Books and Documents

Islamic Society


  • Naseer Saheb, now what will you say? WIill you please condemn the detention of Hazrat Nizamuddin Dargah's Nazim Ali Nizami, and his brother in Pakistan?

    For a decade in Pakistan, many Sufi lovers in Pakistan have been systematically targeted and killed. Pir Rakhel Shah of Fatehpur was attacked. This was followed by a litany of such incidents at Data Darbar in Lahore, Abdullah Shah Ghazi in Karachi, Baba Farid’s dargah in Pakpattan, Sakhi Sarwar in Dera Ghazi Khan, Dargah Ghulam Shah Ghazi in Maari, Baba Nangay Shah's shrine in capital Islamabad and Shah Norani shrine in Khuzdar besides the killing of Sufi singer Amjad Sabri.
    Pakistan admits detaining Indian clerics over suspected movement, India rubbishes claims of 'unauthorised visit'.

    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 3/18/2017 2:04:51 AM

  • Of course Hats Off can talk through his hat. In fact that is about the only thing that he can do!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/17/2017 12:56:55 PM

  • if allah can speak to the sky and earth, why cannot i speak through my hat? By hats off! - 3/17/2017 7:34:38 AM

  • Hats Off, 

    You are speaking through your hat now! You say "we are talking about islam being accepted willingly or unwillingly".  The Quran makes no reference to people accepting Islam willingly or unwillingly! When you said “the Holy Qur'an uses the phrase "willingly or unwillingly", which in itself is proof that it is inconsistent”, I was under the impression that you are aware of the verse where the Quran uses this expression. It is clear that you are not and were shooting in the dark or mixing up things. The following is the relevant verse very much connected with physics and the creation of the universe.

     (41:11) Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/15/2017 2:23:06 AM

  • Analogizing religion with physics is the pastime of the unthinking!
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/14/2017 1:49:11 PM

  • gravity is a false analogy. for example, gravity is quantifiable and the theory of gravitation is capable of being falsified by experiments. islam is not. no experiment can be designed that will either falsify or confirm "islam". and neither is "islam" capable of being described by mathematical equations. gravty is.

    swimming and or falling off of cliffs is another false analogy. they have absolutely nothing in common with religion to allow its use for analogy. except perhaps for homosexuals in ISIS territory.

    we are talking about islam being accepted willingly or unwillingly.

    if we are talking of islam as a religion that will be followed "willingly or unwillingly", the "unwilling" aspect is totally inconsistent with "to you be your religion and to me my religion".

    does islam fall in the same category as "laws of nature"? absolutely not.

    it falls into the category of a man-made system of beliefs and practices gratuitously attributed to god and god has never bothered to either confirm or deny it to those who have followed it "unwillingly". but perhaps he has bothered to confirm it to those who follow it "willingly" - we do not know.

    of course to those that follow it willingly there are no issues.
    By hats off! - 3/14/2017 6:45:43 AM

  • Hats Off says: "but the Holy Qur'an uses the phrase "willingly or unwillingly", which in itself is proof that it is inconsistent)"

    Can anyone or anything defy gravity? The answer is no. All things therefore obey the laws of nature and there is no will involved in it. When we dive into water for a swim, we willingly use the laws of nature for our enjoyment but if we are pushed off from a cliff and fall to our death or grievous injury, it is unwilling submission to the laws of nature.

    "Moral behaviour" is willing behaviour. We choose how to behave. Only humans are capable of it.

    Instinctive or even learned behaviour which has become as predictable and automatic as instinctive behaviour, has less to do with will. Animal behaviour including much of human behaviour falls in this category.

    What is inconsistent? That part of our behaviour is instinctive and an automatic response to stimuli and part of it based on reasoning and exercise of our will?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/14/2017 12:16:18 AM

  • Hats Off,

    All your arguments are what are called straw man arguments and logically fallacious.

    "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
    The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition."

