certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islam and Politics

70 - COMMENTS

  • I have just gone through GGS  Refutation of Jihadists’ Understanding of the Hadith, ‘I Was Commanded to Fight the People until They Testify that there is no god except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”

    What I am refuting is the Hadith itself in the light of the Quran and also his understanding of the Hadith and that of  Allama Adnan Ibrahim. What these people are saying is that the Hadith does not apply today or to all the Mushrikin of the world, but applied to the Prophet (pbuh) and the Mushrikin of Mecca of the Prophet’s times.

     

    The Hadith is a complete falsehood in the light of the Quran and did not apply even to the Prophet and the Mushrikin of Mecca because the Quran:

    1.    Permitted war only against the religious persecution and until the persecution was brought to an end.

    2.    In no verse does the Quran say “Fight the People until They Testify that there is no god except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”. This hadith violates verse 2:256 “Let there be no compulsion in religion”.

    3.    The Prophet never followed the hadith and always acted against what it says and in complete conformity with what the Quran says.

     

    I have also gone through GGS article on verse 2:256. It is a wishy-washy article and there is no clear unambiguous affirmation that “Let there be no compulsion in religion” is an eternal, inviolable law of Allah that was never violated by any of the Prophets of Allah. If he had taken this position, he would have rejected the hadith under discussion as it is not possible to unambiguously affirm 2:256 and not reject the hadith since they are the opposite of each other. This is precisely the state of Islamic scholarship. No clarity on any issue.

     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/17/2018 6:29:55 AM



  • The satanical hadith has influenced many scholars and even Kanzul Iman to misinterpret the Quran. The proof is provided in the following article which discusses how various scholars have misinterpreted verses 8:36 to 38 and the correct meaning:

    The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Qu’ran (Concluding Part) Summary

    The Kanzul Iman says that the fight against the polytheists was until they “Kufr Se Baaz Aye Aur Islam Laye” whereas the Quran simply says that the fight is until they give up the fitna of religious persecution and until the law of Allah prevails (the law of Allah also includes “there is no compulsion in religion” and the fight was precisely to make this law of no compulsion in religion to prevail and not to compel the Mushrikin to accept Islam). The influence of the hadith is obvious on even the moderate scholars like Javed Ghamidi and Waheeduddin Khan as brought out in my article: The Importance of Getting the Story Right on the Divine Plan Allah

     

    I have been consistently propagating the correct meaning and arguing against the misinterpretations and I am glad that it has had the desired influence on Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqui. I acknowledge that:

     

    1.       He has come around to the view against abrogation of any Quranic verse which is a huge change in him considering that all Classical Islamic Scholars believe in abrogation. I have been consistently arguing against the false concept of abrogation of any verse of the Quran and the fact that no verse of the Quran contradicts another.

    2.       He has also been trying to explain away the Satanic hadith without rejecting it outright. The hadith is false is proved by verse 9:1 to 3 which does not allow the Prophet to wage war until they proclaim, `There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah'  but allows the Mushrikin to migrate within the amnesty period of four months and retain their faith if they so wish to do so. I have brought out in my article  dated 28 March, 2015, The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (Pbuh) In the Qu’ran (Part 4): The Medinian Period

    “Not a single person was killed for simple unbelief and the principle of “Let there be no compulsion in religion” and “To (peaceful rejecter of faith ) be his way and to me mine” was never violated.”

    I am glad that GGS also endorses the law of “No compulsion in religion” but this is after I have been consistently propagating the right view and against the wrong one.

    My comment is against all the scholars who have undoubtedly misinterpreted the Quran in the light of the false hadith and continue to do so.

     

    The hadith falsely attributes to Allah what Allah could never have commanded the Prophet and falsely attributes to the Prophet what he could never have said. Allah commands the Prophet to:

    (8:61) But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).

     

    Why would Allah exhort peace in the Quran and separately command the Prophet to  “fight against the people until they proclaim, `There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah”?

    While all of the Prophet’s behaviour is in accordance with the Quran, not a single deed of his is in accordance with the cited hadith. The hadith is a lie and blasphemes Allah, the Quran and the Prophet. It is inspired by Satan to mislead and must be rejected outright and not explained away.

     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/17/2018 12:25:22 AM



  • The readers must know that “there is no compulsion in the DIN (Religion)” is binding for all time to come.

    I have covered this topic in short in my article referenced below;

    Rights of Non-Muslims Living In Minority – Part 1 – Freedom of Religion

    http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-sectarianism/ghulam-ghaus-siddiqi,-new-age-islam/rights-of-non-muslims-living-in-minority-–-part-1-–-freedom-of-religion/d/113727

    While interpreting the hadith “I have been commanded to fight …….”, one should focus on the meaning of the Quranic verse which says “there is no compulsion in the Religion [DIN]” and try to interpret this hadith in such a way which conforms to the Quranic verse. If one fails to take out such meanings, one should follow the Quran. this is the balanced view which has been unanimously agreed by all the scholars. There were some classical scholars who were unable to take out the meaning of this hadith in accordance with the QURANIC VERSE 2:192, they left the hadtih and followed the very principle derived from the QURAN WHICH reads “there is no compulsion in the Religion”. However they did no adopt extremist nature and thus they did not use abusive language thinking that it might really be the saying of the beloved Prophet and that it had some hidden meanings in conformity with the Quran. This was the balanced nature of such scholars who made implications as per the historical context and juristic methodology and finally reached the meaning of the QURANIC VERSE 2:192.    

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/16/2018 11:01:48 AM



  • Newageislam.com has posted a speech which talks about implications of the hadith often misunderstood by jihadists and their hidden followers. This has been shown to Naseer sb but despite that he is using abusive language.

    The scholars who are very balanced with regard to ahadith do not use such abusive language even if the ahadith are weak in their chain of narration, what to speak of saheeh, mashhoor or mutawatir.  

    Refutation of Jihadists’ Understanding of the Hadith, ‘I Was Commanded to Fight the People until They Testify that there is no god except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’

    URL: http://www.newageislam.com/multimedia/refutation-of-jihadists’-understanding-of-the-hadith,-‘i-was-commanded-to-fight-the-people-until-they-testify-that-there-is-no-god-except-allah-and-that-muhammad-is-the-messenger-of-allah’/d/108261

    How can an ignorant know that even the scholars of QURAN AND AHADITH use a principle which is binding for all time to come that if any hadith disagrees with the Quranic verse one will have to compulsorily follow the Quran and leave ahadith. This is regardless of the fact that some ahadith apparently disagree with the Quranic verses but when interpreted in their right application they happen to agree with each other. Today hardly can we find such scholars who have this sort of insight. But it is God Almighty whom He gives insight and in the past indeed there are certain Mujtahid scholars who did this sort of work.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/16/2018 10:42:10 AM



  • It is actually satanic mind which wrongly interprets the Quran and ahadith. It is satanic mind which in the name of the Quranic verse 9:5 and in the name of certain ahadith is creating terrorism in the land.

    The Quran, Ahadith, Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharat, Bible and other religious books have war-related narratives and statements. Does it mean their respective followers should use abusive language for their respective religious books? No not at all. If one starts using abusive language, there will be corruption on the entire earth. Perhaps this is the reason that the developed countries have made certain laws to respect religious rights.

    Terrorist minds can use their respective religious books for their nefarious deeds. Even hate mongers or abusive persons can use them for creating fitna in the land. In my opinion this is sheer tyranny and evil activity and nothing else.

    One should respect religious books. If one does not follow any religious books, one should not abuse other’s religious books. This is the religious right, the breech of which is really objectionable in every law – even in the UN’s ARTICLES.

    Does UN allow such freedom to use abusive language? Does any country allow using such freedom to abuse any religious books? No not at all. But if anyone supposedly does so, I will never agree with it because my religion Islam prevents me calling other’s religions wrong.

    One should be very honest here to judge in his own heart that which religious book in this world has no war-related narratives. I can show from every religious book such world war-related narratives, but will never think of any sort of abusive terms. But Naseer sb has repeatedly used abusive language for Hadith. I have learnt that war-related narratives have certain context and circumstances.

    I agree that Islam is the most misused religion of this world. Misuse of Islam is not restricted to the Quran but also to ahadith and other religious books. Even religious scholars are sometimes misunderstood. But this does not behove a good scholar to use abusive terms for his misunderstanding. The fact is that 99% of MUSLIMS follow the Quran and Ahadith in this world but unfortunately only the handful terrorists are using such war-related verses for their nefarious verses.

    Any statement, any law of this modern world, any logic or anything can be misused by anyone. But misuse of anything should not make others abuse that law or that thing. Instead that act of misusing should be criticized.

    There are people who laugh at America or India or any country or any law or UN etc. They say they have the people who been responsible for this violence or that violence. But I do not agree because only the wrong people are wrong and the entire nation or country should not be blamed for that.

    Even UN has allowed fighting in defense; does it then mean one should attack Burma and give it the name of self-defense? Does it mean one should attack civilians and pundits in Kashmir? Does it mean to kill Syrians, Iraqis, and Palestinians? Does it mean to attack Muslims and non Muslims – all in the name of self defense or under the excuse of eliminating terrorism? The entire world is flat in disastrous war and hate.  I do not like any violence, any war, any oppression, in any country, be it my country or other’s. I only want the people to live in peaceful coexistence.

    As for religious books having war-related narratives, they have particular meanings and certain context. Only the experts can interpret them well.

    In context of hadith which has unfortunately been abused by Naseer shb has certain context. The reliable scholars checked its chain of narration in such a hard criteria which if applied in today’s modern world, then nothing of the means of media will be reliable.  This hadith had certain amount of zann [perception] which does not amount to become mutawatir hadith having full surety. Hadith not being a mutawatir means it has some level of zann being it hadith or not. Regardless of whether this has 90%  or 70 % or 60 % chance of it being a hadith, the scholars interpreted this hadith with all their historical accounts and other jurisdict implications in such a way to convince the world that this hadiht can’t be literally understood well. It literal interpretation does not conform to the QURANIC VERSES. And of course the most popular view of the classical studies is that if any hadith apparently disagrees with any verse of the Quran, one should try to make tatbeeq first, if it is not possible, then one should act according to the Quran and leave the hadith because of its chain of narration. This was and is the moderate and very balanced view. But unfortunately bereft of such sense, there are the people who because of their ignorance start abusing anything. May God ALMIGHTY SAVE US FROM SUCH IGNORANT PEOPLE WHOSE MISSION CAN ONLY HARM THE SOCIETY!

