseela that Rational should return to his original form lest the topics become one sided.  

     Regarding dua, etc. I will say that it will remain an inconclusive discussion even after discussing many months to come by so many commentators as every one will interpretate  Quran in his own way to prove his point and will also quote hadith which suits him and will term as bogus which does not suit him. But for a common man, a Prophet must have privileges (other than such as keeping more wives than ordinary people) if compared to an ordinary man. He should not be like us in committing mistakes, should be simply a postman to convey Divine’s message or did not have sixth sense more than us. To my mind if he is full of all these vices/shortcomings, his selection as a Prophet will be questionable but conveying of Gods’s message through him will also not be beyond doubt. It will be difficult to determine when he committed mistakes and erred while communicating Divines’ message. Since he is the only source between God and the mankind, he must enjoy some immunity to prove his credentials.

      As I said hadith is proved right or wrong from different commentators according to their convenience but common sense says that a wish expressed by Prophet will never be refused by God unless it is against His basic tenets. Again that very common sense says that a Prophet will never wish a thing which is against God’s basic tenets and if Prophet wishes so, he does not deserve to be a Prophet if he can not understand ordinary things.  It is all irrespective of the fact that God has exclusive right to grant or reject Prophet’s request. Please do not make such a PM who does not enjoy any power. Logical conclusion of the discussion would be that God must have provided him enough powers not to err to maintain sanctity of conveying the Divine’s message. Mohd Abis       

    By Mohd Abis - 2/25/2013 2:54:19 AM



  • Thank you, Muhammad Yunus. I understand or imagine your feelings. See the problem with human mind is that it plays games- games in which we think we are either winning or losing and there is no third alternative, it creates an ‘either- or’ situation. ‘Either I am correct (which is the highest probability, because I am saying it)or you are correct and there can never be a situation in which both can be correct or both can be incorrect. The terrorists (in the conventional meaning of the term), think that they are on the right track because ‘they’ are fighting. Here comes the ego, which blocks the rational way of thinking. But what is rationality? If you believe in the law of Karma then you have to accept and agree that what they, the terrorists are doing, is the right thing to do. If millions are killed in Iraq, for no reason, just a bogey is created that there is WMD etc, hence if you kill millions so-called ‘terrorists’ ,hundreds of millions more ‘terrorists’ or life-defenders or avengers will be born. They are not terrorists, they are only trying to defend themselves, I read in the Hindu a few days ago that small Palestinian children have taken up rocks to defend themselves, and the western media projects them as most wanted terrorists. If the same thing and propaganda is repeated, which happens quite a lot of time, then a ‘reality’ is created, that indeed these children are terrorists. (By the way don’t think I am for the Palestinians, I speak what I think, and I think a lot, is right and just and I try to not get fooled by my own self i.e., my own mind).
    I don’t agree with your statement that being a good Hindu or Muslim etc will lead you to become more concerned for others (taking into account the conventional meaning of ‘good’ and ‘bad’).
    Regarding your objectives, I think I need a bigger space and more time and thinking to deal with them individually.
    For you I may be a learned man but for a fool I am a fool. I am not saying this about myself only, for example I think Einstein is a genius but a rickshaw puller will have no such positive feeling or thinking towards him.
    Your last lines have forced me re-read it but I see a big problem in it, as far as I am concerned. Would you mind elaborating it? By Harsh Chaturvedi - 2/25/2013 1:15:40 AM



  • to mr muhammad yunus, i think i have a pretty good idea of your way of thinking about islam. i am very comfortable with that. i really wish some of these so called islamic countries could start thinking like you. but that will be what used to be known during the seventies as a pipe dream.

    but what do you say when an islamic scholar says that the geostationary/geocentric model of the solar system has been "proved" by another islamic scholar?

    apart from this "little" irritant, when mr rational merely quotes, why does he get bombarded for creating fitna, doing shirk, being a kaffar, a wahhabi, or so many other amusing and silly accusations.

    if there are so many embarrasing bits and peieces of religious texts, its time we realize that its probably time to ignore them. maybe reform has to wait for another prophet, which possibility is anyway blocked. so perhaps ignoring religious texts is the way to go.

    with respect to offering a critique (not criticism) of your approach, i have some reservations. but that would require a rigorous treatment, which i would rather not undertake in the forum.
    By hats off! - 2/24/2013 11:59:00 PM



  • Dear Harsh Chaturvedi, I could'nt agree with you more that " if one reads the holy books literally, you pick up any, whether it be the Gita, the veda, Quran, Bible etc; they all teach terrorism."
    You are a very learned man and suspect of all that you read to the extent of turning a Descartean. But?
    Do you know the trauma that paralyses the elderly, the women and children when they see a trail of carpet bomb dropping on their civilian abode is matched in intensity by the radiance at the face of the enemy pilot who pushed the 'shoot button' at the precise moment.
    Do you care how many women get raped in the most civilized world every hour and how many minor girls are subjected to legalized marital rape in the Muslim world, (looking inwards of course).
    Have you ever thought how many tear drops have been shed at the tens of thousands of American war casualties in Iraq and over may be ten times as much Iraqi civilian casualties including women, children and the elderly in America?
    If you are a good Hindu, Muslim or Christian, you are definitely more likely to be deeply concerned than if you are a bad Hindu, Muslim or Christian. But this statement again is dependent on the definition of good and bad for bad can be appropriated as good or normative (wife beating, marital rape among Muslims for example) and vice versa .. and we can go on arguing endlessly reaching no conclusion. 
    As far as my involvement with this forum is concerned, I have the following expressed objectives:
    To promote critical thinking (ijtihad) in Islam
    To enlighten the Muslim community regarding the social, moral, ethical and pluralistic dimensions of Qur’anic message.
    To provide religious basis to the Indian Muslims to reform their society in accordance with the needs of the times – such as active participation in universal education, all art forms and national development projects    
    To bring the Muslims closer to the core scripture of their faith – the Qur’an and to relegate theological knowledge to the specialist in order to meet the skill and educational demand of the present day world.  
    To combat all communal, disruptive and militant, fanatic and demonizing elements
    To promote inter-faith relations
    To build a united and cohesive India and work towards an eventual cordial and harmonious relation with Pakistan.
     I have poured my heart to you as you are a learned man and I can only benefit from your comments as long as they are relevant to my agenda.
    True or fictitious, religion is a living reality and those who are trying to convince others of it being a mere delusion are not likely to succeed for God (if there is one) has implanted enough imperfections in human genes and sends down enough collective chastisements to make, at least a broad section of humanity to call on Him at one or the other moment in life. Thank you. By muhammad yunus - 2/24/2013 11:20:12 PM



  • Dear hats off. Thanks for quoting me re. Iqbal's line on the rigidity of Muslim's intellect. But you have to understand the reason that my joint publication attempts to capture as follows:
    "..since the literary style, setting, paradigms, and dialectical constructions of the Hadith literature date back to the early medieval era, their continued teaching and propagation, such as in traditional religious schools (madrassas), can adversely impact the mental development of the students, shackling their power of reasoning and virtually freezing their intellect into the early medieval era." By muhammad yunus - 2/24/2013 10:22:47 PM



  • Muhammad Yunus, I beg to differ from you. What is there in this sentence that "touched" your heart?

    Ghaus says that they need to refute all the accusations... For a fanatic, these are not "accusatoins", rather they are facts based on the construction of his mind, which in turn, was constructed by his society,in short I am talking about social construction of reality. He says religion does not teach terrorism (the semantics was incorrect in his sentence, never mind,I too make mistakes). Ok what's new about it? But I think I have something new. Religion, in fact teaches terrorism. Shocked? Here is the thing, I can deal with it in two ways, to summarise the whole issue, let me put it in such a manner that all those who read it can understand: Literally if one reads the holy books, you pick up any, whether it be the Gita, the veda, Quran, Bible etc; they all teach terrorism. (Now don't ask what kind of terrorism I am talking about, for that I will have to dive into another thread). If you want I can give you numerous quotations, but I assume that you know, because I have read your articles and they have some mature level of understanding about religion,but you look it from  a different perspective,totally different from me. One more way, religion teaches, preaches, promotes terrorism, if you look at history,you will find that most of the wars that happened, happened because of either territorial acquisition of mind acquisition and the latter is what religion is about, in terms of terrorism. I don't want to bring in the Hegelian notion but I hope you got my point.

    By Harsh Chaturvedi - 2/24/2013 10:17:08 PM



  • Rational comes from a Jahil but religious family of Barelvi beliefs which was incompatible to modern scientific and rational thinking. Therefore he rebelled from there, but his Jahil grooming came in the way and he thought Deobandi/wahabi beliefs and in particular, their ways, to be the correct one.
    But now, after having been embarrassed by Wahabi intolerance, he has put up a mask of rebel yet again. Inside he is a Wahabi now, with that little bit of rationality and for which he calls himself rational. The little bit of rationality makes him neem hakeem khatra-e-jaan.
    Now in his rational avtaar, he is crusading against the concept of blasphemy, hoping that if at all it happens, it would be the biggest blow to the intolerance of Wahabis.
    Otherwise, he has no enmity with Islam as such and in particular, he believes in Wahabi concepts.
    As a Muslim, he lets his family remain Muslim, but as a man with weakness to impose his ideas, he tries on and off to change them to his Wahabi beliefs and again as a man without sufficient knowledge and sufficient wisdom, he turns out to be man of no consequence as he fails miserably in convincing his family. By sadaf - 2/24/2013 9:57:48 PM



  • Dear Gholam Ghous Sahab, Your following statement in one of your comments touched my heart and I sincerely congratulate you for capturing the pluralistic vision of Islam:
    "Dear commentators I thank you all for the participation in this debate. We should refute all those accusations which lead to division and prejudice among muslims as well as non-msulims. We are living in India, so we must respect our country and make peaceful environment not only here but in the whole world. The religion does not teach terrorism, violence but it is man who creates disorder in the land. We all together have to eliminate every kind of hatred from the world. This was the teaching of the prophet Muhammad pbuh." By muhammad yunus - 2/24/2013 9:48:29 PM



  • Dear Rational,  You will be amazed to know that I read all your comments addressed to others- Gholam Ghous Sahab in this thread, line by line as 1) I do not know your real intent - it may be a die-hard faith that is revolting at its petrifaction (a word I used to describe thin one of my articles referenced below) to describe the state of Islam today, or something else - God knows best and 2) the Qur'an asks us to seek the best meaning in a discourse and iii) I am impressed with the expanse of knowledge about theological sciences, notably the Hadith.
    Your following statement struck a chord in me:
    .   "THE BELIEF THAT SOME ARE CLOSED TO ALLAH/BHAGWAN AND THEY WILL HELP US IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THIS EVIL called Qabrprasti. They give the impression that we are sinners and they are pious."
    Alas they fail to understand that God alone knows the rightly guided. (6:117, 17:84, 28:56, 28:85 and 68:7).
    Alas,you do not know how much you miss by apparently ignoring my articles which offer a wider window into the Qur'an out of fear, abhorrence, disbelief, not displeasing others God alone knows. By muhammad yunus - 2/24/2013 9:36:52 PM



  • Abdul Khaliq - 2/24/2013 9:43:58 AM  Agar tumhara bas chale to Medina men bhi dhamal (urs) lagana shuru kar doge. tum logon ko guniye men rakh rakha hai.
    Qabr ke pujari aur kar bhi kya sakte hain.
    Kuch masala hai tumhare paas ya yonhi fanne khan bane ho. Ya masala geela ho gaya hai.
    Aur rahi wahabiyon ki baat. too daal daal main paat paat. chor chor mausere bhai. Lootne ke tareqe men farq hai bas.
    Bas ho gaye confuse. tumhare bas ki baat nahi samajhna. Miyan men shaitan ka chela hoon. Abu jahil hoon By rational - 2/24/2013 10:11:22 AM



  • Dear hats off.
    Thanks for appreciation. Good night
    By rational - 2/24/2013 9:56:46 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS Very silly defense of your peers. What is in the maktoobat? Leave the question of right and wrong.
    yeh jhooti sachhi karamat se logon ko phusla rakha hai aur isi ki kamai khate ho. Hindu bidak na jaayen, kaheen mazarat par chadava aana band na ho jaaye isi ke liye farzi baaten sunai jaati hain.
    Kisi ne scah hi kaha hai peer nahi udte unke mureed udate hain.
    Aur yeh hindu Muslim ke beech ki doori aap logon ki hi den hai. Mere saath to hindu Muslim sikh Isai sab bahi bhai.
    They are my friends. I live with them, eat with them share all topics with impunity (Muslim bidak jaate hain to hoshiar rehna padta hai).
    When I was a school going boy I used to eat and drink with Hindus. In the Taaleemi Risala it was written that "Insaan ka jhoota paak hai chaahe wo kisi mazhab ka ho bashate ki usne us waqt haram cheese na khayi hui ho" I never hated a hindu. In my Nanihal village was a stronghold of Brailvis. They never allowed the tablighi jamat in their mosque. My habbit was to discuss the matters with my elders including my Nana mama and other persons. When the question oh Hindu came and I told them it is ok to eat with a hindu, they ridiculed me. They used to see them in contempt. Hindus are nejas. They ridiculed the Taaleemi Risala saying devbandi.
    I have observed very closely so I know a lot.
    Hindus bring money so they are welcomed. Muslims can marry even encouraged to do with non-Muslim girls but can they give their daughters to Hindus. If a Muslim dare to do so, he will be threatened.
    This is the truth. It may taste bad
    THE BELIEF THAT SOME ARE CLOSED TO ALLAH/BHAGWAN AND THEY WILL HELP US IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THIS EVIL called Qabrprasti. They give the impression that we are sinners and they are pious. If there is a God and He is merciful and just and prayers have effect He will listen to directly. No medium is required. Allah is not like the kings who need the Wazirs/salahkar because He is Mighty while the kings are not. He is the AAlim of everything while the kings are not.
    This is mediator is created by so called Sufis and their followers to place themselves at higher ranks to earn the worldly gain.
    Khair Allah ka nizam hai. Braivi debandi salafi sab hi rahenge. Jhagde chalte rahenge. Log ek doosre ka bewaqoof banate rahenge. Allah ke nizam men koi khami nahi :D By rational - 2/24/2013 9:55:09 AM



  • rational,
    Lagta hai saudi teldollar apko bhi zarur mila hai isiliye wahabi drishtikon ke prachar prasar ke liye jaan de rahe ho. khana peena chor ke computer par baithe rahte ho sunniyon ko gaaliyan dene ke liye. Ghause azam us maqam pe apne taqwa ki badaulat pahunchey hai. Tumhari tarah qaum ki tanqeed kar ke nahi.
    By Abdul Khaliq - 2/24/2013 9:43:58 AM



  • why did allah create the shaitan? did he he not have anything better to do?
    like giving us a blue tooth dongle by which we could all read each others thoughts and exchange dreams? or better still, we could have just simply lived in peace without pounding the keyboard so much and talking non stop? one islamic scholar cannot agree to another here on this forum and we are all talking of peace and tolerance.
    long long way to go. even now they are still bombing each other.
    its been quite a while since the shaivaites bombed the vaishnavaites, or the hinayanists bombed the mahayanists, or the protestants bombed the catholics. all these children grew up to be adults and learned to ignore the silly texts. not everyone of us is there yet though. By hats off! - 2/24/2013 9:38:53 AM



  • to mr rational, i really am amazed at your patience and perseverance.
    if allah will only guide those he will and misguide those he will, what's your problem?
    obviously these enlightened islamic scholars think they got it. just give them time, they will come around. these people conclude and provide arguments, but als, you would raise arguments and try to conclude.
    obviously you and they are in entirely different world. hell and heaven maybe? By hats off! - 2/24/2013 8:43:15 AM



  • Muslims ought to learn the lesson from his life that Shaitan tried a lot to sway him but could not succeed. On the contrary to that shaitan is leading hatred among people and some so-called muslims are falling prey to it. I am going to mention three events related to the life of Ghause azam (may Allah be please with him) in this regard.
    HIS FIRST ENCOUNTER WITH SHAYTAAN: He says that once shaytaan came to him. He said, "I am Iblees. You have exhausted me and my students in our attempts to mislead you. I would now like to become your servant." On hearing this, the Ghaus said, "O Cursed one! Leave here at once." After this command of Sarkaar-e-Ghaus-e-Azam (radi Allaho anhu) Shaytaan still refused to leave, and a hand came from the unseen and hit Shaytaan with such force on his head that it caused him to sink into the ground.
    HIS SECOND ENCOUNTER WITH SHAYTAAN: Hazrat Ghaus-e-Azam (radi Allaho anhu) states, "Once Shaytaan came to me and in his hand he had balls of fire, which he threw towards me. While this was happening, a veiled person on a white horse appeared and gave a sword in my hand. The moment I took the sword in my hand, Shaytaan turned and began to run."
    HIS THIRD ENCOUNTER WITH SHAYTAAN: Hazrat Ghaus-e-Azam (radi Allaho anhu) states, "Once again I saw Shaytaan, but this time in a very sad state. I saw him sitting on the ground putting sand on his head. On seeing me he said, 'O Abdul Qaadir you have made me very sad and disillusioned.' I then said, Cursed one! Go Away. I am always asking protection (in Allah) from you. On hearing this, he said, 'These words hurt me even more.' He then spread an enormous amount of traps around me. I asked what this was and he said, 'These are the traps and nets of this world in which we trap people like you.' After this, for one year I gave thought to these traps of the world, until I broke every one of them."
    Unfortunately today we mulsims are unable to overpower Shaitan who are swaying us in differnt forms. We must learn the lesson from the lesson of Ghause pak may Allah be please with By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/24/2013 8:39:27 AM



  • Ghause azam ra was the embodiment of truth since his very childhood. One of the famous events is worth mentioning. This event is related to adherence to his mother’s advice. I think all muslim and non-muslim brothers will like it. The event goes as follows:
    After bidding farewell to his mother, Huzoor Ghaus-e-Azam (radi Allaho anhu), joined a caravan which was on its way to Baghdaad. In those days, people travelled in groups for the sake of safety. The caravan of Huzoor Ghaus-e-Azam (radi Allaho anhu) reached the city of Hamdaan without incident. After leaving Hamdaan, they journeyed further. Their journey took them into a vast forest, where they were attacked by sixty robbers. The leader of this band of robbers was a very notorious bandit called Ahmad Badwi. The travellers did not have the means to defend themselves against the robbers and were forced to surrender their belongings and valuables to them. After looting the travellers, the robbers gathered all the loot and began to distribute the it amongst themselves. While all this was happening, Huzoor Ghaus-e-Azam (radi Allaho anhu) was standing very calmly amongst the travellers. Regarding him as just a young boy, none of the robbers approached him, until one of them decided to approach him. He went up to Hazrat Ghaus-e-Azam (radi Allaho anhu) and asked if he had anything valuable. Huzoor Ghaus-e-Azam (radi Allaho anhu) replied by saying that he had in his possession forty dinaars. On hearing this the robber laughed at Ghaus-e-Azam and walked away, thinking that he was lying. After some time another of the robbers asked him the same question and recieved the same answer. He too dismissed this statement of Ghaus-e-Azam (radi Allaho anhu) as a joke. When the robbers had gathered, then both these robbers began to joke about the young boy who thought he had forty dinaars. On hearing their discussion, their leader Ahmed Badawi asked them to bring Sarkaar-e-Ghaus-e-Azam (radi Allaho anhu) to him. When the Great Saint was brought before Ahmed Badawi, he asked whether he had any valuables in his possession, and the Saint replied in the same way as before. When Ahmed Badawi heard this, he asked for the forty dinaars. Huzoor Ghaus-e-Azam (radi Allaho anhu) calmly showed them where the dinaars were hidden. On tearing open the coat of Ghaus-e-Azam, they found that there were really forty dinaars sewn under the arm of the coat. On seeing this, Ahmed Badawi and his accomplices were taken aback. Ahmed Badawi then asked, "O Young man! None of us knew that you had any money. Knowing we are are bandits, why did you still tell us where the money was hidden?"
    The young Ghaus-e-Azam (radi Allaho anhu) replied by saying, "When I had left on this journey, I had promised my elderly and pious mother that I would never lie. How then could I break this promise just for the sake of sixty bandits."
    On hearing this, Ahmed Badawi felt great shame and in tears said, "O young boy! You are so loyal in your promise to your mother, Shame on me, that for years I have been disloyal to my promise with my Creator Almighty Allah."
    After saying these words, the bandit cried bitterly and then fell to the feet of Sarkaar-e-Ghaus-e-Azam (radi Allaho anhu) and repented for his sins. When his accomplices saw this, then they too did likewise and repented sincerely from all their sins. They then returned all the belongings of the travellers and escorted them out of the jungle. It has been stated that the tauba of these bandits was so sincere, that they were blessed with Wilaayah, through the sadqa of Sarkaar-e-Ghaus-e-Azam (radi Allaho anhu). Huzoor Ghaus-e-Azam (radi Allaho anhu) personally stated, "This was the first tauba that a group of mislead persons had made at my hands By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/24/2013 8:29:03 AM



  • Dear, presentation plays important roles in a subject. If you have negative approach you will try to justify negativity and if i have positive approach i will try to work positively in order to consolidate relations among people regardless of religion, caste and culture. When we say "regardless of religion, caste, race, sect etc." it becomes clear that one should promote love, affection and sympathy.
    Islam is flexible religion, the circumstances in which Ghause azam, Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi and Ala Hazrat lived were totally different. And now the situation is totally different, even if they are right and will remain right. It is their love that even my non-muslims brethern go to visit them because they know that they were pious and peaceful slaves of Allah almighty.
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/24/2013 8:20:10 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghauss. What is in the Maktoobat-e-Sarhindi? If you are inclusive what are your views on the policies of the King Akbar. If he was right as many scholars say then Sarhindi was wrong. If Akbar was wrong then your claim of inclusiveness is bogus. This I am saying because Sufis are projected as inclusive. Salafis are condemned by saying they are exclusive.

    By rational - 2/24/2013 8:19:05 AM



  • Dear commentators I thank you all for the participation in this debate. We should refute all those accusations which lead to division and prejudice among muslims as well as non-msulims. We are living in India, so we must respect our country and make peaceful environment not only here but in the whole world. The religion does not teach terrorism, violence but it is man who creates disorder in the land. We all together have to eliminate every kind of hatred from the world. This was the teaching of the prophet Muhammad pbuh.

    As Gandhiji said that the person who inspired him the most and whom he considered as the greatest and supreme human being was our beloved Prophet Mohammed (SAW). He is the only man in the world history who single handed changed in short life span of twenty three years changed a cruel, brutal, barbaric, uncultured and uncivilized society into a perfect civilized society with complete code of life as conveyed to him by Allah (SUT) as His final Messenger. He changed the whole structure of the barbaric people who worshipped deities and many imaginary gods into leading civilized people and made Saudi Arabia as a model of civilization. He created absolute masawat (equality), justice, fairness, and socio-economic, political, diplomatic, constitutional, judicial and military systems and created a revolution that changed the whole map of the Saudi Arabia and the world in very short time. He civilized the whole world from darkness to light, from lewdness to morality and from animalism to humanism

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/24/2013 8:10:24 AM



  • GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/24/2013 7:53:38 AM
    Allah's default mode is unhappiness. Keep trying to make him happy, but you are involved in shirk AND BIDAT. AUR BIDATIYON KI DUA QABOOL NAHI HOTI.
    kHAIR YEH TO CHALTA RAHEGA.

    NOW COME TO MAIN POINTS. There are some important question in pending mode. Please come on those questions. I have accused Imam Rabbani Sarhindi, Ghauss-e-Aazam and Raza Brasilvi saheb for hatred based on their fatwas.
    I may have lied. Correct me.
    By rational - 2/24/2013 8:08:24 AM



  • chalis chor - 2/24/2013 7:50:34 AM kya tumari vocabulary khatam ho gayi hai. wahi ghise pite Alqab.
    Be innovative(Bidati) like your brothers. Wahabi/devbandi/murtad mere liye koi gaali nahi. hai isliye main aap se naaraz nahi. Aap to is bayaban men dilbastagi ka saaman ho. agar gali hai bhi to kuch badaha kar hi wapas karta hoon.

    In se mujhe taaqat milrti hai. agar maine inki parwah ki hoti to kabhi kaa is site ko bye bye kah diya hota.

    By rational - 2/24/2013 7:58:44 AM



  • Brother Rational, Allah is the lord of the entire universe and Ghause azam (may Allah be pleased with him)is only beloved slave of Allah almighty. Ghause azam devoted his life just for the pleasure of Allah almighty, that is why muslims love, respect and visit him. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/24/2013 7:53:38 AM



  • Abdul kaliq. aapne sahi farmaya. yeh aayten mushrikon ke liye utri theen. aur wo "waseele" ke hi shirk men mubtala the. warna aalah ke baare men koi jhagdahi nahi thaa.
    Aur aap bhi usi shareni(category) men aate ho. Isliye ye aayten aap logon ke liye hi hain Devbandiyon/salafiyon/wahabiyon ke liye nahi. Rahi baat kaam ki main to kar hi raha hoon aur itne Brailviyon ko bhi laga rakha hai.
    Khisyani billiyan khamba noch rahi hain jawab to hai nahi.

    By rational - 2/24/2013 7:51:25 AM



  • Tarki bhai: Naya sunna chahte ho to sunlo. Tum pure Wahabi ho jismen Deobandi ki rooh ghus gayi hai jo Sunni Brailviyon ka dushman hai.

