certifired_img

Books and Documents

Books and Documents

44 - COMMENTS

  • A bunch of hardcore christian theologians says Hats Off! He is not only in denial but resorting to a blatant lie. I repeat that the sources are the research publications of the following behavioral scientists, psychologists and psychiatrists whose works have been cited.

    Koster, Vitz, Lepp, Hood, Hill, Soilka, Granqvist,  Kirkpatrick, Hagekull, Brinkerhoff, Mackie, Hunsberger, Altemeyer, Exline, Rose, Murken, Pargament, Koenig. Perez, Novotni, Peterson and Mahoney.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/28/2017 2:16:52 AM



  • A scholarly debate with an apostate would be a waste of time. A scholarly debate with an apostate full-time heat merchant is sheer foolishness.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/27/2017 1:01:05 PM



  • a bunch of biased hard core christian theologians are expected to support christian theism (not islamic). this is known as bias. just like mr. naseer ahmed is expected to support every horrible thing in the Holy Qur'an because of his own bias in its favor.

    believing hindu scientists diss christianity and islam. believeing muslim scientists diss christianity and hinduism. believeing christian scientists diss islam and hinduism. between themselves they disprove each other. where do you come in?

    you do not figure anywhere.

    shall i bring in "references" such as your inadmissible ones? read faithfreedom. read answering islam. read jihad watch.

    if christian theologians are good enough to bring in freudian nonsense, these must be good enough to bring in anti-islam nonsense. why support one and decry the other? is that not bias?

    the word of a bunch of christian theologians is negated by a bunch of muslim theologians aka ulema. christian theologians believe in the trinitarian theory. muslims negate the trinitarian theory. taken together they call each other atheists. christians believe muhammad to be a false prophet and his followers to be deviants.

    in effect what these christian extremists are saying applies to muslims as according to the christian theologians muslims are apostates and renegades and vice versa. so one set of fools (dis)prove the other.

    theologians discussing atheism are inadmissible. they are biased against atheism. but you are not expected to understand these nuances of research.

    if these theologians are acceptable to you, why do whine when someone quotes from"islamophobic" sources? they should be good enough for you.

    you have no argument and yet are trying to "win" it. first of all produce a coherent, valid argument. then try to do something about it. first learn about burden of proof. the theists should provide proof of theism. atheists are not required to provide proof of atheism. first of all get some real education. pseudo science never worked.

    listen to david wood if you want an anti-islam argument. listen to yasir qadhi if you want an anti-christianity argument. listen to rajeev malhotra if you want an anti-christianity plus anti-muslim argument. read ambedkar if you want an anti-hindu plus anti-islam argument. each cancels out the other. read all of them if you want an atheist argument.

    each one of your arguments are without logic, without knowledge and always with false references. you have been caught before. don't do it again.

    if you think the arguments of christian theologians are support for freudian theory of atheism, it is clear that you neither understand freudian theory nor christian theology not atheism. so do not bother.

    better stick to market research and prove god, or prove divinity of scriptures by null hypothesis. don't dabble in something for which you are clearly not equipped.
    By hats off! - 3/27/2017 10:05:45 AM



  • Hats Off asked for sources to support what has been said about his probable motivations for turning out to be such a die-hard hostile apostate. The sources are the research publications of the following behavioral scientists, psychologists and psychiatrists whose works have been cited.

    Koster, Vitz, Lepp, Hood, Hill, Soilka, Granqvist,  Kirkpatrick, Hagekull, Brinkerhoff, Mackie, Hunsberger, Altemeyer, Exline, Rose, Murken, Pargament, Koenig. Perez, Novotni, Peterson and Mahoney. 

    He got what he asked for which apparently he didn’t expect. His response ob being exposed is therefore understandably gibberish nonsense.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/27/2017 8:49:44 AM



  • any analysis of atheism by theologians masquerading as freudians is like old world monkeys speculating on why new world apes don't have prehensile tails or ischial callosities. sadly they will never know - however hard they "think".

    mr. naseer ahmed should perhaps analyse his own upbringing as to how he became capable of defending sex with right-hand posessions, destruction of statues in the kaba, blackmail of khusro, extorting jizya and offensive ghazwas rather than going out on a limb and trying to prove athiesm as a freudian disorder or hatred of fathers, mothers, cousins, nieces or little johns. this is not like market research and divinity, or even a null hypothesis.

    the last people who should be lecturing on atheism is die hard atheist-hating catholics/protestants/muslims/hindus pretending to be social scientists.
    By hats off! - 3/27/2017 6:04:07 AM



  • The following is for Hats Off to understand, accept and to come to terms with the roots of his neurotic hatred of his father's religion. 

    Extract from:  Atheists, Agnostics, and Apostates by Prof. Heinz Streib, Ph.D. Faculty for History, Philosophy, and Theology University of Bielefeld/Germany & Constantin Klein Dipl.-Psych. Dipl.-Theol.

     “….. the relationship between children and their parents in general may be of relevance to atheism, agnosticism, and apostasy. In their psycho-historical studies of the impact of “defective fathering”, Koster (1989) and Vitz (2000) argued that, in their childhood, many famous atheists (like Darwin, Nietzsche, or Freud) suffered under the demands of their dominant and bigoted fathers who failed to express feelings of love and esteem to their sons. The sons became apathetic, unhappy, and melancholic and tried to flee from their family situation. In later life, they rebelled against the demanding beliefs of their fathers calling the complete worldview they were raised in into question. The denial of their own roots, however, caused psychopathological symptoms including depression or self-hatred, so that their fight for autonomy resulted in what Lepp (1963) called a “neurotic denial of God”.

