certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islamic Ideology

39 - COMMENTS

  • Naseer sb. questions the relevance of my questions. Here are the two posts I was referring to:

    (1) Naseer sb.,
    Before answering my comment, you had to first call me an apostate! If you think this discussion is making you lose your mental balance, I would be quite willing to grant you a week's rest.
    It is wrong for you to call your own article "path-breaking". I have not heard anyone else calling it path-breaking.

    You did criticize earlier scriptures when you said, "All previous scriptures were about using compulsion in religion," and,  "confusion with how previous Scriptures had dealt with the Kafir".
    Your whole thesis on why compulsion was necessary with earlier scriptures is without any substance or sense. Admonition against compulsion was given to the followers of our Prophet, and it is ingenious of you to use it for your one-up-man-ship against Jews and Christians.

    You said, "Verse 13:38 also informs us that the previous Books were only for a period and not for all time." That is a lie. Verse 13:38 does not say that. We may not always fully understand comments in the Quran about other scriptures and we should not let those comments reduce our respect for the Bible or the Torah. Christians and Jews consider their books to be complete and standing on their own, and we should not dispute that.

    I have no sympathy for the Christian crusaders who made rivers of blood flow in Jerusalem, but they were not fighting kuffar. They were trying to recover their holy places from Muslim "occupation". They were of course not lovers of Islam.
    It is sheer invention on your part to say that war related verses in the older scriptures were "passed over" or "abrogated" by the Quran. Unless the Quran specifically says that such and such a verse is no longer valid, it is very presumptuous and megalomanic on your part to make such false assertions. You may have sinned by making such assertions but since I am not an expert on sin, it may be best for you to consult some knowledgeable maulvi and desist in future from crossing your limits.
    Your so-called phase 2, 3 and 4 are outside the Prophetic Mission as I have previously explained.  Your trying to create a chain of progression ending in Islam being at the pinnacle is the kind of daydreaming that the ISIS guys must be indulging in. I am quite satisfied with my Islam being a call from the desert propagating a message of peaceful co-existence,  rectitude, justice, compassion and piety.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/1/2019 1:56:27 PM.

    (2) 
    Instead of responding to the questions that I had raised in my last comment, Naseer sb. has decided to resort to silly digressions. 

    He is freely critical of verses in the Old Testament while believing that criticism of even one verse in the Quran would make one an "apostate"! He quotes the Pope making racial slurs against Muslims but does not see that their rationale for the Crusades was recovery of Christian holy places from Muslim control, and not a war on kuffar.

    He again repeats his idiotic assertion that the Quran has abrogated verses from the Torah and the Bible! When moderate Jews and Christians say that  the violent verses in their holy books are not to be taken literally, he mocks them instead of joining them and saying that the violent verses in our holy book too should not to be taken literally. 

    His criticism of  moderate Judeo-Christian scholars and moderate Islamic scholars is laughable and probably delusional. His belief that he himself has the right answers is definitely delusional.

    Naseer sb., instead of carrying on with your jingoistic diatribes, why don't you respond specifically to the points raised in my last post? Are you trying to run away from the points that I had made?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/3/2019 12:49:11 PM

    As can be seen both my posts are diectly related to Naseer sb.'s preceding posts as well as the substance of his article. If he had not wasted so much time cursing me and calling me an apostate etc., he would have given a comprehensive answer to my questions by now. He should take this opportunity to do so.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/17/2019 3:22:29 PM



  • GM sb says “ …. and fraudulently questioning the relevance of my questions to the article under discussion.

    I challenge the liar to establish relevance to the article. The coward will never do that because he is lying.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/17/2019 7:52:45 AM



  • Naseer sb. has found several devious ways of not answering the questions that would show him up as a charlatan, including abusing me, calling me an apostate etc. etc. etc. and fraudulently questioning the relevance of my questions to the article under discussion. All his evasions can be put under one label: cowardice.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/16/2019 1:42:20 PM



  • The question has nothing to do with the article.  My comments have since become two more articles. So, if the question is relevant to some comment, why not seek the answers under the appropriate article? 

    Why fill up this space with his rudeness and irrelevancies? GM sb's "forays in this forum have had the sole purpose of being disruptive, derisive and rude". 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/16/2019 1:59:07 AM



  • It is not a rude judgmental comment. I asked legitimate questions and make relevant comments. If you do not have answers, just say so honestly. 

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/15/2019 6:19:23 PM



  • Why would I respond to a rude judgmental comment? I do not have to prove anything or defend myself. GM sb's "forays in this forum have had the sole purpose of being disruptive, derisive and rude". 

    He does not deserve an answer. 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/15/2019 3:50:50 AM



  • Naseer sb. again uses pretend indignation in order to avoid responding to my two posts. He will use any ruse to run away from what he does not want to answer!