    Those who are hate mongers or use abusive language should be away from interpreting such ahadith. Anyway those who use abusive language for any religious books will have to face their fate on the Day of Judgment and of course God Almighty knows what best judgement for such abusive persons is, as Naseer sb is repeatedly using abusive language for a hadith which has many technical implications? 

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/16/2018 10:28:58 AM



  • What defined the Khwarij? It is their definition of Kafir.  There were no Khwarij during the Prophet’s (pbuh) times and there were no ahadith until the 250 hijri.  

     The Khwarij  considered Muslims who do not conform to their definition of Islam also as Kafir. Every sect of Islam considers a person who leaves their sect and joins another sect as murtad and kafir fit for the death punishment. Every such sect with such beliefs is therefore Khwarij in their beliefs. According to the Justice Muneer Commission Report, this includes every sect. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_munirreport_1954/0809apostasy.html

     I belong to no sect and I do not even consider the non-Muslim as kafir. Read: Revisiting the Meaning of Kafir. I am therefore among the very few Muslims who is not a Khwarij while the rest are.

    Why is there such Jihalat among the Muslims that they blindly accuse others of what they themselves are?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/16/2018 9:12:22 AM



  • Let those who who profess knowledge of the Quran answer the following two questions.

    1. Did the polytheists covered by 9:4 have the right to retain their religion and become jiziya paying citizens as per 9:29?

    2.  Is verse 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in religion" an eternal law of Allah that cannot be compromised under any circumstances?

    I doubt if anyone will give a simple "yes" to both the questions. If they cannot, then you know why extremism thrives and why Muslims are such hypocrites.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/16/2018 8:26:42 AM



  • Just one example of a Satanic HADITH:

    The Tafseer of Ibn Kathir on verses 2:191 to 193 and 8:36 to 8:38 quotes a Hadith collected in the two Sahihs in which the Prophet (pbuh) is alleged to have said:

    «أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ، حَتَّى يَقُولُوا: لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ، فَإِذَا قَالُوهَا عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ، إِلَّا بِحَقِّهَا، وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللهِ عَزَّ وَجَل»

    (I was commanded to fight against the people until they proclaim, `There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah.' If and when they say it, they will preserve their blood and wealth from me, except for its right (Islamic penal code), and their reckoning is with Allah, the Exalted and Most Honoured.)"

    The abovementioned Hadith has not only distorted the message of the Quran, but made Muslims believe in a false history of early Islam. It is believed perhaps by all scholars, that the Christians and the Jews under the political authority of the Prophet (pbuh) were given the option to pay Jizya or face war, but the polytheists had no choice but to accept Islam or be killed. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Consider verse 9:29 translated by Yusuf Ali:

    Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission.

    Who are the people who do not believe in Allah and the last day? Are they the Jews and Christians? Certainly not! The only people the Quran accuses of not believing in Allah and the last day are the “Mushrikin” or the polytheists. There are numerous verses that speak of the Jews and the Christians but not even one verse accuses them of not believing in Allah or the last day. There are also numerous verses that speak of the “Mushrikin” which accuse them of not believing in the last day and associating partners with Allah or disbelieving both in Allah and the Last Day (44:35, 50:3, 56:47). How do the scholars then connect this part of the verse with the Jews and Christians and not with the “Mushrikin” or the polytheists? They are misled by the quoted Hadith according to which, the Mushrikin forfeited their right to life if they did not accept Islam and therefore there was no question of their being given the choice of paying Jiziya and continue to live as polytheists.  A truly satanic Hadith is made to prevail on a very clear message of the Quran!

     

    The Jews and the Christians are accused of not holding that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and his messenger (4:161, 5:42, 5:62,63) and not acknowledging the religion of Truth. The subject of the latter part of the verse is therefore the Jews and the Christians. The verse therefore covers the Polytheists, the Jews and the Christiana and all of them are given a choice to willingly pay Jiziya or face war.

    Mushrikin covered by Verse 9:4, had the right to pay Jizya and keep their faith. The scholars including the moderate Javed Ghamidi hold the hadith to be correct and argue that 9:29 does not apply to the Mushrikin, and that even those covered by 9:4 had no choice but to accept Islam or get killed as per 9:5 after the term of their treaty expired.

    Such an understanding violates 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in religion". Verse 9:4 covers those people who had never fought the Muslims or broken their treaty and therefore not liable for any punishment. How could these be killed then if they agreed to pay Jizya and retain their faith?

    The Mullahs do not care.  They go by the hadith. To them the Mushrikin had no choice but to either accept Islam or be killed irrespective of whether they had fought/persecuted the Muslims or not!

    There is evidence from the commentaries that Mushrikin remained even after verse 9:5 was revealed, the four month period of amnesty had elapsed and the treaties of those covered by 9:4 had expired. These were then Jizya paying Mushrikin and the scholars are wrong to think that those covered by 9:4 did not have the right to retain their faith. There is also evidence from the commentaries that the Muslims harassed such Mushrikin arguing that their "shirk" itself was "fitna" and made their lives miserable. It was Umar Bin Khattab who protected them from such harassment and said that there could be no "fitna" by a minority and their fitna was only when they enjoyed power and were in a majority.

    The effect of the Satanic hadith is that no Mullah takes 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in religion" seriously let alone treat it as an eternal law of Allah that cannot be compromised under any circumstances. Even verse 9:5 does not compel those convicted of grave offences to accept Islam and gives them a choice to migrate to a neighboring land.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/16/2018 7:21:19 AM



  • Janab Siddiqi sahab, I request you to keep away from such discussion which disturbs you.
    Kindly write about 4:97 ayat. It will be very helpful for me. 
    By Kaniz Fatma - 10/16/2018 5:49:30 AM



  • Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi sb,

    Why r you debating with such guys who do not know any basics of Islam. Khawarij were the biggest claimant of the Quran and drew their swords against Hazrat Ali in the name of following Quran. Khawarij even rose against the prophet sallahu alaihi wasallam in one of mosques. You know what the prophet then said. This man is not less than those khawarij.

    I do not know more about Islam and as far as I know that you must be knowing that one group of khawarij rejects ahadith. Such blasphemous language can’t come from a muslim. It is their place their power and their authority.   

    You r true when you said they are working on certain agendas. To add to your line please be sure that it is such people who provoke muslims all around the world and then say this is violent and that is violent. Actually it is not these people but their masters who do so. You belong to Sufism and Sufism, for that matter, kept themselves away from bad people.

    You are a learned man and know that only the faithful people are disturbed at such blasphemous language. Unfaithful do not worry about anything. They just worry their wealth and affluence. You know better than me that our God Almighty is the most powerful and He is seeing everything and when something goes beyond the limits He knows what He should do. And with this idea you should not get disturbed at such agendas.  

    I have followed your articles and comments which have benefitted me many times. Not only me but other colleagues of mine also took benefit from them. Please share you email or contact number I shall talk to you.   

    By Abid Hasan Noori - 10/16/2018 5:00:46 AM



  • Satans are those who concoct the meaning of the Quran to play their agendas.

    Satans are those who concoct the meaning of ahadith to play their agendas.

    And thus satans are those who call the religious books “satans”.

    God Almighty alone knows how to punish such greater Satans.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/16/2018 4:39:04 AM



  •  What is the role of Satan but to mislead?When the ahadith distort the meaning of every subject covered by the Quran, the ahadith, as a body, are satanic. By Naseer Ahmed - 10/16/2018 4:10:58 AM



  • Salman Rushdie wrote “Satanic verses”.

    Naseer wrote, “The satanic ahadiths”

    I do not see any difference between these two agendas.

    The person who does not respect ahadith can’t be respected by me. Therefore I am not using “Mr. Or sb” for him. Of course there are some concocted “sayings” which are not ahadith. But this Naseer has generally attributed this abusive term to Ahadith.

    Astghfirullah. How have I come to face such unwanted debate?!!!

    I do not want this Naseer to come to write any comments under my article or else I will have to stop writing here as he will get more chances to speak his blasphemous thought.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/16/2018 3:06:42 AM



  • Shahin sb,

    The question you asked, is answered in my first comment on the subject By Naseer Ahmed - 10/4/2018 2:20:12 AM.

    I reproduce the relevant portion that answers your question below:

    “Chinese Muslims being persecuted for their religion and being forced to abandon it, may not have a choice to migrate, and such Muslims are covered under 4:98 and 99

     

    The above was only by example. There can be many more.

    The following is from another comment under GRD’s article on the same subject:

    The best way to counter such nonsense is to quote the universal rule for all times about migration contained in the verses 4:97 to 100 from which migration is mandated only when you are prevented from practicing Islam and when you are capable of migrating. We also learn from other  verses, that the minimum practice to be considered a Muslim is to establish regular congregational prayer and spending in charity.

     

    What is also clear from the verses, is that belief alone is not enough since we may continue to hold on to our beliefs even when prevented from practicing Islam. What clearly matters more is practice and those who do not practice Islam, wrong themselves.

     

    Please do not quote the notes to the verses unless you agree with these. I do not agree with the nonsense of the bigots or with what the satanic ahadiths say. Please stick to the literal meaning of the verses.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/16/2018 2:34:13 AM



  • ‘‘نصیر احمد ’’ صاحب!

