certifired_img

Books and Documents

From the Desk of Editor (17 Apr 2013 NewAgeIslam.Com)




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   235


  • saudi wahabi najdi cult, shia nusehri cult and qadiani cult, all are munafiq. innocent muslims support these cults without any knowledge.

    By a muslim - 6/11/2013 6:10:19 AM



  • saudi wahabi najdi cult, shia nusehri cult and qadiani cult, all are munafiq. innocent muslims support these cult without any knowledge.

    By a muslim - 6/11/2013 6:09:16 AM



  • We must curb our baser self well within time because it is ever ready to put us at disgrace. When we let it loose, it takes us far away from the servitude of Allah and obedience to His prophet pbuh. it is our enemy and must be treated as such. It abets us to indulge in evil deeds, motivates us to turn rebels and transgress the bound. It is the root cause of undesirable worldly things like gross power, hypocrisy, rivalry, pride and arrogance and so on.


    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/28/2013 9:58:10 PM



  • Dear Rameshji, without even checking back the exact page and para, I absolutely agree with it. There is no space for pessimism in Islam. Pessimism is Kufr. As for what optimism do I have about Islam then, then let me clarify, that indeed Muslims can be reformed. With more and more knowledge of the world, Muslims will understand the message of Islam much better. The message of Islam is Peace; even the terrorist minded, misguided individual from Muslim background too believes this. The only thing that is required to be done is to ask him often and repeatedly, that does Islam stands for peace? And does your action and thoughts correspond with what you say you believe in? Are you not emphasizing more on seeking justice rather on making peace with the situation, that too on the earth itself and also selfishly, only for yourself and whom who consider yours? Are you not foregoing Peace and thus Islam for your ego? Are you not heeding to the Islamic call that repeatedly asks to have patience and to pray to give you strength to bear what you feel you are undergoing? Have you forsaken Islam? If not, then why you think yourself as losers and want to hit back? Do you think, if you will not hit back, then you would lose? Why such pessimism? Isn’t pessimism Kufr?

     

    These and many more are the kind of questions that need to be asked to Muslims today. Muslims require reform and certainly they will respond to the situation. Today Muslims are not following one tenth (figuratively speaking) of Islam and therefore all these noise and clamour from their quarter as well as because of them from other quarters.

     

    Dear Mr. Raihan Nezami Sir is also a very sensible person and his words should be taken in positive spirit. Dear Rameshji, we need your help as a support to us when we struggle with ignoramuses.  


    By sadaf - 4/28/2013 11:23:42 AM



  • Wahhabism is a radical form of Islam and needs to be moderated. It cannot be destroyed.  It can breed terrorism but it is not a synonym for terrorism. Focusing our wrath exclusively on Wahhabism creates the impression that the rest of the world of Islam is okay and not in need of reforms. That is hardly the case.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/28/2013 11:03:00 AM



  • is the indian rape problem a part of religious strife? like in darfur? so can we expect some religious discourse (like asaram bapu) that will instantly make blood brothers out of would be rapists?

    By hats off! - 4/28/2013 10:24:27 AM



  • Dear Ramesh Ji: The first time when you came up with such a nonsense question, “My question is Is Mr Shahin and the team not humans?”  I was surprised at your wit and wisdom and the reason behind this sort of reasoning.  Now, when you repeat it, I am shocked at your level of understanding.  Read my next comment after 26th April; I have opined that reformation is possible only through self-realization and introspection that will initiate the much needed changes. Religious or moral reformation can not be brought about through constitutional amendments, dharna, pradarshan and virodh. Have you brought about any changes into the mentality of the rapists?  No, not at all, tell me, can you do it?  

    We, the humans, have to keep trying, that is the only business in our hands, but the real result is in the hands of the people themselves. Keep on doing your efforts, there is a great difference and a valley between trying and doing. Everybody should reform oneself, you reform yourself, and I will reform myself that is the key of reformation.

    I, too, strongly believe, “reformation is the need of the hour, and the present NAI team is doing this noble job”. I whole-heartedly appreciate the sincere efforts of Mr. Sultan Shahin and others in the fight against the religious bigotry, social and moral evils. Lastly, Mr. Sultan Shahin is not only a human but a super-human with great philanthropic concerns, but I am sorry to say, how many are there who really appreciate his altruistic feelings?  I wish to request you not to be a Mullah passing “Fatawas” upon others hiding behind others.


    By Raihan Nezami - 4/28/2013 9:54:12 AM



  • correction to the previous post:  Please read the part of the second line as: "Those who lose  hope of islam getting better are Kafir"s. Inadvertantly the word LOSE got missed.
    By ramesh - 4/28/2013 4:56:44 AM



  • Dear sadaf,
       As suggested by you I dug the pages. In para 3 of your message dt 22/4 posted at 11.08 AM your fatwa on Kafir is mentioned. You have mentioned that ,those who lose of islam getting better are kafirs. You mentioned in a very positive sense and nothing offensive.  

    By ramesh - 4/28/2013 4:52:50 AM



  • Dear The Disease and the Cure Are Within Bhaiya, If you need to hide behind such a long false-name (pseudonym) for expressing such nice thoughts, we must be living in a very bad, mad world indeed.

     

    First, it was wrong of you to engage in polemics. They serve no purpose. Your writing should be purposeful, pointed, directed at some goal. Then being addicted to anything, no matter how good, is bad. Third, you got frustrated as you were looking for results. Both Hazrat Krishna and Hazrat Mohammad have advised us, among many saints and prophets, that we should leave the result of our good actions to God. Indeed Harat Mohammad (saw) was admonished by God for being frustrated at what he must have thought near-failure of his mission after nearly a decade-long hard work and struggle in Mecca which had led to less than a hundred people embracing Islam. So don’t think your efforts were futile. If this debating was on a website such as ours, it may still be available and will continue to help and guide people, considering you have such nice views.

     

    My submission is the following.  What Sufis did or said or focussed on in their time was good for their time and it worked. It showed so many people the path to God. However, we are now living in different times and have different imperatives. “Living out … spirituality in a non-combative way” will, of course, be still helpful and will always be helpful and one should always follow that principle. But we need to respond to situations that exist today. The Prophet (saw) was living out his life of spirituality in a non-combative way in Mecca as long as the tribal code and his elders in the family could protect him and to a certain extent his followers, but when the situation changed, he had to run away, pursued by his potential killers, and then when they did not even leave him to live and work peacefully in Medina, he was permitted by God to defend himself with arms and fight for the concept of religious freedom for all humanity, not just Muslims alone.

     

    Today, we are in the midst of a war, in fact genocide of Muslims like Sufi-Bareilwis, Shias and Ahmadis, and forcible conversion of Hindus, in several parts of the world, but most actively in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and several African countries. Genocide because this is one sided. I have no reports of retaliation. In Pakistan there was a Shia group that used to retaliate but I think it is now dormant. (I will be happy to be corrected, if my impression is wrong.)

     

    Now all this is being done by a group of people who go by different names but can be characterised as Salafi-Wahhabis. Salafi is the term they want to use for themselves, Wahhabis is what the world calls them on account of the Saudi and Arab petrodollar support for the ideology of Mohammad ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab, which was itself based on the Hanbali doctrine and writings of Ibn-e-Taimiyya. Syed Qutub of Egypt and Abul Ala Maudoodi of India-Pakistan come from this tradition. Osama bin Laden and all terrorists responsible for 9/11 (New York), 3/11 (Madrid), 26/11(Bombay), 7/7(London), etc. were from their school of thought.

     

    You must have read or seen on Television what the mother of Boston Bombing suspects said in defence of her elder son, the mastermind of that attack. She said: “My son was not a Wahhabi.” Obviously, even this illiterate lady from Chechnya knows that Islamist terrorists come from this school of thought.

     

    Some of my friends on this website think I am engaging in sectarianism when I use the term Salafism-Wahhabism to identify the ideology of Islamist terrorists. I do that my training in journalism has taught me to be as precise as possible. Words like extremism, radicalism mean nothing and also implicate all Muslim schools of thought which should not be blamed if they are themselves victims of terrorism. I cannot treat the perpetrators and victims in the same way.

     

    I do not mind being misunderstood or maliciously accused of sectarianism. My concern is what answer I will give to God when I am asked on the day of Judgement what I did when Muslims and other sections of humanity were under attack in the name of Islam. I believe Germans who kept quiet when Jews were being slaughtered will also be asked this question. That is a greater concern for me than accusations of sectarianism or sectarian polemics. I believe Islam is a religion of peace, coexistence, pluralism and broadmindedness as Sufis taught us, not the narrow-minded, fascist, totalitarian ideology a la Nazism or Fascism as the ideologues of Wahhabism teach us. I believe this and I must say so regardless of the consequences. It is for God alone to judge people’s intentions and punish or reward them.


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/28/2013 3:19:21 AM



  • dear rameshji, why don't you prove it that have said so? dig the pages and get the sentences first.
    By sadaf - 4/28/2013 12:50:35 AM



  • Dear raihan,
      You are not answering my question. I will repeat. As per you,islam cannot be reformed by humans. But Mr shahin and the team is sincerely trying out the same. My question is Is Mr Shahin and the team not humans?.In your message dated 26th you virtually repeating that today's muslims do not have the self introspection required for reformation. Please search for Sadaf's comment/fatwa  on such people who claim reform impossible as Kafirs. It is not not my fatwa but Mr sadaf's.
     I believe that reform is the need of the hour,and the present NAI team is doing this noble job.

    By ramesh - 4/27/2013 9:18:53 PM



  • Sultan Bhaiya,

    There was a time when I was addicted to polemical discussions, opposing this or that group [ideologically, I mean!]. But now I see the futility of it. I don’t suppose many people have changed their religious/ideological views simply because of other people's critiques of them----in fact, such critiques can often only further strengthen them in their convictions. The point is to offer a positive alternative--and not just outline a theory of this alternative but to actually live it out in one's life.

     So, yes, mysticism may be an appealing alternative to hardliner religious literalism, but one has to live it out, in one's day-to-day life, rather than just extol its virtues......The Sufis, for instance, didn't go about denouncing hardliner religion. They just did their job of living out their spirituality in a non-combative way, and see the enormous influence they gained--without even intending to gain influence by following and living out their spirituality..... Maaf kijiye if I have made any mistake or have hurt anyone’s feelings with this comment!


    By The Disease and the Cure Are Within - 4/27/2013 5:29:44 PM



  • Dear Shahin Sahib,

    I just visited your website and got lot of good information and knowledge.

    By Nisar - 4/26/2013 10:00:36 PM



  • Mr. Ramesh! At present time, there is at least one Mufti in every home and they are doing their duty in the name of "Ijtihad". You are also a "Mufti" so pass out "Fatawas". I don't know about Mr. Sadaf's Fatawa.
    By Raihan Nezami - 4/26/2013 9:30:43 AM



  • Mr. Ramesh! Please note down, reformation is through introspection and self-realization that lacks in present time human beings. Tell me one thing, why don't you try to reform the human beings, their sense and sensibility, feelings and morality? Every next day you hear of a rape mostly in Northern parts of India, there are other heinous crimes also taking place at every nook and corner of Indian states and elsewhere as well. The people have lost their character and morals. It is not the mistake of Islam and it's teachings. Why are you people worried about the religions, please do worry about the human behavior, social etiquettes
    By Raihan Nezami - 4/26/2013 9:24:11 AM



  • Dear raihan,
        As per you islam cannot be reformed by humans. You seem to forget that through  this site is MR Sahin and the team are engaged in this very purpose. Are not these people  humans? Is Mr sultan Shahin a god?.
       You are advising me not to to worry about islam reformation. Why not? It concerns not only non muslims but also muslims. Islam first kills non muslims and then muslims. Hence iam naturaly concerned.
        In an  another thread,mr sadaf defined people who  think  reformation impossible as Kufrs.

    By ramesh - 4/26/2013 8:37:00 AM



  • attention mr rational, i did not know where to post this, so i selected the most active thread.

    please do a google search for ibn tufail/awakening of the soul. and then read that "novel".

    it is worth it.

    By hats off! - 4/26/2013 8:19:25 AM



  • Dear  Sadaf,
       I read and re-read your views on Aurangazeb. You seem to argue that he was not a bad person.  Can a person who killed Guru Tej Bahadur for refusing to convert declared a bad person?. I had high opinion regarding your secular values. Seems you have degenerated.You may need advice from the editor.
       On this issue Rational has given the apprpriate  answer.

    By ramesh - 4/26/2013 7:30:19 AM



  • All Sunni Sufi unanimously agree that no companion was involved in killing Hazrat Usman ra. I know that all the companions loved the prophet so much that they can not even think of killing Hazrat Usman ra whom the prophet loved and rewarded. The holy Quran has upgraded Hazrat Usman ra. Hazrat Aisha and Hazrat Ali knew the dignity of Hazrat Usman ra given by the prophet pbuh. When Hazrat Ali ra came to know that some rebels are trying to kill Hazrat Usman, he deployed his two sons Hazrat Imam Hasan and Husain ra for the safety of Hazrat Usman ra. Somehow the rebels entered the house of Hazrat Usman and killed him.

    Let me make it clear that a companion namely Muhammad the son of Hazrat Abu Bakr ra came along with the rebels with the purpose of killing Hazrat Usman ra.

    Yes, a companion Hazrat Muhammad the son of Abu  Bakr came to kill Hazrat Usman ra, but what happened, and why did the former turn away from the killing the latter one?

    Hazrat Muhamamd bin Abu Bakr first held the beard of Hazrat Usman ra, with the purpose of killing him, but when Hazrat Usman ra reminded Muhammad the son of Abu Bakr of his father Abu Bakr ra, so Hazrat Muhamamd bin Abu Bakar ra felt ashamed and immediately left the beard of Hazrat Usman ra. However, the rebels did not leave Hazrat Usman ra and killed him.

    When Hazrat Ali ra knew the martyrdom of Hazrat Usman ra, he got angry at both Hazrat Hasan Hazrat Husain who were deployed for the safety of Hazrat Usman ra as they could not save the life of Hazrat Usman ra. Later, Hazrat Ali ra asked Muhamamd the son of Abu Bakr about those who killed Usman ra. He told Hazrat Ali ra the whole truth of martyrdom of Usman ra and said that the killers were from Egypt. (Taareekhul Khulfa, Tareekh Tabri and Tabqat Ibn Saad.)      

    Hence it is clear that rebels belonging to Egypt killed Usman ra. For further details about hazrat Usman ra, go through the holy Quran, Bukhari Shareef, Muslim Shareef, Tirmizi Shareef, Taareekhul Khulfa, Tareekh Tabri and Tabqat Ibn Saad.


    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/26/2013 3:26:23 AM



  • One thing is sure. There is no lack of able and willing editors/ reinterpretors for the Quran - among the Muslim community, let me hasten to add. 

    It is a good sign. 

    Now if only someone could get the project going on a global scale, so that scattered soprano soloists could train a wonderful global choir to sings their hymns too. 

    By secular logic - 4/26/2013 1:54:33 AM



  • Mr. Hamza,

    The question of the divinity of the Quran is something that each Muslim has to decide for himself/herself. Our heritage, the religion of Islam, is what binds and sustains our community, so it is incumbent upon us to try to resolve any apparent or real contradictions in it, to negate any contents that go against its basic teaching of peace, justice, equality, rationality and compassion, and to try to align it with modern precepts of democracy, secularism and human rights.

    As I said before. "Many of us will agree that we have self-contradictory messages coming from the scriptures as well as from sectarianism. We need to deal with this the way other religions have dealt with it, namely de-emphasize and ignore what is unfair or fascistic, and underline and expand on what propels us towards being good human beings and good societies. We should be honest enough to be able to say at times, "We do not believe in that anymore."

    Absolutist doctrines such as jihadism and apostasy are of no interest to me.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/26/2013 12:00:16 AM



  • Mr Rational, if you have aimed at not believing me, I will say what the holy Quran says “there is no compulsion in the religion”. As it is obligatory for a Muslim to believe every verse of the holy Quran, so no one can deny this verse. As being a Muslim this is my responsibility to remind you that I can not force you to believe the peaceful approach of Sufis and Auliyas.

    I am not like extremist Wahabis who violently force others to believe their opinions.  Thanks Allah almighty I am born in a family belonging to Sufis and Auliyas. I am soft because my Sufis are soft. I have learnt how to promote peace from the life of the holy Prophet Muhammad pbuh, Sufis and Auliyas ra. My Sufis have never forced anyone; I too, can not force you to believe me.

    Those who do not like peace in the world can not love to hear peace project. Under some pretext they will reject peaceful message of Islam, let alone peace projected by Sufis.

    I think that when extremist Wahabis go against the book of Allah almighty, can very easily reject the Sufiyas’ guidance for promoting love, brotherhood and tolerance.


    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/25/2013 11:10:21 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb, you have said: “An honest answer would be that we want to underplay or explain away the political aspects and emphasize and re-affirm the spiritual and moral aspects of Islam. There may be disagreements on what Islam is, but there should be no disagreement on what we want Islam to be. As I have said before, all religions are works in progress.”
    To this Mr. Sultan Shahin replied:
    "You are saying and indeed practicing what Sufia-e-Karam, Oqala-e-Islam have been doing through the ages, just hinting at some reflections, even guiding us in a certain direction and leaving it at that, either keeping quiet or saying that this should not be discussed in public: “that we want to underplay or explain away the political aspects and emphasize and re-affirm the spiritual and moral aspects of Islam.” 
    "Poet-philosopher of Islam, Allama Iqbal, for instance, merely said in his “The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam,” that perhaps Bergson was right in saying that revelation is a higher form of wisdom and moved on without discussing the nature of revelation further. Shah Waliullah’s Hujjatul Balegha is similarly full of hints at his reflection on the nature of prophets’ work, not just Prophet Mohammad’s but that of prophets in general.
    "These and some other basic issues have been reflected upon by the authorities in Islamic learning and left un-discussed, un-elaborated in public. I would like to submit that this is no longer possible. Today, everything is public. We are living in an age of media, internet. There is an explosion of communication facilities available to all. Books that could be found only in some remote libraries in big cities are available in our homes, on our cell phones, even if we are living in a remote desert village or on a mountaintop. The result is that many Muslims today who were content to be social, cultural Muslims before, have now started articulating their questions in an erudite manner. Erudition is on one’s fingertip today."
    By Sultan Shahin - 4/24/2013 3:29:53 AM
    ---
    Three days have passed on this valuable post but not a single word from the so called Islamist rationalists so far. It seems they are afraid of discussing such vital issues in public.
    Mr. Shahin pointed out:” Allama Iqbal said, “Perhaps Bergson was right in saying that revelation is a higher form of wisdom”. Iqbal also said, “is mein shak nahin ki uske (prophet) ke samne laghzishon aur iltebasaat ke maqaam theek waise hi aate hain jaise ki tajzia-e-ilmi (scientific analysis) ke liye hawaas par bharosa karne wale sainsdaan (scientists)laghzishon aur iltebaas se do char hote hain…. aur iltebasaat ki aamezish se apne tajrabah ko pak karne ke maamlon mein who sainsdanon (scientists) se kam chaukas(alert) nahin rahta.”
    (Prophets, like scientists are also faced with confusions and mistakes but they are no less alert than the scientists in rectifying their mistakes).Ref: Reconstruction Of Religious Thoughts In Islam, Urdu version: Tafkeer-e-Deeni par Tajdeedi Nazar, P 199.
    Another great Islamic thinker and alim Allama Shibli Nomani writes in his famous book,”Ilmul Kalam”---“ Imam Ghazali ki tasneefat se saaf nazar aata hai ki wahi ki haqeeqat( revelation )ke bare mein saikron khayalaat dil mein bhare hain lekin zabaan tak nahin la sakte. Jawaherul quran mein (Ghazali) likhte hain,”baaz kitabon mein maine kuchh asli khayalaat bayaan kiye hain kekin qasam delai hai ki bajuz khaas logon key eh kitaben aur kisi ke haath mein na jane payen”
    (“The writings of Imam Ghazali reveal that hundreds of thoughts come to his mind regarding the reality of revelation but he cannot bring them to his tongue. Ghazali writes in Jawaherul Quran or the Traits of Quran: “I have come out with some of my real thoughts in some of my writings but have made the readers to swear an oath that these thoughts are not shared with the common public and remain confined to a few scholars.”
    Do the blind defenders of the divinity of Quran have to say something?
    By Hamzah - 4/25/2013 10:15:21 PM



  •  Dear Sultan Shahin Sahab,

    Thanks for your reassuring word, but those who dedicate themselves on a mission do not harbour ‘sataitish ki tamanna/ sile ki parwah.”

                                                                     Poetry aside, I just came across the following verses this morning I want to share with you / readers.

     “And there are people who exchange idle tales (for the Qur’anic guidance) to mislead (others) from the (right) path, without knowledge, and to deride (the revelation). A humiliating punishment awaits them (31:6). And when Our verses are recited to him, he turns away in arrogance, as though he never heard them, as if there was deafness in his ears. So announce to him a painful punishment” (31:7).

      And who can be more unjust than he, who, when reminded of the verses of his Lord turns away from them? We will surely take vengeance on the guilty”. (32:22)


    By muhammad yunus - 4/25/2013 8:05:37 PM



  • Mr Rational, please read my comment attentively. 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 did he order 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 - 4/25/2013 5:46:28 PM



  • Dear Ramesh: The people like you need not worry for the reformation in Islam as it can not be changed by human beings and especially by the people with ugly motives and dirty intentions unless the almighty Allah wills. Islam is a perfect religion with complete codes of life for this world and hereafter - eternity, it's you and others who choose according to their wishes, hence they get each and every thing that they want.
    By Raihan Nezami - 4/25/2013 1:32:32 PM



  • There is error in your reading Dear Mr. Ramesh. I am talking about myself and not Aurangzeb. Please read the sentences once again, and I hope you will get it clearly. 

    I had also asked you to point out my sentence which you understood to be saying things about kafir etc. 

    By sadaf - 4/25/2013 10:39:02 AM



  • Dear Yunus Saheb, Do not be discouraged with some people not bothering to read or benefit from your articles in a positive way. God has given us choice and free will. Those of us who choose peace, do everything to promote peace. For such people your work is very valuable. Those who choose to work towards promoting strife in the world, sometimes for business and political reasons, sometimes just to satisfy a blood lust they may have, or even as revenge for real or imaginary wrongs done to them, cannot be interested in benefiting from your work.

     

    I find your work very beneficial and am trying to see that it even reaches people who do not go online but like to read books. Some will surely think this would be a waste of time and money. However, don't get discouraged and please carry on your Jihad through Ijtihad. This world is so fascinating because of the variety of people who live here. How would we get an opportunity to work for peace if there were no people interesting in stoking strife.  


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/25/2013 10:21:28 AM



  • Sadaf first told aurangazeb as a good person. Then retracted and said never said so.Then added he is a moderate.  Since all moderates are good then again it implies aurangazeb is a good person. You can take any meaning like quran.
    By ramesh - 4/25/2013 9:57:58 AM



  • "...a good muslim is a believer in God - regardless of religion...".  100% agree.
    Some people can understand religion only in the way, it is mentioned in Manorma Year Book, that so and so number of people are Hindu, and so and so number are Muslims. Who knows what is inside ones heart. May be they are counting ration too as Muslim and rational mian bam fire ho rahe hain ki bhala yeh bhi koi baat hai?

    As for binary thinking, computers work on that but computer are also known to have zero intelligence. Yeh maari baazi. Ab bolo.

    By sadaf - 4/25/2013 9:48:22 AM



  • mr rational, you are too, three, four much!

    By hats off! - 4/25/2013 9:00:04 AM



  • Dear Rational,

    You state, “When a non-believer in the Quran is a kafir and believer a momin and kafir is destined to hell for eternity, is it not a binary kind of thing.”

    You are citing the traditional literalist, restrictive and exclusivist interpretation of the Qur’anic message. As a number of my articles referenced below demonstrate on the strength of the Qur’an:

    1 “From the Qur’anic perspective all faith communities – Christians, Jews, and others – regardless of whether or not they are mentioned in the Qur’an (4:164, 40:78) - belong to the universal religion of Islam (Submission to God and doing of good deeds), and so do the followers of the Prophet – the Muslim community. Each member of the universal faith of Islam, whether he or she is a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew or has any other faith not explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an because of its historic context, will be judged solely on the basis of his/her deeds and none can claim any spiritual supremacy over the others:

    “Neither your desires, nor the desires of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever does evil will be requited accordingly, and he will not find any protector or helper besides God. Anyone - be it a man or a woman, who does good deeds, and is a believer in God – it is these that shall enter the Garden and will not be wronged at all” (4:123/124).

    Ref: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamIslamAndSpiritualism_1.aspx?ArticleID=5802

    [Conclusion]

    2. “The Qur’anic broader notion of taqwa and its association with the deeper impulses of all humanity demolishes any distinction of people on religious ground. A Muslim person (regardless of gender) most visibly given to religious symbolism or devoted to religious rituals, may lag behind or even fail in taqwa and disqualify for divine rewards, while a non-Muslim person, probably even an atheist, who has no lesser share of divine inspiration in his/her subconscious soul, may excel in taqwa and earn divine reward despite his lacking in religious symbolism and visible or regimented devotion – though God knows best who all will earn divine reward.”

    Ref: http://newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/the-quran-s-broader-notion-of-taqwa-–-an-irrefutable-testimony-to-its-universalism/d/7889

    [Last para under 3]

    3. “..a good muslim is a believer in God - regardless of religion, race, cast, creed or affiliation with a spiritual fraternity, who is active in good deeds, is conscious of his social, moral and ethical responsibilities and preserves against all that is gross, immoral and unjust. Since God alone can judge human’s faith (iman), deeds (‘aml) and moral uprightness (taqwa), a non-Muslim in the divisive human language can be a better muslim in divine record than a Muslim (follower of Prophet Muhammad). Hence the Muslims have absolutely no basis to call the non-Muslims as kafirs (denier of truth), individually or collectively.”

    Ref: http://newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/by-muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/the-broader-notion-of-din-al-islam-is-inclusive-of-all-monotheistic-faiths/d/8054

    [Conclusion]

    I hope you will read the articles – which are nothing but exposition of relevant Qur’anic verses, to remove your misconceptions or sectarian notions.  


    By muhammad yunus - 4/25/2013 7:59:38 AM



  • What grey shade is between Muslim and Non-Muslim, Kafir and Momin, Mushrik and Mohid.
    Doesn't this world runs in binary mode too?
    When a non-beliover in the Quran is a kafir and believer a momin and kafir is destined to hell for eternity, is it not a binary kind of thing.
    Is adha kafir adha momin (grey shade) is acceptable to Allah Kareem?

    All shades are converted to binary in a computer, processed and converted back to shades. Entire digital world is working in binary mode.
    Can you suggest aadha binary (non-linear) and aadha analog (linear) at the same time? Don't wahabis have grey shades?

    By rational - 4/25/2013 6:28:40 AM



  • hats off to mr satbir singh bedi for his answer. reminded of coll fresh breeze on an early morning.

    the most liberated man is one who has nothing to hide.