    Regarding this article, since no one else has called it "path-breaking", Naseer sb. has decided to call it path-breaking himself! He claims, " It is the first time someone has looked at the Prophetic mission as something that was shaped by the events and not as something that was pre-determined to happen the way it did." This is an area of idle speculation and Naseer sb. excels in idle speculation. But he will not answer direct and specific questions addressed to him!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/14/2019 12:03:29 PM



  • It is GM sb who is an ignoramus and a fool. His comments are not even relevant to the article. His purpose is to divert attention from the article which is path breaking.  The fool will say that no one else has said it is path breaking because he does not even know what path breaking means. It is the first time someone has looked at the Prophetic mission as something that was shaped by the events and not as something that was pre-determined to happen the way it did. It has consequences on the way the Message is understood for the better as explained in the article and the way the Muslims interpret events. He has no interest in discussing the article but only in diverting attention away from it. His "forays in this forum have had the sole purpose of being disruptive, derisive and rude"
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/14/2019 2:02:16 AM



  • Naseer sb. will not answer the two posts that I had mentioned because any attempt on his part to do so will expose the fact that he is nothing but a charlatan.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/13/2019 12:31:58 PM



  • So, it is not relevant to the article. Why can't you remain focused on the article? Why do you want to digress? By Naseer Ahmed - 3/13/2019 2:58:32 AM



  • Naseer sb. now raises the question of relevance! He goes far afield from the subject of an article when it suits him, but now he is wants to escape in a cowardly manner because he does not want to face up to the questions raised in  3/1/2019 1:56:27 PM and 3/3/2019 12:49:11 PM.. The questions are directly relevant to the thread that was developed with his full participation. So stop running and answer the questions. Or admit that you do not have the answers.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/10/2019 1:50:24 PM



  • Why don't you show some bravery and prove that your comment has relevance to the article? You are the coward who is running away.  By Naseer Ahmed - 3/9/2019 11:37:45 PM



  • Naseer sb.,
    My comments are neither illogical nor flippant and you know it. The onus is not on me to explain anything. You just want to run in a cowardly fashion instead of standing there like a man and responding to the points that I had raised in  3/1/2019 1:56:27 PM and 3/3/2019 12:49:11 PM.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/9/2019 12:29:20 PM



  • I repeat, the comments are illogical, irrelevant and flippant. The onus is on him to prove that they are not. By Naseer Ahmed - 3/8/2019 11:15:52 PM



  • Let me repeat. Since Naseer sb. does not want to answer the questions in  my posts of  3/1/2019 1:56:27 PM and 3/3/2019 12:49:11 PM., he, in his cowardly manner, again creates a smoke screen, abusing me, calling me names etc.! I can understand why he is running away from those two posts. They clearly show him up to be the charlatan that he is.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/8/2019 1:43:08 PM



  • GM sb,

    Do you try to make the deaf hear or the blind to see or the dumb to understand? Why should I waste my time trying it with you? Moreover, your questions are to use your own words again,  "illogical, irrelevant and flippant". My article makes every point clear.

    Someone who has left Islam should not pretend that he is seeking answers to some questions. You are an apostate. Act like one. You have every right to be an apostate. Join the company of other apostates and have a good time. Your forays in this forum have had the sole purpose of being disruptive, derisive and rude. That's why you were called "a wolf in the garb of a sheep, a snake in the sleeve, or more".”
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/8/2019 1:49:11 AM



  • Poor Naseer sb.! All he now has is to keep repeating without rhyme or reason what I had said many years ago to Rational. This is his dishonest and cowardly way of running away from my comments. He is never gracious enough to concede.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/7/2019 11:58:03 AM



  • GM sb,

    “Please don't exalt yourself by saying that your questions are "difficult". They are stupid and must be ignored. Someone who has left Islam should not pretend that he is seeking answers to some questions. You are an apostate. Act like one. You have every right to be an apostate. Join the company of other apostates and have a good time. Your forays in this forum have had the sole purpose of being disruptive, derisive and rude. That's why you were called "a wolf in the garb of a sheep, a snake in the sleeve, or more".”
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/7/2019 3:36:28 AM



  • Since Naseer sb. does not want to answer the questions in  my posts of  3/1/2019 1:56:27 PM and 3/3/2019 12:49:11 PM., he, in his cowardly manner, again hides behind Rational. I can understand why he is running away from those two posts. They clearly show him up to be the charlatan that he is.
     
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/6/2019 2:28:05 PM



  • GM sb says that I have been shown to be in serious error. When Rational said something similar to him, GM sb gave him the following response which today applies to him.

     “Please don't exalt yourself by saying that your questions are "difficult". They are stupid and must be ignored. Someone who has left Islam should not pretend that he is seeking answers to some questions. You are an apostate. Act like one. You have every right to be an apostate. Join the company of other apostates and have a good time. Your forays in this forum have had the sole purpose of being disruptive, derisive and rude. That's why you were called "a wolf in the garb of a sheep, a snake in the sleeve, or more".”

