certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islamic Ideology

351 - COMMENTS

  • It blows my mind that anyone wants to hurt Islam by bringing up Mutah. No,

     <a href="http://twelvershia.net/2015/02/12/prohibition-mutah

    -marriages/"> mutah</a>

     is not permissible!

    By MJLondon - 4/1/2015 5:21:58 AM



  • Good Evening Hats Off,

     

    Your comrade’s verdict after going through some of my writing is that none other than Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia is a “Toddler.” Now you know why we the “Moderate Muslims” are concerned about Mr. Rational’s irrational comments in this particular thread.

     

    In any case, it will surely be interesting to read your comments. As a brilliant and educated person, I am more than confident that you are not going to “Devalue” a person’s worth.

     

    One more thing, at the time of a tragic “Boston Marathon Bombing,” I wrote a letter titled “Living Wisdom. The response received from my Christian and Jewish friends were as follows:

     

    From: A Christian Friend
    Sent:
    Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:16 AM
    To: Rafiq Lodhia
    Subject: Re: “LIVING WISDOM”

     

    Rafiq, I appreciate so much you writing with such strength and pain.  While I am sad that

    this is true, it is probably necessary that solid, heartfelt Muslims like you who understand a broader outlook on what Peace means must speak out.  It would be understandable to me if you wanted to grieve alone over what these young men (and others) have done or do in the future.  Yet the strength and quality of your words make it clear their actions do not speak for your faith or life.  

     

    Now for me, I already knew that.  One of the best ways to tear down walls of suspicion and contempt is to know others.  Knowing you has shown me repeatedly the heart of a good man with great dreams, dreams of godly honor, character, and a desire to see the truth and purity of God win out.  So when I see sorrow-filled situations like Boston or the news of Canada, I make no blanket assumptions that people such as those stand for Islam.  The reason?  I know Rafiq, the man of character and heart, who longs for God's truth, goodness, and purity to reign. 

     

    Keep that spirit growing within yourself.  And within your wonderful children.  And keep seeking His will for your life.  The best to you.  

     

    From: A Jewish Friend

    Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 9:26 AM
    To: Rafiq Lodhia

    Subject: RE: "LIVING WISDOM"

     

    Dear Rafiq,

     

    I am always humbled when I read your emails and it is reassuring to know that the voice of reason and compassion can be just as loud and influential as the voice of terror.  We just need more people like you to use their voice!

    All the best,

     

    Again, thank you for reading (if you in fact are doing it?), and as such, I want you, Mr. Secular Logic, and your other friends to engage in striving to make any debates on New Age Islam forum an enlightening one so that we all can learn from one another. There is absolutely no point in tearing apart another person’s religion using all the foul languages. It is uncalled for and it should always be avoided. Am I right or wrong, Mr. Hats Off?

     

    Very sincerely yours, - rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org

      

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/31/2013 8:24:22 AM



  • Good Evening Mr. Rational,

     

    Grown Up.” These two words are very much soothing to hear from a person who has thus far been making irrational and rude comments.

     

    It is obvious that anything “Good” that is written does not penetrate your mind which was created by (who)? You rejected faith and your sole aim is to do all you can to write against Islam and our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him).

     

    Well, if this be the case, then did anyone taught you to be “Respectful” of other religions? Now that is not a sign of a “Grown-Up” man, or is it? Let’s be specific Mr. Rational and answer to the point, please.   

     

    Have a good night. – rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org

     

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/31/2013 7:10:13 AM



  • Mr Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/30/2013 9:25:01 PM
    In this comment of yours there is nothing important which can be taken seriously.
    just waiting for your promised comment.
    for me to do good i need no Allah/Bhagwan/God. so i am grown up and you are still a toddler. By rational mohammed yunus - 10/31/2013 12:01:58 AM



  • Good Morning Mr. Rational,

     

    Copies to: Hats Off, Mr. Secular Logic, Mr. Harsh & Vivek

     

    I sure do not know your real identity, nevertheless, I shall await yours and Mr. Hats Off’s reaction before I prepare my rebuttal.

     

    Lately, I have been busy with my work. I will continue to read comments on this particular thread that are posted by you and your comrades. I must honestly admit that some of the remarks are mind boggling. It does gives us Muslims more insight about what people think about our religion of Islam. It is very much apparent that attacking “Islam” has become a fashionable thing to do in order to impress upon others.   

     

    We, the “Moderate Muslims” do have enough common sense in case you are not aware. We do know how to differentiate between the good versus the bad. The main problem is that neither you nor Hats Off has a slightest clue as to what is written by “My Fellow Muslims. I say, wise up, Mr. Rational. It is not too late. What is more baffling is that, if you have given up on Islam, then why are you on a hate campaign?

     

    May I ask you, “Are your parents and relatives still Muslims?” What is your problem with Islam other than you simply have not been able to understand the message of our Holy Quran? If you do not like it, then why bother? Why not mind your own business and/or the new religion which you must have embraced by now?     

     

    Respectfully yours,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

     

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/30/2013 9:25:01 PM



  • Good Morning Hats Off & Mr. Rational,

     

    Copies to: Mr. Secular, Mr. Harsh & Vivek

     

    Meri Desh Premiyo,

     

    Hope this brief note will find you and your colleagues in good spirits.

     

    Well, before I prepare my rebuttal, I want you and your friends to catch the glimpse of my

    writings. Though I am not a scholar, however, I am a self-made man who has managed to learn the lessons of life from listening, reading and acting upon “Wisdom Of The Elders.”

     

    For now, after being on New Age Islam for a little over a week, and going through the absolute nightmare of rude remarks  ……………….      

     

    A DEEP DISTRESS HATH HUMANIZED MY SOUL.”

     

    http://myfellowmuslims.org/

     

    Check out “Rafiq’s Letters” which is on top. All those letters have been accumulated for the past ten years. On reading these letters, you might well be able to know the real mindset of

    “Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia.”

     

    Have a blessed Diwali festival. “The Lodhia Family” wishes you, your dear friends and your beloved family members, a very happy, healthy and prosperous New Year.

     

    May Bhagwaan bless all the humble and honorable citizens of India.

     

    Kind personal regards,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

     

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/30/2013 9:02:41 PM



  • Dear Rational,visit this:
    http://www.answering-christianity.com/sam_shamoun_rebuttals.htm
    First you refute point by point then I will refute that loser Shamoun. 
    By Truth - 10/30/2013 4:15:09 AM



  • thanks mr rational mohammad yunus,
    i am really glad you decided not to get provoked. that really is a very important thing form me. i am sure you this routine. if you sense a feeling of rising anger, take slow deep breaths. exhale slowly, counting as you do. it works for me. i hope it does for you too.
    By hats off! - 10/30/2013 3:14:45 AM



  • Truth. have pure desimasala. you may enjoy it.
    Responses to Osama Abdallah's site
    ‘Answering Christianity’
    http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/30/2013 3:10:29 AM



  • Dear hats off. I have read silly answers of this Osama Abdallah on many sites.
    mr truth has given mail exchanges between two Muslims to prove his point. let him screech in full voulme.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/30/2013 3:06:43 AM



  • deat hats off.
    Lets see how Mr Truth refute the link, i have provide here. I removed many my own words attached to this link in order to not get provoked keeping your advice in mind.
    we are waiting for the response of Mr Lodhia which will kill us for forever.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/30/2013 3:00:33 AM



  • dear mr rational mohammad yunus,
    some one is trying to provoke you. if you get provoked, he has won and you have lost.

    please keep cool and chillax!
    By hats off! - 10/30/2013 2:39:21 AM



  • @Truth
    Visit it. calling somebody filthy speaks about your own filth. you arespeaking the language of a jehadi talibani.
    your disgust against the Sam Shamoun is nothing but comes from your Islamic upbringing.

    http://www.sufismus-online.de/WhoIsTheMushrik By rational mohammed yunus - 10/30/2013 2:33:30 AM



  • Truth in fact Untruth

    If you are left with some truth refute the link i provided line by line as Mr mohammed yunus demand from me.
    for you i have another desimasala(indian spice). please wait.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/30/2013 2:22:48 AM



  • Rational has taken the name of the filthiest missionary on this planet. I have personally heard him use **** words so many times and you believe this person... Read this, I am copy-pasting from a site. 

    Sam Shamoun's Cowardice and Foul Mouth:

    Recently, we have smashed Sam Shamoun's filthy character by awarding him the toilet trophy for his outstanding excessive foul mouth and callings for gay-rape and many other documented toilet things that exist both in his head and in his section on this site.  Seemingly not being able to take the public humiliation any longer, the christian snake have finally unmasked his real ugly face and true colors by not only giving us more foul insults, and more low-life manners and obnoxious attitude, but quite surprisingly he even backed away from his very own debate challenge on "Is Muhammad a true Prophet?" from brother Sami Zaatari.

    You see, recently, brother Sami have schooled this missionary infidel very well on trinity and exposed it for him as no more than an invented lie by man that originated from the Romans' and Hindus' pagan religions, and that it really has no basis whatsoever even in his bible, the book that is filled with countless contradictions and corruption as most ironically, even its own theologians admit so.  Fearing that he might get exposed and schooled again, especially after our recent devastating rebuttals to all of his points on the subject of Prophet Muhammad, all Peace, Mercy and Blessings be upon him, the pornified snake decided to call it quits and never dare to debate this topic ever again, but not before giving us more insults and obnoxious street-thugs and low-life attitude that is filled with hate against GOD Almighty's Divine Truth, Islam, and all of GOD Almighty's True Believers from among the Muslims.  The following are the email correspondences with comments and elaborations from me:

    (a)-  Sam Shamoun runs from debating his favorite topic:

    Brother Sami's email:

    From: "sami z" <sami-zaatari@hotmail.com>

    To: quransearch_com@yahoo.com, b_zawadi@hotmail.com, Islam_defender@hotmail.com, just_flow11@hotmail.com, islamttd786@yahoo.com, sam_shmn40@hotmail.com, jk@answering-islam.org

    Subject: Debate: Is Muhammad a True Prophet?

    Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:23:13 +0000

    salam and peace to all! well almost a year ago me and shamoun agreed to 2 debates, Is Jesus God? and, is Muhammad a true Prophet. we have done debate one, and now i think it is a good time to do debate 2 which is is Muhammad a true prophet.

    the debate format will be the same as last time, 2 min opening, 4 min back and forth for 2 hours. i am ready to do this next satuday 8 pm new york time, 1 am london time, 4 am makkah time, and 5 am uae time. :)

    i have one stipulation only that the room we debate in is my room this time, i will not be admin, umar and bassam and osama will be, we debated the christian topic in your room, hence we shall debate the Islamic topic in our room, we shall not dot at all unless the F word is used, B word, and all other swear words. critisism is accepted as thats the point of the debate so we accept that, we dont accept swearing, and this is for me as well. i wont debate unless its not in our room. fair is fair.

    the debate will take place on paltalk offcourse in social issues.

    Sam Shamoun's response:

    From: "sam shamoun" <sam_shmn40@hotmail.com>

    To: sami-zaatari@hotmail.com, quransearch_com@yahoo.com, b_zawadi@hotmail.com, Islam_defender@hotmail.com, just_flow11@hotmail.com, islamttd786@yahoo.com, jk@answering-islam.org

    Subject: RE: Debate: Is Muhammad a True Prophet?

    Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:58:22 +0000

    Sami,

    You agreed to debate on Muhammad's teaching on Muta, so we are going to stick with that. Let me know when you are ready so I can get the material up

    for the debate. And you don't decide all the rules beforehand, we need to talk about the time format and the room etc. I hope this is not a sign of you trying to pull out and save face. We will see with your compliance or lack thereof.

    My comments:

    Notice right off the bat, this missionary is not only running from the debate, as he is further exposed on below, but he also threw in a ridiculous comment "I hope this is not a sign of you trying to pull out and save face" which was not only off, but also deliberately deceptive.

    And as to the topic of Muta, we have thoroughly exposed him on this subject at: Does Islam allow Muta?

    Brother Sami's response:

    From: "sami z" <sami-zaatari@hotmail.com> 

    To: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com, quransearch_com@yahoo.com, b_zawadi@hotmail.com, Islam_defender@hotmail.com, just_flow11@hotmail.com, islamttd786@yahoo.com, jk@answering-islam.org

    Subject: RE: Debate: Is Muhammad a True Prophet?

    Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:38:31 +0000

    wrong, i told you we will debate whether the prophet Muhammad is a true prophet, if you want to bring muta up go ahead, but i am not going to make a 2 hour debate on muta since i never agreed to debate muta alone specifically, again i said i would debate is the prophet Muhammad a true prophet, so if you wanna bring muta up as one of the arguments to disprove his prophethood then thats fine. and that is the debate we agreed to debate last year, so i want to get this 2nd debate done.

    and again, i will not debate if it is not in our room, last time i debated in your room, this time you in ours, this is a very easy stipulation for you to meet since the debate is going to be recorded so we cant dot you since if we did we just look bad.

    what format do you want? 20 min openings and so on? well ppl on paltalk will not follow along, and neither will most ppl at home, 4 mins each back and

    forth is the best option since it helps ppl understand whats going on since its all step by step.

    Sam Shamoun's response:

    From: "sam shamoun" <sam_shmn40@hotmail.com> 

    To: sami-zaatari@hotmail.com, quransearch_com@yahoo.com, b_zawadi@hotmail.com, Islam_defender@hotmail.com, just_flow11@hotmail.com, islamttd786@yahoo.com, jk@answering-islam.org

    Subject: RE: Debate: Is Muhammad a True Prophet?

    Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:45:00 +0000

    You are starting to lie, and I expected you would back down. You contacted me in pm and told me you wanted to debate with me and I said I want to debate Muhammad's teaching on Muta. You agreed and said to give you two weeks and I gave you over a month. Just recently I even told you to bring Bassam to help you debate on the issue of Muta and you told me to bring Jochen and Silas.

    I knew by your delay you were trying to back out, and I don't blame you for doing that in light of our last debate.

    Anyway, the topic will be whether Muhammad's Muta is a form of prostitution since I want the world to see the kind of teachings you guys are trying to

    defend and the kind of man you want people to believe in.

    So I expect that your next email will be an acceptance of our original agreement so we can move on from there and arrange the date and time format since I have an article being prepared for this topic. Don't be another Nadir and make excuses to run away.

    So Sami, please stop wasting my time and let's get this debate on. If not, then please don't waste my time with any more emails. I won't respond to anymore emails from you unless it is an agreement to debate Muta.

    Sam

    My comments:

    Notice the rude manners and lies: "You are starting to lie, and I expected you would back down."  And again, as to the topic of Muta, we have thoroughly exposed him on this subject at: Does Islam allow Muta?

    Also, notice that brother Sami never objected to debating the topic of Muta.  And the reason why he is insisting on having the debate in our room is because the last time brother Sami and the foul-mouthed missionarydebated on trinity, the latter kept throwing foul insults which were all recorded in the debate and you can listen to them along with the entire debate at brother Sami's section.  So obviously, brother Sami wants to eliminate this loser's chances to foul-insult Islam and the Muslims again.

    Brother Sami's response:

    From: "sami z" <sami-zaatari@hotmail.com>

    To: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com, quransearch_com@yahoo.com, b_zawadi@hotmail.com, Islam_defender@hotmail.com, just_flow11@hotmail.com, islamttd786@yahoo.com, jk@answering-islam.org

    Subject: RE: Debate: Is Muhammad a True Prophet?

    Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:51:16 +0000

    i should have saved the conversation, i pmed you saying im ready to debate next month which is now ABOUT THE PROPHETHOOD OF MUHAMMAD, and you agreed we will debate the topic and that you would bring muta up, but since this is a 2 hour debate this can be one of your arguments, but i want to smash

    every other argument you have one by one. stop chickening out, notice what a chicken you are, i am saying lets debate is Muhammad a prophet, and

    that you can your muta argument up AND MANY OTHER ARGUMENTS! i never agreed to debate muta alone hence i am not going to debate this to alone, but i will debate the broad topic of is Muhammad a true prophet, so either you stop wasting my time or accept the debate challenge we BOTH AGREED TO LAST YEAR and LAST MONTH when i said it in plane bold english words that i want to debate the prophethood of Muhammad, you can bring muta up to disprove it and many other arguments, dont back down plz because debating and smashing you on muta alone is not satisfying for me, i want to smash you on prophecies,

    aisha, zayd, and every other argument you have so plzzzzzz accept the topic which you made! how ironic you made this topic last year!!!!!!!! so accept the

    challenge IS MUHAMMAD A TRUE PROPHET, bring up muta, aisha, zayd, right hand captives, war, false propchecies or any other new argument you have.

    My comments:

    pmed means personal messeged you.

    Sam Shamoun's response:

    No response.

    Brother Sami's follow-up email:

    From: "sami z" <sami-zaatari@hotmail.com>

    To: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com, quransearch_com@yahoo.com, b_zawadi@hotmail.com, Islam_defender@hotmail.com, just_flow11@hotmail.com, islamttd786@yahoo.com, jk@answering-islam.org

    Subject: RE: Debate: Is Muhammad a True Prophet?

    Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:05:04 +0000

    well is the debate gonna happen? is Muhammad a true prophet, saturday, paltalk, lets do it, i will make a debate challenge publicly to you as well

    on osamas and my site, i dont want to let you escape from this fav topic of yours WHICH YOU MADE LAST YEAR i crushed you on divinity of jesus, and

    now i will do so in this topic, dont back down and be scared. next saturday, 10 pm new york time, just say yes and lets go.

    Sam Shamoun's response:

    No response.

    Brother Sami's follow-up email:

    From: "sami z" <sami-zaatari@hotmail.com>

    To: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com, quransearch_com@yahoo.com, b_zawadi@hotmail.com, Islam_defender@hotmail.com, just_flow11@hotmail.com, islamttd786@yahoo.com, jk@answering-islam.org

    Subject: RE: Debate: Is Muhammad a True Prophet?

    Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:24:19 +0000

    wowwwwwwwww i forgot SHAMOUN YOUR ON TAPE (during the trinity debate) SAYING LETS DEBATE IS MUHAMMAD A PROPHET, lol in our first debate! your on tape saying lets do it, but offcourse we couldnt debate then since your swearing your head off, but now we can since things have kooled down, so therefore you ARE ON TAPE about this topic we agreed on, therefore you must debate this topic since you made it and are on tape affirming it. :) you have no chance but to debate

    this now, if you dont, your a coward and backing down. thank you. its all up to you now, dont bother replyng back if you dont say yes.

    My comments:

    During their trinity debate, the foul-mouthed missionary - as I said above - kept throwing foul-insults at brother Sami, me personally and Islam which left us with no choice but to leave.  But during the debate, he did make ample remarks about wanting to debate "Is Muhammad a true Prophet?" next.

    Sam Shamoun's response:

    No response.

    Bassam Zawadi's email:

    From: "BASSAM ZAWADI" <b_zawadi@hotmail.com

    To: sami-zaatari@hotmail.com, sam_shmn40@hotmail.com,

    quransearch_com@yahoo.com, Islam_defender@hotmail.com,

    just_flow11@hotmail.com, islamttd786@yahoo.com, jk@answering-islam.org

    Subject: RE: Debate: Is Muhammad a True Prophet?

    Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:41:54 +0000

    Sam I am suprised that you are not agreeing to this debate. Usually you would love to bring out all these arguments that you have against Muhammad peace be upon him. I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish with this Mut'a thing? If you want to speak about immorality in Islam, then lets be fair and also give us the right to speak about the immorality in the Bible. At the end of the day, the topic will be useless. Because its only subjective arguments and emotions being thrown in. Muslims believe that Mut'a was a practice allowed and THEN PROHIBITED. Muslims used to drink and get drunk and the Prophet didn't condemn them. Why? Becuz it was NOT PROHIBITED YET. Same thing with all the laws. So I mean you can even come up and argue if you want to, that the Prophet allowed alcohol,

    fornication etc. and not only Mut'a. However, you won't convince any Muslim of what you are saying because we all know that the laws came gradually and that

    certain things ended over time. So go debate your topic with a Shia. Sami is not a Shia, so obviously he sees this as a waste of time. Its like me trying to

    debate you to defend the authority of the Apocrypha.

    Making a whole debate on Mut'a is useless and a waste of time. If Shamoun wishes to bring it up in the Prophethood of Muhammad debate then fine. Its

    not like we are saying that Shamoun cannot bring it up and that we are trying to avoid it. No, Shamoun can bring it up, but that is not the sole topic.

    Look Sami, let Shamoun make a choice. if he wants to then great, if not then let him be. We can't force him. But just make sure that you save Shamoun's refusal just in case he accuses Muslims of being scared to debate him on this topic.

    Peace to All

    Sam Shamoun's response:

    No response.

    Brother Sami's follow-up email:

    From: "sami z" <sami-zaatari@hotmail.com>

    To: b_zawadi@hotmail.com, sam_shmn40@hotmail.com, quransearch_com@yahoo.com, Islam_defender@hotmail.com, just_flow11@hotmail.com, islamttd786@yahoo.com, jk@answering-islam.org

    Subject: RE: Debate: Is Muhammad a True Prophet?

    Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:52:40 +0000

    well lets hope he accepts the debate topic WHICH HE MADE how ironic, see guys thats the irony of all this, this is SHAMOUNS TOPIC! and hes on tape

    too saying he wants it, and now all of a sudden he doesnt, no sam im sorry you dont keep making new debate topics as you want, be a man and debate

    the first topic you set up so i can beat you on that too just like i did on my topic on jesus' divinity. so therefore sam must be a man and keep his word

    and debate me on this topic as he said he would and the very topic he set up.

    lets do it, next satuday, 10 pm new york time, format 2 min opening and 4 min back and forth for 2 hours, and this format WAS AGREED BY BOTH OF

    US LAST YEAR FOR BOTH DEBATES it seems you want to keep changing everything now, why? let us stick to the original which even you yourself agreed

    to and let us debate.

    i am all ready guys, shamoun lets see if your talk can stand up you always say muslims fear to debate you on Islam or are running, i am chasing you

    downnnnnnnnnnnn to debate this broad Islamic topic which you brought up, so lets do it so i can make it 2-0 for Islam. :)

    Sam Shamoun's response:

    No response.

    My email:

    From: Osama Abdallah <quransearch_com@yahoo.com

    To: sami z <sami-zaatari@hotmail.com, b_zawadi@hotmail.com,

    sam_shmn40@hotmail.com, Islam_defender@hotmail.com,

    just_flow11@hotmail.com, islamttd786@yahoo.com,

    jk@answering-islam.org

    Subject: RE: Debate: Is Muhammad a True Prophet?

    Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:37:14 -0700 (PDT)

    As'salamu Alaikum to all Muslims in this room,

    Dear brother Sami, great job on smashing this missionary-snake and exposing him to be a real demon and satan follower as the rest of his flock, especially his other coward Jochen Jatz wh wouldn't remove the articles that he himself believe are absurd as he admittedly said so:

    http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/jochen_admitting_to_be_liar.htm

    And yes, stick to debating in a room outside of his, since we have documented COUNTLESS foul insults from him which exposed him to be no more than a street thug. So we don't need to go to his room, as we did last time, to hear more insults.

    It is obvious that this snake is pissing in his pants from you since you schooled him very bad on trinity in your last debate. And it is obvious that his gospel of porn, the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine" is too embarrassing for him that he wouldn't allow anyone to even bring up the porn in his bible. The reader can visit: www.answering-christianity.com/x_rated.htm.

    Here is why this missionary-snake wouldn't come to your room:

    1-  He won't be able to mute your mic if you bring up the countless contradictions and corruption in his bible.

    2-  He won't be able to mute your mic if you bring up the x-rated pornography in his bible.

    3-  He won't be able to foul-insult anyone.

    4-  He knows that his arguments on their own don't hold water.

    Therefore case closed, and rest assure dear brother Sami that your conversation with this snake along with this reply of mine will be posted on a new article further exposing this coward and his fake scholarship.

    Best regards,

    Osama Abdallah

    Sam Shamoun's response:

    No response.

    Brother Sami's response:

    From: "sami z" <sami-zaatari@hotmail.com> 

    To: quransearch_com@yahoo.com, b_zawadi@hotmail.com, sam_shmn40@hotmail.com, Islam_defender@hotmail.com, just_flow11@hotmail.com, islamttd786@yahoo.com, jk@answering-islam.org

    Subject: RE: Debate: Is Muhammad a True Prophet?

    Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:39:45 +0000

    bro make sure you make note that he agreed to debate this topic in our first debate! so he must debate since he made the topic and said he would debate

    it. :) we shall wait maybe he will suprise us and accept to debate his own topic.

    Brother Sami's follow-up email:

    From: "sami z" <sami-zaatari@hotmail.com>

    To: quransearch_com@yahoo.com, b_zawadi@hotmail.com, sam_shmn40@hotmail.com, Islam_defender@hotmail.com, just_flow11@hotmail.com, islamttd786@yahoo.com, jk@answering-islam.org

    Subject: RE: Debate: Is Muhammad a True Prophet?

    Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:07:35 +0000

    well i guess shamoun is a coward, he wont debate his own topic and look how quiet he has gone, thanks for showing your true colors sam, your no different than nadir ahmed, both of you are cowards and deep down you know you are a coward because you are even on tape saying this is your debate topic,

    and i am now saying lets do it this saturday and you say no, oh well a coward is a coward, your just all talk and insulting, but when it comes down to business

    you prove your true colors. brothers your all witnesses to this coward :)

    how nice, lets hope shamoun can still prove us wrong by accepting the debate challenge on the topic which he made.

    Sam Shamoun's response:

    No response

     Brother Abdullah Smith's response:

    From: "Abdullah Kareem" <islam_defender@hotmail.com

    To: sami-zaatari@hotmail.com, quransearch_com@yahoo.com,

    b_zawadi@hotmail.com, sam_shmn40@hotmail.com, just_flow11@hotmail.com,

    islamttd786@yahoo.com

    Subject: RE: Debate: Is Muhammad a True Prophet?

    Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:44:59 -0400

    There is no hope for sun-god worshipper sam

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rock_of_Cashel-cross.jpg

    By Truth - 10/30/2013 12:55:29 AM



  • dear mr lodhia, good morning and hope you have productive day today.

    my thanks for your reply and it is not my intention at all to hurry you. please take your time, and when you are ready you can post your write up.

    thank you, i remain, looking forward to your essay, sincerely yours
    hats off!

    ps: i tried without success to visit your site (or at least what i thought was yours). i got the impression that the site was under construction, because i got a cgi-bin page. as and when it is ready, i would like to visit the site and acquaint myself with its contents.
    hats off!
    By hats off! - 10/30/2013 12:22:05 AM



  • dear mr haan, good morning! i hope you had a refreshing sleep last night an fine day today.

    some points.
    about wasting my precious life:
    i cannot agree with you that i am wasting my life on this forum. neither do i agree that my life is so precious. seeing that it was given to me without my asking by god knows who. and is going to be taken away god knows when and for god knows what reason.

    criticizing others:
    generally criticisms are engendered by assertions (made in public spaces, mind you - not in private conversations) that sound to the listeners as if made in mistake or those that sound presumptuous. if assertions are not perceived by the listeners as mistaken or presumptuous, they are read and forgotten or read and ignored. but when assertions are made that appear to persons to be in need of a rebuttal, they take the pains to either disagree with them or criticize them. many might simply walk away. this is a form of rebuttal too. except that this is not my choice.

    about getting worked up:
    people are humans (i need not remind you). they do get worked up. over religious strife, over inefficient public services, corruption in the body politic and so many other issues. i personally believe that not speaking up when needed makes us fearful of confronting problems. ignoring or not debating points is not the way some persons were taught to deal with them. i am one of them. sorry to disagree.

    changing others:
    i believe that change is an internal process occurring as a result of an external stimulus. among humans, words hold special place as strong cues to response, reaction and perhaps change. i also strongly believe that on one really changes another. one only changes himself. this is about all. meaning i am not out to change others. my main concern is changing myself.

    inner securities and complexes:
    i am sure you are not that much very different in terms of inner insecurities and or complexes. the insecurities and complexes i am bothered about are external. for example mob violence, suicide attacks, religious discrimination leading to strife, religious superciliousness resulting in discrimination and a host of other things. i am sure you will be able to come up with many more.

    while i appreciate your advice, i am afraid i am unable to see much use for it for myself.

    thanking you, i remain sincerely yours
    hats off!
    By hats off! - 10/29/2013 11:59:41 PM



  • To all who tell us that only mushrikeen contemporary of the prophet were unclean or they are who God commanded the prophet to fight against.


    "Are Jews and Christians Mushriks according to the Quran?

    Responding to One Muslim Scholar’s Denials"

    Sam Shamoun
    http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_mushrik.htm#unclean

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/29/2013 11:30:15 PM



  • dear haan - 10/29/2013 10:45:24 PM
    i am not a man who can be called "haan" or "hanji". i derived one term for people who belong to category of "haan" that is amanna Saddaqna. you wiil enjoy if you understand it.
    had been i a man of haanji, i would have not collected so much resentment of the top guns of this forum.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/29/2013 11:18:04 PM



  • dear rafiq lodhia
    when someone is very respectful, it makes me uneasy i would say rather scary whatever faith he belongs to.
    I recall here Chanakiya.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/29/2013 11:11:42 PM



  • hats off, rational, and lodhia babu and other ham-kjyal folks!
    have you ever thought what a waste of your precious life it is to spend hours on this [and, who knows, other] website criticising others or getting worked up by their criticism without the person who you criticise being in any way positively changed by your criticism? if you think about this, you may realise that this is not the way to change others.....and that your constant criticism of others has more to do with your own inner insecurities and complexes
    By haan - 10/29/2013 10:45:24 PM



  • My Dear Hats Off, Namaste Ji

     

    Appreciate your reminder. I’ve been busy. Let’s say relaxing my fingers and having some “Cool-Aid.”  I am not angry, but rather disappointed.

     

    Look at the bright side. I feel that I am being missed by you and our well known warrior “Mr. Rational.” Peace - Mera Desh Premiyo.  

     

    With respect, I remain   

     

    Very truly yours –  rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/29/2013 10:25:25 PM



  • dear mr rational, i have reminded him twice already.

    i think he threatened to leave the forum because he was hurt. so i think he said that in a moment of pique. i would rather not take anything said in anger as final.

    as for his promise of a rebuttal, i will continue to remind him every now and then. but it is entirely up to him to either keep his promise or retract it.

    i am really happy to see you much toned down and much cooler

    chillaks man! cool!

    regards
    By hats off! - 10/29/2013 10:07:57 PM



  • This is what I have commented
    "Wonderful article by Yunus Sb. 
    As regards the question posed by dear Hats off about "willingly and unwillingly", what that verse means, according to my limited knowledge,is that most the creation of God,except humans,jinns have free will; while the rest don't have it. They are already Muslims, meaning they have already submitted themselves to God. Again I would like to reiterate a Muslim is not one who believes in the prophethood of Muhammad, a Muslim is one who has submitted his self to God. 
    So the heavens and earth, animals, plants etc- they all have submitted to God and hence they are Muslims. "Willingly or unwillingly" signify the absence of their will- they don't have free will. I hope this answers. 
    (I have not read all the comments of this article so if anyone has already commented on the same lines then I am sorry.)"
    By Aiman Reyaz - 10/29/2013 9:36:43 PM



  • Yes Yunus Sb you are right. I am reading that article as well as some of the comments and I will be giving my comment . Thank you By Aiman Reyaz - 10/29/2013 9:35:45 PM



  • Dear Aiman Reyaz
    The article referenced in my last comment is:

     

    By muhammad yunusm - 10/29/2013 9:14:33 PM



  • Dear Aiman Reyaz,

    Thanks to the corruption in the meaning of the Arabic word 'fath' from 'opening' or 'breakthrough' as used in the Qur'an (see my article ref. below), the assimilation or peaceful integration of Mecca has gone down the history as 'conquest of Mecca." How can there be a 'conquest' in military sense, when there was no engagement between rival armies - that is no battle was fought??

    I have cut/pasted the following (blue ink) from my joint work that puts history in consonance with the Qur'an's historically accurate records:

    1.1.            Mecca Reconciled (630)

    In the year 629, his ninth year in Medina, the Prophet performed the pilgrimage (though not in the hajj season) in accordance with the terms of the Hudaybiyah treaty. Soon after this pilgrimage, the two great Quraysh stalwarts, Khalid Ibn al-Walid, and 'Amr Ibn al-'As, who had fought against him at Badr and Uhud, entered the faith.

    Muhammad now envisioned integrating his own people – the Quraysh, whom he loved (42:23), but could not bring to his faith (28:56). He was treaty bound not to interfere with the Meccans, and waited for an opportunity to realize his vision. This came about when the Quraysh took up arms against one of the Meccan tribes who had treaty alliance with him for defending them when attacked. The Prophet set off for Mecca with all his men, all armed for battle if needed.

    (As the Muslims began to enter the city), the most fanatic among the Quraysh tried to resist when God sent divine peace (sakinah) upon His Messenger and on the believers, and imposed on them the Word of restraint (taqawa), as they were entitled to it and worthy of it (48:26).

    God withheld the hands of the Meccans from the Muslims and the hands of the Muslims from the Meccans (48:24). Had it not been so, the Muslims would have trampled on those believing men and believing women (among the Meccans) they were not aware of (as those Meccans had secretly become Muslims), and thus guilt and stigma would have befallen them unawares. Had the (Meccan) Muslims been separated out, God would surely have punished the disbelievers among them (the Meccans) (48:25).

    In the ensuing days, the Meccans came in groups to the Prophet to embrace the new faith (110:2), and the revelation reminded the Prophet to glorify God and seek forgiveness (and thus to remain humble)(110:3). 

     
    By muhammad yunus - 10/29/2013 9:08:22 PM



  • dear hats off
    if you can remind him please do it. he said something like he is leaving this site. i apologise if i guessed wrong.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/29/2013 10:53:32 AM



  • Dear Hats off!

    You really disappoint me by stating that the Roman Empire was dead by AD 450.

    Kindly read the following cut/pasted from Wiki, bearing in mind that Roman is same as Byzantium

    [ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius]

    "Heraclius (Latin: Flavius Heraclius Augustus, Greek: Φλάβιος Ἡράκλειος, c. 575 – February 11, 641) was Byzantine Emperor from 610 to 641.[A 1]

    He was responsible for introducing Greek as the Eastern Empire's official language. His rise to power began in 608, when he and his father, Heraclius the Elder, the exarch of Africa, successfully led a revolt against the unpopular usurper Phocas.

    Heraclius's reign was marked by several military campaigns. The year Heraclius came to power, the empire was threatened on multiple frontiers. Heraclius immediately took charge of the ongoing war against the Sassanids. The first battles of the campaign ended in defeat for the Byzantines; the Persian army fought their way to the Bosphorus; however, because Constantinople was protected by impenetrable walls and a strong navy, Heraclius was able to avoid total defeat. Soon after, he initiated reforms to rebuild and strengthen the military. Heraclius drove the Persians out of Asia Minor and pushed deep into their territory, defeating them decisively in 627 at the Battle of Nineveh. The Persian king Khosrau II was overthrown and executed soon after and peace was restored to the two deeply strained empires.

    However, soon after his victory he faced a new threat, the Muslim invasions. Emerging from the Arabian Peninsula, the Muslims quickly conquered the Sassanid empire. In 634 the Muslims invaded Roman Syria, defeating Heraclius' brother Theodore. Within a short period of time the Arabs would also conquer Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Egypt.

    Thanks!
    By muhammad yunus - 10/29/2013 7:06:03 AM



  • the so called roman empire which confronted the new muslims was already officially dead by around 450 AD.

    what was remaining at that time was not the roman empire. merely the remnants of it.

    it will be misleading to say that the prophet was battling the roman empire. for it was not there any more. just an eastern empire ruled by germanic tribes and this was not the roman empire.
    By hats off! - 10/29/2013 5:03:54 AM



  • dear mr lodhia, hello! i hope you had a fine day.

    i would like to remind you that you said you were working on a rebuttal that will be very difficult to to counter. just to remind you, you also said that after you post it there will such silence that you can hear a pin fall.

    can i ask if this is going to happen any time soon?

    with regards, i remain in anticipation, sincerely yours
    hats off!
    By hats off! - 10/29/2013 4:18:49 AM



  • The instance of Najran is not mentioned in the Quran, as far as I can remember (I am not a hafiz-e-Quran).
    You ask me is there anything mentioned in the Quran which says that that verse refers to pagans of that time. My dear 'mushriks' mean pagans of Mecca. Let me repeat, this chapter is the most militant chapter of the Quran. Take for example this verse:
    9:24 it says: "Say [O Muhammad], “If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, 
    your relatives, wealth which you have 
    obtained, commerce wherein you fear 
    decline, and dwellings with which you 
    are pleased are more beloved to you 
    than God and His Messenger and jihād 
    [i.e., striving] in His cause, then wait 
    until God executes His command. And 
    God does not guide the defiantly disobedient people."
    So, you can see on the very face of it that this is quite a demanding chapter. God is motivating the believers. I am copy-pasting the historical background of this period and after reading it you may feel a bit satisfied. 
    Historical Background 
    The series of events that have been discussed in this Sūrah took place after the Peace Treaty of Hudaibiyah.
    By that time one-third of Arabia had come under the sway of Islām which had established itself as a power-ful well organized and civilized Islāmic State. There weretwo important events that followed - the first was 
    the Conquest of Arabia. The Prophet was able to send missions among different clans for the propagation of 
    Islām. The result was that during the short period of two years it became such a great power that it made the 
    old order of ignorance feel helpless before it. So much so that the zealous elements from among the Quraysh 
    were so exasperated that they broke the Treaty in order to encounter Islām in a decisive combat. But the 
    Prophet took prompt action after the breach so as not to allow them any opportunity to gather enough force
    for this. He made a sudden invasion on Makkah in the month of Ramadan in 8 A.H. and conquered it. 
    Though this conquest broke the backbone of the order of ignorance it made still another attack on Islām in 
    the battlefield of Hunain which proved to be its death-knell. The clans of Hawazin, Thaqif, Naur Jushm and 
    others gathered their entire forces in the battlefield in  order to crush the reformative Revolution but they 
    utterly failed in their evil designs. The defeat of ‘ignorance’ at Hunain paved the way for making the whole of 
    Arabia the ‘Abode of Islām’ (Dar-ul-Islām). The result was that hardly a year had passed after the Battle of 
    Hunain when the major portion of Arabia came within thefold of Islām and only a few upholders of the old 
    order remained scattered over some corners of the country. 
    The second event that contributed towards making Islām a formidable power was the Campaign of Tabūk 
    which was necessitated by the provocative activities ofthe Christians living within or near the boundaries of 
    the Roman Empire to the north of Arabia. Accordingly the Prophet with an army of thirty thousand marched boldly towards the Roman Empire but the Romansevaded the encounter. The result was that the 
    power of the Prophet and Islām increased manifold and deputations from all corners of Arabia began to wait 
    upon him on his return from Tabūk in order to offer their allegiance to Islām and obedience to him. The 
    Qur’ān has described this triumph in Sūrah an-Nasr (s.110): “When the victory of God has come and the 
    conquest, And you see the people entering into the religion of God in multitudes…” 
    Campaign to Tabūk 
    The Campaign to Tabūk was the result of conflict with the Roman Empire that had started even before the 
    conquest of Makkah. One of the missions sent after the Treaty of Hudaibiyah to different parts of Arabia 
    visited the clans which lived in the northern areas adjacent to Syria. The majority of these people were Chris-tians who were under the influence of the Roman Empire.Contrary to all the principles of the commonly 
    accepted international law they killed fifteen members of the delegation near a place known as Zat-u-Talah. 
    Only Ka’ab bin Umair Ghifari, the head of the delegation, succeeded in escaping and reporting the sad inci-dent. Besides this Shurahbil bin Amr, the Christian governor of Busra who was directly under the Roman 
    Caesar had also put to death Haritli bin Umair the ambassador of the Prophet who had been sent to him on 
    a similar mission. 
    These events convinced the Prophet that a strong action should be taken in order to make the territory adja-cent to the Roman Empire safe and secure for the Muslims. Accordingly in the month of Jamadi-ul-Ula 8 
    A.H. he sent an army of three thousand towards the Syrian border. When this army reached near Ma’an the
    Muslims learnt that Shurahbil was marching with an army ofone hundred thousand to fight-with them and 
    that the Caesar who himself was at Hims had sent another army consisting of one hundred thousand soldiers 
    under his brother Theodore. But in spite of such fearful news the brave small band of the Muslims marched 
    on fearlessly and encountered the big army of Shurahbil at M’utah. And the result of the encounter in which 
    the Muslirns were fighting against fearful odds (the ratio of the two armies was 1:33) as very favorable for the 
    enemy utterly failed to defeat them. This proved very helpful for the propagation of Islām. As a result those
    Arabs who were living in a state of semi-independence in Syria and near Syria and the clans of Najd near Iraq 
    who were under the influence of the Persian Empire turned towards Islām and embraced it in thousands. 
    For example the people of Bani Sulaim (whose chief was Abbas bin Mirdas Sulaimi) Ashja’a Ghatafan Zu-byan Fazarah etc. came into the fold of Islām at the same time. Above all Farvah bin ‘Amral Juzami who was 
    the commander of the Arab armies of the Roman Empire  embraced Islām during that time and underwent 
    the trial of his Faith in a way that filled the whole territory with wonder. When the Caesar came to know that 
    Farvah had embraced Islām he ordered that he should be arrested and brought to his court. Then the Caesar
    said to him, ‘You will have to choose one of the two things. Either give up your Islām and win your liberty 
    and your former rank or remain a Muslim and face death.’ He calmly chose Islām and sacrificed his life in the 
    way of the Truth. 
    No wonder that such events as these made the Caesarrealize the nature of the danger that was threatening
    his Empire from Arabia. Accordingly in 9 A.H. he began tomake military preparations to avenge the insult 
    he had suffered at M’utah. The Ghassanid and other Arab chiefs also began to muster armies under him. 
    When the Prophet who always kept himself well-informed even of the minutest things that could affect the 
    Islāmic Movement favorably or adversely came to know ofthese preparations he at once understood their 
    meaning. Therefore without the least hesitation he decided to fight against the great power of the Caesar. He 
    knew that the show of the slightest weakness would result in the utter failure of the Movement which was 
    facing three great dangers at that time. First the dying power of ‘ignorance’ that had almost been crushed in
    the battlefield of Hunain might revive again. Secondly the Hypocrites of Madinah who were always on the 
    look-out for such an opportunity might make full use ofthis to do the greatest possible harm to it. For they
    had already made preparations for this and had througha monk called Abu Amir, sent secret messages of 
    their evil designs to the Christian king of Ghassan and the Caesar himself. Besides this, they had also built a 
    mosque near Madinah for holding secret meetings for thispurpose. The third danger was of an attack by the 
    Caesar himself, who had already defeated Persia, the other great power of that period, and filled with awe the adjacent territories. It is obvious that if all these three elements had been given an opportunity of taking a 
    concerted action against the Muslims, Islām would have lost the fight it had almost won. That is why in this 
    case the Prophet made an open declaration for making  preparations for the Campaign against the Roman 
    Empire, which was one of the two greatest empires of the world of that period. The declaration was made 
    though all the apparent circumstances were against sucha decision: for there was famine in the country and 
    the long awaited crops were about to ripen: the burning heat of the scorching summer season of Arabia was
    at its height and there was not enough money for preparations in general, and for equipment and conveyance 
    in particular. But in spite of these handicaps, when the  Messenger of God realized the urgency of the occa-sion, he took this step which was to decide whether the Mission of the Truth was going to survive or perish. 
    The very fact that he made an open declaration for making preparations for such a campaign to Syria against
    the Roman Empire showed how important it was, for this  was contrary to his previous practice. Usually he 
    took every precaution not to reveal beforehand the direction to which he was going nor the name of the 
    enemy whom he was going to attack; nay, he did not move out of Madinah even in the direction of the cam-paign. 
    All the parties in Arabia fully realized the grave consequences of this critical decision. The remnants of the 
    lovers of the old order of ‘ignorance’ were anxiously waiting for the result of the Campaign, for they had 
    pinned all their hopes on the defeat of Islām by the Romans. The ‘hypocrites’ also considered it to be their 
    last chance of crushing the power of Islām by internal rebellion, if the Muslims suffered a defeat in Syria. 
    They had, therefore, made full use of the Mosque built by them for hatching plots and had employed all their 
    devices to render the Campaign a failure. On the other side, the true Believers also realized fully that the fate 
    of the Movement for which they had been exerting theirutmost for the last 22 years was now hanging in the
    balance. If they showed courage on that critical occasion, the doors of the whole outer world would be 
    thrown open for the Movement to spread. But if they showed weakness or cowardice, then all the work they 
    had done in Arabia would end in smoke. That is why these lovers of Islām began to make enthusiastic prepa-rations for the Campaign. Everyone of them tried to surpass the other in making contributions for the provi-sion of equipment for it. Uthman and Abdur Rahman bin awf presented large sums of money for this pur-pose. Umar contributed half of the earnings of his life and Abu Bakr the entire earnings of his life. The indi-gent Companions did not lag behind and presented whatever they could earn by the sweat of their labor and 
    the women parted with their ornaments. Thousands of volunteers, who were filled with the desire of sacrific-ing their lives for Islām, came to the Prophet and requested that arrangements for weapons and conveyance 
    be made for them so that they should join the expedition. Those who could not be provided with these shed 
    tears of sorrow; the scene was so pathetic that it made the Prophet sad because of his inability to arm them. 
    In short, the occasion became the touchstone for discriminating a true believer from a hypocrite. For, to lag
    behind in the Campaign meant that the very relationship  of a person to Islām was doubtful. Accordingly, 
    whenever a person lagged behind during the journey toTabūk, the Prophet, on being informed, would spon-taneously say,  “Leave him alone. If there be any good in him, God will again join him with you, and if there be no good in 
    him, then thank God that He relieved you of his evil company.” 
    In short, the Prophet marched out towards Syria in Rajab A.H. 9, with thirty thousand fighters for the cause 
    of Islām. The conditions in which the expedition was undertaken may be judged from the fact that the num-ber of camels with them was so small that many of them were obliged to walk on foot and to wait for their 
    turns for several had to ride at a time on each camel. To add to this, there was the burning heat of the desert 
    and the acute shortage of water. But they were richly  rewarded for their firm resolve and sincere adherence 
    to the cause and for their perseverance in the face of those great difficulties and obstacles. 
    When they arrived at Tabūk, they learnt that the Caesar and his allies had withdrawn their troops from the 
    frontier and there was no enemy to fight with. Thus they won a moral victory that increased their prestige 
    manifold and, that too, without shedding a drop of blood. As a result of this, the boundaries of the Islāmic 
    State were extended right up to the Roman Empire, andthe majority of the Arab clans, who were being used 
    by the Caesar against Arabia, became the allies of the Muslims against the Romans. Above all, this moral 
    victory of Tabūk afforded a golden opportunity to theMuslims to strengthen their hold on Arabia before entering into a long conflict with the Romans. For it  broke the back of those who had still been expecting 
    that the old order of ‘ignorance’ might revive in the near future, whether they were the open upholders of 
    shirk or the hypocrites who were hiding their shirk underthe garb of Islām. The majority of such people 
    were compelled by the force of circumstances to enter into the fold of Islām and, at least, make it possible 
    for their descendants to become true Muslims. After this a mere impotent minority of the upholders of the 
    old order was left in the field, but it could not stand in the way of the Islāmic Revolution for the perfection 
    of which God had sent His Messenger. 

    By Aiman Reyaz - 10/29/2013 3:27:26 AM



  • Dear Aiman Reyaz. you correctly have  have mentioned the instance. i was talking about this instance only. it is mentioned in the quran.
    would you please explain how do you reach to conclusion that those verses belong to that time.

    where is in the quran that those specific verses were for specific time and mentioned mushrikeen were only those meccans, not of our time.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/29/2013 2:59:41 AM



  • My dear Rational, I don't know which instance you are talking about when Christians were allowed to stay and pray in the mosque. But in one of my articles, I have said that the Prophet not only allowed a Christian deputation in the Sacred Mosque, but he also allowed them to pray in the mosque. For threee days and three nights they debated with the Prophet and when one person asked him about God then God reveals (or so I believe) to the Prophet Ch 112. 
    I have already said that 'mushriks' actually mean pagans of Mecca of that time and they DO NOT refer to non-Muslims of the present time. We need to contextualise things and see things from a scholarly and historical point of view. 
    I don't remember the verse but the Quran says that God has blessed the whole of humanity and those people who invite people who enjoin good and forbid evil, they will attain felicity. It does not say that only Muslims will attain felicity. 
    That verse of 9:28 refers only to the mushriks of Mecca. You need to keep this in mind that Ch 9 is the most militant chapter of the Quran and it is the only chapter which does not begin with 'In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful'. Please keep these things in mind. 
    By Aiman Reyaz - 10/29/2013 2:37:10 AM



  • Dear Afaq Siddiqi and Rafiq Lodhia Saheban,

     

    I am not using any application whereby I can stop posting of comments on any thread. Usually debates run their course and die down. The benefit of not closing comments is that I sometimes get feedback from new readers who go to articles posted years ago and comment. Usually books posted on the site keep  attracting comments from new readers.

    Also "khoobsoorat more dena" is probably not possible at this stage. It has been a fairly bitter divorce. At least Mohammad Yunus Rational Saheb appears to have surrendered completely to pent-up anger and hatred, a legacy I suspect of humiliation faced earlier from upper caste Muslims.