    آپ دعوی کرتے ہیں کہ آپ قرآن مجید کی اطاعت کرتے ہیں اور معاذ اللہ ہزار بار استغفرا للہ کے آپ اپنے مضامین اور ان کے تحت ہونے والے ڈیبیٹ میں لکھ چکے ہیں کہ اللہ تعالی بھی کافر ہے ۔پھر سے استغفر اللہ والعیاذ باللہ ۔اس طرح کا خیال رکھنے سے ابلیس بھی شرماتا ہے ۔آپ چاہے جو بھی تاویل بھی کرے لیکن یہ بات یاد رکھیں کہ اللہ تعالی کی جو صفات ہیں اس میں کوئی کمی واقع کبھی نہ ہوگی ۔نقصان تو یہ ہوگا کہ آپ دنیا  و آخرت میں بھی رسوا ہوں گے۔

    آپ نے اپنے کمینٹ میں امام احمد رضا ، مودودی ، دیوبندی سب  کو گمراہ لکھا ہے ۔ہم یہاں امام  احمد رضا کے تعلق سے گفتگو کریں گے ۔امام احمد رضا کے  عقائد و نظریات نصوص قاطعہ سے مدلل ہیں ۔خیر نصوص قاطعہ کیا ہوتی ہیں ان کے بارے میں آپ کو پتہ ہی نہیں!

    آپ علم ومعرفت سے معذور ہیں  اسی لیے اس طرح کا خیال رکھتے ہیں۔ اجمالا یہ کہ  توبہ کیجیے اور اس طرح  کے گمراہ کن خیالات سے بچیے۔

    اللہ تعالی کے کلام کی عظمت  کیا ہے اس کا اندازہ آپ نہیں بیان کر سکتے ۔خود قرآن مقدس نے اسے بیان کیا اور ہم سب کے رسول صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے اس کی وضاحت کی ۔

     

    قرآن ہمارے نبی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم پر اترا اور جہاں جہاں قرآن کی آیت کو سمجھنے کے لیے وضاحت کی ضرورت پڑتی ہے ہمیں سنت رسول کو ہر حال میں اپنانا پڑے گا ۔یہ غلط فہمی اپنے ذہن کے حاشیہ میں بھی نہ لائے کہ سنت رسول کی تدوین دوسری یا تیسری صدی میں اول بار ہوئی ۔اس سلسلے میں  ہزار سال سے زائد کی کتب ہمارے سامنے موجود ہیں۔اور اس طرح کے بیشتر اعتراضات مع جوابات ہزارہا کتب میں موجود ہیں۔اتنے اعتراضات کے جوابات دئے جا چکے ہیں جو  شاید آپ کے حاشیہ خیال میں بھی نہ ہوں گے ۔

    آپ تو بس ایک بات رٹ چکے ہیں کہ سنت کی تدوین دوسری تیسری صدی میں  ہوئی ۔۔۔۔یہ ایک ایسا خیال جو مستعار ہے اور جس کی تردید ہزارہا کتب میں زبردست ہو چکی ہے ۔آپ اگر آپ ان جوابات کو پڑھنا چاہیں تو بتائیے   میں آپ کو کتاب تجویز کر دوں گا ۔

    جو لوگ امت کے خیر خواہ ہوتے ہیں انہیں ہی تبلیغ دین واصلاح امت کی توفیق ہوتی ہے ۔لیکن چونکہ آپ حاسد علمائے دین ہیں تو آپ کو اس کی توفیق کیسے ملے گی؟ اگر اتنا ہی زیادہ آپ نفرت کرتے ہیں علمائے دین سے تو یہ مطالبہ لکھ ڈالیے کہ میری نماز جنازہ بھی کوئی عالم دین نہ پڑھائے ۔آپ اپنی نفرت میں جیتے رہیں آپ کا اعمال آپ کے ساتھ ہی رہے گا کسی اور پر اس کا وبال ہرگز نہیں۔

    ہم مسلمانوں کا دین اسلام ہے ، قرآن وسنت اور اجماع ہمارے اصول شرائع ہیں ان سے ایک انچ بھی انحراف نہیں کر سکتے ۔قرآن وسنت سے ماخوذ ہمارے سامنے ایسے اصول وضوابط ہیں کہ ہر دور میں پنپنے والے مسائل کا حل نکالا جا سکتا ہے ۔ہمیں کسی بھی غیر شرعی ایجنڈہ کی ضرورت نہیں  ہے اور نہ کبھی ہوگی ۔ہزار ہا لوگ اپنا نام بدل کر کوئی مسلمان نام رکھ کر تو کوئی کچھ نام رکھ کر ، خود سے تو جھوٹ بول ہی رہے ہیں مگر ساتھ ہی ساتھ فتنہ و فساد کا باعث بن رہے ہیں ۔

    آپ کو کسی مسئلہ کا علم نہ ہوتو سوالیہ انداز میں اپنی بات رکھئے ۔اس کا جواب طلب کیجیے ان شاء اللہ جواب ملے گا لیکن انداز تکلم شائستہ اور مہذب ہو تو اچھا رہے گا۔ طعن و تشنیع سے گریز کیجیے ۔

    میں آپ کو بحیثیت سائل دیکھتا ہوں  لہذا سائل کے انداز میں ہی سوال پوچھیے ۔

    ڈیبیٹ ان سے کیا جاتا ہے جو ماہرین ہوں ۔آپ میرے عمر کے کم ہونے کا اندازہ لگا کر یہ نہ سمجھیں کہ میرا مطالعہ بہت کم یا محدود ہوگا ، میری زندگی کا ہر لمحہ فقہ کے جزئیات اور اس کے رموز واسرار کو بہترین اصول وضوابط کی روشنی میں سمجھنے میں گزار تا ہوں ۔خیر واللہ اعلم بالصواب ۔

    آپ کے پاس کوئی اصول نہیں جو کچھ ہے وہ آپ کا اپنا گڑھا ہوا ہے لہذا کسی بھی زاویہ سے یہ قابل التفات یا قابل تسلیم نہیں۔ہم جن اصول وضوابط کی بات کر رہے ہیں وہ چودہ سو سالہ تاریخ کے تمام علوم ومباحث کا نچوڑ ہے جن کی بیناد کسی فرد واحد کے خیالات محض سےمتزلزل نہیں ہو سکتی ۔

    یہ وہ اصول وضوابط ہیں جن کی روشنی سے ہر دور کے نئے نئے فتنوں کا سد باب کیا جا سکتا ہے ، ہر دور میں  پید اہونے والے مسائل کا حل نکالا جا سکتا ہے ۔

    اگر آپ واقعی اسلام کو صحیح اور انصاف پسند نگاہ سے پڑھنا چاہتے ہیں تو پہلے اپنے ذہن  کو ہر زہریلے تاثیرات سے پاک کیجیے اور تواضع وانکساری کےساتھ کسی اچھے ماہر  سے زانوئے تلمذ کرکے ان اصول وضوابط  کو پڑھ لیجیے کیونکہ انٹرنیٹ سے  خود سے پڑھ کر مہارت کا دعوی کر لینا عقل سے باہر ہے ورنہ تو کوئی بھی میڈیکل سائنس انٹرنیٹ پر پڑھ کر کسی کا آپریشن کر نے والی  دکان کھول کر بیٹھ جائے  تو کوئی اس کی زحمت نہ کرے گا کہ اپنا آپریشن آپ سے کرائے ۔آپ سمجھ گئے ہوں گے ۔

    ایک ضمنی بات ذہن نشین کر لیجیے کہ اصول شرائع قرآن وسنت  سے  ہی ماخوذ ہوتے ہیں۔جن کی روشنی میں دنیا میں ہونے والے ہر دور کے ہر مسائل کا سد باب کیا جاتا ہے ۔

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/15/2018 7:52:25 AM



  • “… the most relevant verses on hijrat applicable to all at all times. All that you need to say on the topic is that the extremists are quoting transactional verses applicable to the Prophet and his people, and the verses that are relevant today are 4:97 to 100. I had to bring this to your notice. After these verses are quoted, there is nothing further to say on the topic.” -- By Naseer Ahmed - 10/13/2018 8:15:42 AM

    Dear Naseer Saheb, I am quoting below the verses you mention as “applicable to all at all times.” I don’t understand, how you can say that in the 21st century when there are no Ansar-e-Madina, even in Madina, Saudi Arabia, not to speak of the other 58 Muslim-majority countries, who would welcome Muslims from the so-called Darul Harab. Will any one of them even give entry visa, not to speak of jobs and residence. It’s only the so-called Darul Harab which lets in oppressed Muslims from the so-called Darul Islam. German Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed entry and residence to over a million Muslims at the cost of her own political career. The birthplace of Islam, the land of Makkah and Madina, Saudi Arabia did not take a single Muslim.

    I am quoting below the verses you consider of universal applicability along with their tafsir by Syed Abul Ala Maududi, for the benefit of those who may not know what these verses say:

    Surah An-Nisa 4:97-100

     (4:97) While taking the souls of those who were engaged in wronging themselves,129 the angels asked: 'In what circumstances were you?' They replied: 'We were too weak and helpless in the land.' The angels said: 'Was not the earth of Allah wide enough for you to emigrate in it?'130 For such men their refuge is Hell - an evil destination indeed;

    اِنَّ الَّذِيۡنَ تَوَفّٰٮهُمُ الۡمَلٰٓـئِكَةُ ظَالِمِىۡۤ اَنۡفُسِهِمۡ قَالُوۡا فِيۡمَ كُنۡتُمۡؕ قَالُوۡا كُنَّا مُسۡتَضۡعَفِيۡنَ فِىۡ الۡاَرۡضِؕ قَالُوۡۤا اَلَمۡ تَكُنۡ اَرۡضُ اللّٰهِ وَاسِعَةً فَتُهَاجِرُوۡا فِيۡهَاؕ فَاُولٰٓـئِكَ مَاۡوٰٮهُمۡ جَهَـنَّمُؕ وَسَآءَتۡ مَصِيۡرًا ۙ‏

    (4:98) except the men, women, and children who were indeed too feeble to be able to seek the means of escape and did not know where to go .-

    اِلَّا الۡمُسۡتَضۡعَفِيۡنَ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَآءِ وَالۡوِلۡدَانِ لَا يَسۡتَطِيۡعُوۡنَ حِيۡلَةً وَّلَا يَهۡتَدُوۡنَ سَبِيۡلًا ۙ‏

    (4:99) maybe Allah shall pardon these, for Allah is All-Pardoning, All-Forgiving.