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/6/2019 1:58:23 AM



  • Naseer sb. is again being cowardly and hiding behind Rational in order to run away from a discussion in which he has been shown to be in serious error. He has not yet responded to my posts of  3/1/2019 1:56:27 PM and 3/3/2019 12:49:11 PM. When are you going to respond to them, Naseer sb.?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/5/2019 12:00:24 PM



  • I must repeat the excellent advice GM sb gave to Rational. 

    "You are an apostate. Act like one. You have every right to be an apostate. Join the company of other apostates and have a good time. Your forays in this forum have had the sole purpose of being disruptive, derisive and rude. That's why you were called "a wolf in the garb of a sheep, a snake in the sleeve, or more".
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/4/2019 10:45:04 PM



  • Naseer sb.'s reply is evasive and cowardly. He wants to run away from the discussion but does not want to concede that he has no answers. Instead of  answering he is again slandering and abusing me, as if that will save him!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/4/2019 11:54:01 AM



  • GM sb, Why should I waste my time with one who has been rendered "deaf, dumb and blind" and an open apostate? By Naseer Ahmed - 3/4/2019 12:20:12 AM



  • Instead of responding to the questions that I had raised in my last comment, Naseer sb. has decided to resort to silly digressions. 

    He is freely critical of verses in the Old Testament while believing that criticism of even one verse in the Quran would make one an "apostate"! He quotes the Pope making racial slurs against Muslims but does not see that their rationale for the Crusades was recovery of Christian holy places from Muslim control, and not a war on kuffar.

    He again repeats his idiotic assertion that the Quran has abrogated verses from the Torah and the Bible! When moderate Jews and Christians say that  the violent verses in their holy books are not to be taken literally, he mocks them instead of joining them and saying that the violent verses in our holy book too should not to be taken literally. 

    His criticism of  moderate Judeo-Christian scholars and moderate Islamic scholars is laughable and probably delusional. His belief that he himself has the right answers is definitely delusional.

    Naseer sb., instead of carrying on with your jingoistic diatribes, why don't you respond specifically to the points raised in my last post? Are you trying to run away from the points that I had made?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/3/2019 12:49:11 PM



  • The following is for those who are imbued with wisdom and understanding. My comments are more for developing my ideas for new articles. 

    War in Judeo-Christian Scriptures

    Rules for war in Deuteronomy (vv. 10-18)

                 Verses 10-11 require that Israel offer peace to every city it encounters; essentially the resultant policy, should they accept Israel's terms, is slavery.

                 Verses 12-15, then, state the policy for distant cities that reject Israel's offer of peace (men are killed, women and children become slaves, and animals and material goods become plunder).

                 Verses 16-18, then, state the policy for Israel's neighboring cities (cities in the promised land) that reject Israel's offer of peace (total destruction under the ban).

    Very clearly, the justification for war and how those who surrendered and those vanquished in battle had to be dealt with as per the Judeo-Christian scriptures, belonged to the past and has no relevance after the Quran was revealed. The Christians however, continued to be guided by their scriptures, and indulged in the same blood orgies even when they fought the Muslims. They continued to be genocidal for several centuries after the Quran was revealed and wiped out harmless indigenous populations of all the lands that they conquered.

    The First Crusade

    Source: Holy War - Tammy Woodworth http://uo-medievalchristianity.weebly.com/crusades.html

    In March 1095, Pope Urban II delivered one of the most influential speeches of the Middle Ages at the Council of Clermont, urging Christians to reclaim the Holy Land by waging war against an “accursed” and “vile” race (Muslims) who defiled holy places and abused Christians.  According to Guibert of Nogent, Pope Urban II’s spoke of “God fighting in our behalf, you should strive with your utmost efforts to cleanse the Holy City and glory of the Sepulcher, now polluted by the concourse of the gentiles, as much as is in their power” (Allen and Amt ) He implored the assembled men, appealing to their piety and their vanity, to leave their homes and families and fight in the name of God to wrest the Holy Land from Muslim hands. He promised the men full remission of their sins and immediate entry to heaven if they died in battle. With a rallying cry of “Deus vult!” or “God wills it!” and “Christ commands to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends”, Pope Urban II’s speech sparked the Crusades.

    His passionate speech stirred a zealous response. Motivated by the prospect of reclaiming the Holy Land and wooed by the promise of instant entry into heaven, droves of Christians responded to Urban’s call with fervour. Emperor Alexius had only hoped for a few mercenary troops. Instead, between 60,000 and 100,000 people, urged on by Urban’s call, marched to Jerusalem. It was the onset of the First Crusade.

    Raymond talks about the eventual capture of the city and the mercy shown by the soldiers because they mercifully cut off of the heads of the Saracens instead of “torturing them and casting them into the flames” (Allen and Amt 77).