     Even on this site he was called "teli" and illiterate because of his "low" caste.  I allowed those comments and explained why I was allowing that. Basically my point was that our so-called ashraf misbehave with people they consider ajlaf or arzal but never talk about it and do not come out with their prejudices publicly and as this comment demonstrates a covered up reality, so I am allowing it to be known, with my apologies to rational mohammad younus.  

    Since that incident in particular I have been particularly tolerant of  rational sahib. Not out of pity for him - pity is not what he deserves, he deserves all the respect one should have for all fellow humans - but more out of guilt for belonging to a caste whose members insult other humans on account of something as dubious as caste identity.

    However, it seems difficult for rational saheb to confine himself to scholarly criticism.  One would have thought that a few vomits full of bile would cleanse on's system. But apparently hatred of Muslims and Islam which he considers responsible for Muslim behaviour, has gone too deep into his psyche. He doesn't even notice that there are Muslims and Muslims and even more Muslims who all behave differently. I am sure some Muslims have been nice to him too; I am sure he is aware of peaceful, brotherly, and compassionate verses in Quran and sayings of the prophet. But he simply doesn't notice any such thing. He is too honest, I imagine to notice and not acknowledge. Hatred does make one blind, as does love I suppose.

    Now, Rafiq Lodhia saheb has requested that mohammad younus rational saheb's comments be un-blocked. As far as I can see none of the comments I have blocked are objectionable except one addressed to Lodhia Saheb himself. It would be a good idea for him to read that and maybe revise his opinion.

    In any case I don't see what purpose do provocative, mocking, hateful comments serve. It would help to check  one's bile level - has a bilometre been invented yet? - and if the level is too high, one should not write in a public forum, at least a forum like New Age Islam, with its civilized participants. One can always shift to say, times of india or YouTube in that state of mind. And when one is again capable of rational thinking, one can rejoin the debate here.

    Some readers like Mr. Harsh are disturbed at the monitoring. So I am stopping that again, hoping that I will not need to restart that and also not need to start deleting offensive, hate speeches as comments.

    By Sultan Shahin - 10/29/2013 2:07:04 AM



  • Hello Sultan Saheb – As-Salaam Alay-Kum

     

    I was delighted to read Aftab Siddiqi’s comment. My concern all along was about destructive criticism only. Aftab is absolutely right to point out one single word “Demoralization. That is exactly what happens when the other contributors to the thread simply do not have any good words to write, but rather they are rude all the way through the discourse.

     

    Respecting the (real) Mohammad Younus and Ghulam Mohiyuddin’s viewpoints pertaining to this particular thread, I feel that you should allow the free flow of comments to pour in as you have always done. If you censor it, then it will leave a bad impression about New Age Islam. You have worked too hard to get this forum up and running. We certainly do not want folks to think that “Moderate Muslims” cannot take criticism. Yes we can and shall debate with those who are hell-bent on disrespecting our religion of Islam.         

     

    Discarding other’s viewpoint is also disrespectful. I think our best option is to at least try not to be on the defensive when making a rebuttal. Though, before there is a closure of this thread, I earnestly request you to post all the comments received thus far. In addition, I am in full agreement with you that, Maulana Wahiddudin Khan should have a final say after all. Fair enough!

     

    Very respectfully yours – rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org

     

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/28/2013 10:35:54 PM



  • Dear sultan Shahin sahib,
    The debate initiated by the article of Allama Waheeduddin Khan has provoked a community of commentators on this website . The arguments have gone lost inthe purposeless labyrinthian religious bickerings among the believers,rationals,partisan and the so called apostates.
    All have tried to prove the authenticity of their arguments . The resultant factor is total confusion,demoralization and religious frustration.
    I personally believe that the basic ideology and aim of this website is not what it has become.
    History of Islamic ideologues shows that  the interpretative faculty of various community leaders in Islam has been mostly  interested in holding control over the poor and the uninformed believers.The leaders of the militant groups in the Islamic world need no explanation in this regard.
    There has always been bloody struggles and strife for power. The human world has never shown any sign of change  in this regard.
    On the websites people are fighting  with the strength of their verbal weaponry.What we see now is bleeding minds and  suffocated psyche.
    Now,I think that this chapter of separatism in Islam should be closed for further comments..
    There is a guiding line from a poet to conclude  such a futile exercise of debating:
    WOH AFSANA JISE ANJAM TAK LANA NA HO MUMKIN
    USE EK KHOOBSOORAT MOR DEKAR CCHORNA  ACCHA By afaqSiddiqi - 10/28/2013 5:28:32 PM



  • dear ghulam ghauss. i have said that you are right.
    what i said to editor is: I will take your side allowing the non-muslims into harmain sharifain ignoring the Quran and Hadith despite agreeing with mr moderate.
    do not you and mr moderate share the same thing.
    the fact remains: non-Muslims are unclean. this small sentence is very meaningful. gagar men sagar hai mere bhai.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/28/2013 3:39:59 AM



  • Dear Aiman Reyaz - 10/28/2013 1:57:25 AM
    "O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean"
    what is the end result of this statement of God?
    Since they are impure (a vague term here) should they be allowed into harmain sharifain or not? who is right one who supports the Quran and Hadith or one who talks about the common sense.
    the person who talks a lot about common sense is silent on this issue.
    I am leaving the translation of Mohsin khan out of consideration.
    what is this impurity which is an important theme of the Quran. it has to defined.
    If shirk is this impurity, its mean they should not be allowed.The Quran repeatedly reminds us the shirk Christians and other people commit. 
     
    we have only one instance in the Quran where the Christians were allowed to stay and pray in the holy Muslim place.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/28/2013 3:21:17 AM



  • Regarding non-Muslims being "unclean", I believe Mr Yunus, Mr Ghaus and Mr Dehlvi would give a better answer, but I think A.Yusuf Ali has translated the term more correctly in this verse of 9:28. 
    This is Ali's translation: "O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean"
    Asad's translatoin is also good: "O YOU who have attained to faith! Those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God are nothing but impure"
    The worst translation I think is by Muhsin Khan, his work is disastrous for building a healthy Muslim-non-Muslim relationship. He translates: "O you who believe! Verily, the polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers are impure" In the footnote he writes, they are impure both physically, as "they lack personal hygeine (filthy as regards urine, stools and blood)" and they "also have spiritual impurity. "
    His translation is very bad. 
    The correct translation of mushrikun is 'pagans', especially the pagans of Mecca of that time, because they were the ones who drove the Muslims out of their homelands, they were the ones who killed the Muslims and tried to kill the Prophet also. So I am quite sure this refers to pagans of Mecca and it cannot refer to non-Muslims of the present time. 

    Thank you Ji for your comment I agree with you, some comments are better left unread. But unless we read them we cannot be sure of its nature!
    By Aiman Reyaz - 10/28/2013 1:57:25 AM



  • aiman sahib
    i agree partially with you
    but have you gained anything at all from the non-stop comments that are simply time-pass for some folks who seem to have no other purpose in their lives? i know these are best left ignored....waste of time
    By Ji - 10/28/2013 12:16:30 AM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin Saheb, Repeatedly i have said in my responses to Mr. Rational that non-Muslims including Jews, Christens, Budhists, Hindus and Polytheists—all are not only welcome to the Arab land but also to the rights like liberty, equality, Justice, security etc as equal to Muslims. 

    Dear sir, let me make it clear that such rights are prescribed as per the command of God and the sayings of the prophet peace be upon him.

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/27/2013 11:44:13 PM



  • I am sorry Ji to disagree with you. I can't speak on behalf of others, but as far as I am concerned, let me assure you that it is because of NAI, and more especially because of the writing of Mr Yunus, Sultan Shahin and Saif Shahin that I think differently. I have said this time and again in the past.  By Aiman Reyaz - 10/27/2013 10:17:36 PM



  • i don't think even a single person has changed his or her views by reading the polemical debates on forums like NAI. in that sense, i don't see this forum serving any positive purpose at all. so much fluff.... By Ji - 10/27/2013 9:25:56 PM



  • respected sultan shahin
    i want to believe that want of identities of opponents on this site by some commentators particularly insistance of mr rafiq lodhia does't come under "islamophobia".

    i must thank mr harsh and vivek without bothering who are they, because their comments proved to be poultice to a boil.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/27/2013 6:49:33 PM



  • with a forswear to any apolgy in the past i agree with mr rafiq lodhia that this thread is unique. i will post my response when you will finish posting your post you are preparing.
    i want you preserve my all comments to help you fabricate more lies and make the mushrikeen fool.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/27/2013 6:42:27 PM



  • Sultan Saheb - As-Salaam Alay-Kum

     

    This thread is one classic example of what the world call "Islamophobia." Try not to delete the balance comments that are already posted. It is important to save them so that Muslims can see how their religion can be insulted in every which way people from other faiths can. If you do not mind can you please be kind enough to email me those offensive remarks so that I can preserve it for my future write-ups.

     

    In hardly one week on your New Age Islam forum, I have had ample experience to know that even intelligent and brilliant people can also be consumed with hate, and nothing but hate, so help us Allah/God/Bhagwaan. I was under the impression that the world got Muslim problem, but now I know better. Who can ignite what and when under any given hidden identity is absolutely mind boggling? What amazes me is that they all pick up bits and pieces of information from not so reliable sources of Islam and then tossed it around and throw right back on our face. The question of the day is, “Who are these people and what is their agenda?”     

     

    Tomorrow will be another day after the typing fingers are rested up. May be there will be a pin-drop silence! Nonetheless, I am preparing my final comment to "Hats Off'," "Rational" and the new comers, "Harsh" and "Vivek." Their heads are going to spin for sure. You bet they will read my comment, but I doubt that they will be able to respond back with their usual vicious manner.    

     

    “Bring Them On” is what former President George W. Bush said when chasing the ruthless “Jihadists. We now have “Intellectual Terrorism” that needs to be confronted and halted by challenging the losers and haters to think rationally and with intellectual honesty.  

     

    Thanks& Regards - rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/27/2013 1:07:07 PM



  • You are right GM Saheb. I have deleted some recent posts that several commentators have found offensive. By Sultan Shahin - 10/27/2013 12:07:05 PM



  • Sultan Shahin sahib, if the sole purpose of an apostate is to disrupt serious conversation on this site, and if his sole impellent is a personal  internal war against his own demons, I do not see how that helps this site.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/27/2013 11:54:52 AM



  • Sultan Shahin saheb, if the sole purpose of an apostate is to disrupt serious conversation on this site, and if his sole impellent is his personal internal conflict with his own demons, I do not see how that benefits this site.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/27/2013 11:41:40 AM



  • dear mr rational, kindly stop with this and please let everyone (including yourself) relax.

    please also consider not posting on the sensitive topics of hadith and the koran.

    this would immediately clear the atmosphere. this is the first priority (i really feel).

    it would be wonderful if you could say in a more considered and calm way in your next response, that you have been harsh (which you have been, sorry but mr. rational but really i think), and that you need to round out your edges. the forum will i am sure definitely feel better about you (and me too i hope), whatever we feel about the forum.

    look at it this way. there are about a hundred (say, i did not actually bother to count, but) commentators here including the both of us. among from those who have not gotten into this fray, some may be merely irritated, some may be incensed and many may be resentful of our questions and criticism. they may not have said it. it is up to us to see that there are a lot of people here whom we are bothering.

    i hope you understand. many commentators (i do not mean a statistical majority) feel provoked. as your forum friend, as well as co-accused, i think in the last few comments you *have also* provoked. i feel this sincerely.

    if i said more, it might simply prolong an extremely painful thread and i wish you see what i am trying to say. dear mr rational, nothing personal, simply an observation. understand.

    i sincerely suggest you and i tone down our rhetoric. i am already on my way and i welcome you to join me. we should know when to stop.

    please consider this request. everybody wins with a truce.

    with regards and requesting you to take it easy, i remain sincerely yours.
    hats off!
    By hats off! - 10/27/2013 7:17:41 AM



  • dear mr rational, you are loosing it. the line between libel and criticism is very very thin. please. watch out.

    i would love it if you can walk away from your keyboard this very moment. in your heightened sense of feeling singled out for attacks has dulled your excellent sense of humor.

    you did not seem to have noticed my pathetic attempt at a one line shaayari. you are so angry and so riled up, i think that made you miss my shaayari.

    take a break. you need it. stop for at least now. you can come back tomorrow. the world is not ending and there is still time i think.

    i remain amxiously yours
    hats off!
    By hats off! - 10/27/2013 6:07:40 AM



  • I must forswear my earlier comment about rational. I was wrong in judging him to be a man who is seeking the truth; however he has crossed his limits. Instead of sticking to asking questions, he is assaulting Muslim beliefs and Islam in general which is, actually against our Indian Constitution. As well as under the guidelines given in the field of internet, making communal remarks is punishable by law. 
    (On a side note- Zakir Nayak should be punished too because he has said "if can prove to me that Ganesh is Lord, then I will worship him, if not then you should become Muslim".)
    I don't know what Rational's agenda is, but his comments are unconstitutional, without any doubt. If he wants to criticise Islam or its prophet or its teachings then he can put it in a decent and scholarly manner or quote from the scriptures, but saying things like"muslim disease" and this disease can turn into "malignancy", he can and should be fined. 
    By Harsh - 10/27/2013 5:12:51 AM



  • My dear Rational Muhammad Yunus,

    I was amused to read the following comment:

    "Ratoinal with fake name....is violating indian constitution............he must be charged with raising violence among hindus and muslims by his speech and shaitanic logic.  By vivek - 10/27/2013 3:36:03 AM"

    In my article referenced below, I had warned to no avail that (in blue);

    if the freedom of speech is used in a calculated way to

    i)                    insult other’s deities and ii) demonize a group of people, a website that has the rubric of Islam attached to it, must not entertain it as the Qur’an, which is the highest authority on all matters in Islam does not permit either of the above attitudes (6:108, 49:11).

    ii)                  Besides, if used to malign other’s faith or mock a rival group of people, it can open a floodgate of unhealthy discussions that will conduce to ill will among people, spawn evil and render this website into a vicious gossip forum.

    Ref: Use and Misuse of Freedom of Expression on this Islamic website (New Age Islam) and need for a Clear Agenda.

    I had also warned you that however good your intentions may be, some of your statements amounted to hate speech. I dont want to enter into any argument with you and you may think whatever you may write, but kindly remain intellectually honest for one who tongue is sharp like razor, must have a mind clean as mirror or else he is going to have a fall.  
    By muhammad yunus - 10/27/2013 4:55:44 AM



  • Moderate Saheb is right; clearly the verses of Quran cannot be dismissed in the same way as statements from Hadees. Three questions arose in my mind reading these verses.

    One, why do Saudi Wahhabi literalists, the masters of Harmain Sharifain,  who consider the overwhelming majority of Muslims polytheists and hence must consider them "unclean" allow us to perform Hajj.

    Two, is this restriction only for Harmain Sharifain or for the whole of the cities of Mecca and Madina or the entire Arab world or Muslim world.

    Three, is "unclean" the correct translation and the best meaning one can derive from the Qur'anic term used in the verse. I hope Muhammad Yunus Saheb and maybe Ghulam Ghause and Ghulam Rasool Saheban will oblige us with their scholarship and reflections on the subject.

    By Sultan Shahin - 10/27/2013 4:46:00 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb, It is not necessarily a bad thing that "very conservative and reactionary defences have surfaced" as a "response to the attacks of two exhibitionist apostates." (By the way, I do not understand which two you are mentioning as apostates; I thought only Rational Mohd Younus Saheb fitted the bill.) How else we would learn why thousands of good, educated, thinking Muslims are turning apostates as well as active, sometimes hysterical, enemies of Islam, particularly moderate Islam. And unless we learn that how we would define the work ahead of us. So I suppose conservative comments like those by Ghulam Ghaus Saheb and Moderate are not  "skewing the very purpose of this website." In fact as Jihadis and their Wahhabi ideologues do not open their cards, do not come on New Age Islam and dispute the moderate narrative presented by our writers with their viewpoint, the apostates and Islamophobes speak on their behalf and give us the Jihadi-Wahhabi perspective.

    By Sultan Shahin - 10/27/2013 4:44:11 AM



  • What nonsense are you talking about Vivek? How can I be sure that you are using your real name? May be your real name isn't Vivek, but to give credibility to your comment you have used a realistic name... It is possible. Mr Rational asks questions, I don't know why people get agitated by his questions. Yes, if his questions are derogatory, personal and bordering of inciting communal sentiments then he must be warned and if need be, then punished. I have not read his comments on this section but I know what kind of questions he asks, and they are fine according to me. I don't know if he has made some changes in his approach towards asking questions, so don't blame me, because I have not read his recent comments. But his previous comments, a few months ago, which I had read, they were quite fine. He asks challenging questions, though repeatedly; I see no reason why would anyone blame him for spreading communal sentiments..  By Harsh - 10/27/2013 3:54:32 AM



  • the editor must drive out such conflict loving abu jahal from this forum and site. if he wants to promote moderation........
    Rational, NICKNAME.MODERN .ABU JAHAL THE ENMITY OF ISLAM,CHRISTN, HINUDS.
    By vivek - 10/27/2013 3:42:01 AM



  • Ratoinal with fake name....is violating indian constitution............he must be charged with raising violence among hindus and muslims by his speech and shaitanic logic.  By vivek - 10/27/2013 3:36:03 AM



  • mr rational, hats off etc take money to speak agaisnt islam. i am hundred percent right readers \, believe me.......... By vivek - 10/27/2013 3:33:10 AM



  • mr rational you are doing the shaitan work and the commentators of new age islam are rejecting the hadees. you have get them felt shaitanic illusion and but they are developing hindu muslims relations. n you are developing enmity between them. 
    i have known by your comments that you use derogatory sentences for hindus, muslims, christens,jews,budhdhists, and all the religions. you are disobedient to god who created you, may be more disobedient to your parents who have produced you.
    You are modern Abu jahal with development in his antipathy for all religoins. old abu jahal was enemy to islam, but in the modern days every thing has developed and you too have developed so it means that is to say you are modern abu jahal 
    By Vivek - 10/27/2013 3:27:53 AM



  • dear mr rational, did you get the intent of my comment to you? please, you will simply snap it if you pull any harder or any longer. it may pull back in shape if you let it go. it will never join again if you manage to snap it.

    i say this not because of any sudden insight, or a flash of illumination. but because they have indirectly hinted that rather than this criticism they would be more comfortable with encouragement, why don't you oblige?

    once you have been made aware that the readers are hurt, it is your moral duty to stop. if so many people are feeling uncomfortable, please just let go.

    please step back and take a deep breath. any how please cease and desist. you have made your point. anything more will be an overkill.

    please mr rational. understand why i gave you the example of saudi arabia. i know you will get the idea the once you stop. now you are simply on a roll. please down your urdu couplets in your diary and do not use them unless you are forced to.

    by the way, i made up a shaayari for you: this is a take on a shaayar i asked a friend to make up for me. i added your username and other hindi words

    ya khuda! ye kyon aise kiya, ki mr rational ke haathon me ek keyboard de diyaa.

    regards.
    By hats off! - 10/27/2013 2:25:27 AM



  • dear sultan shahin
    i am now caught between you and mr moderate. he is proving non-muslims are unclean through the quran and hadith. you say they are not. mr moderate is near the truth. i will be on your side ignoring the quran and hadith while agreeing with mr moderate. i will ignore if mr moderate say i am fomenting the hatred between you two or among the muslims. is nindak karya ke liye mujhe na quran ki zaroorat hai na hadith ki, aap logon ke articles aur comments kafi hain. they betray themselves by saying rational is blocking the discourse or setting the moderates again each other. no my sir either god setting or they themselves.
    thanks for keeping me mentionded in your address as nindak. it
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/27/2013 12:53:02 AM



  • respected rafiq lodhia saheb. one who can't see the difference between beteween hz mohammed yunus and rational mohammed yunus must be blind intelectually if not in vision.
    bandar ko haldi ki gaanth kiya mili pansari ban baitha.
    mr ghulam ghauss and his tribe are disturbed not because i told a lie but beacuse i told a truth. these people wants to find the weakness in the wahabiyat but want to close his eyes and mind for his own. i reminded him if could follow mr ghulam m but for him his old gods are more imortant. his tribe are equally unclean beacuse of their worship of books and authors of the books beside the allah. do they really belive in introspection. now they go out of mind when their weakness is told. they get violent as their wahabi brother get. how many gods you will worship o barailvis! 
    apne chehre dekhkar khas log , aaiyne ko hi nura kahne lage.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/27/2013 12:39:34 AM



  • Lodhia Sahab, since we cannot ignore them nor can we let them control the flow of our discourse, the best course would be to minimize our focus on them. The bulk of our comments should be on new articles rather than on commentators who seek attention.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/27/2013 12:13:15 AM



  • Dear sultan shahin sb, it is not the hadith you can call it fabricated. It is the quranic verse that tells polytheists are unclean. All non-muslims are not unclean. The quran says only about polytheism. “It is not for the polytheists to maintain the mosques of Allah [while] witnessing against themselves with disbelief. [For] those, their deeds have become worthless, and in the Fire they will abide eternally”.  9;17

    “The mosques of Allah are only to be maintained by those who believe in Allah and the Last Day and establish prayer and give zakah and do not fear except Allah , for it is expected that those will be of the [rightly] guided”. 9;18

    “O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.

    Mr. Ghulam Ghaus must explain it in details. I have understood him but many of the commentators have not got his point.

    By Moderate - 10/26/2013 8:35:05 PM



  • My Dear Ghulam Saheb – As-Salaam Alay-Kum

     

    You are always pragmatic in your response. You are indeed a wise Muslim without a doubt.

    Your comments are immensely appreciated. I cannot but agree with you all the way.

     

    Hats Off” and “Rational” can participate, but sadly, they have miserably failed to express anything good about Islam. Sultan Saheb is well aware of this fact. His thought process is as follows:

     

    “I believe that these critics have as much right - whatever their motivation - to become votaries of extremist Islam as the millions of Muslims who are developing an extremist mind-set under the massive onslaught of Petrodollar Islam.”

     

    That’s fine and dandy. The question is, are they? At least, not what I have read thus far. I know it will be “Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia” who will have to take all the blame at the end of the day. Though, I did caution Sultan Saheb that New Age Islam should never discourage the “Moderate Muslims” who wants to speak their minds. However, I feel that the onslaught by those who has no respect for Islam will further deter them from participating in this forum.

     

    Now, I am rethinking to even make a comment and get unnecessarily angry. The two unknown humans somehow dampen the spirit of the on-going discourse and/or debate. It is simple. They are not Muslims and they do not care about Islam as it is not their religion. Either we ignore their comments which will not be a decent act, or we continue to be firm and bold in our responses. If they do not like it, then it is too bad. Yes, I do have a problem with anyone who cover-up their very own identity.      
     

    Rational” will never give up his usual irrational comments. You watch, he will strike back again tomorrow as soon as he wakes up to be followed by “Hats Off.” They are in this together. Sultan Saheb feels that “Critics of Islam are constant reminders of our failings.” Granted, but are they helping or hurting the cause? What more can I say?

     

    Thanks you for your sincere comments, Ghulam Saheb. May Almighty Allah bless you and your loved ones.

     

    Compassionately yours – rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/26/2013 1:54:56 PM



  • The relentless assault on Islam mounted by Rational and Hats Off has had an unfortunate effect on New Age Islam website. A website designed to affirm moderate Islam should of necessity criticize and oppose  regressive, coercive and obscurantist trends in traditional Islam and promote reformative and liberalizing ideas. Instead, in response to the attacks of two exhibitionist apostates,  very conservative and reactionary defenses have surfaced skewing the very purpose of this website.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/26/2013 1:15:52 PM



  • Respected Sultan Saheb – As-Salaam Alay-Kum

     

    Your wise words are sincerely appreciated by this humble Muslim. I shall take this message of yours and forward it to the Muslim leaders in India, Pakistan, and also, American Muslim

    leaders as well.

     

    Maulana Wahiddudin Khan and his son, Dr. Saniyasnain Khan will also be made aware of your genuine concern about the sad state of affairs of the Muslim Ummah as you have aptly described in your message.

     

    My earnest recommendation is to continue to gather the momentum and strive hard to build up a large following of New Age Islam. You are right when commenting that “Moderate Muslims” are afraid to participate in such a forum except for a handful. It will be very interesting to see how “Hats Off,” “Secular Logic” and “Rational” will reply to your message.

     

    May Almighty Allah bless you and your beloved family members.

     

    Very respectfully yours – rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org

       

     

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/26/2013 12:41:52 PM



  • Honorable Hats Off,

     

    Sounds like past midnight you are off your rocker. Truth is unpleasant to hear and to read about it too.

     

    I read your message with an equally conscientious mind. Everyone can clearly see that you and Mr. Rational are in cahoots with each other. Why be hesitant now to keep a distance between the two of you?