    By hats off! - 4/25/2013 5:48:27 AM



  • Did I ever say, he was good person? Why do you people see everything in binary fashion. Either it has to be black or white. May I ask why? Things can always be between these two extreme. Things can be grey as well. When you are ready to see the middle of spectrum then only you can call yourself moderates and different from extremists.

    I consider Talibans as extremists and unlike them I have moderates views on everyone including Aurangzeb. As I said, he was neither so good to be my hero, nor he was so bad to be a villain.

    While Hindus paid Jaziya, Muslims were made to life unlike their Hindu forefathers. Even if you have a choice between the two, what would you like to have? To be able to live like your forefathers or to pay the tax and get rid of the Emperor's diktat.


    By sadaf - 4/25/2013 5:37:29 AM



  • @Sadaf. Well our heroes are different.  Aurangzeb is your hero but my heroes are Dara Shikoh and Sarmad whom Aurangzeb got killed.  So let us agree to disagree. 

    @Ramesh. I am inclined to agree with you.  However, I respect Muslims like Dara Shikoh, Sarmad, Baba Bulleh Shah, Sain Mian Mir, Baba Sheikh Farid, Khwaja Ghulam Farid, Mansoor, Omar Khayyam, Mirza Ghalib, etc.  I believe in incarnation of God and also I am a grave worshipper as well as picture worshipper and idol worshipper besides being a lover of beauty and music.

    By Satbir Singh Bedi - 4/25/2013 5:14:39 AM



  • Bete sadaf then your comments against Wahabis are kori bakwas. Debates on NAI on Wahabi is kori bakwas. They are good to many Muslims and bad to many. They are so sincere that they take lives and give theirs too.
    Muhammed bin Qasim was ghazi for Muslims but a tyrant for Hindus.
    Changez khan was Rahmat for mangols but Qahre Khudawandi on Muslims. Hitler was good to Nazis but worst enemy of Jews and many others.
    Modi is projected as future PM but for Muslims a tyrant.
    The Prophet was rahmat for Muslims and an imposter and murderer for Jews.

    What do you want to say?  Are you not behaving like a apologist of worst kind.

    By rational - 4/25/2013 5:11:39 AM



  • Dear Satbirji,
       Aurangazeb killed Guru Tegh Bahadur,was ruthless on hindus and imposed Jaziya on hindus . He was a good person as per Sadaf. He was a good person because he allowed hindus to live after paying jaziya.As per sharia ,
    1. People of books( jews and christians) are only  allowed to to live by paying taxes.
    2. polythiests like hindus have to be convertted or get killed. No option for them to pay jazia and live like slaves.
       As Aurangazeb allowed hindus to live ,he is a good person.
      Aurangazeb was a pious person but fanatical muslim ,just like the wahabis. If aurangazeb was good ,then all wahabis are definitely good.
        These are the people  that are trying  to reform islam. Hence Iam contrained to believe Islam cannot be reformed.

    By ramesh - 4/25/2013 4:23:29 AM



  • Well Dear Mr. Satbir Singh Bediji, it is upto you to think that  God can be killed. I don't believe that God can be killed. For me it is like, what is a God, when He can be killed? 

    By the way, I do not feel afraid of Aurangzeb kind of Muslims. I don't know, if they fear me or not, but I am also not afraid of them. 

    About being hateful of music, it reminded me of Girish Karnad of what he said of V.S.Naipaul. Some people are tone-deaf. But 'no', as per my information Aurangzeb visited Ajmer and heard Qawwali and then after he allowed the practice of Qawwali. 

    Anyway, I hope, little bit of difference of opinion with you, will not make me see you going to extreme. If you hate Aurangzeb even when he was not that much hateful neither too adorable, then perhaps you too are showing the Talibanic tendency of going to extreme who hate music as if a drop of music will melt them. 

    By sadaf - 4/25/2013 3:38:26 AM



  • @Sadaf.  I do not agree with you.  As I have already mentioned, I consider Guru Tegh Bahadur to be an Incarnation of God.  So, I cannot consider Aurangzeb to be any good who has killed my God.  I am quite happy to be with Dara Shikoh type of Muslims but I am afraid to be in the company of Aurangzeb type of Muslims.  In my view, Aurangzeb is no different from Talibans.  Talibans hate music and Aurangzeb too hated music.  He was an extreme type of fanatical Muslim.
    By Satbir Singh Bedi - 4/25/2013 2:56:38 AM



  • Dear Satbir Singh Bediji, no one can be so good and no one can be so bad. 

    I hope you won't say that while one case can be true the other case is not possible. People go about doing so many things, some good, some bad, sometimes they do some bad unintentionally, sometimes they behave badly momentarily. If we had some graphical representation of who did what in what circumstances and what mood, we would have had Brownian movement kind of pattern to see.

    Why Aurangzeb was so good, yet he was so bad or why he was so bad yet he was so good or why he was neither so good nor so bad is all analytics and it depends on who is doing the analysis and what bias he/she carries and in what mood he or she is while doing so. We should not get trapped in all these. 

    What we can do is have all kinds of information, the good, bad and ugly and then have a look of what is there to see.

    There are similar edicts which says something about Babar and even Muhammad bin Qasim- who arrived as the first Muslim conqueror of Sindh, some 600 years after the first mosque was built in India. And we should let that be there without being judgmental.  

    By sadaf - 4/25/2013 1:22:59 AM



  • @Sadaf.  If Aurangzeb was so good towards Hindus, why did he kill Guru Tegh Bahadur and Bhai Mati Das as well as other followers of Guru Tegh Bahadur, who were harmless Hindus.
    By Satbir Singh Bedi - 4/24/2013 11:15:15 PM



  • dear mr rational, as for vegetarianism versus meat eating, it is purely a personal choice. it was an easy one for me to make. i became a complete vegetarian after i slaughtered a goat personally.

    believe me, it was depersonalizing, desensitizing and something i could do without entirely. by the way while on this issue, please do a google search on the andes plane crash survivors.

    By hats off! - 4/24/2013 10:30:47 PM



  • Ghulam ghaus instead of preparing for the exams involved in this site.What will he write in the examination? Simply wahabi,salafi,sufi,kafir,naseem,shahin,sadaf,saudi  etc. Afterwards will say muslims are underrepresented.x5qff
    By ramesh - 4/24/2013 9:05:38 PM



  • Dear hats off! - 4/24/2013 7:51:59 PM.
    It was just to tell Mr Ghulam Ghauss his peers are not as peaceful as they are projected.
    He has many things to explain. I am waiting for end of his examinations.
    After heavy reading debates on vegetarianism vs non-vegetarianism  I settled on middle path.

    By rational - 4/24/2013 8:48:48 PM



  • dear mr rational, beef eating is a universal practice. maybe except for the hindus. when everyone (well almost) is comfortable with killing animals for food, i do not think a bovine needs a "reservation".

    as for mr ghulam ghaus, there is this issue about the planetary system. way more important than beefburgers.

    By hats off! - 4/24/2013 7:51:59 PM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/24/2013 5:25:29 AM

    What ever you say is right from the same sources.
    Sira and history is not written by "rational" or "hats off" or a jew or a christian or a jansanghi Hindu or a non-beliver. It is written by Muslims who are most respected persons for Muslims. When
    I quoted from Tabri and Ishaq Mr Mohammed Yunus went out of mind, left his reason far behind because it was against the prophet. Same Tabri is quoted by you because it has some thing favorable to you.
    Instead of providing the names of the Sunni Ulema you are busy somewhere else.
    Actually you have not produced any answer in your defense of your peer Sarhindi.
    Cow slaughter is not an imperative, but the way it is used by Sarhindi is problematic. Often I hear
    Is beef available here? Alhamdo lillah  bhai yahhan to hota hai. Then see the satisfaction on the faces of the Muslims.
    Among the Ulema in my knowledge Devbandis and one Brailvi Fadhl-e-haq khirabaadi were against the cow slaughter and issued fatwa too.
    But the craving is there at the cost of the safety. Ismen devbandi aur barailvio barabar hain.
    Lekin ab yeh theekra mere sar mat phodna ki main hinduon ko uksa raha hoon.

    By rational - 4/24/2013 7:37:36 PM



  • Hats off says, "not a single ulema in the whole wide world will ever agree to the proposition that islam is a "work in progress"."

    True! That's why the work of the ijtihadis is cut out for them.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/24/2013 5:57:35 PM



  • not a single ulema in the whole wide world will ever agree to the proposition that islam is a "work in progress".

    they will vehemently deny any contradiction in the koranic texts.

    aggressive public display of a drummed up religious fervour, seeking a difference in attire and demanding non-discrimination, blaming everyone except themselves are standards of all religion. when the prophet has perfected the religion for us, what equality of religions can we talk about?

    as it is muslims are overdosing on islam and the koran. the remedy is less islam not more.

    By hats off! - 4/24/2013 4:19:19 PM



  • Sultan Shahin Sahab,

    Thanks for your thoughtful response. When I said that we should all agree on what Islam should be, what I meant was that Islam must stand for peace, justice, co-existence and respect for the beliefs of others. Islam must be unequivocally against the killing of innocent civilians and against gender inequality.

    Many of us will agree that we have self-contradictory messages coming from the scriptures as well as from sectarianism. We need to deal with this the way other religions have dealt with it, namely de-emphasize and ignore what is unfair or fascistic, and underline and expand on what propels us towards being good human beings and good societies. We should be honest enough to be able to say at times, "We do not believe in that anymore."


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/24/2013 1:21:28 PM



  • Does any companion (sahaba) kill the one who has been given so high dignity by the prophet Muhammad pbuh. Hazrat Abu Huraira narrated that Prophet said: "Every Prophet has a Rafeeq (companion) in Paradise and my Rafeeq in Paradise in Usman."(Ibne Majah - Ch:Virtues of Usman

    Hazrat Aisha ra knew the dignity of Hazrat Uthman ra by the prophet Muhammad pbuh. Can she incite anyone to kill Hazrat Uthman ra as the prophet Muhammad pbuh loved him too much? See the following Hadith.

    “The Mother of Believers Hazrat Aysha narrates: Prophet was lying one day in my apartment with thighs or (shanks) exposed. Then Abu bakr came and sought permission to enter and the Prophet bade him come in, in that very state of his.Abu Bakr came in and spoke to him and having his need fulfilled, went back.Then Hazrat Umar came and sought permission to enter and Prophet permitted him to enter while he was in that state.Umar entered and spoke to Prophet and having his need fulfilled .went back.Then Hazrat Usman Ghani came sought permission to enter whereupon Prophet sat up, straightened his clothing and then let him enter. Hazrat Usman came in and spoke to Prophet .After he had gone I spoke to Prophet:"Abu Bakr came in and you neither sat up nor show any anxiety (with regard to dressing) and Umar came in and you neither sat up nor show any anxiety.But When Hazrat Usman Ghani came in you straightened your clothing? The Prophet Said "Should I not feel bashful of a man in whose presence even the angels feel Bashful? (Reported by Moslem)

    My final and most authentic reference is that the prophet loves Hazrat Uthman so much that no companion can even think of killing Hazrat Uthman, let alone killing him.


    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/24/2013 5:25:29 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/24/2013 1:37:37 AM.
    Finish your exams first. Your answers are not up to the mark. We will talk later.

    Please name the Sunni Scholars you want me to quote from

    By rational - 4/24/2013 3:56:46 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb, you have said: “An honest answer would be that we want to underplay or explain away the political aspects and emphasize and re-affirm the spiritual and moral aspects of Islam. There may be disagreements on what Islam is, but there should be no disagreement on what we want Islam to be. As I have said before, all religions are works in progress.”

     

    You have very kindly responded to a question I had repeatedly put to another person who will not reply. The question was put at different times in different ways. But it mainly went like this: Do you consider Islam a political, fascist, totalitarian ideology or a spiritual faith that accepts not only myriad interpretations of Islam but also other faiths and calls them all Islam?”

     

    I am grateful for your answer as it would help us take our brainstorming further.

    There are two parts to your answer. I will respond to the second part first: “there should be no disagreement on what we want Islam to be.”

     

    This is an impossible dream. To me, not even desirable. It smacks of a totalitarian attitude. God has blessed us with different minds, different opinions, different dreams, so that we can try to see the oneness of existence and grow intellectually, spiritually. Finding the correct pattern, in other words discovering unity in diversity is a part of all IQ tests. The more intellectually gifted we are, the better we are in seeing unity in diversity. In order to develop intellectually, therefore, we must remain exposed to diversities of various sorts. This is also the way to grow spiritually. This is what God is telling us by giving us different minds and different dreams and putting us all together, forcing us to learn to accept and respect, at least cheerfully cope with each other. New interpretations of given texts, new dreams of the world we want to live in. should never be disallowed, even discouraged.

     

    Now, while coping, accepting, respecting is fine, we also have to fight with some people’s dreams. Some dreams are hurtful to humanity, go against the basic template of existence. For instance, God gives us free will, right to choose our religion, -- la ikraha, no compulsion, fiddeen, in religion or way of life. But when some people don’t allow you that, try to kill you for practicing this freedom and turn you out of your homes because you want to practice a way of life different from theirs, and then also come to kill you, you are also allowed to defend yourself with weapons and then rules are set how to fight this war, the do’s and don’ts.

     

     Now coming to the first and most important part. You are saying and indeed practicing what Sufia-e-Karam, Oqala-e-Islam have been doing through the ages, just hinting at some reflections, even guiding us in a certain direction and leaving it at that, either keeping quiet or saying that this should not be discussed in public: “that we want to underplay or explain away the political aspects and emphasize and re-affirm the spiritual and moral aspects of Islam.”  

     

    Poet-philosopher of Islam, Allama Iqbal, for instance, merely said in his “The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam,” that perhaps Bergson was right in saying that revelation is a higher form of wisdom and moved on without discussing the nature of revelation further. Shah Waliullah’s Hujjatul Balegha is similarly full of hints at his reflection on the nature of prophets’ work, not just Prophet Mohammad’s but that of prophets in general.

     

    These and some other basic issues have been reflected upon by the authorities in Islamic learning and left un-discussed, un-elaborated in public. I would like to submit that this is no longer possible. Today, everything is public. We are living in an age of media, internet. There is an explosion of communication facilities available to all. Books that could be found only in some remote libraries in big cities are available in our homes, on our cell phones, even if we are living in a remote desert village or on a mountaintop. The result is that many Muslims today who were content to be social, cultural Muslims before, have now started articulating their questions in an erudite manner. Erudition is on one’s fingertip today.

     

    Some embarrassing questions have been asked on this site too. Some by disenchanted Muslims, some by curious non-Muslims, some by ordinary people who have started wondering if they must fear Islam, some by motivated Islamophobes. Even to questions by disenchanted Muslims, we have responded dismissively, with irritation, calling them names like apostate, Islamophobe, etc. Even our sober, erudite responses are essentially based on the old templates, coming more or less from the same resources and same mindset. Why is a Muslim asking us questions that make us so uncomfortable, why is he so persistent, why would he not just go away, and finally why is the editor allowing this Islamophobic content: these are some of the questions we have asked.

     

    True, some thinking, disenchanted Muslims have behaved sometimes like Islamophobes, showing no sympathy whatsoever for the plight of Muslims who do not like the idea of asking questions about faith; after all, it is our heirloom, just as paganism was for the Meccans whom the Prophet tried to wake up from their slumber. We are happy being hereditary Muslims just as they were happy being hereditary pagans; we don’t want any one, least of all, one of our own, blaspheming our God and Prophet, just as Meccans did not like one of their own, Muhammad, blaspheming their gods day in and day out.

     

    I would suggest that instead of trying to brush issues under the carpet, de-emphasising one aspect and emphasising another, which is no longer even possible, we take the bull by its horns and engage ourselves with the burning issue of our age: Is Islam a political, fascist, totalitarian ideology or a spiritual faith that accepts not only myriad interpretations of Islam but also other faiths and calls them all Islam?

    Your answer seems to suggest that it is both, but we should focus on what we want it to be in future. But our dreams of future will of necessity have to be based on our understanding of our past.

     

    I like your formulation of religions being work in progress. I do not know about other religions, but in Islam, we do not even need to go beyond our religion, to make progress. If we are behind even some religions of the past in some respects, this is because we stopped using, by and large, the institution of ijtihad. Iqbal’s “Reconstruction ...” was an attempt to inspire us to revive that institution. We haven’t done much so far. But at least questions are being raised. Some solutions thought of and in some corners of the word even implemented.


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/24/2013 3:29:53 AM



  • Babar and Aurangzeb, the much maligned rulers of Hindustan, had given explicit instruction to not hurt Hindu sentiments. I quote below two of the sayings of Aurangzeb. 

    He said: "Why should there be foolish fanaticism in religion? 'To you be your way, And to me mine- Lakum Deenukum Wa Liya Deen- why should we worry about the religion of others? Let Jesis and Moses continue their paths".

    Perhaps Aurangzeb missed the fact that the path of Jesus and Moses was the same one as that of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon all of them).

    The same Aurangzeb issued a firman saying: "Our earnest attempts to uplift the people of all races and religions should be implemented with the utmost love and affection. Our holy laws do not allow the destruction and desecration of temples".

    Secular Logic will feel the mirchi where he should feel it, but let me say, that such talk of secularism is given by even Modi. Aurangzeb dethroned his father who was building Taj Mahal and Red Fort at citizen's expense and for that both the Baap-Beta duo will not be ever forgotten.

     

    By sadaf - 4/24/2013 3:05:07 AM



  • Dear rational, have you forgot the long debate where I gave you answers to all your questions regarding Shaikh Sirhindi ra? Now, in one of your comments in this thread, you have raised the same question. If you have forgot, you can go through it again.

    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 did he order 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.

    To get more about Ghause Azam and Shaikh sirhindi ra go through the following link.

    URL:  http://newageislam.com/islam-and-politics/ghulam-ghaus,-new-age-islam/refuting-talibani-fatwa-on-islam-and-democracy--are-they-incompatible-with-each-other?/d/10409
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/24/2013 1:37:37 AM



  • Mr, Rational please quote from Sunni Sufi Scholars' books. Could you give me the authentic reference from the Sunni scholars? The narrations which favour killing of Uthman ra by a companion(sahaba) are either weak due to broken chain of narrators or rejected by Hadeeth's scholars.  
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/24/2013 1:34:26 AM



  • Let us talk about what is happening in the present and not squabble over what happened in the past. An occasional reference is OK, only to do some case study but trying to prove something of that long back, when there is no proof except that this fellow said this thing, and that fellow said that thing, leads you nowhere. The problematic people may be having a history too, but should one care; they have to be just finished off. That's it. 
    By sadaf - 4/24/2013 1:32:51 AM



  • Mr Rational, I mean to say that Hazrat Uthman was not killed by any companion. I quoted your Ibne Taimia (who is regarded as one of the leading leaders of Wahabi sect) who goes to say that those who killed Uthman ra were Khawarij. Ibne Taimia’s view will help you clear your doubts.

    There are some more authentic reports from Ahle-Sunnah books are enough.

    1. It is authentically reported that al-Hasan al-Basri (rh) – Who was eye witness of this crime – was asked: “Did any one from among Muhajirin or Ansar participate in killing Uthman?” He (rh) replied: “No, they were infidel from people of Egypt” (Khalifa bin Khayyat: al-Tareeq – p 174. All men in the chain are among the thiqaat).

    2. Likewise it authentically reported from Qais bin Abi Hazam that no sahabi was among those who participated in the killing of Uthman. (Ibn Asaker in Tareekh – p 408)


    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/24/2013 1:05:50 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/23/2013 11:29:19 PM
    I didn't ask you to reply. However you are welcome. Kindly accept my best wishes.
    Your answer is incomplete.
    After you finish your exam please mention the names who took the part in the killing of the Hz Uthman.
    You quoted Tabri which you people call a liar. What is your source of information?
    Either demand of Hz Muaviya was wrong or Hz Ali's stand was wrong. Both are Sahabis. Sunnis and Shias are divided on this issue.

    Al-Razi records in Al-Mahsol, Volume 4 page 343:

    فكانت عائشة رضي الله عنها تحرض عليه جهدها وطاقتها وتقول أيها الناس هذا قميص رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يبل وقد بليت سنته اقتلوا نعثلا قتل الله نعثلا

    Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) did her best to incite people against Uthman, and she used to say: ‘Oh people! This is the cloth of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) still not ragged, while his Sunnah is ragged, kill Nathal, may Allah kill Nathal.’

    I will come with more stuff.



    By rational - 4/23/2013 11:56:19 PM



  • Mr Rational says to Mr Sultan Shahin “Can you tell me why the sons of the Sahaba killed Hz Uthman and passed the comments on his wife in the state of reading the Qur'an? Which wahabi was there? Which khwarij was there?”

    Mr Rational, could you tell me the authenticity of what you have said above? No, you can not do.

    According to Sunni scholars, the companion (Sahaba) did not take part in the crime of killing Hazrat Uthman ra.

    Then who killed Hazrat Uthman ra. See the following.

    Al-Zubair described them as MOD from Egypt.

    Ayesha said it was tribal dispute [at-tabari (4/461-462)].

     Ibn Saad described them as scum of the society [Tabaqat (3/71)].

    Even According to Ibne Taimia they were Khawarij. He says “They were corruptive rebels (Khawarij mufsidoon), misguided transgressors. [Minhaj al-Sunnah 96/297)].

    Imam Al-Nawawi says “none of the sahaba took part in the killing of Uthman (ra) and that he was unjustly killed by mob that came from Egypt in his Sharh Muslim”.

    Since you favoured the weak and unauthentic source, I want you to be clear that according to Sunni scholars, no companion took part in the killing of hazrat Uthman ra.

    Mr Rational, Tomorrow my exam is going to be held, but I can not help answering you.
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/23/2013 11:29:19 PM



  • Abdullah will not respond because his guru is busy in castism but was very angry just mentioning of Bihari or Bengali. This is the hieght of double standard of the slave of Allah.

    By rational - 4/23/2013 9:48:12 PM



  • There is nothing offensive in mustered or cotton seed. Both are equally important for human beings. Offensive is, it is coming from a bad mouth. It is smelling like decomposing meat.

    By rational - 4/23/2013 9:41:22 PM



  • Sultan Shahin Sahab asks, "Do you consider Islam a political, fascist, totalitarian ideology or a spiritual faith that accepts not only myriad interpretations of Islam but also other faiths and calls them all Islam? "

    An honest answer would be that we want to underplay or explain away the political aspects and emphasize and re-affirm the spiritual and moral aspects of Islam. There may be disagreements on what Islam is, but there should be no disagreement on what we want Islam to be. As I have said before, all religions are works in progress. In this process erudite and liberal re-interpretations of our scriptures is essential and we have been provided invaluable lead in this respect by scholars and independent thinkers like Ziauddin Sardar and Muhammad Yunus. We should tread this field with humility, not with dogmatic overconfidence.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/23/2013 12:41:25 PM



  • And I think, that comment about mustard seed wasn't that offensive. I do not know, when we would have that courage to acknowledge that we still are casteist and we think that mustard oil extractor family is anyway lowly than blood sucking families.
    By sadaf - 4/23/2013 10:28:56 AM



  • Secular Logic is enjoying it thoroughly. Wahabi Vs. Non-Wahabi T20.
    By sadaf - 4/23/2013 10:24:09 AM



  • and you hav,nt heard me say a word against rogue muslims? What else do I do in my long exchanges with mr naseer and the most exquisitely courteous mr sadaf? 

    this is a jaane kya tune kahi, jaane kya maine suni type of situation. but this is a side plot. carry on with the main story of deciding which is the true version of islam : yours, mr ahmed's, rational's, mr ghulam's, the sufi's, the brelvis,the sunnis,the wahabis, the ahmedias, the bohris, the versions in indonesia and malasia.........it would be a great ser ice to mankind if this got sorted out first

    By secular logic - 4/23/2013 10:00:55 AM



  • dear mr shahin,

    please check your 'report abuse' section. not that it matters much, its just that the descrepancies are striking.

    As for the rest of your comment, you do me injustice. i have always held you in high regard, and found you to be  a refreshing voice in the public space .your tolerance of unparliamentary language and downright abuse is, however, a blot on your otherwise admirable attitude.

    By secular logic - 4/23/2013 9:43:51 AM



  • Absolutely agree with Dear Mr. Muhammad Sir's concept of Islam. 

    Let  me add that Islam should be seen as a grand, universal and encompassing idea, which is not the one to be trivialized and force-fitted with an identity. 

    If someone is able to see it in a certain way, then one could see that how some people are more concerned about giving an identity to Islam, than to be concerned about Islam itself. 

    As a Muslim when we believe that Islam has been there since the days of Adam or the start of the world itself, then of course that is the Islam that we should be knowing, following and talking about . 

    When we say that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was the last Prophet then we acknowledge that there have been Prophets prior to him and we should not stop just at that acknowledgement but we must celebrate all of them; the figure is in thousands. 

    So any idea of giving it an identity of a certain time period or of that time period of a certain Prophet, (as the case is of Prophet Muhammad) is basically an interruption in the ongoing story of Islam which we believe will reach its culmination when the world will end. 

    By sadaf - 4/23/2013 9:34:42 AM



  • rational ko samajh men baat kyon nahi ati? koi bata sakta hai.kyonki woh satan se kahta hai "ye dosti hum nahi todenge" bhago abhi gabbar ayega.
    By rational ka atank - 4/23/2013 7:58:04 AM



  • Dear Rational,

    You ask Sultan Shahin Sahab: “Why Allah says in the Quran the Islam is only acceptable to Him. He is not talking here about the Juadism, Christianity or any other religion.”

    This question is answered as follows in one of my articles referenced below:

    The verse (3:85) declares: “If anyone seeks other than Islam as a din (religion), it will not be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be among the losers.” However, the preceding two verses (3:83/84) that qualify the statement of 3:85 read:

    “Do they seek any (religion) other than the din (religion) of God, to whom all in the heavens and on earth have submitted (asslama), willingly or unwillingly, and to whom they will all be returned (3:83)? Say: ‘We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us, and in what has been revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes, and to Jesus and Moses and (other) prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them; and surely to Him do we all submit (muslimun)’ (3:84).

    Thus, read together, the passage 3:83-85 refers to the universal faith of Islam to whom all ‘in the heaven and earth’ and ‘all faith communities’ have submitted.”

    The article goes on to conclude, “From the Qur’anic perspective all faith communities – Christians, Jews, and others – regardless of whether or not they are mentioned in the Qur’an (4:164, 40:78) - belong to the universal religion of Islam (Submission to God and doing of good deeds), and so do the followers of the Prophet – the Muslim community.”

     

    Ref: Muslims have NO Qur’anic basis for Religious Supremacism  

     

    http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamIslamAndSpiritualism_1.aspx?ArticleID=5802

    I believe you read and commented on the article and will request you to take another look at it.


    By muhammad yunus - 4/23/2013 4:45:22 AM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin saheb- 4/23/2013 3:37:50 AM
    I have asked what is the stand of Brailvis on apostasy and blasphemy?
    They will do what the wahabis are doing. Seeds are there in dormant state waiting for proper khaad paani. Power will provide them khaad paani. Once power is grabbed, they will do it. Fortunately they are deprived of the power.