    The often used key words in the Quran are defined by the Quran itself and the meaning that clearly emerges from the Quranic verses has been brought out by me in my articles. Any logically sound disagreement has to be with the help of the Quranic verses alone to show that a different meaning from what I have derived emerges or that a different meaning when given to the word does not end up in contradictions. Take the example of the word kafir. It does not require a genius to understand and accept that when the word is used in the Quran even for the Muslims and for prophet Moses also, and never for all the polytheists or Christians or Jews, it cannot mean disbeliever and certainly not those who are not the followers of Muhammad (pbuh). If one were to give a single meaning to the word as it appears in the Quran, the closest is an "ingrate rebel". The rebellion could be against one's own parents or benefactors (as it applied to Moses) or the accepted norms of civil society (as it applied to those polytheists who violated the status of sanctuary that Mecca/Kaba enjoyed in that society and drove the Muslims out or attacked and killed them). A believer/Muslim is a kafir if he rebels against God, His commands and His laws. You therefore have prophet Yaqub admonishing his sons about adopting wrong behaviour and becoming one among the kafir or the Quran after every verse of guidance warning that the kafirin shall be severely punished. In these verses it simply means that straying after having been guided is kufr and those who willfully stray are the kafirin who will be severely punished. The Quran therefore uses this word more often for the believers who stray rather than for the "non-believers". For the "non-believers", the Quran always refers to the kafaru among them making it clear that not all of them are kafaru. The kufr is also made clear such as religious persecution in its various forms practiced by the polytheists on the Muslims.

    The meaning of kafir to mean all those who are not the followers of Muhammad (pbuh) as it emerged over the centuries in Islamic theology has also been discussed in my article. I do not deny what kafir means in Islamic theology today which is what the dictionary will say, but I have pointed out with clear evidence that this is not the meaning of the word in the Quran.

    Looking at every religion and its development/ transformation over the centuries, it is not surprising that Islamic theology has deviated from the Quran and since it is the scholars who contribute to the deviations, their works are at variance with what I write. Now you can follow the Mullahs like the uneducated masses or consider seriously what I have said and support it. Your objective however, is to malign Islam and since what I write makes it difficult for you to attack Islam, you conveniently fall back on the Mullahs because that suits your agenda to malign Islam. 

    Your arguments about the instinctive pro-social behaviour of animals and of their limited capacity for learned behaviour, has been discussed in my articles to distinguish it from the "moral" behaviour of humans. 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/13/2017 11:59:30 PM

  • let me try one more time.

    "faith" and "belief" are beyond the scope of logic. essentially beliefs, by definition are defined as assertions that are held to be true without either proof or evidence. "god", "divinity", "miracles" and "word of god" fall into this category. the word "creator" on the other hand does not fall into this category.

    and all attempts that are made to prove points of faith and belief through logic and the scientific method, are fundamentally flawed and fallacious because they are based on premises which cannot be proved. because if they are "true", they need not be "believed", as they are proved.

    so all of your "arguments" are invalid and hence un-maintainable in any debate.

    examples are:
    your attempts at proving "divinity" of scriptures through null hypothesis. (divinity cannot be defined. neither is it falsifiable.)

    attempting to discredit dictionary meanings of words (kafir) used in any given text. (dictionaries are the sole arbitrators in case of meanings of words in question)

    your attempts to prove that morals are derived from religious scriptures.
    (moral behavior has been well documented among animals. it is widely held that animals do not have a religion or scriptures. but the Holy Qur'an uses the phrase "willingly or unwillingly", which in itself is proof that it is inconsistent)
    By hats off! - 3/13/2017 7:07:49 AM

  • The logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises. An argument can therefore be logically infallible even if based on a false premise. The error in such a situation is not a logical fallacy but is weak on the facts considered.

    In an argument, therefore, one can either show the premise on which the conclusion is based to be not true on facts (factual error) or show that the conclusion drawn does not necessarily follow from the premise. This would be the case when the facts considered are either insufficient or irrelevant to the conclusion drawn even if the facts considered are deemed to be true.