     

    Well then, you ought to first learn how to deal with this fact that for you, the good name of  @rationalmohammedyunus” is the most polished man in this forum. If that be his real name! How about listening to the song from “Asli Naqali” as follows:

     

    laakh chhupaao chhup na sakega raaz ho kitana gahara

    dil ki baat bata deta hai, asali naqali chehara

     

    It has been nice knowing you. My humble advice to you is to preach the good things about your religion if you possibly can. Why bother with Islam when you are not following our religion? Are you on some kind of your own version of “Jihad” to smear the name of Islam?    

     

    Blessings of Bhagwaan to you and your loved ones, Hats Off.  

     

    Very truly yours – rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org

     

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/26/2013 12:22:53 PM



  • Since my father taught me the following couplet of Kabir at a very early age, it has been a guiding light for me. It has never failed to support and sustain me in the tasks I set for myself.

     

    "Nindak Niyare Rakhiye, Angan Kuti Chhaway.

    Bin Pani Sabun Bina, Nirmal Karai Subhay."

     

    For those who may not understand, here is my inadequate translation:

     

    Keep your critic close to you;

    Build him a hut in your courtyard;

    He purifies you without soap and water.

     

    Why is this couplet relevant in this thread? It is relevant because I find not only Mr. Rafiq Lodhia - angrily - but also Mr. Mohd Younus Rational (?) wondering why I tolerate people who clearly are so determinedly against my agenda of developing and promoting a narrative of moderate Islam.  

     

    Well, I believe that these critics have as much right - whatever their motivation - to become votaries of extremist Islam as the million of Muslims who are developing an extremist mindset under the massive onslaught of Petrodollar Islam. Ex-Muslims like Mohammad Younus Rational have as much right to leave Islam and want us also to leave Islam as the millions of Muslims who are joining the Petrodollar bandwagon and want us also to join them. After all we too want others to join the moderate bandwagon.

     

    Critics of Islam on the site are constant reminders of our failings. Are we Muslims protesting  the fact that millions of our children are being brainwashed into the supremacist, exclusivist, extremist thoughts of Ibn-e-Taimiya, Mohammad Ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab, Maulana Maudoodi, Syed Qutub and others of their ilk? We are not. We are allowing thousands of madrasas being built today in the name of Ibn-e-Taimiya. You find thousands of new mosques, madrasas, bookshops coming up proudly proclaiming to be Salafi. You find our children reading books in which Mohammad ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab tells them: Even if the Muslims abstain from Shirk (polytheism) and are Muwahhid (believer in oneness of God), their Faith cannot be perfect unless they have enmity and hatred in their action and speech against non-Muslims." (Majmua Al-Rasael Wal-Masael Al-Najdiah 4/291).

     

     Is there any movement in the Muslim world to oppose this radicalisation? Not that I am aware of. Of course, a few intrepid souls are contributing their bit, both on this website and elsewhere. But most are afraid to even say something as innocuous as this even on my special request: "I do not consider non-Muslims impure. I do not think our Prophet who was a blessing for all humanity could even think of saying so. After all he had invited Christians to pray in his mosque in their own way.  So if there are any so-called sayings of the prophet that say otherwise, I consider them fabricated."

     

    In this environment I feel it is good to be reminded every day, several times a day, on this website, of our failings as a community. It only adds fuel to my fire, keeps me focussed on the importance of my goal.

     

    Also, God has given us one great facility. We can focus on what we want to and ignore what we don't want to. The elephant keeps moving towards its destination while the dogs keep barking, cars keep honking. So if we don't want to learn from our critics, we can ignore them too. After all what have we trained ourselves in prayers, mediation for. What is a prayer or mediation? Focussing on what you want to focus on and ignoring all the rest.

    By Sultan Shahin - 10/26/2013 12:09:21 PM



  • one who needs god's commands to walk in humility and modesty indeed a toddler in the matter of humanity-rational  
    i recall mr harsh at this moment.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/26/2013 11:34:39 AM



  • dear hats off - 10/26/2013 11:06:19 AM
    i endorse your comment fully without feeling any guilt or shame.
    Muslims love who sell opiates to them-rational
    good night
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/26/2013 11:19:07 AM



  • good evening mr lodhia, i hope you had a fine day.

    i want to request you to no more address me in your comments made generally or addressed specifically to any one on this forum.

    i want to remind you that i said that  i have had my closure over the silly spat we had. but i feel that even after i have explicitly stated this, you continue to pretend as if you have not read it or you do not recollect it, and thereby you are acting in a manner that is well below the standards which i know you have set for yourself.

    please carry on with your quarrel with mr rational if necessary, but i feel i have said all i wanted to say to you, and i specifically do not wish to be bothered by being included in every comment you post in response to mr rational. especially in such heavy formatting with underlining and double quotes. i hope you will look into my complaint.

    i expect you to look into my complaint because i went over your responses very conscientiously and addressed most of them in a decent manner without tongue in cheek, smart-phrases and other distraction that might turn you off. and might i remind you that you have not replied to my comments. but still you persist in putting me in conjunction with mr rational.

    let me be frank. it actually makes me feel very nice to taken as mr rational's friend. this is nothing i am ashamed of nor something you should be scared of. any way kindly stop conjoining our names or at the least address separate comments to the both of us. that will be better for you.

    you have made your point that i am in league with mr rational. so deal with it. i am sorry if i have been a pain,

    i remain, hopefully yours
    hats off!

    ps: by the way no human can ever defame religions as effectively as they do to themselves. hats off!
    By hats off! - 10/26/2013 11:06:19 AM



  • respected Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia saheb - 10/26/2013 10:35:56 AM
    i am all ears.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/26/2013 10:52:04 AM



  • To: Rational & Hats Off

     

    Holy Quran: Chapter – 25 – The Distinguisher

     

    Maulana Wahiddudin Khan: The true servants of the Gracious One are those who walk upon the earth with humility and when they are addressed by the ignorant ones, their response is ‘Peace.’

     

    Sahih International: And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth easily, and when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words of] peace,

     

    Pickthall: The (faithful) slaves of the Beneficent are they who walk upon the earth modestly, and when the foolish ones address them answer: Peace;

     

    Yusuf Ali: And the servants of (Allah) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, "Peace!";

     

    Shakir: And the servants of the Beneficent Allah are they who walk on the earth in humbleness, and when the ignorant address them, they say: Peace.

     

    Muhammad Sarwar: (Among) the servants of the Beneficent God are those who walk gently on the earth and when addressed by the ignorant ones, their only response is, "Peace be with you."

     

    Mohsin Khan: And the slaves of the Most Beneficent (Allah) are those who walk on the earth in humility and sedateness, and when the foolish address them (with bad words) they reply back with mild words of gentleness.

     

    Arberry: The servants of the All-merciful are those who walk in the earth modestly and who, when the ignorant address them, say, 'Peace';

     

    What more both of you want to know about the Quranic verses? Why not promote your own faith instead of trying to insult the religion of Islam? I am not sure what your scriptures says, but I do know my holy scriptures. Peace to you.

     

    Mera Desh Premiyon, Aapas Mein Prem Karo Desh Premiyon ...

     

    Respectfully yours, rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org

     

     

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/26/2013 10:35:56 AM



  • thanks mr rafiq lodhia. before you go read this comment. you can't stay before criticism/mocking although you claim to emulate your prophet. you even don't follow the verses which are at your lips. alas ! you lived a very short life. you forgot the example of the prophet Mohammed in Taif. bas itna hi stamina tha. itna hi seekha tha.
    you were not fit for this forum which is open to all.
    stay happy wherever you are. good night and good bye.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/26/2013 10:13:03 AM



  • My Fellow Moderate Muslims,

     

    One week has lapsed by ever since I stepped into the New Age Islam forum. I feel that this thread has been infiltrated by those who are hell-bent on causing mischief.

     

    If you so desire to communicate with me, then by all means pass on your email addresses to: rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org. This way I will try to stay away from giving any more input in this forum only to be mocked by the likes of “Rational” and “Hats Off.”  

     

    All during my life, I have never ever said anything bad about other religions. This is what Holy Quran has taught us, the Muslims. I shall not waste any more of my precious time debating the participants whose “Intentions Are Impure” to begin with. Respect for fellow humans grows with the cleanliness of hearts and minds and not otherwise.

     

    Warmest personal regards – rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org

      

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/26/2013 9:38:31 AM



  • Rational,     

     

    "Do your work and let me do my work." You said it right. Your primary task is to terrorize the Muslim minds by questioning the religion of Islam without having any in-depth knowledge. You sure do have a small mind after all. This reminds me of my dear Hindu friend who once told me, “Duniya Main Bawaqufoon Ki Kami Nahin Hai; Ek Doondo Hazaar Milein Ga.  The word to the wise is sufficient.

     

    Have a good night. rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org

             

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/26/2013 9:20:17 AM



  • Respected Mr. Rational,

     

    “Read, I wrote “Respected” this time around to wake up your “Bhagwaan” given consciousness. You have nothing better to do in life than to provoke others. What assassin are you talking about? Do you know that you are your own worst enemy?

     

    Who gave you a right to question Quranic verses with a distorted intention? Are you a genuine Islamic scholar? No one in the New Age Islam forum knows your identity. Having said this over and over and over again, now you are giving your own self-made verdict by saying that “these are abrogated by another verses. What an irrational nonsense?

     

    Sultan Saheb as a “Moderator” should step in and give his verdict. That is ultimately the final task of any moderator of the internet forums around the world. He has to make a decision as I am simply a contributor to the debate for the past one week only.

     

    Mr. Rational, do you realize the use of the word “Our. Well, read your own statement for crying out loud. It is as follows:

     

    Why are you after “Our” identity?

     

    Instead of knowing “Our” intentions, please come to the issues.

     

    Sorry, Mr. Irrational. I wholeheartedly agree with Varsha Sharma’s comment which reads as follows: “I am aghast at his mischievousness. So are we the “Moderate Muslims. At least you should now be able to realize that folks who are reading are getting a real picture of your intentions. Create a rift between Muslims and continue to sow the seeds of discord by manipulating the meaning of Holy Quran and Hadith. Shame on you, Mr. Rational, or should I say, Mr. Irrational.  

     

    Respectfully yours – rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org   

         

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/26/2013 9:10:31 AM



  • dear hats off
    i accept your advice. kaun kahta hai ham tum men judai hogi yeh hawa kisi dushman ne udai hogi.
    who says there will be enmity between us, this gossip may have been spreaded by the enemy

    have a nice time my dear freind in humanity
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/26/2013 9:07:36 AM



  • dear Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/26/2013 8:30:18 AM
    peace be upon you. i have shown many proofs. take rest. keep eating your words. we will be back after commercial break.
    stay happy. we will keep watch what is happening, what reform our team has brought.
    sun lee aapki fariyad. ro mat.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/26/2013 9:02:28 AM



  • many wanted to know this secret with love and force but could not succeed. anyway if i am harmful to your mission one click can send me back to where i belong to.
    Mr lodhia you are quite close to editor. why you in the name of Islam, in the name of you cause do it. will it solve your problem? will not any other in different name come. how come you people are so fragile? kuch lete kyon nahi.
    Please read what mr observer said about me. he said "rational is like a court jester who punctures the individuals at proper time" i didn't take it as offense. it boosted my energy. now you can see no amount of ridicule can deter me. you are wasting your time on me.
    So be advised "instead of lakum deenukum waliya deen" follow the command "do your work and let me do my work"
    may be Allah send here me to make you people strong. kiya aap log yaqeen nahi rakhte allah ke kaam aur dhang nirale hote hain. duniya men kuchh bi bagair kisi maslehat ke nahi hota.
    apna kaam karen auron ko karne den
    faqat wassalam. kam likhe ko zyada samjhen

    sincerely yours forever
    rational by fashion the attention seeker

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/26/2013 8:52:57 AM



  • maulana is very right .we should follow teachings of islam in light of litrature of maulana waidudin kan.www.cpsglobal.org
    By shafi.dar - 10/26/2013 8:48:23 AM



  • dear mr rational, hello!

    mr observer said that i was hysterical and get carried away by my language. whether i am hysterical or not i may debate but i cannot debate that i do not get carried away. for i do get carried away. this again may or may not be on account of my language. some questions had better not be asked and i think the need of the hour is to let certain things be. the message is - do not bother yourself too much about certain "mysterious" things. because even higgs boson is "mysterious".

    my mother used to say about our teenage attempts at rationality and atheism. "you may not know it. but it is the atheists who are closest to god, for it is they who even more than a believer keep thinking about god all the time trying to disprove him". or words to that effect.

    i think you too are getting carried away. please, anyway i am supposed to be your partner  in crime ;) so allow me to speak. and allow yourself to hear. kindly desist from very intimate questions.

    please consider the following mr rational. you may get a hint.

    what saudi arabia does or does not, may or may not be islamic. this is on account of their being a soverign country. so logically, ethically and even politically speaking, we (meaning yourself and i) should not hold mr ghulam ghaus or mr dehlvi to account for what is essentially a soveriegn subject and their domestic policy. as long we remember this i think a lot issues will be left unbothered. this is i believe a fair enough explanation and i sincerely hope this helps the conversation. this nation is a kingdom. it says so right on its letterhead. it is not democracy, it is not a republic it is plainly a kingdom ruled by a monarch. so he can pretty much do what he pleases and then hire the religious scholars to support him. so. this is not to be attributed to the official religion of this kingdom, mind you, and it is not a nation in our sense of the word. hassan bolkiah, of brunei introduced sharia and categorically declared that it only applies to the muslims. i think that is fair enough.

    i hope this will convince you that you may be getting too close to others for their comfort.

    to be honest we may be actually getting too close for comfort and then it is only right we should move a little so you may take a break.

    i think my suggestion is worth considering, for everyone has become rather intense i should say. probably on account of my posts and yours. let it be dear mr rational.

    thanks and my regards.
    By hats off! - 10/26/2013 8:38:03 AM



  • @ Rational muhamamd yunus
    Who has given you the certificates to abrogate the verses "there is no compulsion in the religion" "for you your religion and for me my religion" etc. You can not show me any book during 1400 years, or any Imam or any classical scholar who has abrogated these like verses. You are telling lies after lies. I will not let you go until you show any proof of abrogation. Do not try to divert in this regard.
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/26/2013 8:30:18 AM



  • Dear Varsha Sharma, I am appreciated to your comment. “I am aghast at his (Mr. Rational Muhammad yunus) mischievousness. What we non-Muslims, fully at peace with our Muslim counterparts in India, can achieve out of these questions? Why cannot we let these Islamic religious issues be limited to the Arab world and not to be extended to our country? We Hindus and Muslims are, by God's grace, happy and comfortable with each other. I see no point in discussing these questions at least in our country”. 

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/26/2013 8:22:13 AM



  • Dear rafiq lodhia
    why are you after our identity? why this small thing doesn't fit in your mind, that our identity is not an issue at all. Should i furnish you an attested copy of my identity card that bears "mohammed yunus". it will help only someone who can come to me in search of my head. or you dispatch an assassin as the saba-is were used to

    the verses “You have your religion and I have mine
    .” and "la ikraha fid deen" are meccan verses. we are not against these verses. we want these to be true. but Alas! this is not the case. we have discussed it earlier. these are abrogated by another verses.
    mr lodhia i have not run away so far even though moderates chased me doggedly. you can try. it gives me extra boost. the accusations you frame against me are not new. why are you repeating all these. you can console your soul by these accusations. 
    if i am so and so, i have requested the editor, and senior moderates of this site has pressurized the editor in past and they want it now, but Editor let me go. he let me go at the cost of resentment of his allies in his mission. you can ask him. i don't know what he wants. why he has not listen to them. for me it is not important.
    now you can try.  instead of knowing our intentions please come to the issues.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/26/2013 8:21:22 AM



  • "For you your religion and for me my religion" this Quranic verse is more than enough to prove that Muslims are and should be moderate. 
    I, ghulam ghaus and lodhia sahaban are waiting for your purpose of working on this site. 
    By Moderate - 10/26/2013 8:14:52 AM



  • Dear Respected Sultan Shahin ji, I see you vigorously endeavour to establish communal harmony in our country by your nice writings and other social services. But the way  commentators on your website attempt to enrage communal hatred among Muslims and non-Muslims , though in words, is a proof enough that your site is being hijacked by the communal fanatics who have only one foul business: fanning the fire of religious hatred between Muslims and non-Muslims by playing with the religious scriptures. The questions asked by a so-called Rational is a clear attempt aimed at this nefarious end.
    I am aghast at his mischievousness. What  we non-Muslims, fully at peace with our Muslim counterparts in India, can achieve out of these questions? Why cannot we let these Islamic religious issues be limited to the Arab world and not to be extended to our country? We Hindus and Muslims are, by God's grace, happy and comfortable with each other. I see no point in discussing these questions at least in our country.
    By Varsha Sharma - 10/26/2013 8:12:29 AM



  • You should not feel any problem with the glorification of any Imam and any peer. Mr. Rafiq lodhia has reminded you the verse 'you have your religion and i have mine'. 
    What are you doing here on this site? Do you want to remove or raise conflicts among Muslims and non-Muslims? Your answer is still pending. 
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/26/2013 8:11:59 AM



  • dear Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/26/2013 7:39:04 AM

    What the issue was? uncleanliness of non-muslims came up from you explanation on their ban into harmain sharifain. I didn't say they are unclean. I endorsed it just because you gave sufficient reasons.
    your communication with mr moderate is very clear.
    anybody can see this issue became hot by yours, ghulam rasool's, rafiq lodhia's and moderat's comments on their ban. 

    please come to real issue, can they do Dawa work to preach their religion in arab land? please forget the haramain sharifain, can they convert Muslims into non-Muslims? do they have these rights as you have rights in most of the countries.
    your explanation on your peer's glorification of imam hanbal is pending.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/26/2013 7:57:15 AM



  • Mr. Rational,

     

    Every day I read your comments, at least for the past one week and feel that you are literally trying to act like a “Prosecuting Attorney.

     

    I am an independent observer and thinker. I am not on any editorial board of New Age Islam. From all that I have read, it becomes more and more obvious that your sole aim is to pin down “Moderate Muslims” to answer the questions by putting your own words into their minds. It is you who twist and turn as if you are in the court room and wanting to

    cross-question Muslims to your utter delight. Ghulam Ghauz has given a reasonable explanation, yet you are still not satisfied, period.

     

    Yes, with a little God/Bhagwaan/Allah given intelligence I can sense that you and your buddy “Hats Off” are trying to constantly create doubts and pose questions on this forum. Both of you have been busy criticizing Islam and now I feel that you are out to get some sort of confession that is beyond my comprehension. I have no issues with constructive criticism, but this shenanigan have been going on and on with no end in sight.

     

    Again, Mr. Rational. Are you “Mohammed Yunus?” May be that is probably another one of the fictitious names? Rational and intelligent folks do not hide their true identity. I do not appreciate insulting any religion. You will never ever hear any Muslim disrespecting all the Abrahamic Prophets of God. Yet, we see many thrive on criticizing Islam. We the Muslims know that we have many in our midst who are misguided, however, instead of pointing to us about the good of Islam, you are trying to find ways to humiliate and demoralize us. Now that is not a nice thing to do.  

     

    Finally, I was quite amazed when you pointedly asked a question to Sultan Shahin Saheb as follows:

     

    “do you agree hindus have rights to ban the Muslims for their practices unclean as per hindu customs.”          

     

    Our Holy Quran explicitly commands us to honor and obey: You have your religion and I have mine. So what are you and “Hats Off,” and for that matter, “Secular Logic” are trying to achieve? Now, that’s a million dollar question so to speak. I bet you will run away from answering this simple question.

     

    Respectfully yours – rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org  

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/26/2013 7:47:21 AM



  • i am still waiting for an answer to the question. why do the fellow polytheists want to enter haram shareef?  By Moderate - 10/26/2013 7:40:58 AM



  • Dear Rational, you should also post further clarifications of mine, on behalf of our non-Muslim brothers, that I have posted on this site. Again I am posting it to remind you. The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) said: "Anyone who harms a Zimmi (non-Muslim), I will be his litigant and I will beat the one to be an opponent on the Day of Judgment" (al-Suyuti in his book al-Jam'i al-Sughir with a good chain of narrators).

    Non-Muslims including Jews, Christanens, Hindus and polytheists; all are most welcome to the Arab world.  The Quran says, “We have honored the children of Adam; provided them with transport on land and sea; given them for sustenance things good and pure; and conferred on them special favors, above a great part of Our creation.” (Quran 17:70)

    “Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (60:8) "But if the enemies incline towards peace, you too should incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: Surely, He is the All-hearing and the All- knowing. 

    “God does command you justness, goodness and liberality to the near ones and He does forbid you shameful deeds, impropriety and rebelliousness." (16:91). Here the near ones include all Muslims and non-Muslims together By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/26/2013 7:39:04 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/26/2013 7:29:46 AM
    let me read your comments once again. I may be wrong on who said what.
    please don't eat your words back.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/26/2013 7:34:45 AM



  • Mr Rational is working here to raise conflict among muslims and non-muslims. i think you should kill me your dear friend ghulam ghaus or try to purchase him to make him say that polytheists should be allowed to enter haram shareef.
    if not, then you should ban muslims, in return, to enter churches, temples etc. 

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/26/2013 7:29:46 AM



  • Mr Rational is working here to raise conflict among muslims and non-muslims. i think you should kill my dear friend ghulam ghaus or try to purchase him to make him say that polytheists should be allowed to enter haram shareef.
    if not, then you should ban muslims, in return, to enter churches, temples etc. 
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/26/2013 7:28:16 AM



  • "Zimmi" can be another topic for discussion.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/26/2013 6:57:01 AM



  • dear sultan shahin sir.
    copy: mr mohammed yunus, mr ghulam m, mr rashid, mr rafiq lodhia and all whose name i am not mentioning.
    Mr GM said to me in his comment this site is the place where liberal, progressive Muslims come and chat.
    I request you to clarify your position on following points which have been discussed and are pending for proper closure.
    1. reform in what? in Muslims, in religion Islam, or both.
    2. should the ban on entry of non-Muslims continue?
    3. do you agree non-muslims are unclean in body and heart?
    4. should they have rights to do Dawa work in mecca medina, making only the masjid e haram and masjid e nabawi forbidden for them?
    5. should not there be a poll so that all can participate and put their opinion.
    6. will only chat bring some positive result.
    7. should not you use your news letter to get the views of millions of readers on important issue.
    8. do you agree hindus have rights to ban the Muslims for their practices unclean as per hindu customs.
    I am also not rationalizing the same tendencies of non-Muslims to Muslims.
    i request all regular participants to put their opinions so that we can say, yes, a constructive debate went on the NAI.
    please respond. I am not asking for fun. By rational mohammed yunus - 10/26/2013 6:55:49 AM



  • dear ghualm ghauss. your clarification on no entry of non-muslims into harmain sharifan is more than enough. I agree with you non-Muslims should not be allowed because those first they are unclean in body and heart and these places are not for entertainment.

    I repeat you, grd and moderate are clear on this issue.
    *Let us ask mr Sultan Shain, Mr Mohammed Yunus, Mr Ghualm M and Mr Rafiq lodhia, Mr Rashid what these moderates think about it. Should the ban continue.*


    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/26/2013 6:28:10 AM



  • The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) said: "Anyone who harms a Zimmi (non-Muslim), I will be his litigant and I will beat the one to be an opponent on the Day of Judgment" (al-Suyuti in his book al-Jam'i al-Sughir with a good chain of narrators).

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/26/2013 5:46:35 AM



  • Non-Muslims including Jews, Christanens, Hindus and polytheists; all are most welcome to the Arab world.  The Quran says, “We have honored the children of Adam; provided them with transport on land and sea; given them for sustenance things good and pure; and conferred on them special favors, above a great part of Our creation.” (Quran 17:70)

    Leave everything and take the command of this verse.

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/26/2013 4:58:56 AM



  • An idea struck me. If the polytheists are allowed to enter haram shareef today, tomorrow they would say they should be made the imam of haram shareef. If they are not made imams, they would say muslims are immoderate.  By Moderate - 10/26/2013 4:38:19 AM



  • Dear Moderate, let me remember that Mahatma Gandhi once said “The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed.” So I think God Almighty has given about all rights to both Muslims and non-Muslims, but to say, it is not enough for both of them. They are still fighting together for more and more.