    Can you tell me why the sons of the Sahaba killed Hz Uthman and passed the comments on his wife in the state of reading the Qur'an? Which wahabi was there? Which khwarij was there? Why the education of the prophet lived such a short life?
    Why there was so much khoon kharaba at that time?

    By rational - 4/23/2013 3:58:26 AM



  • kaun kafir kahta hai ki sadaf ke comment delte kar diye jaaye. Main to kahta hoon aalh kare zor-e-shaba aur zyada.
    Abdullah sadaf ki taan men taan mila kar gao    gao na. rational wahabi hai.......

    By rational - 4/23/2013 3:45:23 AM



  • Mr. Rational, Bareilwis are not killing Wahhabis for being what they are. Even declaring others kafir is wrong. But it's not the same thing as killing, destroying shrines, forcibly converting. Bareilwis, Shias, Ahmedias, Hindus, Christians are facing massacres at the end of a Wahhabi army of suicide bombers.
    By Sultan Shahin - 4/23/2013 3:37:50 AM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin - 4/22/2013 11:04:22 PM
    If the previous faiths/books were good what was the need of the new book called the Quran. I know we must have beliefs in previous prophets as Muslims. What is the need of Islam? Why Allah says in the Quran the Islam is only acceptable to Him. He is not talking here about the Juadism, Christianity or any other religion. It is addressed to Islam brought by the last prophet. Allah favored it and declared all other paths are no more valid after the Quran.Those paths may had been correct at those times but now only and only Islam is valid path.
    I was reading a book "Is old testament is the word of God" In it it is proved present testament is not the word of God. All Muslims except few believe the words of the other holy books have been corrupted. Some says in words, some says in meaning while others say in context. Who ever reads will be confused by so many variant readings. A game of mis-interpretation, mis understanding and out of context is going on since from the religions started particularly islam.


    By rational - 4/23/2013 2:56:55 AM



  • I had concluded some time ago and said so too that this person will never come clean. He has to hide behind non-sectarianism, another name for not allowing Islam being interpreted by different Muslims differently, the philosophy of Ibne Taimiya and Mohammad Ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab. This is totalitarianism. This is fascism.

     

     I have absolutely nothing against Wahhabis as a people. There are many Wahhabis, my most loved psychology teacher was one, who think they are Wahhabi but do not know what it actually means.  They think not going to Sufi shrines, not saying fatiha, saying Aameen loudly, keeping your hand on the chest while praying, is all there is to Wahhabism. They do not know that it's a political, fascist, totalitarian ideology with world domination as its goal. World domination not even by modern Arabs but Arabs from the seventh-eighth century, or at least people looking like them, is the goal. We must all fight this brand of fascism within us if we are to win this global war against terrorism and live normally in a world that is beginning to look at all of us as fascist terrorists.

     

     Mainstream Islam must disassociate itself with a fascist totalitarian ideology that is masquerading as Islam and its practitioners who live hidden among us insisting on being considered non-sectarian.

     

    I know many Muslims despise sectarianism, division. But while killing or even discriminating against people of other sects is absolutely wrong, it has to be understood that Islam allows freedom of thought – la ikraha fid Deen - and when people think freely they interpret the same things differently and some people who think more or less alike come together and form groups and thus sects are formed. This is a completely natural process. What is wrong is to despise some sects and say we will kill you if you think this thought or practice Islam in this way. There is absolutely nothing wrong in not having any respect for Sufi saints but killing Muslims who respect them cannot be justified and has to be fought by all means. It has never been my case that followers of Sufi saints or those who call themselves Barailwis are angels.

     

    However, it is fact that Sufi saints were and respected by respected by all communities and I have not known Bareilwis stopping non-Muslims or non-Bareilwis from visiting shrines, or forcing them to do so, much less killing them for that. So I naturally separate them from fascist totalitarians in our midst. New Age Islam has always castigated casteism, or social evils like dowry practiced by all sects in Islam in the Indian or now South Asian sub-continent. But we cannot wrongly accuse them of being violent, fascist, totalitarian, at least in the present global context.


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/23/2013 2:45:22 AM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed
    Condemnation of killing, hate or any similar thing is not enough. The thirst will be quenched only when you pass the judgement  on "Wahabi/Devbandi", crucify it and offer its blood to altar of the Barailvi/Sufi Islam.
    Whole sale Takfeer by Barelvis is of no importance.

    By rational - 4/23/2013 2:30:43 AM



  • Deleted as irrelevant to the issue at hand. -- Editor


    By rational - 4/23/2013 1:59:11 AM



  • Mr. secular logic, Please let me know where you have been called names like that. I routinely delete that. I understand your inability to accept that a Muslim can be secular, liberal, moderate, decent, civilized. There are some people who are happiest with the indecent ones. I may have missed, like these names that you claim to have been called, but I do not remember you ever criticizing the rogues among Muslims. It's perhaps the same logic that America uses in helping establish al-Qaeda governments or at least their strong presence around the world, having destroyed secular, moderate, liberal Muslim governments, allowing a known Chechen Islamist terrorist to devastate Boston, giving billions of dollars to the known rogue state of Pakistan and so on.

    But this was just by the way. Please give me the urls of pages on which you were called indecent names, if that is really so.


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/23/2013 1:56:20 AM




  • He will only digress and ask demeaning questions to which I need not answer. He can ask his people to go through my articles and comments and pull out my views on each of his questions if he is so concerned about what I think. 

    What is more important and pertinent to every follower of NAI is what does he represent and why is he avoiding responding to the following:


      He has not answered why he did not add to his editorial note to the jihad fatwas what was suggested to make it clear that these fatwas of rogue muftis were unlislamic. Maligning other sects is more important to this man than fighting extremism and terrorism.

     If what a Sufi has said and the fact that a Sufi site carries the same incendiary fatwa regarding cow slaughter even today does not define all Sufi/Barelvis, how do fatwas of rogue muftis from war torn regions define any sect? What is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander for him.

      He opposes even the peaceful Tablighi Jamat because they are teaching the basics of Islam to poor Muslims who have no access to Islamic education. He is therefore against Islam itself and fighting Islam in the garb of a sectarian. Even the Barelvis sense his intentions and keep away from NAI.

     Does he not club every non Barelvi sunni sect in his attacks on Wahabism? Is he isolating evil and fighting it or fighting Islam itself? Is he interested in solutions or only in maligning? Aren't his addresses to the UNHCR an apology for Islamophobia? So is this another Islamophobic site? Imagine trying to involve UNHCR in his sectarian arguments rather than highlighting all issues affecting human rights and demanding that the states responsible be held accountable and pressure be brought on them through sanctions if they do not act? No, that would offend the US perhaps. Did he not argue that NAI had no power to influence solutions and yet foregoes the opportunity when he gets a chance to address the UNHRC?

     When someone points out the misdeeds of rogue Barelvis like Dawood Ibrahim, or Barelvi politicians in India or Sufi Pirs converting Hindu girls or Barelvis in the forefront of blasphemy cases, he asks for the Barelvi ideology that supports it. When Rational presents the ideology he asks for the deeds!!! Did he not say that he started this thread so that people could discuss Barelvi ideology and yet castigated Rational for contributing!
     
     Muhammad Amir Rana, the Director of the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS), Islamabad, Pakistan writes as follows:

     “Are Sufi ideologies intrinsically moderate or this perception is based on its cultural expression of music, dance, festivals, etc?
     
    The Case of Pakistan
     
    In the case of Pakistan, the situation is more complicated than the above "Radical versus Sufis" division suggests. There are 22 organizations and parties that represent the Wahhabi/Salafi sect. Out of them, only three—the Jamat ud-Da'wah (JuD), its subsidiary group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), and another small group Jamat ul-Mujahedeen (JM)—favour militant jihad. Another Salafi militant group, Tehreek ul-Mujahedeen, which is active in Kashmir, considers its movement a part of the Kashmiri freedom struggle.

     Apart from these groups, every other Wahabi party considers "Jihad against the Self" (Jihad bil-Nafs) as the greater jihad and believes that militant jihad cannot be waged until declared by the state. These parties do not consider the jihad in Kashmir and Afghanistan obligatory. The JuD, LeT and JM are also antagonistic towards the current democratic system in Pakistan and want to enforce a Khilafah, or the Caliphate, whereas the other Wahabi parties not only recognise Pakistan as a legitimate, constitutional state, but also take part in electoral politics individually or in alliance with other political parties.

     Similar differences of opinion on jihad and democracy are also found within the various groups of Deobandis, which are usually put into the category of Wahhabis because of some common theological precepts. Out of 46 major Deobandi parties in Pakistan, 10 are militant in nature, with jihadist and sectarian agendas. Moreover, these militant parties do not enjoy popular support from the mainstream religious clergy. Even on the issue of support for the Taliban, there are diverse contradictory views within the major Deoband political party, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam. A large faction of the party, led by Maulana Muhammad Khan Sherani and Khaleed Somroo, remained critical of the Taliban, even when they were in power in Afghanistan. Last year, concerning the Lal Mosque issue in Islamabad, most of the Deobandi clerics from religious-political parties and the Madressah Board had denounced the activities of the students. So, the ideological demarcation within the school(s) of thought tends to revolve around jihad.

     Sufism is a complex and cross-cutting belief system in Pakistan. Even the Deobandis believe in Sufism. Naqshbandi, the major Sufi cult in Pakistan, is mainly comprised of the Deobandis. Furthermore, it is also interesting that Maulana Masood Azhar, head of the major terrorist group Jaish-e-Muhammad, is also believer of Sufism and has restricted his followers to the practices of the Naqshbandi cult.

     To further complicate the intermingling of beliefs and practices, the Barelvis, who are considered to be representatives of Sufism in Pakistan, are not free from pro-militant jihadi tendencies. In the Kashmir insurgent movement during the 1990s the Barelvis were quite prominent. Some Barelvi militant groups, such al-Baraq and Tehreek-e-Jihad, are still active. Sunni Tehrik, a major Sunni sectarian group, was found to be involved in the violent activities in Karachi and Interior Sindh. The Safi'es, an important Sufi group in Afghanistan, was an ally of the Taliban in their struggle to take over the country. They even managed to obtain a few important government offices under the Taliban regime.

     Pro-Sufism Barelvis dominate Pakistan's religious landscape. The reason why they did not play a major role in the Afghan jihad of the 1980s was not because of any religious or ideological bindings, but because of political factors. The Saudi influence in the Afghan jihad was another reason for their marginalization. The Saudis had supported only Wahhabi and Deobandi groups during the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union. Moreover, the Arabs and Africans who took part of the Afghan jihad had similar sectarian orientations as the Wahhabis and felt more at ease working alongside the local Salafi and Deobandi commanders. The Afghan and Pakistani groups had also preferred to work with Arab and African mujahideen because they had the more substantial resources.

     Had it not been for the Saudi and Arab factor, the Barelvis too would have been able to secure their share in the jihad effort. If that had happened, would the promotion of the Wahabi ideology be suggested as a counter-strategy today?

     When one ideology is supported financially, morally and politically to counter the other, it can increase sectarian strife in a society. Pakistan faced the consequences during the Afghan jihad as sectarian strife dramatically increased in the country. Similarly, strengthening one group or sect can give rise to similar trends in other sects. So we see that many Sufi groups have also been radicalized and they are as anti-US and anti-Western as other violent groups, though they lack the training and resources received by the Deobandis and Wahabis.
     Instead of targeting the entire Wahhabi/Salafi community, can terrorism and political extremism not be countered by encouraging the more moderate elements within the Salafi school of thought?

     Conclusion
    It cannot be denied that the Wahhabi movements have created challenges within Muslim societies. They have marginalised the elements of moderation by promoting a narrow vision of Islam. But how these movements are changing Muslim societies and what kind of political, economic, cultural and social challenges they pose is a separate issue. Their domestic and international implications demand different kinds of strategies to the one proposed by counter-ideology theorists.

     It is not a surprise that campaigns to promote counter-Islamist ideologies like Sufism have had little success in Pakistan. The official moderate enlightenment and Sufism movements have failed to gain acceptance among the masses. Anti-US and anti-Western feelings are on the rise in Pakistani society and any campaign aimed to counter these sentiments is perceived as a part of the American agenda. It also remains a fact that a large majority of the educated class in Pakistan considers the spiritual rituals of the Pirs inappropriate and activities like use of drugs and prostitution on the shrines immoral. The Sufi culture in Pakistan itself needs reforms. That is why the government-sponsored enlightened moderation has failed to attract common people. Instead, such efforts are increasing support for radical movements.

     To develop a comprehensive counter-extremism strategy, there is a need to examine all the aspects of this problem and assess the impact of promoting so-called moderate counter-ideologies in Muslim societies.”

     As anyone can see, a complex problem cannot be solved by becoming a part of the problem by blindly attacking every sect other than one’s own. The result of such a sectarian approach  is there for everyone to see. NAI has a very small following after five years. Clearly he is not his own master. Otherwise a person with a modicum of self respect would not behave thus when presented with such detailed analysis. He has to please his masters whoever they may be. His master is certainly not God, Truth or Taqwa.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/23/2013 1:56:00 AM



  • Sultan Shahin - 4/22/2013 11:48:54 PM
    "As I reported before, In Meerut I was invited by the university along with the local Jamaat-e-Islami chief on the subject of Islam and issues of global terrorism. The Jamaat head came along with an army of supporters......."

    Although I condemn this behaviour the Brailvis share this behavior.
    They don't allow any Jamati to their mosques and in many mosques they broke the water vessels when found those were used by Jamatis.
    First time I learned from the brailvis that I must not eat with Hindus while in Devbandi book leftover of any human being is halal for consuption.

    BTW what is the stand of Brailvis on the Blasphemy and apostasy? All Brailvis are not moderates. Are they? I am not asking the views of Moderates but of Barailvis.
    If Wahabis declare other Muslims Mushrik or Bidati, Brailvi declare others Kafir. Main daal daal too paat paat.


    By rational - 4/23/2013 1:48:57 AM



  • What is “patently dishonest” about this question: Do you consider Islam a political, fascist, totalitarian ideology or a spiritual faith that accepts not only myriad interpretations of Islam but also other faiths and calls them all Islam? 

     

    All Salfi-Wahhabis want to maintain an ambiguity, hiding behind noble concepts like non-sectarianism, unity of the umma, promoting piety, promoting what they call Islam and so on. They will never come out and say - how can they - that they are promoting a political, fascist, totalitarian, exclusivist, supremacist version of Islam. They will never say they are promoting Saudi cultural colonialism. That is why they never participate in discussions, nor will they ever on forums where they will be asked questions. When pinned down to answer a question, they run away.

    In Meerut I was invited by the university along with the local Jamaat-e-Islami chief on the subject of Islam and issues of global terrorism. The Jamaat head came along with an army of supporters. They did not let me speak. That is their answer to all questions. Since on this forum, they cannot silence me or any one, either they don't come or do their best to divert issues or finally run away. Darkness cannot stand light. It has to go.

    We Muslims are no longer a group of 50 Mecca Bedouins in early seventh century AD or a group of 313 fighting in the battle of Badr near Medina. We are a 1.6 billion people living in practically all corners of the world. We are not all illiterate Bedouins. Some of us are highly educated, scientists, some still illiterate. Some like we Indian Muslims, inheritors of a 5,000-year-old civilization, the finest in the world in every field of human endeavour. Some live in parts of the world where no sun rises for days, weeks, no dawn and no dusk. Some live in 100 per cent Muslim countries, some as small minorities in non-Muslim majority countries. A few of us honest, most of us the most corrupt people on earth. Once we were the most advanced people on earth, when we had rational Muslims running our affairs, our universities. Today we are the least advanced people on earth, producing the least amount of original work.

    We have myriad problems and myriad ideas how to resolve them. All these ideas must have the freedom to compete, engage with each other.

    A supremacist ideology and a totalitarian polity running the world is not even viable, even if it were desirable. It certainly won’t be in conformity with God’s instructions to Muslims in the Quran, a few of which I quoted above, and, of course, you know much more and better.  

    There is absolutely no indication in Quran that God wanted all other faiths eliminated from the world. It asked us to fight for their worship places to continue to praise God abundantly. Nearly always in the Quran, scores of time, the word prophet is mentioned in the plural. Belief in all previous prophets is an inalienable part of our faith. All prophets are given by God the same status as Prophet Mohammad (peace be on them all.)

     I asked him to reflect on all these issues and decide which side are you on in this war within Islam.

    He may run away from this site but these questions are not going to go away. Saudi-funded Wahhabis are not only destroying school buildings, killing Muslims who do not subscribe to their school of thought in Pakistan-Afghanistan alone. They are doing that everywhere in the world.

    This is a vital issue facing the Muslim world now. We all have to decide for ourselves if we are on the side of Islam as a political, fascist, totalitarian ideology or is as a faith that accepts not only myriad interpretations of Islam but also other faiths and calls them all Islam.


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/23/2013 1:36:01 AM



  • wow! quite a churn happening here!

    most arresting event ywas the deletion of a personally offensive comment by one brave warrior of NAI against another brave warrior of new age islam.

    why is the same courtesy not shown here to.the kafir participants,who at various times have been called haramkhor, old hog,saale, and god knows what else.or do others deserve the abuse in the eyes of our very fair and non partisan liberal muslim editor

    By secular logic - 4/23/2013 1:31:15 AM



  • Deleted as irrelevant to the issue at hand. -- Editor

    By rational - 4/23/2013 1:23:28 AM



  • Abdullah - 4/22/2013 11:59:30 PM
    Deleted as irrelevant to the issue at hand. -- Editor
    By rational - 4/23/2013 1:13:54 AM



  • I see no need to give respectability to a patently dishonest question when what I have said in my seven articles and numerous comments clearly provide all the answers. He knows it.

    However, for the record let me remind him of two very recent comments in which I have said  that those who come to common terms with Islam which is a belief in one God and the hereafter can inter marry without conversion and also that even my children have the right to choose their way and I will not stop them if they want to marry outside their religion.

    See my recent comment which also says that no Quranic verse or hadith justifies the Arab wars for territorial expansion or political power and that fighting has Quranic sanction only against "those who drive you out from your homes for your faith or with those who fight you" which was not the case for the wars which established the Arabs as an imperial power.

    Read my article "Pakistan blasphemes Islam" for my views on the need to protect the rights of minorities or "Causes for the rise and fall of the Muslims" to know what values I am advocating for the Muslims to regain past glory.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/23/2013 12:07:34 AM



  • Deleted as irrelevant to the issue at hand. -- Editor


    By Abdullah - 4/22/2013 11:59:30 PM



  • This person can write a 1543 word comment, but not say a word, not even a yes or no, if he considers Islam a political, fascist, totalitarian ideology or as a spiritual faith that accepts not only myriad interpretations of Islam but also other faiths and calls them all Islam? 

    All Salfi-Wahhabis want to maintain an ambiguity, hiding behind noble concepts like non-sectarianism, unity of the umma, promoting piety, promoting what they call Islam and so on. They will never come out and say - how can they - that they are promoting a political, fascist, totalitarian, exclusivist, supremacist version of Islam. They will never say they are promoting Saudi cultural colonialism. That is why they never participate in discussions, nor will they ever on forums where they will be asked questions. When pinned down to answer a question, they run away.

    As I reported before, In Meerut I was invited by the university along with the local Jamaat-e-Islami chief on the subject of Islam and issues of global terrorism. The Jamaat head came along with an army of supporters. They did not let me speak. That is their answer to all questions. Since on this forum, they cannot silence me or any one, either they don't come or do their best to divert issues or finally run away. Darkness cannot stand light. It has to go.

    We Muslims are no longer a group of 50 Mecca Bedouins in early seventh century AD or a group of 313 fighting in the battle of Badr near Medina. We are a 1.6 billion people living in practically all corners of the world. We are not all illiterate Bedouins. Some of us are highly educated, scientists, some still illiterate. Some like we Indian Muslims, inheritors of a 5,000-year-old civilization, the finest in the world in every field of human endeavour. Some live in parts of the world where no sun rises for days, weeks, no dawn and no dusk. Some live in 100 per cent Muslim countries, some as small minorities in non-Muslim majority countries. A few of us honest, most of us the most corrupt people on earth. Once we were the most advanced people on earth, when we had rational Muslims running our affairs, our universities. Today we are the least advanced people on earth, producing the least amount of original work.

    We have myriad problems and myriad ideas how to resolve them. All these ideas must have the freedom to compete, engage with each other.

    A supremacist ideology and a totalitarian polity running the world is not even viable, even if it were desirable. It certainly won’t be in conformity with God’s instructions to Muslims in the Quran, a few of which I quoted above, and, of course, you know much more and better.  

    There is absolutely no indication in Quran that God wanted all other faiths eliminated from the world. It asked us to fight for their worship places to continue to praise God abundantly. Nearly always in the Quran, scores of time, the word prophet is mentioned in the plural. Belief in all previous prophets is an inalienable part of our faith. All prophets are given by God the same status as Prophet Mohammad (peace be on them all.)

     I asked him to reflect on all these issues and decide which side are you on in this war within Islam.

    He may run away from this site but these questions are not going to go away. Saudi-funded Wahhabis are not only destroying school buildings, killing Muslims who do not subscribe to their school of thought in Pakistan-Afghanistan alone. They are doing that everywhere in the world.

    This is a vital issue facing the Muslim world now. We all have to decide for ourselves if we are on the side of Islam as a political, fascist, totalitarian ideology or is as a faith that accepts not only myriad interpretations of Islam but also other faiths and calls them all Islam.


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/22/2013 11:48:54 PM



  • Sultan Shahin Sb asks, "How can someone be trying his best in his way to be a good Muslim,” if all that we know about him is that he rushes to defend Islamist terrorists."

    He was trying to defend certain sects from being identified as being exclusively terroristic. That does not mean he defends terrorism. Sometimes in the heat of the argument some people  may overstate their case. I do not hold them to every word they say under  such circumstances.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/22/2013 11:34:00 PM



  • He says " if all that we know about him is that he rushes to defend Islamist terrorists, the Taliban, the Boko Haram, the Jihadis in general and particularly their ideology, the destruction of Sufi shrines and other heritage monuments, not to speak of school buildings;"

     He lies and slanders and cannot produce a single line in support. This is one of the many examples of his yellow journalism. The same person also said that I was a Mutazila sticking my neck out and endangering my life.

      He has not answered why he did not add to his editorial note to the jihad fatwas what was suggested to make it clear that these fatwas of rogue muftis were unlislamic. Maligning other sects is more important to this man than fighting extremism and terrorism.

     If what a Sufi has said and the fact that a Sufi site carries the same incendiary fatwa regarding cow slaughter even today does not define all Sufi/Barelvis, how do fatwas of rogue muftis from war torn regions define any sect? What is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander for him.

      He opposes even the peaceful Tablighi Jamat because they are teaching the basics of Islam to poor Muslims who have no access to Islamic education. He is therefore against Islam itself and fighting Islam in the garb of a sectarian. Even the Barelvis sense his intentions and keep away from NAI.

     Does he not club every non Barelvi sunni sect in his attacks on Wahabism? Is he isolating evil and fighting it or fighting Islam itself? Is he interested in solutions or only in maligning? Aren't his addresses to the UNHCR an apology for Islamophobia? So is this another Islamophobic site? Imagine trying to involve UNHCR in his sectarian arguments rather than highlighting all issues affecting human rights and demanding that the states responsible be held accountable and pressure be brought on them through sanctions if they do not act? No, that would offend the US perhaps. Did he not argue that NAI had no power to influence solutions and yet foregoes the opportunity when he gets a chance to address the UNHRC?

     When someone points out the misdeeds of rogue Barelvis like Dawood Ibrahim, or Barelvi politicians in India or Sufi Pirs converting Hindu girls or Barelvis in the forefront of blasphemy cases, he asks for the Barelvi ideology that supports it. When Rational presents the ideology he asks for the deeds!!!

     

     Muhammad Amir Rana, the Director of the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS), Islamabad, Pakistan writes as follows:

     “Are Sufi ideologies intrinsically moderate or this perception is based on its cultural expression of music, dance, festivals, etc?

     

    The Case of Pakistan

     

    In the case of Pakistan, the situation is more complicated than the above "Radical versus Sufis" division suggests. There are 22 organizations and parties that represent the Wahhabi/Salafi sect. Out of them, only three—the Jamat ud-Da'wah (JuD), its subsidiary group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), and another small group Jamat ul-Mujahedeen (JM)—favour militant jihad. Another Salafi militant group, Tehreek ul-Mujahedeen, which is active in Kashmir, considers its movement a part of the Kashmiri freedom struggle.

     Apart from these groups, every other Wahabi party considers "Jihad against the Self" (Jihad bil-Nafs) as the greater jihad and believes that militant jihad cannot be waged until declared by the state. These parties do not consider the jihad in Kashmir and Afghanistan obligatory. The JuD, LeT and JM are also antagonistic towards the current democratic system in Pakistan and want to enforce a Khilafah, or the Caliphate, whereas the other Wahabi parties not only recognise Pakistan as a legitimate, constitutional state, but also take part in electoral politics individually or in alliance with other political parties.

     Similar differences of opinion on jihad and democracy are also found within the various groups of Deobandis, which are usually put into the category of Wahhabis because of some common theological precepts. Out of 46 major Deobandi parties in Pakistan, 10 are militant in nature, with jihadist and sectarian agendas. Moreover, these militant parties do not enjoy popular support from the mainstream religious clergy. Even on the issue of support for the Taliban, there are diverse contradictory views within the major Deoband political party, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam. A large faction of the party, led by Maulana Muhammad Khan Sherani and Khaleed Somroo, remained critical of the Taliban, even when they were in power in Afghanistan. Last year, concerning the Lal Mosque issue in Islamabad, most of the Deobandi clerics from religious-political parties and the Madressah Board had denounced the activities of the students. So, the ideological demarcation within the school(s) of thought tends to revolve around jihad.

     Sufism is a complex and cross-cutting belief system in Pakistan. Even the Deobandis believe in Sufism. Naqshbandi, the major Sufi cult in Pakistan, is mainly comprised of the Deobandis. Furthermore, it is also interesting that Maulana Masood Azhar, head of the major terrorist group Jaish-e-Muhammad, is also believer of Sufism and has restricted his followers to the practices of the Naqshbandi cult.

     To further complicate the intermingling of beliefs and practices, the Barelvis, who are considered to be representatives of Sufism in Pakistan, are not free from pro-militant jihadi tendencies. In the Kashmir insurgent movement during the 1990s the Barelvis were quite prominent. Some Barelvi militant groups, such al-Baraq and Tehreek-e-Jihad, are still active. Sunni Tehrik, a major Sunni sectarian group, was found to be involved in the violent activities in Karachi and Interior Sindh. The Safi'es, an important Sufi group in Afghanistan, was an ally of the Taliban in their struggle to take over the country. They even managed to obtain a few important government offices under the Taliban regime.

     Pro-Sufism Barelvis dominate Pakistan's religious landscape. The reason why they did not play a major role in the Afghan jihad of the 1980s was not because of any religious or ideological bindings, but because of political factors. The Saudi influence in the Afghan jihad was another reason for their marginalization. The Saudis had supported only Wahhabi and Deobandi groups during the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union. Moreover, the Arabs and Africans who took part of the Afghan jihad had similar sectarian orientations as the Wahhabis and felt more at ease working alongside the local Salafi and Deobandi commanders. The Afghan and Pakistani groups had also preferred to work with Arab and African mujahideen because they had the more substantial resources.