     Hood, Hill, and Spilka (2009) have criticized the theories of neurotic atheism because of their exclusive focus on males and their fathers, and the lack of broader empirical support. More solid empirical data come from research on religion and attachment (Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, 2008; see Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, Volume 1 for overview) which shows that, in religious families, closer parent-child attachments in childhood correspond with closer attachment to God and more positive images of God in adulthood. Secure parent-child attachments can thus lead to more stable religiosity, whereas distant or avoidant relationships between parent and child increase the likelihood of sudden conversions and religious switching or of secular exits (Granqvist & Hagekull, 2003; Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, 2004; Kirkpatrick, 1997; 1998).

    Motives and developmental factors. A body of research has focused on motives and biographical factors associated with the development of atheism, agnosticism, and apostasy. This research includes studies about religious doubts (Brinkerhoff & Mackie, 1993; Hunsberger &Altemeyer, 2006) and personal experiences of disappointment with religious professionals, communities, or with God, or anger against God (Exline, 2002; Exline & Rose, 2005). In a comprehensive content analysis of 1226 statements which atheistic/agnostic internet users had posted on a Catholic webpage “www.ohne-gott.de” (“without God)”, Murken (2008) identified five clusters of statements which articulated doubts, disappointments and frustrations with respect to religious beliefs and institutions: (1) an opposition against Christianity because of faults of the Catholic Church (e.g. the crusades or witch-hunting, clergy sexual abuse) and its rigid sexual morals regarding contraception, premarital sex, and homosexuality, (2) experiences of religious hurt and disappointment, in particular the feeling of being abandoned by God in times of burden and loss, (3) negative and critical images of God (e.g. the feeling of incapacity to meet God’s demands and of being supervised and punished by God), (4) the question of theodicy (if God is just, loving, and all-powerful, why does he allow evil and suffering to exist?), and (5) the yearning for God and for faith to find meaning and comfort. These factors may support the emergence of skepticism against religious beliefs, groups and institutions and, as a consequence, raise serious questions about religion in general. In particular, experiences of personal suffering can throw an individual’s fundamental system of religious beliefs into question, producing religious/ spiritual struggles marked by feelings of abandonment and punishment by God as well as questions about whether God really exists and is truly loving and almighty (Exline, Volume1; Pargament et al., 1998; Pargament, Koenig & Perez, 2000). Research shows that experiences such as severe illness, the loss of a loved person, physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, and other traumata can provoke spiritual struggle which can transform former beliefs and lead to spiritual disengagement, apostasy, atheism/agnosticism, but potentially, spiritual growth, too (Pargament, 2007). Pargament andMahoney (Pargament, 2007; Pargament & Mahoney, 2005) argue that the experience of a desecration, the perception that things which have been perceived as sacred (e.g. my body, my integrity, my beliefs, my relationships etc.) have been violated, is particularly likely to shake the individual to the core. In a similar way, Novotni and Peterson (2001) describe “emotional atheism” as the result of a process of repression and emotional distancing from God. They view the conflict between the need to blame God in difficult situations and the recognition that God must not be blamed as a trigger for the onset of emotional distancing. Thus, “emotional atheism” emerges from the stepwise loss of an unsatisfying faith. In short, experiences of spiritual struggles (Exline & Rose, 2005; McConnell, Pargament, Ellison, & Flannelly, 2006; Pargament, 2007) represent important developmental factors that may generate atheism/agnosticism”

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/27/2017 12:36:54 AM



  • It is not just the meaning of kafir that has undergone change since the revelation of the Quran, but also the meaning of Shuhuda as I have brought out in my article:

    The Politics of Religion and the Changing Concept of Shuhuda over the Years

    Many of the Arabic words are part of my mother tongue Urdu and these have the same wrong meanings that they have acquired in Islamic theology which is common across the world.

    The correct meanings of the keywords used in the Quran have to be understood from the Quran itself (ignoring meanings ascribed to the words outside of the Quran) in the same manner a baby learns a language since the Quran makes the meaning amply clear - both what it means and what it does not mean.

     It is easy to see how and why the bigots have distorted the meaning. They apparently judge non-Muslims as deliberate and willful rejecters of Islam out of sheer perversity and therefore call them kafir. Non-Muslim is not the meaning of kafir but non-Muslims are simply judged by the Muslims as kafir. They are just unable to see why anyone would reject Islam. However the Quran does not judge all the polytheists of Mecca as kafir even at the end of the Prophetic mission of Muhammad (pbuh). While the distortion started with judgment, today people simply take it as the meaning forgetting that it is not the meaning but their judgment of non-Muslims as kafir.

    Moderate scholars such as Javed Ghamidi, Saleem Shehzad and Muhammad Yunus do not consider/judge all non-Muslims today as kafir,  but they nevertheless argue that all the polytheists of Mecca were kafir as they had no excuse for disbelief after the Prophet had lived among them and preached for 13 years before being driven out of Mecca. They also ignore the plain text of the Quran according to which it does not consider all of them as kafir in any verse and always refers to the kafir among them. Apart from the text of the Quran, if at any point of time Allah had judged all of them as kafir, none would have believed after that and He would have destroyed all of them after the Prophet migrated to Medina, just as He destroyed the people of Noah, Hud, Saleh, Lut and Shoeb.