     An argument can be found fault with on facts or logic or both. One would very simply say “Your argument is based on false premises” or “The conclusions that you have drawn do not necessarily follow from your premises” or “Your argument is false on its premises and the conclusion that you have drawn is logically invalid even if the premises on which you have based it were true”.

    I am afraid that even the revised statement "logical fallacies can be pointed out to defeat faulty syllogism" is meaningless. A logical fallacy is simply the drawing of illogical conclusions (even when the premises are considered true).  A false syllogism on the other hand maybe logically infallible but based on a false premise. It is based on a falsehood. Logic is a very precise subject and it is best to avoid muddle headed thinking while discussing the subject.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/13/2017 12:18:37 AM

  • yes. a completely meaningless and stupid sentence by me.

    "logical fallacies can be pointed out to defeat faulty syllogism"

    i don't know how i let that slip.

    my bad!
    By hats off! - 3/12/2017 5:30:31 AM

  • Hats Off says "logical fallacies can be brought in defense of syllogisms"

    A completely meaningless sentence! What else can be expected from an empty headed Hats Off ? 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/11/2017 10:17:31 PM

  • mr. naseer ahmed has repeatedly been proven wrong.

    he simply does not accept the arabic dictionary and would write his own. even then he thinks that that just because he will not accept the result of a debate's outcome, he is right.

    its tortoises all the way down.

    by that definition polytheism, idol worship, sun worship and dung beetle worship are also right. they win by not accepting any result of a debate. his position is exactly the same.

    not because they have been disproven, but because they do not accept the outcome of a debate. logical fallacies can be brought in defense of syllogisms. but he persists in using them to support his "faith" or "belief" which by definition do not require an argument at all. but he still manufactures them. beliefs are beliefs are beliefs. no proof needed.

    in other words, faith and belief are beyond logical arguments. but unless he misuses the principles of logic, his "argument" for his faith or belief can never be supported - but they need not be supported - as they are his "beliefs".

    writing articles is not proof of anything except that he has written them. but that they have been largely ignored is proof of "something". probably their being irrelevant or indefensible.

    fanboys of james joyce's "ulysses" have claimed that even if all texts in this world except ulysses were to disappear they can all be reconstructed or inferred from the text of ulysses. this assertion can never be proved. but that does not stop them just as arguments of mr. nasser ahmed can never be proved.

    his argument is similar. no proof but repeated assertions.

    especially since he confounds logic with faith. his market reaserach in search of a god has been proved wrong. just as his definition of kafir. just as his "morality-from-religion" has been proved wrong. but to one who will not accept proofs, logic is immaterial. he need not bother with logic.

    but to him, refusal of defeat is victory. you cannot argue with that. 
    By hats off! - 3/11/2017 7:01:51 AM

  • When Hats Off asks a question whom does he expect to respond? al-tabari? ibn ishaq? al-jalalayn? al-misri?
    The proof of what I say is in my articles and comments where I have covered every subject according to the Quran without resorting to anything outside of the Quran.
    Have al-tabari, ibn ishaq, al-jalalayn, al-misri done that? No, they haven't. They all belong to the post Ahadith school and depend on the ahadith to interpret the Quran.
    To argue that somebody must be right because he is widely accepted as an authority and to consider someone wrong because he is not considered an authority is logically fallacious especially when someone has written extensively on the subject and has not been proved to be wrong inspite of taking positions that are strikingly different from those who are considered to be an authority.
    To take Hats Off rhetoric to its logical conclusion, who is he to question the Quran on anything or to assert his own view of it?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/10/2017 1:51:12 AM

  • Hats Off,

    Does waging a war of hate against progressive Muslims make you a "big boy"? Isn't your insinuation that a religion must have all questions resolved somewhat dumb?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/9/2017 12:45:14 PM

  • "A knowledge of the broad outline of the main events is more than enough as far as contextual information outside the Quran is concerned." - mr. naseer ahmed.