    Analysis:        Fulcher’s claim that European Christians needed to be rescued from Muslim occupation and brutal oppression was greatly exaggerated and although inflammatory was completely false, according to Thomas Asbridge. The Muslims and the Catholics had been living amongst each other for centuries with little conflict and the Muslims had proven to be the more tolerant of other religious views, unlike the empire to the East who had a long history of Christian persecution.

                As the Roman Empire began to crumble and the papacy lost power and authority, shifts in politics and religions began. The papacy, under the guidance of Pope Urban II, began the campaign for more power and authority. During the time prior to the First Crusade, the Christian faith “dominated and dictated everyday life to an extent that can seem almost inconceivable to a modern observer attuned to the attitudes and preconceptions increasingly secularized contemporary society” (Asbridge 6).

                The continued Arabic expansion into the Byzantium Empire created financial hardships and furthered the rift between Muslims and the Christians.  According to Asbridge, “there is little or no evidence to suggest that either side harboured any innate, empowering religious or racial hatred of the other”, and he states that the crusades were “proactive rather than reactive, and the crusades were designed, first and foremost, to meet the needs of the papacy” (Asbridge 18, 19). The argument made by Nogent that “God is fighting on our behalf” when faced with the real reason for the crusades, papal power and the struggle for wealth.

                Raymond of Aguilar talks about the mercy shown by the soldiers in battle, beheadings instead of torture, but the reality of the final incursion into the Holy City was a massacre of unimaginable magnitude. After the capture of the Holy City, “unholy wave of brutality throughout the city” (Asbridge 317) committed by these “soldiers of Christ” was far worse than any perceived atrocity by the Muslim “barbarians”.

    The four acclaimed witnesses that recorded Urban’s speech at Claremont provide an answer to all of these points in a seemingly historical manner, when in fact much of their explanations are not grounded in reality.  The first main example is the reason they give as to why the First Crusade began.  All four accounts attribute the main reason for embarking on the holy war is to avenge and liberate Christians facing cruel and systematic persecution at the hands of the barbaric Turks and Arabs.  As noted by Asbridge, Jerusalem had been in Muslim hands for roughly 400 years.  In all that time, Christians under Islamic rule experienced a great deal of religious tolerance and were certainly not prey to any form of systematic abuse like that described by Robert or Guibert (18).  Any conflict that the Byzantine Empire had with Islam was no more intense than the conflicts they had with their Latin or Slavic neighbors to the west, which shows the unlikelihood that there existed any innate religious hatred between the Christianity and Islam (17-18).  With these facts brought to light, it would seem that the explanation that the crusades occurred as a reaction to Muslim hostility is not the true reason why the First Crusade was initiated.  Thus, from Thomas Asbridge’s examination of the reality in which Pope Urban II gave his speech, it is possible to identify which aspects of the historical account had already drifted into ‘myth-history’.

    Since the First Crusade was clearly not a reaction in response to atrocities committed by Islam against Christians, there must be another explanation outside the myth-history that accounts for Pope Urban’s call to arms at Claremont.  Asbridge posits the idea that Urban II’s decision to take up the crusade to Jerusalem was a calculated proactive step designed first and foremost to meet the needs of the papacy.  It was “an attempt to consolidate papal empowerment and expand Rome's sphere of influence”.  All four of the accounts of Urban’s speech emphasize in some way the urgent need for Christians to stop fighting towards their mutual destruction.  Considering Asbridge’s commentary of Pope Urban’s historical background, the passages calling an end to unjust fighting between Christians reveal one of the true motivating factors as to why the Crusade was waged; to unify a warring and divided Christendom under the universal and apostolic authority of the papacy. 

    The Renaissance

    Their Renaissance we know, was greatly influenced by Islam. The reaction to the excesses of the Church also made them reassess the influence of Religion on every aspect of their lives including waging war. We have seen how a pope had waged war on false pretexts to further his own vested interests, shamelessly making God and Christ a party to it. On the other hand, Islam had a completely different way of fighting wars and dealing with the vanquished based on its own scriptures, while paying obeisance to the same God and recognizing all the Judeo-Christian prophets as their own. It is not surprising therefore, that the war related verses in the earlier scriptures that the Quran had abrogated some seven centuries earlier, the Christians now decided were no longer relevant. Many of their criminal laws such as on blasphemy and apostasy also belonged to the past and had no place once the Quran had ruled that “there was to be no compulsion in religion” anymore.