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/26/2013 4:21:42 AM



  • dear ghulam ghaus you should ask them why they want to go inside the haram shareef, to worship, or to entertain, or to sleep, to see what is inside, or for other reason. i have read that someone will come and try to demolish Harama shareef. first ask them what is your reason then reply, and please do not waste your time. By Moderate - 10/26/2013 4:12:52 AM



  • Dear Lodhia sb,  in the present time I am bound to do according to the Quran. “Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (60:8) "But if the enemies incline towards peace, you too should incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: Surely, He is the All-hearing and the All- knowing. (8:61) By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/26/2013 4:00:29 AM



  • I fully endorsed when Mr. Ghulam Ghaus quoted the verse "God says: “And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of God (the Quran).  Then deliver him to his place of safety.  That is because they are a people who do not know.” (Quran 9:6) By Moderate - 10/26/2013 3:50:05 AM



  • To live with non-Muslims peacefully in the world with no exception to the Arab land, the Quran says “God does command you justness, goodness and liberality to the near ones and He does forbid you shameful deeds, impropriety and rebelliousness." (16:91). Here the near ones include all Muslims and non-Muslims together By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/26/2013 3:44:08 AM



  • dear rafiq lodhia
    is it a crime to say few good words mutually? are other coomentators not supporting others if they share something or like each other due to some reasons.
    let me say we are trolls. we share this virtue or evil whatever you call it. why it should be a problem to you. why do you need our identity. how wil it benefit you.
    i will compose a comment to mr sultan shahin.
    despite the clarification from sultan saheb we feel you are incharge on behalf of him or at least you have his consent.
    mr ghulam ghauss fully admit that non-muslims should not be allowed to enter harmain sharifain. let me ask you straightly what is your opinion in present time. forget what happened before. yes or no
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/26/2013 3:24:02 AM



  • I would have thought that the issue was settled once for all when the Prophet allowed the Christians from Najran to pray in his mosque. How can we claim to follow the Sunna (practice) of the Prophet, if we argue against allowing non Muslims into these places?

    They should also be allowed to worship if they wish as long as they do not indulge in forms of worship that are objectionable from an Islamic perspective.

    When Allah declares that he is Rabbul Alimeen, the Muslims are bent on proving it wrong.

    Ritual cleanliness is prescribed for good reason but it is not everything. When there is no water, a person can perform Taimum and perform prayer. Is he cleansed by performing Taimum? Taimum is only to make the person feel 
    OK about it and to ensure that the requirement of ritual cleanliness is not bypassed when water is available. Taimum is therefore only a token/symbolic act and not a process that cleanses a person. 


    By Observer - 10/26/2013 2:56:08 AM



  • dear mr. ghulam ghaus, does islamic law give non-muslims the right to preach and attract followers from among the muslims?

    i think you should go ahead and write an article on the right of non muslims to conduct dawa among muslims and what right these preachers have.

    wahiduddin khan looked at the issue of muslim separatism from the point of view of the right of muslims to invite others to islam.

    it would be very educative to know what he thinks about the rights of non muslims to conduct dawa among the muslims. by dawa, i mean calling to faith.

    regards
    By hats off! - 10/26/2013 2:18:12 AM



  • Those who have quoted the Hadith to expel the non-Muslims from the Arab land should also take the following Hadith into their account:

    “Beware!  Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.” (Abu Dawud)

    The rights of non-Muslims in the Arab land can be seen in the letter written by the Caliph Abu Bakr Siddiq (ra) to the non-Muslims of Najran: “In the Name of God, the Beneficent, and the Merciful.  This is the written statement of God’s slave Abu Bakr, the successor of Muhammad, the Prophet and Messenger of God.  He affirms for you the rights of a protected neighbor, in yourselves, your lands, your religious community, your wealth, retainers, and servants, those of you who are present or abroad, your bishops and monks, and monasteries, and all that you own, be it great or small.  You shall not be deprived of any of it, and shall have full control over it” (Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, p. 7)

    Since I talked earlier about the preference during implementation of the Quranic command and Hadiths, I had better give references from the Quran that give full rights to polytheists to enjoy them in the Arab land. Non-Muslims have the right that their honor be protected.  This right is extended not only to non-Muslim residents, but also to visitors.  They all have the right to be secure and protected.  God says: “And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of God (the Quran).  Then deliver him to his place of safety.  That is because they are a people who do not know.” (Quran 9:6) By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/26/2013 1:48:46 AM



  • With humble respect, let me explain to those who are still unknown to or confused on the foregoing comments of mine.  No matter some Polytheists take care of hygiene more than the Muslims do during the dereliction of their ritual practices.

    There are many religions in the world, with each religion having various divisions in its respective faith. Every religion promotes pluralism but with some certain terms and conditions.  To maintain this pluralism, Muslims are bound to not use any heart-wrenching sentence for non-Muslims; Non-Muslims are bound to not interfere into the Muslims’ ritual affairs.  Everyone needs to respect each other’s religious terms, if cannot, at least should not make any objection to them feeling it could harm the pluralism.

    Now to my point, can anyone tell me polytheists perform Wuzu or Ghusl (ritual bathing)? Without waiting for the answer, I say that even Muslims are not allowed to enter the two holy mosques (Harmain Shareefain), if they are unclean. Hence it means that the term of cleanness i.e. Wuzu and Ghusl is for all including Muslims and Non-Muslims together.

    To my second point, both the holy mosques (Harmain shareefain) are places of worship rather than that of entertainment. Kaaba is the house of God Almighty and Masjide Nabawi is called to be the house of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. The One who has love to and faith in God Almighty and his prophet pbuh can enter these two holy houses. Needless to ask whether the polytheists have love or hate regarding God Almighty and his prophet pbuh but what will they do inside the two holy mosques; the places of worship.

    To my third point, polytheists are not allowed to enter the two holy mosques is a religious right to only Muslims. What the rest need to do is make no objection to this right. This is a very beautiful idea that the moderate people of all religions across the world think of for promoting pluralism, and thus they allow one another to practice their respective religion on their own way.

    These three points are related to the entry of the two holy mosques. Now talking about those Hadith which do not permit Non-Muslims to remain in the Arab land, I say, with reference to the explanation of Imam Abu Haneefa, Imam Shafei and Imam Malik, that non-Muslims are most welcome to the Arab world; they can freely run their business, trade and live. According to sciences of Hadith, the preference at the time of implementation is given to the holy Quran. If a Hadith, whether it is authentic or weak, differs the Quran, Muslims are bound to do what the holy Quran says.

    Now let me remind our fellow readers of my article where I talked about ‘Islamic rights to non-Muslims within the Muslim community’. Here the word Muslim community included both Arab and non-Arab lands. Some of the excerpts are worth mentioning; “The scholars of the Islamic law consolidated the relationship between Muslims and others in the Muslim community in the light of the holy Quran and Hadith. There is saying “the one who treats you like himself is supposed to be good for you”. It means that whatever rights, freedoms, and justice we deserve should also be for others. This regulation has been interpreted as follows.

    Provision of protection from external aggression is the responsibility of the Islamic community for non-Muslims. In addition to that,  the internal protection insurance for non-Muslims includes the protection of blood, body, dignity and funds, ensuring the house money, public freedoms like the freedom of belief,  practice, the maintenance of places of worship, thought and learning, in short freedom at all levels: political, social, cultural, economic and religious.

    After all, it must also be pointed out that if an event throughout the history of relations between Muslims and others happened negative in deal, and cruelty in friction, and if the gravity of situation reached the limit of spear, we must certainly relate it to the other factors rather than to the essence of Islam, and the fact of its message. If some Muslim rulers have made errors throughout history and intensified the relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, it cannot be produced as an argument against Islamic standpoint regarding Non-Muslims”.

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/26/2013 1:43:01 AM



  • Mr. Rational, May I humbly ask you, “What’s the real end game between you and ‘Hats Off’?” You both have great admiration for one another. So what’s the scoop? Fill me in, Sirji.

    All you and “Hats Off” need to do is to submit a list consisting of your questions to enable me to pass it on to the respective Islamic scholars. Let them answer all your questions so that you will be at ease. Is that fair enough?

     By the way, I am neither an intelligent nor enlightened person, but merely an ordinary man with a small dose of common sense. That’s about all, Mr. Rational.
     
    Respectfully yours – rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/25/2013 10:55:04 PM



  • sat shri akal lodhia ji
    well let me extend further. criticism to islam +ve or -ve constructive or destructive is not acceptable. it depends on the person how he takes it. a simple remark can be an insult to one religion and exaltation to other. for example slaughtering of a cow is a crime in my district but no crime in goa. for muslims it is no problem for muslims but problamatic to some hindus. shaving the beard is grave sin to sikh but perfact for hindus and christians.
    worship of idol is irrational to muslims but rational majority of hindus. throwing stones at some imaginary shaitan is rational to muslims and irrational to all non-muslims.
    positive criticism is another trick for you to avoid any criticism. i would like to know what is it how it is applicable to islam. criticims of hadith is insult to prophet for some muslims while the exaltation of hadith is bad for other muslims.
    we hear a lot about it, but i don't who is doing it.
    sorry for mistakes in the comment because the browser on my tab is not good. but since you are an intelligent and enlightened one you will overlook and will reach to gist. our mind completes the missing words. if the comment is not par standard which i never claim but it serves me well and creates what it is for.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/25/2013 10:21:36 PM



  • Good Morning Sultan Sahib – As-Salaam Alay-Kum

    Appreciating your kind words about this humble Muslim in replying to Khalid Suhail Saheb,  allow me to add that there will be more folks up in arms too.

    Reactions from “Hats Off” and “Secular Logic” must have been read by many readers. Not to mention the “Rational” one jotted down the following remarks:

    *criticism to Islam is like sulphuric acid to skin, aqua regia to gold, carbon monoxide to blood, termite to wood the list is long.*

    If that be the case, then why “Hats Off” and “Secular Logic” got turned off with my remarks. Truth is bitter and that is what these two distinguished gentlemen do not want to hear.  

    Every single hour, every single day, every single month and every single year many are busy criticizing Islam without properly studying about our religion. What else is new, Sultan Saheb? It is a million dollar industry now and soon it will become a billion dollar industry.

    “Hats Off” claimed that people like him make us uncomfortable. A few pointed remarks from Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia have ruffled the feathers of the enlightened ones. No one is getting rid of no one. You are absolutely right. Let’s us hear opinions of everyone from all different faiths. Let the ones with a hidden mission and/or agenda also learn to confront pragmatic viewpoints of “Moderate Muslims” and not run away from this forum.

    We shall see how much heat they can take when the “Moderate Muslims” get their act together and speak up with a collective voice. Yes, they are there, but we need to wake them up big time.

    Warmest personal regards – rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/25/2013 9:28:50 PM



  • From: Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia –thelodhiacenter.org

    To: Sultan Shahin – Editor & Publisher – NewAgeIslam.com

    Dated: August 19, 2011

    Subject:I WANT TO DIE AN EDUCATED MAN!


    My Dear Sultan Shahin Saheb,

    “In an age like ours, which is not given to letter-writing, we forget what an important part it used to play in people’s lives,” remarked Anatole Broyard, an American writer and an editor of The New York Times. I have always been fascinated with “Letter Writing” ever since I was a young man. I firmly believe that a good letter directly touches the heart of the reader, and not to mention, it ignites thoughts which can linger on for many moons. I wish, I could submit some of my writings in a shape of an article, but for some reason unknown to me, I have, always, been hesitant to do it.

    Today’s “NewAgeIslam.Com” caught my eye, especially, a superb article titled, “The Ideology of Thought Control in Pakistan” which was originally published in Dawn on August 1, 2011. On reading the article, my thoughts went straight towards our recent phone conversation about the sorry state of affairs in the Islamic world. The need of the hour as we both agreed upon is to instill positive thoughts and shun a negative one. You alone are putting your time and energy into a noble task of posting thought-provoking articles on our fellow Muslims which are more in line with the true spirit of Islam. With the crowded cyberspace consisting of so many Islamic websites, yours stands out as a refreshing one.

    Norman Cousins, an American political journalist, professor and the editor of Saturday Review pointed out: “The prime function of writers is to dig deep into their own times, to search for the root causes of crisis and give them a blazing clarity, to stretch the horizons of men’s minds, and to evoke natural greatness of men in response to great causes.”

    With blazing clarity, Maheen Usmani penned her article. Resounding responses from readers across the Indian subcontinent were overwhelming. Three such remarks about her penmanship were rather striking. They were as follows:

    Ambijat says: People like Maheen Usmani are Kohinoor of Pakistan. They must flourish for the cause of humanity.

    Vireen Singh says: A great piece by a very enlightened writer. Some very insightful analysis by relevant examples. Maheen your painstaking research analysis deserves to be shared widely in Pak.

    V. Kurian says: A great article … which will force the masses into some form of introspection. Kudos to Dawn for publishing this and speaks volumes about the print media of Pakistan. Finally to the people of Pakistan don’t shoot the messenger just think about it … it is the greatest asset of your country the next generation.

    Needless to say that countless similar type of articles have already been published, but the only difference is that Maheen Usmami has systematically and explicitly outlined the undoing of modern education in the country of Pakistan. All such critical analysis by a handful of wise Muslims thinkers and writers should never be discarded. Islamic religious scholars must be all ears to hear valid arguments directed against the flaws in the Islamic educational system. No doubt, any attempt to change will be resisted with the usual hue and cry by the ignorant Mullahs who in my mind have been totally responsible for a massive decadence in the educational process of the Muslim youths. It is high time for all Muslims to come to a foregone conclusion that the very cause of the decay should be solely contributed to the Mullahs’most stupid belief: Follow Markaz, what they are saying; don’t implement your thoughts.

    Well there you go, Sultan Saheb. The crux of the problem that is plaguing the Islamic Educational System boils down to Don’t Implement Your Thoughts. Maneckji Nusservanji Dhalla, High Priest of the Parsis, Karachi of undivided India, summed up in his book “Our Perfecting World, ”(1930) in a very simple sentence: “Thought decays and dies when attempts are made to enforce standardization and uniformity.” Majority of the curriculum in the Islamic madrassas, and also in the primary and secondary schools in the Islamic countries are strictly confined towards standardization of thoughts that breeds prejudice and extremism. Little wonder that the ultimate result of such an educational system has not been able to produce any powerful thinkers in the Islamic world at large.

    Norman Cousins wrote a brilliant article titled, Does Anyone Have Time to Think?

    (March 26, 1955) which should be read by all the intellectuals hailing from the Islamic world. As always, I am backing up my humble thoughts with the wisdom of wise men so that there can be a much deeper understanding in grasping the spirit of my message. In addition, I will also relay Thought In Bondageby Maneckji Nusservanji Dhalla which is equally enlightening. Persecution of thoughts have been rampant in the Islamic world. I alone have experienced it not only in the recent days, but in the yesteryears too. Any thoughts that challenge the status quo are instantly quashed with mean spirited words. In fact, I was absolutely floored by reading a sentence recently posted on the website by a seasoned Muslim veteran to another: “Will you please ask Mr. Lodhia to take care of his house and leave the Muslim world.” Something terribly has gone wrong and we must try to displace such a demonic mind-set. Come to think of it, such a thought coming forth during this Holy Month of Ramadan is all the more shocking, so to speak.

    Candidly speaking, I was sheerly delighted to realize that Maheen Usmani quoted Alvin Toffler, an American writer and futurist. Talking about this outstanding thinker who is admired by many leaders around the world, I must share with you the time I spent with Maulana Wahiddudin Khan on a Christmas Day– December 25, 2010. Dr. Saniyasnain Khan, his son insisted upon me to be his house-guest. The very next day right after my lunch with Maulana Saheb, I flipped through the pages of “Future Shock” by Alvin Toffer which was in Dr. Saheb’s library. His elder daughter Sadia Khan read out the paragraph to Maulana Saheb. I know that you will appreciate my thoughts in extracting a few paragraphs from the book as follows:

    “One winter night I witnessed a poignant quiver run through a seminar room when a white-haired man explained to a group of strangers what had brought him there to attend my class on the Sociology of the Future. The group included corporate long-range planners, staff from major foundations, publishers and research centers. Each participant spieled off his reason for attending. Finally, it was the turn of the little man in the corner. He spoke in cracked but eloquent English: “My name is Charles Stein. I am a needle worker all my life. I am seventy-seven years old, and I want to get what I didn’t get in my youth. I want to know about the future. I WANT TO DIE AN EDUCATED MAN!


    The abrupt silence that greeted this simple affirmation still rings in the ears of those
    present. Before this eloquence, all the armor of graduate degrees, corporate titles and prestigious rank fell. I hope Mr. Stein is still alive, enjoying his future, and teaching others, as he did us that night.

    When millions share this passion about the future we shall have a society far better equipped to meet the impact of change. To create such curiosity and awareness is a cardinal task of education. To create an education that will create this curiosity is the third, and perhaps central, mission of the super-industrial revolution in the schools. Education must shift into the future tense.”

    My referring these three paragraphs of Alvin Toffler was to enlighten Maulana Saheb to reinforce in his future writings “The Desire To Learn. Unfortunately, we Muslims are stuck in the “Past Tense.” We have no inclination to learn as to what it means to shift into the “Future Tense.” It takes “A Great Thinker,” like Alvin Toffler to highlight an example of one Charles Stein. In the Islamic seminar such a query from an older person will not be paid any heed let alone allow to stir the minds of the younger ones who are routinely being controlled by the Mullahs from different school of thoughts.

    Thou Shall Not Thinkmantra successfully drives our “Present Tense.” In other words, The Whole Thing Has To Be Completely Rethought says Alvin Toffler. Click and listen to him on YouTube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7W3_N5_Fes&feature=related

    All in all, keep up the good work, Sultan Shahin Saheb. You can be rest assured that one well-wisher named Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia will always be on your side. May Almighty Allah give you strength and courage to carry on with your monumental task to help open the eyes of our fellow Muslim brethren through the writings of a few Muslim intellectuals across the Islamic world. Knowing the prevailing condition of suppressing the thoughts of the so-called “Progressive Muslim Thinkers,the least you and I can do is to remain proactive in encouraging, promoting and circulating the right message of Islam.

    May Almighty Allah bless you for all of your good works.

    Warmest personal regards,

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/25/2013 4:58:08 PM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin Saheb,
     Thank you very much for this clarification.
    By Khalid Suhail - 10/25/2013 12:10:24 PM



  • if anyone on this forum is of the opinion that either mr rational or i defamed islam, let the editor please ask mr ghaus or mr dehlvi to do some background work on ali dashti and mehmood taha and draft a couple of in depth articles. let us see if mr ghulam ghaus will be quite up to it. or if it beneath his edrudition to do all that let him at least read "23 years" by ali dashti.

    he should read it and review the book for the benefit of the readers. the book is freely available all over the internet.

    this will be a kind of benchmark on the tolerance of the writers here as well as the forum members. it would be childish to throw challenges, but let mr sultan claim that he (apart from his personal opinion) can write articles on these two individuals and not expect to shock most of this readers onsite.

    the young muslims who mr lodhia will probably unleash here will simply tear the piece to pieces. and throw in a couple of threats against the authors for free at no extra charge.

    muslim forums rarely speak about the famous middle ages agnostics. especially the muslim liberals, who were responsible for most of the past glories of islam. but perhaps islamic achievements need to be attained only by the believers. something like the nobel prize abdus salam did not win for muslims.
    By hats off! - 10/25/2013 9:17:45 AM



  • wasl ki rahat to ghari do ghadi ki hai
    bas mujhe ek khalish musalsal chahiye.
    manzil par pahuncha to thahar jaoonga
    bas mujhe to safar musalsal chahiye
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/25/2013 8:05:22 AM



  • mr lodhia let it be known that he was here at the invitation or recommendation of mr shahin.

    i did not think he was "another" commentator. in other words he created the impression that his comments are on mr shahin's behalf.

    may be my impression was wrong. so it is confusing now to understand whether it is mr lodhia who found (mr rational's and my) posts offensive, or bordering on offensive or it was mr shahin who thought so but was unwilling to say.

    i thought mr lodhia told mr secular logic that he was here at the invitation of mr shahin. this caused considerable confusion.

    so is mr lodhia a member of the editorial policy making group? i think this needs to be clarified.

    but then on the other hand it needn't be.
    By hats off! - 10/25/2013 8:02:47 AM



  • Thank you dear Sultan shahin saheb for explanation.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/25/2013 7:53:20 AM



  • "If I may, I would strongly advise him to study the subject of statistics."
    it smells of mr naseer ahmed
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/25/2013 7:46:12 AM



  • Dear Khalid Suhail Saheb, Lodhia Saheb does not represent "Islam and Muslims." His inability to take criticism does not mean that "Islam and Muslims cannot take criticism." It is generally true, though, and I agree with you, that Muslims do not take kindly to criticism.  However, Hindus, on this site too, do not take kindly to criticism. This includes those who claim to be secular, liberal, rational, balanced and keep criticizing Muslims for their extremism.

    However, the policy of the website is to contest ideas through ideas. People who do not have ideas contest through violence or abuse or censorship. I advise them to go home, stop reading criticism. No one is forcing criticism down any one's gullet.

    No one commentator represents New Age Islam's view. I myself put forward my personal view most of the time. Occasionally, I do explain the website's editorial policy. On such occasions you may consider me representing the website.

     I have not asked Lodhia Saheb to drive out critics. I only ask people, whosoever calls me with his or her concerns, to say all that they are telling me in comments. This is what I have told Lodhia Saheb too. He called me a few days ago with many of his concerns. I asked him to say all this in comments. Post comments, I tell everyone, as I did to him. Lodhia Saheb, however, is entitled to his views, even his prejudices, preferences, even his ideas about how the website should function. Like everyone else, he is also entitled to express his ideas including about what the website should do and should not do.

    By Sultan Shahin - 10/25/2013 7:30:29 AM



  • dear hats off! - 10/25/2013 5:58:22 AM
    you are aware i had conversation with mr naseer ahmed. mr sadaf offered me his side in the battle between him and mr naseer ahmed which i turned down. at that time there was a much noise on my quoting the ahadith about the personal life of the prophet. whether explanations made by naseer saheb were acceptable to me or not, i will appreciate he never hurled abuses over me on my quotation of uncomfortable ahadith.
    later he opted to leave the forum because mr sadaf doggedly chased him. *i asked editor many times what is the positive outcome of your debate with mr  naseer ahmed? there was no response.*
    i share the common feeling why a gentleman unlike me left the forum. you have given the reason. i had sympathy with him because of lumping all wahabis by the editor. for naseer ahmed it was a matter of law and order. for mr sultan shahin it was a matter of ideology. another point he was sympathetic to tablighi jamat which was not acceptable to mr sultan shahin and his allies.
    so finaly i concluded here the war is between barailviat and wahbiyat. I call it firqawarana(sectarian) war. it is not about any reform. there is no brainstorming. have you seen any reform so far? has mr ghulam ghauss changed his views, has mr mohammed yunus changed his stand, has mr sultan shahin changed his voice, has all other participates holding brailviat changed their stand. the answer is: plain and clear No.
    Once again thanks a lot for soothing words.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/25/2013 7:06:09 AM



  • To Mr Hats off Aka hats down, Khalid Suhail, Mr Secular Logic Aka Jansanghi
    Thanks for all kind words. Nobody knows the true intentions of anybody. What is important is: we successfully found the truth. *criticism to Islam is like sulphuric acid to skin, aqua regia to gold, carbon monoxide to blood, termite to wood the list is long.*
    moderates including their monitor terribly failed in the test.
    observer may keep beating the bush hardly or softly that we have left for him. Before you all go for a period to take fresh air read my latest finding addressed to Mr Ghulam Ghauss and Mr Sultan Shahin. the head of peaceful sufis  peeran peer hails the head of jehadis. By rational mohammed yunus - 10/25/2013 6:36:41 AM



  • dear mr khalid suhail, please use the search box at the top right hand side if the newageislam website to search for comments by mr naseer ahmad. while you may entirely disagree with him (between gentlemen confident of their faith or reason this is generally the case).

    please follow the entire sequence of responses and try to figure out why mr naseer ahmad decided to stop posting and quit. i got a very distinct impression that he is back here, but is unwilling to write under his real name. he also wrote two very brilliant articles which we really struggled to counter.

    the exchange between mr naseer ahmad and the editorial board proved an even more alarming thing. it proved that no matter how much of ijimas, ijitihads and qiyas you have there is no matching agreement at all. this internal fissure is inherently more dangerous than a concerted attack either from an apostate or what this forum fondly terms 'jansanghis'. (this word fell into un-use after one mr sadaf left the forum. it was his most favored tu qoque word)

    from what i gathered, he (mr naseer ahmad) is a practicing muslims with full faith in the koran's divine nature as well as the infallibility of the prophet. he appears to be a retired bureaucrat with deep knowledge of the ground realities among the disaffected muslim youth. for all this i remember him saying in another context of momeen-kufar marriages, that he has absolutely no qualms if his own children chose to marry un-vbelievers and that he believes that the personal choice is sacrosanct so to say. he has an interesting explanation (i think by quillam, the founder of quillam foundation) why it makes sense for momeen women NOT to marry kufar or even ahl e kitab men. though interesting, the explanation did not convince me.

    so the most interesting issue is why he - a believer, a practicing muslim and a brilliant scholar with very original interpretation of the koran and hadith - felt constrained to exit from the forum voluntarily.

    from what i could gather, he was against ascribing all the ummah's problems to either the so called wahabis, or salafis or jehadis. he was uncomfortable with these labels. he depended more on the psycho-social aspects of religion related terror and the political expediencies that create expendable warriors who have idle time on their hands once they have served the purposes of their creators (the us, ksa, britain etc). this interesting and potentially useful, approach is now entirely replaced by in interpretation, reinterpretation and yet more interpretation.

    after all this ruckus, it might have been infinitely less trouble if mr sultan shahin had simply disabled comments. but for reasons known to him, he chose mr mohammad rafiq lodhia to clean up the forum of apostates and the kuffar.

    the fact still remains that leave alone the kufars and the apostates, there seems to be no possibility of agreement between any two given muslims unless the happen to belong to the exact same sub-sub-subsect.

    regards

    By hats off! - 10/25/2013 5:58:22 AM



  • My impression of hats off is that he gets hysterical and often gets carried away by his obvious command over the language and misses the woods for the trees. However, I have never sensed a single false note in him. He says what he believes to be true and never argues for the sake of an argument. That is more than what  can be said about most people.
    He has also revealed his true name in one of his recent posts. An alert observer would have picked it up.
    If I may, I would strongly advise him to study the subject of statistics. That would help him not miss the woods for the trees.
    We know that India, with all it's faults, is a great country, which is peopled by good people who are secular by and large. If however, one were to compile every incident of communal riots since independence, employment statistics of minorities etc and not include anything positive about the country, one could create an impression that this country is impossible for the minorities to live in. We know that this is far from the truth. The point that I am trying to make is that one should know when people selectively  collect incidents and statistics to put across a view point, and must be careful to ensure that they consider the total picture if they are not to draw false conclusions. A knowledge of statistics will help weigh the evidence and avoid jumping to conclusions based on anecdotal or scanty evidence.
    Rational Mohd Yunus has no pretensions whatsoever which makes it difficult to dislike him. He does not claim to be right or without prejudice or without faults. He plays the role of 'devil's advocate' admirably.  As long as people are aware that he has chosen to play this role, there should be no problem. He would however protest and say that he is not playing any role and he should be taken seriously. Yes, he does speak the truth quite often and much like a court jester, punctures people at the right moment.
    People do tend to get a little melodramatic with a false sense of importance. I do not think that anybody in this forum has done anything earth shattering to attract any unwelcome attention of the extremists.
    Use of tor software may attract unnecessary attention. People would wonder why someone should be using tor software. One must  have a very strong reason for doing so and preferably an official reason which only a person in government service may have. I would advise against using camouflaging software. One may like to maintain anonymity for several reasons. We are a different person and have a very different image in the office and in our house. One may prefer to isolate ones professional identity from his other identities and may take a pseudonym. It need not necessarily be out of fear. I wouldn't expect anyone to be discussing the subjects that are discussed in this forum in his office and therefore feel the necessity of maintaining a different pseudonym. While I do take different pseudonyms, I make no effort to conceal my identity. My only concern is that the search engine should not mix up my different identities. My professional identity should only give information about my professional activities and not what I write as an individual on a subject that has nothing to do with my profession.
    By Observer - 10/25/2013 5:28:52 AM



  • Wow! what a turn the events have taken!