    says who?

    al-tabari? ibn ishaq? al-jalalayn? al-misri? who is it that say so?

    so who ARE you? what relevance do YOU have? how are you better or better informed when compared to the giants of islamic scholorship?
    By hats off! - 3/9/2017 7:35:44 AM

  • mr. ghulam mohiyuddin probably stick to psychiatry. he should not play with the big boys if he can't handle the heat.

    if his faith still has "what can never be resolved" he has simply proved himself to be incapable of reason as well as faith.
    By hats off! - 3/9/2017 3:48:17 AM

  • There isn't any verse of the Quran that cannot be understood without resorting to contextual information outside of the Quran. The Quran itself provides necessary contextual information. Contextual information, outside of the Quran must be used with care or not at all. A knowledge of the broad outline of the main events is more than enough as far as contextual information outside the Quran is concerned.

    The context would have been essential if any part of the Quran contradicted another part of the Quran. No verse of the Quran contradicts another.

    Man is a creation of Allah and the Quran has been revealed for man's guidance. The Quran is therefore produced/created by Allah for the guidance of man and is therefore a creation of an order lower than the creation of man. If man was not created there would have been no need for the Quran.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/8/2017 11:14:04 PM

  • Hats Off's pseudo-scholarship consists of rehashing what has been discussed a thousand times and what can never be resolved. If he wants to dispute Ziyaudddin Sardar's views, he should correspond with him.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/8/2017 11:08:33 PM

  • dear mr. GRD

    i have no quarrel with whatever you have said. having said that, i do not think Quranic scholars on this forum will agree with your position that the Holy QQur'an is a text revealed in history. quite the contrary. they mostly believe that it is what has been called "uncreated".

    but even then it brings up other issues.

    how do you know the prophet's life and times unless you go to the secondary sources? and they are much deprecated and anyone who quotes from them becomes an untouchable. even if they do not, Qur'an only muslims and ahl-e-hadith have not yet settled their differences. so context itself is a controversial issue among islamic scholars.

    what if i say that every text is "divine" if one is a theist - for every text is created by some being who in turn is created by the divine. what is wrong with that? similarly for a non-theist (not an atheist - i would like to make that difference), every text is historical. and that is my position. historical texts can neither be holy nor be profane. they are texts. mere texts.

    as the Holy Qur'an is perceived as being eternally true (by most believers) this perception does not gel with any "contextuality". if eternal truths are considered contextual, how can they claim to be eternal. eternity itself does not allow for context. for example "every one that is born will die" is a piece of text that is eternally true and free of context. 

    for example, the phrase "wherever you find them (2.191)" is open ended and does not provide any context - either temporal or geographical - unless you go to the sira, or the hadith.

    similarly "this day i have perfected your religion for you (5.3)" actually does not need any context except of course for the date on which it was perfected. no context is needed for the "perfected" part.

    even for that one needs the "secondary" texts to find out the date (at least approximately) any one that believes a piece of text to be final, perfect and eternal cannot legitimately take recourse to context.

    context cannot have anything to do with eternality (if i might coin a word), finality or ultimate truth - claims which are made and held firmly by most believers.

    By hats off! - 3/8/2017 6:25:44 PM

  • @Hats off,
    In his book, "Reading the Qur’an", Ziyauddin Sardar, a thinking and critical Muslim intellectual, insists the interpretation of the Qur'an requires focus on four specific contexts:

    (1) one needs to examine the context of the text itself and see what it is saying about the same subject in different places. 
    (2) one needs to examine it in the context of the life of Prophet Muhammad and see what was happening to him, what was the event or the circumstances on which the Qur'an is commenting. 

    (3) one must appreciate the verses of the Qur'an within the specific social, cultural, political and technological context of the Prophet's time – they often address the Prophet and his followers, and it speaks to them in the historical context in which they lived. The Qur'an is a text revealed in history. 