    Moderate Judeo-Christian scholarship

    We therefore find the Christians and the Jews pass over much of what is in their scriptures. Some of them try to explain away these violent verses as metaphors and argue that these are not meant to be taken literally while we know from history that these were followed in letter and spirit. That they no longer follow what is abrogated by the Quran is good. It is understandable that scriptures meant only for a period, become no longer tenable when civilization advances.  The followers of these previous scriptures therefore find it impossible to take these seriously anymore. The Islam of the Quran coming as it is at the end of the revelatory process, is both a “perfected and complete religion” and valid for all time. There is nothing indefensible about making fighting oppression the only justifiable cause for war and completely ruling out fighting against “disbelief” saying “Let there be no compulsion in religion” and “To you (rejecter of Islam) be your religion and to me mine”.

    Classical Islamic Scholarship

    The problem however is that classical Islamic scholarship “interprets” the Quran using the Judeo-Christian paradigms and extensively quotes verses from Deuteronomy to justify their “interpretations”, rather than take the simple, straightforward meaning of the Quran. In their thinking, there is seamless continuity from the past, overlooking the fact that the Quran makes a radical break from the past and there is nothing common between what was prescribed in the past and what the Quran prescribes. How they get the whole story and plot wrong, is covered in my article:The Importance of Getting the Story Right on the Divine Plan Allah

    To know the extent to which the  paradigm of war in Deuteronomy is (mis)used by even the most moderate scholar Javed Ghamidi,  to “(mis)interpret” the Quran, read http://www.al-mawrid.org/index.php/team/view/shehzad-saleem/7

    Muslim “Moderates”

    This is a new category of Muslims post 911. They are a confused lot. They have little direct knowledge and understanding of the Quran and the previous Scriptures. They blindly repeat what the Moderate Judeo-Christian scholars say. Without doubt, taking the Old Testament verses on war literally is no longer tenable and therefore literalism and fundamentalism among the Christians and Jews are a grave problem. The Muslim moderates parroting their Judeo-Christian counterparts, blame extremism on literalism. The fact is that with the Quran, the “interpretations” based on the paradigms of the past which the classical Islamic scholars make, is a huge problem. Fundamentalism based on such “interpretations’ is problematic. Literalism is however not the problem because Islam is literally and fundamentally a religion of peace and has little in common with the previous scriptures as it concerns war and the “other” or non-Muslim. This will be evident to anyone who reads:

    The Principles of War from the Quran

     Allah Provides A Level Playing Field To People of all Faiths

    The Muslim moderates lacking knowledge and understanding of the scriptures and of history, are Quixotic in their fight with the “perfected and complete religion”. They make a fool of themselves with the Muslims as well as with the non-Muslims. They have their own articles of faith which have nothing to do with Islam and the Truth, but what will make them acceptable in western society post 911.

    By naseer ahmed - 3/3/2019 7:06:43 AM



  • Naseer sb.,
    Before answering my comment, you had to first call me an apostate! If you think this discussion is making you lose your mental balance, I would be quite willing to grant you a week's rest.
    It is wrong for you to call your own article "path-breaking". I have not heard anyone else calling it path-breaking.

    You did criticize earlier scriptures when you said, "All previous scriptures were about using compulsion in religion," and,  "confusion with how previous Scriptures had dealt with the Kafir".
    Your whole thesis on why compulsion was necessary with earlier scriptures is without any substance or sense. Admonition against compulsion was given to the followers of our Prophet, and it is ingenious of you to use it for your one-up-man-ship against Jews and Christians.

    You said, "Verse 13:38 also informs us that the previous Books were only for a period and not for all time." That is a lie. Verse 13:38 does not say that. We may not always fully understand comments in the Quran about other scriptures and we should not let those comments reduce our respect for the Bible or the Torah. Christians and Jews consider their books to be complete and standing on their own, and we should not dispute that.

    I have no sympathy for the Christian crusaders who made rivers of blood flow in Jerusalem, but they were not fighting kuffar. They were trying to recover their holy places from Muslim "occupation". They were of course not lovers of Islam.
    It is sheer invention on your part to say that war related verses in the older scriptures were "passed over" or "abrogated" by the Quran. Unless the Quran specifically says that such and such a verse is no longer valid, it is very presumptuous and megalomanic on your part to make such false assertions. You may have sinned by making such assertions but since I am not an expert on sin, it may be best for you to consult some knowledgeable maulvi and desist in future from crossing your limits.
    Your so-called phase 2, 3 and 4 are outside the Prophetic Mission as I have previously explained.  Your trying to create a chain of progression ending in Islam being at the pinnacle is the kind of daydreaming that the ISIS guys must be indulging in. I am quite satisfied with my Islam being a call from the desert propagating a message of peaceful co-existence,  rectitude, justice, compassion and piety.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/1/2019 1:56:27 PM



  • There isn't even an implied criticism of the previous scriptures because these are also from the same Allah.

    Civilizing man has been a most arduous task and took a long period of 70,000 years during which compulsion in religion was necessary as already explained. Religion was a work-in-progress which reached completion with the revelation of the Quran after which there was no longer any need for compulsion in religion.