    The people of Noah are judged by God as kafir after which none believe and all perish in the flood

    (11:36) It was revealed to Noah: "None of thy people will believe except those who have believed already! So grieve no longer over their (evil) deeds.

    Such judgment was never passed on the polytheists of Mecca and they were expected to eventually accept Islam which they did which is clear not only from the events as they unfolded, but also from the following verses.

    (8:32) Remember how they said: "O Allah if this is indeed the Truth from Thee, rain down on us a shower of stones form the sky, or send us a grievous penalty." (33) But Allah was not going to send them a penalty whilst thou wast amongst them; nor was He going to send it whilst they could ask for pardon.

    Contrast the judgment on the people of Noah “No more of them will believe.”

    The judgment of the polytheists of Mecca “they could yet ask for pardon”

    All except a few who perished in the battles (or otherwise), eventually accepted Islam including Abu Sufian, the commander of the polytheists after their leader  Abu Jahl perished in the battle of Badar. And as we learn from the very last verses revealed, those who sought refuge and were not defiant, were treated as people without knowledge and not as kafir, and escorted to safe places where they could hear the word of God and make up their minds.

    The Quran is a Book that is to be understood and not interpreted and there is only one meaning which leads to a holistic understanding of the message without a single contradiction. The problem however is that everyone interprets without bothering to find its meaning. Finding the meaning is also through the process of interpretation and the correct meaning is that interpretation that leads to no contradictions. What makes Quran a Book that makes things clear is precisely this quality where it provides a check on our understanding. This rigour in the study of the Quran is completely lacking and the rigour that is followed is to interpret it in the light of the ahadith!

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/26/2017 1:00:18 AM



  • Hats Off does not seem to know what he is talking about! What does psychiatry have to do with what I said? All I had said earlier was that your inordinate hatred for Muslims may have oedipal roots, but I was not making any categorical statement. Most atheists and apostates do not exhibit such seething hatred for the community they have left but you seem to be stuck on the fence. You can neither leave nor re-enter! Sad!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/25/2017 11:14:43 PM



  • so mr. ghulam mohiyuddin cannot cite any sources to support his pop psychology or quack psychiatry. this is what happens when islam meets psychiatry. 

    only his uptight stupidology.
    By hats off! - 3/25/2017 7:25:54 PM



  • Hats Off's  abusive diatribe is totally misguided. He falsely accuses me of saying, "lets just ignore those silly things in the scriptures." I said let us derive the meaning from the verses that is consistent with our modern day ethos just as the contemporaries of the Prophet did when they derived the meaning that was consistent with the ethos of their time.

    Such an approach would not suit Hats Off whose sole purpose in life is to trash the Quran, to bad-mouth Islam and to frustrate any possibility of a progressive Islam emerging.

    At the same time, any attempt to redefine words will meet with skepticism and will not succeed however well-intentioned it may be. It would make more sense to speak up as modern Muslims, reject literalist interpretations, and assert that the Quran condemns those who are evil-doers and oppressors.

    The scriptures are one source of the truth. The other source of truth is one's heart. When those two truths coincide, we have a religion.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/25/2017 1:06:45 PM



  • "The kind of feel we acquire for languages learnt informally without books early in life, is never there for languages learnt formally with the help of books later in our adult life. These are understood only in translation."

    so when you do not have the feel for arabic as it is not your mother tongue, how can you doubt the meaning of the word "kafir" as it is understood by native arabic speakers?

    they all without exception understand "kafir" as it is given by me.

    in fact i have come to the conclusion that you have no idea of what you are talking after i went through many forums where native arabic speakers participate and invariably they refer to non-muslims as "kafir".

    so it you who have no understanding of what you say. try telling you new fangled meaning of "kafir" to any one from the al-azhar.

    let's see what they say.

    finally so long as you continue to use the word "truth" without bothering to define it, you have absolutely no argument. you simply fail. you are just hedging and side-stepping the issue.

    no one including all prophets put together and all their revelations put together cannot know what "truth" is.
    By hats off! - 3/25/2017 5:40:54 AM



  • The meaning of kafir in the Quran is derived logically from how the Quran uses this word. We do not learn our mother tongue from dictionaries and books of grammar but from our interactions as babies. A baby has the capacity to learn all the world’s languages but what the neurologists call synaptic pruning in the early years reduces that child’s capacity to the languages around her. We learn the precise meanings of words and its connotations and the idioms of our language not through books but from our early interactions. The kind of feel we acquire for languages learnt informally without books early in life, is never there for languages learnt formally with the help of books later in our adult life. These are understood only in translation.

     The Quran makes clear the meanings of keywords used by it. However, if one reads the Quran with the incorrect meaning of the word learnt elsewhere, then he ends up with several contradictions. If he remains fixed on the wrong meaning of the word and tries to resolve the contradictions, then he falls prey to the false theory of abrogation! Can you show me a scholar who does not invoke the false theory of abrogation if his understanding is different from mine? So what such scholars may have to say is falsehood as far as I am concerned. Without doubt, in Islamic theology, kafir has acquired the meaning of non-Muslim over the centuries through the bigotry of its scholars, and this development is covered in detail in my article. This is however not the meaning of the word in the Quran.

     My understanding of the Quran is without a single contradiction. Nothing that I have explained of the Quran in one article contradicts any other article and I have covered almost the whole of the Quran. I have taken head on questions from commentators who wanted to point out “contradictions” in the Quran.