     

    By chalis chor - 2/24/2013 7:50:34 AM



  • Dear Rational in humanity, kindly do not think that Sunni worship graves. They never worship graves but they go to visit them. There is no God but Allah. Actually borther there is deep-rooted conspiracy to create disorder in the land whereby it is being aired that Sunni worship grave. Brother, this is being done merely to divide the muslim brothers. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/24/2013 7:43:11 AM



  • Ghulam Rasool saheb. Many important questions are waiting for your answers.

    By rational - 2/24/2013 7:37:50 AM



  • chalis chor - 2/24/2013 7:24:32 AM. keep dashing your head. Brailvi apni auqaat par aagaye hain.
    Tumahre pass kahne ko kuchh hai yaa auron ke peechhe dum hilate phiroge.


    By rational - 2/24/2013 7:33:40 AM



  • Allah Ghauss Abdul Qadir Maha Ghauss(Ghauss-e-Azam). Isliye to Yaa Allah ki jagah Yaa Ghauss Yaa Ghauss Yaa Ghauss Yaa dastgeer

    Kaun Bada Allah Yaa Abdul Qadir
    By rational - 2/24/2013 7:30:01 AM



  • One newly born Avtaar "Waseela"
    Waseela Waseela Waseela............lo ho gayi dua qabool. ho gaye gunah muaf. What a silly belief!!
    By rational - 2/24/2013 7:25:49 AM



  • Rational saheb; Aa gaye na apni auqat par, mujhe malum tha aap kisi ki baat nahi manoge, last men galiyan doge aur bhag jaoge. "Sufiyon(aka gods of Brailvis) par chot kiya padi ki Brailvi mendhakon ki tarah fudak rah rahe hain", yahi hai tumhara Maqsad aur Hasil. By chalis chor - 2/24/2013 7:24:32 AM



  • Dear hats off.
    The lesson learned from the debate: Same book but  different
    interpretation. 73 sects 73 interpretation. Each on the truth, each is Gumrah.
    Is their any doubt? They will remain wherethey were

    A word waseela in one or two verses has built an empire of Butparasti. No better than Mushrikeen-e-Mecca. One step ahead Bidati.
    Business only business. Making money in the name of deads. How can they abandon the waseela which is backbone of Brailviat and the investment in a business with no loss.

    Key questions are waiting answers....
     
    By rational - 2/24/2013 7:22:58 AM



  • Abdul Khaliq - 2/24/2013 6:02:42 AM

    Gali chaahe tum wahabi ko do yaa wahaabi tumhe den. Hamari nazar men dono ek hi taili ke chatte batte hain.
    Dhoke men pada hua doporon ko bhi dhoke men samajhta hai.

    What about  Ahmed Sarhindi Mujaddid Alif Thaani???
    and Razakhani fatwa on Shias. Fatwa of Abdul Qadir jeelani.
    Sufiyon(aka gods of Brailvis) par chot kiya padi ki Brailvi mendhakon ki tarah fudak rah rahe hain.
    By rational - 2/24/2013 7:10:38 AM



  • i fully endorse Ghulam ghauss sb, these wahabis always misinterpret the holy Quaran and weave a web of terror, unleash reign of terror, breach the peace and security, turn from good to bad and from bad to worse. They have made the religion the puppet of their own desire,motivate and create new terror cells. indeed they are not muslims but subhuman.   By Waseela - 2/24/2013 6:49:41 AM



  • to mr rational, i suggest you call of the debate the moment someone a) calls you names, b) questions your intentions, c) accuses you of apostasy, d) accuse you of islamophobia, e) completely ignore key questions you raise.

    these are fast becoming standard muslim response to criticism of the prophet, the practice and precepts of islam. one can never ever discuss issues regarding islam without being subjected to these four common tactics when believers are cornered in an argument.

    notice how mr naseer ahmed who is a wise man never called you names, or accused you of provoking communal riots or some such childish thing. he either refutes you with references or just keeps quite.

    there is no "argument" with the rabble.

    like mr muhammad yunus quotes iqbal, a petal may peirce a diamond, wise words....etc, etc,
    By hats off! - 2/24/2013 6:39:19 AM



  • There are many Forms of Waseela

    1. It is the belief of the Ahl-as-Sunnah that it is permissible to supplicate to Allah with the Tawasul of good deeds or Allahs’ Names.

    2. It is permitted to supplicate with the Tawasul of a living pious person

    3. It is also permitted to supplicate with the Tawassul of the deceased pious person.

    What we will be reading henceforth inshallah that

    1. Waseela was practiced before the prophet pbuh.

    2. Waseela was practiced in the lifetime of the prophet pbuh.

    3. Waseela was practiced after the worldly life of prophet (peace be upon him)

    4. Waseela through pious people

    To those who object waseela that we should ASK ALLAH DIRECTLY no waseela no intermediary

    Only Allah almighty excludes every thing SO there should be an explicit no in Quran. So let’s see what we do read in Quran

    O you who Believe! Do your duties to Allah and fear Him seek the means of approach unto him, and strive (with might and main) in His cause so that you may prosper.

    (Surah Mai’dah verse 35, Surah 5)

    In this verse of the holy Quran the word Waseela has been used in a general format, NO FILTER CRITERIA. It has not prescribed a certain form of waseela neither has it prohibited any other form of waseela .

    And how do Mufassir explain this Ayat?

    Imam Ibn Kathir ra on Tawassul on above Ayah:

    Translation: Many (Ulemas) have stated this tradition. One of them is Abu Mansur Sabbagh who writes in his book Al-Hikayat-ul-mashhurah that, according to ‘Utbi, once he was sitting beside the Prophet’s grave when a bedouin came and he said, “Peace be on you, O Allah’s Messenger. I have heard that Allah says: ‘(O beloved!) And if they had come to you, when they had wronged their souls, and asked forgiveness of Allah, and the Messenger also had asked forgiveness for them, they (on the basis of this means and intercession) would have surely found Allah the Granter of repentance, extremely Merciful.’ I have come to you, asking forgiveness for my sins and I make you as my intermediary before my Lord and I have come to you for this purpose.”

    Then he recited these verses: “O, the most exalted among the buried people who improved the worth of the plains and the hillocks! May I sacrifice my life for this grave which is made radiant by you, (the Prophet,) the one who is (an embodiment) of mercy and forgiveness.”

    Then the Bedouin went away and I fell asleep. In my dream I saw the Holy Prophet (Peace Be upon Him). He said to me: O ‘Utbi, the Bedouin is right, go and give him the good news that Allah has forgiven his sins.

    [Ibn Kathir, Tafsir-ul-Qur'an al-azim Volume 004, Page No. 140, Under the Verse 4:64]

    Now Imam Ibne Khatir Mufassir of Quran Sharif who is explaining the people that the Ayat gives this incident of visiting grave, talking to the prophet pbuh and getting the good news of his prayers answered and its not just HIM Other Great Mufassirs

    Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti in "Dur al-Manthur": Imam Qurtubi - Tafsir al-Qurtubi, al-Jami li Ahkam al-Quran Volume 006, Page No. 439, Under the Verse, 4:64]

    The above was evidence of Belief and Practice of Sahaba Raziallhutalajmaeen from Quran and its Tafsir and Hadis. Besides, There are numerous proofs from the holy Quran and the Hadith which point out that seeking waseela is allowed.  By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/24/2013 6:35:55 AM



  • What is waseela? How to seek waseela? Waseela is an Islamic religious practice which is to offer supplication to Allah through an intermediary.

    If any one asks from deceased and he believes that the person independently possess the power to provide or to solve his problem then this indeed would be SHIRK SO hence forth when you read about Ambiyas / Auliyas anywhere . IT MEANS what ever they do is through the powers gifted /blessed to them by ALLAH By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/24/2013 6:19:49 AM



  • rational sahab,
    jab ye ayaten utree thee us waqt mazar nahin bane the aur na sufi paida hue the. Isliye jo ayaten aapne pesh farmayee hain woh musalmanon ke liye nahin but paraston ke liye theen. hee hee hee. Khagaye na dhoka bhai saab?
    By Abdul Khaliq - 2/24/2013 6:05:42 AM



  • rationa tum to batao ke tumhara khuda kaun hai? aur tum inke peeche pade ho. Jao apna kam karo yar, agar kuch kam karte ho. Ya bekar bathe rahte ho? By Abdul Khaliq - 2/24/2013 6:02:42 AM



  • ratonal, these verses were meant for kuffar and mushrikin, becuase they used to seek dua from the idols and deities. then allah said to his prophet to stop them by announcing the same verse as you mentioned. allah gives prestige whom he wants and likewise he has given his beloved the power to help the needy. the main point is that those kuffar did not believe in one god but these Awliyas and Ambiyas believe in one god and Allah gave them power and many more what you can not sense or percieve. 
    you are among those wahabis who are like terrorists and who are creating terror in the name of jihad. they are also taking out verses from the quran to defend themselves and to provoke muslims. you should change your name because you are not rational but irrational. 
    By Waseela - 2/24/2013 5:44:19 AM



  • Raihan Nezami
    Maine apna kaam poora kar diya hai. ab chahe aap yya nabi kaho, yaa Ali kaho, Ya gahuss dastgeer kaho. Chaahe sajda taazeemi karo, murdon se mannat maango, chadawa kaaho, Allah ko goli maaro.

    Sawal wahi hai Mushrikken Arab se Paighabar saheb ka kya jhgda thaa.
    When scholars justify dubious practices then common people go far ahead. You tell them that waseela ho sakta hai, ijazat hai to log aage badh kar Allah ke siva doosron se maangna shuru kar dete hain. Saari saari raat urs men hangaama karte hain.

    Isee se mazaron kaa dhndha chal raha hai. Agarbatti, chadar, phool bik rahe hain. Tijaarat nahi to aur kiya hai.
    Meri taraf se aur kuchh sufi ghad lo.
    By rational - 2/24/2013 5:37:57 AM



  • RATIONAL SB, What is faith? We Sunni muslims believe There is no God but Allah and Muhammad pbuh is the final messenger of Allah. We believe in one God all his prophets, angels and books. We are muslims. We utterly and intentionally believe in Islam and its principles. I visit the holy shrines but i do not make any prophet or wali the partner of Allah almighty. 
    After all, I can not force or prevent you from calling it qabarpatasti. I have given many references from the holy Quran and the holy Hadith, even then you are not believing, so i must say to you "There is no compulsion in the religion" 
    We have come to know Allah almighty by waseela of the prophet Muhamamd pbuh.That is why we beleive in waseela. 
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/24/2013 5:31:00 AM



  • وَإِذَا سَأَلَكَ عِبَادِي عَنِّي فَإِنِّي قَرِيبٌ ۖ أُجِيبُ دَعْوَةَ الدَّاعِ إِذَا دَعَانِ ۖ فَلْيَسْتَجِيبُوا لِي وَلْيُؤْمِنُوا بِي لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْشُدُونَ

    اور جب تم سےمیرے بندے میرے متعلق سوال کریں تو میں نزدیک ہوں دعا کرنے والے کی دعا قبول کرتا ہوں جب وہ مجھے پکارتا ہے پھر چاہیئے کہ میرا حکم مانیں اور مجھ پر ایمان لائیں تاکہ وہ ہدایت پائیں۔ سورة البقرہ، آیت ۱۸٦

    إِن يَنصُرْكُمُ اللَّهُ فَلَا غَالِبَ لَكُمْ ۖ وَإِن يَخْذُلْكُمْ فَمَن ذَا الَّذِي يَنصُرُكُم مِّن بَعْدِهِ ۗ وَعَلَى اللَّهِ فَلْيَتَوَكَّلِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ

    اگر الله تمہاری مدد کرے گا تو تم پر کوئی غالب نہ ہوسکے گا اور اگر اس نے مدد چھوڑ دی تو پھر ایسا کون ہے جو اس کے بعد تمہاری مدد کر سکے اور مومنین کو الله ہی پر بھروسہ کرنا چاہیے۔ سورة آل عمران ۱٦۰

    وَلِلَّهِ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَىٰ فَادْعُوهُ بِهَا ۖ وَذَرُوا الَّذِينَ يُلْحِدُونَ فِي أَسْمَائِهِ

    اور سب اچھے نام الله ہی کے لیے ہیں سو اسے انہی نامو ں سے پکارو، سورة الاعراف آیت ۱۸۰

    أَمِ اتَّخَذُوا مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ شُفَعَاءَ ۚ قُلْ أَوَلَوْ كَانُوا لَا يَمْلِكُونَ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَعْقِلُونَ۔ قُل لِّلَّهِ الشَّفَاعَةُ جَمِيعًا ۖ لَّهُ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۖ ثُمَّ إِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ

    کیا انہوں نے الله کےسوا اور حمایتی بنا رکھے ہیں کہہ دوکیا اگرچہ وہ کچھ بھی اختیار نہ رکھتے ہوں اور نہ عقل رکھتے ہوں۔ کہہ دو ہر طرح کی حمایت الله ہی کے اختیار میں ہے آسمانوں اور زمین میں اسی کی حکومت ہے پھر اسی کی طرف تم لوٹائے جاؤ گے۔ سورة الزمر آیات ٤۳ ۔ ٤٤

    وَإِذَا مَسَّكُمُ الضُّرُّ فِي الْبَحْرِ ضَلَّ مَن تَدْعُونَ إِلَّا إِيَّاهُ ۖ فَلَمَّا نَجَّاكُمْ إِلَى الْبَرِّ أَعْرَضْتُمْ ۚ وَكَانَ الْإِنسَانُ كَفُورًا

    اور جب تم پر دریا میں کوئی مصیبت آتی ہے تو بھول جاتے ہو جنہیں الله کے سوا پکارتے تھےپھر جب وہ تمہیں خشکی کی طرف بچا لاتا ہے تو تم اس سے منہ موڑ لیتے ہو اور انسان بڑا ہی ناشکرا ہے۔ سورة بنی اسرائیل، آیت ٦۷

    ہمارے ہاں فرقوں کی پھیلائی ہوئی اس بدعقیدگی جس کے مطابق مردہ انسانوں کو  پکارا یا دعا میں وسیلہ بنایا جا سکتا ہے  کے پیچھے جو فلسفہ کار فرما ہے وہ یہ ہے کہ چونکہ اللہ کے نبی اور ولی اللہ کے بہت نزدیک اور مقرب ہوتے ہیں لہذا  انہیں یہ اختیار حاصل ہوتا ہے کہ وہ ایک عام آدمی کے حق میں اللہ سے سفارش کریں اور اسکی دعا کو اللہ کے ہاں مقبول و منظور کروانے میں وسیلہ بنیں۔ زمانہ قدیم میں بت پرستوں کا اپنے  خداؤں  اور ان کے بتوں کے حوالے سے یہی عقیدہ تھا اور اسی طرح مشرکینِ مکہ بھی ہو بہو اسی عقیدے کے ماننے والے تھے اور قرآن ذیل کی آیات میں اس باطل عقیدے کی نشاندہی بھی کرتا ہے۔

    وَيَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ مَا لَا يَضُرُّهُمْ وَلَا يَنفَعُهُمْ وَيَقُولُونَ هَـٰؤُلَاءِ شُفَعَاؤُنَا عِندَ اللَّهِ ۚ قُلْ أَتُنَبِّئُونَ اللَّهَ بِمَا لَا يَعْلَمُ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَلَا فِي الْأَرْضِ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ

    اور الله کے سوا اس چیز کی پرستش کرتے ہیں جونہ انہیں نقصان پہنچا سکے اورنہ انہیں نفع دے سکے اور کہتے ہیں الله کے ہاں یہ ہمارے سفارشی ہیں کہہ دو کیا تم الله کو بتلاتے ہو جو اسے آسمانوں اور زمین میں معلوم نہیں وہ پاک ہے اوران لوگو ں کے شرک سے بلند ہے۔ سورة یونس، آیت ۱۸

    أَلَا لِلَّهِ الدِّينُ الْخَالِصُ ۚ وَالَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا مِن دُونِهِ أَوْلِيَاءَ مَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلَّا لِيُقَرِّبُونَا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفَىٰ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَحْكُمُ بَيْنَهُمْ فِي مَا هُمْ فِيهِ يَخْتَلِفُونَ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِي مَنْ هُوَ كَاذِبٌ كَفَّارٌ

    خبردار، خالص فرمانبرداری الله ہی کے لیے ہے جنہوں نے اس کے سوا اور کارساز بنا لیے ہیں ہم ان کی عبادت نہیں کرتے مگر اس لیے کہ وہ ہمیں الله سے قریب کر دیں بے شک الله ان کے درمیان ان باتوں میں فیصلہ کرے گا جن میں وہ اختلاف کرتےتھے بے شک الله اسے ہدایت نہیں کرتا جو جھوٹا ناشکرگزار ہو۔ سورة الزمر، آیت ۳

    وَمَنْ أَضَلُّ مِمَّن يَدْعُو مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ مَن لَّا يَسْتَجِيبُ لَهُ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ وَهُمْ عَن دُعَائِهِمْ غَافِلُونَ۔ وَإِذَا حُشِرَ النَّاسُ كَانُوا لَهُمْ أَعْدَاءً وَكَانُوا بِعِبَادَتِهِمْ كَافِرِينَ

    اور اس سے بڑھ کر کون گمراہ ہے جو الله کےسوا اسےپکارتا ہے جو قیامت تک اس کے پکارنے کا جواب نہ دے سکے اور انہیں ان کے پکارنے کی خبر بھی نہ ہو۔ اور جب لوگ جمع کئےجائیں گے تو وہ ان کے دشمن ہو جائیں گے اور ان کی عبادت کے منکر ہوں گے۔ سورة الاحقاف، آیات ۵۔٦

    By rational - 2/24/2013 5:25:12 AM



  • Aisa lagta hai ki brailviyon ka khuda Sufiyon, kaa mohtaaj hai. Unke bagair na kisi ki sunta hai na kisi ki taraf dekhta hai.
    Maazor hai bechaara. Sufi kahen khada hoja khada ho jaye sufi kahen baith jaao baith jaaye.

    Inka khuda dunyavi baadshaahon ki tarah wazeeron ka muhtaj hai.

    By rational - 2/24/2013 5:12:56 AM



  • The Quran says Allah is nearer to you than your jugular vein. There is no need of any waseela.

    Yeh to brailviyon ne apni waqat banayue rakhne ke liye aur logon ko mare hue logon ke saamne maangne ke liye formula tayaar kar rakha hai. Take chadhawa aana khatam na ho. isi wajah sam dand bhed ka istemaal karke waseela ko jaaree rakhna hai.


    By rational - 2/24/2013 5:07:15 AM




  • This waseela is nothing but a way to do shirk nothing else.
    Rehan Nezami, naeer saheb has given proper answer.

    What was the fault of Mushrikeen-e-mecca?
    By rational - 2/24/2013 5:02:11 AM



  • Raihan Nezami - 2/24/2013 12:56:56 AM
    Questions are waiting answers about Sarhindi.
    By rational - 2/24/2013 4:57:28 AM



  • Naseer sb,
    What is the definition or meaning of the word waseela? Means. A mediator. 
    Even if God helps a man he does it by waseela. The help does not come down directly from the heavens. God gives you bread and butter not directly from heaven but through your employer. When you fall ill you go to a doctor, waseela, and God cures you. If you do not go to a doctor you might even die. God revealed the Quran through a waseela. The only point man should not start worshipping or having faith in the power of waseela. It should be taken as God's means to reach man as well as man's means to reach God. Even when Quran was revealed to the prophet (pbuh), it was not revealed directly to the poet. Gibreel was the waseela. So you can not ignore the importance of waseela.s`
    By Md Amin Ansari - 2/24/2013 4:40:59 AM



  • The  meaning of waseela is 'means'. Good deeds are the means of earning God's pleasure. God uses man, angels, jin and satan as means to carry out His plan. 


    (18:47) And when they are told, "Spend ye of (the bounties) with which Allah has provided you," the Unbelievers say to those who believe: "Shall we then feed those whom, if Allah had so willed, He would have fed, (Himself)?- Ye are in nothing but manifest error."
    God is asking us to become His means or waseela to feed the poor or for taking care of Orphans and the weak etc.


    Asking another living person to pray for you is similar to your  praying for others. God may accept their prayer for you or may not. God did not accept the Prophet's prayer for Abu Talib accepting Islam. God tells the prophet not to pray for the Munafiqeen and that even if he prayed for them, his prayers would not be accepted etc. So even the Prophet's prayer does not guarantee success. 

    The prayers of parents are said to protect the children and their curses become the cause of misery. You do not however, pray to God saying that your prayer be granted through the waseela of your parents even though you believe that their prayer for you is far more efficacious than your own prayer for yourself!

    Similarly, none of the examples above justify  seeking favours through the waseela of the pious dead by praying at their shrines which is clearly prohibited by 17:56 and 17:57 quoted in my earlier comment in this thread.

    There is a hadith which says that you can pray using the waseela of your good deeds. For example, you may pray that Allah grant you such and such thing as a reward for such and such good done by you. Such a prayer is said to be more effective which I believe to be true. However, it is a very poor exchange. You are exchanging rewards in the hereafter for the good you have done for some reward  in this world itself. Instead, why not seek out of God's infinite bounty rather than surrendering some reward in the hereafter?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/24/2013 2:03:56 AM



  • Rational saheb se is sawal ka jawab nahi ban paya to bhag khade hue, "how a man is born by waseela or without waseela?" Yahi hai inke tark-vitark ki sachchai. 100 comments ke bad bhi na samjhe aur finally Waseela ko shirk bata kar nikal liye, wah bhai wah.  By Raihan Nezami - 2/24/2013 12:56:56 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 12:16:04 PM
    This is the end of this debate. I am sure the qabraparasti will continue because it is extremely beneficial to many people including you. It is a business without any fear of loss.
    Whether you call it waseela, or sajda-e-taazeemi it is shirk and shirk only nothing else.
    People needs short cuts. After committing all kinds of immoralities they need some middlemen to save them from the pangs of the consciousness. So padri offers his services in the name of confessions and you like a waseela. Moving on the path of righteous is very difficult in the presence of the temptations. So here comes the middleman the agent
    I condemn all these middlemen aka gods.
    By rational - 2/23/2013 9:37:25 PM



  • I end this debate by " The waseela used by the Brailvis is a tool to promote the qabraprasti (grave-worship). I endorse the views of the scholars who take it as the closeness to the Allah and that is by means of the good deeds. Nobody including prophets is a waseela in the sense Brailvis take it and promote it. It is the very Shirk the Meccans were suffering from. Raza Saheb played with the meaning of this verse to maintain the Qabraparasti. The whole religion of Brailvis is running on this Qabraprasti.
    Whethet I Believe in the Qur'an is not a question of importance here. I can quote from the vedas, Upnishads, Gita, Puran, Bible etc. It doesn't mean I believe in them.
    Almost all Muslims quote from the Bible but believe it is corrupted.
     Muslims quote from the vedas, it doesn't mean they are believing in all vedas and on all themes.

    I thanks all commentators who brought the correct understanding of the verses which is clearly not in the favor of Brailvis.

    However questions about the Shaikh Sarhindi remains unanswered.
    Mr Ghulam Rasool should tell what the Shaikh Sarhindi write in his maktubaats to leaders of the Ummah. I may have told lies. What was his concern? What was his mission? How was it achieved? What were his views on the Non-Muslims particularly Hindus?

    Why should it be discussed?
    1. It is aired that this ahle-sunnat wal jamat is tolerant to other while other are not.
    2. Sufis are projected as tolerant and pious people. I have selected one Muijaddid. Considering his role and influence it is most vital to discuss in detail.
    3. Mysteries around these Sufis should be removed. This mystery is the root to many false beliefs about these holy men ie gods.
    4. All personalities should be put to criticism.
    5. Another personalities called Ghauss-e-Aazam and Aala Hazrat Ahmed Raza should be discussed in full.
    6. All personalities means every personalty of every sect. These have become the gods.

    Blind reverence and reform can't go hand in hand.

    By rational - 2/23/2013 9:18:13 PM



  • Dear rational please do not take my question easy tell me how a man is born by waseela or without waseela? This question is just for you because you do not believe in the holy Quran.

    In addition to the verses of the holy Quran previously mentioned there are some Hadith regarding waseela. Hafidhh Ibn Kathir and Qadi Shawkani write, Uthman bin Haneef reported that a blind person came to the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace]. The blind person said, do du’a for me so Allah Almighty restores my sight. Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] said if you really want to, I can do du’a for you or I can leave it. (This means that if the blind man leaves his sight as it is, he will be rewarded more on the Day of Judgement). But the blind man said insisted that the Prophet should do Du’a for him. The Prophet asked him to perform ablution and pray two rakah nafl and make following supplication: “O Allah! I ask You with the waseela of the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace]. Ya Muhammad! I am making du’a to Allah Almighty with your waseela, so that Allah Almighty may accept my du’a. O Allah! Make Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] as my interceder.”

    This hadith is written by ibn Majah, Nasai, Tirmidhi, Ahmad, Haaqim, ibn Sunni, Tibrani and ibn Huzaima. Tibrani and ibn Huzaima said this hadith is authentic. This hadith proves that it is permissible to make supplication with the waseela of Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace].

    (Tareekh ibn Kathir chapter on Mowjizaat and Tuhfah Al Dhakireen chapter Salaah ul Haajah).

    Imam Bayhaqi has also wrote this narration but also included an additional element of the hadith that states Uthman bin Haneef reported that the blind man followed what the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] said and when he returned, his sight was restored.

    (chapter on Al-Mowjizaat).

    It is proved from the above hadith that it is permissible to say “Ya Muhammad” and it is also permissible to make supplication to Allah with the waseela of the Prophet.

    Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal writes that Sayyidna ‘Ali narrated that, the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] said, “there will remain Forty Abdaal (Saints) in Syria. Through their Waseela, Allah will provide food, shelter, rain and victory over the Kaffirs. Whenever one dies, he is replaced by another.”