     Had it not been for the Saudi and Arab factor, the Barelvis too would have been able to secure their share in the jihad effort. If that had happened, would the promotion of the Wahabi ideology be suggested as a counter-strategy today?

     When one ideology is supported financially, morally and politically to counter the other, it can increase sectarian strife in a society. Pakistan faced the consequences during the Afghan jihad as sectarian strife dramatically increased in the country. Similarly, strengthening one group or sect can give rise to similar trends in other sects. So we see that many Sufi groups have also been radicalized and they are as anti-US and anti-Western as other violent groups, though they lack the training and resources received by the Deobandis and Wahabis.

     Instead of targeting the entire Wahhabi/Salafi community, can terrorism and political extremism not be countered by encouraging the more moderate elements within the Salafi school of thought?

     Conclusion

    It cannot be denied that the Wahhabi movements have created challenges within Muslim societies. They have marginalised the elements of moderation by promoting a narrow vision of Islam. But how these movements are changing Muslim societies and what kind of political, economic, cultural and social challenges they pose is a separate issue. Their domestic and international implications demand different kinds of strategies to the one proposed by counter-ideology theorists.

     It is not a surprise that campaigns to promote counter-Islamist ideologies like Sufism have had little success in Pakistan. The official moderate enlightenment and Sufism movements have failed to gain acceptance among the masses. Anti-US and anti-Western feelings are on the rise in Pakistani society and any campaign aimed to counter these sentiments is perceived as a part of the American agenda. It also remains a fact that a large majority of the educated class in Pakistan considers the spiritual rituals of the Pirs inappropriate and activities like use of drugs and prostitution on the shrines immoral. The Sufi culture in Pakistan itself needs reforms. That is why the government-sponsored enlightened moderation has failed to attract common people. Instead, such efforts are increasing support for radical movements.

     To develop a comprehensive counter-extremism strategy, there is a need to examine all the aspects of this problem and assess the impact of promoting so-called moderate counter-ideologies in Muslim societies.”

     As anyone can see, a complex problem cannot be solved by becoming a part of the problem by blindly attacking every sect other than one’s own. The result is there for everyone to see. NAI has a very small following after five years. Clearly he is not his own master. Otherwise a person with a modicum of self respect would not behave thus when presented with such detailed analysis. He has to please his masters whoever they may be. His master is certainly not God, Truth or Taqwa.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/22/2013 11:23:44 PM



  • Yes, of course, Rational Sahib, Total Equality of mankind. Doesn't matter which faith you belong to. Verily, the most honourable of you with Allah is that (believer) who has Taqwa."

     All you need is piety, righteousness, good deeds to be honourable in the eyes of God. In any case how can it be otherwise. Do you know who or What God is?

    That is why understanding the concept of God is important. That is why wahdatul wajood (Unity of Existence) is important.


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/22/2013 11:04:22 PM



  • [Offensive personal comment against Rational deleted.-- Editor]


    By sadaf - 4/22/2013 11:01:24 PM



  • Smart answer my Dear sultan Shahin Saheb.

    By rational - 4/22/2013 10:56:02 PM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin
    “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you with Allah is that (believer) who has Taqwa. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware.” [Qur’an 49:13]


    Many Muslims quote this verse. Does it include people based on their races/geographies or their faiths.
    From its language it seems Islam doesn't differentiate on the basis of geography or colors of the skin or other property.
    It should be quoted to promote the equality of mankind not the faiths.

    Anybody can correct me on this giving good reasioning.

    By rational - 4/22/2013 10:52:25 PM



  • Mohd Yunus Saheb (Rational), Sufis/Bareilwis are not engaged in killing people at the moment, Shias or Ahmedis, or non-Muslims. So I do not discuss them. We are in the midst of a war. We have to focus on the imperatives of war. For the moment. Once the war is over and we have won it, we will focus on more long-term and maybe even more important issues that bother us all. Meanwhile I condemn all those who may have behaved like the present day Taliban or Boko Haram in the past regardless of which sect they come from. But discussing this past and apportioning blame is not our priority now. It's only the priority of enemies of Islam and humanity who want to divert our attention from the issue at hand, stop us from fight this totalitarian ideology and the present mayhem to continue.


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/22/2013 10:46:49 PM



  • Dear Raihan Nezami - 4/22/2013 9:54:54 PM
    When I address you, you take side way. Now you croaked. It is based on the previous debate between two stalwarts of the Islam. It can be predicted by anyone who has brain equal to a mustered seed. But How can you? :}
    Yes I know I will die one day:}
    By rational - 4/22/2013 10:39:49 PM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin Saheb.
    This page is to show that Sharia is dear to all Wahabi or Sufi. It is their goal to establish it. The way of Wahabis and Sufis may be different.
    Will Sufi oppose the flogging/stoning of adulterers? Do Sufis go against the punishments prescribed by the Islam? Will the hands of thieves will not be chopped off  if A Muslim Sultan rules the Muslims. Did ever any Sufi raised his voice against the maltreatment of Non-Muslims? If Sufis are tolerant it may be due to possibility of some gain. Why Imam Rabbani Sarhindi was against the policies of the Akbar?
    What will Sufis and their lovers will do if a woman is charged for adultery? Will they let her go following the Sunna of Jesus or will stone/flog following the Sunna of Hz Mohammed?
    Did any Sufi/Brailvi Aalim raised his voice against the Fatwa in the Case of Imrana saying it is unislamic?
    You failed to notice why I provided this page.
    By rational - 4/22/2013 10:32:37 PM



  • How can someone betrying his best in his way to be a good Muslim,” if all that we know about him is that he rushes to defend Islamist terrorists, the Taliban, the Boko Haram, the Jihadis in general and particularly their ideology, the destruction of Sufi shrines and other heritage monuments, not to speak of school buildings; if this person would go to any extent in devising innovative ways of diverting the discussion against the Jihadi ideology in some other direction; if this person would go to the highest levels of obfuscation to prove that Sufi saints and their followers too are terrorists, that not just JIhadis but all Muslims are extremists, as JIhadi ideology is no different from the religion that all other Muslims follow; if this person would consistently refuse to say if he considers Islam a spiritual faith or a political ideology, totalitarian and fascist?

     

    This brings us to more general questions like who is a Muslim, who is a good Muslim and who is “trying his best in his way to be a good Muslim.”

     

    Who is a Muslim? For a Muslim anyone who believes in a superior power, or says he believes in a superior power, as we cannot know who believes in what, is a Muslim. Such a person doesn’t even have to accept the prophethood of Prophet Mohammad (saw). This person can be a follower of any of the 124,000 prophets who are said to have come to the world, according to a tradition, and to every part of the world and in all times, teaching in their own local languages, according to Quran. All these people don’t have to accept or even know that they are considered Muslim by Muslims. We Muslims, however, must treat all those who surrender to a superior power as a part of the Muslim community. This must be regardless of their concept of this superior power, as Muslims themselves have several concepts of this superior power. Whether or not someone is actually a Muslim is, of course, only for God to judge. God alone knows what is in someone’s heart.

     

    Now a good Muslim. Only for God to judge.

     

    But if we see someone trying to do good deeds, the  following criterion set by God for a muttaqi (righteous or good person) may apply and we may be able to say at least if he is trying to be good.

     

    It is NOT taqwa that you turn your faces toward East or West (say your prayers facing Kaaba from any part of world), but it is taqwa to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book and the Messengers, to spend of your substance out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts you have made; to be firm and patient, in pain and adversity. Those are the truthful and those are the muttaqun.” [Qur’an 2:177]

    “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you with Allah is that (believer) who has Taqwa. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware.” [Qur’an 49:13]

    We cannot say who is a good, righteous, muttaqi Muslim. We do not know and cannot judge. But we can issue a certificate saying this person is “trying his best in his way to be a good Muslim,” if we see this person trying to follow the Quranic definition of taqwa. The verses quoted above can be treated as a criterion for a muttaqi, a good Muslim.


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/22/2013 10:27:00 PM



  • Dear Mohd Yunus Saheb (Rational), I accepted you as a Muslim until you objected to being considered a Muslim. I will accept you once again as a Muslim since you now seem to be objecting to not being accepted as a Muslim. If you say you are a Muslim, you are a Muslim, as far as I am concerned. No questions asked. Just tell me what you want to be considered. Maybe Yunus Saheb is similarly confused now that you have asked him why he considered you an internal witness.

    But, of course, any one who defends Talibani, Jihadi ideology, an offshoot of Saudi-supported Wahhabism-Salafism, is an enemy of Islam and Humanity. You are, of course, entitled to disagree.


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/22/2013 10:21:15 PM



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

    Kindly accept my sincere thanks for counting me as enemies of Islam, peace and lover of strife.

    In previous comments you were not tolerating me but accepting as a Muslim. Now this development is interesting.
    I recall Mr Mohammed Yunus (1) declared me an internal witness against Islam. If there is nothing wrong in it why I should be a witness. This is how an extremist and moderate operate when support some ideology.

    Only difference is you are not holding a sword in your hand. In fact I am putting myself in danger.

    Khush hoon ke mera husn-e-talab kaam to aaya
    khali hi sahi meri taraf jaam to aaya.


    By rational - 4/22/2013 10:10:43 PM



  • Dear Rational: Great! You know the end of everything. One question , Do you know the end of yours?
    By Raihan Nezami - 4/22/2013 9:54:54 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Rasool saheb
    "Yes, you sometimes bring revered Sunni ulema like Sheikh Sirhindi or Imam Ahmad Raza, that too with false accusations on them most of the times. But my dear, they were just recent ulema with their certain views and individual opinions, not the founders of Sufism like Ibn Abdul Wahhab and Ibn-e-Taymiyyah, the founders of Wahabism whom we base on our arguments."

    Before I reply to you please tell where I lied in quoting the Shaikh Abdul Qadir, Imam Sarhindi and Aala Hazrat Brailvi.
    Saying this is recent Ulema will not help you.
    I produced one fatwa from Jeelani on Shias, Sarhindi on Hindus and Alla Hazrat on Shias. Aala Hazrat was at forefront to declare all sects Kafir. now exclusion of him is your tactics to save the barilvis.

    For me Ibn-e-taimiya or Wahab najdi were Muslims. Wahab was near to Imam Hanbal.
    I will request you to mention the name you prefer to quote from Sufi side.
    I resuest you to tell me my lies in this matter. Why didn't you tall what is in Maktoobatt of none but the Mujaddid alif Thani.
    Was not it Sarhindi to go against policies of the Akbar and incite the hatred against Hindus. Prove me wrong. I never said you a liar but you said.
    As an outsider I have different opinion on religions. I put them here and don't force you to accept them.
    After you prove me wrong please tell:
    what is Sufi Islam. Where are its root?
    You may teach me Sufi Islam. I may be wrong. There is nothing wrong to learn it from you. Use a proper thread and please do a start.

    By rational - 4/22/2013 9:53:38 PM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed - 4/22/2013 6:16:11 PM.
    The end of the debate was already known. Yes we don't agree on many views but still believe that despite we are called Wahabis we are tolerant to not only Muslims but to non-Muslims including atheists.
    You had been restraint in calling other names and insult. I can't claim it for myself.
    I liked your stand on Shaitan which can be described in the form of a model. There is no real shaitan but the temptations within us. It appealed to my mind. In this way we so called rationalist can understand religion in a better way rather taking it as it is described in the religious books.Whether I like religion or not religion is not going to disappear. I prefer  to remain like as I am. My aim is not to favor or disfavor one particular sect but to demystify them. Because we were dragged into this sectarian debate, we spoke for our stand. We don't care whether we are called wahabis or not. Wahabism is one sect within Islam with its pros and cons. Some sects are not lucky enough to grab the power, so they are fighting for it under some disguise. Let us take wahabi title in positive way not as a gali(abuse). Let the few beat their trumpets they are only peaceful.
    Let us disagree with mutual respect. 

    By rational - 4/22/2013 9:15:57 PM



  • Every time he wants to make a personal rapport. giving out mail ID and seeking mail ID's only to talk of others at their back. Jo bolna hai khul ke bolo, yahan aur abhi. Why cannot he keep his real separated from his virtual? Koi zaati dushmani to hoti nahi hai in bahas mein. But since he has no sense of it, to jaa bhai, tere se ab kaun muh lagega. And what is this if not dirty politics to name few people for whom he has regards? He should be actually interested in who are the people who have regards for him, instead. Maang lijiyo, mera bhi mail ID editor saab se, kabhi kabhi chitthi patri karte rahiyo. Khuda haafiz. Allah chain se rakhkhe.
    By sadaf - 4/22/2013 8:12:00 PM



  • Thank you Ghulam Mohyuddin Sb for speaking up.
    Besides you, there are  three other persons for whom I have regard although I have rarely agreed with them. It is only because they are true to themselves and do not play dirty politics.

    They are not in any particular order, Hats Off, Rational and Aiman. Perhaps Arman and Harsh too. Arman hardly comments but I like him from his articles. Harsh is new and difficult to place but appears to speak his mind. Although I  may not agree with him, I see no malice in him.

    Since this is my last post, I just felt like acknowledging. You could write to me if you wish at naseer.hmed@yahoo.in

    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/22/2013 6:16:11 PM



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



  • Of course, darkness cannot stand light. Those who seek to indoctrinate Muslims into believing that Islam is a fascist, totalitarian ideology charged with the political mission of conquering the world are enemies of Islam and humanity, enemies of peace and supporters of strife in our world.

     

    We mainstream Muslims believe that Islam is a faith, a religion, teaching us the virtues of good deeds, peaceful co-existence, pluralism, respect for all religions, indeed acceptance of all religions as previous versions of our own religion, brought to the world by prophets of God, equal in stature to our own Prophet Mohammad (saw).

     

    We mainstream Muslims have through our history defeated enemies of humanity in our midst. This time around they are more powerful than ever. But I am convinced that we will defeat them again. We need to keep exposing from our midst the hidden supporters of darkness, the Jahiliya, that has continued to bedevil us throughout our history in one form or another, creating strife and war, among Muslims and with other communities.


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/22/2013 11:29:16 AM



  • New Age Islam or Dear Mr. Sultan Shahin Sir, must not enter into an ego fight with anyone. Remember Hazrat Ali, when he was once spitted upon by a person and for which Hazrat Ali refused to hit back even when the two were in some brawl and the fellow was almost at his mercy. Hazrat Ali later explained, that the fight was over some cause and he preferred to stick to just that and let not ego influence him. Let Dear Mr. Naseer Ahmad Sir, feel happy over his terrorizing technique and be in position to either have mercy on us or punish us for not toeing his line.
    By sadaf - 4/22/2013 10:54:20 AM



  • I think there is nothing wrong in the statement of Mr Sultan Shahin. I support when he justly says 'But It doesn't tell me that Sufis or their followers are going around killing people, destroying schools, destroying heritage sites belonging to Muslims or non- Muslims, forcing people to visit shrines, etc. beliefs of different people are their personal issues as long as they are not forcing others into that belief system'.
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/22/2013 10:11:30 AM



  • Mr. Naseer Ahmed Sahib: What is wrong in the statement of Mr. Sultan Shahin that you are threatening to drag him into the court?  "However, I appreciate your efforts to fill the gap caused by Naseer Saheb's silence. All enemies of Islam and humanity, all enemies of peace, all supporters of strife, should help each other". Please take pain and clarify.

    By Raihan Nezami - 4/22/2013 9:42:13 AM



  • Sultan Shahin says:

    "However, I appreciate your efforts to fill the gap caused by Naseer Saheb's silence. All enemies of Islam and humanity, all enemies of peace, all supporters of strife, should help each other. "

    How low can this imbecile get?

    I put you on alert Sultan Shahin, that I reserve the right to take you to court if you make another reference to me. I have decided that I want nothing to do with you. So respect that decision of mine if you have any common decency.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/22/2013 8:51:55 AM



  • Mr Rational means to say that I am a Wahabi but I never killed anyone. Ok, I accept that, since 1 out of a 100 Wahabis may be peaceful but when this 1 supports 99, he will be put in the same category. It is known that the one, who supports oppressors, is oppressor himself.   

    Be Wahabi, but do not misinterpret the holy Quran in the name of Jihad to kill innocent lives.

    Rational sb, as for Ilme Ghaib, it will be a lengthy discussion. We will talk about it in its thread. Here we should not divert from the subject matter of discussion
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/22/2013 8:43:26 AM



  • Ver interesting page, Rational Saheb, as far as it goes. But It doesn't tell me that Sufis or their followers are going around killing people, destroying schools, destroying heritage sites belonging to Muslims or non- Muslims, forcing people to visit shrines, etc. beliefs of different people are their personal issues as long as they are not forcing others into that belief system. What we are talking about here is force, destruction, killing, imposition of Arab cultural norms on other people in the name of Islam. Superstition, excessive hero-worship, excessive devotion to people you venerate, seemingly incredible legends associated with people you venerate, etc. are not issues we are discussing here. However, I appreciate your efforts to fill the gap caused by Naseer Saheb's silence. All enemies of Islam and humanity, all enemies of peace, all supporters of strife, should help each other. 
    By Sultan Shahin - 4/22/2013 5:18:37 AM



  • Bakhidmat Janab Barailvi Saheban/Sufi Lovers and their supporters.
    http://www.haqforum.com/vb/showthread.php?13316

    By rational - 4/22/2013 4:23:20 AM



  • Taqiya is a holy deception. A tool of religious propagandist.

    By rational - 4/22/2013 1:31:44 AM



  • They will call a Hadith crap if it doesn't suit to their purpose. I have seen the same crap Ahadith in whole Brailvi/Sufi literature. They may call wahabis irrational, unscientific but Brailvi/Sufi literature is more stuffed with these crap Ahadith.
    If I quote it is taqiya if they quote the same it is holy.

    By rational - 4/22/2013 1:28:09 AM



  • Lagta hai wahabiyat rational ya naseer saheb ke sir men chdhi ho ya naho NAI ke doosre Star commentator ke sir men Zaroor chadh gayi hai.

    Subha leta hoon shaam leta hoon, are bhai khuda ka nahi najdi ka naam leta hoon.

    Jaise musalmano ki zaban par naapak samajhte hue bhi suar (khinzeer) ka naam chdhaa rahta hai (bol chaal men) usi tarah yahan wahab najdi ka naam chadha hua hai.
    Iss se to lagta hai Islam wislam kahin nahi hai bas logon ko bahkaane kaa naam hai.

    By rational - 4/22/2013 1:21:11 AM



  • Most intellectuals have agreed to the point – the whole group or the followers should not be plagued with any blame for the misdeeds of a few members of the group. If the group of Sunni-Brelavi can’t be blamed of terrorism on the charges labeled against Daud Ibrahim or others, according to the same yardstick, the whole group of Deobandi or Wahabi must not be blamed for the exclusivist or radical behaviors of a few marginalized people. It can’t be denied, there are people of varied ideologies everywhere in every belief.


    By Raihan Nezami - 4/22/2013 1:18:12 AM



  • "Of course not all Hadees are scrap, but you people have adulterated so much that it is better to take only those ones which are not debated among Muslims."

    Thanks God it was done by Muslims.

    kuch bhi likho kahega are ye to muslim hi nahi hai yaa are ye to bhatka hua hai.

    Quran ki ghalat tafseer Muslim karen, Naqli hadeethen yeh  ghaden, Har baat par yeh laden aur ilzam doosron ke sir.

    Sharm tumko magar nahi aati.



    By rational - 4/22/2013 12:53:03 AM



  • bete chhal to tum chal rahe ho.

    By rational - 4/22/2013 12:43:05 AM



  • Bhai Abdullah. Take it as you want. If Wahabis are Muslims, then Muslims are spreading hate not me. I would have seek apology if I have said it in that way.

    you are free to say anything you like against me. period.

    By rational - 4/22/2013 12:40:17 AM



  • "Bihari ya Bengali hona koi gaali to nahi jo tum ise is dhang se le rahe ho". Main ne usi dandh liya hai jis dhang se aap ne diya hai. Ye, soch, of course, bahut gandi bat hai, isi liye aap ko samjha raha hun, Raj Thakre ke bhakt na bano, nahi to jharkhandiyon ko bhagne ke liye rasta tang pad jayega. Mazhab ki nafrat, zuban ki nafrat, aur ab regionalism ki nafrat to na phailao.
    By Abdullah - 4/21/2013 11:40:22 PM



  • Phir sharaabi chaal chal raha hai yeh wahabi, that he is in support with the cause to allow the worship places of Non-Muslims in the holy city 'and respectful presence of theirs'.

    As for where are Wahabis taking things from, then they are taking things from their whims and justify it by pointing out such sunnah and such surah, which cannot be taken the way they take it, because anything that is illogical an inhuman is against the spirit of Islam and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad. 

    Of course not all Hadees are scrap, but you people have adulterated so much that it is better to take only those ones which are not debated among Muslims.

    As for why non-Muslims were barred, or whether they were barred or not, how do you prove that? Forensically. Why Jews and Christians still stay in Arab? They are there in Saudi Arabia and they are there in every other Arabian country, but why is it that Saudi Arabia humiliates them even when the neighboring Arabs do not find a reason to do so? Are the neighboring Arabs less Muslim? Before asking about Arabs, we should ask, why Arabs should be point of reference at all? Are we less Muslim? When we have no issues, from where Arabs get support for such behaviour? It isn't there in Quran to behave that way towards non-Muslims. It should be your job to find the supporting documents that say, indeed they must be treated that way. But let me remind you, whatever document you bring forward, it would all be considered scrap as those documents cannot replace Quran for Muslims.  

    By sadaf - 4/21/2013 11:38:46 PM



  • He must bite the bait. He must say it in his defense. In the defense of his sect.

    By rational - 4/21/2013 11:21:49 PM



  • Dear Sultan Saheb. You wrote:
    "The Prophet (saw) did not set out to conquer Mecca. Indeed he was offered a political position. He could rule Mecca easily, if only he left the Meccans to live life as they would. He simply wanted to preach peacefully. In circumstances that we know well of, he had to migrate with all his companions, and fight to protect the idea of  religious freedom for all."

    Indeed the prophet rejected the political offer and other temptations from the Quraish. How do we know it? Is it not from the Same Islamic history and Sirah we are criticizing for slander of the prophet. Why do you accept it from the liars like Tabri or Ishaq? Just because it favors the prophet.
    Why non-Muslims were barred from the holy cities if the prophet's goal was to establish multicultural tolerant society? How many Jews or Christian were there after the Mecca was conquered? Were the Jews and Christian called back to live there and enjoy the Islamic tolerance?

    Where from the Wahabis are taking that non-Muslims must live in humiliated state in the Muslim societies. Please support your response from Medininan verses not Meccan verses.
    I would love if you put Ibn-e-Taimiya's view and other Islamic personalities together who went against this intolerant stand of Ibn-e-Taimiya
    I would love to know which Islamic personalities stood for the rights of the non-Muslims in the Islamic societies.

    I am with you in your cause to allow the worship places of Non-Muslims in the holy cities and respectful presence of theirs.


    By rational - 4/21/2013 11:12:19 PM



  • Correction: From my view point NAI is about letting anybody believe whatever they believe about their faith without insisting that other's belief about metaphysics is wrong. 
    By sadaf - 4/21/2013 11:05:08 PM



  • You can sort out your issue with Mr. Ghulam Gaus and if he is prey he will bite the bait. From my view point NAI is about letting anybody believe whatever they believe about faith without insisting that their belief is wrong. To you your way, to me mine, in matters of faith, says Quran. And only someone whose fundamentals aren't clear about this sentence of Quran, will enter into debate about beliefs. If at all any debate should be entertained then it must be about the behaviour of Muslims and justifiction of such behaviour they bring out from Quran.
    By sadaf - 4/21/2013 11:02:33 PM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/20/2013 10:10:34 AM. It is natural beholder of one ideology call other person ignorant, misunderstood etc. In the same way you call me. No hard feeling.
    It seems that nobody actually understand anything about the divine sect. It is merely an interpretation and everybody is calling others interpretation wrong or misleading. It is a great tool to save the ideology from the criticism.
    You call me Wahabi. Where did I support the killing of non-Muslims? Where did I support Jihad against non-Muslims? Where did I support misogyny?. Where did I say I must force one ideology down the throat of others? I am wahabi because I was born there. You are a sufi lover because you were born there. Mr X is a non-Muslim because he was born there. Neither you have any merit as a born Muslim nor Mr X is guilty of being non-Muslim. Nowhere I said that we should convert non-Muslims into Muslims. I am fighting against this force.
    Recently I was in the company of the Brailvis (you may say you are not a Brailvi), I am reluctant to say they shared the common stand on the meat of cows despite living in the Hindu Majority. Why Muslims are so bent on the beef to an extent they put their and others lives in danger.
    I think both Whabis and Brailvis believe in Ilm-e-ghaib. Now what is the difference? There are Ahadith favorable to both views. I think Sadaf also doesn't support the Ilm-ghaib in the way Braivis/Sufis believe.
    I would like to love to know your view on Ilm-Ghaib as A Sufi supporter, then I will comment. You are a perfect candidate to put your views on this Ilm ghaib which is a very important issue between these two sects.
    Don't Wahabis believe Dajjal will rise? Hz Isa will descend to kill him. They believe in it.

    One request. Put your views in some proper thread. Sometime I am criticized for derailing the debate. There I will learn from you about Sufi Islam which is called Alien plant in the soil of Islam. Your points should be simple so that a layman can understand it. I don't take things easily just because some very revered personality has said so and so.
    It will be better if you start from the purpose of the creation of this universe. Be prepared for slander of views not of you.


    By rational - 4/21/2013 10:47:17 PM



  • Abdullah
    Your Lahol has not any effect. Read Lahol up to your fill. Do continue your useless exercise of sending Lahol. It suits to you. Actually you are unable to write anything. My writings good or bad create responses from respected participators. Some condemn me as Wahabi, enemy of Islam, jahil etc some like too. I am seasoned now so keep trying without any effect. You are just unable to do that.
    Call me Wahabi or whatever you like. Please do continue. For me it is all politics. I don't take Wahabism or aeithism as Gali. There are 73 sects in the islam that means 73 ideologies. Sufi Islam/Muslims is not free from shortcomings. I have shown with proofs that Sufis too were engaged in violent teachings. I selected three most respected people from Sufis and showed their intolerance toward others.
    Bihari ya Bengali hona koi gaali to nahi jo tum ise is dhang se le rahe ho.