     Quran’s way of making sure that we have understood its message correctly is to put our understanding to the test of consistency. If we fail this test, we have not understood some part of it correctly. This is how the Quran is a Book that makes everything clear, is a Book without contradictions, consistent with itself and its own explanation.

     None of the above was necessary to prove my point. My articles clearly bring out the meaning of Kafir as used in the Quran in the most logical manner possible which can be understood by any person whose intention is to understand.

     The Misrepresentation of the Quran through Mistranslation

     1.     How can kafir mean non-Muslim when there are several verses in different Surahs of the Quran that speak of the kafir among the Polytheists as well as the Kafir among the Muslims clearly mentioning the kufr of those called kafir implying that not all are kafir but only those indulging in the kufr specified in the verse? And how  can it mean non-Muslim if there isn’t a single verse that refers to all the polytheists as kafir?

    2.     How can kafir mean non-believer if it is used for Satan and for Moses? Satan is an ingrate rebel against God and Moses was an ingrate rebel vis-à-vis the Pharaoh. Neither of them are “non-believers”

    3.     How can kafir mean non-Muslim if in Surah Taubah, in chronologically the very last verses, it does not mean all polytheists but only those who fought wars against the Muslims and broke their treaties and who remained defiant but not even those who although they did fight or broke their treaties but sought refuge who were to be merely treated as people without knowledge and taken to places of safety?   

     In the Quran therefore,  “Kafir” as it applies to the polytheists of Mecca, refers to those who were the enemies of Islam and the Muslims and practiced religious persecution in its various forms.

     As it applies to the Muslims, Christians and the Jews, it refers to those who willfully disregard the guidance and injunctions in their respective scriptures, or willfully distort the message. For the Muslims, the word Munafiq or hypocrite is more often used as outright kufr was rare in the Prophet’s times when the Quran was revealed.

     As far as the spiritual dimension is concerned in which God alone is the judge because there is no compulsion in religion, it means those who reject the religion of truth after the truth has become clear to them and die rejecting. One is not a kafir unless God has confirmed the verdict of kafir on a person and once God does so, he will die a kafir no matter how long he lives after that. Example, Abu Lahab lived for ten years after his place in Hell in the hereafter was confirmed and died without repenting. The other examples are Abu Jahal referred to in surah Al-Alaq and WalidibnMughiyrah referred to in Surah Al-Qalam. Abu Sufiyan on the other hand, who led the polytheists in all the battles against the Muslims after Badar, accepted Islam. It is not for Muslims therefore to worry about the non-believers in Islam as who among them are kafir is known only to Allah and indeed there are many who are kafir among those who call themselves Muslim. We can judge only by deeds and an oppressor is indeed a kafir whose oppression must be resisted and fought against no matter what religion he professes.

     To summarise, Kafir does not mean non-Muslim or even a disbeliever (taking the broad meaning of believer to include all theists), but it means an ingrate rebel or an oppressor. Those who reject the religion of truth after the truth becomes known to them are not disbelievers but rebels like Satan who knowingly reject. Lack of belief is from lack of knowledge and not kufr. We therefore pray to Allah to increase our knowledge so that we may correctly understand the Deen of Allah.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/25/2017 12:44:46 AM



  • the appalling hold that "political correctness" has gotten hold of our tongues and the stranglehold it has on our consciences is poignantly brought out by the the over-cautious and nearly meaningless comment (as usual) by mr. ghulam mohiyuddin. (i could bring in a diagnosis of anal retentive personality, but i will not - for freudian psychoanalysis has been somewhat discredited and is not in wide use today. especially after discovery of effective chemotherapeutic agents to manage a wide variety of psychiatric conditions. only literary criticism seems to be holding on dearly to freudian paradigms, but that is just pass time.)

    he has something in his mind, but that something is so garbled and rendered so meaningless that one has to not only read between his (very few lines) lines, but also between the words and between the letters as well to get even a hazy glimpse of what it might be trying to say.

    he is (to my understanding) trying to say - "lets just ignore those silly things in the scriptures" - but not in so many words. for fear is the foundation of religious exegesis. either fear of fatwa or fear of hell fire. that is understandable.

    he is therefore unable or unwilling to address what is destroying us.

    that the Holy Qur'an is literally and metaphorically taken as "absolute" truth by the vast majority of muslims is what is so wrong with us. but he cannot get himself to say it.

    when mr. naseer ahmed proudly claims that he does not "interpret" the Holy Qur'an on account of its clarity (as it appears or appeals to him), and that he only understands it literally, he is even then driven to complex texts analysis and word counts to somehow derive strange and implausible meanings of a word that produces such dissonance in his mind.

    as an example, the very common english swear phrase s-o-b (in acronym) is used in a variety of contexts and situations by native english speakers. almost always derogatorily. almost never in a respectable way. only as an exclamation is it used in any innocent sense. even then it does not lose its dictionary meaning.

    this vastly varied usage does not at any time negates its etymological meaning and semantic content. it always means the male child of a female dog and can never be re-formulated to mean any other less embarrassing thing.

    but political correctness gets to him just as it gets to mr. ghulam mohiyuddin. seeing the current world tragedy in so far as rising religious hatred and intolerance (especially in self designated islamic nations) mr. naseer ahmed succumbs to another form of political correctness. to get over the jarring sense (to a non muslim) in which the word "kafir" (or its variations) is used in the Holy Qur'an, leads him in another direction. the direction of denial. specially the denial of the most common meaning of the word as understood by practicing muslims as well as denial of its dictionary meaning.