    فَاُولٰٓـئِكَ عَسَى اللّٰهُ اَنۡ يَّعۡفُوَ عَنۡهُمۡؕ وَكَانَ اللّٰهُ عَفُوًّا غَفُوۡرًا‏

    (4:100) He who emigrates in the way of Allah will find in the earth enough room for refuge and plentiful resources. And he who goes forth from his house as a migrant in the way of Allah and His Messenger, and whom death overtakes, his reward becomes incumbent on Allah. Surely Allah is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate.131

     (4:97) While taking the souls of those who were engaged in wronging themselves,129 the angels asked: 'In what circumstances were you?' They replied: 'We were too weak and helpless in the land.' The angels said: 'Was not the earth of Allah wide enough for you to emigrate in it?'130 For such men their refuge is Hell - an evil destination indeed;

    129. The reference here is to those who stay behind along with the unbelievers, despite no genuine disability. They are satisfied with a life made up of a blend of Islamic and un-Islamic elements, even though they have had the chance to migrate to the Dar al-Islam and thus enjoy a full Islamic life. This is the wrong that they committed against themselves. What kept them satisfied with the mixture of Islamic and un-Islamic elements in their life was not any genuine disability but their love of ease and comfort, their excessive attachment to their kith and kin and to their properties and worldly interests. These concerns had exceeded reasonable limits and had even taken precedence over their concern for their religion see also( n. 116 )above).

    130. Those people who had willingly acquiesced to living under an un-Islamic order would be called to account by God and would be asked: If a certain territory was under the dominance of rebels against God, so that it had become impossible to follow His Law, why did you continue to live there? Why did you not migrate to a land where it was possible to follow the law of God?

    (4:98) except the men, women, and children who were indeed too feeble to be able to seek the means of escape and did not know where to go .

    (4:99) maybe Allah shall pardon these, for Allah is All-Pardoning, All-Forgiving.

     (4:100) He who emigrates in the way of Allah will find in the earth enough room for refuge and plentiful resources. And he who goes forth from his house as a migrant in the way of Allah and His Messenger, and whom death overtakes, his reward becomes incumbent on Allah. Surely Allah is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate.131

    131. It should be understood clearly that it is only permissible for a person who believes in the true religion enjoined by God to live under the dominance of an un-Islamic system on one of the following conditions. First, that the believer struggles to put an end to the hegemony of the un-Islamic system and to have it replaced by the Islamic system of life, as the Prophets and their early followers had done. Second, that he lacks the means to get out of his homeland and thus stays there, but does so with utmost disinclination and unhappiness.

    If neither of these conditions exist, a believer who continues to live in a land where an un-Islamic order prevails, commits an act of continuous sin. To say that one has no Islamic state to go to does not hold water. For if no Islamic state exists, are there no mountains or forests from where one could eke out a living by eating leaves and drinking the milk of goats and sheep, and thus avoid living in a state of submission to unbelief.

    Some people have misunderstood the tradition which says: 'There is no hijrah after the conquest of Makka' (Bukhari, 'Sayd', 10; 'Jihad', 1, 27, 194; Tirmidhi, 'Siyar', 33; Nasa'i, 'Bay'ah', 15, etc. - Ed.) This tradition is specifically related to the people of Arabia of that time and does not embody a permanent injunction. At the time when the greater part of Arabia constituted the Domain of Unbelief (Dar al-Kufr) or the Domain of War (Dar al-Harb), and Islamic laws were being enforced only in Madina and its outskirts, the Muslims were emphatically directed to join and keep together. But when unbelief lost its strength and elan after the conquest of Makka, and almost the entire peninsula came under the dominance of Islam, the Prophet (peace be on him) declared that migration was no longer needed. This does not mean, however, that the duty to migrate was abolished for Muslims all over the world for all time to come regardless of the circumstances in which they lived.

    By Sultan Shahin - 10/15/2018 7:02:36 AM



  • Let us get this right.  Are you saying that for you the Quran in itself and by itself is clear and there is no need to depend on any other source for its understanding? Do you confirm that you do not depend on the following sources for understanding the Quran?

     

    1. The Ahadith

    2. Shane Nuzul 

    3. Ijma of the scholars 

     

    It is you who is lying because every article of yours depends on the above three sources and there is not even one article in which you have shown that the Quran in itself and by itself is clear to you. And yet, your understanding comes nowhere close to my understanding of any verse or any subject.

     

    The Ijma is also misguided because it depends on the other sources and end up twisting the clear meaning of the Quran rather than taking the simple straight forward meaning. The state of Islamic scholarship is what the state of Biology was before Darwin – a huge collection of random facts without an understanding of the underlying structure and framework.  

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/15/2018 6:41:49 AM



  • You say to me, “For me, Raza Ahmad Khan, the Deobandis the Maududis and every other scholar and imam are completely irrelevant as they are all misguided.” End of quote.

     

    For me and other Muslim scholars, you are misguided.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/15/2018 5:41:55 AM



  • You say to me, “For me, Raza Ahmad Khan, the Deobandis the Maududis and every other scholar and imam are completely irrelevant as they are all misguided.” End of quote.

    For me and for All Muslims, you are misguided.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/15/2018 5:33:18 AM



  • Naseer Sb, you said to me, “You are such an ignoramus, that on the topic Why Indian Muslims do not need to follow Extremists’ Call for Hijrat, you are not even aware of the most relevant verses on hijrat applicable to all at all times” end of quote

    Naseer sb,

    You call me ignoramus. This is merely personal attack which is your habitual activity that compelled Muhammad Yunus sb to leave this site. I could use even more strict words for you but I am not using other than that you are speaking lie to yourself.

    How do you know that I am not aware of relevant verses on hijrat? Is it your logic or foundation on which you think of everything?  

    You again say, “All that you need to say on the topic is that the extremists are quoting transactional verses applicable to the Prophet and his people, and the verses that are relevant today are 4:97 to 100. I had to bring this to your notice. After these verses are quoted, there is nothing further to say on the topic.”

    Alhamdulillah, I can understand the Quran without depending on translations and I have understood the entire Quran in its original text, which you can never get. It is all the blessing of God Almighty upon me.

     The verses 4:97 to 100 are understood well along with –لا يكلف الله نفسا إلا وسعها

    This verse is applied to every obligatory action, Namaz, Haj, Zakat etc with more implications and details.  For example, if you are sick and can’t stand up in Namaz, you can perform Namaz while sitting. This verse is applied to every obligatory action. But it does not mean that people like you come and take meaning to suit your hypothetical agenda. To understand such points you will have to learn Usul which you lack. Do not show your haughtiness by telling us that you follow Quran and other Muslims follow Usul. Actually Usul are derived from the Quran. One of the Usul is derived from the verse La Yukallif …..But so far your jealousy of classical teachings has kept you unaware of many facts. You should also learn in this regard that classical learning is not limited only to one thought but there is space of differences in Furu;i issues.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/15/2018 5:29:02 AM



  • Naseer sb, 

    You are the biggest liar on this website.

    Where have I said that "the Quran is incapable in itself"
    Shame on you Mr. Naseer. 

    You are hate monger and live with your hate propaganda but how long? One day every human being will be accountable to Allah Almighty.

    This is your agenda to work against Islam. 
    I do not know who you are. What is your identity. Just take money to work against Islam. This is your business. 
    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/15/2018 4:53:43 AM



  • The name of Mughal Sarai has been changed.
    The name of Allahabad is going to be changed. 
    The UP government is spending millions of rupees on such names changing mission but not paying attention to the victims, jobs, construction 
    This is a sectarian politics played by BJP. 
    DOES VEDAS SAY SO? 
    DOES RAMAYAN SAY SO,
    DOES AN6 HINDU BOOKS SAY SO,? 
    THEN WHY SANT ASK TO CHANGE THESE NAMES. 
    INDIA IS changing. 
    First they will change names and then declare it Hindu Rashtra. 
    Then what will happen to Hijrat? 


    By Austin - 10/15/2018 4:18:28 AM



  • Ghaus Sb,

     

    You are such an ignoramus, that on the topic Why Indian Muslims do not need to follow Extremists’ Call for Hijrat, you are not even aware of the most relevant verses on hijrat applicable to all at all times. All that you need to say on the topic is that the extremists are quoting transactional verses applicable to the Prophet and his people, and the verses that are relevant today are 4:97 to 100. I had to bring this to your notice. After these verses are quoted, there is nothing further to say on the topic.

     

    With all your other sources of guidance, you couldn’t even identify the correct verses!

     

    As long as you believe, that the Quran is incapable in itself and by itself to make its meaning clear, and you depend on other sources for its understanding, you will never be able to understand the Quran correctly. Every article of mine, establishes how imperfect the understanding of the Classical Islamic Scholars is on every subject.

     

     

    My aqeeda is in 100% conformity with the Quran and that of every sect and scholar is in conformity with the theology of their sect which I reject.

     

    For me, Raza Ahmad Khan, the Deobandis the Maududis and every other scholar and imam are completely irrelevant as they are all misguided. I wonder why you quote anyone of them to me. The only person you can quote to me is myself for which you will find enough material covering the entire Quran.

    You cannot argue with what I have written which is why you argue with what someone else has said. Why do you waste my time with such nonsense which I completely reject?  Stop being a nuisance if you have nothing worthwhile to say.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/13/2018 8:15:42 AM



  • Naseer sb,

     

    Mr. Maududi, in his book Tajdid-e-Din w Ihya-e-Deen, considers Maulvi Ismael Dehlvi to be one of the Mujaddids. This is Maulvi Ismael Dehlvi who made blasphemous statements regarding the beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) in his books. At one place, he writes, “Namaz me Huzur Sallallahu alaihi wasallam ka tasawwur aur khayal karna gadhe aur bail ke tasawwur me dub jaane sa zyada bura hai”

     

    Translation, “Imagination of the Prophet (peace be upon him) during Namaz is worse than that of ass and ox” (Ma’az Allah) (See “Sirat-e-Mustaqeem).