    (Musnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Musnad of Hadrat ‘Ali [Radi Allahu ‘anhu]

    Hafidhh Ibn Kathir, Ibn abdul-Barr and Ibn Sa’aad, Ibn Athir writes: 'Whenever there was a famine in Rome, then the Romans would supplicate by presenting the Waseela of Abu Ayyub Ansari RadhiAllahu 'anhu'.

    (Tareekh Ibn Kathir). Tabakat Ibn Sa’d, Usdool-Gabah, Isteyab by Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Atheer and Abdul-Barr)

    Hafidhh Ibn Kathir made no critical comments with regards to this. When supplication was made through Abu Ayyub Ansaari Radi Allaho making him the waseela, it did rain By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 12:16:04 PM



  • I think Waseela is applicable in the form of ACTION (Taqwah and performing Sunnah) not in the WORDS (Seeking referral) only. By Raihan Nezami - 2/23/2013 12:09:36 PM



  • Dear rational, Allah most High says in the Holy Qur'an:
    O you who Believe! Do your duties to Allah and fear Him seek the means of approach unto him, and strive (with might and main) in His cause so that you may prosper”. (Surah Mai’dah verse 35, Surah 5translated by Imam ahmad raza) 

    “O believers! Fear Allah and seek the means to be closer to Him and make Jihad (struggle) in His Way so that you may be successful”. Translated by Malik

    “O ye who believe! Be mindful of your duty to Allah, and seek the way of approach unto Him, and strive in His way in order that ye may succeed”. By Pickthall

    “O ye who believe! do your duty to Allah seek the means of approach unto Him and strive with might and main in His cause: that ye may prosper”. By Yusfu ali

    All these translations mean the word “waseela” means of approach to Allah almighty. The means of approach is Taqwa which is only possible through the guidance of the holy Quran and the Hadith i.e the sunnah of the prophet Muhammad pbuh. Hence it is clear that Muhammad pbuh is waseela to approach Allah almighty.
    Thanks a lot dear Naseer sahab, at least you have approved Waseela in the form of Taqwa.  
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 11:57:00 AM



  • Here are some explanations of the Aayat 5/35; we should try to understand ourselves, no need to ask anyone.

    "O you who believe! Do your duty to Allaah and fear Him. And seek the means of approach to Him"
    [al-Maa'idah 5:35]

    That is so that we may refute what the Sufis say about tawassul, because some of them interpret it as meaning that it is permissible to seek to draw close to Allaah by the Prophets and awliya' ("saints"). With regard to the hadeeth about Adam committing a sin, they say that al-Bayhaqi classed the hadeeth as saheeh, and that al-Dhahabi praised his book.

    Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

    Firstly:

    The hadeeth about Adam committing a sin and seeking to draw closer to Allaah by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is a fabricated hadeeth which is falsely attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and to Adam (peace be upon him).

    We have stated that in the answer to question no. 34715, where we quoted the scholars' comments on the falseness of this hadeeth. These scholars include Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allaah have mercy on him).

    Al-Bayhaqi (may Allaah have mercy on him) did not narrate this hadeeth in his Sunan, rather he narrated it in Dalaa'il al-Nubuwwah (5/489), where he classed it as da'eef (weak). After quoting the hadeeth, he said: "It was narrated only by 'Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Zayd ibn Aslam, and he is da'eef."

    What makes it most likely that the text is false is the fact that the du'aa' by which Allaah accepted Adam's repentance is what is mentioned in Soorat al-A'raaf, where Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    "They said: 'Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If You forgive us not, and bestow not upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers'" [al-A'raaf 7:23]

    This is the supplication of Adam and Hawwa', in which they called upon Allaah alone, and sought to draw close to Him (tawassul) by His names and attributes, and by mentioning their situation. These are words which Adam received from his Lord, then he said them and Allaah accepted his repentance, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    "Then Adam received from his Lord Words. And his Lord pardoned him (accepted his repentance). Verily, He is the One Who forgives (accepts repentance), the Most Merciful" [al-Baqarah 2:37]

    Secondly:

    What is meant by the word waseelah [means of approach] in the verse, (interpretation of the meaning):

    "O you who believe! Do your duty to Allaah and fear Him. And seek the means of approach to Him, and strive hard in His Cause (as much as you can), so that you may be successful" [al-Maa'idah 5:35]

    is the way of reaching Allaah, and there is no way of reaching Him except the way that Allaah loves and is pleased with, which is by obeying Him and not disobeying Him.  Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

    Allaah commands His believing slaves to fear Him (taqwa). When this word is accompanied by mention of obedience, it means refraining from haraam things. After that Allaah says, "And seek the means of approach to Him". Sufyaan al-Thawri said, narrating from Talhah, from 'Ata', from Ibn 'Abbaas: i.e., drawing close to Him. This was also stated by Mujaahid, Abu Waa'il, al-Hasan, Qataadah, 'Abd-Allaah ibn Katheer, al-Saddi, Ibn Zayd and others. Qataadah said: i.e., draw close to Him by obeying Him and doing that which pleases Him, and Ibn Zayd recited (interpretation of the meaning):

    "Those whom they call upon [like 'Eesa (Jesus) ‑ son of Maryam (Mary), 'Uzayr (Ezra), angels and others] desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allaah)" [al-Isra' 17:57]

    There is no difference of opinion among the mufassireen concerning what these imams said.

    Means of approach or means of access means that by means of which one reaches one's goal. End quote.  Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 2/53, 54.

    Al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

    Note that the majority of scholars are of the view that what is meant by waseelah here is drawing close to Allaah by obeying His commands and avoiding that which He has forbidden, in accordance with the teachings brought by Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), doing that sincerely for the sake of Allaah alone, because this is the only path that leads to the pleasure of Allaah and attaining what is with Him and what is good in this world and in the Hereafter.

    The basic meaning of the word waseelah is a path that brings one near to something. Here it means righteous deeds, according to scholarly consensus, because there is no other way of drawing close to Allaah apart from following the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Based on this, there are many verses which explain the meaning of waseelah, such as the following (interpretation of the meaning):

    "And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad) gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it" [al-Hashr 59:7]

    "Say (O Muhammad to mankind): 'If you (really) love Allaah, then follow me'" [Aal 'Imraan 3:31]

    "Say: Obey Allaah and obey the Messenger" [al-Noor 24:54]

    And there are other similar verses. It was narrated from Ibn 'Abbaas that what is meant by waseelah is need.

    Based on this, the words narrated from Ibn 'Abbaas, "Seek with Him al-waseelah" mean, seek your needs from Allaah, for He alone is the one who is able to meet them. This is further explained by the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    "Verily, those whom you worship besides Allaah have no power to give you provision, so seek your provision from Allaah (Alone), and worship Him (Alone)" [al-'Ankaboot 29:17]

    "and ask Allaah of His Bounty" [al-Nisa' 4:32]  And by the hadeeth: "If you ask, then ask of Allaah."

    Then al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The correct view concerning the meaning of waseelah is that of the majority of scholars, that it means drawing closer to Allaah by worshipping Him alone, in accordance with the teachings of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). The tafseer of Ibn 'Abbaas comes under this heading, because calling upon Allaah (du'aa') and praying humbly to Him when asking for one's needs is one of the greatest forms of worship which is waseelah or seeking to draw closer to Him and attain His pleasure and mercy.

    From this it may be understood that what many of the heretics and followers of ignorant men who claim to be Sufis say, which is that what is meant by waseelah in the verse is the Shaykh who has the power of mediation between him and his Lord, is ignorance, blindness and obvious misguidance; it is toying with the Book of Allaah. Taking intermediaries is the essence of the kufr of the kaafirs, as Allaah clearly stated when He said concerning them (interpretation of the meaning):

    "[They say:] We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allaah" [al-Zumar 39:3]

    "and they say: 'These are our intercessors with Allaah.' Say: 'Do you inform Allaah of that which He knows not in the heavens and on the earth?' Glorified and Exalted is He above all that which they associate as partners (with Him)!" [Yoonus 10:18]

    Every one who is accountable must understand that the way to attain the pleasure of Allaah and His Paradise and His mercy is to follow His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Whoever deviates from that has gone astray from the straight path.

    "It will not be in accordance with your desires (Muslims), nor those of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), whosoever works evil, will have the recompense thereof" [al-Nisa'4:123]

    The meaning of waseelah that we have explained here is also the meaning in the verse where Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    "Those whom they call upon [like 'Eesa (Jesus) ‑ son of Maryam (Mary), 'Uzayr (Ezra), angels and others] desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allaah) as to which of them should be the nearest" [al-Isra' 17:57]

    Another meaning of waseelah is the status in Paradise which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us to ask Allaah to grant to him, and we hope that Allaah will give it to him, because only one person will be entitled to it, and he hoped that he would be the one. End quote.  Adwa' al-Bayaan, 2/86-88

     

    By Raihan Nezami - 2/23/2013 11:52:08 AM



  • 17:56. Say: "Call on those - besides Him - whom ye fancy: they have neither the power to remove your troubles from you nor to change them."

     

    We now have the strongest condemnation of all, that of imagining any other being as being equal or in the same category with One True God. Allah has all power: they have no power. They cannot remove men's troubles. They cannot even mitigate or change them so as to afford the least relief. Why indulge in false worship?

     

    17:57. Those whom they call upon do desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord, - even those who are nearest: they hope for His Mercy and fear His Wrath: for the Wrath of thy Lord is something to take heed of.

     

     Where men or heroes, or prophets or angels are worshipped, the worship is futile: because (1) even if they are good and holy, and ever so near to Allah, yet the nearest of them have need to seek means of access to Allah, and they do seek such means, viz,: the hope of Allah's Grace: (2) though by their very nature it is impossible for us to suppose that they will incur the Wrath of Allah, yet they are but creatures and are subject to the law of personal responsibility.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/23/2013 11:35:14 AM



  • Rational, how were you born in this world? by waseela or without waseela ? why Allah has not created you without waseela of your parents? By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 11:34:11 AM



  • The meaning of waseela is means. This verse describes the means to approach Allah or get close to Allah. The waseela to get close to Allah are:

    1.      Taqwa. Taqwa is described as  of fear of Allah or avoidance of deeds that are disliked by Allah or performing one’s duty to Allah

    2.      To strive hard in his way.

     Yusufali                O ye who believe! Do your duty to Allah, seek the means of approach unto Him, and strive with might and main in his cause: that ye may prosper.

     Notes of Yusuf Ali: Taqwa here too might be translated "fear of Allah", but the very next clause shows that "fear of Allah" does not mean "fear" in the ordinary sense, which would make you avoid the object of fear. On the contrary the "fear of Allah" is the intense desire to avoid everything that is against His Will and Law. It is in fact duty to Allah, for we are told to seek ardently the means by which we may approach Him, and that can only be done by striving with might and main for His cause.

     

     "Prosper" in the spiritual sense, for that is all that matters, as the life of this world is brief and fleeting, and of small account as against Eternity

     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/23/2013 11:09:11 AM



  • Dear Ghula Ghauss
    I understand how you people are playing with the verses of the Quran. All the sects are busy in this business.
    This waseela is the main cause of this grave-worship. This grave-worship is another form of the shirk.
    You produced one verse in the support of Waseela but you have played with its meaning.
    Practically I have seen how the peers are milking the cows. My very nears and dears are being milked and they are made tobelieve they are earning the thawab. They are earning the thawab for hereafter but smart people like brailvis are earning the real thing for this world.


    By rational - 2/23/2013 10:36:26 AM



  • Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 2/23/2013 8:29:23 AM
    Whether I believe in it or not it is none of your business. Nobody has forced you to reply.
    But if you have come reply what was the fault of Mushrikeen-e-mecca? What shirk was that they were committing?
    On important questions you are silent, but to save your sect you are behaving like a child.
    You want to maintain the Qabraparasti because it gives you an upper hand on gullible people. You are giving them the short cuts. How will you let the slip the chadhava.
    Stop throwing tantrums. There are so many valid questions are waiting you.

    By rational - 2/23/2013 10:15:09 AM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed Saheb. You rely on your understanding of the Quran.
    Please tell what do you understand by the verse 35 Sura 5 the Al Maida.
    What do you mean by Waseela in this verse?
    By rational - 2/23/2013 10:01:35 AM



  • Dear Mohammed Yunus
    Please explain the verse 35 in Sure Al Maida. What do you understand by this verse?
    By rational - 2/23/2013 9:57:26 AM



  • يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَابْتَغُوا إِلَيْهِ الْوَسِيلَةَ وَجَاهِدُوا فِي سَبِيلِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ



    Asad : O YOU who have attained to faith! Remain conscious of God, and seek to come closer unto Him, and strive hard in His cause, so that you might attain to a happy state.
    By rational - 2/23/2013 9:55:19 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghauss
    Some one has translated this verse as follows. What is wrong with this translation? Exactly what is the meaning of Waseela in Arabic. Is there difference in meaning of Waseela in Urdu?

    يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّـهَ وَابْتَغُوا إِلَيْهِ الْوَسِيلَةَ وَجَاهِدُوا فِي سَبِيلِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ
    اے ایمان والو الله سے ڈرو اور الله کا قرب تلاش کرو اور الله کی
    راہ میں جہاد کرو تاکہ تم کامیاب ہو جاؤ By rational - 2/23/2013 9:37:59 AM



  • Dear Rational brother in humanity, again you have blamed Qabar parasti. Leave me and see what so many Hadith say regarding waseela. Imam Bukhari writes that Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace]said, “Help the poor, because the help and food that Allah has given to you is with their waseela.” [Bukhari chap on Jihad]

    Ibn Hajar Asqalani writes that Allah helps the Ummah and provides them with food because of the sincere du’as of the poor people.

    [Fathul Bari chap on Jihad]

    Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim writes that the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] said, “A time will come when the non-believers will fight the Muslims. It will be asked, Is there anyone in the army who has seen the Prophet?

    They will reply yes and will win the war. Another time will come when there will be another war with the kafirs and the Muslims and a question will be asked; have you anyone in the army who has seen the companions of the Prophet? They will reply yes and will win the war. Another time will come and a question will be asked, Is there anyone in the army who has seen the person who has seen the companions’ companions? They will reply yes, and will win the war. [Bukhari chapter on Jihad and Muslim chapter on Fada’il Sahaba]

    See dear rational, Ibn Hajar Asqalani writes that these three wars will be won by the Muslims with the waseela of the Sahabah, tabi’ee and taba tabi’ee. This hadith is also verified by another hadith, where Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] said: “My time is the best, then the companions time is the best, then the people who have seen the companions’ companions time is the best.(Fathul Bari chap on Jihad)

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 9:09:53 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS
    Oh! I didn't know these meanings.
    How foolish you are now!
    Ok Grave-worship is fine. I never feel shame in learning. Thanks a lot for teaching me.
    This waseela is earning bread and butter for you. Quran is such a book any sect can play with it.

    What wrong was with mushrikeen-e-Arab?


    By rational - 2/23/2013 8:54:52 AM



  • to mr ghulam rasool dehlvi, one does not have to believe in any piece of text to quote it.

    you have yourself quoted yajurveda, can i conclude you believe in yajurveda or whatever that is?
    By hats off! - 2/23/2013 8:48:37 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghauss.
    I asked what kind of the shirk Arabs were committing?  They were not against the Allah. They were already believing in Him. What is the difference between you brailvis and the mushrikeen-Arabs?
    This means of approach is door ki kaudi. I have to check this what the other scholars says about this verse.
    When I quote from Tabri. all commentators cry he was a liar. His history is based on fabricated narrations. But here you are mentioning his name just because he is serving your purpose.

    By rational - 2/23/2013 8:40:21 AM



  • "you are talking like a child. Is Quran your proprietary item? Where it is written that atheist can't quote the Quran or Hadith."

    dear rational, you are talking like an irrational. If you are a true atheist, how can you believe in the Quran and hadith? No, Quran is not at all a property of ours. But since we believe in it, so we prove our points on its strength.
    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 2/23/2013 8:29:23 AM



  • What a sheer ignorance! you do not know what is Qabar parasti ? Qabar is called grave in English and Parasti is a Persian word that means worshiping. If you know its meaning why are you using it for Sunni muslims ? Not a single example in the books of any sunni scholar i have found as yet. It is just your accusation and nothing else. I and Sunni scholars on whole refute Qabar parasti.  I gave you proofs from the holy Quran and the Haidht but you are still disbeliever and accuser. Anyway there is no compulsion in the religion.   By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 8:24:19 AM



  • Tarki bhai: Main angrezi men nahi likhta hun, ye comment mera nahin hai, koi dusra chor tum ko mashwira de raha hai, "rationl, you are a staunch Wahabi. Give up pretending to be Ex-muslim.
    By chalis chor - 2/23/2013 5:20:24 AM". mere pyare commentator bhai, plz dusra nam rakhlo, ye meri propriety hai. By Chalis Chor - 2/23/2013 8:19:17 AM



  • Rational sb, Waseela in Hadith, Hafidhh Ibn Taymiyyah writes: When Adam (Alay hissalaam) made a mistake, he made Du'a like this: ' O Allah forgive my mistake with the Waseela of Muhammad, (May Allah bless him and grant him peace).Allah asked the Prophet Adam peace be upon him, (rhetorically) how he knew about Muhammad, (May Allah bless him and grant him peace)
    Adam, peace be upon him, answered “when you created me, I lifted my head and saw: (LA ILA HA ILLALLAHU MUHAMMDUR RASU LULLAH) written on the throne. Therefore I knew that this person must be of a very high status. Other wise you would not have written his name with yours. Allah Ta'ala then said I have forgiven you. He will be the last Messenger in your children and I have created you because of him. The second narration is when Allah Ta'ala created the Sky, and the Earth. He wrote our Prophet Muhammad's, (May Allah bless him and grant him peace) name on the pillars of the throne and on the doors of paradise, and on the leafs of the trees in Paradise. It was written that Muhammad (My Allah bless him and grant him peace) would be the last Prophet. In addition to both of these narrations, are counter proofs for one another. They have the status as authentic narrations.

    ["Fatawa Ibn Taymiyya vol. 2 page 150" also Tareekh Ibn Kathir in Story of Adam]
    Apart from Hafidhh Ibn Taymiyya, other Scholars have also written these narrations. Like Hafidhh Suyuti, Bayhaqi and Tabrani By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 8:04:38 AM



  • Dear Rational, Waseela is allowed in Islam. some proofs from the holy Quran. Allah most High says in the Holy Qur'an:
    O you who Believe! Do your duties to Allah and fear Him seek the means of approach unto him, and strive (with might and main) in His cause so that you may prosper. (Surah Mai’dah verse 35, Surah 5) 
    In this verse, Allah has informed us to seek ways of obtaining Waseela, a means to approach Him. Our Prophet (May Allah bless him and grant him peace), is our Waseela in this world and hereafter. 
    Allah Ta’ala says in the Holy Qur'an:
    Before that, they were asking for victory over the infidels by means of the same Prophet. Surah Baqarah verse 89 
    Imam Tabari, Hafidhh Ibn ul Qayyum al Jawzi, Hafidhh Ibn Kathir and Qadi Shawkani write that before the birth of the Messenger of Allah (May Allah bless him and grant him peace), the Jews would make the Prophet, Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, a Waseela in their supplications, when asking Allah to defeat their enemies in battle. (Tafsir Ibn Jareer, Tafsir Ibn Kathir & Tafsir Fath ul Qadeer Shawkaani. Ibn Qayyum. Under, verse Baqarah 89 and Hadaya-tul-Hayara page 95 by Hafidhh Ibn Qayyum al Jawzi. 
    Someone may object to this by saying that this was an act of the Jews, hence it cannot be used as evidence for Muslims. However, Allah has mentioned this event in the Qur'an and did not condemn this, therefore this demonstrates that if it were impermissable the Holy Qur'an would not have mentioned it, nor left it unremanded By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 8:01:46 AM



  • Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 2/23/2013 7:40:01 AM
    you are talking like a child. Is Quran your proprietary item? Where it is written that atheist can't quote the Quran or Hadith.

    By rational - 2/23/2013 7:51:58 AM



  • rational says: "This waseela is the root cause of this shirk. This was the belief of the Mushrikeen-e-Mecca."
    rational, how can you say this? Do you have any scientific research or authentic historical document to prove your point? plz dont bring Quran or hadith as you are an atheist, and for atheists no religious book can be produced as a proof.
    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 2/23/2013 7:40:01 AM



  • dawudd - 2/23/2013 7:21:55 AM
    Please quote the verse and explain this is the same waseela you are talking about
    By rational - 2/23/2013 7:34:55 AM



  • 35:22

    Sahih International
    And not equal are the living and the dead. Indeed, Allah causes to hear whom He wills, but you cannot make hear those in the graves.



    By rational - 2/23/2013 7:30:58 AM



  • dawudd - 2/23/2013 7:21:55 AM
    Can you tell me what is this waseela in this verse?
    By rational - 2/23/2013 7:28:35 AM



  • Mr Rational,
    The Quran says, Khuda tak wasila talash karo."
    By dawudd - 2/23/2013 7:21:55 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS
    You are promoting the Qabrprasti nothing else. This waseela is the root cause of this shirk. This was the belief of the Mushrikeen-e-Mecca. They believed in Allah but thought that some others can be beneficial because they were near to Allah.
    This is exactly how idol worship came into the Quraish.
    By rational - 2/23/2013 7:16:03 AM



  • Dear hats off! - 2/23/2013 6:17:56 AM
    no matter how I am thought by these Mullahs, I will continue my struggle against this so called truth. What is truth, where it is found? I take antidote daily against this contagious disease.

    By rational - 2/23/2013 6:54:53 AM



  • GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 6:27:37 AM
    http://therealislam1.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/azab-e-barzakh-urdu/
    The article in this link clearly tells the reason how and why Qabprasti is practiced and promoted by Brailvis.
    I may get permission to post this article here.
    Yeh logon ko nichodne ka dhanda hai aur kuch nahi.
    Although I don't believe in all these things but I endorse the view of this writer.
    By rational - 2/23/2013 6:46:18 AM



  • Rational sb, The people only claim and accuse Sunni Muslims of worshiping graves. When I pondered over the fatwa of Imam Ahmad raza and many scholars, I found them on the right and totally antithetical to the accusations made by so called people like you.

    Allama Akhtar Raza writes about visiting the holy graves. He says “In this regard, I have to say that Wahabism is based on disrespecting the Prophets and Saints of Allah and they do not believe in their authority and miracles and so claim that visiting graves and shrines are anti- Islamic and settle such action contrary to the teachings of Islam and say that Muslims should refrain from visiting the graves and shrines and even performing worship at those places.

    In fact, Wahabis have refused the commands of the Holy Quran and authentic Traditions of the Holy Messenger (Sallal-Laahu Ta'ala Alaihi Wasallam) and have adopted very irrespective manners towards the Saints and pious persons. They are misled and every baseless act of Wahabis is against Islamic faith. The Holy Messenger (Sallal-Laahu Ta'ala Alaihi Wasallam) has clearly stated:- i.e. “I had forbidden to visit the graves. But be attentive that now you do visit the graves.”

    Every Sunni Muslim should ask the Wahabis to present the evidence about their claim. If they cannot present any evidence and surely they would not be able to do so, then it goes without saying that their claim is contrary to Islam. Verily! Everybody can point out that no one is opposing Islam but the Wahabis. In fact, Allah has bestowed upon His favorites, a great importance, and therefore, our Shariah urges Muslims to be in touch with the pious persons and wants to remain this connection till the last moment of life.

    “Recite the statement of Hazrat Yusuf Alaihis Salaam, 'Make me die as a Muslim and join me with those who are worthy to be very close to you'”. (Sura Yusuf: 101) Note: This invocation of Hazrat Yusuf Alaihis Salaam was to instruct the Ummah as the Prophet (Sallal-Laahu Ta'ala Alaihi Wasallam) is preserved from evil end. This is the reason that the esteemed Prophet commanded his Ummah to visit the graves of virtuous persons. This practice has been continuing since the age of the preceding Prophets. The Holy Quran, narrating the saying of people about the men of the cave, says: “Those who prevailed in their affair said, 'We swear that we shall erect over them a mosque'”. (Al-Kahaf: 21). Hence, everybody can derive clearly that Muslims in every age used to build the Mosque around the Shrine.

    Since Saints are the favourites of Allah and close to Him, therefore the Muslim for beneficence visit the Shrines, perform Namaaz in the Mosque near of the Shrines, and undoubtedly, Muslims consider this act a good deed. Now they should answer whether the statement of Wahabis is contrary to Islam or the practice of Ahle-Sunnat which they have inherited by the virtuous persons from the very beginning of Islam and is still going on. It goes on without saying that whose action is contrary to Islam? This is the action of Wahabis only which is baseless in the light of the tradition of the Holy Prophet (Sallal-Laahu Ta'ala Alaihi Wasallam) which says that Allah cursed the Jews as they assumed the graves of their Prophets in the form of the Mosques. I have to say that this Hadith is never supporting them. This is only backing up the Ahle Sunnat Wa-Jamaat.

    The Jews built the Mosque directly on the graves and this is obvious that this is the contempting manner and irrespective. We never allow t build a Mosque over the graves. However, he who builds a Mosque near the grave of a Saint or performs Namaaz near a grave with the intention to seek spiritual help and to be benefited from the effects of Awliya; then there is no objection to this practice. You know that the Shrine of Hazrat Ismail Alaihis Salaam is in the premises of Masjidul Haram and it is very virtuous to perform Namaaz in certain place.