    on the one hand he has to accommodate his baseless conviction that the book is a word of god and on the other he has to address the issue of the denigration of non-believers therein.

    but his best bet seems to be to contest the dictionary meaning - especially since he "believes" that there can be no fault in god's words.

    this dissonance and this tying of one self into knots trying to 'euphemize' hateful scriptural doctrines ultimately leads him to complex word counts, textual interpretations, denial of dictionary meanings through which he tries to sanitise toxic contents of holy scripture.

    but the very complexity of his efforts gives away the essentially intolerant nature of scriptural injunctions that he is trying to bowdlerize. if they were benign, they would never have been "misinterpreted" or "mistranslated" in the first case, even if they were so misunderstood, it would not be of such import.

    this does not occur to mr. naseer ahmed on account of his fundamental belief about the "divinity" of the Holy Qur'an.

    it perhaps occurs to mr. ghulam mohiyuddin, but his approach is to depend upon a crippling, suffocating political correctness.

    one either owns a so-called divine text - warts and all, or one accepts that there are troublesome passages.

    unfortunately today one is a rock and the other is a hard place.

    naturally recourse is eventually taken by mr. naseer ahmed as well as mr. ghulam mohiyuddin to (discredited and disproved) methods of freudian psychoanalysis of those who take the texts at face value without hanging on to an imaginary "divinity" (i can provide on demand authors' names and bibliography to support my assertion regarding the doubtful nature of freudian psychoanalysis).

    this freudian psychoanalysis and the effort to posit apostasy as oediepal complex just proves my point.

    i request mr. ghulam mohiyuddin to provide me even a single reference to any scientific text or research paper that indicates apostasy to be either based on oedipal, or electra complexes or as defects of psycho-sexual development or as effect of parental cruelty to children.

    but i can provide a number of references to hyper-religiosity as significant component (either as causative or as effects) of many psychiatric disorders.

    i am reasonably sure mr. ghulam mohiyuddin cannot give me any such refernce.

    i do not make this demand of mr. naseer ahmed because he is just a part time player, with no foundation in either tafsir, psychology or linguistics. his only qualification is blind loyalty to prophets and triggered hyper-religiosity.
    By hats off! - 3/24/2017 10:55:16 PM



  • The message that we derive from the Quran is influenced by our own understanding of what our religion stands for in our day and age. Our Islam is a more inclusive and universalist religion than it was in the days of the salaaf or as understood by Wahhab. While at one time all non-believers were the enemy, today we condemn the evil-doers and the oppressors instead.

    Instead of making it a semantic debate about certain words, we should proactively assert that the message we derive from certain verses is at variance with the message derived in earlier times.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/24/2017 12:27:00 PM



  • just what IS the "authentic message" of the Holy Qur'an?

    according to a majority of the most influential islamic scholars from all over the world, a non muslim is referred to a a kafir.

    so how does mr. naseer ahmed claim that his in possession of the "authentic" meaning of the Holy Qur'an?
    By hats off! - 3/24/2017 8:37:39 AM



  • Hats Off cannot be blind to the fact that there is very little in common with what I say and what he points out to in his numerous links.

    He cannot find anything wrong with what I say nor can he prove that what I say is not the authentic message of the Quran. To me what matters is that I have a correct understanding of Islam from the Quran and that this Islam is without a blemish.

    Hats Off can fulminate in impotent rage as much as he wishes. As the Quran says about such enemies of Islam "Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse."

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/23/2017 11:15:44 PM



  • Dear Hats off: My condition of accepting my response may go against the norms of debating, it may appear childlike to you, but it is logical in the context of debating with you when numerous scholars have tried their best to get you satisfied and convinced but you remained adamant to your reasons for your point. That is why I have used the term “invincible” for you in the field of information and in the sense of fighting by the means of information and not by sword.
    For you utmost displeasure, I fully agree to the meaning and explanation of the word “Kafir” given by Mr Naseer and others on this site, which you have categorically refused, no question of agreeing and accepting it.
    The list provided by you comprising of dozens of questions have no significance or consequences with the practice of peaceful Islam. The list of followers of different faiths - Muslims and Non-Muslims in Muslim or non-Muslim countries respectively have nothing to do with faith of a common Muslim practicing his faith in any part of the world. Further, we have nothing to do with the Khomeini’s Fatwa, Zakir’s opinion, Bukhari’s statement, Jamaiti’s practice, or anybody else.
    Our Faith should be our own, based upon Allah’s Qur’an and the prophet (pbuh)’s Sunnah, that is it.
    Now in the context of peaceful existence in RSS ruled states or in India as a whole, we have to think about how to manage a peaceful co-existence in the wake of threatening knocks at the doors, genocide looming large at the doorsteps of the Muslim population if they don’t give Babri Masjid land to the Hindus. Alternatively, in case the Supreme Court gives verdict of title suit in favour of the Muslims.
    At present in India, triple talaq or halala are not the real issues or dangers to the masses.
    The real dangers which are threatening our co-existence are the Yuva Vahini sadasya, RSS MPs who are slapping slippers to the air-hostesses, the communal bureaucrats who are running after poor Muslims’ heads etc etc etc. By Raihan Nezami - 3/23/2017 9:31:27 PM



  • What a snobbish and condescending rant from Hats Off!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/23/2017 1:57:40 PM



  • dear mr. raihan nezami

    first: i think the word "invincible" is probably not what you had in mind (i hope i am not mistaken). i am just an 'hostile apostate'. i am not invincible. if the mutazilites could be silenced forever by islamic terror, after all who am i?