    Heed the Quran on what it says about the previous scriptures. In verse 2:106, Allah says that Allah substitutes previous revelations by what is better, thus abrogating the previous verses, and in verse 5:15 that many previous instructions are omitted as these are no longer necessary. These are mostly related to war. Verse 13:38 also informs us that the previous Books were only for a period and not for all time. The Quran also says that the earlier people were given only a portion of the Book (3:23, 5:3, 4:44,51,) and not the complete Book and invites them to the Quran. All previous religions and Scriptures were works in progress and the Scriptures valid only for a period. The Quran is the final Book containing the “perfected and completed religion”.

    As far as the crusaders were concerned, they believed they  were fighting the Kuffars. Has GM sb found any acceptance of the religion of Islam in the writings of the crusaders or the sermons of the Popes of those times? Islam was painted as a Heathen religion of idol worshipers and Muhammad (pbuh) as an impostor. Is GM sb such an ignoramus that he must be told this?

     The War related verses in the previous Scriptures that are completely passed over, omitted and therefore abrogated by the Quran’

    The following are verses from the Bible and OT with commentary by Christian commentators.

    Jeremiah 51:20 “You are my hammer and weapon of war: with you I break nations in pieces; with you I destroy kingdoms.”

    In this verse, God is pronouncing judgment on Babylon and promises Israel that they will be dealt justice “For Israel and Judah have not been forsaken by their God, the Lord of hosts” (Jer 51:5).

    Deuteronomy 20 contains Yahweh’s instructions about war. If a city does not accept Israel’s offer of peace and open its gates, then “when the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it” (verse13). With regard to other cities, the command is (verse 16), “Do not leave anything that breathes.”

    You probably also recall that the walls of Jericho came tumbling down, and then the Israelites “destroyed with the sword every living thing in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, and donkeys” (Joshua 6:21). This certainly seems brutal and vindictive, doesn’t it? Or consider Joshua 11:20, “For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses.” From our twenty-first century point of view, we ask, “What good was accomplished by all this annihilation?”

    The spread of wickedness was so pervasive that immorality, degradation, and barbarity invaded every facet of life. Children were sacrificed to pagan gods. Male and female prostitution took place right in the temple as part of the religious rites. Idol worship was rife and the society wholly contaminated. This evil was contagious and God’s people were in danger of being infected as well. God’s awesome judgement was finally unleashed.

    The entire Bible from beginning to end never deviates from this standard of justice as well as grace. Jesus is crystal clear about the punishment of evildoers, for on the day of judgement God will say to the evildoers, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41). Our society does not much care to hear about pain and punishment, and prefers the meek and mild Jesus of some contemporary writers. But the God of the New Testament is the changeless God of the ages.

    And in that affirmation lies our only hope. Clearly we have all missed the mark. Each of us stumbles, and wounds, and sins. Even the most godly affirm that over and over. In God’s enduring justice, he never simply blinks casually at sin.

    Another troubling aspect of war in the Old Testament is the way the nation was called to mop up when a battle was over. In Joshua 6:15-21 , we see Israel called to kill all of the people, and destroy all of the spoils. Some of the reasons given for this are:

                 If the victory is God’s, the people shouldn’t benefit. Victorious armies normally collected slaves, animals and other booty.

                 If the defeated enemy is allowed to live, their pagan religions might influence the Israelites.

                 The defeated army deserves to die because they are fighting God and God’s people.

    When the Israelites captured Jericho, the Bible says that "they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword" (Joshua 6:20-21).

    This, generally speaking, is how Christian theologians have interpreted the Old Testament "ban" (Hebrew cherem). This term refers to God's strict commandment to grant the heathen no quarter, to take neither prisoners nor spoil, but to destroy everything found in the cities of their enemies. Repulsive as it sounds to us today, this ruthless brand of warfare was not technically "genocide." Not in the modern sense of the term. According to most biblical scholars, it was actually an expression of God's judgment upon the Canaanites.

    To say this another way, it was neither Joshua nor Moses but the Lord Himself who put the idolatrous nations of the Promised Land to the sword. This is perfectly legitimate from a strictly theological point of view. After all, God is the One who gives life. Accordingly, He also has the authority to take it away. His sentence was simply carried out by the agency of His chosen people, Israel. To quote one commentator, "The Canaanite civilization was so totally corrupt that coexisting with them would have been a serious threat to the survival and spiritual welfare of the Hebrew nation. Israel here is God's instrument of judgment against those who refuse to honor Him."

    3. Rules for war (vv. 10-18)

                 Verses 10-11 require that Israel offer peace to every city it encounters; essentially the resultant policy, should they accept Israel's terms, is slavery.

                 Verses 12-15, then, state the policy for distant cities that reject Israel's offer of peace (men are killed, women and children become slaves, and animals and material goods become plunder).

                 Verses 16-18, then, state the policy for Israel's neighboring cities (cities in the promised land) that reject Israel's offer of peace (total destruction under the ban).