    In this regard the verses of the Holy Quran i.e.“We swear that we shall erect over them a Mosque” has been stated before. It has been stated in “Jalalain” explaining the word Alaihim i.e. around their graves. Through this explanation given in Jalalain it goes on without saying that the Holy Quran legitimizes to build a Mosque around the grave and it can be derived very clearly that this practice has been going on by the Muslims since thousands of years. Wahabis committed contempt of Awliya in a more violent way and so they destroyed (demolished) the graves and Shrines and still they are not pleased to do so but they just want to obliterate the reverence of the Prophets and Saints absolutely from the heart of Muslims. That is why they urged Muslims neither to visit the graves nor to pay submission and devotion to them at all" By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 6:27:37 AM



  • to mr rational, in a more general vein, what the christians did to the american natives, what the muslims did to the zoroastrians, what the hindus did to the untouchables can never ever be wiped from historic public memory.

    see, even those that want the historical slate wiped clean are probably laying the foundations of plausible historical indemnity. i am not responsible for my forefathers. in about a couple of generations, I would be a forefather of MY progeny. they too will naturally be not responsible for what i deliberately choose to do today. this i suspect has become the standard policy of all enforcers with a sense of entitlement.

    after generations of forcing people into rigid faith systems, why does the world not yet believe in the "truth" whatever that might be? when we have a monoculture in the orchard of religion, it is supposedly something desirable.

    ever try explaining to enforcers of a bandh that you have to take your son to the doctor? never even try. that is what proselytizing or dua is. they are trying to steal your soul, which they cannot even see. like the muggers want your wallet. they cannot see it either. but they are sure its there somewhere.

    after all issues have been thrashed bare from the perspective of koran, will homosexuals have any rights?
    By hats off! - 2/23/2013 6:17:56 AM



  • Imam Ahmad Raza says"When one enters the Holy Shrines (Mazaaraat of Auliya-e-Kiraam) one should do so from the foot end (i.e. the feet side of the Wali), and as far as possible one should maintain one's presence at a distance of four hand lengths (from the foot end). Thereafter, in a moderate voice, one should announce Salaams in the following way:- "As Salaamu Alaikum! Ya Sayyidi ! Wa Rahmatullahi Wa barakaatuhu." Then, the following should be recited:-

    (1) Durood-e-Ghausia - 3 Times; (2) Sura Fateha - Once; (3) Ayatul Kursi - Once; (4) Sura Ikhlaas - 7 times; (5) Durood Ghausia - 7 times

    If time permits, Surah Yaseen and Surah Mulk may also be recited before supplication (making Dua) to Almighty Allah in the following manner, "Oh! Allah! In lieu of what I have just recited, grant me that volume of reward (Sawaab) which is worthy of Your generosity, and not that amount which is worth of my actions, and deliver from me to Your chosen servant (i.e. The Wali in whose Mazaar one is present) the every same reward."

    Thereafter, one should supplicate (make Dua) to Almighty Allah for any request which is permissible by Shariat, by pleading with Almighty Allah that He grants acceptance of the Dua with the mediation (Waseela) of the Holy Soul of the Wali. In the same manner as before, one should announce the Salaam and return By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 6:13:22 AM



  • It is not allowed to worship any grave. Imama Hazrat says “Allah in the Name of, the Compassionate The Merciful. Praise be to Allah and Salutations upon the gracious Prophet (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam). My dear Hafiz Saheb, Peace be upon You!

    When one enters the Holy Shrines (Mazaaraat of Auliya-e-Kiraam) one should do so from the foot end (i.e. the feet side of the Wali), and as far as possible one should maintain one's presence at a distance of four hand lengths (from the foot end). Thereafter, in a moderate voice, one should announce Salaams in the following way:- "As Salaamu Alaikum! Ya Sayyidi ! Wa Rahmatullahi Wa barakaatuhu." Then, the following should be recited:-

    (1) Durood-e-Ghausia - 3 Times; (2) Sura Fateha - Once; (3) Ayatul Kursi - Once; (4) Sura Ikhlaas - 7 times; (5) Durood Ghausia - 7 times

    If time permits, Surah Yaseen and Surah Mulk may also be recited before supplication (making Dua) to Almighty Allah in the following manner, "Oh! Allah! In lieu of what I have just recited, grant me that volume of reward (Sawaab) which is worthy of Your generosity, and not that amount which is worth of my actions, and deliver from me to Your chosen servant (i.e. The Wali in whose Mazaar one is present) the every same reward."

    Thereafter, one should supplicate (make Dua) to Almighty Allah for any request which is permissible by Shariat, by pleading with Almighty Allah that He grants acceptance of the Dua with the mediation (Waseela) of the Holy Soul of the Wali. In the same manner as before, one should announce the Salaam and return By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 6:11:05 AM



  • Barailvi is no shcool of thought. You have no knowledge. I am not a barelvi but a sunni muslim like.  Barelvi is just the name of a city and nothing else.  By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 6:02:31 AM



  • chalis chor - 2/23/2013 5:20:24 AM
    Is Ex-Muslim better than a Wahabi?
    chor bhi faisla karne lage!!!!!!!!
    Is site par sabse bebas aadmi ho. Sabse zyada aql ki zaroorat bhi tmhi ko hai.

    I put Wahabi and Brailvi on same plane. Wahabi kafir hain Zaalim hain. Brailvi qabrparast hain, bidati hain.

    Ho gaye confuse.
    By rational - 2/23/2013 5:37:38 AM



  • chalis chor - 2/23/2013 5:20:24 AM
    Is Ex-Muslim better than a Wahabi?
    chor bhi faisla karne lage!!!!!!!!
    Is site par sabse bebas aadmi ho. Sabse zyada aql ki zaroorat bhi tmhi ko hai.

    I put Wahabi and Brailvi on same plane. Wahabi kafir hain Zaalim hain. Brailvi qabrparast hain, bidati hain.

    Ho gaye confuse. kyon jahil ke moonh lagte ho.
    By rational - 2/23/2013 5:36:04 AM



  • Dear hats off!
    I liked very much this sentence of yours in a very true long comment.
    "sabotage is the favorite weapon of the conquered and often the only one."
    Some Muslim scholars call Sufism an Alien in the land of Islam.
    Some event went to this extent that Parsis created Sufism to destroy the Islam who were conquered mercilessly by the Islamic forces.
    By rational - 2/23/2013 5:22:53 AM



  • rationl, you are a staunch Wahabi. Give up pretending to be Ex-muslim.
    By chalis chor - 2/23/2013 5:20:24 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghauss
    "The link you gave is exaggerated."

    Simply because it is giving true picture of your brothers.
    If somebody  had given similar link about devbandi you would have said different.

    "
    At least both sunni and shia should be moderate if the relationship is not possible."

    Why not relationship is possible? What is their crime? Are they nejas, Mushriks, kafirs, munafiqs or aal-e-saba?
    They call themselves syeds. I know the love of Aala Hazrat towards the syeds. Why not shia syeds?. Don't they belong to family of the prophet?

    Again you will bring your bogus accusation that rational is spreading the hatred. It is in your peer's books.
    There is no love within Muslims. If there is some it is limited to their sects. 


    By rational - 2/23/2013 4:43:27 AM



  • chalis chor - 2/23/2013 1:10:41 AM
    Chor uchakkon ki kami rah gayi thee is site par, wo kami aapne puri kar di hai.
    Qadri Rajniti kar sakta hai to main kyon nahi.
    By rational - 2/23/2013 2:45:16 AM



  • The following essay should put an end to all discussions on “Quran and Science”.
    Model dependent reality
    Stephen Hawking
    There is no theory-independent concept of reality. Model dependent realism is the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science.
    Philosophers from Plato onward have argued over the years about the nature of reality. Classical science is based on the belief that there exists a real external world whose properties are definite and independent of the observer who perceives them. According to classical science, certain objects exist and have physical properties, such as speed and mass that have well-defined values. In this view our theories are attempts to describe those objects and their properties, and our measurements and perceptions correspond to them. Both observer and observed are parts of a world that has an objective existence, and any distinction between them has no meaningful significance. In other words, if you see a herd of zebras fighting for a spot in the parking garage, it is because there really is a herd of zebras fighting for a spot in the parking garage. All other observers who look will measure the same properties, and the herd will have those properties whether anyone observes them or not. In philosophy that belief is called realism.
    Though realism may be a tempting viewpoint, what we know about modern physics makes it a difficult one to defend. For example, according to the principles of quantum physics, which is an accurate description of nature, a particle has neither a definite position nor a definite velocity unless and until those quantities are measured by an observer. It is therefore not correct to say that a measurement gives a certain result because the quantity being measured had that value at the time of the measurement. In fact, in some cases individual objects don’t even have an independent existence but rather exist only as part of an ensemble of many.
    Strict realists often argue that the proof that scientific theories represent reality lies in their success. But different theories can successfully describe the same phenomenon through disparate conceptual frameworks. In fact, many scientific theories that had proven successful were later replaced by other, equally successful theories based on wholly new concepts of reality.
    Traditionally those who didn’t accept realism have been called anti-realists. Anti-realists suppose a distinction between empirical knowledge and theoretical knowledge. They typically argue that observation and experiment are meaningful but that theories are no more than useful instruments that do not embody any deeper truths underlying the observed phenomena. Some realists have even wanted to restrict science to things that can be observed. For that reason, many in the nineteenth century rejected the idea of atoms on the grounds that we would never see one. George Berkeley (1685–1753) even went as far as to say that nothing exists except the mind and its ideas. When a friend remarked to English author and lexicographer Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709–1784) that Berkeley’s claim could not possibly be refuted, Johnson is said to have responded by walking over to a large stone, kicking it, and proclaiming, “I refute it thus.” Of course the pain Dr. Johnson experienced in his foot was also an idea in his mind, so he wasn’t really refuting Berkeley’s ideas. But his act did illustrate the view of philosopher David Hume (1711–1776), who wrote that although we have no rational grounds for believing in an objective reality, we also have no choice but to act as if it is true.
    Model-dependent realism short-circuits all this argument and discussion between the realist and anti-realist schools of thought According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether
    it agrees with observation. If there are two models that both agree with observation, then one cannot say that one is more real than another. One can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration.
    We make models in science, but we also make them in everyday life. Model-dependent realism applies not only to scientific models but also to the conscious and subconscious mental models we all create in order to interpret and understand the everyday world. There is no way to remove the observer—us—from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception—and hence the observations upon which our theories are based—is not direct, but rather is shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains.
    Model-dependent realism corresponds to the way we perceive objects. In vision, one’s brain receives a series of signals down the optic nerve. Those signals do not constitute the sort of image you would accept on your television. There is a blind spot where the optic nerve attaches to the retina, and the only part of your field of vision with good resolution is a narrow area of about 1degree of visual angle around the retina’s center, an area the width of your thumb when held at
    arm’s length. And so the raw data sent to the brain are like a badly pixilated picture with a hole in it. Fortunately, the human brain processes that data, combining the input from both eyes, filling in gaps on the assumption that the visual properties of neighboring locations are similar and interpolating. Moreover, it reads a two-dimensional array of data from the retina and creates from it the impression of three-dimensional space. The brain, in other words, builds a mental picture or model.
    The brain is so good at model building that if people are fitted with glasses that turn the images in their eyes upside down, their brains, after a time, change the model so that they again see things the right way up. If the glasses are then removed, they see the world upside down for a while, then again adapt. This shows that what one means when one says “I see a chair” is merely that one has
    used the light scattered by the chair to build a mental image or model of the chair. If the model is upside down, with luck one’s brain will correct it before one tries to sit on the chair.
    Another problem that model-dependent realism solves, or at least avoids, is the meaning of existence. How do I know that a table still exists if I go out of the room and can’t see it? What does it mean to say that things we can’t see, such as electrons or quarks—the particles that are said to make up the proton and neutron—exist? One could have a model in which the table disappears when I leave the room and reappears in the same position when I come back, but that would be awkward, and what if something happened when I was out, like the ceiling falling in? How, under the table-disappears-when-I-leave-the-room model, could I account for the fact that the next time I enter, the table reappears broken, under the debris of the ceiling? The model in which the table stays put is much simpler and agrees with observation. That is all one can ask.
    In the case of subatomic particles that we can’t see, electrons are a useful model that explains observations like tracks in a cloud chamber and the spots of light on a television tube, as well as many other phenomena. It is said that the electron was discovered in 1897 by British physicist J. J.Thomson at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University. He was experimenting with currents of electricity inside empty glass tubes, a phenomenon known as cathode rays. His experiments led him to the bold conclusion that the mysterious rays were composed of minuscule “corpuscles” that were material constituents of atoms, which were then thought to be the indivisible fundamental unit of matter. Thomson did not “see” an electron, nor was his speculation directly or unambiguously demonstrated by his experiments. But the model has proved crucial in applications from fundamental science to engineering, and today all physicists believe in electrons, even though you cannot see them. Quarks, which we also cannot see, are a model to explain the properties of the protons and neutrons in the nucleus of an atom. Though protons and neutrons are said to be made of quarks, we will never observe a quark because the binding force between quarks increases with separation, and hence isolated, free quarks cannot exist in nature. Instead, they always occur in groups of three (protons and neutrons), or in pairings of a quark and an anti-quark (pi mesons), and behave as if they were joined by rubber bands.
    The question of whether it makes sense to say quarks really exist if you can never isolate one was a controversial issue in the years after the quark model was first proposed. The idea that certain particles were made of different combinations of a few sub-subnuclear particles provided an organizing principle that yielded a simple and attractive explanation for their properties. But although physicists were accustomed to accepting particles that were only inferred to exist from statistical blips in data pertaining to the scattering of other particles, the idea of assigning reality to a particle that might be, in principle, unobservable was too much for many physicists. Over the years, however, as the quark model led to more and more correct predictions, that opposition faded. It is certainly possible that some alien beings with seventeen arms, infrared eyes, and a habit of blowing clotted cream out their ears would make the same experimental observations that we do, but describe them without quarks. Nevertheless, according to model-dependent realism, quarks exist in a model that agrees with our observations of how subnuclear particles behave.
    Model-dependent realism can provide a framework to discuss questions such as: If the world was created a finite time ago, what happened before that? An early Christian philosopher, St. Augustine (354–430), said that the answer was not that God was preparing hell for people who ask such questions, but that time was a property of the world that God created and that time did not exist before the creation, which he believed had occurred not that long ago. That is one possible model, which is favored by those who maintain that the account given in Genesis is literally true even though the world contains fossil and other evidence that makes it look much older. (Were they put there to fool us?) One can also have a different model, in which time continues back 13.7 billion years to the big bang. The model that explains the most about our present observations, including the historical and geological evidence, is the best representation we have of the past. The second model can explain the fossil and radioactive records and the fact that we receive light from galaxies millions of light-years from us, and so this model—the big bang theory—is more useful than the first. Still, neither model can be said to be more real than the other. Some people support a model in which time goes back even further than the big bang. It is not yet clear whether a model in which time continued back beyond the big bang would be better at explaining present observations because it seems the laws of the evolution of the universe may break down at the big bang. If they do, it would make no sense to create a model that encompasses time before the big bang, because what existed then would have no observable consequences for the present, and so we might as well stick with the idea that the big bang was the creation of the world.
    A model is a good model if it:
    1. Is elegant
    2. Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements
    3. Agrees with and explains all existing observations
    4. Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.
     For example, Aristotle’s theory that the world was made of four elements, earth, air, fire, and water, and that objects acted to fulfill their purpose was elegant and didn’t contain adjustable elements. But in many cases it didn’t make definite predictions, and when it did, the predictions weren’t always in agreement with observation. One of these predictions was that heavier objects should fall faster because their purpose is to fall. Nobody seemed to have thought that it was important to test this until Galileo. He rolled different weights down an inclined plane and observed that they all gathered speed at the same rate, contrary to Aristotle’s prediction.
    The above criteria are obviously subjective. Elegance, for example, is not something easily measured, but it is highly prized among scientists because laws of nature are meant to economically compress a number of particular cases into one simple formula. Elegance refers to the form of a theory, but it is closely related to a lack of adjustable elements, since a theory jammed with fudge factors is not very elegant. To paraphrase Einstein, a theory should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. Ptolemy added epicycles to the circular orbits of the heavenly bodies in order that his model might accurately describe their motion. The model could have been made more accurate by adding epicycles to the epicycles, or even epicycles to those. Though added complexity could make the model more accurate, scientists view a model that is contorted to match a specific set of observations as unsatisfying, more of a catalog of data than a theory likely to embody any useful principle.
    Many people view the “standard model,” which describes the interactions of the elementary particles of nature, as inelegant. That model is far more successful than Ptolemy’s epicycles. It predicted the existence of several new particles before they were observed, and described the outcome of numerous experiments over several decades to great precision. But it contains dozens of adjustable parameters whose values must be fixed to match observations, rather than being determined by the theory itself.
    As for the fourth point, scientists are always impressed when new and stunning predictions prove correct. On the other hand, when a model is found lacking, a common reaction is to say the experiment was wrong. If that doesn’t prove to be the case, people still often don’t abandon the model but instead attempt to save it through modifications. Although physicists are indeed tenacious in their attempts to rescue theories they admire, the tendency to modify a theory fades to the degree that the alterations become artificial or cumbersome, and therefore “inelegant.” If the modifications needed to accommodate new observations become too baroque, it signals the need for a new model. One example of an old model that gave way under the weight of new observations was the idea of a static universe. In the 1920s, most physicists believed that the universe was static, or unchanging in size. Then, in 1929, Edwin Hubble published his observations showing that the universe is expanding. But Hubble did not directly observe the universe expanding. He observed the light emitted by galaxies. That light carries a characteristic signature, or spectrum, based on each galaxy’s composition, which changes by a known amount if the galaxy is moving relative to us. Therefore, by analyzing the spectra of distant galaxies, Hubble was able to determine their velocities. He had expected to find as many galaxies moving away from us as moving toward us. Instead he found that nearly all galaxies were moving away from us, and the farther away they were, the faster they were moving. Hubble concluded that the universe is expanding, but others, trying to hold on to the earlier model, attempted to explain his observations within the context of the static universe. For example, Caltech physicist Fritz Zwicky suggested that for some yet unknown reason light might slowly lose energy as it travels great distances. This decrease in energy would correspond to a change in the light’s spectrum, which Zwicky suggested could mimic Hubble’s observations. For decades after Hubble, many scientists continued to hold on to the steady-state theory. But the most natural model was Hubble’s, that of an expanding universe, and it has come to be the accepted one.
    In our quest to find the laws that govern the universe we have formulated a number of theories or models, such as the four-element theory, the Ptolemaic model, the phlogiston theory, the big bang theory, and so on. With each theory or model, our concepts of reality and of the fundamental constituents of the universe have changed. For example, consider the theory of light. Newton thought that light was made up of little particles or corpuscles. This would explain why light travels in straight lines, and Newton also used it to explain why light is bent or refracted when it passes from one medium to another, such as from air to glass or air to water. The corpuscle theory could not, however, be used to explain a phenomenon that Newton himself observed, which is known as Newton’s rings. Place a lens on a flat reflecting plate and illuminate it with light of a single color, such as a sodium light. Looking down from above, one will see a series of light and dark rings centered on where the lens touches the surface. This would be difficult to explain with the particle theory of light, but it can be accounted for in the wave theory.
    According to the wave theory of light, the light and dark rings are caused by a phenomenon called interference. A wave, such as a water wave, consists of a series of crests and troughs. When waves collide, if those crests and troughs happen to correspond, they reinforce each other, yielding a larger wave. That is called constructive interference. In that case the waves are said to be “in phase.” At the other extreme, when the waves meet, the crests of one wave might coincide with the troughs of the other. In that case the waves cancel each other and are said to be “out of phase.” That situation is called destructive interference.
    In the nineteenth century, this was taken as confirming the wave theory of light and showing that the particle theory was wrong. However, early in the twentieth century Einstein showed that the photoelectric effect (now used in television and digital cameras) could be explained by a particle or quantum of light striking an atom and knocking out an electron. Thus light behaves as both particle and wave. The concept of waves probably entered human thought because people watched the ocean, or a puddle after a pebble fell into it. In fact, if you have ever dropped two pebbles into a puddle, you have probably seen interference at work. Other liquids were observed to behave in a similar fashion, except perhaps wine if you’ve had too much. The idea of particles was familiar from rocks, pebbles, and sand. But this wave/particle duality—the idea that an object could be described as either a particle or a wave—is as foreign to everyday experience as is the idea that you can drink a chunk of sandstone. Dualities like this—situations in which two very different theories accurately describe the same phenomenon—are consistent with model-dependent realism. Each theory can describe and explain certain properties, and neither theory can be said to be better or more real than the other.
    Regarding the laws that govern the universe, what we can say is this: There seems to be no single mathematical model or theory that can describe every aspect of the universe. Instead, there seems to be the network of theories called M-theory. Each theory in the M-theory network is good at describing phenomena within a certain range. Wherever their ranges overlap, the various theories in the network agree, so they can all be said to be parts of the same theory. But no single theory within the network can describe every aspect of the universe—all the forces of nature, the particles that feel those forces, and the framework of space and time in which it all plays out. Though this situation does not fulfill the traditional physicists’ dream of a single unified theory, it is acceptable within the framework of model-dependent realism.
    Let us now turn to a fundamental principle upon which our modern view of nature is based: quantum theory, and in particular, the approach to quantum theory called alternative histories. In that view, the universe does not have just a single existence or history, but rather every possible version of the universe exists simultaneously in what is called a quantum superposition. That may sound as outrageous as the theory in which the table disappears whenever we leave the room, but in this case the theory has passed every experimental test to which it has ever been subjected.
    My comment:
    Having discussed model based reality, is it difficult to accept both creation and evolution as different models describing reality? While biology may be able to explain life as evolving from simpler organisms, does biology rule out higher forms as the starting point? Mutations through natural selection are necessary for life forms to adapt to a changing environment without which they would go extinct. This requires life form to have basic building blocks which once understood, also enable us to propose a theory of evolution. Does that prove that all life evolved from simpler organisms? It only shows that as a possibility and as an equally valid theory. The Quran is not a book of science although it describes the reality around us using words and models that made sense to people at the time of revelation and down to the present times. All that we can say is that the Quran meets the test of making sense without contradicting our refined understanding of reality today. By Naseer Ahmed - 2/23/2013 2:12:31 AM



  • Dear Rational, the holy Quran is not a book of science but a book for guidance not only in the religious issues but also in the scientific issues. You say “He is wiping out all comments of Mr Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb, who says the Quran is not a science book or law book”.
    It goes without saying that your comment has does not prove any kind of difference between me and Ghulam Moiyuddin sahib. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 1:57:48 AM



  • Dear rational, never repeat what you have said in your comment “These fool scientists spending so much money and exhausting so much energy. Why not they simply call Mr Ghauss who will invent/discover without tools, labs, experiments”.

    Let the scientists analyse, because their work sometimes follow the Quranic sciences.

     

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 1:57:13 AM



  • The link you gave is exaggerated. The issue of shia and sunni is not only related to Imam Ahmad raza ra but both are unanimously involved in it. Sunni and Shia should not fight together nor should they lead at least any kind of hatred among themselves.I know that Imam Ahmad Raza has never said to us to fight with Shia. At least both sunni and shia should be moderate if the relationship is not possible. 
    Dear rational, it is not possible to bring all the communities under on ideology but very easy to bring under peaceful environment. The religious and ideological differences can not be united together but united in certain manners. As today's situation is growing worse after worse, given the gravity of situation, it is essential to both of them not to create any kind of prejudice among themselves. if there is no possibility of consolidating relationship, at least they should not lead hatred among themselves.
      
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 1:47:39 AM



  • Tarki bhai ne rajniti shuru kar di hai, kahte hain, "Dear commentators, "There is no soft corner in the hearts of Brailvis for other sects and non-Muslims. If they can call Muslims kafir, what about the Non-Muslims" Ab inko kya kaha jaye? Aap hi faisala kare.
    By chalis chor - 2/23/2013 1:10:41 AM



  • Dear Naseer sahib in reponse to your comment. I say that It is permissible to call the prophet Muhammad pbuh ‘Noor’. Allah almighty says in the holy Qur’an, “Undoubtedly, there has come to you from Allah a light and a Book, luminous”. (Surah Al-‘Mai’dah’ Verse 15). Imam Tabari and Qadi Shawkani write under this verse that the meaning of Noor in this verse is used for our Prophet Sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam as Zujaag said. [Tafsir Tabari Tafsir Fathul Qadeer By Imam Tabari and Qadi Shawkani, under above verse]  From the above evidence we conclude that it is permissible to call Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] “Noor” and it is not Kufr or Shirk as some people consider it to be.

    Proof from the Hadith in this regard, Imam Tirmidhi wrote that when Prophet (May Allah bless him and grant him peace) smiled, it seemed as if Noor was coming from his teeth. (Chap on Shamaa’il Tirmidhi)

    Allama ibn Jawzi writes: That when Adam (May Allah bless him and grant Him peace) was being created, the noor of Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] was placed in Adam [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace]’s forehead and Adam [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] saw Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace], Adam [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] asked “who is he?” Allah Ta’ala replied “He is the last Prophet and will be the chief of your children.” (Al Wafa chap on Birth of Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] by Ibn Jowzi).

    Hafidhh Ibn Kathir writes: Abu Huraira radhiAllahu 'anhu narrates that: 'One night RasoolAllah Sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam asked me to take Hassan and Hussain radhiAllahu 'anhum to their mother, when I departed with them I witnessed a light which lit our path and travelled with us until we reached their doorstep.[Tareekh Ibn Kathir and Sirat Tun- Nabi Ibn Kathir chapter on Muj’izat]

    Hafidhh Ibn Kathir writes: Muhammad bin Hamza radhiAllahu 'anhu narrates that once RasoolAllah Sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam made my fingers glow with light. [Sirat Tun-Nabi Ibn Kathir chapter Muj’izat]

    There are many more proofs in this respect.