    (4) we can only interpret the Qur'an according to our own contemporary understanding so we also bring our own social and cultural context into play. 

    The contextual analysis of the Qur'an, Sardar suggests, shows that not everything in the Sacred Text is universal – many verses have significance for the time they were revealed. The universal message of the Qur'an can only be derived by examining its concepts and basic themes. The Qur'an, he argues, 'calls for rational, considered thought and interrogation not of appearances but of the deeper implications and meaning of how human beings think and act within and between all the diversity of our cultures, histories, languages and beliefs'.
    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 3/8/2017 5:58:41 AM

  • @Sajida
    You have put the nail right on the head:
    "I think these Taliban are products of this textbooks.Have probably not read the  Madina Charter!"

    Both Taliban and ISIS have selected educational topics for children, as written in their books and magazines like Dabiq and Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad broadcasted by international channels that focus on Islamic jurisprudence and religion, in addition to norms and manners that, according to the jihadists, align with correct Islamic teachings.
    Traditional Islamic text books such as al-Khulasa al-Alfiyya, written by Ibn Malik in the 13th century have been clearly used as the cornerstone of the ISIS curriculumn.
    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 3/8/2017 2:47:25 AM

  • There isn't a single verse of the Quran in which it is the prophet speaking. 

    "to you be your religion, and my religion to me" is addressed to the Kafirun or those who have rejected Islam. What would Hats Off have Allah ask the Prophet to say instead ? It is consistent with ""any other religion other than Islam will not be accepted in the hereafter". It is also consistent with "let there be no compulsion in religion". The Qur'an is a Book without a single contradiction.

    If the Prophet is not elevated to the status of an avatar or son of God like in other religions, it is only because the Kalima itself rules out all scope for the followers of Islam to consider the Prophet anything more than a rasool of Allah or messenger of Allah. There could not have been a better kalima stressing Islamic monotheism.

    Looks like Hats Off has completely lost his mind. It happens to all enemies of Islam. Their hate drives them to such crazed madness.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/8/2017 12:40:23 AM

  • Hats Off's brash tirade shows that he, just like the village mullahs, cannot help taking everything in an utterly literalistic sense, mixing it with his own animus. The Book is of no use to a person who does not approach it as a source of support to those who want to be righteous, just, peaceful, rational and kind.

    How do such poisonous comments pass through the moderater's scan?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/7/2017 1:32:59 PM

  • in the Holy Qur'an it is not possible to differentiate between allah and his prophet. they speak for each other and also in place of each other. grammar is a weak point of allah.

    often it is not possible to say who is speaking - allah or his last prophet. we, i and they are used so loosely that understanding becomes suspect - or worse still meaningless.

    this is in essence the worst form of shirk. a mere human gets to be a spokesperson for the creator and his arbitrator.

    in the kalma, it is not only necessary to accept allah, but also to accept his LAST prophet. this is THE essence of shirk. the prophet is almost equal to his creator in importance. if allah and his human prophet can be spoken of in one and the same breath, the Holy Qur'an itself is shirk.

    in the Holy Qur;'an, allah is secondary. his prophet is primary. or at the least allah is in the same position as his prophet. just like in christianity. jesus and his lord are indistinguishable. ditto with the Holy Qur'an.

    the Holy Qur'an allah "recommends" his prophet as a perfect role model. if that is the case, why cannot muslims marry as many wives as the prophet married? why just four?  why cannot contemporay muslims marry the widows of the prophet? allah is just an alter ego of his "prophet". why else should one fifth of the war booty belong to the prophet?

    if allah encourages his prophet to say "to you be your religion, and my religion to me", he should not contradict himself by saying "any other religion other than islam will not be accepted in the hereafter". that this is possibe is because islam is inadvertently mushriq.

    it appears that allah is just a common human liar.