    For such a blasphemous statement, how can a true Muslim associate himself with Maulvi Ismael Dehlvi and his followers?!!!

     

    Some deobandi scholars believe that knowledge of the beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) is like animals (Ma’az Allah). There are many other blasphemous statements as well.

    A common man would not like to hear such blasphemous statements but deobandis are still publishing such materials in their books with all their pride and arrogance. In one of the programs some Barelvis proposed that if Deobandis remove all their blasphemous statements from their books, there will be unity among them but it did not work.

     

    Common people do not know such things about Deobandiyat and Wahabiyyat otherwise a large number of them will disassociate themselves from them. Tablighi Jamat was founded with the same agenda. Common masses think tablighi jamat is calling for Namaz and other pious works but on this pretext they slowly start filling common hearts with venom of bad aqaid. Such bad Aqaid eliminate spirituality a man and his follower.  

     

    Today they make taweel in their elders’ sareeh statements- which is not acceptable.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/12/2018 3:32:43 AM



  • Unity of Deobandis and Wahhabis

     

    Maududi writes “another name of Muslim is a Wahabi”. Similarly Imam of Deobandi Maulvi Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi writes, “Wahabi is the follower of Sunnah and thus a true Religious” (Fatawa Rashidiyya]

     

    Maulvi Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi also writes, “the followers of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab are known as Wahhabis and his Aqaid were fine” (Fatawa Rasheediya p.551)

     

     

    The deobandi Maulvi Rasheed Gangohi praised the founder of wahhabism because Abdul Wahhab described traditional Sufi-Sunni Muslims as Kafir/Mushrik/Murtad.  

     

    (Ise kahte hain Jadu sar chad kar bole)

     

    When they needed fund from Arabs they praised them, but when today the world is trying to disassociate from wahhabism, deobandis say they have no relation to wahhabism now they are singing the praise of Sufism at all cost!!!!

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/12/2018 3:15:07 AM



  • Nasseer sb,

    You should study Ilm al-Aqaid, Ilm al-Ahkam, Ilm-Shara’ with all differences in them. Most of your writings mix these sciences and make matter worse.

    What is the benefit of your writing when it can easily be refuted by the scholars of every sect?

     

    You should first study Usul of every Islamic science. Usul are derived from the Quran and Sunnah. In this field there is wider space of wondering but actually even our Maulvis lack this scholarship.  

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/12/2018 2:52:18 AM



  • NASEERS SB,

     

    There is a website of “Deoband Fatwa” in which a deobandi cleric has told so many lies that shocked me when I had a look at them. So you should be aware not to become one of those who borrow the same lies and spread around their culture. For example, in one of his fatwas this cleric says to an Arabic foreigner, “Barevlis make sajda of mazar”. This is blatant lie because Alahazrat himself has written a book “Al –zubda al-zakiyya fi tahrim Sujud al-tahiyya”. This book has proved from various Quranic verses and Sunnah that Sajda Tahiyya is haram and Sajda-e-Ibadat is shirk. But despite this fact, there are some deobandi and wahhabi clerics who tell a lie. Common masses from various classes go and kiss the mazar, but others think it is sajda. Kissing is not a sajda. Even many Sufis prohibited kissing of Mazar but people do kiss because of their affection for walis. You must know that Sarkar Nizamuddin, when going to visit Sarkar Qutbuddin, used to visit his shrine from a long distance.

     

    The acts of common people can’t be attributed to Ala Hazrat. Some common people even do not know how to perform Namaz or ablution or Haj etc.

     

    You should have at least this much of understanding.  

     

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/12/2018 2:49:12 AM



  • Naseer sb, 

    That you consider your thought to be objective is actually based on preconceived hypothesis. There are so-called researchers who based on their preconceived hypothesis spend all their time to forcibly prove their hypothesis – this is what they call ‘reasoning’ or ‘research’. What is actually reasoning is also a bone of contention among scholars. Difference of scholars is welcome but prejudice is not welcome as displayed by many deobandi academicians who often change their face-attitude immediately after listening to the name of Ala Hazrat. I do not exactly who said to me that Professor Akhtarul Wasey initially used to give no importance to Ala Hazrat’s God-gifted mastery of several sciences but once he read his some books he wondered and suggested others to read him.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/12/2018 2:43:34 AM



  • ...and my praise of Aayina is objective. The only person who after realizing that he had falsely accused me of lying, admitted his mistake. I can appreciate goodness and righteousness in anyone. By Naseer Ahmed - 10/11/2018 5:56:21 AM



  • Ghaus Sb,
    Whatever I have said is in writing. If I have changed what I have said then prove it by quoting my exact words.

    GRD sb has shown tremendous improvement and his article is free from any trace of sectarianism and is truthful which I unhesitatingly acknowledge and appreciate. Do you have a problem with that? He has shown the correct understanding of the Khilafat movement as directed against the British and pro nationalist which had the support of all other nationalist Hindus also. Those who participated in the Khilafat movement were the same people who fought for India's independence. Your article lacks such truthfulness and is meant to mislead.

    If you can refute the role of the Barelvi in the creation of Pakistan, then you are engaged in refuting the truth! If that is the role that you have chosen for yourself, then who can help you? Educate yourself by reading reliable and truthful material.

    The writer is Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University; Visiting Professor Government College University; and, Honorary Senior Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. He has written a number of books and won many awards.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/11/2018 5:37:38 AM



  • @Ghaus sb, 
    Thanks for your good article and good comments.
    By Rashid DB - 10/11/2018 5:28:10 AM



  • Naseer sb,

    You change your colour immediately. You should read your own words in earlier comments. Now you say you did not say anything as such. Wow!!! That is your changing attitude!!!

     

    Your arguments will never be able to influence me because I am heavily supported my spiritual guide- Sarkar Ghause Azam-- which your wahhabism-think tank consider to be shirk. You can’t disassociate yourself from wahhabi sect unless you leave wahhabi ideologies. There are many types of wahhabis – all of them claim they do not follow any sect – but they do indeed follow wahhabism.

     

    I do not hide my identity. I am very open and say that I follow Imam Ahmad Raza, Sarkar Ghause Azam- Sarkar Nizamuddin, Sarkar Qutubuddin, and such personalities are my role models. Whether you call it sect or whatever; I have no worry. I worry only for what you say and you write for which you will have to be accountable on the Day of Judgment.

     

    It is said, buzurgon ki suhbat bahut zaruri hai. Ilm ul yaqin sabko hasil nahi hota, buzurgo ki suhbat aur sincerity ke saath jo talib ya salik banta hai use hi ilmul yaqin hasil hota hai. Soch ko paakeeza banana ki zarurat padti hai, doubts waghaira se bachna padta hai, islam me doubts ki koi gunjaish nahi hai, zindagi bhar puri insane guzar de last me kuch logon ko ehsase nidamat ho hi jata hi ki Quran ke shuru hi me bata diya ki koi shak ki gunjaish nahi.

     

    So seek Tauba and become a good Muslim with good Aqeeda and spend rest of your life with right approaches. If it troubles you, then do not mind, I will never ask you such thing. Do not think it “conversion”, as this is just a suggestion.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/11/2018 4:33:29 AM



  • The people say those who have no background often happen to be more dangerous. One of the reasons, they count that such hidden people change their identity immediately as per situation. They become sometimes deobandis, sometimes Barelvis, sometimes wahhabis, sometimes shias and sometimes become Hindus; they do so to take benefit of opportunity, in other words they are opportunists.

     

    Such people praise Hindus and criticize Muslims in front of Hindus, praise Muslims and criticize Hindus in front of Muslims, similarly with Jews, Christians and others. Their agenda is not clear and for that matter, they are not result-oriented ground for good cause. Such people, as being human beings, must introspect themselves first before calling others to introspect. Such are the people who need to introspect first.

     

    You are talking about GRD. Why are you bringing GRD here? I do not agree with many views of GRD. Do you agree with GRD’s all articles? You do not, but you are taking him here to discourage me. I do not think you are a good man so how can I worry about your suggestion or discouragement. 


    Do you think yourself to be judge? If I say, your articles lack scholarship- then would you consider me a judge?  

     

    I do not need your suggestion or your idea. Please take it with yourself. I am mature and can think that I am doing well.  

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/11/2018 4:03:54 AM



  • Naseer sb,

     

    The two-nation theory is differently interpreted, based on whether the two postulated nationalities can coexist in one country or not. In this case it has radically different implications.

     

    Carlo Caldarola (1982) in his book “Religions and societies, Asia and the Middle East..” suggests that one  interpretation of two-nation theory argued for sovereign autonomy, including the right to secede, for Muslim-majority areas of the Indian subcontinent, but without any transfer of populations (i.e. Hindus and Muslims would continue to live together). A different interpretation implies that Hindus and Muslims constitute "two distinct, and frequently antagonistic ways of life, and that therefore they cannot coexist in one nation.” In this version, as S. Harman (1977) in his book “Plight of Muslims in India” opines, a transfer of populations (i.e. the total removal of Hindus from Muslim-majority areas and the total removal of Muslims from Hindu-majority areas) is a desirable step towards a complete separation of two incompatible nations that "cannot coexist in a harmonious relationship”.

     

    Indian Barevlis do not accept what Dr. Masuood sb wrote in his book “the Light”. It is true that Ala Hazrat did not believe Muslims and Hindus to be one religious group or one religious nation and in fact this is the faith or line of thinking of every Hindu and every Muslim today. It was the same thought which was wrongly used by Pakistanis to claim that his “two nation theory” inspired partition.