     

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 1:10:40 AM



  • Dear Naseer sahib, The prophet is Hazir o Nazir. There are some proofs from the holy Quran and the holy Hadith. let us define it, Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khan and Allama Ghulam Rasool Sa’eedi write: Haadhir Nadhir does not mean that the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] is present. Rather, it means that the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] views the actions of his Ummah whilst he is in his grave. He can go from his grave to other places where he likes spiritually. He prays for us. [Tawzeeh-ul-Bayaan Sharh Sahih Muslim vol 1 Chapter on Mi’raj Ja al-Haqq chapter Al Haadir-u-wannadir by Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khan]

    Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’an "O Prophet! [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] no doubt, We have sent you as a witness, bearer of glad tiding and a Warner"[Surah Al-Ahzab, verse 45.] The Qur’an refers to RasoolAllah [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] as ‘Shahid’(witness) and the witness is someone who sees whilst being present. [Mufradaat, Imam Raghib, under the word Shahid] Allah sent the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] as Shahid. It is for this reason we refer to him as metaphorically being Haadhir/Nadhir and that he is not Hadhir/Nadhir in the way that are the Angels Kiraman, Katibeen. (The Angels who are constantly present on the right and left shoulder of every human being.)

    Proof of Haadhir & Nadhir from Hadith, Hafidhh Ibn Kathir writes: Imam Qurtubi writes: The angels present the actions of the Ummah to the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] every single day. This is not correct, but the truth is that the actions of the Ummah are presented not every day but every Friday. [Tafsir Ibn Kathir Surah Al-Nisa'a under verse 41]

    Hafidhh Ibn Qayyim writes: It is true that our Prophet, [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] in his grave, is presented with the actions of his Ummah. This is from un-authenticated Ahadeeth and it is not something to be surprised by, because when our parents pass away from this world, our actions are presented to them to view. However, with our Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant him peace], he is presented with the actions of the all humans and the Jins. [Qaseedah Nounia 13 by Hafidhh Ibn Qayyim]

    Besides there are many references in this regard, I will give you later.

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 1:09:59 AM



  • Dear Rational and Naseer sahiban, through his impassioned work I come to know that  Imam Ahmad Raza ra considered the Prophet Muhammad pbuh to be the most beloved of Almighty Allah’s prophets. He rejected a fabricated hadis in which the Prophet is reported to have said that he didn’t even know what lay behind a wall. [The sources cited were Allama Khafaji’s Nasim al-Riyaz and Shihabuddin Ahmad Hajar Makki’s (d. 1565/66) Afzal al-Qura. The hadis in question was apparently mentioned in Barahin-e Qatiyya in defense of the denying that the Prophet had ilm-e ghaib. Imam Ahmad Raza maintained that this hadis was baseless (be-asl) and had been declared to be so by Abdul Haqq Muhhadis Dehlawi (d.1642) in his Madarij al-Nubuwwa.]

    Specifically, Imam Ahmad Raza interpreted the various statements quoted to imply denial of Muhammad’s (pbuh) superiority to all other prophets, denial of the finality of the Prophet’s prophet hood, belief in the superiority of Satan’s knowledge to Muhammad Mustafa pbuh, and denial of the fact – indisputable to Imam Ahmad Raza – that Muhammad Mustafa pbuh had been granted knowledge of the unseen by Almighty Allah.

    For these reasons, Imam Ahmad Raza ra gave the fatwa of kufr and apostacy from Islam. (For more information see الدولة المكية ،حسام الحرمين،وبراهين قاطعةAl daulatul Makkiya, Hassamul Haramain, and Baraheen Qatiya) 

    The Satanic imputation was in fact frequent throughout the fatwa. The words most used to describe Satan were ‘liar’, ‘false’, and ‘deceitful’. It comes as no surprise that such epithets could be used to describe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad whom Imam Ahmad Raza Khan described as the worst kafir then living in India. Imam Ahmad Raza wrote of those who accepted Nanautawi’s leadership. Maulana’s Rashid Gangohi and Khalil Ahmad Ambethwi were similarly described, for their alleged belief that Satan’s knowledge exceeded that of the Prophet. In fact, they were said to go as far as to associate Iblis with Almighty Allah.

    Many are falling prey to the satanic imputations. In one instance, Imam Ahmad Raza says that if one eats or drinks without saying ‘Bismillah’, Satan will enter the food. Or again, Satan and his followers are portrayed exchanging news with one another at the end of the day as to the number of people they were able to mislead astray that day. [See Malfuzat, Volume 2, pp. 92-3; Vol 3, pp. 22-4.]

    As Peter J. Awn explains in his study of the Satan motif in Islamic literary sources, hadis literature depicts him as ‘evil, cunning, and wily; his delight is to lead mankind astray’. Mankind experiences Satan as a constant presence throughout life, for he is ‘part of man’s very lifeblood’. One has therefore to be watchful at all times, waking and sleeping, against Satan’s snares. [Peter J. Awn, Satan’s Tragedy and Redemption: Iblis in Sufi Psychology]. As Imam Ahmad Raza saw it, the fact that the ulema mentioned in Husam al-Haramain had taken the positions they had, in illegal denigration of Almighty Allah and His most Beloved Prophet, was proof that they had fallen victim to Satan’s wiles. And because following Satan was the antithesis to following Almighty Allah and the beloved Prophet pbuh.

    Apart from the space and level of detail entered into by Imam Ahmad Raza on the ‘Ilm-e ghaib’ issue(The knowledge of unseen), his citation of sources also indicates how important it was to him to defend the beloved Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) on this score. Central to his argument that Almighty Allah [Invisible and Exalted is He] had gifted knowledge of the unseen to the Prophet was this verse from the Sacred Quran [72:26,27]:‘Only  knows the Unseen, nor does He make any one acquainted with His mysteries, except an Apostle whom He has chosen’ [Yusuf Ali translation].

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 1:07:42 AM



  • Dear Naseer Sahab, during the era of Imam Ahmad Raza ra Wahabi fatal was at its zenith. They would misinterpret the verses of the holy Quran and misled the common mass of muslims. At that time their attack was to degrade the dignity of the prophet Muhammad pbuh, Sufyas and Auliyas. And now in addition to that, their overall attack is on the innocent men, women, and children. The most alas they are leading all these attacks in the light of the misinterpreting of the holy Quran. Consequently, suicide bombings and the acts of terrorism have become a daily routine. They are danger to Islam and Muslims. 

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/23/2013 1:04:43 AM



  • Dear commentators.
    There is no soft corner in the hearts of Brailvis for other sects and non-Muslims. If they can call Muslims kafir, what about the Non-Muslims

    http://www.yanabi.com/index.php?/topic/138328-fatwa-on-having-contact-with-shias-by-ala-hazrat-imam-ahmad-raza-khan-radi-allah-anhu/ By rational - 2/23/2013 12:00:35 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghauss. Brailviyon kaa daaman bhi khoon se paak nahi hai.
    Visit the following link.
    http://zeenews.india.com/news/south-asia/sikhs-in-lahore-barred-from-celebrating-festival_720267.html

    See how a Brailvi is shouting. See his facial expressions!
    http://tribune.com.pk/story/245319/a-most-dangerous-place/



    By rational - 2/22/2013 11:20:50 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghauss. Brailviyon kaa daaman bhi khoon se paak nahi hai.
    Visit the following link.
    http://zeenews.india.com/news/south-asia/sikhs-in-lahore-barred-from-celebrating-festival_720267.html

    http://tribune.com.pk/story/245319/a-most-dangerous-place/


    By rational - 2/22/2013 11:17:09 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghauss
    I went through your next link. There is no scientific work. Muslims are incapable to work on science except few. Those few don't learn science from the Quran and Ahadith.

    Corals are called plants or between the plants and calcium carbonate. Calcium carbonate is ok but they are not plants. They are animals lacking in motion. Don't follow your blind peer, do some search on Google.

    By rational - 2/22/2013 9:55:15 PM



  • Dear ghulam Ghauss
    "If you need more, I will give you more (I think you will say Ye Dil mange more)"

    Please do continue. It is my pleasure. Aapki nazron ne samjha piyaar ke Qaabil mujhe......

    By rational - 2/22/2013 9:21:27 PM



  • Dear hats off.
    I am suffocating under the unbearable weight of the Islamic Sciences.
    We have some description of perpetual erection in the jannat, so we can safely conclude that Viagra is also in the Islamic science. All believers will be in prime youth in the Jannat so there is plastic surgery also.
    One angle blows the holy spirit into the vagina of maiden Marry. Lo and behold an apostle is born out of wedlock. Then he speaks in his cradle in clear voice that he is the savior of the world. so we can say the Qur'an has specialization in genetic engineering.
    The prophet Soloman speaks to Ants, so the Quran has the unthinkable type of communication. Forget Shanon for his contribution in electronics communication.
    There is a mention of the iron in the Quran so metallurgy is also in the Quran.
    You just can't count how many sciences are there in the Quran and Sciences.
    You said truth. Mr Ghulam Ghauss is wiping out all efforts of Mr Mohammed Yunus. We can feel the agony of Mr Mohammed yunus.
    He is wiping out all comments of Mr Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb, who says the Quran is not a science book or law book.
    Muslims are mocking their religion while they accuse us.
    These fool scientists spending so much money and exhausting so much energy. Why not they simply call Mr Ghauss who will invent/discover without tools, labs, experiments.


    By rational - 2/22/2013 9:10:33 PM



  • Ghulam Ghaus Sb,

    Read my comment carefully.  I am not favoring either a geocentric or heliocentric view. I am only pointing out that one who understands the meaning of frames of references does not criticize the other view which Ahmad Raza Khan has done. Moreover, a geocentric view is only to describe the orbits of all other bodies with reference to the earth. This does not imply that the earth is at absolute rest which is what Ahmad Raza Khan is trying to do. A geocentric view and an assertion that the earth is at absolute rest are two different things. The earth is not at absolute rest. Neither does the Quran imply that it is at absolute rest. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/22/2013 7:55:02 PM



  • Dear hats off.
    Have you not heard the following outburst of Poet laureate Muhammad Iqbal:

    -         'phul ki patti se kat sakta hai heere ka jigar - marde nadan par kalame narm o nazuk be asar' [“The petal of flower may pierce the heart of the diamond – but the Noble Words have no effect on the ignorant.”]   

     By the way, in the list of vices you outlined you missed out the chances of incest entering the social  fabric of Islam through the recent fatwa justifying sexual coercion of a female political dissident. 

    By muhammad yunus - 2/22/2013 7:41:23 PM



  • in the koran, we have everything including the kitchen sink. what we should do is throw away all books and just order reprints of the koran. with practice, you can even get driving instructions from the koran if you try hard. koran also contains verses that indicate smartphones. some verse refer to the operating systems and graphic cards. other verses contain description of knee replacement surgery, a transcript of the DNA of the fruit fly, some little verses about cartography, and the PCR reaction. it describes quantum entanglement, planck's constant, ribosomal protein transfer, relevance of DC4 counts, a description of the operation for removing clots in the retinal veins.

    apparently our mr ghulam ghaus is dozing in his koran classes. all these and many many more scientific, historical, histological, biochemical, technological, sociological, biological, zoological, anthropological and technological things have been revealed in the verses in the koran. you can always verify from adnan okhtar, maurice bucaille, ghulam ghaus. unfortunately we do not have bin baz, who was another (there are millions) of those brilliant scientist of arabia.

    one only has to peer at the koran closely enough and you can see whatever you want.

    including killing for apostasy, pardoning for apostasy, beating your wife and not beating her, chopping off your hand or reattaching it, stoning to death or death to stonong and nearly every other thing in the world.

    when the learjet of the saudi princes need maintenance, they never ever call the bombardier office. they whip out a koran and immediately find out a verse that tells them how to fix the nozzles in the ram jet.

    with one islamic scholar like mr ghulam ghaus, years of hard work of mr muhammad yunus is simply wiped out. the tragedy is we will all type a million comments for some childish article from ghulam ghaus, but never bother with mr muhammad yunus's long, researched, analytical writings.

    fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
    By hats off! - 2/22/2013 5:27:41 PM



  • Dear Rational. Many scientific theories favour the holy Quran as there was an initial Gaseous mass before the creation of Galaxies and the spherical shape of the earth and the light of the moon is reflected light.

    “Blessed is He Who made Constellations in the skies, And placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light.” [Al-Quran 25:61]

    If you need more, I will give you more (I think you will say Ye Dil mange more)

     

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/22/2013 2:10:45 PM



  • The Bing bang theory supported by observational and experimental data gathered by astronomers and astrophysicists for decades is just compatible with Islam. According to the ‘Big Bang’, the whole universe was initially one big mass (Primary Nebula). Then there was a ‘Big Bang’ (Secondary Separation) which resulted in the formation of Galaxies. These then divided to form stars, planets, the sun, the moon, etc. The origin of the universe was unique and the probability of it occurring by ‘chance’ is zero. The Quran contains the following verse, regarding the origin of the universe:  “Do not the Unbelievers see That the heavens and the earth Were joined together (as one Unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder?” [Al-Quran 21:30] 

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/22/2013 2:09:44 PM



  • The expansion of the universe is now an established modern scientific fact. This is what Al-Quran says regarding the nature of the universe: “With the power and skill Did We construct The Firmament: For it is We Who create The vastness of Space.” [Al-Quran 51:47]

    The Arabic word موسع refers to the creation of the expanding vastness of the universe. Stephen Hawking, in his book, ‘A Brief History of Time’, says, “The discovery that the universe is expanding was one of the great intellectual revolutions of the 20th century.” 

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/22/2013 2:09:10 PM



  • According to the modern science, the sun will distinguish one day. The light of the sun is because of chemical process on its surface that has been taking place continuously for the past five billion years. It will come to an end in the future when the sun will be totally extinguished leading to the extinction of all life on earth. Regarding the impermanence of the sun’s existence the Quran says:  “And the Sun Runs its course for a period determined For it; that is The decree of (Him) The exalted in Might The All-Knowing.” [Al-Quran 36:38]. The Quran says that the sun runs towards a determined place, and will do so only up to a pre-determined period of time – meaning that it will end or extinguish.

     

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/22/2013 2:08:31 PM



  •  

    Rational sahib after going through the link, in one of the comments you have made objection about the compatibility of modern science with Islam. In many ways modern science is compatible with Islam. According to the famous physicist and Nobel Prize winner, Albert Einstein, “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” Let us therefore study the Quran, and analyze Modern Science. The Quran is not a book of science but a book of signs. There are more than six thousand ‘signs’ in the Quran of which more than a thousand deal with science. We all know that many a times Science takes a ‘U-turn’. Only the hypotheses and theories based on assumptions and not backed by proof, contradict the holy Quran.

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/22/2013 2:07:47 PM



  • Dear Naseer sahib, Apart from Imam Ahmad raza ra, for a long time European philosophers and scientists believed that the earth stood still in the centre of the universe and every other body including the sun moved around it. In the West, this geocentric concept of the universe was prevalent right from the time of Ptolemy in the second century B.C. in 1512. Now consider the following Quranic verse: “It is He Who created The Night and the Day, And the sun and the moon: All (the celestial bodies) Swim along, each in its Rounded course.” [Al-Quran 21:33]

    In fact, the sun travels through space at roughly 150 miles per second, and takes about 200 million years to complete one revolution around the centre of our Milky Way Galaxy.

    The holy Quran says “It is not permitted To the Sun to catch up The Moon, nor can The Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (According to Law)” [36:40]. The above mentioned verses support the view of the researched work of Imam Ahmad Raza ra.

     

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/22/2013 2:05:51 PM



  • Dear Naseer you say “Clearly Ahmad Raza Khan was incapable of understanding the physics of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler and Einstein. Yet, he had the conviction born of ignorance to write his own thesis contradicting these men. His thesis cannot even be explained away by saying that he was using a different frame of reference because clearly, he has no idea what a 'frame of reference' means”.

    I say that the work of Alahazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Bareilvi (1856-1921) Muslim Scientist the Asian Physicist, Astronomer, Mathematician, Philosopher, Psychologist, Elegant Jurist of the Muslim World, a poet and renowned Scholar of the Islamic Sciences                                                                                                                                 is based on the Quranic science. His book “A FAIR SUCCESS

    REFUTING MOTION OF EARTH” is the true interpretation of the Quranic theory of the motionless earth. In the very beginning of his book he has cleared out the physics of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, and Einstein. He was totally capable of understanding the theories of the famous scientists regarding the motion of the earth who contradicted the clearest verse of the holy Quran. Imam Ahmad Raza had mastery over the Quranic sciences including Physics which is the most fundamental science on which the other physical sciences like Astronomy Chemistry and Geology (earth science) are based. He researched on the Quranic science and proved geo-centricity.     

    The crux of the book is what the book begins with “According to Isaac Newton, the gravitation is the intrinsic property of matter that every particle of matter attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

    According to Einstein theory, space time is curved especially locally near massive bodies. This theory doesn’t tell us about the force of gravity acting on the bodies; instead we say bodies and light rays move along geodesics (equivalent to straight lines in plane geometry) in curved space time. Thus a body at rest or moving slowly near the great mass would follow a geodesic toward that body rather than force of gravity. 

    According to Imam Ahmad Raza, the Islamic theory (based on Quran and Hadith) explains that earth is static. In favour of his theory, Imam Ahmad Ran has written treatises like:  

    • Nuzool-i-Ayat-i-Furqan Besukoon-i-Zameen-o-Aasman, 1919.

    • Mueen-i-Mubin Bahar Daur-i- Shamas-o-Sukoon-i-Zameen, 1919

    (Eng.trans: A fair guide on the revolving sun and the static earth)

    • Fauz-i-Mubin Dar Radd-i-Harkat-i-Zameen,1919.

    He discussed earth theory in the light of Qur’an and Hadith that earth and sky are static and elaborated that the sun is in motion while earth is static based on astronomical observations and calculations. Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the renowned Physicist and Atomic Scientist of the Muslim World has appreciated his arguments regarding motion of sun.(ref: Mujalla Imam Ahmad Raza. In his book “Fauz-i-Mubin” lmam Ahmad Rant has discussed various scientific spheres of knowledge including Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Astronomy and Astrology, Mathematics, Logarithm covering the topics of planetary motion in the orbits and the Physical mechanics like attractive and repulsive forces, Centripetal force, Centrifugal force, friction coefficient, projectile motion, relative velocity, circular speed, buoyant force, density & pressure, structure of earth, theory of tides and distance from the sun, along with dozens of geometric diagram representations with Algebraic, logarithmic and mathematical calculations. The book concludes “According to Modem Physics, the rest and motion are not absolute but are relative. Also, the rest and motion depend on the observer and its frame of reference. As we are on the earth, so earth is static with respect to us which favour argumentations of static theory of Imam Ahmad Raza. It is interesting to note that Imam Ahmad Raza is the first Muslim scientist of the 20th century who made rich creative scientific contributions regarding Modern Physics like static theory of earth.

    Dear unfortunately you are incapable of understanding the reality of the motionless earth described by the holy Quran and favoured by Ala Hazrat ra.

    I will quote many verses of the holy Quran if needed that will benefit you while analyzing the research work of Imam Ahmad Raza ra.

     

    WebRep
    Overall rating
    This site has no rating
    (not enough votes)
    WebRep
    Overall rating
    This site has no rating
    (not enough votes)
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/22/2013 2:04:06 PM



  • @ghulam ghaus saheb
    It is really, one of the burning issues of the present age, you have raised .
    Let me explain and clarify more facts about it, that only Islam is the religion, which introduced and innovated, democracy as a system of government in the world. It was the first initiative towards democracy by the prophet of Islam (PBUH) in the history of this world.
    This is the Constitution which the Prophet of Islam (saw) had inaugurated and gifted it to the mankind. the Holy Prophet (saw) founded the constitutional state on democracy. It was a written, balanced and moderate written constitution. He established a nation-state. Whatever rights he gave to Muslims were also given to the non-Muslims. He heralded an era of rule of law and gave constitutional protection to the local customs and tribal traditions of the Jews and any other race and religious practices and beliefs. Their traditions, values and culture were protected through constitutional guarantee. He gave the idea of economic support and founded it on the Brotherhood of Madina. He gave all the religions and believers of that era, fundamental rights and complete religious freedom, and declared that Jews would enjoy same amount of independence as Muslims regarding their religion. He declared Madina as hub of peace. All fundamental rights like right to basic necessities, occupation, property, life and honour were granted and acknowledged. No person would be punished without reference to the Court of law and due process of law. Even He gave some basic rights to the prisoners of war. Killing prisoners of war was the norm at that time. No any law regarding prisoners existed.
    It is true, that prisoners of war were killed everywhere in the world. It was a general practice and norm . The Holy Prophet (saw) prohibited this practice and fixed some laws to govern conduct towards prisoners of war. He introduced the spirit of democracy. Abu Zarr and Abu Hurara report that the Prophet of Islam said, The opinion of two is better than that of one, that of four is better than that of three and of five is better that that of four. He further said, Where there is majority, there is Allah Hand of Protection. This is the basis of democracy with consultation being its core. This is the system Islam has introduced. And it is the core essence of democracy. So Taliban and any other terrorist group, who are opposing democratic system of governance for their political interests , actually denying, as well as opposing sheer teaching of Islam and practices of prophet of Islam (PBUH).
    Misbahul Hoda
    By Misbahul Hoda - 2/22/2013 7:43:48 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS
    "Subsequently, it is obligatory for the people to obey the ruler. The ruler, however, must not be obeyed if he breaks the Shari`ah rules. Moreover, he will not be sacked unless he commits any outright disbelief. Allah almighty says "O, you who believe! Obey God and obey the Messenger and those from among you who are in charge of your affairs; and if you differ over any matter, refer it to God and the Messenger, if you do believe in God and the last day." (4:59)"

    Do you include non-Muslim ruler?
    By rational - 2/22/2013 4:19:11 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/22/2013 2:14:32 AM
    This will be fine. We must spare poor science from your hands.
    The knowledge we have about Raza saheb is enough for us. However since you have given a link. We will not leave you in despair.

    There is one guy called Mufti Naeem. Long back I read his book. I know how you will prove from the Quran and Ahadith.
     Please invite Mohd yunus saheb also.
    By rational - 2/22/2013 4:14:43 AM



  • Dear Naseer sahib, Ahmad Raza Khan ra researched work is based on the Quran and the Hadith. You say “Ahmad Raza khan has got it wrong every which way whether it is physics, the Prophet’s attributes, or the intercession of saints or declaring every other sect as apostates”.
    I will prove his work just in the light of the holy Quran and the Hadith. Apart from that I will seek Dua for you as well to come to light. I welcome your questions and criticisms. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/22/2013 2:24:54 AM



  • There will be a long debate on the topic aired by Naseer sahab. Rational sahab i want you to go through this link too, http://www.slideshare.net/imamahmadraza/coral-and-research-of-imam-ahmad-raza

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/22/2013 2:14:32 AM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed - 2/21/2013 11:04:54 PM
    Thanks for very accurate comment about the Aala Hz Imam Raza saheb. These people are no less than God in the eyes of their followers.
    Mr Ghulam Ghauss is keeping complete silence on the Fatwas of his peers on other sects of the Muslims. By rational - 2/21/2013 11:41:45 PM



  • Ghulam Ghaus Sb has sent a link to a book by Ahmad Khan Raza which was rendered into English and published in 2005. The book has the title “A FAIR SUCCESS REFUTING MOTION OF EARTH”.
    Ahmad khan Raza was no tenth century physicist. He was a contemporary of Einstein! The foreword has the following to say “In his treatise “Fauz-i-Mubin” Ahmad Raza has not only proved that earth is static with 105 argumentations in the light of Modern Physics, but also criticized the ideas of renowned scientists like, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Albert Einstein.
    Clearly Ahmad Raza Khan was incapable of understanding the physics of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler and Einstein. Yet, he had the conviction born of ignorance to write his own thesis contradicting these men. His thesis cannot even be explained away by saying that he was using a different frame of reference because clearly, he has no idea what a 'frame of reference' means. Simply put, if it was a matter of using a different frame of reference, and if Raza Khan knew what a frame of reference meant, he would not have criticised the work of the other scientists. Nor do Raza Khan’s equally ignorant followers know what a frame of reference means. Raza Khan knew not, nor did he know that he knew not, and on the contrary was convinced that he alone knew and the rest were either ignoramuses or misguided!
    He also dabbled in astrology which is considered unislamic.   Friday in pre Islamic Arabia and in many cultures even today, is considered unlucky. It was made an important day only to counteract such superstitions. Yet Ahmad Khan, tells us what to do or not do on which day of the week!
    His exaggerated notions of the Prophet (PBUH) also run contrary to what the Quran says about the prophet. This is what he says:
    He is noori bashar: a human (bashar) made from God's light (noor).
    He is hazir (present in many places at the same time).
    He is nazir (witnessing all that goes on in the world).
    He has ilm-e-ghaib (knowledge of the unseen/unknown).
    He is mukhtaar kul (having the authority to do whatever he desires as granted to him by God).
    None of the above has any basis in the Quran and run contrary to what the Quran says about the Prophet. Ahmad Khan is guilty of the same excesses as the Christians when they elevate Jesus and call him the son of God. As much as he is unable to understand physics, he is equally unable to understand the Quran.
    The Quran makes clear that:
    3:144. Muhammad is no more than an apostle: many were the apostle that passed away before him.
    18:110. Say: "I am but a man like yourselves, (but) the inspiration has come to me, that your Allah is one Allah.
    5:99. The Messenger’s duty is but to proclaim (the message).
    72:21. Say: "It is not in my power to cause you harm, or to bring you to right conduct."
    10:49. Say: "I have no power over any harm or profit to myself except as Allah willeth.
    The Quran disabuses all notions that the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) was different from other apostles that preceded him or unlike any other mortal or that he had powers to benefit or harm himself or anyone else except as Allah wills.
    Ahmad Raza Khan, and other Barelvi religious figures have also issued fatwās of apostasy against the founders of the Deobandi, Shia Islam and the Ahmadiyya Community. Commenting on this, historian Usha Sanyal, in her research  stated:
    “Not only did Ahmad Raza Khan obtain confirmatory signatures from other scholars in the subcontinent, he managed to get agreement from a number of prominent ulama in Mecca. That occurred in the first years of the twentieth century—long before the Al-Saud and their Wahhabi allies got control of the Haramayn. The feat was, nevertheless, stunning. The antipathy of the Deobandis toward the Ahl-i Sunnah on the emotional level becomes more comprehensible when Ahmad Riza's fatwa receives a full explication”. He lead the sectarian war of Takfir on every other sect. That goes to show how convinced he was that he alone was right and all others wrong!
    His guidance on what to do at the grave of a pious person is clearly to seek favors through the pious person. The satanic verses are about accepting three of the deities of the pagans as intercessors which was rejected in no uncertain a manner. This notion of intercession is actively promoted by every `Pir’. Our family Pir would openly declare that he would take all his murids with him into heaven! Did he receive the good news in this life itself that he would be admitted to heaven and that he would be granted powers of intercession? The stories of karamat abound around these people. Having knowledge of the unseen is the least of them!
    Ahmad Raza Khan has got it wrong every which way whether it is physics, the Prophet’s attributes, or the intercession of saints or declaring every other sect as apostates. By Naseer Ahmed - 2/21/2013 11:04:54 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghauss. I am in the company of an intellectual man like you.
    1. The differences in opinions of the scientist do not lead them to issues fatwas. They are not inciting the people to kill others.