    By rational - 4/21/2013 9:44:07 PM



  • Mr. Ghaus is right. Our fight is with extremism. Our creed is peaceful co-existence.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/21/2013 10:54:21 AM



  • I am enamoured of Mr. Sultan sahab’s views. He says “World domination is not what Islam is all about. That is merely a Wahhabi-Salafi project. We mainstream Muslims want to co-exist with all other faiths peacefully. Let us say that loud and clear. And repeatedly. Until the Wahhabi menace is not extirpated and the world is safe from this form of Fascism”.
    Islam has prescribed a moral code in order to ensure that universal brotherhood prevails in the world. If any person kills an innocent human being whether it is a Muslim or a non-Muslim (irrespective of the race, caste, colour or creed), it is as though he has killed the whole of humanity. And if anyone saves another human being, whether it be a Muslim or a non-Muslim (irrespective of any race, caste, colour or creed), it is as though he has saved the whole of humanity.
    Wahabis have gone far away from the Quranic teachings of peace and love. According to them, the destruction of the Sufis’ shrines and killing of innocent lives is obligatory, which is a great distortion of Islam itself. In the name of Islam they are shattering the image of Islam. Muslim Ummah is suffering from a great havoc as the wahabi extremists are perpetrating the act of violence in the light of misinterpretation of the holy Quran.
    At a time when the Ummah is overcast with disappointed due to the bad impact of Wahabis, only the peace project of Sufis come to take the Umamh out of disappointment. With the true practical presentation of Islam in order to prevail peace pact, Sufis have won the hearts of the mainstream Muslims and non-Muslims too. Perhaps that is the simple reason Muslims and Non-Muslims too, come to visit their shrines. Sufis’ lives are the best example for us to follow
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/21/2013 7:48:39 AM



  • Sultan Shahin Sb says, "We merely need to affirm that we are a spiritual people not out to dominate the world."
    I too am all for articulating such a positive message. Our message must be loud enough and clear enough to drown out the message of political Islam which seeks world domination.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/20/2013 11:21:12 PM



  • The Prophet (saw) did not set out to conquer Mecca. Indeed he was offered a political position. He could rule Mecca easily, if only he left the Meccans to live life as they would. He simply wanted to preach peacefully. In circumstances that we know well of, he had to migrate with all his companions, and fight to protect the idea of  religious freedom for all. 

    If we follow him we should also fight for the rights of religious minorities all over the world, particularly in the birth place of Islam and countries that call themselves Islamic, but we should not set out to conquer these countries and rule them. 

    World domination is not what Islam is all about. That is merely a Wahhabi-Salafi project. We mainstream Muslims want to co-exist with all other faiths peacefully. Let us say that loud and clear. And repeatedly. Until the Wahhabi menace is not extirpated and the world is safe from this form of Fascism.

    By Sultan Shahin - 4/20/2013 9:06:26 PM



  • For Sufis, Islam was not a political project. They did not believe in conquering the world and establishing world khilafat. They preached love and peace. No one feared Islam as long as it retained its mystical hue. 

    Now since mainstream moderate Muslims do not oppose, do not disassociate themselves with Wahhabi political project, the world cannot but fear Islam. It's our job to tell the world that Islam is our faith, not politics. Until we disassociate ourselves with the tiny Wahhabi sects that hide under various names, the humanity at large will have reason to fear us all.

     Motivated Islamophobes will continue to have a field day. We merely need to affirm that we are a spiritual people not out to dominate the world. We just want to live our life peacefully in amity with other faiths. This is what Islam has taught us and this is what we have to say. But we must say it loud and clear. And repeatedly. Why do we have to do that. Because Wahhabis continue their political project of world domination in the name of Islam. In the name of all Muslims. 

    By Sultan Shahin - 4/20/2013 8:46:52 PM



  • The way Sultan Sb describes Wahhabism is exactly the way Islamophobes describe Islam, forgetting that not all Muslims are fascists. Naseer Sb, on the other hand, seems to be saying that there is not much difference between Wahhabis on the one hand and Barelvis, Sufis and Shias on the other. The two should just agree to disagree instead of continuing to argue futilely.
    Instead of using those terms let our discussion  draw meaningful distinctions between 'extremist Islam' and 'rational (moderate) Islam'. Let us condemn violence, intolerance and coercion and let us uphold pluralism. peace and respect for the beliefs of others.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/20/2013 11:41:42 AM



  • Dear Rational, I am saddened with your misinterpretation of love to Sufis. Now I will tell you as to why Sufis are dearest to their followers and what the meaning of love is. Dear, your comment is just against the concept of love to Sufis. Let me define it.

    Sufis with their impassioned engagement in love to Allah and all his prophets (pbut) have presented unprecedented example of love, brotherhood and humanity and become the dearest to Allah. Their love to Allah has left a great impression on Majority of Muslims and even on non-Muslims. Allah loves those who obey him well, so he has upgraded the dignity of his friends like Sufis and Auliyas and gave the subject matter to their dignity in the holy Quran.

    What is the meaning of love, obedience to Allah or to his Friends like Sufis and Auliyas referring to Khwaja Ghareeb Nawaz and Khawaza Nizamuddin as named in your comment?

    For instance, if I claim that I love Sufis and I try to justify saying that I go to visit their shrines once in every week, such love to Sufis will be exact identical to most of today’s ignorant Muslims (Jahils) or those who have nothing to do with the religious practices. So it is clear that love to Sufis means to follow the Sufi’s actions and practices.

    Visiting the holy shrines is good, but it is obligatory for a Muslim to offer Namaz first. After Iman, the obligatory acts are prior to every other Mustahsin.  

    Love to Sufis means to follow the footsteps of Sufis in all walks of life; performing all religious fundamental principles and practices like five time prayers at their fixed times, remembering Allah almighty in every possible time, condemning every act of terrorism, engaging in every good deed being far away from evil deeds. Now you can understand the concept of love. The followers of Sufis preach the Jahil Muslims the same kind of love to Sufis but unfortunately some Muslims do not act the true love and Wahabis do not understand the exact love to Sufis and they call it Shirk.

    Mr Rational, only the loving people can understand the exact meaning of love. Those who are out of love to obedient slave of Allah (Sufis), and who terrorize people and practice the act of terrorism, how can they understand the concept of love?
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/20/2013 10:14:43 AM



  • Mr Rational, Islam does not confine itself merely to purifying our spiritual and moral life but its domain extends to the entire gamut of life. It wants to mould both individual and collective life in healthy patterns, so that universal brotherhood may be truly established on earth and so that peace, happiness and well being may fill the world. Islamic way of life is based on this unique approach to life.  

    But Wahabis are totally out of this unique approach of Islam to life.

    Mr Rational my exam is still going on, I will write on cosmology later


    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/20/2013 10:13:15 AM



  • Mr Rational says “If the prophet has predicted this fitna was not it bound to happen”.

    As his ideology favours Wahabis, and when Wahaibs believe that the prophet had no knowledge of unseen (ilme ghaib) why do they say so and why does mr Rational favour them?

    Wahabis are misguiding people, they are killing thousands of Muslism and non-Muslims, destructing the holy shrines, making Jahil Muslims commit the suicide bombings, torturing non-Muslims to convert to Islam. They are doing so in the name of Jihad or Shirk etc. Is it Islam? Muslims must be aware of their web of terror and disassociate from the name of Islam


    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/20/2013 10:10:34 AM



  • He had "great hope in being able to steer NAI away from now what I now conclude to be very clearly an Islamophobic site disguised as a sectarian site. You do not have many Barelevi followers of the site either for me to say that it is a Barelvi site."

    This statement itself proves that after lots of insistence that it is a website that promotes Barelvism, you could not find any evidence to support your suspicion and ultimately here your acknowledgement has slipped your lips, that you were wrong. (You cannot win an argument with me easily. This is not the only forum I argue. Din raat ka saala yahi kaam hi hai mera.)

    Point number 2. You were prejudiced about the website and you wanted it to steer your way. The first wrong that you indulged in was that you were prejudiced. The second wrong that you committed that you insisted (a typical wahabi characteristic) to your way (thinking that your way is correct-khushfahmi to dekho janab ki).

    Point 3. We did not go on wahabi website but it is you who came on a non-wahabi website. Isn't it? Now who was trying to colonize and encroach the other's space? But obvious. It were you. And therefore you got all the kicking.

    Point 4. If you are going to open your own dukan, then let the world see how much you find fan following in five years? If you take it as challenge, then please take it. Otherwise I have no intention to challenge you on this front as all that I have to say is please open your own dukan if you are dissatisfied by the performance of NAI. My best wishes to you and may be I'll visit there also and you will have full freedom to ban my entry or censor my words.

    Point 5. Please have a good night sleep without fear that I'll ever betray your confidence. At personal level, I have no enmity with you. I am addressing a certain Naseer Ahmad who exist in a virtual world for me. If you get me wrong again, then perhaps I cannot help. Khuda Hafiz and Shabba Khair. I never meant to hurt you- the real world you. If you are unable to understand what I am saying then let me say, that just as Congress and BJP are fighting every election against each other and have ideological differences, similarly we have over certain issues, but the leaders form both the side have personal equations. This is the beauty of our Indian democracy and this is the way I seek to have things. If you do not agree for it, well, I cannot insist much. I am not a wahabi. Khuda Hafiz (not, Allah Hafiz.)

    By sadaf - 4/20/2013 9:38:35 AM



  • Dear Rational, I had posted my following comment in reply to your argument against Sufis with special reference to a book written by a Molana Muhammad Ilyas Attar Qadri Rizvi. I wonder why you have not yet responded to it. So I reproduce it keeping my slightest hope alive that you will not digress from the main point:
     
    Molana Muhammad Ilyas Attar Qadri Rizvi is not any acclaimed Scholar of religious authority for sufis as Sheikh Mohammad bin Abdul Wahhab is for Wahabis. While all Wahabis conform to his views becuase he is the pioneer of Wahabism, many sufis don't even know Molana Muhammad Ilyas Attar Qadri Rizvi, let alone following him blindly. As a principle, while debating sectarian issues and differences, we should base our arguments on the acclaimed religious authorities recognized by each Sufis and Wahabis. Sufis are followers and adherents of great ambassadors of universal love and harmony like Hazrat Khwaja Gharib Nawaz Muinuddin Chishti, Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya, Khwaja Qutbuddin Aulia, Ameer Khusrau etc, but you have terribly failed to produce a single incendiary fatwa or statement of any of them to counter sufis? While we have quoted a plenty of horrendous and obnoxious fatwas made by the two founders of Wahabism/Salafism: Sheikh Ibn Taimyyah and Sheikh Mohammad bin Abdul Wahhab whom all Wahabis/Salafis the world over look up to as their supreme heads and pioneers, you only bring some unknown present day sufis or barelvi commoners who cannot be quoted as authentic sources of Sufism. Yes, you sometimes bring revered Sunni ulema like Sheikh Sirhindi or Imam Ahmad Raza, that too with false accusations on them most of the times. But my dear, they were just recent ulema with their certain views and individual opinions, not the founders of Sufism like Ibn Abdul Wahhab and Ibn-e-Taymiyyah, the founders of Wahabism whom we base on our arguments.


    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 4/20/2013 7:19:49 AM



  • Dear Naseer,
       What Mr Sultan Shahin stands for is not clear to you but clear to me. He has repeatedly mentioned that  he stands for:
     
    1.elimination wahabism which is out to destroy all other  muslim sects  and non-Muslims.
     
    2, Imposition of arab culture on Indian Muslims.
     
      If you cannot understand what Mr Sultan Shahin stands  there is some problem with you and not him. 

    By ramesh - 4/20/2013 6:35:17 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, Nowhere in your articles have you answered the question and now I am certain that you will not: Is Islam a political, fascist, totalitarian ideology or is it a faith that accepts not only myriad interpretations of Islam but also other faiths and calls them all Islam? 

    All Wahhabis want to maintain an ambiguity, hiding behind noble concepts like non-sectarianism, unity of the umma, promoting piety, promoting what they call Islam and so on. They will never come out and say - how can they - that they are promoting a political, fascist, totalitarian, exclusivist, supremacist version of Islam. They will never say they are promoting Saudi cultural colonialism. That is why they never participate in discussions, nor will they ever will on forums where they will be asked questions. When pinned down to answer a question, they run away.

    In Meerut I was invited by the university along with the local Jamaat-e-Islami chief on the subject of Islam and issues of global terrorism. The Jamaat head came along with an army of supporters. They did not let me speak. That is their answer to all questions. Since on this forum, they cannot silence me or any one, either they don't come or do their best to divert issues or finally run away. Darkness cannot stand light. It has to go.


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/20/2013 5:34:19 AM



  • @Naseer Ahamed, you thought  yourself you only quoted from crediable sources  but we are all taken references from Islamobohia sites.  Then,why should not say you take references from some wahabhi supported sites.
    By this way, you thought  you are only reliable scholar and others are fools. Unlike us, you like people mostly reliable on third party sources. Eventhough we quoting from primary accounts told by arabic,turk,persian and Indian acconts,  you  just  ignore  by saying these   all  from islamophobia  sites.
    I already told you having debate with Alisina. But, you simply reject by saying Alisina never end debates even though not having experience with Alisina.   All your arguments may be acknowledaged here.  But, you cannot withstand in international debate.
    By Dharama_raj - 4/20/2013 5:18:28 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, I requested Manzoorul Haq Saheb to send me some one, if possible, to work for our editorial section. He very kindly did that. I just told you to check this with him whether or not I tried to keep this person on our staff even after he turned out to be an ahl-e-Hadeesi with an agenda of creating riots in the country by practically forcing our non-Muslim staff to convert. How is this back-biting? I am grateful to Haq sahib for sending to me some one he had shortlisted for one of his own institutions. I merely wanted to show you that I have worked and spent Foundation's money in an attempt to make New Age Islam a more representative voice of Muslims.

     

    By the way you have still not sent me an article detailing all the ills of Sufi-Bareilvi ideology. This is the fourth or fifth time I am making this request. Find their exclusivist agenda, hateful pronouncements against other communities and produce an article. I am beginning to develop more respect for them. Perhaps they don't have any such agenda; otherwise, surely such a diehard enemy of Sufi-Bareilwis and hardcore defender of Wahhabism such as yours, would have surely found some skeletons in their cupboard.

     

     In fact I had opened this new thread when both you and Mohd Yunus Rational Saheb appeared determined to hunt for a lot of exclusivist, hateful material against other communities in Sufi literature.  I thought we better have a separate thread for all this educational material to put them in one place. But nothing happened. All you could find was a page that said Sheikh Sirhindi did not believe in Wahdatul Wojood and was no wonder an exclusivist, very much like today's ahl-e-Hadeesis who believe conflict in society between Muslims and non-Muslims including non-Wahhabi Muslims is a must. 

     

    Yes, from ahl-e-Hadeesi at the one extreme, the hardest, to Tableeghi in the middle and Deobandi at another extreme, the mildest, these are all Wahhabi sects.

     

    Not only Deobandis, but even Jamaat-e-Islami's Maudoodiites and nearly all major religious parties had opposed Partition. But why? What was their agenda? They said that our goal as Muslims is to convert all of India into Muslim. How will we do that if we live by ourselves? There will be no Hindus in a Muslim Pakistan to convert. How will we fulfill our religious agenda? However, Partition happened for multiple, complex reasons. Once it happened, and there were not many Hindus left to convert, all the Wahhabis, of whichever variety, set out to convert non-Wahhabis to what they call Islam (Wahhabism).

     

    This is the war within Islam that has engulfed Pakistan and is soon to overwhelm India. But maybe not. Majority of Muslims here seem willing to silently allow Wahhabis to do what they like on their behalf and on behalf of their religion. They recently marched in Kolkata in support of pro-Pakistan Bangladeshi war criminals. No Muslim, not one, said a word. So maybe Muslims in India will yield to Wahhabi power without a fight. Already virtually every Muslim publication is owned by Wahhabis of one description or another. Not one of them published the news of 60,000 Muslims gathering in Moradabad last year to denounce "growing Wahhabi Extremism."


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/20/2013 5:12:14 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    My views are on record in the form of seven articles and hundreds of comments. You are only digressing and wasting my time and avoiding answering my questions.

    The fact that I have patiently argued with you for the last 9 months shows that I have shown great hope in being able to steer NAI away from now what I now conclude to be very clearly an Islamophobic site disguised as a sectarian site. You do not have many Barelevi followers of the site either for me to say that it is a Barelvi site. 

    The NAI site clearly shows potential for a truly Islamic site  promoting all the positive values of Islam that I have discussed in my article "causes for the rise and fall of the Muslims". Let us not waste each other's time any further.

    It is a good bye from me.

    Sadaf,

    A private discussion of a public matter is not back biting. NAI is a public platform and people will discuss it privately including who could be Khama Bagosh who comes with his first article in three languages on the same day. 

    Publicly disclosing  what was discussed with someone privately is however betrayal of confidence.

    Shahin Sb, for example disclosed a private matter publicly.

    Hope you can make the distinctions and realize who has transgressed good morals.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/20/2013 4:56:48 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, You don't seem to have considered the question yet: Is Islam a political, fascist, totalitarian ideology or is it a faith that accepts not only myriad interpretations of Islam but also other faiths and calls them all Islam?  

     

    Naseer Saheb, We Muslims are no longer a group of 50 Mecca Bedouins in early seventh century AD or a group of 313 fighting in the battle of Badr near Medina. We are a 1.6 billion people living in practically all corners of the world. We are not all illiterate Bedouins. Some of us are highly educated, scientists, some still illiterate. Some like we Indian Muslims, inheritors of a 5,000-year-old civilization, the finest in the world in every field of human endeavour. Some live in parts of the world where no sun rises for days, weeks, no dawn and no dusk. Some live in 100 per cent Muslim countries, some as small minorities in non-Muslim majority countries. A few of us honest, most of us the most corrupt people on earth. Once we were the most advanced people on earth, when we had rational Muslims running our affairs, our universities. Today we are the least advanced people on earth, producing the least amount of original work.

     

    We have myriad problems and myriad ideas how to resolve them. All these ideas must have the freedom to compete, engage with each other.

     

     A supremacist ideology and a totalitarian polity running the world is not even viable, even if it were desirable. It certainly won’t be in conformity with God’s instructions to Muslims in the Quran, a few of which I quoted above, and, of course, you know much more and better. 

     

    There is absolutely no indication in Quran that God wanted all other faiths eliminated from the world. It asked us to fight for their worship places to continue to praise God abundantly. Nearly always in the Quran, scores of time, the word prophet is mentioned in the plural. Belief in all previous prophets is an inalienable part of our faith. All prophets are given by God the same status as Prophet Mohammad (peace be on them all.)

     

    Please reflect on all these issues and decide which side are you on in this war within Islam.

     

     You may run away from this site but these questions are not going to go away. Saudi-funded Wahhabis are not only destroying school buildings, killing Muslims who do not subscribe to their school of thought in Pakistan-Afghanistan alone. They are doing that everywhere in the world.

     

     This is a vital issue facing the Muslim world now. We all have to decide for ourselves if we are on the side of Islam as a political, fascist, totalitarian ideology or is as a faith that accepts not only myriad interpretations of Islam but also other faiths and calls them all Islam.


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/20/2013 4:07:11 AM



  • Sadaf,

    Regarding stooge of Jansanghi recall you own post to Shahin Sb on the subject questioning as to why he does not denounce Jansanghis.

    I have not accused him of being a stooge of Jansanghis but wondered what the source for financing this site was.

    As for backbiting and betraying confidences, Sultan Shahin has many charges to answer for. Recently did he not mention  that Manzoorul Haque Sb sent some person to him whom he employed etc etc? it was both back biting and betraying confidence.

    You are now in the full flow of pleasing your master. Which is a greater evil back biting or betraying confidence?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/20/2013 1:29:06 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    Now you have stooped to lying and attributing things that were never said. If you are not lying, then produce one sentence that has me justifying any act of violence by any party. Saying that militarily trained and war hardened people who have no employment and carry arms will indulge in killing and mayhem is not a justification. It tells what the problem is and that the solution is to disarm and engage them in constructive work. This is a  problem every country faces with its war veterans and solves. You do not find that happening in the case of those civilians who were trained for war in Afghanistan nor do you find a military solution. The problem is therefore self created by those powers who have trained and equipped them but are not taking the responsibility to disarm them and rehabilitate them. The problem does not disappear on its own. Expalining how cancer is caused and spreads and kills is not a justification for cancer. It is to tell you what should be avoided and what the remedy is and what to expect if you do not act.

    You will not answer my three simple direct questions because they show you and your agenda for what it is.

    You can abuse Wahabism as much as you please or  Maududism or Qutubism but when you use  names of sects that people identify with or belong to you are indicting all people of that sect the majority of whom are peaceful as you have acknowledged. My question therefore to you was:

    1.Do you not club Wahabi, Salafi, Ahle Hadith and Deobandis together? As a matter of fact every sunni sect except the Barelvi? 


    2. Have you not denounced the Tablighi Jamat although you acknowledge that it has remained uncontroversial and peaceful since its formation in 1920 and did not participate in the political and communal issues such as partition, Shah Bano, Babri Masjid etc. just because it is not Barelvi?

    3. Please therefore clearly define what is it that you stand for and fighting against. 

    This is my last post in this forum as I have better things to do rather than spend my time trying to work with 20 odd people.

    The forum I thought was a good idea to bring all good people on a common platform but your agenda appears to be quite different. Maybe your agenda is only to undermine Islam in the guise of a sectarian. Whatever it is, it has not succeeded in attracting members which means that the need for such a forum still exists. The moment such a forum which meets the aspirations of good people come up, you would have lost the initiative and advantage. Clearly, this forum is not what it appears to be otherwise, it would not have been so unconcerned about attracting well meaning and peaceful members irrespective of whether they are Tablighi or Deobandi.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/20/2013 1:22:08 AM



  • I agree with Mr. Dharmraj on this.
    As for  Dear Mr. Naseer Ahmad Sir's "What made you choose a known foul mouth and uncouth person as your  partner who has been variously described by other commentators as a lout among other things? "

    The partner is at least not the one who backbites. The character of a man or a woman should not be judged by what he or she speaks, but whether he or she speaks about others on their back or not. 

    Few posts earlier you mentioned about two individuals discussing and debating when they trust each other. Where was your trust, when you suspected Dear Mr. Sultan Shahin for being a stooge of Jansanghees and where was your trust when you hinted that Dear Mr. Sultan Shahin indulges in ghost writing using the name Khana Bagosh and few other names?

    Laton ke bhoot baaton se nahi maante hain, jawani khatam ho gayi par josh abhi bhi baaqi hai. People who cannot retain their balance when they feel they have arrived at a certain position and have achieved something are the ones who suffer from egotism the most. Naturally, they will not be able to take anything that appears to be contradicting them. If I say, you can be a wahabi who is peaceful and yet not make an issue of any Barelvi, what wrong am I saying? But if you say, that you have to be wahabi and I too have to be wahabi, and let us not say it as wahabi as it sounds derogatory but call it islam and reject barelvism by saying it deviant, then that is entirely contradictory to what I say. At this you start insisting that whatever you say has to be the final words, then 'my foot'!

     

    By sadaf - 4/20/2013 12:56:33 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, Your case now seems to be that Wahhabi totalitarianism and fascism is justified because Mr. Sadaf has a foul mouth. Earlier your case was that Wahhabi Taliban destroying heritage monuments and school buildings, killing their daughters who want to go to school and killing Shias and visitors to Sufi shrines was justified by American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

     

    Dear Sir,  I had requested you to reflect on the following:

     

    You find "two distinct phenomena which are very closely related and are being confused as causally related.

    "1. The rise in terrorist activity

    "2. The rise in "conservative" Islamic values."

     

    However, this is not just a case of RISE in terrorism. This is a case of terrorism and mayhem in an attempt to eliminate from the world all non-Wahhabis, all people who interpret Islam differently than Wahhab and Ibn-e-Taimiyya. This is in pursuance of Wahhabi ideology that no two interpretations of Islam should be allowed to exist. There should be just one interpretation and no other sect.

     

    "Conservative values do not pose any immediate threat. So while modern Muslims who want to live in the 21st century would want to dialogue with conservatives and try to reason with them. But while this is very important, this is not a matter of great urgency right now when our lives and faiths and our ways of thinking are at stake. Mere conservative Muslims do not go out and kill people who do not have conservative values. Right now, it’s not a case of conservatism and modernism at all.

     

    Naseer Saheb, Islam is a faith. Its Sufi interpretation is the one that spread it around the world. It’s a message of love and peace and broadmindedness, acceptance of a multi-faith, multicultural world. Sufi Islam is conservative, orthodox Islam. Its conservatism also needs to be debated and even confronted in some cases. It’s not free from faults. No human venture is.

    But Wahhabism-Salafism is a totalitarian, fascist ideology of political Islam that wants to establish an Islamic khalifa to rule the world, a world in which there will be no non-Wahhabi human being. Once this khilafat is established, it would be called Islamic khilafat, with no other interpretation of Islam there to challenge it.

     

    Do we want this fascist ideology to appropriate our faith? Do you want to rule the world, having eliminated all other faiths, including all non-Wahhabi interpretations of Islam? If so, then Wahhabism suits you. But if you want to share this planet with myriad viewpoints, freely expressed, without fear of retaliation, then the faith of Islam is for you.

     

    As for Islam, when it allowed Muslims to defend themselves with arms, it told them that their jihad (struggle, endeavour, project) was to protect religious freedom per se, religious freedom of all human beings. Worship houses of Jews, Christians, Tribals, Muslims, all the communities that lived in what is today called Saudi Arabia, were particularly mentioned. But in Wahhabi Saudi Arabia you do not find a single church, temple, monastery, synagogue, though you have there people of several faiths serving the country for years and decades. If there is one case of legitimate Jihad, therefore, today, in the light of Quranic teachings, it is of Muslims around the world, forcing the Wahhabis to allow building of temples, churches, synagogues, etc. in that land of Islam where the laws of Quran should prevail. The only constitution for governance that Prophet Mohammad left behind, the Meesaq-e-Medina was a secular, multi-faith constitution on which modern constitutions can be supposed to be based.

     

    Then there is terrorism to eliminate all non-Wahhabi interpretations of Islam and all other faiths. This is against Islam. Our holy book Qur’an says: “No Compulsion in religion 2:256”; “do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” 6:151; “whosoever kills a soul,  unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.” 5:53; “But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God!” (8:61); “begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors,” 2:190; “Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whosoever believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness, their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow” 5:69;” and you will find the nearest in love to the believers [Muslims] those who say: ‘We are Christians.’ That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud (arrogant).” (5:82): so on and so forth.

    I know that you know Quran better than I do. Why do you then defend Wahhabi terrorism? Why do you want to call it Islamic terrorism? You keep diverting the issue to Sufi-Bareilwi conservatism, even takfirism and exclusivism pronounced by some of their ideologues in the long past. Of course, these are issues to be tackled.  

     

    But you must appreciate that Sufis cannot be compared with Wahhabis. You may disagree with some of their practices, but they don’t stop any one from visiting Sufi shrines. Despite their conservatism on various issues, they are willing to live in a multi-faith, multicultural world. Indeed, they welcome all to their institutions.

     

    Of course, the ills of various strains of Sufi thought also need to be confronted, debated. Of course, we need to engage with them too as some of them go too far in their veneration of Sufis and perhaps reach the level of grave worship, though, of course, even the most illiterate, ignorant Muslim belie3ves in One God. Even if he does not comprehend the Sufi concept God and of Oneness of Existence (Wahdatul Wojood). But they are not doing any harm to others. They are not forcing other Muslims to “grave worship.” They are not running terrorist groups to eliminate all non-Sufi interpretations of Islam. They are not fighting for a fascist, totalitarian polity to run the world.