     

    Naseer sb,

     

    I can even greatly rebut your hypothesis on the solid ground which in the light of Ala Hazrat’s fatwa which implies that Hindus and Muslims of India can peacefully coexist together on the point of what he called “Mujarrad Muamalat” which can be connotatively translated as “peaceful coexistence”. This worked as a wonder at a time when other Maulvis could not differentiate between muwalat and muamlaat but rather they made the life of Indian Muslims difficult. Ala Hazrat called India the land of Peace at a time when other Maulvis considered it “darul Harb”. Ala Hazrat even suggested that Muslims should not migrate to any other country, for the reason that Muslims as minorities are living in various parts of India and if some Muslims migrate to any other country, other Muslims will become weak. But I am shocked why this suggestion of him later did not work during partition as a whole. All his families along with followers in large number remained in India, that is, preferred India to Pakistan. Ala Hazrat’s both sons Hamid Raza and Mustafa Raza Khan- possible both or one of them was alive at the time of partition, but he remained here in India along with entire families. His close student Sadrus Sharia remained in India. Mufti Naeemuddin Muradabi even praised Hindustani soil, quoting “Jannat ki khushbi-narration”.

    Hundreds of reasoning factors can be presented to refute your hypothesis.

    Lakhs of Muslims gather every year at Urs-e-Ala Hazrat and have been necessarily for years refuting terrorist narratives of Wahabis, while Ala Hazrat had already informed the Indians and the world of dangerous activities of Wahhabis.  

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/11/2018 3:23:04 AM



  • Ghaus Sb,

    Your charge of sectarianism is frivolous because I do not identify with any sect and reject every sect.

    It is the sectarian in you that makes you say what you have said about the  Barelvi and deobandi in your article which is both false and misleading. Just compare what you have written with how GRD sb has written on the same subject.  GRD sb shows both maturity and adherence to the truth which is lacking in your article. Your article does smack of sectarianism.

    You can falsely keep accusing me of lies and I will make you pay for it on the Day of Judgment.

    Of all the people, only Aayina had the decency to acknowledge that he had wrongly accused me of a lie. Aayina is a better person than you and although I do not agree with what he says, I know where it is coming from and do not blame him for it.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/11/2018 3:02:56 AM



  • Ghaus Sb,

    Maybe your understanding of English is poor. I do not credit Raza Ahmad Khan Barelvi with the idea of partition and have actually said the opposite.

    Read GRD's article on the same subject. It is more balanced and accurate.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/11/2018 2:32:02 AM



  • Naseer sb, your sectarian prejudice always tries to find out errors in Imam Ahmad Raza (Ala Hazrat). You and even many Barevlis of today can’t understand his God-gifted mastery of knowledge. In most issues Pakistani and Indian scholars differ to interpret his theological sciences. Even those who oppose today, their masters like Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi and others praised Ala Hazrat’s scientific and Ijtihadi roles. Even the Influential Wahhabis say that if they have failed to convert Sufism-inspired Indian Muslims to Wahhabim, it is all because of Ahmad Raza Khan’s great rebuttal of Wahhabism. Some say Hanafiyat is living today in Indian subcontinent; it is because of Ahmad Raza Khan. Millions of Muslims in Indian subcontinent love Ala Hazrat. He devoted his entire life to right interpretation of Shariat and Tariqat. Even many Majzoobs recognized his highest wisal of Sufism.  Above all, “ وتعز من تشاء وتذل من تشا

    Naseer sb,

    I am shocked at your selective nature.

    I do not know why are you so selective? What will you do by proving your wrong turn from the concept of “two nation theory”? Your limited knowledge is based on Dr. Masood sb’ the “Light”. I am also shocked that despite “two nation theory”, Ala Hazrat’s families, his sons, grandsons, and close students preferred India to Pakistan.

    Do you believe Pakistani writers to be authentic only in this matter, then why do Pakistanis not credit Ala Hazrat for partition?  

    Most Indians believe Jinnah and Gandhi all played their respective role in partition.   

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/11/2018 2:05:18 AM



  • Naseer sb,

     

    You call others liars on hypothetical ground. Your principle of checking truth or lie is based on hypothesis. When I once proved you were liar, Mr Sultan Shahin asked me not to use the word “liar” for “scholar”.

     

    In my opinion you are not a scholar.  You can be a good English writer but not a good scholar of Islam.

     

    My entire article is based on refutation of extremists’ hijrat call, but you are showing your colour of prejudice as always at my articles.

     

    You talked about credit for freedom fighting, but I am not here to discuss credit. In order to add to your knowledge, I am forced to say that Allama Fazle Haq Kharabadi (1797– 20 August 1861) was one of the main figures of Indian Rebellion of 1857. Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi died on 20 August 1861 while exiled on Andaman Islands. Barevlis follow Allama Fazle haq, while some Deobandis and Wahabis do not follow, because he made takfir of Ismael Dehlvi.

        

    Imdadullah Muhajir Makki (1814 – 1896) was a South Asian Muslim Sufi scholar following the Chishti Sufism, highly respected among Barelvis, was an influential freedom fighter against the British. According to a report “in Thana Bhawan, the local Sunnis declared Imdadullah their leader. In May 1857 the Battle of Shamli took place between the forces of Haji Imdadullah and the British.”

    There are other Sunnis/Barelvis who took part in the freedom fighting movement against the Britishers. For further details, you can read various books written by Barelvi and Deobandi Ulamas. The real difference between Barevlis and Deobandis is on Ilm al-Aqaid and in Ilmul Ahkam they both say they are Hanafis.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/11/2018 1:42:08 AM



  • What has the Khilafat movement got to do with the partition of the country? The movement died out much before the partition.

    My comment is about the partition of the country and post partition migration.

    Rashid DB, Your comment is a blatant lie as it has nothing to do with what I have said.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/11/2018 1:16:04 AM



  • @Nasseer Ahmad, 

    I have traced a blatant lie in your words as spoken by you,  

    “The fact that among the various sects of Islam, only the Deobandis opposed both the partition of the country and post-partition migration, is well known and also the fact that the Deobandis took an active part in the movement for India's independence. ” BY Naseer AHmad, 


      

    Taj Mahmūd Amrōtī from Deobondai school of thought led the movement of "Reshmi Roomal" and "Hijrat Movement" to Afghanistan. Maolana Sayyid Taj Mahmood Amroti helped Khilafat Movement of Turkish Khilafat / Khalifah by sending financial help and troops of his followers, force named as Junood-e-Rabbani i.e. the Forces of Allah.

     

    By Rashid DB - 10/11/2018 12:42:39 AM



  • Taj Mahmūd Amrōtī from Deobandai school of thought led the movement of "Reshmi Roomal" and "Hijrat Movement" to Afghanistan. Maolana Sayyid Taj Mahmood Amroti helped Khilafat Movement of Turkish Khilafat / Khalifah by sending financial help and troops of his followers, force named as Junood-e-Rabbani i.e. the Forces of Allah.

    By Rashid DB - 10/11/2018 12:35:13 AM



  • Thank you for your answer. But please tell me about the example of Saba’ Tuoor to which you referred. By Kaniz Fatma - 10/9/2018 4:43:24 AM



  • Miss K.F,

    Among others there are Zanne Ghalib, Taharra, Ihtiyat and Zarurat etc which also impact the ruling.

    The answer is that Zanne Ghalib in included in Taharra which is contained in Qiyas.

    Ihtiyat is contained in the part of Sunnah teachings as the beloved Prophet peace be upon him said, “leave what is doubtful and adopt what is non-doubtful..”

    Zarurat is included in the teachings of the Quran as Allah the most high says, “He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty. [It is] the religion of your father, Abraham...” (22:78).

    So the four sources 1) Quran 2) Sunnah 3) Ijma and 4) Qiyas are so comprehensive that no more sources are required.  

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/9/2018 2:42:17 AM



  • Miss K.F,

    Your third question is “The saying of Sahaba is also regarded a source. There are others but why the sources of learning of Islam are limited to 4.”

     Without going in depth, please remember that if Qaul-e-Sahaba [saying of Sahaba] is ‘Mudrak bil Qiyas, that is, if it is according to Qiyas and ‘Aql, it will be termed as associated with Qiyas. But if it is not mudrak bil qiyas, that is, not according to ‘Qiyas and ‘Aql, it will be termed as associated with Sunnah [as narrated sunnah]. We know that Usul al-Shara’ are four 1) Quran 2) Sunnah 3) Ijma and 4) Qiyas. So either case of Qaul-e-Sahaba being or not being Mudrak bil Qiyas is actually in association with sunnah or qiyas respectively. There is therefore no need to add it as an independent source.  

     Similarly Ta’amul al’nas is included in in Ijma, so there is no need to add it as independent source.

    Hope you get it well.

    Thanks and Regards

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/9/2018 1:23:26 AM



  • Miss K.F,

    Your second objection is “Istihsan is also regarded as another source. There are others but why the sources of learning of Islam are limited to 4.”

     The answer to this question is that Istihsan is another name of Qiyas-e-Khafi. There are two kinds of Qiyas 1) Qiyas-e-Zahir 2) Qiyas-e-khafi. So when Istihsan is another name of Qiyas-e-khafi and thus a part of Qiyas, there is no wrong to limiting Usul al-Shara’ to the four sources 1)Quran 2) Sunnah 3) Ijma 4) Qiyas.

    Qiyas-e-Khafi (of Istihsan) is a Qiyas which opposes Qiyas-e-Zahir. To understand it, you can go through the example of Saba’ Tuoor. By the way I have answered your question.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/9/2018 1:10:12 AM



  • Miss K F,

    “The previous Shariats are also counted a source. Many jurists have followed it. There are others but why the sources of learning of Islam are limited to 4.”

    Your question is very good. Let me repeat your question in some details here.

    Objection 1,

    Just as the ruling can be deduced through four sources, so the it can also be deduced from previous shariat like Taurat and Zaboor etc.

    For example, Allah Almighty says

    “And We ordained for them therein [in Torah or Taurat] a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.” (5:45) Just as the ruling of Qisas was ordained for Jews [children of Israel], so it is binding for us also. So when the ruling can be deduced from the previous shariat, it would not be good to confine it to the four sources.