    2. Religions call each other Gumrah, condemned, liars, unscientific. Islamic sects call each other Gumrah/Jahannami. No scientist uses this kind of language.
    4. Most of the scientific theories are in use.
    These scientist are at higher plane of the morality than you belivers. 
    Muslims and Non-Muslims are good and bad. Faithful is more convinced about their evil actions. This is the only practical aspect of the faith.
    See Jehadis are absolutely convinced and sincere in their actions. Muslims are sincere and convinced when they practice, Halala, slaughtering of the animals, murdering other people because they don't believe in your crap.
    By rational - 2/21/2013 8:46:39 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghauss.
    If you are a true follower of the Imam Raza Brailvi, please contact scientific community.
    By rational - 2/21/2013 8:29:34 PM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/21/2013 8:34:28 AM
    Please do continue your Quranic Science which is the research of Aala Hazrat Brailvi.
    This Quranic science is a slap on the faces of those who parrot that Islam is compatible with modern sciences.
    More hilarious is Tibb-e- Nabvi. A breakthrough in medical science. By rational - 2/21/2013 8:25:15 PM



  • Ghulam Ghaus is the type of scientist rthe muslim world can hope to produce if the child is brainwashed with the Quran as a child. The problem with such people is not that they assume that the Quran has accurate scientific statements that is observable. But once you go through the charade once and see for yourself that Quran has nothing that is observable, but expects blind faith then sane people will start questioning things and come to their senses. The brainwashed ones don't- that is where the problem lies. I call these people zombies.   By JB - 2/21/2013 2:30:13 PM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/21/2013 8:34:28 AM
    Please keep your good Quranic science to yourself and your Muslim brothers. Tell your brothers who even find Darwinism in the Quran. I am fine with kafir science.
    "All the verses of the holy Quran prove that the sun is running."
    This statement shows your bankruptcy in the field of science. Think again and again why?
    Please keep pouring the Quranic science. By rational - 2/21/2013 9:56:19 AM



  • Dear Rational, an intellectual man can realize it easily that Islam is compatible with modern science.Do you think that in the modern science all the scientists are compatible with one another? Perhaps not in all cases but may be in some cases they agree to one another. The scientists fail but the holy Quran enlightens them. Modern science which is good for human being is compatible with the teachings of the Quran.
    It is not necessary that modern is good for every thing in all respects. In modern times there are many evils and sins, it does not mean that they are compatible with Islam. Modern science which is good for the mankind is also encouraged by the holy Quran but on the other hand evils false ideas and fundamentals which have existed in the modern times due to modern science are also refuted by the holy Quran. 
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/21/2013 8:34:28 AM



  • Dear Rational, Allah almighty has the best knowledge of the resting place. The word مستقر   Arabic is translated as resting place or (non-stop) appointed destination or final destination. He says in the holy Quran Yaa-Seen 36:38 And the sun runs its course for its final destination; this is a command of the Almighty, the All Knowing.
    Yaseen 38. And the sun is constantly rotating (non-stop) for its appointed destination. It is a measure fixed by the Almighty, All-Knowing (Lord).
    Yaa-Seen 36:39And We have appointed positions for the moon till it returns like an old branch of the date palm.
    Yaa-Seen 36:40 It is not for the sun to catch up with the moon, nor does the night surpass the day; and each one of them floats in its orbit.
    All the verses of the holy Quran prove that the sun is running. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/21/2013 8:17:06 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/21/2013 7:32:25 AM
    You have not answered where is the resting place?

    Why Imam Raza is in the dark? Please bring him into light.
    Please take the matter to scientific community. Without their approval it is of no use. They will analyze it if it is worth.
    Is there any working system made by engineers based on the Geo-centric model in the past, present or any probability in future?
    Let us close this till you write an article. Then we will have a debate. Either you are wrong or all other Muslims who are writing on the compatibility of the Science ther Quran?
    By rational - 2/21/2013 7:51:19 AM



  • Dear Rational, If Allah wish (though i am not a scientist) in the future, i will write an article on the same topic in the light of the holy Quran.   By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/21/2013 7:32:25 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS, "The holy Bible also proves stationary concept of the earth, hence it is the taproot of its credibility."
    I heard the Bible is corrupt. So the christians were right in demanding the heads/burning of the astronomers who went against their beliefs. By rational - 2/21/2013 7:22:46 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghauss, "It is the command of Allah that the sun is running towards a resting place."
    Where is the resting place? Under the throne of the Almighty or in the Murky water? Why the sun is running to resting place? Does it really needs rest? What will happen to time? Will it cease to exist at the moment of rest? What will happen to solar system if the sun goes for the rest.
    It will be better if you put geo-centric model in the form of an article. By rational - 2/21/2013 7:10:53 AM



  • Dear Rational let us analyze.What is Helio-centricity? The sun is the centre of the solar system. The earth travels around it once yearly. This concept is taught since we start our journey of education in the schools.
    What is Geo-centricity? The earth is the centre of the universe. The sun travels around the earth once daily. The earth does not rotate nor does it orbit the sun. According to this theory, the motions we see are real.
    According to Helio-centric cosmology the earth is reported to be rotating at a speed that varies with latitude, yet this supposedly indiscernible. In this thory the motions we sense are unreal and those that are real we can not see.
    To realize the truth of the holy Quran, the scientific knowledge is also essential. Hence, utilizing all the skills of science we come to assure us that the sun is running around the earth. The holy Bible also proves stationary concept of the earth, hence it is the taproot of its credibility. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/21/2013 7:04:17 AM



  • @Editor.
    NewAgeIslam promotes modern science and our great participating scholars always write the article on the compatibility of the Quran and modern science. Idea of sun at the center of cosmology revolutionized the science. I will not go into details because as a journalist you have much knowledge of the history.
    If our Imam Raza Saheb was such a scientist his contribution must be brought forward. Isn't Islam in need of Muslim Scientists?

    So I request you to initiate a debate on this topic. Let us see what our scholars say about this Geo-centric. What the Quran and Ahadith say about this topic? Efforts of the Ala Hazrat should not go unrecognized. Afterall he is an Imam of main stream Muslims called Ahl-e-Sunnat-wal-Jamat.

    It may turn into a revolution in the science. Who knows?
    By rational - 2/21/2013 7:00:44 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/21/2013 5:17:35 AM.
    Thanks for your response. I am very fond of reading of biographies of the leaders, scientist including so called spiritual figures. I never came across Aala Hazrat as a great scientist neither in any print or electronic media. Why he is not recognized so far if he has contributed so much for the science?
    If Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan was so much sure about the scientific knowledge and contributions, why he didn't introduce his work to world scientific community? Muslim world is in need of Muslim Scientists.
    How many Muslims know about the scientific contribution of the Aala Hazrat?
    As a staunch believer  of him you should come forward with his contribution so that world and Islamic community particularly may receive maximum good from him.
    Mr Ghulam Ghauss It will be a revolution in the since as it was in Galileo's and Newton's time.
    You and your Imam may be recognized as most revolutionary figures.
    I would request the Editor to initiate a debate on the Geo-centric cosmology. Let us see how our Muslim scholars on this site take it.
    NAI frequently post the articles of an eminent scientist called Parvez Hoodby. Please contact him he may help you.
    Being a student of science and working in satellite communication field I am with solar-centric cosmology. It is the practical proof of its validity. By rational - 2/21/2013 6:40:15 AM



  • It is the command of Allah that the sun is running towards a resting place.  The holy Quran says “And the Sun moves on to its destination. That is the ordinance of the Mighty, the Knower.(36: 38)”. Likewise, there are many proofs given by Imam Ahmad Raza in his books. He gives one hundred and five
    (105) proofs against the Motion out of which there are ninety (90) very clear and perfect. Your Command that the sun is running By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/21/2013 5:59:55 AM



  • Dear rational, I totally endorse the researched work of Imam Ahmmad Raza ra as you say “Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the renowned Physicist and Atomic Scientist of the Muslim World has appreciated the arguments of Imam Ahmad Raza regarding motion of sun.(ref: Mujalla Imam Ahmad Raza. As we are on the earth, so earth is static with respect to us which favor argumentations of static theory of Imam Ahmad Raza.
    It is interesting to note that Imam Ahmad Raza is the first Muslim scientist of the 20th century who made rich creative scientific contributions regarding
    Modern Physics like static theory of earth. For me this Forward is enough.
    Before proceeding into this forward I request you to tell "Do you really believe in this work of Aala Hazrat? This question is to make sure what is your stand on the Science. Do you really believe the earth is static because the Imam Saheb has proved it by the Quran.
    He is not alone many Muslims think so. There is fatwa also of grand Mufti Ibn Baaz on the rotation and revolution of the Earth”.
    My answer is “I strongly support geocentric cosmology (the earth is motionless) as proved by Imam Ahmad Raza ra” By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/21/2013 5:17:35 AM



  • Dear rational sahib, the taproot of debate was the scientific knowledge of Imam Ahmad Raza and after going through his books you say “Scientific Genius Mohtram Aala Hz Raza Brailvi RA”. Thanks a lot for calling him (ra) a scientific genius.

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/21/2013 5:03:24 AM



  • This is one of the best articles i came across so far regarding compatibility of democracy with great Islam. By shahnawaz Ali - 2/19/2013 10:34:18 PM



  • Why are you silent ? kindly give answer and tell Varsha sharma and me as well what is  your target. In a comment, She said to you “Mr rational, every body on this site has some motives to achieve. Writers and commentators like the editor Sultan Shahin, Md Yunus, Ghulam Muhyuddin, Ghulam Ghaus, Ghulam Rasool Dehlavi, Naseer Ahamad and many others seem to bring reforms to their Muslim community to which they belong. They are doing good job for the betterment of their community. But I wonder what do you exactly want to achieve out of your active engagement and hectic business with this site? You have been loudly claiming that you were a Muslim, but now you have nothing to do with Islam and Muslims. Then why are you burning your midnight oil here? Why not to do something worthwhile? what can you get here discussing Islam and Muslims that have no more importance in your life? By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/19/2013 2:47:11 AM



  • Sorry Rational sahib, there was mistake. In one of my comments, there should have been “astronomy” rather than astrology. That comment should correctly go as follows:

    Dear Rational brother, this is in response to one of your comments. My response is that Imam Ahamd Raza had the knowledge of astronomy. He only said this is good for a man to travel on Saturday and Monday. He has not made it necessary for you to travel only on these days. One is not bound to follow this one but he said only on his scientific knowledge of astronomy.

    Moreover the holy prophet had the knowledge of unseen granted by Allah almighty whereby he used to decide the better solutions for the mankind. Besides, every sunnah of the holy prophet Muhammad pbuh has scientific base. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/16/2013 11:07:15

    Though I do not believe it completely scientific, in some ways astrology may seem scientific. It uses scientific knowledge about heavenly bodies, as well as scientific sounding tools, like star charts.

    Is it scientific? For more information I am giving links.

    Astrology: Is it scientific?

    undsci.berkeley.edu/article/astrology_checklist

    Science Vs Astrology - Micro Astrology

    www.microastrology.com/article-list/science-vs-astrology.html

    Now, it is up to you dear Rational. Imam Ahmad Raza (may Allah be pleased with him) had the knowledge of science and wrote many books was and again is clear to you and your contradiction. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/19/2013 2:28:11 AM



  • Dear Hats off, some people consider the research work of Albert Eisenstein the stupidest one as well but take benefit from it. Darwin theory is regarded to be based on philosophy rather than science but was taught in many schools. It goes without saying that there are great differences among the scientists in many more issues, let alone theory of Imam Ahmad Raza may Allah be pleased with him.   By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/18/2013 11:51:45 AM



  • Rational sahab wanted to know whether Imam Ahmad Raza had the knowledge of science thereby i had to give the link. The link proves that he had mastery over science, let alone differences as even found among other scientists regarding the rotation of the earth.  By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/18/2013 11:43:38 AM



  • dear mr ghulam ghaus, i followed the link and downloaded one of the stupidest books ever written by a human.

    you are a grown up man. you can believe what you want. this is a democratic country. you may even believe that the moon is made of cheese and that the earth is flat (you are in the august company of one mr bin baz) and anything else you are inclined to.

    but i think if your children (if you are married and have children that is) write in their school exams that the sun rotates around the earth, they will fail their exams. i request you to kindly hide this hideous book from your children.

    if this was written by a man who claims to have disproved newton, i can only say one thing. in those days there were very few metal asylums. and probably he escaped from one of them.
    By hats off! - 2/17/2013 3:08:49 PM



  • Dear hats off
    Had this fatwa been given by Brailvi Ulema, there would have been no refutation by Mr Ghulam Ghauss.
    By rational - 2/17/2013 8:09:12 AM



  • Dear hats off, You seem to hit right at the head of the nail when you state: "i would not be far wrong in saying that as far as reform as applied to islam is going on, all of it is happening on forums and not at the level of ulemas and mullahs who seem to have a strangle hold on the behavior of the believers."
    The reasons for maintaining a reverential or skeptical distance from the Qur'an is constructed as follows in my article referenced below:
    "The subversion of the Qur’anic message during the classical Islamic civilization.
    The social, moral and ethical paradigms of the Qur’an conflicted with the political ambitions of the rulers and their craving for wealth, power, glory, lavish haram life and distinctive privileges. Thus, since early centuries of Islam, the dynastic rulers manipulated and even coerced the Ulama to obfuscate the egalitarian, humanistic, gender neutral and pluralistic message of the Qur’an. “According to a number of sources, the Imam Abu Hanifa was imprisoned by Caliph al-Mansur (754 – 775) for defying him in religion. Imam Malik ibn Anas, the founder of another school of law was also flogged during his rule” [4].  Furthermore, as Islam entered new cultures and civilizations, it encountered customs and juristic norms that contradicted the Qur’anic paradigms. To accommodate them into Islam – a historical necessity for the era, the doctors of law declared: “Any Qur’anic verse which contradicts the opinions of ‘our masters’ will be construed as having been abrogated, or the rule of preference will be applied thereto. It is better that the verse is interpreted in such a way that it conforms to their opinion” [5]. Pedagogic study of the Qur’an was also discouraged by citing a tradition that “one who discusses about the Book of God, (the Qur'an) makes a mistake, even if he is correct [6]. These developments coupled with the reverential remoteness of the Qur’an as divine speech led to the relegation of the Qur’an as a purely liturgical text. Over time, this notion has been dogmatized in Islamic societies which conflate the Qur’anic message with the Hadith and the Classical Sharia of Islam. It also purports to restrict the religious obligations of the Muslims to its introductory five pillars of faith, though after the integration of Mecca (630), merely two years before the Prophet’s death (632), compliance with the definitive commandments (ahkamat) of the Qur’an was one of the pillars of faith [7]. Moreover, the Qur’an does not provide any basis to justify reducing its holistic message to only four elements or pillars (Salat, Zakat, fasting, and hajj), besides the shahadah [the first pillar of faith – the oral declaration: ‘I testify that there is no deity but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God.’]
    The distortion of the Qur’anic message today
    Fast forward to this era, a section of educated youth – mostly the rich elite, business tycoons and those seeking to free themselves from religious bondage, as well as the atavistic among the Ulama and radicalized elements (a small minority though) ready to blow themselves up in public place and terrorize humanity or condone such acts have unwittingly joined ranks to propagate the weakest accounts (ahadith) and the most grotesque rulings of the Classical Sharia to justify their blatantly anti-Qur’anic views.  These insiders (the liberal, rationalist hypocrites and the fanatic and misguided Ulama) thus demonize their Prophet, scandalise his wives (their own mothers in the spirit of the Qur’anic verse 33:6), poison interfaith relations and reduce Islam into a voluptuous and barbaric cult. In historical perspective this is the most dangerous development in Islam, even more dangerous than the recent anti-terror wars on the Muslim lands or the Crusades and the Mongol attacks some eight hundred years ago. These inside demonizers of Islam are unwittingly projecting their faith and fellow Muslims as a heavy and unbearable burden on human civilization and setting the stage for a deadly backlash from the powerful enemies of Islam – the Islamophobic think-tank and military industrial complex - than what the world has seen in the past decade. Therefore, it is absolutely imperative to install the Qur’an in its rightful place as an independent, completed and perfected fount of guidance as it claims and this article aims at." 
     Challenging And Shed Of Its Literary Glory in Translation, the Qur'an Offers Clear Clues to Exploring Its Core Commandments - Now Obscured, Corrupted and Distorted By Secondary Theological Sources
    http://www.newageislam.com/ijtihad,-rethinking-islam/challenging,-and-shed-of-its-literary-glory-in-translation,-the-qur-an-offers-clear-clues-to-exploring-its-core-commandments---now-obscured,-corrupted-and-distorted-by-secondary-theological-sources/d/9039
    If you do wish to post any comment kindly put it under the featured article. By muhammad yunus - 2/17/2013 7:38:34 AM



  • Even then I am refuting what you blamed, indeed the marriage of a Muslim woman with a non-Muslim is not allowed in any conditions but when he converts to ISLAM. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/16/2013 11:10:07 PM
    Then he is a Muslim. This I wanted to tell to some misguided scholars by your tongue.
    Thanks for putting your views. By rational - 2/17/2013 7:14:18 AM



  • Even then I am refuting what you blamed, indeed the marriage of a Muslim woman with a non-Muslim is not allowed in any conditions but when he converts to ISLAM. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/16/2013 11:10:07 PM

    Then he is a Muslim. This I wanted to tell to some misguided scholars by your tongue.
    Thanks for putting your views.
    ko6lp

    By rational - 2/17/2013 7:12:38 AM



  • Even then I am refuting what you blamed, indeed the marriage of a Muslim woman with a non-Muslim is not allowed in any conditions but when he converts to ISLAM. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/16/2013 11:10:07 PM

    Then he is a Muslim. This I wanted to tell to some misguided scholars by your tongue.
    Thanks for putting your views.
    ko6lp

    By rational - 2/17/2013 7:10:24 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghauss
    I am happy you are going well on sectarian line.
    Would you please educate your own brothers and sisters on the matter of Qabrprasti instead of convincing me .
    I am afraid if they made to understand all holy shrines will see no devotee and Gaddinasheens will be the history.
    Don't worry nothing going to happen. Enjoy the milk these gullible devotees offer to these shrines.

    Have you listen to your friend. He is in your saying "you face so silly questions...."
    Please take his advise and stop responding to silly and out of the theme comments.
    Also Listen to Mr Mohammed Yunus.
    If you want to continue open a new thread. There we will dash our heads saving our serious commentators from useless debates.
     
    By rational - 2/17/2013 7:04:05 AM



  • Dear hats off! - 2/17/2013 6:05:53 AM
    It is a waste of time in discussing the science with a man who consider astrology a science.
    Astrology is another way to milk fleshy and skinny cows as well.
    I am afraid one day I may be baptized into this man's sect.
    By rational - 2/17/2013 6:36:52 AM



  • "he might bust a blood vessel in his brain!"
    I just took the medicine to save my blood vessels.
    By rational - 2/17/2013 6:34:57 AM



  • There are some more links to analyse his mastery. http://www.barkati.net/book/english/Complete_AFairSuccess.pdf

    www.barkati.net/book/english/Complete_AFairSuccess.pdf

    http://www.noori.org/Books/ImamAhmedRaza.pdf

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/17/2013 6:06:04 AM



  • does mr gulam ghaus imply that the sun and moon revolve around the earth?
    the good old geocentric vs heliocentric debate and excommunication of galileo and dark ages and everything?
    you mean the current model of solar system is wrong? this is moving closer to harun yahya.
    i think if mr rational reads this in a moment of pique, he might bust a blood vessel in his brain!
    i sincerely hope not! By hats off! - 2/17/2013 6:05:53 AM



  • DEAR Rational, Indeed, in addition to astrology, Ala Hazrat Imam Ahmad Raza (may Allah be pleased with him) had the knowledge of astronomy. He wrote many books on that subject, I am mentioning one of his books where he talked about astronomy. The book is FAUZE MUBEEN DAR RADD-E- HARKAT-E- ZAMEEN (A FAIR SUCCESS REFUTING MOTION OF EARTH).  The book is based on scientific research, was written in Arabic, and is now available in English as well. You can see it on the internet. Please go through the following link. http://www.barkati.net/book/english/Complete_AFairSuccess.pdf

    [PDF] FAUZ-E-MUBEEN DAR RADD-E- HARKAT-E ... - Barkati.Netwww.barkati.net/book/english/Complete_AFairSuccess.pdf

    Brother Rational, he had mastery over science. Thanks

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/17/2013 5:56:50 AM



  • My response is that Imam Ahamd Raza had the knowledge of astrology.
    Thanks God. He didn't know the astronomy.

    No scientist consider astrology as science. Now I understand the level of scientific knowledge og Imam saheb. Jiase wo khud waise uske chele.

    wassalam
    By rational - 2/17/2013 5:26:39 AM



  • Arshad,
    I agree with you on the way one should visit mazars. But it has one risk. Many illiterate particularly women who do not know where to draw the lines, practice shirk in mazars. They pray directly to the sufis, kiss it, light agarbattis and perform sajda.They do not any idea of wasila. So in many places, the visits are meant for direct prayers. It is only the learned class who know to what extent one should express their reverence to the sufis in outer manifestations and from one's soul.
    By Arshad - 2/17/2013 12:58:46 AM



  • it appears from all this intense debate that there is a whole ancient industry manufacturing the misinterpretations of koran and these manufacturers have been around from since the time of the prophet.

    this would imply that islam is one side of the story and there is another story whose characters have managed to infiltrate islam and sabotage it from within by including silly, lascivious and superstitious hadiths into the narrative. sabotage is the favorite weapon of the conquered and often the only one.

    do the grand mufti of saudi arabia, the al azhar guys, the deobandi heads not see that these hadiths are problematic and they all can come together and at one stroke sift and sieve the hadiths and get rid of the grit and garbage?

    mr muhammad yunus claims that his books are duly authorized by the al azhar. then what is preventing them from acting on his very detailed analysis? do these guys even read it? when he argues that islam cannot claim any kind of monopoly on the salvation of humans, and if they endorsed it, i would expect ground shaking fatwas from al azhar. but no. when he argues that hindus are not the mushrik and munafiqeen mentioned in the koran, why does not the other influential ulemas say single word about it?

    i would not be far wrong in saying that as far as reform as applied to islam is going on, all of it is happening on forums and not at the level of ulemas and mullahs who seem to have a strangle hold on the behavior of the believers.

    one of the reasons that other religions are not facing what islam is facing today is the average non-muslim does not bother too much about his priests or what they say. the regular sexcapades of indian godmen and the rampant pedarsty in some christian churches helps the average hindu or christian not to put too much weight in what a godmen or a priest says.

    for a christian, it is four days a month when he sees the priest. otherwise at a funeral or baptism or marriage. ditto with hindu. not so the average muslim. he cannot as much as take a single breath without some ulema or mullah declaring it haraam or halaal.

    maybe its time to turn away from the mullahs.
    By hats off! - 2/17/2013 12:54:05 AM



  • According to Ala Hazrat, how to visit the holy shrines.
    Question -What is the best way of visiting the holy graves?
    Answer- One must stand at least four yards away from the holy graves and regard him (salam). The visitor must recite Darood, Surah Fatiha, AYATUL KURSI, SURAH IKHLAS, SURAH YASEEN AND SURAH MULK ETC and then make Dua for himself by the source of that beloved slave or saint of Allah almighty.
    All Sunni scholars agree that Tawaf of the holy grave is not legitimate and doing Sajdah is Haram. Touching or kissing the holy grave is not allowed but prohibited in Sunni (Barelvi) ideology.
    I do not believe in what the ordinary Muslims do rather I believe in what the Master of Science and philosophy Imam Ahamad Raza writes in his numerous books. This is the very simple reason I am very much impressed with his unprecedented work.
    I also believe that some common sunni Muslims touch and kiss the holy shrines, and when they are asked they say they are kissing and touching just for affection and love that arose in their heart after they came to know the life of these holy Sufis and saints who devoted themselves to attain the pleasure of Allah almighty.
    Brother Rational, on this very basis we can not bind the Fatwa of Shirk on them. Wahabi scholars have spread the misconceptions about Sunni believers. Common Muslim brothers blindly follow the Wahabi propaganda. Some of these common muslim brothers regard that they (Wahabis) are Allah wale at the sight their appearance. This appearance has shattered the image of Islam by misinterpreting the holy Quran and causing great disorder in the land. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/17/2013 12:05:49 AM



  • Dear Yunus Sahab, thanks a lot for encouraging and appreciating me.I also felicitate you for your impassioned work and granting many valuable views reasonably fit for the modern times.  By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/16/2013 11:26:24 PM



  • Dear Rational.Your comment is already refuted by many intellectual commentators over this site. Here you again say "There are 3 types of creation 1. Angels 2. The Devil 3. Man. The Angels are entirely good and the devil is entirely bad. Man is a mixture of good and bad. Whoever is overcome with good he can be likened to an Angel and whoever is overcome with evil he can be likened to the devil." “Allah didn't learn a lesson from past mistake. Before creation of the Adam Jins had spread fasad”. Dear, Allah almighty knows everything; he predicted the corruption between good and evil as mentioned in the holy Quran. You rightly answers to your question “May be Allah was experimenting with different kinds of creation!” surely Allah almighty is experimenting his slaves and descended down good and evil as well. 
    Dear favoring the poor is matter of sympathy, humanity and brotherhood. Abdul Qadir Jeelani did it for poor people and consoled them by pointing out that they are safer than the rich who are transgressing and oppressing today and not helping the needy people. I think Ghause AZAM promoted sympathy for the poverty by giving them this status. He also provided financial assistance to the needy people in his era. I can give many examples in this regard.