    Deuteronomy 20:1-20

    Rules of Warfare

    10 When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. 11If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you in forced labour. 12If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; 13and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. 14You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. 15Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the nations here. 16But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. 17You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, 18so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.

    If there was no phase 3 and 4 of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (PBUH), our guidance on war would have been the earlier scriptures!

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/1/2019 6:45:34 AM



  • The rant of the apostate! By Naseer Ahmed - 3/1/2019 3:32:56 AM



  • Naseer sb. has lowered himself further with his vicious personal attacks on me. This may reflect on his character but I would  urge him to discuss ideas and aim at a higher level of dialogue.

    Was the Prophetic Mission pre-ordained or shaped by events? It is a nonsensical question. No one knows the answer. Why pretend to be more knowledgeable or insightful than one is?

     Naseer sb.'s discourse on "to you your religion", and "there is no compulsion in religion" is vacuous and his contention that our scripture represents more advanced thinking than the scriptures of others is unwarranted and self-promoting.

    His allusion to "how previous Scriptures had dealt with the Kafir" remains unexplained because he has not shed any light on how the previous scriptures dealt with kafirs. The bloody crusades were not wars against kuffar but against the occupation of Jerusalem by Muslims.

    There is no place in a religion of peace for war policies or on how to treat the vanquished. Policies in those  areas  can best be formulated by men. The Prophetic Mission is all about  propagation of the message of peaceful co-existence,  rectitude, justice, compassion and piety.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/28/2019 1:50:39 PM



  • It is GM sb who is a charlatan and a fraud who cannot go beyond his stock derisive phrases. He is lacking in both intellectual capacity and knowledge to seriously discuss any topic. Can he prove for example that my "top of the head" explanation of the four phases of the Prophetic mission is inaccurate? What he said to Rational below, applies to him.

    “Your forays in this forum have had the sole purpose of being disruptive, derisive and rude.”  You are an apostate whose sole purpose is to prevent the correct understanding of the Quran.

    This article is path breaking as it is for the first time that anyone has looked upon the Prophetic Mission not as something pre-ordained to be what it was, but as something that was shaped by the events. This is a major departure of great significance. Islamic scholars have struggled with verses such as:

    109:6 To you (kafir) be your religion and to me mine.

    They cannot reconcile it with the stories of the previous prophets who fought battles against the ungodly nations for the only reason that they were ungodly. How can the Prophet then be asked to say to the Kafir “to you be your religion?” is how they reason.  Javed Ghamidi has therefore said " The last verse of the Surah, it must be appreciated, is not an expression of tolerance; it expresses renunciation on the part of the Prophet (sws) and a warning to the disbelievers that they must now get ready to face the consequences of their obdurate denial."

    What they do not realize is that the Quran in some respects is radically different from all previous scriptures. It is the only Book of Scriptures that says “Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error”. All previous scriptures were about using compulsion in religion because civilization had not yet reached a stage of comprehension where all “religious truths had become clear from error”. This is because each and every moral principle from religion is counter intuitive and becomes clear only in hindsight after it has been practiced for a long period. Until such time, compulsion is necessary without which the truth will never be practiced and therefore will never become clear from error.

    Once truth had become clear from error, there was no need for:

     1.    1Compulsion in religion

    2.    Miracles to prove a point since reason alone was enough.

     And indeed, in the above two respects, the Prophetic mission of Muhammad is unique.

     It is now easy to see why 109:6 “To you (kafir) be your religion and to me mine” meant what it says. However, misunderstanding of the Quran because of confusion with how previous Scriptures had dealt with the Kafir, has prevented the acceptance of this verse by the Muslims to this day.

     The guidance on war, is without doubt a complete revision, and abrogates all previous scriptures.

     It is now easy to understand why the Muslim conquests were without blood orgies after their victories and without compulsion in religion with the result that Islam, although the dominant religion, remained a minority religion for several centuries.  When the general population did accept Islam, it was done voluntarily. It is also easy to understand why Christian conquests were accompanied by blood orgies after their victory and merciless genocide of those who were not Christian. It is also easy to see why the Jews were persecuted in Christendom but treated well in Islamic countries. The Muslims were following their scriptures and the Christian theirs.

     There was simply no way the Quran could have remained silent on the subject of war and proper behaviour after victory. The previous Scriptures had to be abrogated by fresh guidance. Muhammad (pbuh) mission was indeed a mercy to all mankind in several ways which include doing away with compulsion in religion and any violence on the vanquished people after gaining victory in war.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/27/2019 11:13:56 PM



  • Naseer sb. has adopted a low level strategy of continually calling me an apostate in place of any  healthy and logical discussion. Probably that is all that he can do even if he is posing here as an aalim. Does that not make him a charlatan?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/27/2019 2:33:19 PM



  • Rational was honest and but GM sb you are not. That is the only difference. GM sb is a hypocrite pretending to be a friend of Islam and the Muslims.