     

    Answer to this objection is that the previous shariat is binding upon us only when Allah Almighty or His beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has declared it without prohibition. If the Quran and Hadith did not declare it, or declared it but commanded “not to do so” it would not be in that case binding upon us. In other words, if Allah Almighty informs us of the previous Shariat or ruling without prohibiting it for us, it is then binding upon us. In that case it is associated with the Quranic source. Similarly If the beloved Prophet informs us of the previous shariat or ruling without prohibiting it for us, it is then associated without the hadith source. If Allah Almighty or his beloved Prophet informs us of previous shariat or ruling, prohibiting it for us, it is then not binding upon us. The verse 6:146 is taken as an example to understand this principle.

    There is therefore no need to count the previous shariat as an independent source, as the necessary command of the previous shariat has been declared in the Quran and Hadith respectively.       

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/9/2018 1:00:26 AM



  • Mr. Ravi Kumar,

    You asked me, “Khabr-e-Wahid is probable in proof", if it so then why it is believed to be akin to revelation?”

    Yes Khabr-e-Wahid is probable in proof [Zanni al-Thubut] but the Quranic verses are definite in proof [Qata’i al-Thubut]. The former cannot be akin to the latter one.

    There is great confusion between what was actually meant by Muhaddethin and what is understood by most of the people.

     

    The Quran and Hadith both legislate the law. In legislating the law both are effective. In this very effect, the scholars say, Hadith is akin to revelation with the only difference that hadith is wahi-e-khafi while the Quran is wahi-e-jali. That in legislating the law or ruling both are effective does not mean both are equal in rank or status. Wahi-e-jali is greater than in wahi-e-khafi in rank and status, while both are effective in its effect of law. When this principle is outspoken, it is only meant for those ahadith which are actually ahadith to the point of full surety. 

    That whether some sayings are ahadith or not, deals with science of Hadith. After applying all principles of checking a hadith including historical credentials, one gets to know whether this is khabr-e-wahid, mashhoor, sahih, dhaeef or mutawatir. This sort of checking a hadith was majorly done in the early second to third century after hijrah and thousands of sayings were described by Muhaddethin themselves as ‘maudu’ [fabricated]. 

    There are various kinds of ahadith – each with its different effect. Some are effective in Aqaid. Some are effective in Ahkam. Some are effective in Fazail.

    There are ahadith whose credential has reached the point of surety [Yaqeen] and there are those whose credential has reached the zanne ghalib and there are those whose credential has reached doubt. All these are highly debated in Science of Hadith.

     One must remember that debate or objection or investigation, all sorts of principles are applied to or made over the chain of narration and its credential not over what is actually hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Once a man is sure of a saying being a hadith of the Prophet, he can’t make any objection.

     

    Many jurists have prevented common Muslims from reading ahadith on their own as they might misunderstand them because of their apparent or literal meanings. Even in the times of Sahaba many companions used to ask their senior Sahaba about the real meaning of the ahadith. Were they not Arabian to understand the meaning of those Arabic Ahadith? Indeed they were. But they did so because some ahadith had some meanings which needed explanations for which only the senior and expert Sahaba had gained qualification. There are many examples as such for consideration.

     Today in this internet-age, everyone has become ‘jurist’, everyone has become ‘scholar’, everyone has become ‘expert’ or a ‘judge’ to deny or reject hadith.

     Mr Ravi, I should not go in details to bother you. I have answered you above and below again;

     Yes Khabr-e-Wahid is probable in proof [Zanni al-Thubut] but the Quranic verses are definite in proof [Qata’i al-Thubut]. The former cannot be akin to the latter one.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/9/2018 12:22:27 AM



  • sorry mr Ahmed I miss read it your comment, you were not telling lie

    The Barelvis supported and fought for partition, and emigrated in large numbers at the time of partition. The Deobandis opposed the partition and opposed emigration of Muslims. The article is misleading on this point and factually incorrect.  By Naseer Ahmed - 10/3/2018 6:31:07 AM


    But I will not change my opinion as whole that Muslims all over bleed to every other non-Muslims, in all aspect life, what your differences and cutting each other throats among Muslims is least concern to us as Hindu, Buddhist or Christians, what our convers is end effect.

    You internal opinion is not non-muslims concern, only lasting effect and impact on us non-Muslim is our concer.

    As I have always said this website is hypocracy, if your NAI Schloars and Sulatn Shahin had some moral left they would Articles on Kashmiri pandits exodus, I am repeatedly saying in my comments but their is, not single article on the atrocities and exodus of Kashmiri pandits, but you will all cry for rohinga, Chinese Muslims and so on... So this website title itself is misleading and its scholars are also empty with humanity and it values, especially most of them when claim to be Indian Muslims and try to so their are happy in this setup of India as country.


    By Aayina - 10/6/2018 8:03:14 PM



  • Did I talked of Pakistan, I just said it was not supported by Ahmed Raza khan Brelvi.

    Anyway to ask seperate land, seperate autonomy within any state is mindset of Muslims.

    Just want other nib-Muslim tax payer money but what seperate everything is nature of Muslims 

    We have talked about Kashmir lot but see the example of Philippine, how they have to give separate autonomy within Philippines.

    You Muslims are more than minority a hedauque to live with, for every nation, though it majority or non-majority does not matter, just think of it, seat analysis what and how you are living with others.
    By Aayina - 10/6/2018 7:44:25 PM



  • The fact that among the various sects of Islam, only the Deobandis opposed both the partition of the country and post-partition migration, is well known and also the fact that the Deobandis took an active part in the movement for India's independence. 

    The fact that the Barelvis  took an active part in the movement for the creation of Pakistan and kept away from the movement for India's freedom, and also migrated in large numbers post-partition,  is well-known. I didn't say or attribute anything directly to Raza Ahmad Khan Barelvi and therefore the charge of Aayina that I lied is itself a blatant lie. Raza Ahmad Khan died in the year 1921, a good 26 years before partition/independence. Evelyn Wrench reported that when he asked Jinnah "when he got the vision of Pakistan...he told me it was in l930." That is nine years after Raza Ahmad Khan's death.


    However, since he has brought Raza Ahmad Khan Barelvi into the discussion,  let him read from the following two Barelvi sources which proudly proclaim that Raza Ahmad Khan Barelvi was the first to moot the idea of partition, when Jinnah was still thinking of only a single nation:

    This is from the book, The Light By Professor Dr. Muhammad Masud Ahmed. Published by Idara-i-Tahqeerat-e-Imam Ahmad Raza.http://sunnirazvi.net/library/booklets/light.htm

     

    Ahmad Raza Khan advocated a two-nation theory at a time when both Dr. Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ali Jinnah believed in a one-nation theory. The voice of Ahmad Raza Khan echo availed the ears of the two leaders. After a number of political experiences, the two leaders extricated themselves from the morass of a one-nation theory and adopted the two nation theory. And they founded a new state, Pakistan”.


    Also, see:

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/alahazrat-imam-ahmad-raza-khan-barelvi/alahazrat-as-an-advocate-of-seperate-muslim-state-pakistan/422738177752009/

    If it is anyone, it must be the Barelvis who are lying, and if they are doing so, it is because they would like to embellish the record and  exalt their leader's "foresight" and credit him with the idea of partition whether true or not. The historians apparently ignore their claim. What should however be clear, is that the Barelvis are very proud of their role in the partition of the country and in the creation of Pakistan and would like their leader to be credited with planting the idea in Jinnah's mind. They could be right and Jinnah may have falsely taken all credit - God only knows the truth.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/6/2018 12:39:13 AM



  • Saugat, do have caoursge, to talk about Kashmiri pandits not only lyncheed and but  exodus happen, if all other Muslims have stand up agsinst this atrocity on Kashmiri pandits which were minority in Kashmir you guys were enjoyed land grab, still three is time to make movement by only Muslims which take wow to relocate Kashmiri pandits, stop shading crocodiles tears, like sultan Shahin website, which had never written single article on Kashmiri pandit exodus. First ask yourself one question is Kashmiri pandits were even Indians for you Muslims.

    You Muslims are bottom up had now hypocrate living in you only short vision of Muslims.
    By Aayina - 10/5/2018 5:31:16 PM



  • Naseer Ahmed is lieing blatantly,  Ahmed Raza Khan, berelvi, A Berelvi, leadear never supported, but he was honest in telling why he was not supporting, because lots of different movement was going in but movement lead by congress Was not supported by berelvi leadear, as it was lead by Kafir( as per his view)Mohandas Karmamchand Gandhi.

    Hatered of Hindus leadearship  by most of  Muslims leadears was not new and will never be new, they love only Hindu or communist Hindu leadear which damage Hindu values and damage their belife in public sphear.
    By Aayina - 10/5/2018 1:09:02 PM



  • Dard of Chinese Muslims, Rohinga muslims  but no Dard of Kashmiri pandits thrown out of Kashmir.

    That enough to prove how Muslim mindset works
    By Aayina - 10/4/2018 9:18:26 PM



  • Aren't verse 4:97 to 4:100 cited in my comment sufficient to know all that is to know about the universal applicability of the command for migration? Can anybody add anything to it from any other source? The Quran is a sufficient source for all guidance. The sources for misguidance are several but the complete and sufficient source for guidance is only the Quran.

    وَلَا يَأْتُونَكَ بِمَثَلٍ إِلَّا جِئْنَاكَ بِالْحَقِّ وَأَحْسَنَ تَفْسِيرًا

    (25:33) And no question do they bring to thee but We reveal to thee the truth and the best explanation (thereof).

    وَإِن تَسْأَلُوا عَنْهَا حِينَ يُنَزَّلُ الْقُرْآنُ تُبْدَ لَكُمْ

    5:101 ..... if ye ask about things when the Qur´an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you....

    For every question that the people asked the Prophet (pbuh), the Quran provides the best explanation.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/4/2018 6:30:32 AM



  • This is very good article.

    Istihsan is also regarded as another source.

    The narration of Sahaba is also regarded a source. 

    The previous Shariats are also counted a source. Many jurists have followed it.


    There are others but why the sources of learning of Islam are limited to 4.