    From lengthy, boring, confusing and eventually inconclusive discussions about whether separatism is unlislamic, to whether polytheists are unclean in mind, body or both, to whitewashing history, to declaring critics to be persona non grata and chasing them away from this site with unkind words. 

    Congratulations. Perhaps this is the new age way to clear the virtual land of apostates, atheists, polytheists and skeptics, in the way of the Prophet who said every Muslim should strive to establish - what is that word I forget - roughly meaning a worldly paradise in which each person is a believer.

    Sickening, really, the way you handle criticism. You cannot change the faith, so shoot the critics.

    For your kind information, all those who seek to be a beacon for Muslim youth, reform in thought only happens when someone revolts. Look at the revolutions around the world. To establish democracy, the french revolution was needed; to abolish slavery, the civil war was needed; to abolish imperialism, a thousand revolutions were needed. You need revolutionaries, not wishy washy apologist marginalist moderates if any semblance of modernity and progressive thought has to be brought to Islam. 

    As for my anonymity, which is a great point of distress for Mr Lodhia, I would like to ask a counterquestion. What benefit would it have for either me or you to reveal my identity? My thoughts will remain the same. Instead of calling me X, you will call me Y. Unless you are planning to come to my house and give me personal counselling on how to clean my unclean polytheist heart. 

    Isn't it much more fun to guess who I may be? Maybe a man, maybe a woman, maybe a homosexual, maybe a transsexual, maybe a janasanghi, maybe an RSS pracharak, maybe a paid RSS bot earning a living posting on NAI.... the possibilities are endless. Have fun dissecting the virtual person. :)

    And while we are guessing, Mr Lodhia, I feel you have guessed all wrong wrt your bete noire Hats off. :)

    And with that, I take my leave from this site for some time. Aap log lage raho. Rational, we have just one life. The world is so beautiful. There are so many good people in it too. Why are you wasting precious moments here and fielding so much hate? It is not worth it. There is going to be no change in mindsets, no generosity to apostates, no removing of blinkers. Just get the hell out of here and let these guys keep telling each other how wonderful and flawless Islam is. And how glorious and spotless the history of Islam is. 
    By secular logic - 10/25/2013 5:15:01 AM



  • "anyway we learn the hard way that islam and muslims do not take kindly to criticism".
    By hats off! - 10/25/2013 4:18:04 AM
    And New Age Islam is no exception. So what. This is not the only job left for us.
    Aur bhi gham hain zamane mein muhabbat ke sewa.
    Rahaten   aur   bhi   hain   wasl   ki  rahat   ke   sewa.
    By Khalid Suhail - 10/25/2013 4:55:03 AM



  • Dear Mr. rational, please.

    Every sane man *should* be respectful of fear. You should be glad that you got the hint of unpleasantness from Mr. Lodhia, but I think he simply means to scare you and me and make Mr. Sultan Shahin feel secure.

    In a way we are forewarned and consequently forearmed.

    While I said everyman should be afraid, I also say no one should be scared. Fear is a life saving emotion. Scare is not.

    Scare just freezes you. This is part of the fight, flight or fright reaction among the mammals. Fright cause your muscles to go into spasm and you are unable to move. The opposite also sometimes occurs. The muscles lose tone and cannot generate effective contraction. So flight and fight are both impeded by fright.

    Never *ever* be scared, but please be afraid. Especially if those that threaten do it in a particularly polished and seemingly innocuous way. On the other hand the threat of an uncouth ill-mannered man is more of bluster. That from a polished seemingly educated person is definitely much more serious.

    Dear mar rational, if you panic you will never be able to think. Thinking is essential in planning a strategy. Never ever broadcast your fear. It only emboldens the one who holds out a threat.

    Be calm.

    And above all else please do not ever think you are alone. in any case, it is possible to get your ip address. But that is not sufficient for them to locate your residential address. Please do a Google search for a 'tor' program and acquaint yourself with anonymity software. There are programs that make finding your ip tremendously difficult (but not impossible).

    as long as you are not using mobile phones for web browsing, you are a little more safe. i say this because it is possible (with a bribe or a friend at the right place in a carrier company) to get phone numbers, address and residence proof which are mandatory for purchasing SIM cards.

    Dear Mr. rational please stops commenting on this site if you really think it is unsafe. I do not think it is unsafe, but that i decided to stop posting is another thing.

    However, I will be browsing this site frequently at least to see what you are feeling. I will not hesitate to post comments if i feel they are needed to support you morally.

    But it is my humble opinion that people like us makes these people uncomfortable. so it is but natural they try to get rid of us. i feel we should simply take it in our stride.

    Anyway we learn the hard way that Islam and Muslims do not take kindly to criticism. After all this is what we have all along been saying.

    By hats off! - 10/25/2013 4:18:04 AM



  • dear sultan shahin. i trust your words you once said to me and mr dharamraj. those words were perhaps " you are my guest you have more important works to do than revealing your identities" i may have not recalled correctly but i have got the gist.
    now your new warrior in faith has done nice trying. this new warrior in order to get rid off me tried to join the hands with a person your old or byegone  warrior used to call jansanghi. the fault of mr jansanghi is he wrote a songle line praising comment to a peraon hats off is calling punching bag.
    you yourself didn't try to ban me because you were not ready to your image of ademocratic enlightened moderate. do you want it get done by a new warrior?
    this new warrior wants our identity badly. our fortune is in your hands. with a wink of your eye you can do the job. i dont want to bother you by quoting an appropriate hadith for this situatiion.
    i
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/25/2013 3:19:23 AM



  • dear mr lodhia, i want to clear certain things. if mr 'so and so' got the impression that i was 'such and such', it does not mean that i share his opinion. or that it describes me accurately.

    i have never self identified myself as either brilliant or a particularly well read man. may be commentators have wrongly judged my education and my intent and intelligence. i have read some english language stuff but nothing the average man would have not. of urdu or hindi or arabic or persian I have read none. so it all depends. in urdu i am illiterate. in english and another language i am a little bit read (if i may say so).

    i continue to read. more and more of my reading these days is alarming stuff, like your comments or mr ghulam ghaus's opinion among other alarming ones that the sun revolves around the earth. i am quite fine with it.

    i am sure you are curious to know if i am a christian or a hindu, though you are inclined to classify me as hindu. any way, some mystic has said no one knows his true religion until the moment before he meets his maker.

    my religious identity or lack of it is something you will have to guess. i am sure you can make a reasonably accurate guess, given your understanding of human nature and how best to judge them. more easily you could ask the editor for my email id and you will have made some progress on your attempt at unravelling my identity, but probably not my religious denomination.

    i sincerely believe that a face to face debate and or dialogue is a little dangerous given the trigger-happy fingers religious people seem to have developed in the last two decades. a competitive culture of feigning hurt feelings to deflect debate is becoming very common. it might soon become standard.

    i believe there is much difference between being afraid and being prudent. i believe i am prudent, while you might think me afraid. i am not that much afraid. i am afraid - but just as much as the other person. not scared and not at all like alexander who knew no fear. (it could probably have been a genetic defect).

    i have reasons to do as much as i can to hide my identity and in fact your comment just reminded me of a promise i made to myself sometime ago, to get an effective tunneling protocol or a good vpn software.

    i will, sooner than later.

    i do not need to remind you of all those names that had to hide from religion, and the names of those that were sacrificed to it. some continue to hide even to this day. i have my reasons to be on guard. i mean everyone ought to keep themselves reasonably well protected. this is of paramount importance in these days of resurgent religious fundamentalism especially among the so called educated people. in fact it is more likely for a jihadi to be educated, moderately well off and young.

    as for what i gained from this forum, i had the luck to read mr mohammad yunus (the un-prefixed). i am lucky to have come across one mr naseer ahmad who no longer comments under his own name, (i think he has become more active during the past week or so. you need to do a textual anlysis to enable you to identify the likely pseudonym under which he is communicating). I learnt from him the defect in my understanding of cognitive dissonance. he also opined that religion has dulled the edge of the human propensity to kill. but I was not convinced. i learn't from another past intrepid warrior - mr sadaf that islam means never getting disappointed and never feeling pessimistic. he was also very much bothered with my "support" to mr rational (just as you are) and was very eager for me to leave (just as you are).

    but somehow, i did not get a feeling of being warned, unlike with you. this is something about which i feel, you need to do something, but that is just my opinion. i also learnt that i need to take you very very seriously. i understand you are a man of deeds. not just words, like the rest of us.

    i think if i told you if i had muslim friends or not, you will be that much closer to busting my cover. so i choose to not answer that one. i am delighted that you have many hindu friends and am sure that all religions are well-represented among your acquaintances. this is laudable. the world is a small place, and you are bound to come across all kinds. so.

    as for not having to hide your identity you are fortunate. i am not as fortunate. others who did not hide their identity were even less fortunate. in any case there is no "real" anonymity on the web. like i said there are zillions of free hacking tools. parallelly i have nothing to display to you either. i hope that is clear.

    i will however give much weight to your advice to rest my fingers as well as to stop posting here - seeing that it is mr sultan shahin for whom you are speaking. but i am sure he would have managed a cleaner cut rather than the slash and gash you have made. i will also take your advice to - if possible - brush up on the mahabharata. should be a change from bukhari and dawud and al tafsir dot com..

    i think i have covered most of the points you raised except about your misreading my reference to mr mohammad yunus, who you chose to believe is mr rational. this is in addition to my not kidding you. this is a democratic world. so you are welcome to your opinion. and if i have overlooked any other points you are welcome to point out. i will try my best to respond, but do not be too sure.

    regards
    By hats off! - 10/25/2013 1:57:29 AM



  • Lodhia saheb, I agree that this site should continue to be a beacon for Muslim youth with its moderate/progressive/liberal/reformist agenda. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/25/2013 12:59:42 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Saheb,

     

    You are so right in making a statement that, “Since this forum is not to discuss Hindu history, I shall leave it here.”

     

    Hats Off” being a learned man versus Mohammed Yunus being a confused man, there is nothing much they can contribute on this forum either.

     

    Let us move on and do what Sultan Shahin Saheb wants to achieve. Our ultimate goal

    should be to bring more Muslim youths on “New Age Islam” forum and to help enlighten their minds about the spiritual message of Islam so that they won’t be hijacked by the “Jihadists.

     

    I am sorry to say that “Apostates” have a totally different agenda altogether. They are living in a twilight zone so to speak. Let them do all the jibber jabber they can. There is nothing much to be gained by reading anything that they write.

     

    Very sincerely yours, rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/24/2013 11:56:23 PM



  • Hats Off,

     So do I and Sultan Shahin Saheb and few of my good friends on the “New Age Islam” forum.

     “Moderate Muslims” do not issue threats or warnings. That is not what we do in life.   

    Kindly set your records straight, please.

     Debating with a real person is always a pleasure, but with a person with hidden identity is always a matter of grave concern. Why would a brilliant and well-read person cover up his own identity? That does not make any sense, or does it? If you are there to sincerely try to pinpoint the flaws of Islam, then why not let the Islamic world know your honest to goodness viewpoints? Why are you afraid? If you are then, why are you wasting your valuable time in this forum? Merely acting as a cheer leader of @rational will not change the minds of Muslims.  

     May I ask, “What did you gained from this forum after so many rebuttals?” Your more than generous support for @rational viewpoints are well noted. Nonetheless, one can easily hunch that it is only because of his speaking against Islam all the time. For me, the man is a sore “Loser,just like the “Jihadist” who are deadly killers.   

     By the way, do you have any Muslim friends? Well, I do have quite a number of Hindu friends. You can ask any one of them about my personal character and they will be more than happy to give you all that you and your friend “Secular Logic” wants to know about this humble Muslim. I have nothing to hide unlike you and Mr. Logic.

     Have a blessed day. Give your fingers rest for a couple of days. Heads Up & Smile.

     Sincerely yours, rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/24/2013 11:39:56 PM



  • Secular says, "What Hindus say is all lies whitewashed history -after all, they are people impure in body and soul."
    Do not overdramatize. Hindus are not impure in body or soul. Just consider two questions. Why do sanghi historians have to rely on Muslim sources which are known to be exaggerated and colourful? Why did A.R.Majumdar in 'The Hindu History' (1979) observe, "From 650 AD, perhaps to suit the needs of the age, Hindus rather suppressed history and invented nice legends instead"?
    BTW I never said Hindus are inferior to others. All I said was that they are not superior to others.
    Since this forum is not to discuss Hindu history, I shall leave it here. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/24/2013 11:37:58 PM



  • dear mr lodhia, i read your comment. i have very strong views on religions.
    you can find the reasons in your own response.
    i moves me as blindly as it moves you. that is the danger of religion. even a script kiddie can find out my identity. given the free tools, you can always find out my ip address. even god unwilling.
    i did not understand if this was a warning or threat.
    when you say i spend too much time on this site, i realize you are right! i will definitely look into it and do the needful. regards. By hats off! - 10/24/2013 10:53:06 PM



  • Good Morning Hats Off,

     

    Your sane and educated colleague “Secular Logic” wrote as follows, “For the sake of my own sanity, I avoid coming to this site and reading the views of the most biased, rabid, brainwashed, churlish and irrational people on this planet.” I can understand his comment,

    however, I wonder if that includes you too, “Hats Off.”

     

    You ought to be in this mix as here is the count of rebuttals on this particular thread:

     

    rationalmohammedyounus (55)             

    Hats Off (38)

    Ghulam Mohiyuddin (26)

    Khalid Suhail (12)

    Moderate (17)

    Observer (14)

    Ghulam Gaus (10)

    Secular Logic (8)

    Rafiq Lodhia  (7)

    Sultan Shahin (6)    

     

    Everyone on this forum can now clearly see who have been the most active participants.

    You are a runner-up “Hats Off.” Whilst a radical Mullah incites the “Jihadists, you on

    on the other hand are busy trying to hail @rationalmohammedyounus as, “the most polished gentleman on this forum.”  Of course, you have a right to your opinion, but I do question your wisdom given that you are supposed to be a brilliant and well-read person? Is that so, “Hats Off”?  

     

    Apparently you have a tough time differentiating between those who speak the truth and those who don’t. If you wish to debate real Islam, then you ought to spare your precious time and discuss the subject matter with Maulana Wahiduddin Khan. Trust me, it will be much more enlightening than going back and forth with those who renounced Islam and carries in their hearts nothing but a personal grudge.     

     

    What took me by surprise is another bizarre statement of yours which reads as follows:

     

    I will probably rest my restless fingers until another blast at another church or mosque and another mall is mauled in another place or another town like muzzafarpur or khairlanji is re-visited. By hats off! - 10/23/2013 9:10:03 PM

     

    Gee! Your colleague “Secular Logic” probably overlooked this remark of yours. It is obvious that you are on this forum to also incite and humiliate “Moderate Muslims. That might well be your ultimate agenda after all, “Hats Off.” Do you think that we the Muslims are stupid? No we are not.   

     

    Now rest your fingers and just be sure to ask your own self about who is most biased, rabid, brainwashed, churlish and irrational? An educated man should at least make an honest to goodness attempt to agree with some of the moderate viewpoint, but instead, you are endorsing those who speak against Islam. I am baffled as to why do you spend so much time on this “New Age Islam” forum? We shall soon find out what is your true identity? Bhagwaan willing.

     

    My most humble advice to you is to reflect and ponder over “Mahabharata” as follows:

     

    Let us overcome the angry man with gentleness.      

    the evil man with goodness,

    the miser with generosity,

    the liar with truth.

     

    Hats Off,” rest your mind and try to practice your religion by expounding good words and not supporting those who are hell-bent on saying wrong things about another religion. Is

    that too much to ask from a brilliant person?    

     

    Respectfully yours, rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/24/2013 10:19:41 PM



  • Of course, Mr Ghulam.

    After that self-declared verdict, there can be no argument, can there?

    What Hindus say is all lies whitewashed history -after all, they are people impure in body and soul, what else can be expected from them; what Muslim historians say of themselves is exaggerated. (Why would one exaggerate one's atrocities unless they are considered to be acts of virtue, beats me)

    Muslim rulers did no wrong. There was no temple destruction in the cause of Islam. It was all only to steal temple wealth. No Muslim would ever break a temple or church. The idol destruction happened due to spontaneous combustion. Nobody was killed. Nobody was persecuted. Nobody was forced to convert. No women were abducted. Rajasthani royal women who committed Johar did so out of false alarmist tendencies and to defame the nice Muslim gentlemen who were making a courtesy call. Ok. Have it your way. The Rahman panel has made similar suggestions regarding how history should be taught in India. I am reposting the link, it should warm the cockles of your heart.

    http://epaper.indianexpress.com/176392/Indian-Express-Mumbai/24-October-2013#page/3/1

    History is inconvenient, therefore, suppress it.

    By secular logic - 10/24/2013 9:33:04 PM



  • Rational Mohd Y,
    Sadly you have to choose between being dishonest and being desultory. I don't have to choose either. I can choose to be honest and to remain focused. Also, does it occur to you that being desultory is a sign of dishonesty and in the current context, a euphemism for dishonesty?
    The Wikipedia account of expulsion Najran Christians is lacking in historic evidence by the wiki account itself since many Christians have always lived in and around Najran. To prove that the Prophet or Muslims indiscriminately expelled the Jews, you need to account for how every Jewish tribe was dealt with and not give the example of a Jewish tribe punished for high treason during a state of war endangering the very existence of Islam/Muslims. Can the Judicial execution of Afzal Guru be cited to prove treatment of Muslims in India? By Observer - 10/24/2013 9:30:32 PM



  • dear mr rational, one little thing here, if i may say so.

    it can also be said that if ashoka had to make rivers of blood to realize the importance of peace, he must have been am empathy-disabled person. many people who commit cruel crimes also suffer from emotional and empathic disabilities. these persons are not able to empathize as readily as others without this disability.

    what i am saying is unless we stop depending upon religion and religious texts to judge men here and in the hereafter, this bonfire will only grow bigger. it might even consume all of us. may be the fresh crop of humans will then learn to live without the crutches of religion. this is not say killing will end. but religion based killing might (just might).

    every religion has its bright spots and dark stains. the problem occurs when the zealous followers of one religion try to dress up their own religion and claim a perfection which is not obvious to other observers, while shouting down religions of other..

    i do not think that many moderate muslim will be comfortable thinking that may be islam too can be improved upon. many may even vehemently assert that islam is without defects and in addition it has answers for everything in human life here and in the hereafter. how can one argue if one comes across this posture?

    the claim to superiority of any one religion is totally unsupported by any kind of even rudimentary evidence. in fact the evidences produced by all parties is only against each other. never if support.

    how many moderate believing muslims would like to think that islam too MAY have faults? these faults are obvious to many people, but as we have declared faith to be beyond question everything and anything in the name of religion goes.

    even mr hanif's balanced and reasoned comment has a small problem. he assumes that the jews and christians have committed sins and blunders and asks his god to help him in not repeating them.

    you simply have to ask the jews and christians if they indeed have committed sins and blunders. i am reasonably sure they will vehemently deny it and conclude that mr hanif's prayer belittles the christians and jews. this is a reasonable conclusion anyone would come to.

    the subtext is, our prophet gives a special place for yours, why don't you return the favor. there is no give and take in religion.

    this would have been a wonderfully potent argument, had mohammad not banned future prophetics. prophethood could have then gone on alternating between the jews, christians, and the muslims.

    many jews and christians might argue that this prophethood cannot be unilaterally terminated for all times to come. this would very distressing for all those who wait for their own prophets to arrive.

    ahmadiyas and the bahais tried challenging this final prophethood conjecture and they are paying the price.
    By hats off! - 10/24/2013 9:07:41 PM



  • Dear Mohammed Hanif - 10/24/2013 7:39:41 PM
    I see Mohammed Yunus the scholar in you if you don't mind.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/24/2013 7:54:51 PM



  • Muslims will not be able to wash their blooded  history because it satisfies their supremacist thinking.
    Ashoka killed as many as he wanted, but later became the parcharak of Buddhism. I don't know as a Buddhist king or parcharak how many human beings were killed by his sword or words.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/24/2013 7:49:41 PM



  • Bismillah Hirrahman Niirahim

    Dear Rafiq Sahab

    This is in response to the ongoing New Age Islam discussion.

    The fundamental problem of the Muslims today is of self-righteousness, pride and exclusivity. All these aspects have been singularly condemned by the perfect guidance, Al-Quran. As far as my understanding goes the stories of the People of the Book, the Jews and the Christians are depicted for us to derive lessons and not repeat the sins or blunders they committed. This because history is evident of the fact all religious systems have degenerated into cults and the Qur’an informs us how after the passing away of the messenger and or the prophet the people reverted slowly but surely to the pre-Prophet status. This is not a tool to spread hate as the Quran says “… they are a people who passed away.”

    First and foremost one must recognize the fact that everyone carries the label of religion based on the accident of birth. Is the Creator of all that exists, the Most Merciful and the Most Compassionate going to decide the fate of individuals on the lottery of birth? According to my understanding, surely NOT. The status of birth does not help nor is it detrimental to the test of life. Pondering over a few verses of the Qur’an should dispel any doubts.

    “VERILY, those who have attained to faith [in this divine writ], as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians - all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds - shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve (2:62)

    “For, every community faces a direction of its own, of which He is the focal point. Vie, therefore, with one another in doing good works. Wherever you may be, God will gather you all unto Himself: for, verily, God has the power to will anything. (2:148)

    “And unto thee [O Prophet] have We vouchsafed this divine writ, setting forth the truth, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein. Judge, then, between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high, and do not follow their errant views, forsaking the truth that has come unto thee. Unto every one of you have We appointed a [different] law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but [He willed it otherwise] in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto, you. Vie, then, with one another in doing good works! Unto God you all must return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ (5:48)

    Anything and everything which the Jews and the Christians, who were entrusted with the scriptures did which is condemned by the Qur’an, are not the Muslims emulating with religious zeal?. One cause could be:-

    (9:31) They have taken their rabbis and their monks - as well as the Christ, son of Mary - for their lords beside God, although they had been bidden to worship none but the One God, save whom there is no deity: the One who is utterly remote, in His limitless glory, from anything to which they may ascribe a share in His divinity!