     

    The main question you should ponder is: Is Islam a political, fascist, totalitarian ideology or is it a faith that accepts not only myriad interpretation of Islam but also other faiths and calls them all Islam?


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/20/2013 12:15:52 AM



  • Dharma Raj,

    I am sure you understand the difference between being foul mouthed and not answering as you say.

    I do not remember  what your question was on the `renegade' Adam and Eve. Regarding the Arab conquest of Iran, you asked me to comment on an article which appeared in a Islamophobic forum. I asked you to quote some credible historian if you wanted me to comment which you did not.

    Iran exists even today. Quote some Iranian historian of today if you wish. Secular Logic referred me to a Zoroastrian site to which I responded. It is widely recognized that the very proud Iranians find it very difficult to explain their easy defeat to the Arabs. They have therefore cooked up many stories of brave resistance by every town and city. Now if there was really such resistance, it would result in killing. If there was no resistance but killing, then the stories would be about genocide. The Zoroastrian site that Secular Logic referred to talks about resistance which as I said historians discount as stories to make them look heroic. 

    Anyway, you can hold onto your views whatever they may be.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/19/2013 11:58:43 PM



  • Rational Sb: Sharm unko magar nahi aati, ab aap casteism se regionalism par aa gaye. Jahan tak mera khyal hai, ye website aapke manoranjan ke liye nahi hai. "Di" aur "Diya" na kijiye, Kuchh malumat ki maqool bat kijiye, jis se kuchh waqfiyat men izafa ho. Tumhare jaise log laziman topic ko derail kar dete hain. La haula wa la quwatta illa Billah! Shaitan jald door bhage, Ameen!
    By Abdullah - 4/19/2013 11:49:01 PM



  • @Naseer Ahamed Sb,
    I thought I would not come to this site due to my work load. But, your heart penerating against Sultan Saheb forces me to put my thoughts here.
        you blaming him for dependency on others and also for foul mouth. what about you. you also not answering many my direct questions regarding renegrade, adam and Eve issue and Arab conquest over Iran.
            Jesus clearly told  "you hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote out of your brother's eye".
            As I am Hindu most affected by Islamic invansions  given reply clearly Barelvis is betten than wahabhists because atleast Barlevis following Indian culture not like Wahabhis/Salafists who adapting Arabic culture even empowered by petro dollers not like  Barlevis and also most of Barelvis  living like brother and sisters with Hindus. Hence, I always insists my Hindus brothers see Islam as sects donot blame all muslims.


    By dharama_raj - 4/19/2013 11:17:52 PM



  • Shahin Sb,

    If you have read my articles you would stop trying to preach me about Islam and it's values. 

    You have not answered my three very simple and direct questions.

    What made you choose a known foul mouth and uncouth person as your  partner who has been variously described by other commentators as a lout among other things? In an earlier debate also you tried to involve him by referring to his previous foul mouthed exchanges with me and also released him from the constraints that you had put on his language. Your dependence on such a person shows that you are not confident of your position and therefore your reliance on this fascist partner of yours who does not stop short of talking about killing and nuking those whom he hates. Foul mouthed persons are lacking in self esteem who try to compensate for their inadequacy by abusing others. Such people look for a master who can make them feel good for whom they will bark and bite. Why do you need such aids?Does this not debase you?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/19/2013 10:31:31 PM



  • Sadaf
    Debate kaa jo anjaam hona tha wo ho gaya. Aisa to hona hi tha. agar ham ek hi taraf rahen to debate kaise hogi. agar matbhed nahi hoga to debate chai maani daarad
    some dry commentators will frown upon our dillagi phir bhi kisi ki parwah kiye bagair hazir-e-khuidmat hai
    karta honn bayaan haal-e-dil zamane ki parwah kiye bagair

    jahil kaha aur dushman-e-deen-o-jaan bhi hamko
    kisi ne uncouth tumko kaha to aah nikli.
    yeh kaisa taaluq ta tum se hamko
    tum udhar gaye idhar hamari jaan nikli
    khafa ho kar tum mere dar se uth to aaye
    chubha kaantaa udhar to idhar dil se dua nikli.
    siyasat ki bina par ham se moonh na phero ai sadaf
    siyasat zahreeli hawa jab bhi chali to sukhati hui nikli
    main ham maslak Meer ka jaata hoon dair ki jaanib
    mubarak tumhe Imamat-e-muslaman mere dil se to yeh nikli.

    By rational - 4/19/2013 10:28:57 PM



  • Bhai Abdullah - 4/19/2013 9:15:18 PM
    Bihaar  ya Bangal ke ho kiya. Bihar/bangal ke hone men kuch nuqs nahi aapke comment se aisa laga. Aapne farmaya "gali diya" hamare yahan kahte hain "gali dee"
    ise kahte hain baal ki khaal; nikaalna.
    agar aap ko laga ki maine gali dee hai to mafi chahta hoon. ham inhi gali nahi kahte. dekho sadaf enjoy kar raha hai.
    Maze betabiyon ke aa rahe hain
    woh hamen ham unhe samjha rahe hain.

    be cool my dear

    By rational - 4/19/2013 9:51:32 PM



  • Dear Abdullah
    kee mere marne ke baad usne jafa se tauba
    Haye us zod-o-pashemaan ka pashemaan hona.

    Marne ke baad sudhre to kiya faida hoga. aap to kaamdaar aadmi ho. kyon apna waqt zaya kar rahe ho. hamaare comment ginne ke alawa koi kaam nahi raha.
    Rahi mere khurafati dimaagh ki khuda ki meharbaani hai agar aap ko is par aitraz hai to shaitan ki mehrabaani hai.
    khuda hai to shaitan bhi hai. khuda nahi to shaitan bhi nahi.
    main mujassim kufr too putla-e-insaani
    mujhe tujh se bair shuru se hai.
    miyan yeh sab kharag aalah kareem ka philaya hua hai. usne mujh jaise khurafati bhi paida kiye hain aur aap jaise sulah joo bhi.
    ham dono hi Alllah ki divine-scheme ka hissa hain(agar aisi koi cheeze hai to).


    By rational - 4/19/2013 9:42:42 PM



  • AAP HINDU, YE MUSALMAAN, WO ISAI, YE SIKH YAAR CHHODO YE SAB SIYASAT HAI.. CHALO ISHQ Karen: Rahat Indori
    By rational - 4/19/2013 9:29:19 PM



  • Rational: Yeh tumhare khurafati dimagh ka fitna hai, tumne apne gufe se nikalte hi Mujhe gali diya, Mr. Raihan se idiot wala question poochha, aur abhi bhi apni munafqat se baaz nahi aate ho. 75 comments ho gaye, jisme latest 20 comments tumhari fahsh bakwas se bhari hain. Kuchh aise jahil hote hain, jo marne ke baad sudharte hain.
    By Abdullah - 4/19/2013 9:15:18 PM



  • Kaun kambakht yahan ana ke liye apne ko uncouth kahlana chahta hai, hum to apne ko uncouth kahte hain, Khuda ke khauf se, Paro. 
    By sadaf - 4/19/2013 9:13:26 PM



  • "My ability to see myself detached from my own is what makes me sadaf and same way I can see, even being a Muslim how Muslims behave. How much they stay on Quran and how much they bring in their ego to decide what's to be said and done.
    By sadaf - 4/19/2013 8:44:34 PM"

    yeh khud numaai nahi to aur kiya hai.

    khudnumai to nahi shewa-e-arba-e-wafa
    jinko jalna ho aag men aaram se jal jate hain.
    Shama jis aag men jalti hai numaayish ke liye
    ham usi aag men gumnaam se jal jaate hain.

    bete apni ana ka izhaar aise karte ho aur Sufi se taaliuq ki baaten karte ho.
    Rahe sulooq men log tarah tarah ke bharam men mubtala ho jaate hai, aur wahin kho jaate hain. Beware!!!! of temptations not farzi shaitan.

    By rational - 4/19/2013 9:02:56 PM



  • Wah Wah. Bahut Khoob. Achhci Jodti bitha lete ho. Arz kiya hai, Irshad farmao.
    In lafzon ki masti ke mastaane hazaron hain, is shahar mein tum jaise deewaane hazaron hain. 

    By sadaf - 4/19/2013 9:01:17 PM



  • sadaf samajhdaari ki baaten tumhari kund aql se baahar hain isliye kuchh khurafat khidmat-e-jahil men arz ki hai, samat farmaye.

    padh padh kalima wahabi sadaf deewana ho gaya
    wahabi hi masjood aur dar uska astana hogaya.

    padhta hai shab-o-roz tasbih wahabi ke naam ki
    yad-e-khuda hawa hogayi, zabaan pe dhikr-e-wahabi rawan hogaya.
    rational ko abath ilzam dete ho wahabiat ka
    yeh wahabi hai woh wahabi hai sadaf ka kalaam ho gaya.
    yoon to main hulool-e-rooh ka nahi qayal
    magar yeh kiya sadaf abdullah najdi ya saba hogaya.
    jo bhi dekhe sadaf ko pukar uthta hai
    wo ja raha hai, najdi jiska khuda hogaya

    By rational - 4/19/2013 8:52:25 PM



  • My ability to see myself detached from my own is what makes me sadaf and same way I can see, even being a Muslim how Muslims behave. How much they stay on Quran and how much they bring in their ego to decide what's to be said and done.
    By sadaf - 4/19/2013 8:44:34 PM



  • sadaf - 4/19/2013 8:18:11 PM
    jahil ki samajh se bahar ki baat hai.
    Shahin saheb ke bhonpu bane ho aajkal. warna tumhari auqat hi kiya hai oh! uncouth person.

    By rational - 4/19/2013 8:23:45 PM



  • Abdullah - 4/18/2013 9:49:02 PM
    It is better to ask a stupid question than to croak like a frog and go into hibernation.
    It is better to ask a wrong question than to sit like deaf and dumb or hide as a coward behind a nalayaq Sadaf.
    Sadaf may be your peer not mine.

    By rational - 4/19/2013 8:18:45 PM



  • Par baat kya bola Chhote, theek se bol. What is not an attractive solution? What are Muslims buying? Behind what is the force the only factor? Baffling. Chhota Muh hai to chhoti baat kar, badi baat ka attempt chhod de.
    By sadaf - 4/19/2013 8:18:11 PM



  • When everybody in a group is susceptible to similar biases, groups are inferior to individuals, because groups tend to be more extreme than individuals. (Daniel Kahneman)

    Disagreement  to Wahabism should be seen as an effort to not be susceptible to similar bias as that of Wahabis, else the the entire Muslim ummah if they convert to Wahabi, would be inferior to a certain Maula Wahab of Wahabis, and they all then would tend to be more extreme than perhaps he was. (Danish Sadaf) 

    By sadaf - 4/19/2013 8:10:12 PM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin.
    When the age of rightly guided khulfa-e-Rashideen is our model of perfect governance political and spiritual, it is natural some people started thinking to re-establish that exemplary khilafat. They started a movement may be with ambitious political motives. The effort of Shaheed Syed Ahmed(Brailvis will frown upon using Shaheed for Ahmed) who fought against sikhs and khilafat movement of Ali Biradran fall into this category. 
    Is it not an attractive soultion to sell to Muslims? Why Muslims are buying it at the cost of their values like freedom? Is the force only a factor behind it? I am just pointing to it to pin point the problem in increase of intolerant ideology.
     It may be a chhota moonh badi baat in your presence but I take it from the instance an old women questined the Hz Umar.
    Personally I abhor Sharia ruling anywhere. I prefer the rule of land where I live.

    By rational - 4/19/2013 7:55:09 PM



  • Naseer Saheb, You find "two distinct phenomena which are very closely related and are being confused as causally related.

    "1. The rise in terrorist activity

    "2. The rise in "conservative" Islamic values."

     

    However, this is not just a case of RISE in terrorism. This is a case of terrorism and mayhem in an attempt to eliminate from the world all non-Wahhabis, all people who interpret Islam differently than Wahhab and Ibn-e-Taimiyya. This is in pursuance of Wahhabi ideology that no two interpretations of Islam should be allowed to exist. There should be just one interpretation and no other sect.

     

    "Conservative values do not pose any immediate threat. So while modern Muslims who want to live in the 21st century would want to dialogue with conservatives and try to reason with them. But while this is very important, this is not a matter of great urgency right now when our lives and faiths and our ways of thinking are at stake. Mere conservative Muslims do not go out and kill people who do not have conservative values. Right now, it’s not a case of conservatism and modernism at all.

     

    Naseer Saheb, Islam is a faith. Its Sufi interpretation is the one that spread it around the world. It’s a message of love and peace and broadmindedness, acceptance of a multi-faith, multicultural world. Sufi Islam is conservative, orthodox Islam. Its conservatism also needs to be debated and even confronted in some cases. It’s not free from faults. No human venture is.

    But Wahhabism-Salafism is a totalitarian, fascist ideology of political Islam that wants to establish an Islamic khalifa to rule the world, a world in which there will be no non-Wahhabi human being. Once this khilafat is established, it would be called Islamic khilafat, with no other interpretation of Islam there to challenge it.

     

    Do we want this fascist ideology to appropriate our faith? Do you want to rule the world, having eliminated all other faiths, including all non-Wahhabi interpretations of Islam? If so, then Wahhabism suits you. But if you want to share this planet with myriad viewpoints, freely expressed, without fear of retaliation, then the faith of Islam is for you.

     

    As for Islam, when it allowed Muslims to defend themselves with arms, it told them that their jihad (struggle, endeavour, project) was to protect religious freedom per se, religious freedom of all human beings. Worship houses of Jews, Christians, Tribals, Muslims, all the communities that lived in what is today called Saudi Arabia, were particularly mentioned. But in Wahhabi Saudi Arabia you do not find a single church, temple, monastery, synagogue, though you have there people of several faiths serving the country for years and decades. If there is one case of legitimate Jihad, therefore, today, in the light of Quranic teachings, it is of Muslims around the world, forcing the Wahhabis to allow building of temples, churches, synagogues, etc. in that land of Islam where the laws of Quran should prevail. The only constitution for governance that Prophet Mohammad left behind, the Meesaq-e-Medina was a secular, multi-faith constitution on which modern constitutions can be supposed to be based.

     

    Then there is terrorism to eliminate all non-Wahhabi interpretations of Islam and all other faiths. This is against Islam. Our holy book Qur’an says: “No Compulsion in religion 2:256”; “do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” 6:151; “whosoever kills a soul,  unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.” 5:53; “But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God!” (8:61); “begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors,” 2:190; “Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whosoever believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness, their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow” 5:69;” and you will find the nearest in love to the believers [Muslims] those who say: ‘We are Christians.’ That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud (arrogant).” (5:82): so on and so forth.

    I know that you know Quran better than I do. Why do you then defend Wahhabi terrorism? Why do you want to call it Islamic terrorism? You keep diverting the issue to Sufi-Bareilwi conservatism, even takfirism and exclusivism pronounced by some of their ideologues in the long past. Of course, these are issues to be tackled.  

     

    But you must appreciate that Sufis cannot be compared with Wahhabis. You may disagree with some of their practices, but they don’t stop any one from visiting Sufi shrines. Despite their conservatism on various issues, they are willing to live in a multi-faith, multicultural world. Indeed, they welcome all to their institutions.

     

    Of course, the ills of various strains of Sufi thought also need to be confronted, debated. Of course, we need to engage with them too as some of them go too far in their veneration of Sufis and perhaps reach the level of grave worship, though, of course, even the most illiterate, ignorant Muslim belie3ves in One God. Even if he does not comprehend the Sufi concept God and of Oneness of Existence (Wahdatul Wojood). But they are not doing any harm to others. They are not forcing other Muslims to “grave worship.” They are not running terrorist groups to eliminate all non-Sufi interpretations of Islam. They are not fighting for a fascist, totalitarian polity to run the world.

     

    The main question you should ponder is: Is Islam a political, fascist, totalitarian ideology or is it a faith that accepts not only myriad interpretation of Islam but also other faiths and calls them all Islam?


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/19/2013 7:26:02 PM



  • GM Sb,

    Has anyone ever driven a point by being uncouth? How can an uncouth person ever answer a question on "peace, moderation and harmony?"

    Islam has not lost it's way. The Muslims have.  Consequent to suffering repeated military defeats, the Muslims started entertaining severe self doubts about whether they were on the right path. They decided to change their current ways and adopt the path of their glorious ancestors in the hope that they would  once again become successful. I have covered this very same issue in my article on "the causes for the rise and fall of Muslims" and argued that it was greater individual freedoms that Muslim society  enjoyed vis-a-vis other societies including religious tolerance  that made them successful and not populating mosques in larger numbers. So a return to basics should mean a return to the basic values of human dignity of which freedom and individual liberties is an important part.

    The masses do not think. They are swayed by charismatic leaders. It is a nation's fortune what kind of intellectual capacity and charisma is found in the same person. Charisma is the capacity to fire the imagination of the people. Unfortunately, people are suckers for easy solutions and fall for anyone who sells them easy solutions. If the person with charisma happens to be an uncouth person, he takes other uncouth persons as his partners and propagates uncouth values. A decent person keeps uncouth persons at a distance as a matter of principle.

    Any debate on NAI turns out to be fruitless because of the small number of participants. This small number of about 20 who comment are what is left after a filtering process over the last 5 years and therefore they conform to a certain profile. 

    When everybody in a group is susceptible to similar biases, groups are inferior to individuals, because groups tend to be more extreme than individuals. (Daniel Kahneman)

    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/19/2013 6:57:01 PM



  • "...... or Islam is not the medicine to cure us."

    Let us make sure we are using the medicine in the right way.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/19/2013 12:24:26 PM



  •  "How Islam lost its way and ceased to be a religion of peace, moderation and social harmony"? The most apt question with the most apt conclusion. I played a role even at the cost of being uncouth to home in a point that insistence on blaming things on the other, being egoistic, and being stubborn, is what Islam is against. Having these is the surest way to lose Islam- peace, moderation and harmony.Either we have not employed Islam to get rid us of these or Islam is not the medicine to cure us. 
    By sadaf - 4/19/2013 12:05:30 PM



  • This debate has become just a personal battle between Sultan Sb and Naseer Sb. It is a stalemate and will remain unresolved. It is not serving any useful purpose. Instead of discussing "Why Identify Islamist Terrorists With Wahhabi Ideology", we should discuss "How Islam lost its way and ceased to be a religion of peace, modearion and social harmony".
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/19/2013 11:05:45 AM



  • We should not accept Dear Mr. Naseer Ahamd Sir's idea about not marginalizing an entire sect, even though we aren't doing so. It is another matter that he believes that we are doing that only.

    One reason is that, if as per him, there are none who accept to be called Wahabi, we aren't going to offend any Wahabi (who is non-existent as per him) in our campaign against Wahabi. 

    Second reason is that, as he is trying to instigate us into swelling ranks and basically it is his challenge, the instead of looking out for (non-existent) Wahabis, whom we won't be able to find logically as they are non-existent we should seek non-Wahabis for that purpose. 

    Thirdly, if we accept his concept that Barelvis need to be reformed, then what better way to reform Barelvis and rally them together, if not by targeting Wahabis. 

    Sir ka dil bhi rah jayega, saanp bhi mar jayega aur laathi bhi nahi tootegi. 

    By sadaf - 4/19/2013 7:52:49 AM



  • sadaf bete. - 4/18/2013 11:00:52 PM. day by day you are becoming deewana in order to catch me.

    Piss be upon Zakir Nalayaq and his ideology. Now what do you say? Is he my buzurg now?

    miyan mark se khairaat mil gayee hai kya. note chhapne nahi gaye. bahut chahak rahe ho.

    bana hai shaah ka musaahib phire hai itrata, warna is shahar men sadaf ki aabroo kiya hai.

    gaana shuroo kar do main to khwaja ki diwani.....   shayad kuch udhar se bhi tumahari jholi men rupyon ki khiraat mil jaaye.

    By rational - 4/19/2013 5:10:34 AM



  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/19/2013 3:07:43 AM
    If my comment made you happy, I earned sawab. May be I follow you to Jannat as you will follow your peers.
    In company of brailvis (so called sufi lovers), I found this is the hope for  that they are engaged in peerparasti. khwaja, dastagir will take them to Jannat not their actions. I attended a marriage for which I traveled 800 km. There was only khwaja ghrib nawaz on the orchestra whole night.

    kuchh bhi ho brailviyon ke yahaan khaane peene ka khoob bandobast hai. Kabhi halwa, kabhi chana, kabhi teeja, kabhi chaliswan, kabhi fatiha kabhi urs. Nalayaq  wahabiyon ke yahaan koi paani bhi nahi poochta. Raunaq se khali. tasbeeh hilate rahte hain. Naach gaane se door. Ujjar ganwaar. Naak men dam kar rakha hai. savere saver aa jate hain namaz padho namazpadho. masjid men chalo. allah our uske rasool ki baat hogi. naa subha chain naa shaam. Dadhi badhao. lamba kurta pahno. aajiz aa gaya hoon. ab khwaja sahab ki baat ho to brailvi bhi chalen.
    waise bhi jo maangna hoga maang lenge mohammed se , allah ke palle men touheed ke siwa kya hai.
    Rangeen kapde, masjid par hare rang ki jhandiyaan. Nalayaq wahabiyon ke yahaan siwaye safed kapdon ke kuch nahi milta.

    I am waiting for your article on cosmology. please oblige us if you have time now. I hope you would have excelled in your exams.

    By rational - 4/19/2013 4:49:20 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghauss. Thanks God you quoted Sahih Hadith from Sahi Bukhari which has voloumes of fabricated Ahadith.

    "The prophet pbuh had already predicted this fitna in his era. Sahihul Bukhari ki……….. Saheeh Hadith…… (Volume 2, Book 17, Number 846:) Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:

    ‘The Prophet) said, “O Allah! Bless our Sham (Syria and some other countries) and our Yemen.” People said, “Our Najd as well.” The Prophet again said, “O Allah! Bless our Sham and Yemen.” They said again, “Our Najd as well.” On that the Prophet said, “There will appear earthquakes and afflictions, and from there will come out the side of the head of Satan.”

    If the prophet has predicted this fitna was not it bound to happen. Free will or per-ordination?

    By rational - 4/19/2013 4:26:26 AM



  • Shikaari ayega, jaal bichhayega, par tum is jaal mein phansna nahi New Age Islam. 

    Just to swell numbers, do not compromise on accomodating 'conservatives'. If at all 'conservatism cannot be avided, let me be the 'conservative' who cannot mingle with Wahabis- the deviant Islamist. The world will notice you as and when your time comes. Do not rush for gold or Pakistan as other shhort sighted people have done before.Do not desperately seek Paradise.

    By sadaf - 4/19/2013 3:48:21 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    We can conduct a dialogue as two individuals having the best of intentions but having different viewpoints or we can distrust each other's motives and shadow box.

    What I have figured out from my exchanges is that there are two distinct phenomena which are very closely related and are being confused as causally related.

    1. The rise in terrorist activity
    2. The rise in "conservative" Islamic values

    As I have shown in my post addressed to Yunus Sb in another thread, these are distinct non-causally related phenomena.

    Let us face it. The discovery of abundant (and therefore very cheap) easily storable and transportable energy in the form of fossil oil is the reason why the entire World's wealth has increased almost four fold since the 1970s. Compare your own standard of living in the 60's with what it is today and thank petroleum for it. In terms of correlation, increase in the wealth of the World correlates with every phenomena linked to wealth/greater disposable incomes including funding of Madarsas building of mosques etc. Terrorism which needs financing is also a "beneficiary". But is terrorism related to world prosperity? It correlates but is it causally related? The answer is an obvious no but a yes is logically  as right or as wrong as confusing growth in terrorism with growth in Islamic values.

    I have time and again discussed the example of the Tablighi Jamat to prove the point that increase in "conservative" Islamic values does not result in increase in either intolerance or terrorist activity.

    I believe, that it is on account of drawing up of such wrong conclusions, that NAI has aligned itself against not terrorism alone, but against "conservative" Islamic values itself. It is in effect fighting Islam.

    Practicing Muslims who come to this site notice this anti Islamic stance and move away. Some have made attempts to argue but were shouted down and even insulted. Even female commentators are not spared the verbal violence that this site excels in. There are not many people who can sustain a debate against every other commentator for such a long time to get to the bottom of the problem and to put up with the senseless verbal abuse that even a Raihan does not desist from. 

    The end result of this myopic view of NAI is that after 5 years it has less than 20 active contributors. This clearly calls for introspection and course correction. 

    My fond hope is that NAI will become the platform for change. That can happen only once it identifies the real enemy and stops driving away every potential friend and collaborator and stops fighting or denouncing or castigating "conservative" Islamic values and focuses on the reasons for growth of terrorism and what measures are needed to contain this menace.

    If you can increase your active members to a million which I think is possible, you can make the World notice and pay heed. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/19/2013 3:25:41 AM



  • Mr Rational, you have raised my dignity by calling me Sufi but dear, problem is that it is difficult for me to reach the exact dignity and reverence of Sufis as Allah has given them much higher place. At least as being a servant of  the Sufi and Wali like Ghause azam, Khawaja Ghareeb nawaz, Khawaja Qutubuddin and Khawaja Nizamuddin etc. i would like you to love them. If you do that you will feel much better than before.  
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/19/2013 3:07:43 AM



  • Mr. Postmodernist Aiman Reyaz, then why do you write such ambiguous and polemical comments like: "I believe that wahabism (in contemporary sense) is an action or a reaction to promote Islam". Please make yourself clear before writing any comment!

    By Varsha Sharma - 4/19/2013 2:47:35 AM



  • I second dear Sultan sahib’s view ‘Wahhabism itself is almost 300 years old. It has been promoted with Saudi funding since the pact between Ibn Saud and Ibn abdul Wahhab in 1744. Petrodollar has been around since late 1940s’.

    ‘The extreme violence in Wahhabism comes from Taimiyya. Wahhab, for instance, did not advocate killing Sufi shrine-goers; he merely advocated and personally destroyed Sufi shrines and other heritage buildings. Taimiyya wanted all Muslims who did not believe in his interpretation of Islam killed. He did not want more than one interpretation of Islam to be allowed to survive’.

    The prophet pbuh had already predicted this fitna in his era. Sahihul Bukhari ki……….. Saheeh Hadith…… (Volume 2, Book 17, Number 846:) Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:

    ‘The Prophet) said, “O Allah! Bless our Sham (Syria and some other countries) and our Yemen.” People said, “Our Najd as well.” The Prophet again said, “O Allah! Bless our Sham and Yemen.” They said again, “Our Najd as well.” On that the Prophet said, “There will appear earthquakes and afflictions, and from there will come out the side of the head of Satan.”

    According to historians, Ibn Abdul Wahhab belonged to Banu Tamim tribe. The House of Sauds belonged to Banu Hanifah tribe. All historians have mentioned that the place of birth of Ibn Abdul Wahhab is Dariya, in Najd. These are photo finish facts confirming nature of Wahhabi movement.
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/19/2013 2:46:42 AM



  • Some of your point is correct Dear Mr. Ramesh. However what you term as selective blindness for people who are like me and tolerant of non-Muslims, I must say that you are being selectively blind to ignore what secular Logic has to say for me.