    just like his prophets are.
    By hats off! - 3/7/2017 7:11:02 AM

  • Nobody accused Islamophobes of wife beating, chopping of hands and feet from the opposite sides and sex slavery and jizya and hatred for the unbelievers. So don't raise bogus points. Islamophobes who accuse moderate Muslims of following such practices have
    to be exposed as liars and hate propagandists.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/6/2017 1:07:17 PM

  • the so called "islamophobes" do not believe in wife beating, chopping of hands and feet from the opposite sides and sex slavery and jizya and hatred for the unbelievers.

    its the muslims who do.

    especially those who refuse to see that the Holy Qur'an is just another historical text and not "divine" revelation.

    if "islamophobes" quote the Holy Qur'an, (im)moderate muslims should have no complaints.
    By hats off! - 3/6/2017 6:25:52 AM

  • Only a deranged and hateful Islamophobe would assert that moderate Muslims believe in wife beating, chopping off hands and feet from the opposite sides, sex slavery, jizya and hatred for the unbelievers. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/5/2017 12:51:33 PM

  • Janab Naseer Sb: Your valuable time and energy are being wasted upon the hate-mongering paid-agents whose life-engagement is to create rift among the peaceful citizens, they are not supposed to listen a single good thing about Islam neither from Qur'an nor Hadith. How can you expect someone to disobey his hateful master who is providing him bread and butter? I suggest you to use your precious time saved from replying to xenophobic people on constructing works. By Abdullah - 3/5/2017 8:15:08 AM

  • islam is a perfect deen. including wife beating, chopping off hands and feet from the opposite sides, sex slavery, jizya and hatred for the unbelievers.

    if moderate muslims find these comforting, they should have no complaints about islamophobia.
    By hats off! - 3/5/2017 6:12:21 AM

  • ....and yes Hats Off, the deen of Allah in the Quran is perfect in all respects coming as it does from the Creator. All evil is from man himself and not from God's deen. It shouldn't therefore be surprising that I should look for the source of all that is evil elsewhere.

    “What comes to you of good is from Allah, but what comes to you of evil, [O man], is from yourself. And We have sent you, [O Muhammad], to the people as a messenger, and sufficient is Allah as Witness.”
    – Quran 4:79

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/4/2017 10:53:32 PM

  • if mr. naseer ahmed can learn how to use quotes, double quotes and basic text formatting, my education will be complete. By hats off! - 3/4/2017 10:20:38 PM

  • I think these Taliban are products of this textbooks.Have probably not read the  Madina Charter!u


    The USA openly printed millions of textbooks to support the Jihad in Afghanistan and Pakistan against the Soviets and Afghan Communists
    Genesis Of Islamic Radicalism: The US Textbook Project That Taught Afghan Children Terror
    "Last month, a U.S. foreign aid official said, workers launched a "scrubbing" operation in neighboring Pakistan to purge from the books all references to rifles and killing. Many of the 4 million texts being trucked into Afghanistan, and millions more on the way, still feature Koranic verses and teach Muslim tenets.
    The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and that the books "are fully in compliance with U.S. law and policy." Legal experts, however, question whether the books violate a constitutional ban on using tax dollars to promote religion."
    From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad
    Taliban Using Jihadist Textbooks…Supplied by the U.S.

    The Taliban indoctrinates kids with jihadist textbooks paid for by the U.S.

    By Sajida - 3/4/2017 6:08:54 PM

  • For Hats Off, Islam must be blamed for everything evil under the sun!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/4/2017 12:35:48 PM

  • God knows what education Hats Off has had that he should attribute to me what is in quotes! That view is according to Carl W. Ernst and is from Wikipedia on the subject of Hallaj. By Naseer Ahmed - 3/4/2017 9:59:45 AM

  • "In practice, since apostasy was subsumed under the category of zandaqa, which reflected the Zoroastrian legacy of viewing heresy as a political crime, they were prosecuted only when it was politically convenient." - mr. naseer ahmed.

    mr. naseer ahmed will always attribute the worst aspects of islam to either culture, zoroastrians or coronal mass ejections or tidal disruption events or woolly mammoths.