    I can quote many verses to support my premise but will that make the serious Muslim ponder? I would like to conclude with words purported to be of the Prophet’s of Allah (PBUH)

    “Hazrat Haris Aour (RA) narrates – “I was passing by the mosque and saw people in the mosque engrossed  in vain and useless talk. I went and put this matter before Hazarat Ali (RA). In disbelief he asked, ‘is it really so?’.  I said undoubtedly. 

    “Then Hazrat Ali (RA) said, “I have heard the Prophet of Allah (SAW) say, “Beware! There will arise a Fitna (persecution / severe test and a challenge) in this world.”  I asked, “ Show us also the means to save ourselves (and meet the challenge and pass the test). ”The Prophet of Allah (SAW) replied, “The book of Allah. It has information about those who lived before you and the conditions that shall develop after you and it also contains commands for you. Qur’an is the decisive word. There is nothing useless / banal in it. He who abandons it willfully, Allah shall destroy him. He who seeks guidance from any source other than the Qur’an, Allah shall make him go astray.   It is a strong rope which bonds with Allah and a wisdom from Allah. And also a source of unlimited advice.  It is that which shows the straight path. Desires and temptations never go out of control. The tongue shall never tire of its recitation. The scholar shall never be able to exhaust its capacity to provide knowledge. Its contents shall never be obsolete, irrelevant or old. Its marvels and surprises shall never end. It is the same Qur’an about which the Jinns said, “Undoubtedly we have heard a wonderful Qur’an. It gives guidance to the right path and we have come to believe in it.” He who speaks on the basis of the Qur’an has spoken the truth. He who follows it, shall be rewarded. He who has based his judgment on the Qur’an has done justice.  He who calls towards the Qur’an, shall receive guidance of the straight path.” Mishkat Sharif, Chapter “Fazaeel-e- Qur’an.”

    With warm regards, Mohammad Hanif

    By Mohammed Hanif - 10/24/2013 7:39:41 PM



  • @observer
    if i have to select between two evils desultory and dishonesty, i will go for desultory. It is my choice. of course you have freedom to choose the other.
    for this wise teaching i must thank hz umar farooq. 
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/24/2013 7:28:53 PM



  • only blind will not see, deaf will not hear and dumb will not speak and those who are just servants of sadist allah will not understand By rational mohammed yunus - 10/24/2013 6:55:34 PM



  • @observer
    it is very small favor you did to me. mr ghulam m has done more this. you can follow him.
    however we have got the answer why  muslims remain separated.
    this separation exits that is why maulana wrote this article. he said it is unislamic. then debate chaged its course to entry of nonmuslims into two mosques. the answers from the moderates are clear
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/24/2013 6:51:13 PM



  • A desultory response is hailed as a superb response! There is now more than one cat that is scratching the pole. Suhail continues to repeat that the Ahadith cannot be ignored when I never said that they should be entirely ignored. He also continues to say that you cannot pick and choose when I have responded that picking and choosing is the right thing to do. Does not picking and choosing mean that the Ahadith are not being ignored? The inconsistency in the two statements however apparently escapes him. Does he drink murky water without filtering? Since all water including rain water is contaminated, following his own advice, if he is intellectually honest, he should drink dirty water or not drink water at all. 

    I have wondered why his responses are so aimless. Not only do they not remain focused on the subject matter but entirely ignore what has been said. Figured out that some of his responses are a straight download from sites such as thereligionofpeace.com without editing to suit the discussion and without giving credit to his sources. He can keep on downloading irrelevant stuff and his admirers can keep egging him on and they can collectively declare victory and celebrate.

    By Observer - 10/24/2013 6:16:12 PM



  • While Hindu historians excelled in whitewashing their history, Muslim historians vastly exaggerated the exploits of their masters to win their favours. Sanghi hate merchants of today rely on Muslim historians to besmirch Muslim conquerors who, while they were as brutal as Hindu kings fighting with each other (Ashok's conquest of Kalinga resulted in one lakh deaths) or as any other conquerors of their time in other parts of the world, were not the extra-ordinary savages that they are made out to be. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/24/2013 12:36:06 PM



  • dearKhalid Suhail - 10/24/2013 12:27:25 AM
    Thanks for such a superb response.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/24/2013 10:57:04 AM



  • Dear Mr Shahin,

    Thank you for filling the gaps in my knowledge. I subsequently went and read some more on the subject, and Eaton's thesis has been proved to be only partially correct as per other historians. Nowhere were the said idols desecrated. Often the stolen idols found a new home in the victor's state, where it was worshipped with honour. 

    In the zeal to delete comments posted under false names, you have also deleted one genuine comment I made. Or maybe it was intentional, to spare people of delicate constitution the horrors of the link I had provided.

    So I shall post an excerpt. The site lists many books written by contemporary muslim documentors of that time, who have written accounts of temple destruction by various Muslim warriors in India with great pride:

      14. Name of the BookSiyaru'l-Auliya
              Name of the HistorianSayyed Muhammed bin Mubarak bin Muhammed
              About the Author: He was the grandson of an Iranian merchant who traded between Kirman in Iran and Lahore. The family traveled to Delhi after Shykh Farid's death and became devoted to Shykh Nizamu'd-din Auliya.
              The Muslim Rulers he wrote About

                a.. Shykh Mu'in al-Din Chisti 
    Ajmer (AD 1236)
                
    Ajmer (Rajasthan)
                "..Because of his Sword, instead of idols and temples in the land of unbelief now there are mosques, mihrab and mimbar. In the land where there were the sayings of the idol-worshippers, there is the sound of 'Allahu Akbar'...The descendants of those who were converted to Islam in this land will live until Day of Judgement; so too will those who bring others into the fold of Islam by the sword of Islam. Until the Day of Judgment these converts will be in debt of Shaykh al-Islam Mu'in al-din Hasam Sijzi..."

              15. Name of the BookMasalik'ul Absar fi Mamalik'ul Amsar
              Name of the HistorianShihabu'd-Din 'Abu'l Abbas Ahmed bin Yahya.
              About the Author: He was born in AD 1301. He was educated in Damascus and Cairo. He is considered to be a great man and scholar of his time and author of many books. He occupied high positions in Syria and Egypt.
              The Muslim Rulers he wrote About

                a. Sultan Muhammed bin Tughlaq (AD 1325-1351)
                "The Sultan is not slack in Jihad. He never lets go of his spear or bridle in pursuing jihad by land and sea routes. This is his main occupation which engages his eyes and ears. Five temples have been destroyed and the images and idols of ‘Budd’ have been broken, and the lands have been freed from those who were not included in the daru'l Islam that is, those who had refused to become zimmis. Thereafter he got mosques and places of worship erected, and music replaced by call to prayers to Allah... The Sultan who is ruling at present has achieved that which had not been achieved so far by any king. He has achieved victory, supremacy, conquest of countries, destruction of the infidels, and exposure of magicians. He has destroyed idols by which the people of Hindustan were deceived in vain..."

              16. Name of the BookRehala of Ibn Battuta
              Name of the HistorianShykh Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Lawatt at-Tanji al-Maruf be Ibn Battuta.
              About the Author: He belonged to an Arab family which was settled in Spain since AD 1312. His grandfather and father enjoyed the reputation of scholars and theologians. He himself was a great scholar who traveled extensively and over many lands. He came to India in 1325 and visited many places. He was very fond of sampling Hindu girls from different parts of India. They were presented to him by the Sultan Mohammed bin-Tughlaq with whom Ibn Battuta came in close contact. He also married Muslim women wherever he stayed and divorced them before his departure.

                a. His Travel description:
                (Delhi)
                "Near the eastern gate of the mosque, lie two very big idols of copper connected together by stones. Every one who comes in and goes out of the mosque treads over them. On the site of this mosque was a bud Khana that is an idol-house. After the conquest of Delhi, it was turned into a mosque..."

              17. Name of the BookTarikh-i-Firuz
              Name of the Historian: Shams Siraj Alif
              About the Author: The author became a courtier of Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq and undertook to complete the aforementioned history of Barani who had stopped at the sixth year of Firuz Shah's reign.
              The Muslim Rulers he wrote About:

                a. Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq (AD 1351-1388)
                Puri (Orissa)
                "The Sultan left Banarasi with the intention of pursuing the Rani of Jajnagar, who had fled to an island in the river...News was then brought that in the jangal were seven elephants, and one old shoe-elephant, which was very fierce. The Sultan resolved upon endeavoring to capture these elephants before continuing the pursuit of the Rai... After the hunt was over, the Sultan directed his attention to the Rai ofJajnagar, and entering the palace where he dwelt he found many fine buildings. It is reported that inside the Rai's fort, there was a stone idol which the infidels called Jagannath, and to which they paid their devotions. Sultan Firoz, in emulation of Mahmud Subuktign, having rooted up the idol, carried it away to Delhi where he placed it in an ignominious position." 

                b. Nagarkot Kangra(Himachal Pradesh)
                "..Sultan Muhammed Shah bin Tughlaq and Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq were sovereigns especially chosen by Almighty from among the faithful, and in their whole course of their reigns, wherever they took an idol temple they broke and destroyed it."

                Delhi
                "A report was brought to the Sultan that there was in Delhi an old Brahmin who persisted in publicly performing the worship of idols in his house; and that people of the city, both Musalmans and Hindus, used to resort to his house to worship the idol. The Brahmin had constructed a wooden tablet which was covered within and without with paintings of demons and other objects. An order was accordingly given that the Brahmin, with his tablet, should be brought into the presence of the Sultan at 
    Firozabad. The judges and doctors and elders and lawyers were summoned, and the case of the Brahmin was submitted for their opinion. Their reply was that the provisions of the Law were clear: the Brahmin must either become a Musalman or be burned. The true faith was declared to the Brahmin, and the right course pointed out, but he refused to accept it. Orders were given for raising a pile of faggots before the door of the darbar (court). The Brahmin was tied hand and foot and cast into it; the tablet was thrown on top and the pile was lighted. The writer of this book was present at thedarbar and witnessed the execution. The tablet of the Brahmin was lighted in two places, at his head and at his feet; the wood was dry and the fire first reached his feet, and drew him a cry, but the flames quickly enveloped his head and consumed him. Behold the Sultan's strict adherence to law and rectitude, how he would not deviate in the least from its decrees!" 
              Here Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq glorifies his own criminal acts in Bharat as sanctioned by the "holy" Koran.


    For the full version, pls visit the site http://www.stephen-knapp.com/islamic_destruction_of_hindu_temples.htm

    Do promote peace and harmony through new age islam, sir, but not by falsifying facts. 

    By secular logic - 10/24/2013 9:02:14 AM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin sir,

    I can understand the gist of your saying:

    “Is there room for moderation in an Islam which considers Hadees as a scripture equal in stature, if not superior to Quran. After all if people call themselves ahl-e-Hadees, they are clearly declaring that they do not care for Quran.”

    First, hadith, as a scripture, is neither superior nor equal in stature to the holy Quran. It is always a secondary Islamic source. Nearly all recongnised schools of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) i.e Hanafi, Shafai, Maliki and Hanbali are unanimous on the doctrine that whenever or wherever a hadith text is found antithetical to any Quranic verse, that shall be disregarded and rejected. Despite this clear and canonical consensus or Ijm’a (the fourth source of Islam), if a faction of Muslims call itself “ahl-e-Hadees”, of course, we can only make out that they have nothing to do with the Quran, the first and the foremost source of Islam.

    As for the Hadith recorded and quoted, as well as the biographies of the beloved Prophet (pbuh) compiled by classical Islamic scholars and other writers, modern Muslim scholars  should certainly look at them in a more critical way than even the Islamophobes, who just quote them to defame Islam or the Prophet's persona. But we cannot reject the whole corpse of Hadith outright on the basis of their or Jihadis’ misinterpretation of them. Yes, we do need to rethink the transparently irrational or objectionable stuff that may be concocted by the enemies of Islam during or after their compilation. I believe if we employ the following five criteria for checking the hadith’s texts, there will be only room for moderation in an Islam:

    (1) the holy Qur’an (2) rationally authentic traditions (3) sound reason (4) established history and (5) moderation of the ideas.

    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 10/24/2013 8:43:29 AM



  • @Secular Logic, I am neither rationalising nor condoning these acts of vandalism and loot. I am only telling you something you said you did not know, had never heard of happening. Maybe this will bring some balance in your approach to history. Gold always attracts looters. Always has, always will. Temples were repositories of vast amounts of gold and silver. They still attract thieves. They were also abodes of sovereigns as sovereignty was sometimes shared between god and king. So when Hindu kings captured new territories they also destroyed temples and the gods living there as they killed the kings.  This was to announce to all concerned the total transfer of sovereignty.

    I want to concentrate my work on denouncing Muslim radicals and refuting their ideology which I believe is based on a false reading of Islamic scriptures. I did not found New Age Islam to defend or rationalise or condone the vile acts of Ghaznavis and Ghouris. Nor to confront communal Hindus. That was not at all the idea. But since you are a supporter of Jihadi view of Islam, I have no option but to confront your accusations.

     I very much doubt that Muslim invaders of India had any religious motivations or that they were like today's Jihadis. They were monarchs and wanted to expand their rule with the help of Hindu kings who used to often invite them in their fights against neighbouring Hindu kings. These people did not come to give their life in a struggle to establish their version of Islam. They were looters and rulers out to expand their rule.

     

    Today's Jihadis are not after the goods of this world. They are looking for houris in heaven. They are in a hurry to leave the discomforts of this world and get a perch in the land of milk and honey in the hereafter. Destruction of Somnath and Bamiyan Buddhas are not the same. By destroying Bamiyan the Taliban lost revenue from tourism and increased ill will towards themselves in the world community, though they may have thought they had earned perches in heaven. Invaders from Central Asia had not come here looking for a place in heaven. They had their feet firmly planted in this world and wanted the best of it at any cost.

    By Sultan Shahin - 10/24/2013 1:18:10 AM



  • Dear Observer you say, "As against the Hadith quoted which is from a work compiled more than a century or two after the Prophet's death (pbuh), we know that neither Jews nor Christians were expelled or ill treated. On the other hand, we have stories of an Islamic court ruling in favour of a Jew against Ali (ra) who was the Caliph at that time and Umar (ra) sanctioning pension to support an old Jew".
    My Response:-
    Can I again ask you on what you base this information. On the same ah'adith and the accounts given by Ibn Ishaque, Ibn Hisham and Tabri? Because they suit your agenda. Regarding the hadith, you say, "These did not exist (at the time of the prophet-emphasis mine)  and there is reason to believe that the Prophet advised against recording his sayings. What the Prophet simply said was to follow his living example".
    There are also a number of ahadith that indicate the permisibility  to write down hadith. The hadith of Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr who said, “I used write everything I heard from the Prophet wanting to preserve it. The Quraysh then prohibited me from doing so, saying, ‘Do you write down everything? And the Prophet is human who speaks while angry and pleased?’ So I refrained from writing and then mentioned this to the Prophet. He gestured to his mouth and said, "Write, by the one in whose hand is my soul! Nothing emanates from this except the truth".
    Among the prisoners of war taken at the Battle of Badr those who were literate were released after each taught ten Muslims how to read and write. Sahih Bukhari states that after that Abd-Allah ibn Amr wrote down his ah'adith.
    A man came to prophet Muhammad and complained about his memory, saying: ‘O Messenger of Allah: We hear many things from you. But most of them slip our minds because we cannot memorize them’. Muhammad replied: Ask your right hand for help. Muhammad meant that he should write down what he heard.
    When Rafi‘ ibn Khadij asked Muhammad whether they could write what they heard from him, the answer came: Write, no harm!. Another sources quotes Muhammad advising: "Record knowledge by writing."
    During the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad gave a sermon. A man from the Yemen, named Abu Shah, stood up and said: "O Allah’s Messenger! Please write down these [words] for me!" Muhammad ordered: "Write for Abu Shah!"
    Ibn Hajar summarized the different ways in which scholars have sought to reconcile those hadith prohibiting the writing of hadith and those permitting it, in the first of which he said, “The reconciliation between the two is that the prohibition was particular to the time in which the Quran was being sent down so that it would not become mixed up with other than it and the permission was during other than that time."
    You further say, "We also have the example of the prophet's treaty with the Christians of Najran which was totally one sided promising protection, and safety without getting anything in return"........... The treatment of the non Muslims by the companions of the prophet gives a lie to these so called hadiths. Here I quote these stories from Wikipedia.
    Christian community of Najran. Najran pact.
    In the tenth year of the Hijrah, a delegation of fourteen Christian Chiefs from Najran; among them Abdul Masih of Bani Kinda, their chief, and Abdul Harith, bishop of Bani Harith, came to Medina to make a treaty with the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and were permitted by him to pray in his mosque, which they did turning towards the east.
    Later, they undertook a religious discussion with the prophet, which was inconclusive but ended with signing a treaty between the two parties. Muhammad concluded a treaty with their Chiefs and Bishops, which on payment of a tribute of 2000 pieces of cloth, valued at 40 dirhams each, secured them in the undisturbed profession of their ancestral faith. Throughout the rebellion they remained loyal to their engagements, and Abu Bakr renewed the treaty. According to the treaty, the people of Najran like the Christians of the Banu Taghlib tribe were exempted from paying the Jizya required of all non Muslims. The peace agreement also stipulated that the town supply 30 sets of armor, 30 horses and 30 camels for operations along the Gulf coast or in Yemen.
    They were ordered by Umar ibn al-Khattab to vacate the city and emigrate out of the Arabian peninsula, or accept a money payment. Some migrated to Syria; but the greater part settled in the vicinity of Al-Kufa in predominantly Christian Southern Iraq, where the colony of Al-Najraniyyah long maintained the memory of their expatriation.
    However, the historicity of these events is not absolutely reliably established. It appears that the orders of Umar were not fully carried out and might have applied only to Christians living in Najran itself, not to those settled round about. This is because there is some evidence of a continuing Christian presence in Najran for at least 200 years after the expulsion.[
    According to a Yemeni Arab source, the first Zaydite Imam of Yemen, al-Hadi Ila l-Haqq Yahya ibn al-Hussain (897–911) concluded an accord with the Christians and the Jews of the oasis on 897, at the time of the foundation of the Zaydite principality.
    A second Yemeni source alludes to the Christians of Najran in muharram 390 (999–1000). The oasis was still one third Christian and one third Jewish, according to the testimony of the Persian traveller, Ibn al-Mujawir. 
    Expedition of Abdur Rahman bin Auf
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "Muhammad appointed Abdur Rahman bin Auf to head to Dumatul Jandal to win over the people. It is reported by the Muslim Scholar Ibn Hisham, that he told Abdur Rahman:
    Fight everyone in the way of God and kill those who disbelieve in God. Do not be deceitful with spoils, do not be treacherous, nor mutilate,do not kill children. This is God’s ordinance and practice of his prophet among you.
    [Ibn Hisham, Sirat Rasul Allah ,
    Abdur Rahman set out with 700 men on an expedition to Dumat al-Jandal, that is on the route to Khaybar, Fadak. The place was a great trading center; the inhabitants were mainly Christians and were ruled by a Christian king. Following the Islamic rule, on reaching Dumatul Jandal, Abdur Rahman summoned the people of the tribe to embrace Islam within three days grace.
    During the 3 day period, Al-Asbagh, a Christian chief of Banu Kalb complied and many of his followers also followed suit. Other tribes also paid tribute (Jizya) to Abdur Rahman. On agreement to pay Jizya tax regularly, they were allowed to keep their Christianity.
    Muhammad received the news through a Messenger, and then instructed Abdur Rahman to marry Tamadhir, the daughter of the Christian chief, Al-Asbagh. So Abdur Rahman married Tumadhir bint Asbagh, the daughter of the Christian king and brought this lady with him to Medina.
    Battle of Khaybar
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "The Battle of Khaybar was fought in the year 629 between Muslims and the Jews living in the oasis of Khaybar, located 150 kilometers (93 mi) from Medina in the north-western part of the Arabian peninsula, in modern-day Saudi Arabia. According to Muslim sources, the Muslims attacked Jews who had barricaded themselves in a fort.
    The Jews of Khaybar finally surrendered and were allowed to live in the oasis on the condition that they would give one-half of their produce to the Muslims. Jews continued to live in the oasis for several more years until they were expelled by caliph Umar.
    By Khalid Suhail - 10/24/2013 12:27:25 AM



  • Observer, I admire your knowledge and your erudite defense of the Prophet. However the more we defend the Prophet, the more aggressive the attackers get. Biography becomes the focus instead of the essential message of Islam. Just my two cents worth! By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/23/2013 11:37:41 PM



  • Thats a very convenient explanation, Mr Shahin.
    I am talking of motives. Hindu kings attacking Hindu temples was an act of political vengence and greed.
    Muslims attacking Hindu temples was an act of religious intolerance.
    The imitation is only in the act, not in the underlying ideology. And as you well know, it is not only in the Indian sub-continent that this destruction/take over took place.
    Muslims took over churches and destroyed places of worship of all non-muslim faiths, wherever they went. Heard of Hagiya Sofia? Bamiyan Buddhas? Churches in Egypt?
    You cannot rationalise and condone these acts saying Hindu kings did the same thing. By secular logic - 10/23/2013 11:36:15 PM



  • @Secular Logic,

    "Royal temple complexes were pre-eminently political institutions, Eaton says. The central icon, housed in a royal temple’s garba griha or ‘womb-chamber’ and inhabited by the state-deity of the temple’s royal patron, expressed the ‘shared sovereignty of king and deity’. Therefore, Eaton stresses, temple-breaking, especially of temples associated with ruling houses, was essentially a political, rather than simply religious, act. As proof of this thesis he cites instances of the sacking of royal temples of Hindu rulers by rival Hindu kings as early as the sixth century C.E.. In AD 642 CE the Pallava king Narashimhavarman I looted the image of Ganesha from the Chalukyan capital of Vatapi.. In the eighth century, Bengali troops sought revenge on king Lalitaditya by destroying what they thought was the image of Vishnu Vaikuntha, the state deity of Lalitaditya's kingdom in Kashmir. In the early ninth century the Pandyan king Srimara Srivallabha also invaded Sri Lanka and took back to his capital a golden Buddha image that had been installed in the kingdom's Jewel Palace. In the early eleventh century the Chola king Rajendra I furnished his capital with images he had seized from several neighboring Chalukya, Kalinga and Pala rulers. In the mid-eleventh century the Chola king Rajadhiraja defeated the Chalukyas and plundered Kalyani, taking a large black stone door guardian to his capital in Thanjavur, where it was displayed to his subjects as a trophy of war. In addition to looting royal temples and carrying off images of state deities, some Hindu kings, like some of their later Muslim counterparts, engaged in the destruction of the royal temples of their political adversaries. In the early tenth century, the Rashtrakuta monarch Indra III not only destroyed the temple of Kalapriya (at Kalpa near the Jamuna River), patronized by the Pratiharas, but, Eaton writes, ‘took special delight in recording the fact’.

    "This and other such evidence clearly suggests, Eaton argues, that ‘temples had been the natural sites for the contestation of kingly authority well before the coming of Muslim Turks to India’. Hence, the Turkish invaders, in seeking to establish themselves as rulers, followed a pattern that had already been established before their arrival in India."