    Actually being selective blind is a natural phenomenon. When you focus your eye sight to see things which are near, you selectively chose to be blind of what is afar, and when you focus on things afar, you selectively chose to be blind for things that are near. 

    Simialrly, when we read Quran, we selectively have to see, in what context something is written. One cannot be like Talibanis and Jihadis and be literalist. So basically being selective is not wrong at all. What is wrong is being non-selective.

    As you said, masses cannot be selective, but then haven't you heard masses are asses, they cannot see. They can only swell the size of a gathering and not an intelligent word can come out of their mouth.

    The rapist about whom you are talking and saying to be Sufi even though you might have got this word for him from news clippings, just for a moment try to apply your mind without being that from masses and think, that can such a person be called Sufi, even if he went around in such a garb? Think on your own and have your answer with you.

    Is it there in Sharia to rape? And even if some rapist prepare a Sharia and include raping as a must think to do, can such a Shariah be considered a Shariah at all? Apply your own mind. 

    By the way, you seem to be under impression that Shariah is some kind of divine handi-work and that there is just one Shariah possible and that all Shariahs include things like raping and imposing Jaziaya. 

    By sadaf - 4/19/2013 1:24:58 AM



  • @Sharma, may you did  not understand my statement. I denounce their actions, both direct as well as indirect ones. I suppose that if you read my earlier comment again and all of it and not just one sentence then I hope it will answer your question. Wahabis are promoting their version of Islam by forcefully converting non-Muslims, the best example is in Pakistan. Last year I had read in this site only that in Pakistani hospitals non-Muslims are psychologically forced to convert to Islam. I am against this and I do not support this. So let me make myself very clear, if my previous statement had not been, that I do not support t

    @Sharma, may you did  not understand my statement. I denounce their actions, both direct as well as indirect ones. I suppose that if you read my earlier comment again and all of it and not just one sentence then I hope it will answer your question. Wahabis are promoting their version of Islam by forcefully converting non-Muslims, the best example is in Pakistan. Last year I had read in this site only that in Pakistani hospitals non-Muslims are psychologically forced to convert to Islam. I am against this and I do not support this. So let me make myself very clear, if my previous statement had not been, that I do not support their ideology but I would also like to add that I desist from boxing people into groups because, being a postmodernist, I don’t paint all the in-group members with the same brush.

    heir ideology but I would also like to add that I desist from boxing people into groups because, being a postmodernist, I don’t paint all the in-group members with the same brush.


    By Aiman Reyaz - 4/19/2013 1:06:45 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, you seem to have missed this in the avalanche of comments. I would request you to reflect on these issues. We don't have to score points. No awards are on offer. We are all here to learn from one another and contribute our thoughts. Apropos your earlier comments, I submitted the following: 

      

    It's not my case that there was nothing wrong in the world of Islam before petrodollars. After all, three of our four rightly-guided caliphs were murdered. The Khwarij, the religious zealots, to whose tradition the contemporary Wahhabis belong, existed even during the time of the Prophet. In Hazrat Ali's time and afterwards, they killed about a hundred thousand Muslims, which is an incredible figure for that time and place when population was sparse. Prophet’s entire family was massacred in the 48th year of his demise and Islam was taken over by the former elite of Mecca which was totally inimical to Islam and had accepted Islam only when they had no option left after the occupation of Mecca by Muslims. Our entire history is full of strife.

    We have had Khwarij zealotry throughout our history in one form or another. Wahhabism itself is almost 300 years old. It has been promoted with Saudi funding since the pact between Ibn Saud and Ibn abdul Wahhab in 1744. Petrodollar has been around since late 1940s. In early 1974 its volume increased fourfold and has been increasing enormously since then. And in proportion has gone up the massive funding for propagation of Wahhabism and the dream of world colonization, starting with the colonization of the Muslim mind.

     

    Then, Ibn-e-Taimiyya, the main source of Mohammad Ibn-abdul Wahhab’s inspiration spread his extremist philosophy in 13th-14th century. The extreme violence in Wahhabism comes from Taimiyya. Wahhab, for instance, did not advocate killing Sufi shrine-goers; he merely advocated and personally destroyed Sufi shrines and other heritage buildings. Taimiyya wanted all Muslims who did not believe in his interpretation of Islam killed. He did not want more than one interpretation of Islam to be allowed to survive. Wahhabis also follow this policy of not allowing any non-Wahhabi Muslims to live, so that there is no sectarianism in Islam. It’s the FINAL SOLUTION to sectarianism in Islam. You too do not want to allow more than one sect in Islam. I wonder if you too subscribe to this FINAL SOLUTION.


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/19/2013 12:46:37 AM



  • Varsha Sharma's has brilliantly pointed out the error. Wahabis are actually making people run away from Islam and all the foolish dharm parivantan samaroh telecast on Peace TV is like being penny wise and pound foolish.
    By sadaf - 4/18/2013 11:31:49 PM



  • @Aiman Reyaz, "I believe that wahabism (in contemporary sense) is an action or a reaction to promote Islam".
    Aiman, how Wahabis are promoting Islam? by killing children, or raping women or murdering Sufi shrine-visitors?  

    By Varsha Sharma - 4/18/2013 11:22:47 PM



  • 'buzurgparasti and then then real evil', say rational.
    Ask secular Logic, if that is the real evil in his eyes or something else?

    Let me add something more on this topic of 'buzurgparasti', when the issue has veered there. Dr. Zakir Nayak has become a buzurg for you people, and when he will die, you will keep watching his recorded messages. Since earlier buzurg didn't had anything to record except having a grave to remind people of what they said and how they were to set an example, they could not do what Dr. Zakir Nayak is doing. Even Aurangzeb did not like to have for himself a grand reminder to the world what he said and who he was. Go even further into the history, Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) did not even wished him be portraited so that people start doing buzurgparati for him. And many Muslims interpreted it as indication to abstain from getting photographed and also perhaps so that their progeny do not put a picture of theirs in their home with a garland around and do pictureparasti. But Dr. Zakir Nayak is leaving recordings of his, and most likely will not ask to destroy all recording as he dies. The day he will die, people will sit glued to their TV sets watching his recordings and do his pictureparati. And whoever will have an opportunity to join his Janaza will do so, some will have his ghaibana Janaza but even after that will not leave to to rest in peace. They will retain a wish to visit his grave 'just to see' not to take comfort that he is dead, but with reverence that he is there inside and he was a buzurg.. What is this, if not buzurgparasti and grave worshipping.

    Even at this let me say that I see no big evil here.
    Call me Barelvi, while I am telling how the Wahabis behave hypocritically.

    The real evil is something universal. Coercion in matters of faith,is evil. Not believing in the fundamentals of Islam which is written in Quran, that "in matters of faith, to you your way, to me mine". Instead of showcasing the beauty of Islam, pushing it down a non-Muslim's throat is evil. Instead of tolerating people who believe whatever they believe, doing gherao/mobbing to make him do and say that he/she believes the way the mob believes is evil. And instigating people to do Jihad in the sense of violent killing, which they term as backlash to qabarparasti is evil. Goes without saying that killing & bombing is evil, be it  even with the aid of enemies of Islam. No excuse can be entertained for all the evils mentioned. 

    By sadaf - 4/18/2013 11:00:52 PM



  • Dear All,
       All sects of  muslims whether sunni,shia,ahmadi,wahabi,salafi,barilvi ,sufi etc have one in common-  firm belief that entire quran is a word of god revealed to his final prophet  Mohammad. And this Quran has atleast 100 verses of Jihadist nature made of hatred,violence and contempt for the  non muslims. Hence I do not believe any sect would be tolerant to non muslims. But some sects could be less intolerant due to their capability for selective blindness to these  jihadist Quranic verses. Masses cannot have selective blindness . But few individuals  in this site like yunus,sadaf and Nazim etc have developed selective  blindness to the jihadist verses of Quran , due to which they can swerve by Quran while at the same time have tolerance for non muslims.May be few of the sufis also had developed this skill so that they were less intolerant. Take the case of a sufi in pakistan claiming having raped and converted 200 hindu girls in one year itself. Is is not total intolerance? If so how can we say they are tolerant? It seems that Mr Shamin becomes selectively blind to this data.
        Now as per Rational all sects including sufis   are committed to sharia. As per sharia all non muslims have to pay Jazia  and lead subjugated life.Then how can we say that sufis are tolerant sect?.
    ramesh

    By ramesh - 4/18/2013 10:40:27 PM



  • Rational Sb. has brought about an stupid statement asking Mr. Sadaf, "Why don't they have cordial relations with Hindus" as if 25 crore Musalman bina cordial relation ke hi 100 crore Hinuds ke sath rah rahe hain. What a nonsense idea! Jab Geedar ki shamat aati hai to shahar ki taraf jata hai, Rational ko Gali khane ka shouq hota hai to NAI par aata hai.
    By Abdullah - 4/18/2013 10:35:50 PM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin - 4/18/2013 8:52:07 PM
    You replied before I asked. Why did we start searching intolerant text in the Brailvi literature. You know the answer. If there is nothing such text there or in the Islam you need not worry. We will fail to do so. Afterall we are not inventing we are just looking and bringing it up to break the silence that promotes mystery that promotes sacredness and then buzurgparasti and then then real evil.

    We are not wasting our time to promote injustice gender inequality, misogyny or hatred. Those who like these things are sitting idle and mast in their world. They are not called wahabis in contempt or jahil or irrational.
    We have concern so we are here and doing in whatever the capacity we have.

    By rational - 4/18/2013 10:19:41 PM



  • I will not not read your prescribed book rational. It is your headache to teach me, not my headache to learn from you.
    By sadaf - 4/18/2013 10:09:49 PM



  • sadaf - 4/18/2013 9:55:08 PM
    Here I agree with you.

    By rational - 4/18/2013 10:08:53 PM



  • Ibn-e-Jahil sadaf - 4/18/2013 9:38:05 PM

    You ask Muslims not me. Why don't they have cordial relations with Hindus. If you have So I do have cordial relations because we are not giving much importance to orthodoxy.  
    Don't go away. Read comments of Sufi Ghulam Ghauss saheb. Ask any Sufi/Brailvi/wahabi will they allow marriage between Muslim women and non-Muslim men.



    By rational - 4/18/2013 10:06:00 PM



  • Apna rishta hi kuchh aisa hai Jahil rational se. Mujhe uski gaalion ka bura nahi lagta hai aur woh to khair puraana besharam hai. He is trying to teach me without knowing how to teach and without having anything worth teaching. Hiding behind cloak of atheism, he hope that I should defend Islam and at a certain point realise while defending that what I am defending is incoherent and the coherent version should be Wahabism.
    By sadaf - 4/18/2013 10:04:38 PM



  • Abdullah - 4/18/2013 9:49:02 PM
    Another frog named Abdullah croaked after a long time. Abdullah has nothing to say except hiding like cowardice behind jahil sadaf.
    It is the style of sadaf. I learned it from him. It is the only thing I could learn from him. I am returning it with just more. He should not say I am a miser.

    Sadaf and I will go in this way. Aapko besuri been bajaane ki zaroorat nahi.

    By rational - 4/18/2013 10:01:46 PM



  • Sufi is not the one who becomes lean or fat and is seen to be have become so. Sufi live a quiet live, even though they may appear to be very normal or may be quite popular. They certainly stay away from power struggle. That is the hall mark of Sufi. You are confusing Pir Babas with green all around and Mor Pankh in hand to be sufis. Sufis are like ex-President of India APJ Abdul Kalam, or the Philantropist from Pakistan Abdul Sattar Edhi. Maulana Wahiduddin Khan is also a sufi. But  yes, many a Sufi exhibit their anger to prevent or condemn something grossly wrong, but they stop short of killing or harming people or being aggressive.
    By sadaf - 4/18/2013 9:55:08 PM



  • Ibn-e-Jahil sadaf - 4/18/2013 9:38:05 PM

    You ask Muslims not me. Why don't they have cordial relations with Hindus. If you have So I do have cordial relations because we are not giving much importance to orthodoxy.  
    Don't go away. Read comments of Sufi Ghulam Ghauss. Ask any Sufi/Brailvi/wahabi will they allow marriage between Muslim women and non-Muslim men.



    By rational - 4/18/2013 9:54:25 PM



  • Naseer Sb,

    If we are all fighting  hatred, violence, extremism, coercion, intolerance, obscurantism, exclusivism, supremacism and excessive dogmatism then we are all on the same side (by avoiding the use of the word "Wahhabism", I am creating a lot of work for myself!). All sects have these vices in varying degrees. Most people will agree that Wahhabis/Salafis are the most problematic in this regard. If you do not agree, it does set you apart from most of us, but you could still continue to contribute to the discussion on freedom of speech,  promoting civilized dialogue, nonviolence, inclusiveness, moderation, reform, democracy, secularism, minority rights and gender equality. Making Islam truly a religion of peace is the goal that brings us together.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/18/2013 9:51:02 PM



  • Mr Sadaf ne "Jahil Rational" kaha to Mr. Rational ne Ibn-e-jahil address kiya, personal egos ne "gali-glauj karne par majboor kar diya. Hum kisi ki baat accept nahin kar sakte, to galiyan de kar reject bhi nahi karna chahiye. 
    By Abdullah - 4/18/2013 9:49:02 PM



  • Dear GM
    You need not to address me. I was maintaining a distance but you jumped in. Keep your word and maitain a distance to keep the thread intact. 

    By rational - 4/18/2013 9:40:00 PM



  • Why the Muslim has to be different than a Hindu if they both are having good behaviour. It is not belief that matters but it is behaviour, Rational. Prophet Muhammad was known for his good behaviour much before he started professing a certain belief and even after that his belief did not ask him to change his behaviour. The Wahabi in you is coming out of the mask, because any standard atheist, would say Muslims and Hindus are selling the same liquid in different coloured bottle.
    By sadaf - 4/18/2013 9:38:05 PM



  • Dear Ibn-e-jahil sadaf
    I admit my sect (you insist calling me first Muslim then Wahabi) is involved in this. It is the inherent property of the religion and particularly of Islam.

    By rational - 4/18/2013 9:37:45 PM



  • In modern time Wahabism is condemned for their orthodoxy and intolerance to others.
    First time I heard/read the term Wahabi when one Brailvi colleague gave me a book called Zalzala. Before this I knew only Barailvi and Devbandi. It was my childhood and I was a voracious reader. My maternal Grand father and uncles were Brailvis at that time. That whole village is still a dominant Brailvi. However Jamat has taken its ground. Many Brailvis have been converted to this condemned Wahabism.  Of course Sultan saheb will make Saudi money responsible for that. It may contain some truth. But is not Wahabism an attractive ideology? My maternal father and uncles got converted to Devbandism without any force. They listened to some Devbandi speeches. Now you can find many Devbandis in that village. Brailvis slowly are loosing ground. Why?
    I have seen Brailvis are accepting Devbandi Maslak not vice versa. Is the Saudi  Money is solely responsible?  Devbandis present an Islam thay call free from Bidat that means original Islam. Islam of the prophet and Sahaba. If going to Mazars, offering one's hair on the mazar, Prasad in the name of Sheerni or tabaaruk makes the Islam, than how the Islam is different than Hinduism. This is very attractive feature of Devbandi Islam. It is free from the influence of deviant religions like Zoroastrianism, Hinduism etc. Brailvis have been failed to sell original Islam. So they are loosing the grounds. They may have Jahil Qabrparast believers in masses but as Mr Sadaf said Masses are Asses. So Brailvis gather asses, While Devbandis are attracting educated people as their comrades. 

    Wahabis/Devbandis have books named Hayat-us-sahaba. In tabligi marqaz before retiring to sleep a session on the virtues of sahaba was held regularly. I never heard they condemned any Sahabi or Tabai or tabe tabain or Sufis. In fadhaile aamal tablighi book many stories of Sufis are mentioned to encourage the people do good.

    If I count myself a Muslim I will prefer an Islam free of Bidat/jahilana Rasoom or I will reject Islam because why should I come to a thing that is same as others. What is uniqueness of the Islam?
    If brailvis say that they believe in all previous prophets and divine books so Devebandis say same thing. Bralvis may make any propaganda that they are inclusive but their Mujaddid Alif Thani maintained that Sharia is the objective. objective of Tariqat is not to go against Sharia but to establish the Sharia. That is why mansoor Hallaj was crucified. Where were the Sufis of that time? Was not the fatwa against Hallaj asked from Top Sufis of that time?
    Were not the Sufis receiving booty? Were not many Sufis fought with Sultans.

    There is nothing spiritual but politics only politics. 


    By rational - 4/18/2013 9:27:20 PM



  • And something now on this Jahil Rational. See what he writes:

     " If I fall in love of a Hindu girl, all Musalims will be happy if I can bring her into the fold of Islam."

    Here he mean to say that I would be happy at conversion as he says this for all 'Musalims'.

    Then he says:
    "All sects of Islam when talk about Sharia they condemn music/photography/painting quoting from the authentic sources of Islam. They might have not declared music lovers kafir but they create fear in their heart saying it is against the Sharia." 

    He mean to say that my sect also says so. 


    By sadaf - 4/18/2013 9:25:23 PM



  • Rational,

    Your beliefs are your own affair. Your incessant and repetitious fault-finding with Islam distorts and warps the discussion on this site. The kinds of things that most rational Muslims deliberately ignore are the very things you want to focus on to the point of monopolizing the conversation. This will be my last comment on this matter, because I do not want to interrupt the main discussion as you always seem bent on doing.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/18/2013 9:22:20 PM



  • Naseer Saheb, it's not my case that there was nothing wrong in the world of Islam before petrodollars. After all, three of our four rightly-guided caliphs were murdered. The Khwarij, the religious zealots, to whose tradition the contemporary Wahhabis belong, existed even during the time of the Prophet. In Hazrat Ali's time and afterwards, they killed about a hundred thousand Muslims, which is an incredible figure for that time and place when population was sparse. Prophet’s entire family was massacred in the 48th year of his demise and Islam was taken over by the former elite of Mecca which was totally inimical to Islam and had accepted Islam only when they had no option left after the occupation of Mecca by Muslims. Our entire history is full of strife.

    We have had Khwarij zealotry throughout our history in one form or another. Wahhabism itself is almost 300 years old. It has been promoted with Saudi funding since the pact between Ibn Saud and Ibn abdul Wahhab in 1744. Petrodollar has been around since late 1940s. In early 1974 its volume increased fourfold and has been increasing enormously since then. And in proportion has gone up the massive funding for propagation of Wahhabism and the dream of world colonization, starting with the colonization of the Muslim mind.

    Then, Ibn-e-Taimiyya, the main source of Mohammad Ibn-abdul Wahhab’s inspiration spread his extremist philosophy in 13th-14th century. The extreme violence in Wahhabism comes from Taimiyya. Wahhab, for instance, did not advocate killing Sufi shrine-goers; he merely advocated and personally destroyed Sufi shrines and other heritage buildings. Taimiyya wanted all Muslims who did not believe in his interpretation of Islam killed. He did not want more than one interpretation of Islam to be allowed to survive. Wahhabis also follow this policy of not allowing any non-Wahhabi Muslims to live, so that there is no sectarianism in Islam. It’s the FINAL SOLUTION to sectarianism in Islam. You too do not want to allow more than one sect in Islam. I wonder if you too subscribe to this FINAL SOLUTION.


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/18/2013 8:52:07 PM



  • In their bid to prove that not just Wahhabi but  all Muslims are terrorists and the religion of Islam itself is the fountainhead of terrorism, Naseer Saheb and Mohd Yunus (Rational) Saheban were searching for quotations from recognized Sufis, preaching terrorism, violence, exclusivism, hatred of other communities, supremacism. What happened? I had opened a new thread as I was looking forward to learning something new, as I did about Sheikh Sirhindi and this exclusivist website from your previous posts.


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/18/2013 7:58:42 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/18/2013 11:43:39 AM

    Despite our exchange of bitter comments in the past I have no personal enmity against you. We are discussing ideologies. It is natural if we hold opposite ideologies we will not agree.
    Did ever I say that we must kill non-Muslims because they don't accept Islam? Did I ever say that we must kill Shias or Brailvis or people of another sect.

    You bring a verse or Hadith that talks about love, tolerance, or any other moral issue how can I go against it. For example Islam says don't speak a lie or spread it. Should I object it? Is it sole propriety teaching of Islam? Do other religions say OTHERWISE. Do unbelievers say speak a lie? It is commonly accepted good? But does every person speak truth always? Don't believers speak lies whole day.
    I put my comments in support of secular morality. I maintained that morality is not necessarily has a divine source. It might have evolved due to its need for a society. God might had been invented to validate it. But almost all Muslims are adamant that all religions then only Islam  is the source of morality.
    Are communist bereft of MORALITY? How can a nonbeliever in some divine source can lead a moral life?
    Now come to Sufi Islam. In the opinion of a great personality acceptable to almost all Muslims Sufi Islam is an alien plant in the soil of Islam. Dr Shabbir Ahmed has collected many sayings of famous Sufis which are full of ego, self praise, ambiguous in nature. Still these Sufis are blindly revered.
    Sufis are projected as peace loving people. I selected one ancient Peer dastgeer, one self claimed mujaddid Alif Thani and recent Aala Hazrat. Have you not seen the blind reverence of Mr Ghulam Ghauss towards Aala Hazrat? If you dig enough you can bring countless Ghulam Ghuss who are blind in their love of Buzurgs. They will go to any extent in their support.
    Now let us talk harmony between different religions. If I fall in love of a Hindu girl, all Musalims will be happy if I can bring her into the fold of Islam. Bur if a Hindu fall in love of Muslim girl they will make the hell life of a Hindu. They will riot. Now are really so called Sufi lover will remain behind? A big no.
    In fact religions have the seeds of hatred, intolerance. They are in dormant state. Whenever they get opportunity  they germinate, turn into poisonous trees. 

    Recently Mr Ghulam Ghauss has said that rational is here to cause division. Far away from the truth. Does A religion which has 73 sects need any rational to cause the division. Division is the true nature of religions. I recall a story from the Bible.
    In a city all people were living in the harmony. There was no division. They used to speak a common language. They wanted to erect a Minaret. God became worried. Worried with what? Love, harmony !! He sent angles to create division. Angles caused a confusion among them. They introduced different languages.

    I don't mind if you curse Wahabis for their intolerance to others. I don't mind if you curse them believing they are responsible for every malice in the Muslim community. I don't revere any Ibn-e-taimiya Wahabi najdi, Maududi or Qutub. I don't revere any Chishti, Qadri, naqshbandi, Rizvi.

    For me these divisions are for material gain. Wahabis attacked Mazars sources of revenues to sunnat wal jamat. Wahabis have money and an  influential ideology. Ahle Sunnat wal jamat are in fear they may lose ground in revenues, politics so they are attacking wahabis.
    In recent comment you said rational has a problem. He shifts the theme. I don't claim I am free from problems. But are you or any other free from?
    So I will oppose any whole sale condemnation of any sect.
    All sects of Islam when talk about Sharia they condemn music/photography/painting quoting from the authentic sources of Islam. They might have not declared music lovers kafir but they create fear in their heart saying it is against the Sharia.
    Those who hear their own voice don't bother whether it is HARAM OR HALAL. I JUST SHOWED THAT ON SHARIA BOTH WAHABIS AND SUFIS/BRAILVIS HAVE COMMON STAND.
    I will finish my this comment "I condemn Wahabi/jamati for their excessive interference in every matter of life."


    By rational - 4/18/2013 7:58:07 PM



  • @Nishat, I can’t stop you from thinking whatever you like. You say “their own words and beliefs and actions decide”. That is what I am saying.

    I thought Muslims try to “follow” the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) and not Abdul Wahab, Ibn Taymiyyah etc. The last line of yours, I guess, borders on sarcasm, if it is then please clarify so that I might be able to reply accordingly.


    By Aiman Reyaz - 4/18/2013 7:43:52 PM



  • GM Sb,
     
    From my articles and posts, it is very clear what values I uphold.

    The question that I am bothered about it is 'what is NAI fighting against'?

    Seriously, can you use Wahabi to describe the Owaisis and say that although they belong to a prominent Sufi family and are hardcore Barelvis and have always indulged in communal politics starting from pre independence days when the term petro dollar was not heard about? 

    What will you call somebody who uses the term Wahabi for all form of bigotry whether recent or ancient and at the same time includes every other sunni sect in the definition of Wahabi except the Barelvis? 

    What would you say to a person who denounces the Tablighis while acknowledging that they are apolitical and peaceful since the Jamat was formed in 1920  while at the same time who says that the Barelvi/Sufis are syncretic and pluralistic while they supported the partition and have been involved in every communal/religious controversy such as Babri Masjid, Shah Bano case, etc?

    So my question is would NAI clearly describe its objectives and provide an assurance that it is focused on those clearly articulated objectives and publish numbers on measures that reflect performance on those objectives?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/18/2013 7:42:11 PM



  • So what would you rather call them, Mr. Reyaz, just Muslim?

    "Wahhabism (in contemporary sense) is an action or a reaction to promote Islam."

    Islam? Really.  I thought your had a different conception of Islam? Not a closet terrorist, are you? eh?

    It is not for us to decide if they are Wahhabi or not? Their own words and beliefs and actions decide. Of course, they use many different terms to describe themselves or hide themselves. Mostly they like being called Salafi. But were our salaf like that? Terrorists? 

    One thing common in all these is their reverence for Wahhab, though they also follow teachings of Taimia and later Qutub and Maudoodi. But terms like Taimites, Qutbists, Maudoodiites, has not picked up popularity.  Calling them Wahhabis, however, is not abusing them. People are proud Wahhabis. Wahhab was a great scholar. Also, we should never abuse our terrorists, the vanguard of Islamic revolution in the world!. After all, they are promoting "Islam" as you say.


    By Nishat - 4/18/2013 6:59:20 PM



  • I believe that wahabism (in contemporary sense) is an action or a reaction to promote Islam, either by direct violence, like bombls or guns or swords, or by indirect coersion, like an Imam who constantly tells us to consider the West as the ultimate "enemy of Islam". Many of us act like a wahabi, even though we have no connection with it. However, I would also like to say that I do not like to box people into groups as it kills the identity of an individual. Just all all terrorists are no Muslims similarly all Islamist terrorists are not wahabis.