    By Kaniz Fatma - 10/4/2018 3:46:20 AM



  • @G. Ghaus sb

    "Khabr-e-Wahid is probable in proof", if it so then why it is believed to be akin to revelation? 

    By Ravi Kumar - 10/4/2018 3:44:06 AM



  • very good article! All Muslims except for 1 out of millions. will agree with it,  

    By Javed Ahmad - 10/4/2018 3:37:49 AM



  • The article cites verses that are transactional from which one may derive general principles. This is however unnecessary as there are verses that lay down the rule or the law. The verses that lay down the rule regarding migration which are eternally applicable are reproduced below:

     

     

    (4:97) When angels take the souls of those who die in sin against their souls, they say: "In what (plight) Were ye?" They reply: "Weak and oppressed Were we in the earth." They say: "Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to move yourselves away (From evil)?" Such men will find their abode in Hell,- What an evil refuge! -

    (98) Except those who are (really) weak and oppressed - men, women, and children - who have no means in their power, nor (a guide-post) to their way.

    (99) For these, there is hope that Allah will forgive: For Allah doth blot out (sins) and forgive again and again.

    (100) He who forsakes his home in the cause of Allah, finds in the earth Many a refuge, wide and spacious: Should he die as a refugee from home for Allah and His Messenger, His reward becomes due and sure with Allah: And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

     

    Chinese Muslims being persecuted for their religion and being forced to abandon it, may not have a choice to migrate, and such Muslims are covered under 4:98 and 99

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/4/2018 2:20:12 AM



  • The so-called Deobandi in Pakistan are not those who migrated from India post partition but those who were residing in those areas pre-partition an dtheir progeny.

    The word Deobandi is used loosely and does not mean that they all come from Deoband or have studied at that institution. It could mean those who studied at an institution which is/was affiliated to it  or modeled after it. Madarsas in Pakistan continue to be labeled Deobandi although  the university at Deoband has no connection with them whatsoever.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/4/2018 12:33:27 AM



  • very nice article. thank you very much and good for Indian Muslims.
    howevre Indian Muslims know it well and everywhere they say it loudly that India is their country as much it is for othres. 
    groping in the history that Aryans grabbed the Indian land of Hapappans or that Muslims occupied India is all set to benefit politics and reality has something other story.  
    By Asif Zaid - 10/3/2018 11:58:51 PM



  • While many solely blame Jinnah, the British, the Congress and the Hindu Mahasabha were equally, if not more, complicit

    (copied from www.thehindubusinessline.com)
     
    Seventy-one years back, on June 3, 1947, in a joint conference with the Congress and the Muslim League, the last Viceroy of India, Louis Mountbatten, announced the partition of India. What followed was a period of absolute terror, which, by some estimates, saw more than a million killed, and over 14 million people forcibly relocated. It is important for us to face up to why this catastrophe occurred, if only to avert another.

    Many in India — and all our textbooks — hold Jinnah solely responsible for the split. It is time we acknowledged what the best of our historians already know, that he was not the only one to blame for that wretched event. Others — the British, the Congress, the Hindu Mahasabha — were equally, if not more, complicit.

    Through the 1930s and 1940s India’s Muslims — even those who never wanted a separate Muslim state — felt the need to have a greater say in governance. It was one of the reasons why they, almost en masse, voted for the Muslim League across the subcontinent in 1946.

    From the early years of the 20th century onward, a deep divide developed between Hindus and Muslims. This was not the least caused by a marginalisation of the latter in public life. Hindus held most of the jobs in the lower branches of civil administration and in education, they were, comparatively, streets ahead.

    Part of the responsibility for this lay with the Muslims themselves for their leadership, lost in nostalgia, failed to modernise.

    The community lacked reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy who successfully campaigned against Sati and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar who fought for widows’ remarriage. But lest we forget, the Congress had a lot to answer for too.

    After its spectacular electoral success in the 1937 elections, the Congress hardly did anything to raise the confidence level of Indian Muslims in the provinces it governed.

    The gross under-representation of the community in public services continued as did its backwardness.

    This is something that Jinnah set out to correct. Much to his surprise, he found himself heading an unwieldy state separated by the Indian sub-continent at its widest.

    A ‘mutilated, moth-eaten Pakistan,’ as he once referred to it, didn’t even last 25 years before breaking up.

    Communal representation, the factor that split India at creation in 1947, had a long history going back to 1906 when a demand for it was first made on behalf of Muslims by a delegation led by the Agha Khan to the Viceroy. Jinnah bought into it much later and even arrived at a pact with the Congress to have it, in fact with the consent and blessings of India’s formidable nationalist, Lokmanya Tilak of “Swaraj is my birth right, and I shall have it,” fame.
    By S.A - 10/3/2018 11:22:05 PM



  • @Ayina
    Constitution gives rights but why minorities are lynched, and killed in India?
    Do you have no courage to speak against these killers who repeatedly kill Muslims and other low class Hindus. but why your Hindu world has failed to stop such crimes? 
    By Saugat - 10/3/2018 9:51:17 PM



  • People from various classes and groups and religions supported partition. Even many Hindus supported partition.
    Deobandis also supported partition, if not then from where the Deobandis of Pakistan have come? 
    By Ajit - 10/3/2018 9:45:57 PM



  • Are there many extremists in India asking Muslims to leave India? Are there many Muslims in India who listen to such extremists?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/3/2018 1:08:18 PM



  • Indian constitution gives but Islamic world not and Muslims living in majority, within India or outside India.
    The whole Muslim idea is of land grab though population growth and victimisation saga, we Hindus understand this very well, Hindu population Pakistan and Bangladesh systematically finished and India too where Muslims are in majority, and places were they are enough numbers remains in constant dispute with Hindus by harassing  them and chasing Hindu girls, on the name of Indian constitution Gaurantee of freedom of relgion high stope once you Mary to Muslim men.

    In reality, through out the world in olden times Jews had to migrate and himulated.

    Nowadays it's turn of Hindu's who are forced to migrate within India and outsider India and humiliated too in Arab countries for not allowing to make worshipe place.

    Same on Muslims never ever writing single article exodus happen due to Muslim harresments within India and outside India, and same on New Age Islam website who try to prove they are enlightened one or trying to enlighten others 
    By Aayina - 10/3/2018 10:01:08 AM



  • The Barelvis supported and fought for partition, and emigrated in large numbers at the time of partition. The Deobandis opposed the partition and opposed emigration of Muslims. The article is misleading on this point and factually incorrect.  By Naseer Ahmed - 10/3/2018 6:31:07 AM



  • @Mr. Ravi,

    Nowhere does this article say the Quranic verse quoted in this article is the only argument. Perhaps you missed the lines which read, “the extremist mindsets often quote the Quranic verse 8:72 to call for migration, but they do not consider the context and circumstances of the revelation of this verse....” You should bother to read this article again, as it is not an easy task to reach the exact meaning of any writer simply with cursory look.

    As for argument, it can be traced easily from this article. If you read the quoted hadith in this article, you will find that the illat [effective cause] for which Hijrat was prohibited is traceable in context of Indian Muslims. Even the reading of the same Quranic verse enables us to take into consideration the context and background for which those early Muslims migrated. This article was written for common readers not for scholars; otherwise the methodological approach taken by great jurists also support the view that extremists can’t justify their call to migration [hijrat]. I will try to cover this mythological approach for which I think our readers are not so technical. They often make unnecessary comments. Anyway I will do it, if extremely needed.

    You questioned about sources of understanding Islam. They are classified into four in Islam – known as Usul al-Shara’ which includes Usul al-Fiqh as well as Usul al-Kalam or Usul al-Aqaid, out of which the former deals with the areas of beliefs or creeds [Aqaaid] whereas the latter with rulings [Ahkam].

    All the four Schools of Jurisprudence [Hanafi, Shafeii, Maliki and Hambali] unanimously agree that Qiyas [analogy] in matters which have not been provided for by a Quranic or Sunnah text, nor determined by Ijma’, the ruling may be deduced from what has been laid down by any of these three authorities, by the use of Qiyas which is commonly translated as analogy. In other words, this is an extension of law from the original text to which the process is applied to a particular case by means of a common illat or effective cause which cannot be ascertained merely by interpretation of the language of the text [nas].

    This should be noted here that there are four kinds of Qiyas 1) Qiyas Shari’i, 2) Qiyas Lughawi, 3) Qiyas Shubhi, 4) Qiyas Aqli. When jurists use Qiyas, they mean Qiyas Shari’i supported by or deduced from three main sources 1) Quran 2) Sunnah and 3) Ijma.

    The first three sources 1) Quran 2) Sunnah and 3) Ijma is commonly regarded as definite [Qat’i] while there are some other jurists who opine that they too become probable [Zanni] due to some sort of ‘Ariz. For example in the verse 2:275, the word ‘Al-Riba’ is common due to the letter ‘Laam –e-Jins’, however God Almighty has made this Riba specific.

    Hadith whose chain of narration is Khabr-e-Wahid is probable in proof, much in the same way as the fourth source Qiyas is commonly known as probable [Zanni], but sometimes Qiyas too works as definite in proof due to some shared effective cause between Qiyas and any of the first three sources.

    There is highly technical debate for which you will have to spend your precious time, as all round-study will help you understand it properly, otherwise there is no benefit to gain half knowledge of any subject as most of us do and repeat again and again.  

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 10/3/2018 4:59:15 AM



  • Nice article. Good for Indian Muslims. By Shadaab - 10/3/2018 4:49:11 AM



  • Is this article's argument is based on Qiyas or hadith or Quran? The Quranic verse quoted in this article does not say Hijrat is not allowed from India to any other country.
    Does this verse say so???
    I am no able to find it out, who is there to find it logical?  
    How many sources of understanding ISLAM are there??? some say three some say four and some only two. as much as difference is resting in this muslim community nothing is going to be solved.  
    By Ravi Kumar - 10/3/2018 4:07:36 AM



  • this was needed article. thank you very much sir Ghulam Ghaus sb. By S.A - 10/3/2018 3:26:16 AM