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/16/2013 11:17:16 PM



  • Dear Rational why do you blame me and fabricate news for me time and again as you do the same for the holy prophet Muhammad pbuh and his companions. Ok  I am one of Ummahs of the holy prophet pbuh; as he (pbuh) tolerated during his time so should I do now.
    You say “This is specially for you in regarding your comment about Valentin's day. In that comment you spoke like a wahabi”.
    I want you to read my comment again where I have like Wahabi or where I have made mistakes.
    You say “Are you different than a Wahabi? If my memory is serving me right in one of comments you said a Muslim woman may marry with non-Muslim. How can you say that”?
    Brother it is sheer your accusation I have never said so and so, give the readers proof.
    Even then I am refuting what you blamed, indeed the marriage of a Muslim woman with a non-Muslim is not allowed in any conditions but when he converts to ISLAM. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/16/2013 11:10:07 PM



  • Dear Rational. Arabic is the language of the holy Quran and the Hadith. It is essential to Mulsims to respect it. The merits of Arabic are mentioned in the holy Quran and also narrated by the holy companions of the prophet. Ala Hazrat talked about Arabic merits and he did not say that other languages are not to be respected. He knew many languages, respected them and wrote his books in many languages. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/16/2013 11:08:43 PM



  • Dear Rational brother,  This is in response to one of your comments. My response is that Imam Ahamd Raza had the knowledge of astrology. He only said this is good for a man to travel on Saturday and Monday. He has not made it necessary for you to travel only on these days. One is not bound to follow this one but he said only on his scientific knowledge of astrology.
    Moreover the holy prophet had the knowledge of unseen granted by Allah almighty whereby he used to decide the better solutions for the mankind. Besides, every sunnah of the holy prophet Muhammad pbuh has scientific base. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/16/2013 11:07:15 PM



  • sahab, Imam Ahmad Raza (may Allah be pleased with him) tells Muslims how to visit the holy shrines. With reference to his book namely Fatwa Razvia 4-212; I am going to point out the best way of visiting the holy shrines.
    Question -What is the best way of visiting the holy graves?
    Answer- One must stand at least four yards away from the holy graves and regard him (salam).
    The visitor must recite Darood, Surah Fatiha, AYATUL KURSI, SURAH IKHLAS, SURAH YASEEN AND SURAH MULK ETC and then make Dua for himself by the source of that beloved slave or saint of Allah almighty.
    All Sunni scholars agree that Tawaf of the holy grave is not legitimate and doing Sajdah is Haram. Touching or kissing the holy grave is not allowed but prohibited in Sunni (Barelvi) ideology.
    I do not believe in what the ordinary Muslims do rather I believe in what the Master of Science and philosophy Imam Ahamad Raza writes in his numerous books. This is the very simple reason I am very much impressed with his unprecedented work.
    I also believe that some common sunni Muslims touch and kiss the holy shrines, and when they are asked they say they are kissing and touching just for affection and love that arose in their heart after they came to know the life of these holy Sufis and saints who devoted themselves to attain the pleasure of Allah almighty.
    So brother on this very basis we can not bind the Fatwa of Shirk on them. Wahabi scholars have spread the misconceptions about Sunni believers.
    Dear common Muslim brothers blindly follow the Wahabi propaganda. Some of these common muslim brothers regard that they (Wahabis) are Allah wale at the sight their appearance. This appearance has shattered the image of Islam by misinterpreting the holy Quran and causing great disorder in the land. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/16/2013 11:01:36 PM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/16/2013 1:59:41 AM
    Ok I will use rather Sunnat wal Jamat though I am not wrong in calling this jamat Brailvi..
    I am least impressed by your answer on the fate of the 73 sects.
    Before that you should give answer. If you believe Shias are Kafir and they know it. You invite them for interfaith-dialogue. They have studied and pondered on the Quran, Ahadith, and have Ijma as well and believe that the Sunnis are deviant. They did injustice to Hz Ali and Hz Fatima. They are convinced as you are. You admitted that unless one is not sure about his righteousness one can't propagate his belief. You keep praising the Sahaba and they keep condemning them because they believe they are right.
    Will you reach on some decision? What do you think at what you can agree? From the beginning this conflict is so intense and deep, that it has claimed many lives. They could not achieve the unity you are talking about.
    You are not in peace with Wahabi which is one sect of Sunni Islam and you call them kafir, they call you Mushrik and Bidati and they have their interest and your jamat has own interests. How you are going to attain your goal?
    How you will achieve that between Shia and Sunni. So many debates had occurred what is the result.
    Had you achieved this goal, there would have been peace.
    Ahle-Sunnat-wal-Jamat and wahabi are both intense in calling them kafir. Kalling kafir is onething but hating others is a serious issue.
    The fatwa of Imam Ghauss saheb and Imam Raza creates hate. It is the demand of fatwa that one should hate the Shia. They accuse Hz Aisha for adultery.
    You call them killer of Hz Ali. You call them followers of Abdullah bin Saba. They call Abu bakr and Umar Ghasib.

    Now I am born in Shia family. You are born in ASWJ. Both we are not scholars. We followed our Imams. You will land in the Jannat but I land in the Jahannam. Just because of my birth. I didn't have choice in my birth.
    It is Allah who is responsible for my bad end. I was a good human being but lacked in the beliefs of ASWJ.
    This example can be extended to similar situation till we reach believer and unbeliever.
    I am not convinced a bit by your answer.
    There is no scientific proof that atheist are at wrong path. Bring any proof if you have.
    By rational - 2/16/2013 9:04:05 AM



  • Dear Rational sahib, Islam says that a woman has to be respected and protected under all circumstances, whether she belongs to our nation or to the nation of our enemy, whether she is a Muslim or non-Muslim or follow no religion at all. A Muslim is strictly prohibited from outraging her under any circumstances. All promiscuous relationships have been forbidden to him, irrespective of the status or position of the woman, whether the woman is a willing or an unwilling partner to the act. Allah says in this regard "Do not approach (the bounds of) adultery" (17:32). Heavy punishment has been prescribed for this crime, and the order has not been qualified by any conditions. Since the violation of chastity of a woman is forbidden in Islam, the perpetrator of this crime cannot escape punishment. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/16/2013 2:45:07 AM



  • Dear Rational brother in humanity, Now when it is clear that the true form of democracy is compatible with Islam and Its Shariah, I just want to clear out another criticism where you say “Brailvis if gets power to run a country they will implement the Sharia not democracy”.
    Brother, you are intellectual man, think of the word “Bareilly” that is the name of city located in Uttar Pardesh India, rather than the name of any sect or school of thought. Imam Ahmad Raza devoted his whole life just for getting the pleasure of Allah almighty and his beloved prophet Muhammad pbuh. He reformed, gave solutions to many doubts and wrote more than 1400 books. During his time he was the unprecedented man of science; many Arab great scholars accepted his work. He worked on the various problematic and doubtful issues created by the then people regarding Islamic ideologies and principles. He did not intend to make his unique school of thought or sect. he followed the footsteps of his ancient Sufis, Saints and the friends of Allah. His work paves the way to of Islamic reformer Alif sani, Islamic scholar Allama Abdul Haque Muhaddise Delhavi, Khawja Ghareeb Nawaz Ajmeri, Ghause Azam Abdul Qadir Jeelani, Imam Azam Abu Haneefa, the holy companions and the holy prophet Muhammad pbuh and the lord of the entire world Allah almighty.
    On the basis of his impassioned work we are not allowed to give his work or way a unique title of “Bareli”. In the sense, Imam Ahmad Raza also did not favour this name. But unfortunately some people have given it a unique name, not only you brother Rational even a few of those who follow Imam Ahmad Raza may Allah be pleased with him. These few people do not work on the footsteps of Imam Ahamd Raza but they only claim. The lovers of Imam Ahmad Raza are not true lovers because his written books are yet not been published or available on the internet. Only few books are available on the internet. This is the only shortcoming in them.
    Brother I am impressed with the scientific research and ideologies of Imam Ahamd Raza in and about all branches of studies. He mastered almost all the physical and mathematical sciences and philosophies. He proved his work both theoretically and practically. Since there are differences among the scholars but his work seems to be the most authenticated of all of them. You better go through his books, because, brother, nobody should appreciate his work blindly but after analysis and authentication in his work without biased notion. He only highlighted the same ideas and beliefs that were initiated by the prophet Muhammad pbuh. His researched work is praiseworthy.
    After all, it would be injustice to give his work a unique name “Barelvi”. Though his work is identical to his ancient Islamic scholars and Sufis, the name “Barelvi” may cause misconception in the mind of the new generation. The name of his work is based on Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamat that was given by Muhammad pbuh. It would be more justice if call him Sunni. Thanks a lot. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/16/2013 2:02:52 AM



  • Dear Rational, I just want to put my points next to your points.
    You say “Keeping in mind the hadith related to 73 sects in the Islam few points are very important. Hadith is authentic and quoted to validate the Sunnat-wal-jamat”
    I say indeed this Hadith is authentic but who is on the right path among them, is controversial among the scholars from each one of 73 sects. The prophet is merciful because he has given a clue to the right one. Accordingly, every one believes himself the right one but their reality of being the right one is on the will of Allah almighty. The follower should ponder over the Quran, the Hadith, Consensus and Reason along with seeking help from Allah almighty. Allah is merciful because he has ordered the mankind through his prophet to attain knowledge to recognise the truth.  
     You say “73 sects are decreed by the Allah, and their fate is decided by Allah to be in jehannam except one”.
    I say that division was in the fate of the people; Allah knew and knows the future of the people. The prophet also knows the unseen knowledge through the mercy of Allah, so he predicted the future that his Ummah would be divided in 73 sects.
    Allah wants every one to recognise the truth seeking knowledge. Through the holy Quran He has taught the mankind and given insight into good and evil. It was and is some people who were and are unable to go under one umbrella.
    Though the fate is on the will of Allah and He knows every intention and mind.
    You say “It is tantamount to disobedience to Allah to put effort to bring them on one platform. There is no need to prey or hold discussions for ittehad wa ittefaq”.
    I say that unity and integrity though is not possible in all respects but possible and executable in terms of holding peace and brotherhood. Sometimes this diversity turns the ugly form of fight and hatred, at this very crucial time every one should confine to his own ideologies rather than leading to communal harmony and hostile attitude. So in the sense unity is possible.
    You say “Majority of mankind including the Muslims is bound to hell”.
    I say that True Muslims (practical muslims) are not bound to hell and the fate of the Heaven and the Hell is on the will of Allah almighty. 
    You say “Therefore Allah is not merciful, but a sadist who wants majority of the mankind under eternal torture”.
    I say that Allah is merciful in all the respects because despite disbelief and sins he forgives the perpetrators if they seek forgiveness. Time and again he says in the holy Quran. It is very common among Muslims even all of them agree in terms of His mercy.
    You say “All attributes to Allah are fancies of the Muslims”
    I say that your last point is the issue of atheism and Islam. Since the concept of atheism is modern but its form has refuted on the scientific point, too. In this very concept all the Muslim sects agree collectively. The notion of unity in this issue comes to every sect. Moreover, it is other subject of discussion. Thanks By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/16/2013 2:01:51 AM



  • Dear Hats off,  It is your right to praise Islam but only after you analyse it you rightly say “you cannot analyse islam except praise it. we cannot praise it without analysing it”. Brother, I also analyze it, why not? it is essential to every man and woman. Allah says first in the holy Quran:
    “Read in the name of your lord and cherisher who created” (Para 30).
    You pose good questions “The clerics of Egypt issue a fatwa that tahrir squre protestors can be killed if they are men and raped if they are women. Are you more or less Muslim than this person who wrote the fatwa? An Australian Muslim cleric says greeting Christians on Christmas is sin. a deobandi scholar says sms divorces are legitimate. Another imam says a woman raped by her father in law has to divorce the husband and marry the father in law. so whats going on, if as you claim all the answers are in the koran? what is it that you know about the koran that the muftis of egypt, saudi arabia, kuwait, indonesia, australia, uk, netherlands do not know? if they do not know who put them in place?”
    The problem indicated in your comments is just antithetical to the image of Islam. Islam is free from all kinds of corruption but it is some Muslims and even so-called and self-proclaimed Mullahs who have become more materialistic than religious and spiritual ones.
    Brother I am just doing what you say to me “carry on your monologue”. My monologue will continue till the last breath of my life. I have to make every possible effort to do justice with the image of Islam, promoting peace and brotherhood just to take blessings from Allah almighty and the holy sight of the holy prophet Muhammad pbuh in the Hereafter. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/16/2013 2:00:50 AM



  • Dear brother in humanity Rational Sahab! I had already arranged survey before I wrote the article. Since you say to me “You can arrange survey. Give two options to choose one, Democracy or Sharia”,
    Following you I have rearranged survey. I am going to choose Islamic Shariah which is composite of both democracy in its true form and Islamic Shariah itself. Not only I, but many Arab or non-Arab democrats also in Islam choose the true form of democracy, let alone non-muslim brothers.
    My article witnesses that democracy is a form of Islam. It is compatible with Islam.
    For further explanation, please go through my article. I am just giving you the some parts of the article as follows:
    “From the spiritual perspective, the rights of democracy are derived from Islam. Islam is more inclusive and comprehensive than democracy in the distribution of rights and privileges, regardless of religion, caste, race, culture, economic status etc. Since human being has been endowed with intellectual capacity, therefore he gets deep insight into good and evil and therefore has gradually developed the democratic. Many political scientists and philosophers including John Austin and Rousseau whether willingly or unwillingly favoured Islamic ideologies. They defined democracy just for the welfare of the society. Their democratic concepts, though are not the same, but more or less reflect the Quranic message”. You can see more in the article. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/16/2013 1:59:41 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghauss, Below are the some pearls of Wisdom from Aala Hazrat Imam Raza Brailvi Radi allaho Anho
    "Question: Which days are good to travel?
    Answer: Wednesday, Saturday and Monday. It is stated in the Hadith Shareef that if a person departs before sunrise on a Saturday for travel, then I (Holy Prophet - sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) am his security. A'la Hadrat (radi Allahu anhu) then states: "Alhamdulillah! My second trip for Hajj and my return were within these 3 days, and by the grace of Allah, I was born on a Saturday".
    Are not other days from Allah.? Any scientific base?
    Question: Can a person go to the toilet if he has Arabic writing on a piece of paper kept in his pocket?
    Answer: Yes, if it is hidden in his pocket, but it is better and more advisable to remove them.
    Can you hide something from Allah just by putting in the pocket?
    Is the Arabic only preferable language for Allah? Or He is comfortable with Arabic only? Is the only Arabic from Allah rest from some other gods? Why so much love to Arabic? Is not Allah As-Samad?
    It is a Arabic supremacy that is imposed by so called Imams.
    Question: Is there any wisdom in fixing dates of Urs of Awliya?
    Answer: Yes, on the day of their Wisaal (passing away), their souls have greater concentration in the respected graves. Hence, this is the perfect time to derive the bounties of Rahmah from them.
    This is specially for you in regarding your comment about Valentin's day. In that comment you spoke like a wahabi.
    Question: If a married woman is a Kaafirah (non-believer) and embraces Islam, what is she to do about her husband who is still a Kaafir?
    Answer: She has to have no contact with him and wait for three monthly cycles. If her husband embraces Islam in this period (time) then she will remain in his marriage. If he does not become a Muslim, then she is free to marry another Muslim male.
    Are you different than a Wahabi? If my memory is serving me right in one of comments you said a Muslim woman may marry with non-Muslim. How can you say that?
    Some from Abdul Qadir Jeelani RA
    The love of Allah SubHanuhu wa Ta'ala and the Prophet SallAllaho Alaihi wa Sallam is intertwined in poverty and starvation.
    "Poverty saves one from sin and wealth is a trap for sins regard poverty as your protector."
    Then Why to fight poverty? Why zakat or sadaqa? Don't Muslims say that the poverty can be eradicated if the Zakat system is sincerely implemented.
    "Though I be in the west and my disciple in the East, if a world goes to attack him, I know. I will save him."
    Acting like God. Isn't it? Allah is near to one's jugular vein. But this peer is with his disciples irrespective of the distance. Perhaps greater than Allah???
    "He whose fate is ultimately death then what is the need for happiness."
    Muslims must not be happy then. It is undesirable. Why to do a deed that makes other happy.
    "When the angels do not enter a house in which there are images pictures then how do you expect Allah SubHanuhu wa Ta'ala to enter your heart which is full of thousands of statues and idols. Anything else besides Allah SubHanuhu wa Ta'ala presence in the heart is images and idols."
    Speaking like a wahabi
    "There are 3 types of creation 1. Angels 2. The Devil 3. Man. The Angels are entirely good and the devil is entirely bad. Man is a mixture of good and bad. Whoever is overcome with good he can be likened to an Angel and whoever is overcome with evil he can be likened to the devil."
    Allah didn't learn a lesson from past mistake. Before creation of the Adam Jins had spread fasad.
    May be Allah was experimenting with different kinds of creation!
    He didn't like angles because they were too good. He punished devils because they were too bad. Finally He settled on Adam a mixture of Good and Bad.
    When Hadrat Shaykh 'Abd al-Qadir Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anho declared that his foot is on the necks of every Wali of Allah. At that time Almighty Allah SubHanuhu wa Ta'ala beamed a Tajalli (lustre) on the Shaykhs' heart and Sayyiduna Rasoolullah SallAllahu Alaihi wa Sallam sent a sacred garb with a group of exalted Angels for the Shaykh. There was a gathering of every Wali of the past and present. The Awliya who were alive presented themselves physically and those who had passed on, their souls were present. It was in this splendid gathering that the Angels dressed the great Ghawth Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anho with this consecrated garb. At that moment a huge crowd of Rijal al-Ghayb (Men of the Unseen) and Angels were also present. The birds in the skies tucked their wings in respect and absolute submission. All of them filled the horizons to witness this coronation. There was no Wali of Allah on earth that did not bend his neck in submission to the declaration of the Ghawth.
    Any rational person can believe in this self praise practiced by who used to tell the evil in self praise.
    Few amongst the masses use to object that to utter "Ya Shaykh Abd al Qadir Jilani" is Shirk because one is making partnership with Allah Ta’ala (committing Shirk) by asking for assistance from the creation of Allah Ta'ala. They say that one can only ask directly from Allah Ta’ala. The Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'at believes that it is absolutely permissible to say "Ya Sheikh Abd al Qaadir Jilani" when asking for assistance from those servants of Allah Ta'ala whom He has appointed as helpers of the Ummah.
    Why should not they say this? This saying is setting them beside Allah if not above
    There are countless narrations and aqwaal  our Brailvi/Devbandis/ All believer brothers believe in, which are against the human intellect By rational - 2/15/2013 10:27:17 PM




  • Compatibility of modern values with the Quran is the OCD Muslims are suffering from.
    Any value of any importance and goodness requires approval of 1400 years old book, because Muslims are not living in this age. They want to live in that age which is only the golden age in their and Allah's eyes(I don't know how many He has). They want others also in that age.
    One sufi used to eat stale bread just because it was nearer to prophet's time compared to fresh one.  
    By rational - 2/15/2013 8:11:54 PM



  • GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/15/2013 11:06:13 AM
    It is not you who says The Quran is old book so we need not it as basic of our modern laws. It is another star commentator. I wonder you don't recognize.

    By rational - 2/15/2013 7:59:26 PM



  • Mr Ghulam Ghauss.
    complete silence on Shaikh Ahmed Sarhindi and Ahmed Raza khan sahiba's Fatawa!!!!

    Let us for this moment agree Ahl-e-sunnat-wal-jamat is on right path rest are kafir (In view of Imam Raza Brailvi). Are these Braillvis equipped with the requirments a leading connunity should have or they are waiting for just the moment they can grab the opportunity to taste the power. Who will stop them from the corruption and violation of the human rights?
    Doesn't absolute power corrupt the people? If the Brailvis are sole inheritors of the Sahabas may I ask them why there was so fitna o fasad at that time also.
    You having nothing to say important. We are not responsible for Muslims's waywardness from the truth of the real Islam.
    You have not answered on key questions of the history why the noble sahabs were fighting for the power? Why the sons of the sabas were killing their Ameer. Why the Islam didn't stop them if they were really as ideal as you paint them in white and others in black from corruption?
    The Quran tells they were soft on the believers and harsh on non-believers. So tell me why there was so much killing among the belivers???
    By rational - 2/15/2013 7:29:34 PM



  • Mr Ghulam Ghauss.
    complete silence on Shaikh Ahmed Sarhindi and Ahmed Raza khan sahiba's Fatawa!!!!