    By Aiman Reyaz - 4/18/2013 5:30:32 PM



  • Wahhabis: a sect of Islam and their negative influence


    Posted by David Livingstone on 07-17-2008

    There is no need to debate with the Salafi/Wahhabis on ideological grounds.  It's their history that condemns them most effectively.  Until now, it had been difficult to get precise details on Saudi history.  However, I read an excellent book recently by David Cummins, called the Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia.  It is the only comprehensive study of the history of SA and Wahhabism that I know of.
    In any case, it's nearly impossible to pin the Salafi down on any one particular principle.  They have mastered the ability of denying everything and blaming any wayward ideas on false representatives of their movement.
    They will usually even deny that they are "Wahhabis" and or that any such name even means anything.  And yet, they follow closely the reformation proposed by Abdul Wahhab.
    This is what is sneaky about this group.  They basically insinuate themselves as merely a devout segment of the general Muslim population.
    But, a reading of their history reveals very clearly that they are most definitely a sect, and have deviated from the body of the Muslim population since their founder.
    This is the fact that becomes very clear in reading the book.  It also helps to explain a lot about the Wahhabis and their ignorance, as well as their political inclinations.
    Because, from the beginning, the relationship between the Saudis and Wahhabis has been one of tacit compromise.  Monarchism, we know, is an affront to traditional Islamic practice.  But from the beginning, the Wahhabi clerics agreed to overlook the ruler's poor implementation of Islamic law, as long as they could continue to concentrate on "reforming" the masses.  This is of course egregious hypocrisy, but it helps to explain the relationship that persists into our time.
    What I try to point out in my book is that what the world has completely failed to recognize is that the real "axis of evil" is Britain, the US and Saudi Arabia.  And that SA has not only played a pivotal role in the conspiring of the last half of the 20th century, but has been a willing participant, in what is evidently a long-term strategy against the Islamic world, or all part of the creation of a "Clash of Civilizations", between Islam and the West.
    So SA is in blatant collusion with the enemies of Islam in an attempt to undermine it.  And much of the Muslim world is completely unaware of that, due primarily to the massive propaganda campaign that the state has maintained over the century, through the monopolization of Islamic literature.
    But that is only part of the problem.  The central aspect of this problem is the fact of that the so-called "Ulema" are a state-sponsored religious establishment (likely the only one of its kind in the world).  So throughout the century they have acted to excuse the actions of the ruling family.
    This explains the narrow conception of Islam that they propagate.  Because they are not able to address the guts of the matter, which is the corruption of the royals, they have to compensate to by trying to appear strict in other less substantial matters.  But the contradiction is that, and as controversial as this may sound, Islam is a political ideology.  It's a complete system of politics, offering an alternative to capitalism, communism or anarchism.  The more trivial details were never meant to be emphasized to the extent they are by the Wahhabis.
    This is how they fail to communicate the true meaning of Islam.  I would say this is the reason why the Muslim world as a whole is plagued with hypocrisy.  Ask a Muslim what Islam is, and he will list you the "five pillars", but he doesn't understand the political responsibilities that it imparts to him, and that are the true essence of the religion.
    This is compounded by another fact.  Essentially, Wahhab denounced the Islamic world, except for his small band of followers, as "Kaffirs", or apostates, who had fallen outside of Islam, and therefore that it was legal to fight and kill them and seize their property, and enslave their women and children.  Conveniently, the modern Wahhabis never refer to this aspect of their history.
    And, to protect their ignorant citizenry from learning the true Islam from other parts of the world, they produced prohibitions against fraternizing with the "infidels".  They managed to keep this quarantine on the country essentially ever since.  Through this exclusion, and by rejecting traditional Islamic scholarship, they have created a manner of dialogue on Islamic jurisprudence that is completely unique to themselves.
    The problem is that the Muslim world is unaware of that.  Because when the Wahhabis say "this scholar said" or "that scholar said...", they are not referring to the centuries of Islamic legal opinion, but to their own Wahhabi tradition.  However, Islamic legal thought had developed strict processes for formulating opinions.  The development of several schools is testament to the tolerance that was perceived necessary in the interpretation of such laws.  While the Wahhabis, on the contrary, do not have to resort to precedence, or support their arguments by past decisions, and are therefore free to distort the religion at their whim.
    For all these reasons, SA has a completely unique but also very narrow and chauvinistic interpretation of Islam, which, however, they have been able to, through their fantastic oil wealth, spread to much of the Muslim world.  I hope that studies like The Hijacking of British Islam: How extremist literature is subverting Britain’s mosques will help elucidate that the current conception being propagated is one that is being monopolized by a single voice, but more importantly, that that voice comes from a very minor and corrupted sect of Islam.

    terrorism-illuminati.com/content/wahhabis-sect-islam-and-their-negative-influence


    By Shadaab - 4/18/2013 5:22:03 PM



  • If Naseer Sb. agrees that we have to fight hatred, violence, extremism, coercion, intolerance, exclusivism, supremacism and excessive dogmatism, then he is with us.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/18/2013 11:52:39 AM



  • Mr. Rational,

    As a music lover/photographer you will not go to hell, but for making inappropriate interjections in a serious conversation you might.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/18/2013 11:43:39 AM



  • Oh, I forgot to mention that as a Wahabi, his concern for Islam is less and more for Wahabism. Pure sectarian that he is, he has successfully been able to derail the entire issue against all kind of violent ideologies, in whichever form they come. Be it Talibani, be it Deobandi, be it Wahabi, be it Salafi or and (hey you, read it carefully) be it Barelvi,. 
    By sadaf - 4/18/2013 11:37:49 AM



  • Dear Mr. Naseer Ahmad Sir is a hard core Wahabi. He has a history that is quite common and we are familiar with such cases.
    Coming from Barelvi background, when he went to Saudi Arabia, he started realizing that he wasn't Muslim enough and to be a Muslim one has got to be like the Arabs whom he saw there.
    He never realized that he was interacting with Arabs who have been following Wahabised Islam.
    Why did he switched side, could be one question. Perhaps because he was already at unease with the Barelvi foolishness, and the first opportunity that he found as alternate belief system, he rushed to embrace it. (We must not forget that he studied science and must have had started questioning the beliefs and practices of Barelvism.) 
    There is another possibility also, the Arabs whom he found very rich and who showed their generosity by tossing few gold coins at him must have made an ever lasting appeal on his psyche. He could not be disloyal to them or their ideology.
    Also, surely must he have wondered as to why the Arabs are rich while Indians are poor. As a man of science, he too must have arrived at the petro-dollar thing, but then his inquisitive mind must have wondered further. Why petrol was discovered under Arabs and not under his ancestors? No science is available to answer this except that the Arabs followed a certain belief system, which we call Wahabism, while his ancestors followed Barelvism.
    Case cracked and dismissed.
    By sadaf - 4/18/2013 11:01:56 AM



  • Rational, 
    Molana Muhammad Ilyas Attar Qadri Rizvi is not any acclaimed Scholar of religious authority for sufis as Sheikh Mohammad bin Abdul Wahhab is for Wahabis. While all Wahabis conform to his views becuase he is the pioneer of Wahabism, many sufis don't even know Molana Muhammad Ilyas Attar Qadri Rizvi, let alone following him blindly. As a principle, while debating sectarian issues and differences, we should base our arguments on the acclaimed religious authorities recognized by each Sufis and Wahabis. Sufis are followers and adherents of great ambassadors of universal love and harmony like Hazrat Khwaja Gharib Nawaz Muinuddin Chishti, Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya, Khwaja Qutbuddin Aulia, Ameer Khusrau etc, but you have terribly failed to produce a single incendiary fatwa or statement of any of them to counter sufis? While we have quoted a plenty of horrendous and obnoxious fatwas made by the two founders of Wahabism/Salafism: Sheikh Ibn Taimyyah and Sheikh Mohammad bin Abdul Wahhab whom all Wahabis/Salafis the world over look up to as their supreme heads and pioneers, you only bring some unknown present day sufis or barelvis who cannot be quoted as authentic sources of Sufism. And don't bring Sheikh Sirhindi or Imam Ahmad Raza again as they were merely Sunni ulema with their certain views, not the founders of Sufism.
    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 4/18/2013 7:12:27 AM



  • September 25, 2011

    The ‘House’ of Saud — no more Islamic than Billy Graham

    By: David Livingstone

    (This article is copied (with permission) from the Serendipity website.)

    http://tariganter.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/globalists-created-wahhabi-terrorism-to-destroy-islam-and-justify-a-global-state/

    Following the dictates of Hegelian dialectic, the Globalists have created two antagonizing forces, the “Liberal-Democratic” West, against Terrorism, or “political Islam”, to force us into the acceptance of their final alternative, a New World Order.
    The West and Islam have had a long era of compatibility, but this history has been denied to foster the myth of a “Clash of Civilizations”. In order to inflame the sentiments of the West against Islam, our attention has been focused on the specter of fanatical Wahhabism, and more specifically, its most notorious exponent, Osama bin Laden.
     
    Ibn Saud and William A. Eddy
    However, as outlined in an excellent article by Peter Goodgame, The Globalists and the Islamists, the Globalists have had a hand in shaping and financing all the terrorist organizations of the twentieth century, including the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, Hamas of Palestine and the Afghan Mujahideen. But the history of their duplicity dates farther back still, to the 18th Century, when British Freemasons created the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia itself, to further their imperialistic objectives.

    That a British spy by the name of Hempher was responsible for shaping of the extreme tenets of Wahhabism was mentioned in a Turkish work, Mir’at al-Haramain, by Ayyub Sabri Pasha between 1933-1938. British policy in its colonies often involved the creation of deviant sects, in order to Divide and Conquer, as was the case with the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam in India in the nineteenth century.
     
    Ibn Saud and Roosevelt on USS Quincy
    Ibn Saud and Roosevelt on USS Quincy
    The details of this conspiracy are outlined in a little known document by the name of The Memoirs of Mr. Hempher published in series (episodes) in the German paper Spiegel, and later in a prominent French paper. A Lebanese doctor translated the document to the Arabic language and from there on it was translated to English and other languages.

    The document is a first-hand account by Hempher of his mission for his government, which sent him to the Middle East to discover ways to undermine the Ottoman Empire. Among the vices the British were to promote were racism and nationalism, alcohol, gambling, fornication and tempting Muslim women to uncover themselves.
    But most important was the strategy to “insert heresies into Muslims’ creedal tenets and then criticize Islam for being a religion of terror.” To this purpose, Hempher located a particularly corrupt individual by the name of Mohammed Ibn Adbul Wahhab.
    To understand the brand of fanaticism that Wahhabism inculcated, it is first necessary to recognize that Islam called upon all Muslims, regardless of their race or nationality, to see themselves as brothers in faith. The killing of another Muslim was strictly forbidden.
     
    Ibn Saud and Faisal of Iraq with Zionists on board the Lauren in 1949
    However, as part of their strategy of Divide and Conquer, the British hoped to pit the Arab Muslims against their Turkish brothers. The only way to do so was to find a loophole in Islamic law whereby the Arabs could declare the Turks as apostates.
    Abdul Wahhab was the instrument by which the British were able to insinuate this vile idea into the Muslims of the Arabian Peninsula. Basically, Wahhab contrived the idea that, simply by the trivial act of offering prayers to saints, their Turkish brethren had forfeited their faith, and therefore, that it was permitted to kill all who refused to adhere to his reforms, and to enslave their women and children. But that included the entire Muslim world, except for his small misguided band of followers.

    But the Wahabbi movement was insignificant without the allegiance of the Saudi family, who, despite claims otherwise, were descended from Jewish merchants from Iraq. Orthodox jurists of the time branded the Wahhabis as heretics and condemned their fanaticism and intolerance. Nevertheless, the Wahhabis then demonstrated their contempt for their pretended faith by indiscriminately slaughtering Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The Wahhabis then set about destroying all the holy tombs and burial grounds. They stole the Prophet’s treasure, which included holy books, works of art and innumerable priceless gifts sent to the city during the previous thousand years. The leather and gilt bindings of the Islamic holy books they had destroyed were used to make sandals for the Wahhabi criminals.
     
    Abd al aziz ibn Saud (Left)(seated) with members of his family in 1911

    The Ottoman Sultan brought an end to the first Wahhabi rebellion in 1818, but the sect revived under the leadership of the Saudi Faysal I. The movement was then somewhat restored until once again destroyed at the end of the nineteenth century.
    After WWI, the former regions of the Ottoman Empire were divided into varying puppets regimes. For aiding to undermine the Ottoman authority in the region, Ibn Saud was duly rewarded with the creation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932. One year later, in 1933, the Saudis granted oil concessions to California Arabian Standard Oil Company (Casoc), affiliate of Standard Oil of California (Socal, today’s Chevron), headed by Rothschild agent, and chief among [US] Illuminati families, Rockefeller. Since that time, Saudi Arabia has been the most important ally to the West in the Middle East, not only providing ready access to its plentiful oil reserves, but also in tempering Arab aggression against Israel. Due to the evident hypocrisy of the regime, it has been necessary to suppress the ensuing dissent with brutality. Another important aspect has been preventing scholars from speaking of “politics”, that is, to criticize the regime.

    In The Two Faces of Islam, Stephen Schwartz writes, “Their tastes led them to taverns, casinos, brothels … They bought fleets of automobiles, private jets, and yachts the size of warships. They invested in valuable Western art they did not understand or like and which often offended the sensitivities of Wahhabi clerics. They spent as they wished, becoming patrons of international sexual enslavement and the exploitation of children.”
    The result has been that, in order to nonetheless appear to be espousing Islam, the Saudi regime and its puppet scholars have evolved a version of Islam that emphasizes ceremonial details of the religion, at the expense of helping to understand broader political realities. Their manner has encouraged a literal interpretation of Islamic law, permitting the likes of bin Laden to exploit the Koran to justify the killing of innocents.
    Ultimately, the profusion of Rothschild financed petro-dollars in the coffers of the Saudi family has made it possible for them to propagandize their bastardized version of Islam to other parts of the world, most notably to America, where they purportedly subsidize up to 80 percent of the mosques in the country, a version of Islam that substitutes political awareness for dogmatic insistence on ritualistic fanaticism.


    By Shadaab - 4/18/2013 7:04:41 AM



  • Dear Sadaf, people like Rational are working only for creating fight and hatred among people. as Mr Rational appears to be very danger for humanity. He never talks about prevailing love and brotherhood but groping for boundary of conflict. 
    Dear, you are right in the latest comment, and please ask Mr Ratioanl, what is his intention at this site?...........If he does not answer, his overall comments will tell you all about his purpose of making conflicts between two writers and two commentators. 

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/18/2013 6:40:49 AM



  • Dear readers I have gone through the comments in this thread. Some comments lead us to establish unity and integrity and some others push the muslim ummah into division. Naseer sahib has confusion regarding the site and says that this site has largely favoured a particular sect. I believe that the fact is on the contrary to what he claims. Let me say on behalf of this site that it impartially and justly gives chances to every one regardless of sect and religion. In short this site tends to stop hatred, fanaticism, extremism, violence and terrorism.

    The question is that who are propounding the act of terrorism and violence, who become suicide bombers, and who demolish the Sufis’ shrines and why? I am sure If I ask the same question among you intellectual friends, you will name none other than “Wahabis” Talibanis” Salafists” so called Jiahdists and radical Islamists.

    I also believe that not all Wahabis and Salafis are extremists and terrorists but those who are stuck with the outfit of Talibanis and so called Jiahadis but in some way the former too are extremists when they blame sunni people of Qabrprasti.

    Wahabis demolish the holy shrines of Sufiyas blindly and falsely calling it the place of shirk. The prophet Muhammad pbuh never ordered any companion to demolish any single shrine of all his previous prophets while many used to visit the holy shrines of Moses and Abraham etc. so tell me dear why Wahabis are doing this Bidat by demolishing their graves? Why do they kill innocent non-muslims and muslims in the name of Jihad? All these are not only confined to the practical field but also made permissible in their written account of their fatwas totally based on misinterpretation.

    They are eliminating love to Sufiyas and dead people calling it shirk and killing alive people including Muslims and non-Muslims in the name of jihad. Dear friends please see that their acts of terrorism have not left even those who went to glory (died) let alone killing of the alive.

    Dear friends in course of time Wahabism spread around the world and targeted Sufism, even in the strongholds like Indonesia, Pakistan, and Nigeria. This comes in the form of ideological struggle as well as open violence. Sudan’s Islamist government attacks the black Sufi population of Darfur; in Iraq, suicide bombers target Sufi centers. Sufis have literally everything to lose from the continued advance of the Islamist extremists.  They want to deprive us of the faith of our fathers, our sheikhs, ancestors and ustadhs. They want to divert us from 1400 years of Sufi culture and they have to audacity to bomb the shrines of the saints who spread Islam in this region. They want to rob us of our customs and traditions and arabise us.

    Hostility between Sufis and Wahhabis has appeared since the inception of Wahhabism itself in the 18th century when it emerged as the most famous militant anti-Sufi movement in the Arabian Peninsula.

    Wahhabi's considered Sufism a degenerate form of Islam and urged a return to the 'fundamentals' of Islam, as opposed to the 'traditions' that had accrued over the centuries.

    For many countries, Saudi embassies have been acting as centres to promote or outsource Wahhabism, funding local Wahhabi institutions, publications and propagandists.

    Wahabbis believe in a more temporal form of Islam, which no doubt has been to a degree politically influenced by Saudi political affairs.

    Dear friends, they are creating sects among Muslims, personally I hate division and sects, as it make muslims practice hatred even for their closer and relatives. Sectarian division among Muslims has caused a great havoc into family and settled fighting between two members of the same family. In addition to that I love Sufiyas and Auliyas simply because they presented unprecedented example of love and brotherhood, that was why even non-muslims used to come to Khawaja Gharib nawaz ra in his era and even now those including muslims and non-muslims who get to know the life of Sufiyas and Auliyas, passionately come to visit their shrines.

    Dear friends, It is time to resolve the very issue being with farsightedness. If we are unable to make unity among muslims, at least we should try to stop anti-human movement of Wahabis. Thanks you all for giving your precious time to read my comment.
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 4/18/2013 6:25:18 AM



  • I have long maintained that rational is a wahabi hiding under aethistic mask.
    By sadaf - 4/18/2013 5:07:28 AM



  • To all Sufi/Brailvi lovers  Sultan Shahin, Ghulam Rasool, Ghulam Ghauss, GM and Sadaf ......Sahiban.

    Here I found a book. It is an alarm to
    Music lovers/Music sellers/Photographers/TV and cinema actors/actresses/singers.and many more.

    The Devastations of Music

    Author: Molana Muhammad Ilyas Attar Qadri Rizvi
    Translator: Not Available
    Publisher: Maktabah tul Madina
    Pages: 30
    Date Added: 2011-09-11
    Downloaded: 202
    Viewed: 447
    Language: English
    Size: 0.51 MB
    Format: PDF
    http://sirat-e-mustaqeem.com/the-devastations-of-music_book-3061.html
    I don't know whether the auther is a Brailvi or Devbandi or Salafi or Wahabi. The long title with author's name and heavy reverence to Aala Hazrat indicate he is a Brailvi. Is he different than a Wahabi? Mr Sultan Shahin may put him in one new sect called "Brailvis inspired by Wahabism"
    It confirmed that as a music lover/photographer I am bound to hell with countless other Muslims.
    GM saheb may say I am diverting the readers from the theme of this article.


    By rational - 4/18/2013 3:46:47 AM



  • Dear Naseer Saheb: Your question, "What are the objectives of NAI? What measures do you have to know how well it is doing on those objectives and can we have those numbers?" here in this thread is certainly a deviation from the topic. Such questions raised before by some commentators have already been answered at length by Mr. Sultan Shahin Sb about two months ago. What is the advantage of beating about the bush? You look better playing the role of Wahabis's savior, which suits you appropriately. Why to be "Begana shadi men Abdullah diwana". Such attempt will be a detriment to the discussion. Better focus upon the topic.


    By Raihan Nezami - 4/18/2013 3:41:01 AM



  • I am not an engineer with its trapping, sir. 
    By sadaf - 4/18/2013 3:15:01 AM



  • Sadaf, I know that by giving you importance, Shahin Sb has energized you to play the role you play tool well - that of HMV (His Master's Voice).

    I can understand your eagerness to shield Shahin Sb but the questions are meant for him to answer. Well, if he chooses to hide behind you, and not answer it is OK.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/18/2013 3:02:42 AM



  • I'll reply on instead of him, unauthorised. for 1. Yes for first part, and for second 'no', why this doesn' go in your brain. is it because of your wahabism.
    For. 2. That's a non-issue here.
    For. 3. objectives are well stated and need not be repeated to you. itne mein to 10 log ko convince kar diya jaga. about measuring, that should be none of your business or even mine. let Mr. shahin bother. and no,you cannot have those numbers.

    By sadaf - 4/18/2013 2:52:59 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    These are questions on which I seek your answers:

    1. Is it not a fact that on several occasions, you have clubbed the Wahabis, Salafis, Deobandis and the Ahle - Hadith together? So when you are attacking Wahabism, you are actually attacking all persons belonging to these sects? 

    2. Is it not a fact that you attack the Tablighi Jamat also although it has remained apolitical,  non-controversial and entirely peaceful since its formation in 1920 and has kept away from every communal issue such as partition, Shah Bano case, Babri Masjid issue etc?
    3. What are the objectives of NAI? What measures do you have to know how well it is doing on those objectives and can we have those numbers?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/18/2013 2:29:50 AM



  • Mr. Sultan Shahin’s following statement has reminded me of the anti-women practices of today’s Wahabis that drive from the misogynist jurisprudential doctrines established by their earlier imams like Muhammad ibn ʿAbdul Wahhab:
    “Wahhabism has been spread aggressively since the 1744 pact between Muhammad bin Saud and Muhammad ibn ʿAbdul Wahhab which marked the emergence of the first Saudi state. But even before that Mohammad Abdul Wahhab had started implementing his perverted ideas of stoning women to death and destroying Islamic heritage buildings with the help of Uthman ibn Mu'ammar, the ruler of his native village Uyayna in Najd. He had personally organised the stoning of a woman accused of committing adultery a la Taliban and Boko Haram in our times.”
    A prominent Wahabi/Salafi Sheikh Ibn-e- Uthaymeen  writes interpreting a Qaul (statement) of the pioneer of Wahabism, Sheik Mohammed bin Abdul Wahhab (1703–1791) quoting from his book “Kitab al-Tauhid” as follows: “Some people use the term sayyida [feminine of sayyid meaning: mister] when referring to a woman. For instance, they say that some things are specific to men and other things to sayyidas. But this is a distortion of the reality because only a man is deemed a sayyid. Because the Prophet said, “The women are your helpers,” which means that they are captives (see how Wahabis misinterpret hadiths) and the prophet also said that a man is the ‘‘shepherd of his family and responsible for his flock.’’ So the singular form should be imra’a [woman] and the plural form should be nisa’ (women) because only a man is a sayyid and women are men’s captives. So calling a woman sayyida is a distortion of reality.”
    Of Late, during the Arab Spring movments, today’s Wahabis/Salafists went beyond the early Salafists’ misogynist teachings. They tried hard to marginalize women socially and politically. To further this nefarious end, Some Salafi Muftis like the Egyptian Salafi sheikh Abu Islam issued horrendous and obnoxious fatwas justifying the rape of the women in Tahrir Square under the pretext that it was punishment for their unveiling themselves. Another Salafist cleric Abu Ishak al-Hawini went to the extent of likening a woman’s face to her genitals, in an attempt to impose on women the niqab [full face veil]. In fact, these Salafists consider women to be nothing short of sex objects that are a permanent threat to society in their view.
    But should we mainstream Muslims hide these un-Islamic misogynist doctrines and practices of Salafis/Wahabis just to avoid sectarianism?  What use will this avoidance make to us Muslims when the entire Islam is maligned as being misogynist religion merely for the perversity of a so-called Muslim sect? If we don’t  name them and just blame it on the Muslim community without being specific, then how and why an impartial non-Muslim will distinguish the mainstream moderate Muslims from these misogynist Muslims?  Mr. Sultan Shahin is right that the time for pussyfooting is long past. We have no option but to be courageous enough to say openly: It is Salafis/Wahabis who degraded women not Islam.

    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 4/18/2013 12:44:45 AM



  • There are a number of Sects among Hindus but they never fight with each other.  Of course, Hindus fight over casteism.  The so called lower castes are often attacked by the so called upper caste Hindus.  However, these fights are not as violent as between the various sects of Muslims.  Sikhism too has many sects.  They do fight against each other but not so violently as the Muslims.  The fight among the Sikh sects are sporadic and few.  The so called upper caste Sikhs also fight so called lower caste Sikhs but again, these fights are sporadic and generally controlled by the Govt.  I would request Muslims also to stop sectarian violence.  However, I may mention that sometimes, Hindus too attack Muslims in India where Muslims are in minority but then it generally turns into a riot between Hindus and Muslims with members of both communities being killed and both sides claiming that the other side has provoked it.
    By Satbir Singh Bedi - 4/17/2013 11:31:59 PM



  • Sir, what concern me is not that we have to sort it out on NAI, but how it can be translated on ground. But hopefully as internet usages increases, people will be exposed to informations that they need to have. We need to write more and let them have more material to read. Words do energize people. If Wahab could do it, if so many who could do it, so can, you, we and I do it. Chhota munh, badi baat, some may say, but, things start from being small at first, boond, boond, ghada bharta hai. A small seed grows to become a big tree, and ignoring a small spark could be fatal. Even the slightest hint associating Islam asking for Wahabi ways cannot be tolerated. Islam is for Peace, and not coercion, this message has to reach every one. The fundamental of Islam is: to you, your ways, to me mine, in matters of faith. And if someone says you are being fundamentalist, then one must say, yes I am, and say it 'garv se'.
    By sadaf - 4/17/2013 11:21:56 PM



  • When we attack a sect, its members become defensive, and even more unified. If they are a violent sect, they become even more violent. If they are supported by petro-dollars, they become formidable.

    Moreover the history of Islam has been one sectarian division after another, one sectarian war after another. It is time to put an end to this.

     

    Our war is with hatred, violence, extremism, coercion, intolerance, exclusivism, supremacism and excessive dogmatism. We need to develop a coherent narrative on Islam based on authentic sources promoting civilized dialogue, nonviolence, inclusiveness, moderation, reform, democracy, secularism, minority rights and gender equality. Ours has to be a concerted and patient effort using all modern modes of communication.

     


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/17/2013 11:11:27 PM



  • Janab Sultan Shahin Saheb’s  ideas are absolutely correct  in regard of the sectarian ideology and promotion of its vast and far-reaching impact upon the whole Muslim community and Islam and the recurring violence associated with it in an attempt to generalize the Muslims as a violent community.

    Janab Sultan Shahin Saheb has been quite apt in his statement, “Very very few Muslims are jahil enough to consider any saint God; they just request them to do sifarish with God, so they are not actually worshipping those saints” .

    What does someone speaks at a Qabar is better known to him/her only I doubt the language of the Non-Muslims praying at a Qabar, but I am sure most of the Muslims seek anything from Allah Kareem through “Waseelah”. This is all about inward activity or expression of feeling to Allah Kareem. The gesture and posture of the “Johala” who visit a “Qabar” is quite confusing and reminiscent of a “Sajda” even if it is called a “Tazeemi Sajda” It seems as if the revered persons are worshipping to the dead man inside, but actually it is not true in most of the cases; sometimes we do it voluntary and sometimes, all of a sudden, we are forced to do it by the “Mujabir” in lieu of the donation that you will give to the “Mujabir” as it had happened with me when I visited the shrine of Hazrat Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti (ra). I got angry, argued with him at this forced action and didn’t give anything in return rather I distributed some amount of money among the poor outside the shrine.


    By Raihan Nezami - 4/17/2013 10:56:23 PM