    This apostate is advocating apostasy on this website and openly denying a major part of the Quran as the word of Allah.

    He has become to me what Abu Lahab was to the Prophet (pbuh). He stalks me only to say the opposite of whatever I say. Wasn't the Prophet (PBUH) also accused of being a charlatan and worse? So, what is new? He will meet the same fate as Abu Lahab.

    A knowledgeable person does not have to  call another a charlatan without exposing the errors. GM sb indulges in pure abuse without the evidence to back it. He is a third rate cheap slanderer. He is simply incompetent to comment on anything I write.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/27/2019 12:36:19 AM



  • It seems Naseer sb. cannot write a single comment without calling me an apostate! He has no rational arguments to offer, so he relies more and more on quotations from my old dialogue with Rational, a self-confessed apostate. I do defend Islam against both apostates like Rational and charlatans like Naseer sb.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/26/2019 12:18:59 PM



  • GM sb, thanks but no thanks for your comments. You are an apostate who repudiates many of the verses of the Quran and the part that covers war and victory. Your comments will be of interest only to apostates like yourself. Therefore I will give you the same advice that you gave to Rational.
    "You are an apostate. Act like one. You have every right to be an apostate. Join the company of other apostates and have a good time. Your forays in this forum have had the sole purpose of being disruptive, derisive and rude. That's why you were called "a wolf in the garb of a sheep, a snake in the sleeve, or more".
    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/25/2019 10:09:20 PM



  • Naseer sb.'s attempt to justify the "four phases" of the Prophetic Mission are just nonsense from the top of his head. Such unsupportable and self-serving arguments are not needed in any intelligent exegesis.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/25/2019 1:40:26 PM



  • The Deen of Allah in the Quran has several unique features. The earliest scriptures based religions did not have to contend with "false religions" since these were the earliest religions and the first to receive guidance. So, while comparing the Quran with the Scriptures of the earliest religions, it may appear strange that the Quran speaks as much of the rejecters and those who worship false deities (kafirin) but should not be surprising when we realize why this is so. 

    Although Abraham, Moses, David, Saul Solomon, Joshua and several other Prophet/rulers fought many wars, these were not always defensive wars but quite often aggressive ones to teach the ungodly nations a lesson or as a punishment from Allah. Sometimes, the lesson taught were to the "believers" for having slipped on the path. The Quran simply does away with such wars. Teaching a lesson to the ungodly nations is no longer a justifiable reason for war after the Truth has been made clear from error. In my earlier articles and comments, I have said that "Let there be no compulsion in religion" is an eternal law of Allah from creation but I have realized that this is not true. This rule/law applies only from the time this verse was revealed and this revelation is only in the Quran and not in any earlier scriptures. The earlier ruler prophets ensured compliance through force/compulsion as well as through peaceful preaching. 

    Jesus Christ was a reformer prophet and if the majority of the Jews had not rejected him, there may not have been a new sect/religion called Christianity. If all the Jews had accepted him, he would have remained just another reformer prophet. The character of the Bible is similar in some respects to the Makki Quran and also different. The Makki Quran clearly predicts the success of  Islam and warns the rejecters of a dire punishment both in this world and in the Hereafter. Islam was therefore bound to prevail peacefully or otherwise in Mecca.

    The guidance on war is fully revised and retains only fighting against any kind of oppression as a justifiable reason. It is no longer justifiable to fight to compel anyone to follow the religion. Without the wars for the limited justification of fighting religious persecution, the Quran would have been without guidance on this subject, and the people would have continued to rely on the earlier scriptures. The earlier scriptures command killing of all men after gaining victory and enslaving the women and children. The Quran commanded giving all those who had fought amnesty for four months to migrate to a different region and save their lives and retain their faith or accept Islam. To those who had not fought or violated their treaties, it gave them the right to retain their faith and become jiziya paying citizens.  Nobody was enslaved or killed. There is therefore a considerable part of the Quran that is new and abrogates the previous scriptures.
    The four phases were therefore necessary to "perfect and complete the religion" for all time to come.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/25/2019 2:06:16 AM



  • All contentiousness either for or against concepts such as pre-determination or  createdness are idle chatter. Such presumptuous arguments only satisfy the egos of professional polemicists.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/23/2019 5:01:24 PM



  • Naseer sb. lists four phases of the Prophetic Mission. Only the first phase seems to be the true and convincing mission of prophethood. It encompasses   propagation of the message of peaceful co-existence,  rectitude, justice, compassion and piety.

    Legislative activity, war policies and treatment of the vanquished are the responsibility of civil or secular societies and should be outside the purview of prophetic missions. Our Prophet had three distinct roles: (1) Prophetic Mission (2) Political leader (3) Social reformer.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/23/2019 12:06:09 PM