    Let us for this moment agree Ahl-e-sunnat-wal-jamat is on right path rest are kafir (In view of Imam Raza Brailvi). Are these Braillvis equipped with the requirments a leading connunity should have or they are waiting for just the moment they can grab the opportunity to taste the power. Who will stop them from the corruption and violation of the human rights?
    Doesn't absolute power corrupt the people? If the Brailvis are sole inheritors of the Sahabas may I ask them why there was so fitna o fasad at that time also.
    You having nothing to say important. We are not responsible for Muslims's waywardness from the truth of the real Islam.
    You have not answered on key questions of the history why the noble sahabs were fighting for the power? Why the sons of the sabas were killing their Ameer. Why the Islam didn't stop them if they were really as ideal as you paint them in white and others in black from corruption?
    The Quran tells they were soft on their brothers and harsh on enemies. So tell me why there was so much killing???
    By rational - 2/15/2013 7:27:27 PM



  • I must congratulate Gholam Ghous Sahab for this exhaustive article on the Islam's compatibility with the Islamic message. It is written with erudition and refers to  political scientists and philosophers including John Austin and Rousseau and modern academicians to support its arguments, and demonstrates the synergy between the Qur'anic principles of justice, equality, liberty, consensus, consultation, human rights with present day democratic values. Its conclusions are fully consistent with the following remarks by different people who came from totally different backgrounds, lived at different historical points and approached the Qur'an from their own individual perspectives: 
      “It was then that Europe began to throw off their bondage and reform their condition, reordering the affairs of their life in a manner akin to the message of Islam, though oblivious of who their real guide and leader was. So were enunciated the fundamental principles of modern civilization….”
     [Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905). Extracted from John L.Esposito’s Islam in Transition, New York 1982,  p. 27]
    “There is no essential contradiction between Islam and the Western human rights. On the contrary Islam is a (complementary) human rights system.” [ Murad Hofmann, Islam the Alternative, UK 1993, p. 132]
    "However, its emphasis on justice, equality, tolerance, social welfare, and its priority on peace and security for all people provided the ground rules for the establishment of some of the most harmonious and egalitarian multi-cultural and multi-religious societies in world history (notably in Spain and India). With time these values have permeated the global society and have crystallized into the notion of welfare state. At the same time, there is no definable model of an Islamic state: countries with highly diverse political agendas, ideologies and administrative portfolios have claimed this generic title, and are doing so to this day, as we can see around the Muslim world."
    We are not talking about the recent centuries - the post Enlightenment era that has witnessed gradual decline of Islam -  socially, politically and intellectually - .a process continuing for many centuries. 
    [Ch. 42.4, Essential Message of Islam]
    This is as far as the Qur'anic message goes.
    The reality has at times been far remote from the ideal. Compare the original treaty the Umar signed with the vanquished people in record with the forged Pact of Umar that appeared many centuries later and often quoted by those seeking the worst in Islam and you have the answer. By muhammad yunus - 2/15/2013 6:19:01 PM



  • Hats Off asks, "if there is such an intense debate in this as well as other forums about whether islam is compatible with democracy, is there an issue or not?"
    Debate is for those who want to have debate. Is Islam compatible with flying in a plane or having a kidney transplant? If modern means of transportation and modern medicine do not conflict with Islam, nor should modern methods of  governance and state craft. We respect those who work hard to answer questions of "compatibility", but we should respect even more those who do not raise such silly questions in the first place. Religions are about morality and spirituality, and should stay out of other areas. If Islam has become all encompassing (a 'deen'), it is our job to correct that.
    Let me however repeat that discussions held between those who want Islam reformed and those who want Islam destroyed are a total waste of time. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/15/2013 11:46:44 AM



  • TheReligionofPeace.com is an Islamophobic site!!!
    The banner on it's homepage screams "the politically incorrect truth about Islam one really messed up religion"
    GR Sb, if you cannot even recognize an islamophobic site, I advice you to keep away from contentious issues.
    Even if this was from an Islamic site, the interview would represent the view of one person. Incidentally, the interview mentions a person by name Sufi Mohammed!
    I am surprised that someone didn't call the grand mufti from kashmir also a Wahabi. Should we call his fatwa the view of all Sufis/Barelvis or just his own? By Naseer Ahmed - 2/15/2013 11:38:01 AM



  • I endorse with the views of Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin. He says “ The Quran simply tells us to do what is right. It repeats that innumerable times. In our minds we know that democracy and secularism are right. In our hearts we know that democracy and secularism are right. Hence we support democracy and secularism”. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/15/2013 11:13:31 AM



  • Dear Satwa Gunam, you are right in your question. You ask “Why there is no peace wherever there is a muslim majority.”
    The answer is that Mulsim majority have forgotten the peaceful teachings of Islam and have gone to unbridled waywardness. Their practical presentation of Islam has become weaker. their weakness is not only with regard peace and integrity but in many more issues like worshiping and practicing the ethical spirit of Islam. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/15/2013 11:12:38 AM



  • Dear brother Rational, one of your points is entitled to be good. You say “Believers are dead sure. Less learned more sure”. Allah says first of all verses “Read in the name of your lord” but the tragedy is that some Muslims do not try to pursue education and knowledge. They have been by far the ignorant of their own religion, let alone the knowledge of science, philosophy and other branches of study. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/15/2013 11:12:06 AM



  • Dear Hats off, indeed Islam is cent per cent compatible with democracy but most alas some Muslims are incompatible with Islam. Their way of life has become unislamic and they have been far away from the moral ethical and spiritual teachings and practices of Islam. Consequently it is not difficult for them to be incompatible with democracy. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/15/2013 11:11:30 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Rasool sahib, your overall comment is commendable and worth mentioning. You say in the first comment of this article “Having originated in Saudi Arabia does not imply that Islam is an “Arabian religion” which aspires to “Arabianize” the whole world. The holy Quran has dispelled all such baseless notions in the following verse:
    "O men! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and a female, and have made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another. Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all-knowing, all-aware” (Qur’an 49:13).
    Unfortunately, there are many Muslim countries today that loudly claim to be “Islamic states” but never tend to establish democracy in place of autocracy and despotism. The reason why they are not embracing this purely Islamic system of governance is either simply their economic, social and political interests, or their getting influenced by the bigoted, extremist and exclusivist ideologies that purport to restrict broader notion of Islamic democracy. Given the circumstances, it is high time we mainstream Muslims wake up and constantly engage in projection of true version of Islam.
    Like many Mulsim democrats you mean that democracy is a form of Islam that gives equal rights both culturally and religiously. In Islamic democracy all the civilians are equal in terms of rights and prestige regardless of racial, social, gender, cultural and religious discrimination. Islamic democracy stands for the poor, the oppressed and the needy people. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/15/2013 11:09:46 AM



  • Dear Rational Sahab. I just want to clear in the light of your comment where you said to me “Your Aqeeda being on right path and others are deviated is another way to declare supremacy on others. If you are dead sure there is no need for interfaith-dialogue”.
    Not only me, but every follower from any religion believes his own religion as the right one. The relation of one’s belief is associated with his intention and heart assuming it the right one. Dear believe it or not every one today believes his religion better or the right one. 
    For a muslim or me, being on the right path does not mean that he is going to be obstacle in the way to interfaith dialogue. Every muslim believer takes the verse of the holy Quran to his heart when he reads it in the Quran. Allah says “the religion before God is Islam”. Believing one’s religion as the right path means to believe Allah almighty the only one, his all holy messengers pbut, and his moral and ethical teachings mentioned in the holy Quran. A muslim believes all the messages of ALLAH ALMIGHTY and his holy prophets as the right and true guidance. By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/15/2013 11:08:59 AM



  • Dear Hats off, you deserve the question to be good as you asked in your comment “now the question that immediately arises is why is it that so many nations with a majority of muslims find it difficult to rule themselves democratically?
    In fact the form of democracy is the part of Islam but unfortunately democracy in true form is not being implemented in Mulsim countries. Today, Muslim rulers have failed show the practical presentation of Islam. A large number of Muslims, even in their own countries, are also confronted with injustice, inequality, despotism oppression and many more rights.
    Ghulam Rasool Sahab also gives you the right answer to your question saying “The reason is either simply their economic, social and political interests as Ahamad Moussalli, the professor of political science at American University of Beirut, argues, or their getting influenced by the bigoted, extremist and exclusivist ideologies that purport to restrict broader notion of Islamic democracy.” By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/15/2013 11:08:14 AM



  • Dear Rational brother,

    Indeed my viewpoint is that the laws formulated by the Quran are unalterable till the eternity. Though the holy Quran was descended 1400 years ago in the era of the holy prophet pbuh, its laws and principles are eternal for Muslims. However, the doubts stuck you while you were reading my article whereupon you said “This scholar suggests otherwise. The Quran is 1400 years old book ie obsolete now”. Now I want you to please read the part of the same paragraph where you got the doubt as follows:

    “According to some Islamists, democracy is antithetical to Islam. But on a keen study of Islamic principles of governance and the principles of democracy as we find today are very much identical in essence. True Democracy in its targeted goal is compatible with the rights already prescribed in Islamic laws 1400 years ago”.

    In this paragraph I am talking about some Muslims who do not favour democracy. In the recent times they consider it totally incompatible with Islam while the role of democracy was played during the era of the prophet and his four most beloved companions by turns. The form of democracy was formulated by the holy Quran 1400 years ago. This does not mean that this form is obsolete now but it was formulated in that era and is still executable and will remain till the eternity.

    Thanks

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/15/2013 11:07:08 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Rasool sahib, you are right when you say,

    “Mainstream Muslims view that Islam accepts modernity, embraces Reason and actively encourages Free Will. This is the true version of Islam which is now becoming alien to even many Muslims, let alone non-Muslims”.

    I want to supplement the same view what I wrote in the beginning of this article as follows:

    “Although Islam seriously deals with persons indulge in aggression and oppression, to a greater extent it has allocated the basic human rights including freedom of expression, equality, justice, integrity and mutual consultation etc. In other words, these Islamic principles assumed the term of democracy in the West”.

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/15/2013 11:06:13 AM



  • yes it has been asserted almost to distraction that islam is everything forever. if there are doubts about the koran we all agree to go back to koran to verify. if there are severe disagreements between muslims on verses of koran, we will still go back to koran. if you are so sure almost with the certainity of god, that islam is the answer to everything then what about some unfortunate events in the very life of three of the four rightly guided? even in the very life of the prophet? what was so elegant and so sublime about the unseemly events that followed the death of the prophet? did islam or allah or whoever was responsible just let it all go because the prophet was gone? why was there such ridda? if the apostasy was to be put down so mercilessly, it does not speak very gloriously of early islam. if persians to this day cannot accept the saudi arabian version of islam, there must be an issue. may be a microscopic issue according to you. but it has grown enormous.

    you cannot analyse islam except praise it. we cannot praise it without analysing it. you keep writing that islam is a solution to everything. then where is the discussion? where is the issue? we are bothered about so many muslim majority nations and islamic nations. we are all pained by what we are seeing in these countries. the clerics of egypt issue a fatwa that tahrir squre protestors can be killed if they are men and raped if they are women. are you more or less muslim than this person who wrote the fatwa? an australian muslim cleric says greeting christians on christmas is sin. a deobandi scholar says sms divorces are legitimate. another imam says a woman raped by her father in law has to divorce the husband and marry the father in law. so whats going on, if as you claim all the answers are in the koran? what is it that you know about the koran that the muftis of egypt, saudi arabia, kuwait, indonesia, australia, uk, netherlands do not know? if they do not know who put them in place?

    maybe your eyes can see something we all are missing. your ears are hearing what we cannot. maybe you need a second opinion apart from yours. if you think you are proof for yourself or the koran is proof of itself unfortunately words have not yet been coined through which we may communicate with you.

    just carry on your monologue. we will all listen, but we wonder if we can ever interrupt. you are letting your love for your prophet cloud your judgment, and you are claiming for islam such as have never been practiced in the last six centuries.

    you are living in an islamic state of umar. unfortunately he is long gone and the islamic caliphate is longer gone. today we have khomeinis, bin sauds, morsis, and maududis and syed qutbs. what are you going to do about it?
    By hats off! - 2/15/2013 10:59:30 AM



  • rational - 2/15/2013 8:29:38 AM
    Apology: Not Brailvi but a Muslim
    By rational - 2/15/2013 8:35:55 AM



  • A brailvi's views

    Democracy is but a sham: it promises much but delivers very little.

    http://therealislam1.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/democracy-weakness-in-numbers/

    If you are a Iqbal lover or follower ponder upon:

    Democracy is a system where people are counted not weighed

    Dr Muhammad Iqbal, the famous Pakistani poet, summed this up succinctly:

    By rational - 2/15/2013 8:29:38 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 2/15/2013 5:47:02 AM
    Your response clearly is against the view of Mr Aiman Reyaz and Mr Md Yunus who try hard to bring even mushrikoon (hindus, christians....) under the umbrella of Allah's mercy.
    Either you or they are wasting time and making others fool. There is something fishy that is going here. What reform what dialogue? What is the use? Will you accept others as truly guided. No, never
    By rational - 2/15/2013 8:24:46 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 2/15/2013 5:47:02 AM.
    Keeping in mind the hadith related to 73 sects in the Islam few points are very important.
    Hadith is authentic and quoted to validate the Sunnat-wal-jamat

    1. 73 sects are decreed by the Allah, and their fate is decided by Allah to be in jehannam except one.
    2. It is tantamount to disobedience to Allah to put effort to bring them on one platform. There is no need to prey or hold discussions for ittehad wa ittefaq.
    3. Majority of mankind including the Muslims is bound to hell.
    4. Therefore Allah is not merciful, but a sadist who wants majority of the mankind under eternal torture.
    5. All attributes to Allah are fancies of the Muslims.
    By rational - 2/15/2013 8:02:36 AM



  • http://www.himalmag.com/component/content/article/1738-Ecumenism-and-Islam%E2%80%99s-enemy-within.html By rational - 2/15/2013 7:48:50 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 2/15/2013 5:47:02 AM
    The comment should go to Naseer Saheb.
    Firat I am a born Devbandi but not a believer.I had no choice in my birth.

    If the mainstream is Ahl-e-Sunnat-wal-jamat and they support modernity, democracy and other modern noble philosophies Where it is found in practical? Is it not the failure of this jamat? Why Allah left them in meager resources compared to Salafists. Is it Allah doesn't want to give them power to propagate their ideology.
    Brailvis if gets power to run a country they will implement the Sharia not democracy. Their extreme reverence to Sunna will force to chose sharia.
    You can arrange survey. Give two options to chose one, Democracy or Sharia. The participants must be practicing Muslims not like me. More participants more accurate result. It must be fair by every mean. 

    You are silent on Raza Saheb's answer on Shias and Shaikh Ahmed Sarhindi. I hope you will respond to that.

    By rational - 2/15/2013 7:01:08 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 2/15/2013 5:47:02 AM
    The comment should go to Naseer Saheb.
    Firat I am a born Devbandi but not a believer.I had no choice in my birth.

    If the mainstream is Ahl-e-Sunnat-wal-jamat and they support modernity, democracy and other modern noble philosophies Where it is found in practical? Is it not the failure of this jamat? Why Allah left them in meager resources compared to Salafists. Is it Allah doesn't want to give them power to propagate their ideology.
    Brailvis if gets power to run a country they will implement the Sharia not democracy. Their extreme reverence to Sunna will force to chose sharia.
    You can arrange survey. Give two options to chose one, Democracy or Sharia. The participants must be practicing Muslims not like me. More participants more accurate result. It must be fair by every mean. 

    You are silent on Raza Saheb's answer on Shias and Shaikh Ahmed Sarhindi. I hope you will respond to that.

    By rational - 2/15/2013 6:52:22 AM



  • Rational,  By exclusive, extremist and bigoted ideologies, I meant to hint at Wahabi and Salafi ideologies that strongly oppose the principle of democracy in Muslim countries. I have enough rigorous research material which is unambiguous in its conclusions that Wahabi/Salafi ideologies are antithetical to democracy. But I would confine to quote a question and answer posted on a Salafi site “TheReligionofPeace.com” that represents Salafi stand on democracy:
    Question: Is Islam compatible with democracy?
    Summary Answer: "Islamic law is absolutely incompatible with democracy.  It is a theocratic system with Allah alone at its head.  Allah's law is interpreted by a ruling body of clerics.  There is no room for a secular political system in which all people are treated as equals.
    After citing and misinterpreting some Quranic verses and Prophetic sayings, the site quotes one of the antecedents of Salafist jihadism and a well known Salafi author  Sayyid Qutb’s statement as a proof against democracy. It says:
    To quote the 20th century cleric, Sayyid Qutb, "It is Allah and not man who rules.  Allah is the source of all authority, including legitimate political authority.  Virtue, not freedom, is the highest value.  Therefore, Allah's law, not man's, should govern the society."
    Source:http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/021-democracy.htm
    In fact, the very words secularism and democracy are anathema to Salafi and Wahabi ideology. The dilemma is that democracy, according to Wahabi ideology, is akin to setting man up as equal to God. In this Wahabi view, reason, rationality and the Enlightenment are the new devils and modern blasphemies. On the contrary, mainstream Muslims view that Islam accepts modernity, embraces Reason and actively encourages Free Will. This is the true version of Islam which is now becoming alien to even many Muslims, let alone non-Muslims." By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 2/15/2013 5:47:02 AM



  • hats off! - 2/15/2013 1:57:24 AM
    Hats off of to you.
    One scholar says Islam is a complete system that guides the men from using the toilet to running the world. The laws formulated by the Quran are unalterable till the eternity. 
    This scholar suggests otherwise. The Quran is 1400 years old book ie obsolete now.
    On almost on every issue Islam must have loudspeakers to tell the humanity Islam is compatible.
    If you say the same statement all Muslims including moderates will cry " He is the enemy of Islam" Though Islam needs no enemy.
    By rational - 2/15/2013 5:34:43 AM



  • The Prophet did not name a successor. The fact that he had no surviving son is attributed to God's will to avoid a situation where sentiment may have lead to dynastic succession. His successor was chosen by the Shura or a consultative council, which consisted of tribal leaders. Each leader was a legitimate and accepted representative of his people and the process was therefore democratic.
     The Prophet also showed importance to connecting with people to consolidate his political position. With this in mind, he married a woman from each of the tribes. He became a member of every tribe through the marital relationship. This also ensured a woman `sahabi/companion’ from every tribe to learn from the prophet and instruct women in Islam.
     The system however deteriorated with the fifth Caliph and soon it became dynastic.
     Muslims oppose democracy citing the instance when the first Caliph Abu Bakr (RA) acted against the advice of the Shura and followed his own counsel on an important matter. The favourable outcome of his very bold decision on a crucial matter proved him right. Was he undemocratic? Is the Prime Minister in a parliamentary democracy or the President in a presidential system bound to abide by the advice of his colleagues? As leaders of their respective governments, the buck stops with them and it is upto them to seek and abide by the advice of their colleagues or take the call on their own. There is risk in taking crucial decisions disregarding the advice of colleagues because if the decision turns out to be wrong, they may lose the support of their colleagues. If they play safe by going with the opinion of advisers, and take a wrong decision, it may turn out to be a costly mistake and hurt the nation. Ultimately the leader is responsible to the people, his conscience and God and nobody questions his right to take decisions within his purview as he sees best. Muslims however seem to think that Abu Bakr's example is an argument against democracy which is incorrect. In a democracy the people elect their leaders/representatives and not vote on every single matter or decision.
     Islamic history is unique. It rose to its fully glory in a very short period of eighty years and crumbled over a period of a thousand years as against say the Roman Empire which rose to its full glory over a thousand years and crumbled in about a hundred years. The resilience of the Islamic empire was on account of its decentralized social and political organization vis-à-vis the Roman Empire where political and economic power was centralized in Rome. Even with a single Caliph, the leaders of each state enjoyed political and economic independence. It was never a political or economic monolith unlike the Roman Empire. Federalism and democracy was the feature of Islamic society intermingled with dynastic rule.
     Whether you consider Spain, Baghdad, Damascus or Delhi, one rotten successor in dynastic rule undid centuries of good work in a single generation or over the course of a couple of decades. That is the danger in every dynastic rule or even a rule where the leader is democratically elected for his lifetime.
     Having said this, I have discussed the catch 22 situation as regards democracy in Pakistan in another thread. Democracy cannot work with deeply entrenched powerful vested interests as in Pakistan. It can work only when you have built strong independent institutions consisting of the executive, judiciary, police, regulators etc where citizens enjoy physical security and where it is possible to hold free and fair elections. In the interim, they need either a benign dictator or foreign rule to set up these institutions.
     India would have got its freedom without the freedom movement but Gandhi and the freedom movement that he lead, was instrumental in building a cadre of highly committed and talented national and regional level political leaders, who enjoyed popularity with the masses. This stood India in good stead after we won our independence. India was never short of charismatic, honest, talented and popular political leaders. Other countries which gained their independence around the same time without a similar non-violent political struggle for freedom, have struggled to find good leaders and their democracies have therefore floundered.
     The problem with the Muslim leaders is an obstinate refusal to learn lessons from history and to use reason. This has not changed in the last 300 years. The Quran is a great guide for people who can think. The best of guides cannot help people who refuse to use reason.
    "Why do the Christian nations, which were so weak in the past compared with Muslim nations begin to dominate so many lands in modern times and even defeat the once victorious Ottoman armies?"..."Because they have laws and rules invented by reason"Ibrahim Muteferrika, Rational basis for the Politics of Nations (1731) By Naseer Ahmed - 2/15/2013 5:32:28 AM



  • to mr ghulam mohiyuddin, while i got the hint about destroying islam, i will let it pass.

    if there is such an intense debate in this as well as other forums about whether islam is compatible with democracy, is there an issue or not?

    why is it that we rarely find debates about whether shintoism, or animism, or atheism or judaism are compatible with democracy? we have debates over whether islam is compatible with a whole lot of other things, feminism, environmentalism, human rights, scientific education, darwin's theory and many many more. why it does not occur to people to ponder whether ancestor worship is compatible with anything at all?

    are you seeing the trend?
    By hats off! - 2/15/2013 1:57:24 AM



  • Hats Off, God's law is that we do the right thing. No where does it say in the Quran that henceforth human brains are not to be used.
    A major task for the Muslim world is to find a way to separate state affairs from religion. But discussions held between those who want Islam reformed and those who want Islam destroyed are a total waste of time. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/15/2013 1:40:26 AM



  • i have read in other islamic forums that god alone can make laws and that he has already made them. humans merely have to follow them.

    in as much as humans are debarred from making laws to govern themselves, democracy is a little problematic in respect of islam.

    unfortunately we are using 'consensus' and 'democracy' interchangeably. the two are not synonyms.

    of course one may apply the balm of interpretation to the islamic sources and come up with a reasonable model. but whether it will work is another question. for example, in indonesia, in a recent poll, around forty percent of working journalists in the print as well as electronic media favored the application of sharia, rather than the current system.
    By hats off! - 2/14/2013 11:56:38 PM



  • We don't have to go looking into a 1400 year old book to find support for either democracy or secularism. The Quran simply tells us to do what is right. It repeats that innumerable times. In our minds we know that democracy and secularism are right. In our hearts we know that democracy and secularism are right. Hence we support democracy and secularism. Unelected dictators as well as those who ill-treat minorities are the enemies of Islam. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/14/2013 11:39:12 PM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS
    Your defence of Syeduna Ghauss was extremely weak compared to your devotion. You avoided the real question. Fatwa of Syeduna Hz Raza Brailvi is waiting you.
    By rational - 2/14/2013 8:48:01 PM



  • It sounds interesting but why there is such a gap between teaching and following. Why is there is so much violene in the muslim world worst is the intra conflict.  

    Why there is no peace wherever there is a muslim majority.
    By satwa gunam - 2/14/2013 8:45:08 PM



  • When Jews driven out, no christian is seen nearby the democracy was established. Can somebody tell whether Jews and Christians elected their representatives. Or A Jew or christian was there in elected representatives. Or there was any voice to oppose the ruling representatives. What kind of democracy was there (minus opposition)?
    All nations of this world should learn and adopt the democracy where there is no other party to participate.
    By rational - 2/14/2013 8:41:47 PM



  • Dear Ghual Ghauss. I think evolution explain many things, but if a better theory comes I am not left in darkness. I will accept that. Scientists have this thinking. We are not rigid we have room for more. Our glass is not full.
    Believers are dead sure. Less learned more sure.

    Your Aqeeda being on right path and others are deviated is another way to declare supremacy on others. If you are dead sure there is no need for interfaith-dialogue. It is a waste of time. Yes if you have some doubt or there is some room for some knowledge, it may be of some value.
    I know where to use my intellect and I am doing it in practical life. I am not dependent on you to know what is right, what is wrong.
    Fal hamaha fojooraha wa taqwaha. Everybody has this ability but the faith obscure this ability because in this there is immense benefit for so called Rehnumas(guides). You may be one probable guide in future.
    By rational - 2/14/2013 8:31:55 PM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث -
    Would you please tell in which branch of theology or science you have specialization? What are your interests? I have mentioned mine in my comments.
    If you are a student I am also. Daily I learn something so I am a student.
    East or west north or south none is responsible for misunderstanding. It is created by Believers only. How can make you other understand when you believers are not sure except Kafirun, mushrikun and munafiqoon will burn in hell for eternity.
    By rational - 2/14/2013 8:14:34 PM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/14/2013 11:31:58 AM
    Shias have many Ahadith in their favor. You make a claim based on one Hadith. Any sect can claim this and they are doing it.
    You may not be a Brailvi Alim, but your comments expose your excessive inclination to Brailviat.
    Please comment on Shaikh Ahmed Sarhindi.'s work..

    By rational - 2/14/2013 7:46:25 PM




  • Dear Rational,
    I am not a Barelvi scholar though, i read and analyze it as a student.
    Sawade Azam in other words Ahle sunnat wal jamat it was named by our prophet Muhammad pbuh.
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/14/2013 11:31:58 AM



  • Islam introduced democracy in Madina Manawwarah which was the first Islamic democratic state acceptable to all citizens. For more information, you can go to the links given here http://www.constitutionofmadina.com/ and

    http://www.ijtihad.org/compact.htm

    By Raihan Nezami - 2/14/2013 9:26:40 AM



  • What beliefs about Shias have our learned Brailvi scholar Mr Ghulam Ghauss?
    Though he has said only one sect Ahl-e-Sunnat-wal-jamat is entitled for the Jannat rest fana finnar.
    By rational - 2/14/2013 8:55:50 AM



  • islam is maybe cent per cent compatible with democracy, could it be that muslims are incompatible with democracy.
    By hats off! - 2/14/2013 7:42:11 AM



  • "influenced by the bigoted, extremist and exclusivist ideologies that purport to restrict broader notion of Islamic democracy."

    Can the learned man name these ideologies? Which one is right?
    By rational - 2/14/2013 7:30:15 AM



  • hats off, you have raised a good question:
    "why is it that so many nations with a majority of muslims find it difficult to rule themselves democratically?"

     The reason is either simply their economic, social and political interests as Ahamad Moussalli, the professor of political science at American University of Beirut, argues, or their getting influenced by the bigoted, extremist and exclusivist ideologies that purport to restrict broader notion of Islamic democracy.
    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 2/14/2013 6:15:56 AM



  • agreed that islam is totally compatible with democracy or the other way round.

    now the question that immediately arises is why is it that so many nations with a majority of muslims find it difficult to rule themselves democratically?
    By hats off! - 2/14/2013 5:45:40 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghause saheb, I second your view that “True Democracy in its targeted goal is compatible with the rights already prescribed in Islamic laws 1400 years ago”.
    Democracy is one of the basic principles and core values of Islam. In fact, Islam is an entirely democratic concept in its very nature, both culturally and religiously. It seeks to establish such a democratic society where all citizens of the state can enjoy equal rights and follow their respective religions with no discrimination with them. Having originated in Saudi Arabia does not imply that Islam is an “Arabian religion” which aspires to “Arabianize” the whole world. The holy Quran has dispelled all such baseless notions in the following verse: 
    "O men! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and a female, and have made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another. Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all-knowing, all-aware” (Qur’an 49:13).
    Unfortunately, there are many Muslim countries today that loudly claim to be “Islamic states” but never tend to establish democracy in place of autocracy and despotism. The reason why they are not embracing this purely Islamic system of governance is either simply their economic, social and political interests, or their getting influenced by the bigoted, extremist and exclusivist ideologies that purport to restrict broader notion of Islamic democracy. Given the circumstances, it is high time we mainstream Muslims wake up and constantly engage in projection of true version of Islam.
    Thank you very much Ghause saheb for such an elaborate and well-thought out piece of work! By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 2/14/2013 5:18:38 AM