    second: you are demanding a condition - that is - you will tell me the meaning of the word kafir ONLY if i accept it. kindly do not forget that we have arabic dictionaries that provide meanings of arabic words - it is not dependent upon my acceptance or your rejection. it depends upon dictionaries. and just to remind you, arabic was previous to the Holy Qur'an. should i frame a similar request for you? i would not and i should not. arguments do not work like that. you propose, others oppose and so it goes on until either the issue is resolved or some one drops out. and by the way can anyone be more negative than those who hate shirk? a benevolent god or his benevolent nabi have absolutely no business with hatred or hell. if they do, they are fakes.

    if you DO have a meaning for the word kafir, kindly just say it. to demand that i agree to accept your meaning BEFORE you are willing to share it sounds childlike. depending upon whether an arabic dictionary agrees with your meaning or not, i will accept it or reject it. deal?

    third: i am probably like islam and perhaps like you too - who never listen to idol worshipers and polytheists - but just sing and listen only to their own tune. by the way music is haraam - except for drums of war. read texts that have evolved out of one and a half millennia of islamic imperialism slash colonialism before you jump to accept the illogical drivel from IIT trained engineering exegetes who have no clue and are willing to support and defend rape of right hand possessions, beheading of an upward of 900 jews, taking a fifth of war booty, expelling non-muslims from the hejaz, extorting jizya and marrying foster daughters-in-law. these are truly depraved actions supported proudly by the likes of mr. naseer ahmed.

    i hope i have tried to answer you, but if i have failed, the defect is entirely mine. allah knows best or second best. his nabi knows better. islam is all about a male human nabi and blindly following him. it is not about allah. its not about truth. but allah knows best and his nabi knows even better than allah can ever hope to.

    regards

    ps. entirely as an aside, do you know what are the percentages of non-muslim minorities in all the 50 odd islamic nations? do you know the percentages of muslims in all the rest of non-muslim countries? and how they are enforcing halaal rules everywhere they migrate? and then still do you believe the nonsense about 'to you your religion and to me mine? non-muslim minorities in islamic and muslim majority nations range from just about 1% to less than 10%. this is for your information. and still mr. naseer ahmed lies to assert that islam is a tolerant religion that protects minorities. he is a very convinced liar who does not even know he lies. do you know there are elected muslim members of the israeli knesset while there isn't a single jew in the palestinian power structure? i could tell a lot of stuff like this that drive mr. naseer ahmed out of his little mind. but then, i need not. its all in public domain. do you know that the ayotollah khomeini said that a girl must must have her first blood in her in-laws' house? do you know that he said that a husband could have sexual pleasure with his child wife by thighing if penetration could harm her genitals? do you seriously believe the ayotollah was an enemy of islam? do you think bin baaz was an enemy of islam? do you think al qaradhawi is an enemy of islam? so who is stubborn? you or i? i can give you a long, long list of weblinks that will make one's blood (but not the blood of believers) boil. all these are links to tv talk shows by some of the most respected ulemas and islamic scholars from all over the world. but i do not expect you to have an open mind. often believers are like mr. naseer ahmed. they have lost the capacity to doubt and have sold their conscience for cheap blind loyalty to weak fallible men who masquerade as prophets. and they think stupid psychoanalysis will help cover their depravity. it never helps though.

    do a google search for all the tolerant, kind, ennobling and liberal khutbas from thousands of ulemas from al-azhar, from egyptian al hayat tv, from saudi arabian al ahwaz tv (just two examples) and then start your lecturing. don't tell me they are all enemies of islam.

    regards
    By hats off! - 3/23/2017 9:31:10 AM



  • What has Hats Off's fulminations got to do with the meaning of Kafir?

    He is simply consumed by impotent rage at not being able to cite even one verse from the Quran where the meaning of "Kafir" is "non-Muslim" as claimed by him. He is an inveterate liar and unable to accept the truth.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/23/2017 3:21:06 AM



  • Dear Hats off:
    First, you promise to accept the meaning of the word "Kafir" given by me, only then I will tell you; otherwise there is no sense in speaking to a stubborn invincible person like you who plays his own tune and listen himself only.
    By Raihan Nezami - 3/23/2017 2:37:32 AM



  • mr. raihan nezami must verify the meaning of the word "kafir" before he lets loose. By hats off! - 3/23/2017 1:51:05 AM



  • defending slave raids, ghazwas, right-hand possessions, jizya and denigration of the religion and scriptures of others produces a sickness of mind that cannot see injustice as long as it is done by ones own prophet and ones own imaginary god.
    the rage they experience on being confronted succeeds in blinding them and completely superseding their conscience.
    it is not exaggeration when screaming hordes of muslims ravage the streets carrying signs that say "we love our prophet more that our lives".
    this point is wonderfully proved by mr. naseer ahmed's rage and fury.
    prophetic religions rapidly degenerate into prophet worship. it leads the followers to declare that they love their prophet even more than their own parents. (i can provide weblinks if needed. all from authentic islamic sources, or from hugely popular middle eastern islamic scholars, pakistani scholars, european converts to islam and more sources than you would like.)
    when followers of a cult have succeeded in replacing their innate human values with blind obeisance to their prophets (however unjustly the prophets have acted in real life) they become like the victims of jim jones. they lose their capacity to doubt.
    this is the illness that consumes mr. naseer ahmed and his blind rage when his prophets are criticized. but it does not enrage him when his prophets do unimaginably dishonorable things such as take sex slaves or behead hundreds of jews. that is typical cult behaviour. freud cannot help here.
    he believes his prophets are even higher than the god they falsely preached.
    watch and enjoy the video below which is proof that religion indeed is a sickness. the speaker is also an islamic scholar, fully envenomated by years of islamic study.
    youtube.com/watch?v=sfZIm1x9mao
    By hats off! - 3/23/2017 1:50:08 AM