    according to him, all the good things in islam are due to islam and all its hateful aspects are due to "others". what he supports without any evidence need no evidence to disprove.

    that is what IITs do to their muslim students. denial is THE characteristic of supremacist muslims such as mr. naseer ahmed.
    By hats off! - 3/4/2017 6:17:13 AM

  • Political Islam of  the present century  is a sad  thoughtless phenomenon
    By ahmed41 - 3/4/2017 1:26:20 AM

  • Although Hallaj later became a major figure in the Sufi tradition, most of his Sufi contemporaries disapproved of his actions. Some question whether al-Hallaj was executed for religious reasons as has been commonly assumed. According to Carl W. Ernst, the legal notion of blasphemy was not clearly defined in Islamic law and statements of the kind Hallaj made were treated inconsistently by legal authorities. In practice, since apostasy was subsumed under the category of zandaqa, which reflected the Zoroastrian legacy of viewing heresy as a political crime, they were prosecuted only when it was politically convenient. Sadakat Kadri points out that "it was far from conventional to punish heresy in the tenth century," and it is thought he would have been spared execution except that the vizier of Caliph Al-Muqtadir wished to discredit "certain figures who had associated themselves" with al-Hallaj. (Previously al-Hallaj had been punished for talking about being at one with God by being shaved, pilloried and beaten with the flat of a sword, not executed because the Shafi'ite judge had ruled that his words were not "proof of disbelief."
     Dara Shikoh had become Sarmad’s disciple and after the war of succession, Aurangzeb had him executed ostensibly because he refused to recite the second part of the Kalima. His killing may also have been purely for political because of his association with Dara Shikoh. Aurangzeb’s religious mentor was another Sufi.
     Sufism otherwise thrived freely under both Aurangzeb and the Al-Abbasid dynasty and there were many Sufis among those who supported the killing of Hallaj and Sarmad. These two were victims of court politics being guilty by association although the charge against them was of heresy but such “heretics” otherwise had a free run in those times and lands.
     These two killings have nothing in common with what happened at Lal Shahbaz Qalandar. By Naseer Ahmed - 3/3/2017 11:38:06 PM

  • I agree with GRD and Hats Off.

    Sufi Muslims and orthodox Muslims have equal right to hold their beliefs. What is impermissible is intolerance, coercion and violence. They are impermissible because the Prophet said so and because civilized societies say so. The Prophet said, "I shall dispute with any Muslim who oppresses anyone from among the non-Muslims, or infringes on his right, or puts a responsibility on him which is beyond his capacity or takes something from him against his will." 

    That is the spirit of Islam that the Kharijites will never understand.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/3/2017 12:54:31 PM

  • dear mr. GRD,

    mr. maqdoomi is too small a man to be even concerned about. the maqdoomis of this world world are the occupational hazard faced by men of your caliber. it comes with the territory.

    you should be amused - not aghast at these puny little guys.

    cheers, regards and respect!
    By hats off! - 3/3/2017 8:10:55 AM

  • I'm aghast at a reaction on this article which I have received via email. Please take a look:

    "I just read your short article.

    Mr Ghulam Rasool sahab id you go inthe detail analysis of Sofism you will find whale of deference between ISLAM and Sofism  The true Islam reflects from prophet Mohammad Sas and the  life the life style of His Ashaba  The main attention is given to the society and its reformation Even the Jehads were waged against the bad rulers  For this holy cause Prophet Mohammad had to fight  number of bad rulers ,The rapists were killed by throwning stones The hands of thieves were amputated  and the drunkardswere whipped 80 times ,But in Sufism there are no such activityis  are carried The Sufis practice Sufee are always busy in selpurification practices  They do not feel obligation of reforming the society All types of evils flurish in the domain of SUFEES !
    prophet Mohammad died as an army general he had eight swords, two iron suites  one pony".

    Dr Maqdoomi 03-2017 '$
    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 3/3/2017 4:11:26 AM