  • Dear Hats off: I respect your penchant desire for learning, but alas! it is not for positive intentions as you are always indulged in negative discussions with anybody, be it any topic, you pour venomous, malicious, fallacious, irritating remarks only. I hope it is not on this forum only as it seems to me it has been your habit or formed a part of your nature. Your malicious design in framing out insulting comments against Islamic persons or scriptures, based upon your favorite writers such Abu Ishaq and other fabricated biographies by the Islam-haters is by far clear to everybody here; that is why you see hardly anybody minds your remarks about Qur'an or our prophet Hz Mohammad (pbuh).
    A person is not a human who does not know how to respect fellow citizens' feelings, is not less than a social criminal or an intellectual terrorist.
    Your world where you find pleasure is ten times worse than our world, and you people are further worsening the social environment by implementing your communal agenda, anti-Islam agenda, anti-human agenda etc etc.
    Another point, you don't need to speak on Aayina 's or any other 's behalf as they too have quite stronger voices than you.
    By Raihan Nezami - 3/22/2017 11:50:29 PM



  • Hats Off is once again indulging in psychological projection. It is he who is logic proof and impervious to all evidence of a logical nature. 

    The meaning of kafir has been derived from the Quran following a logical process. Two verses in which it means oppressor have been cited but there are many more. War is permissible only against the oppressors. 

    It also means an ingrate rebel for example Satan, or Moses vis-a-vis the Pharaoh. War is not permitted against such kafir.

    As it concerns the spiritual dimension in which God alone is the judge, it means those who willfully reject Allah's guidance after being convinced of the truth. War/punishment is not permissible against such kafir either.

    There isn't even one verse of the Quran where it means non-Muslim.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/22/2017 11:37:47 PM



  • the fact of the matter is that the Holy Qur'an (not the koran) refers to non-muslims as kuffar. as allah is a confused entity he often misuses pronouns, past and other tenses. allh has a hard time deciding if to speak for himself or the prophet. like the prophet's favorite wife is supposed to have said "allah seems to provide revelations just to suit your needs."

    but mr. raihan nezami being what he is - clueless - he should look up an arabic dictionary for the meaning of 'kafir'. if his brain cannot handle an arabic dictionary he should perhaps be reading marvel comics or roznama.

    mr. raihan nezami appears to be a logic proof person. he should tie up with his pop star mr. naseer ahmed and try to learn null hypothesis and market research. then he might have some hope or develop a little bit of brains.

    otherwise he best bet is to stick to teaching me how to spell 'koran' aka the Holy Qur'an. or he should try teaching his pakistani cousins how to spell pakistan - especially since the arabic alphabet does not have a letter to represent the letter 'p' which urdu has. but then he is the master of arabic.

    or he should stick to telling mr. ayina and me to stop indians from raping women. he is eminently suitable for such stupider aspects of rape. especially since in india we do not need four witnesses to actually witness the penetration. he should read ibn ishaq.

    there is no hope for morons or for believers in human texts passed off by selfish prophets as divine.

    they can at best clap on cue or scream on command.
    By hats off! - 3/22/2017 7:46:27 AM



  • Puerile comment by Hats Off. Kafir/kufr is a category much like sinner/sin, criminal/crime. Just because we have words like murderer/murder, thief/theft, rapist/rape etc. does not make criminal/crime unnecessary.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/22/2017 2:11:08 AM



  • Hats off says, "apparently allah needs mr. naseer ahmed to teach him arabic" 
    Do you mean to say that Allah needs you to explain the words, terms, and phrases
    By Raihan Nezami - 3/22/2017 2:08:34 AM



  • Puerile comment on the Holy Quran by Hats Off! The Book is holy in the idiomatic sense but its message exhorting us to be righteous, just, peaceful, truthful, rational and compassionate is holy.

    Hats Off's insults to the Quran are designed to offend and disconcert the readers of this forum.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/21/2017 1:35:29 PM



  • if the Holy Qur'an is even capable of being mistranslated or misinterpreted, it is not a 'clear book in which there is no doubt'.

    therein lies its contradiction.

    if it is argued that it is humans who do this abomination, it means the creator aka allah is incapable of perfection - either in his creation or in writing fairy tales.

    perhaps he is not so perfect at all.
    By hats off! - 3/21/2017 8:53:02 AM



  • i wonder if allah's knowledge of arabic vocabulary was so poor he could not use words for "relihious" and "oppression". and so he kept using the word "kafir" whenever he wanted to say "religious oppressor".

    apparently allah needs mr. naseer ahmed to teach him arabic or to tell allah what exactly he means when he says something unthinkable.
    By hats off! - 3/21/2017 6:28:31 AM



  • Kafir is like the word criminal or sinner and depending upon the context of kufr/crime/sin, the word kafir/criminal/sinner derive their meaning. Is that so difficult for Hats Off to understand?

    The original meaning is to hide, to cover up or to suppress. Oppression is suppressing the natural rights of another and trammeling the accepted norms of civil society. That oppression and religious persecution is the meaning in the verses cited and several other verses is made clear from the verses themselves.

    If the danger was from the Mushrikin in general, the Quran would have used the term Mushrik and not Kafir. That the Quran does not use the word Kafir for all the Mushrikin has been brought out clearly in several of my articles.


    Hats Off behaviour is of trying to cover up the truth.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/20/2017 11:20:16 PM



  • that is mr. naseer ahmed's opinion based on his maverick interpretation known as innovation.

    it just means the non-muslims will hinder the muslims. that is all. nothing here to suggest that kafir means religious persecutors. except in mr. naseer ahmed's brain.

    as the muslims raided caravans of non-muslims, they were rightly afraid of a blow back.

    so the prophet advises his blind followers that it is ok to shorten prayers.

    because they could not figure it out themselves that one may shorten prayers when arrows are flying, the prophet had to tell them.

    and he did just that.

    by no stretch does it "prove" that "kafir" does not mean non-muslims. so much for your logic.

    hint: use a dictionary. there is an online arabic dictionary for people like you who want to re-write dictionaries. kafir means one who covers (the truth) generally.

    in the context of believers, it refers to all those who have not said or refused to say the shahada.
    By hats off! - 3/20/2017 10:50:32 AM



  • that is mr. naseer ahmed's opinion based on his maverick interpretation known as innovation.

    it means the non-muslims will hinder the muslims. that is all. nothing here to suggest that kafir means religious persecutors. except in mr. naseer ahmed's brain.

    as the muslims raided caravans of non-muslims, they were rightly afraid of a blow back.

    so the prophet advises his blind followers that it is ok to shorten prayers.

    that they could not figure it out themselves that one may shorten prayers when arrows are flying, the prophet had to put some sense into their blind minds.

    and he did just that.

    by no stretch does it "prove" that "kafir" does not mean non-muslims.

    use a dictionary. there is an online arabic dictionary for people like you who want to re-write dictionaries.

    by this definition what is the prophet who demolished all the statues in the kaba? does this maverick definition extend to the prophet? especially when he banned the kuffar from praying there and banished non-muslims from the hejaz? is that religious accommodation or religious persecution? what is it when the prophet sends a letter to khusro, who never bothered the prophet's followers? is that religious accommodation?
    By hats off! - 3/20/2017 10:41:28 AM



  • It is Hats Off who lies once again. Here is the proof:

    (8:36) The "kafaru" spend their wealth to hinder (man) from the path of Allah, and so will they continue to spend; but in the end they will have (only) regrets and sighs; at length they will be overcome: and the "kafaru" will be gathered together to Hell;-

    The kufr of the kafaru in this verse is described as "hindering men from the path of Allah" which is religious persecution.

    (4:101) When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the kafaru may attack you: For the Kafirin are unto you open enemies.

    Who are these kafirin who will attack the Muslims when they are praying anything but religious persecutors?

    Oppression is simply one form of kufr and the only form of kufr against which it is allowed to wage war. War is not allowed for any other reason.
     
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/20/2017 7:30:12 AM



  • mr. naseer ahmed says "kafir" means "religious oppressor".

    that is a lie.
    By hats off! - 3/20/2017 4:59:01 AM



  • The clash of civilizations had begun from seventh century onward when Islamic forces captured infidel  or kafir countries. By Royalj - 3/20/2017 2:40:17 AM



  • Hats Off says "no bridges are allowed between the people of touheed and the people of shirk.
    according to the Holy Qur'an. that is." That is a lie!
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/19/2017 11:41:38 PM



  • I don't understand where did you people get all these terms moderate Muslims or Moderate Progressive Muslims, Moderate Islamist Supremacist or Extremist Islamist Supremacist? There is nothing of these sorts in Islam . All these concepts are bound by a common thread of Corporate political philosophy upheld by anti-Islamic Corporate Media  and its so-called pro or anti-Islamic Ideologues.  The Holy Quran is Clear and honest and never permits of any moral Hotch-potch. It demands  total acceptance of its fundamental principles. The Corporate World is afraid of the ideological stubbornness that Islam Upholds and is trying in all possible ways to create confusion and distort the fundamental principles of the Holy Quran. The concepts you people hold all have sprouted from the same corporate soil. So why should you Quarrel amongst  your-selves? 
    By Kazi Wadud Nawaz - 3/19/2017 5:49:59 PM



  • Hats Off is keeping himself deliberately ignorant about moderate or progressive Muslims. His coining of the phrase "moderate Islamist supremacists" shows the lengths to which he will go in his lying campaign against progressive Muslims.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/19/2017 10:42:21 AM



  • lies and prevarication is the very stuff moderate islamist supremacists are made of.

    the extremist islamist supremacists are generally honest - like mr. kazi wadud nawaz.
    By hats off! - 3/19/2017 9:04:08 AM



  • It's not a Clash of Civilization. It's a clash of philosophy and development models. Hatsoff is right -there is no scope of any bridge between the light and darkness, between truth and falsehood and between morality and immorality. Islam never permits of any perversion in nature and human society.
    By Kazi Wadud Nawaz - 3/18/2017 8:49:03 PM



  • Building friendships is the best way to build bridges irrespective of what blind enemies of Islam say!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/17/2017 12:30:40 PM



  • no bridges are allowed between the people of touheed and the people of shirk.

    according to the Holy Qur'an. that is.
    By hats off! - 3/17/2017 7:31:19 AM