     

    --- Excerpts from Yoginder Sikand's review of Prof. Richard M. Eaton's book "Temple Destruction and Muslim States in Medieval India."  By Sultan Shahin - 10/23/2013 11:04:44 PM



  • Thanks for confirming that you are on Satan's side and not humanity.
    If humanity includes only Muslims I am not on its side

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 10:07:31 PM



  • @rational

    Thank you. You are a man of great courage.
    By secular logic - 10/23/2013 9:27:35 PM



  • Ghulam M,

    What biographical features of the prophet have been discussed that you find unimportant? Can you be specific? 
    By Observer - 10/23/2013 9:16:14 PM



  • "May the Almighty help us all including you."
    Disciple of Shaitan can't say Ameen. I am better as shitan's disciple.

    kab tak shaitan rahman ki farzi khaniyon men uljhe raho ge
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 9:13:13 PM



  • dear mr rational mohammad yunus, what can i say to such a devastatingly generous compliment!

    may you enjoy a long and healthy life! being doubtful about a god as well as his benevolence, i cannot sincerely say "god bless you". therefore.

    also mr rational, linguistic skills are double edged. while they may enliven debates occasionally, they can also help to shift focus of discussion from the content to its form. that way they are like the feathers of a bird. not like its song.

    the manager in my organization cannot speak two consecutively correct words in english, but our funders always want him to lead the discussions. this is because of his wonderful grasp of the ground and his two feet firmly planted on it.

    i am moved by your erudition, your frankness, your willingness to say sorry and the last but in no way the least is your capacity to doubt. this is very rare among thinkers or even among feelers.

    the capacity to doubt, the willingness to question and the courage to face the consequences sets apart a mere human apart from a thinking one.

    while the gallery for blindly faithful (or faithfully blind) is overcrowded, the seats in the doubters gallery are mostly empty. may be you and i can invite some of the crowd to make themselves comfortable here and enjoy the show the god puts on in all glorious and gory detail of his love, hatred and complete indifference ;)

    in the pre-islamic arabia, the prophet dared to doubt, then he dared to question and then he dared to face the consequences. the result was islam.

    so i say why not emulate him? maybe we could come up with something even better. (i know, the prophet hood has been sealed. but god is known to change his mind every now and then)

    regards.
    ps: i am working on a response to mr lodhia, mr shahin and the most polished gentleman of the forum mr mohammad yunus and after that i will probably rest my restless fingers until another blast at another church or mosque and another mall is mauled in another place or another town like muzzafarpur or khairlanji is re-visited.
    By hats off! - 10/23/2013 9:10:03 PM



  • "EK INSAAN HOON"
    Thanks holy god
    you didn't say Ek Musalmaan hoon. Chalo aap badahi ke patr hain.
    chacha Ghalib ne kaha tha: Aadmi ko bhi nahi mayassar insaan hona. aap khushnaseeb hain
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 9:09:04 PM



  • Thanks for confirming that you are on Satan's side and not humanity. May the Almighty help us all including you.  By Ishafak Tely - 10/23/2013 9:05:26 PM



  • Dear Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/23/2013 7:40:22 PM
    Thanks a lot for reminding why the criminals cover their faces. It slipped from my mind. Now why do Muslim women cover their faces? Who is criminal? Muslim Women or Muslims from whom they cover their faces? are Muslims beasts so that their women cover their faces?
    This trick will not work with me even though you or your Allah may be khair ul makireen.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 9:03:35 PM



  • "I see Satan has more disciples than I thought."
    Yes, you were wrong. First read the Quran and Ahadith then come back before suggesting someone.
    Have you stolen the words from Mr Ghulam M.
    Bad work is in top gear. I prefer this bad work over dishonesty.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 8:56:12 PM



  • I see Satan has more disciples than I thought. They are doing all his for him. Unfortunately I cannot say keep up the "BAD" work. By Ishafak Tely - 10/23/2013 8:52:14 PM



  •  @secular logic
    I endorse both comments of yours to Mr Rafiq And Mr Sultan Shahin
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 8:52:00 PM



  • yes whose "true colours"????
    "Jansanghi's, apostates', enemis of the Islam" or Moderates?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 8:46:39 PM



  • Dear hats off
    "My Advice to you is please learn arabic and try to read the Quran yourself instead of just reading or depending upon unverified hadith."
    Why don't you give a thought to it. When you will get the mastery over Arabic, you may become  able to write articles like Ghulam Ghaus and Ghulam Rasool saheban with one thing on tongue and other in the heart.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 8:42:27 PM



  • Dear hats off! - 10/23/2013 11:04:05 AM
    in the wilderness of moderates on this site I get life from your comments. I wonder how close we are. I know nothing about you and vice versa.
    With my limited vocabulary, no mastery over English I UN-tiredly fighting against the injustices done by the holy religions and its followers.
    I want destruction of holy halo around the holy gods and God, holy texts, holy prophets, holy-men. Let the every holy verse, every holy hadith, every holy malfoozat -e auliya get dissected here on the altar of reason that is scientific scrutiny. This internet age is boon to us who could not participate at any level due to monopoly of clergy and death threat.  No mercy to these merciless holy doctrines.
    I am from every beginning saying that this Sufism/moderate Islam equally be criticized as Wahabism or any ism without showing any respect. How long this camouflage will work?
    I thank all the readers who took this debate to a level where some deep rooted evil thoughts came to the surface.
    Mr Ghulam M remains very soft to these moderates. He doesn't chase them doggedly as he does to us.
    You are right they are taking seriously Mr khalid. He deserves it.

    Recently Mr rafiq lodhia has invited Mr Satwa for private conversation. Can't they convince him on this forum in front of all readers?
    Whenever I got closed to religion, I found it is limiting myself. I couldn't reply to non-Muslims greetings in the way I exchange with Muslims. Someday I will cover the personal and observed trouble/agony this Islamic OCD of purity in cleanliness creates in the minds of people.
    This unscientific purity was used by Swarnas in Hindus and Syed, Shaikh Mughal Pathan in Muslims. They enjoyed on the fruits of hardship of others. They enjoyed the wives of others. The religious shameless clergy dined always with these Ashrafs.
    I hope you will overlook my diversion from the topic.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 8:35:45 PM



  • Dear Mr Shahin,

    "true colours"? :)

    But I will not get into such personal spats here.

    The last thing I need is a lesson in history from you. It has been said in that hindu kings also looted the temples of their rivals, though I have not come across any particular example so far. However, I must point out that the motives were different. When Muslim invaders came to India, they came with a two-fold purpose. Political and religious supremacy. It was extreme antipathy towards a pluralistic faith that had idol worship as an integral part that prompted the temple destruction by Muslims.

    Has this changed? Are Muslims now more accepting of the fact that there can be as many ways to worship the unseen, unknown God as there are people on this planet, and one way is as good as the other? I, and many of my co-religionists, would have no problem accomodating two more Gods in the Hindu pantheon. Hinduism did co-opt Gautam Buddha as one of the Avatars of Vishnu! But ask yourself this question: Would a majority of Muslims have an equally generous view on other faiths?

    Secularism, and respect, are to my mind not human rights. They are privileges that can only work if they are mutually extended. You can hardly expect me to want a person who thinks polytheists are unclean in mind and body, who thinks all the idols and sculptures standing there deserve to be smashed, who thinks polytheists should roast in hell and be boiled in hot oil, to enter a place of worship where people of faith come with devotion and prayer and largely momentarily pure minds. 
    By secular logic - 10/23/2013 8:33:19 PM



  • Hi Mr. Hats Off,

    Looks like you need to put your hat on. I think you are Satan's disciple. May the Almighty show us all including you the straight path. My Advice to you is please learn arabic and try to read the Quran yourself instead of just reading or depending upon unverified hadith.
    All believers please pray for all of humanity including Mr. Hats Off so that He Bestow on us the correct knowledge. We should recognize that Man is not an enemy of another Man. As the Almighty has said the REAL Enemy is Satan.
    We should not hate the disbeliever just his disbelief should be hated. We should try and correct the wrong in a proper way and then pray to the Almighty.  As the Almighty has said in one of the Quls "to you be your religion  and to me mine"
    By Ishafak Tely - 10/23/2013 8:21:51 PM



  • Dear Mr Rafiq, thank you for your kind communication. You must believe me when I say I am on the side of people like you and Mr Shahin, who wish to take the community towards becoming more harmonious entities in a multicultural world. Each person is, and will be attached to the faith he was born into and grew up in. However, it is upto us and it takes a lot of courage, to accept flaws, admit past and current mistakes and go against the flow. The world has more supporters and apologists among muslims than any true reformers who have any traction on society. My ideological opposition to Islam stems from my readings on this site - not only the articles, but the comments. Internet permits anonymity and anonymity gives courage. It also makes people say things one would not normally say in a mixed group of real people. In a way, it is a glimpse into the internal working of the Muslim mind, and it is truly dejecting and frightening to read what people say here. I shall contact you on the above address if I ever feel the need to. Thank you. By secular logic - 10/23/2013 8:20:39 PM



  • EK INSAAN HOON. I do not know about this or that thread, however, I do know that if someone hides his identity then there is a real problem. Ever wonder why the brutal killers cover up their face! What would you think of a person who hides his own identity and/or uses another screen name. Google it and you will find lots of names of genuine writers. I never hated my religion of Islam as I was brought up by my parents to respect one's own religion. Granted that we have lunatics in all religions, nonetheless, our convictions and our beliefs must never waiver.  If someone runs away from Islam, then let him not hate Islam. If he/she believes in other faith, they why the vendetta? Get a new life and live and let live. Sincerely yours, rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org       By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/23/2013 7:40:22 PM



  • my dear Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/23/2013 1:50:33 PM
    This attention seeker again caught your attention. Unfortunately you asked the same stereotyped questions the Muslims ask when they fail to convince some one.
    I don't know how our answers will help you. You are free to imagine whatever you like. You can suggest a new title if "rational" is not befitting for me or my comments.
    My name was given by my Nani as there was a custom to name the child after the prophets and other great Islamic personalities.
    I wonder Why Hz Noah couldn't keep his son a believer in his God? I don't understand how he an idol maker and idol worshiper became the father of a father of at least three great religions.
    I learn in nontraditional way. I don't learn as our Muslim kids learn in the Madarsas.

    I am learning from Mr Mohammed Yunus, Mr Ghulam Ghauss, Mr Ghulam Rasul Dehlvi and ask pardon whose names I am not mentioning here though I learn from them.
    I can learn from anybody. I learned some bits when yesterday I visited a grieved Sikh family whose one lady, a wife, a mother died in the accident.
    This thread was very special and I learned a lot. I learned today what our moderate sufis think about Mushrikeens.

    Regarding Mr Suhail. I don't know about his identity and credentials. I admire him for his knowledge, easily comprehensive, concise and precise comments minus foul language. I envy him because I don't write like him.

    I hope you will suggest a list of genuine, authentic, honest writers I should read.
    I have shared enough personal information and my upbringing (jahilana in the view of a badmouth) in my previous comments. Isse zyada atmghati ho sakta hai.
    I don't know whether you are a mujaddid, or mujtahid, or Muhiyuddin or Imaduddin or Salahuddeen or imam e waqt or imam mehndi. Whoever you are, you are welcomed. Be my guest.

     
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 7:27:10 PM



  • Hello Hats Off,

    What is your beef? You sure do not miss a beat or do you, Sir? You mentioned the word “Paranoid.” On reading your daily rebuttals, I am now on the verge of coming to a foregone conclusion that this word should be aptly applied to you, as you are indeed “Paranoid.”

    May I humbly ask you, “What is your ultimate motive?” All you are doing is playing the role of a “Cheer Leader” for Mr. Suhail and Mr. Younus to further ignite the sentiments of Muslims.

    One important question, “What do you know about Islam?” “What books have you read personally about Islam?” “Who is paying you to be on New Age Forum?” You are afraid to reveal your real name, isn’t it? Hats off to who? To your jibber jabber that pours in every single day or to your shallow understanding of the religion of Islam!

    Samajhne waale samajh gaye hain; Na samjhe, na samjhe woh anaadi hain

    Respectfully yours – rafiq@theloodhiacenter.org

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/23/2013 2:15:09 PM



  • Respected Mr. Suhail & Mr. Younus,

    May I politely ask both of you, “Is the good name of yours given at birth by your beloved parents?” Pondering over the question, “Who has made us apostates?” by one of you to another gives me an inkling that the religion of Islam has been abandoned.

    Well then, what are you all trying to prove here on this New Age Islam forum? What is to be gained by the continuous and relentless attacks? I am all ears to hear about your personal vendetta against Islam.

    Debating by drifting away from Islam will not make any difference whatsoever to many Muslims. My only regret is that instead of reading good books by genuine Islamic scholars, both of you opted to join hands in senselessly criticizing Quranic verses without any slightest clue. Like many in these days who have made bundle of money criticizing Islam, is this a platform to help publish another book against Islam? What is the real motive behind your continuous barrage of attacks on a daily basis?

    By the way, aside from keeping busy with the usual out of context remarks, why not inform the readers of this forum about your new faith? In fact, that is where the focus should be and not against Islam, unless of course, there is a desire to write another “Anti-Islam” book and make millions like many have done during their career. Care to share your real intentions, Mr. Suhail & Mr. Younus. Why not be “Rational” for change?

    Very respectfully yours, rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org 

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/23/2013 1:50:33 PM



  • Hello Secular Logic,

    Your astute comments early on struck my mind to such an extent that I felt embarrassed about the current intellectual level of my fellow Muslims. As an ordinary Muslim, I can understand your concern.

    For long I have also been deeply disappointed at what you call ”A Breaktakingly Outrageous Statements.” Sultan Shahin, Editor of New Age Islam and I are equally concerned just as you are about the irrational comments that comes across all the time on this forum.

    You are right that there is no bar in entering  temples in India. My business colleagues in Madurai, India took me to the famous Meenakshi Amman Temple. I was amazed to see the magnificent sculptures, and not to mention, the Hall of Thousand Pillars.

    You are frightened at reading the comments on this forum, but you have no idea as to what a selected few sane and educated Muslims goes through. We get viciously assaulted with words.

    Sultan Shahin and I know well that the task which lies ahead of us to help enlighten the future generation of young Muslims is an extremely difficult one. Nevertheless, we both feel that something has to be done and rather quickly to educate the Muslim youths.    

    You  are most welcome to communicate directly with this humble Muslim. I can be reached at - rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org. Very respectfully yours, Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia     

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/23/2013 1:16:58 PM



  • Observer, biographical features of the Prophet's life are a lot less important than the essence of his message, namely equality, peace, justice, rationality and compassion.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/23/2013 1:13:56 PM



  • Mr. Suhail quotes the Quran, "Verily, those who disbelieve from among the People of the Scripture and idolatars, will abide in the fire of Hell".


    Such quotations have no relevance today and are mentioned only by ignorant mullahs and hateful apostates. Islam today should embrace the inclusive and brotherly message of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/23/2013 12:55:46 PM



  • Hats Off says, "if dr. taha were the role model for followers of islam, islam would have already become the cynosure of other world religions."


    What Taha taught will not die. Muslims who want Islam to be a humane, rational and egalitarian faith will save Islam. Muslims who want to quarrel about what this sura or that hadith means or does not mean, and who are unable to put large portions of the scriptures on the back burner will destroy Islam.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/23/2013 12:46:05 PM



  • Hats Off says, "i am and have been talking of texts as guides to morality....none of the religious texts extant today can serve as moral or ethical loadstones."


    There is some truth in that. Our instinctive sense of what is right and what is wrong has to be our guide and the texts have to be read with that as our reading glasses. Giving excessive authority to the texts kills our innate capability to be moral human beings. The value of the texts lies in the fact that they demand that we be moral human beings, not in their being a moral compass for us. Our moral compass evolves as the human civilization evolves.



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/23/2013 12:32:32 PM



  • The question that Sultan Shahin Sb has put to me has already been covered in detail in my earlier posts which are reproduced below:

    Khalid Suhail says. "The hadith about the last sermon, which was claimed to be witnessed by more than one hundred thousand believers, says the prophet said  "follow the Quran and my Sunnah"". 
    The Sunnah refers to the living example of the Prophet (pbuh). The prophet did not say follow the Hadith compilations of Bukhari, Dawood or Muslim. These did not exist and there is reason to believe that the Prophet advised against recording his sayings. What the Prophet simply said was to follow his living example. Some of the things we have from his living example in the form of an unbroken tradition are the five times obligatory prayer, method of performing wudhu etc. These would have survived whether or not Bukhari and others had compiled the hadiths. 
    Khalid Suhail says that "Hadith is the basis for Sunna". He is putting the cart before the horse! The Sunna is simply the practice of the Prophet and the hadiths record these and his sayings. The Sunna is therefore the basis for Hadith and not the other way round. The Sunna would have been followed as tradition, whether or not the recordings in the form of hadiths been compiled.
    Looking at the Hadith compilations of various compilers, we find that these works, by the very  nature of the work, are not identical. The compilers have also graded the hadiths as weak, strong etc. The compilers themselves have cautioned that some of the recording although supported by a chain of narrators are doubtful. When the compilers themselves do not demand a complete and unqualified acceptance of the body of work as authentic, Suhail saying that you cannot pick and chose from such a body of work is either being intellectually dishonest or plain stupid.
    He uses the expression "logically unfeasible".  Feasibility has nothing to so with logic and logic has nothing to do with feasibility. It is a strange expression!     A motivated and dishonest attack results    in such idiotic expressions.
    His quoting various "hadiths" to discredit the article are irrelevant as far as the article is concerned. Let him give an example of the Prophet or his companions or his followers supporting Muslims in a non-Muslim majority country to demand independence from the rule by the majority community if he seeks to discredit what the Maulana has said in his article. By Observer - 10/20/2013 7:21:19 PM


    Dear Khalid Suhail,
    As against the Hadith quoted which is from a work compiled more than a century or two after the Prophet's death (pbuh), we know that neither Jews nor Christians were expelled or ill treated. On the other hand, we have stories of an Islamic court ruling in favour of a Jew against Ali (ra) who was the Caliph at that time and Umar (ra) sanctioning pension to support an old Jew. The conquest of Jerusalem was bloodless and Jews continued to occupy important positions in the administration whereas when Jerusalem was retaken by the crusaders there was mass slaughter. The story repeats in Spain where the Jews, Christians and Muslims together took civilisation to great heights. There was no religious persecution. When Spain was conquered by the crusaders, there was slaughter, practice of Islam was prohibited, there was religious persecution and inquisitions. 
    We also have the example of the prophet's treaty with the Christians of Najran which was totally one sided promising protection, and safety without getting anything in return. The delegation was also allowed to pray in the Prophet's mosque.
    If the Prophet had really fostered ill will against the non Muslims, we can imagine how these people would have been treated. The treatment of the non Muslims by the companions of the prophet gives a lie to these so called hadiths.
    So what do we make of such hadiths? Maybe they gave importance to hearsay to support current political mood? In view of the history preceding the compilation of the hadiths, such hadiths must be dismissed as mischievous interpolations.
    To prove your charge against the Maulana's article, I asked you to produce an example of the Prophet or his companions or even later followers supporting any movement for independence by the Muslims in a non Muslim majority state. The Maulana's article is about such movements and what do you have by way of example, Hadith or the Quran supporting such movements? 
    By Observer - 10/21/2013 10:08:14 PM

    Suhail, What the Maulana is talking about is secession. Is there a single Hadith or Quranic verse supporting secession? If not, then the Maulana is quite right in saying that movements for secession are not supported by either the practice or Hadith or the Quran.
     
    Only an intellectually feeble person will take an all or nothing position with reference to the work of any mortal such as the compilers of hadiths. The Quran will serve as the criteria to judge the hadiths. Rejection or acceptance of a Hadith is not a reflection on the integrity of the compilers. They are human prone to error. We also know that any story transmitted through a chain of just 4 transmitters in half an hour gets distorted. So what assurance do you have over stories carried over the centuries? The compilers themselves have cautioned about a few of such hadiths. What all we know anything about history is from the historians. Do we take an all or nothing stand on such works? We read various versions and form our own opinion and even revise our opinion based on fresh studies, archaeological findings, discovery of scrolls etc. At the same time, we do not dismiss the entire body of work as unworthy. Do we even take an all or nothing stand on the work of a scientist of the caliber of Einstein? There would be no progress if we did so.

    By Observer - 10/23/2013 11:31:05 AM



  • Hadith books contain almost anything you want. You may find an extremely kind and nice hz Muhammad besides a cruel torturer one. You may find hz Muhammad to be a person with great morals and on the other page you will see him a pedophile. You will find Muhammad pointing at the moon and splitting it into two pieces letting one piece falling into Ali's backyard, and on the other page you will find Muhammad incapable of reading a simple letter.

    How do you know that the first five verses supposedly "revealed" was surah 96:1-5 and that sura 68:1 was the second? Where does the Quran say this? Aren’t you getting this information from the very hadiths the moderates criticise?

    How do you know that the Quran has not been tampered, especially when the same Muslims who were so dishonest as to fabricate thousands of hadiths on prophet Muhammad and were left unchecked were the very ones who transmitted the Quran?

    The problem  with the so-called muslim moderates  is that they are selective with the material they quote from the Qur'an and Hadith. They are happy to quote some parts of the Qur'an and Hadith when these books speak favourably about women, human rights, prophet Muhammad etc, but avoid quoting the harsher statements aboyt women and violation of the human rights of unbelievers . For instance, we read the story of the Jewish tribe of Bani An-Nadir being driven out from Madina as presented by the Quran in the following verses.

    Quran 59:2-5 "He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the People of the Scripture from their homes at the first gathering".

    "You did not think that they would get out".

    "And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But Allah reached them from a place whereof they expected it not,

    and He cast terror into their hearts

    so that they demolished their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers".

    "Then take admonition, O you with eyes".

    "And had it not been that Allah had decreed exile for them, He would certainly have punished them in this world;

    and in the Hereafter theirs shall be the torment of the Fire

    "That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger.

    And whosoever opposes Allah, then verily, Allah is Severe in punishment".

    "What you cut down of the Linah, or you left them standing on their stems, it was by leave of Allah,

    and in order that He might disgrace the rebellious".

    The impression one gets directly from reading  these Quranic verses ( without a refernce to Hadith) is that they were driven out from their ancestral lands  because theydisbelieved prophet Muhammad, opposed Allah and His Messenger and because Allah had decreed exile for them.

    Can the muslim moderates justify the banishment of Banu Nazir without taking recourse to hadith? It is a catch 22 situation for the moderates.

    By Khalid Suhail - 10/23/2013 11:17:24 AM



  • dear mr rational, what is really intriguing is to wonder what kind of angst in mr sultan shahin is satisfied by a glib accusation of an alliance between jehadis-wahabis-apostates. what is the despair for?

    i am really thinking over what purpose this unusual and paranoid position could serve. if anything, moderates have not stopped quarreling among themselves. they are not even sure whom to call a moderate. there seem to be many types of them. andrew tanenbaum, the father of networking had a wonderful thing to say. "standards are a good thing. there are so many of them". this is exactly what i felt about moderates. there are so many varieties of them.

    there are moderates who think kaffars are najis, there are moderates who think the prophet went on a flying horse to meet with allah, there are moderates who believe the sun revolves round the earth, there are moderates who think an apostate is equal to an islamic terrorist, there are moderates who think birds pelted soldiers with stones and killed them, there are moderates who think the prophets marriage with zainab is perfectly moral, there are moderates (like one mr aljenfawi) who think kaffars must of course be unwelcome in mecca. the list is endless. i am happy to have interacted with a variety of them on this forum.

    recently i saw a video of a muslim meeting in norway. the speaker begins with asking how many of the audience are muslims. everyone raises hands. then the speaker complains that when ever he invites a ulema from abroad, the norwegian government objects saying this cleric supports death to the gays, or stoning to death for adultery, or amputation for stealing. then he says the authorities claim that these are extremist views. then he asks the audience how many of them agree with these sharia punishments. everyone raise hands. then he asks, how many of them consider themselves extremists or terrorists. none of them raises their hands. then the speaker concludes, see, these views are not extremist. these are opinions held by all believers. by this definition, ther are no extremists in islam. everyone is a moderate. this is exactly what erdogan said. "there is no moderate islam or harsh islam or any other islam. islam is just islam"

    i should definitely give praise where it is due. mr ghulam mohiyuddin was the only self designated moderate to respond (but reluctantly in a very few words) to the topic of the impurity of the polytheists. he definitely spoke against it.

    see how silent the whole moderate brigade went when the discussion about polytheists not washing after urination started getting a little hairy? i suspect the silence was on account of not wanting to reveal their unwillingness to allow the kaffar into sacred places.coming out with their real opinion would have embarrassed them but silence is golden. gold, you can always cash it.

    so naturally they will hit out at anyone trying to butt in - like you and me. in the parts i live, it is a truism every little child knows. never try to butt into a quarrel at the community well, unless you want a bump on your head.

    they (moderates) are more careful with mr khalid suhail. no doubt on account of his incisive thinking, mastery over arabic, and deep islamic scholarship. i sometimes really wish i knew arabic so i do not have to depend on every tom dick and harry to know what a particular verse means.

    i had almost stopped visiting this site, but after the westhall outrage, i thought "the hell with etiquette, strong word are what we have to say to those who want to fool the skeptics into losing lives"

    by the way, mr rational any religion with even a single apostate looses the claim to being a perfect religion. that way allah has yet to perfect his religion. as far as the proof is concerned he has done a terrible job of it.

    no two muslims are able to agree on anything. not even who a muslim actually is. so they take their rage out by screaming at the apostates. this is easier, less dangerous and more fun. whereas if you tangled with the exploding and massacring beleivers you might actually get to the houries in the sky. apoststes never explode. this is why they feel safe in unloading their bile on them.

    ab dariye aur darbe baha diye hain hum dono, mr moderate ko jara sone denge.
    By hats off! - 10/23/2013 11:04:05 AM



  • "Because ahadith are needed to understand better the texts of Qur’an in many cases. Thus we must accomplish these sciences and utilize to examine the authenticity of ahadith."

    Thanks to ?? it is not coming from the mouth of "rational", or "hats off" or " khalid Suhail"

    @respected Asif Merchant
    I want to draw the attention of respected Asif Merchant. I want to remind him what he said to khalid suhail on the necessity of Ahadith in understanding the God's text.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 10:21:39 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus, Ghulam Rasool and Misbahul Hoda, It's all right to talk about the science of Hadees and so on in an academic fashion. But let us get back to concrete questions that concern our existence today.

    The question I have put to Observer is also for you. Is there room for moderation in an Islam which considers Hadees as a scripture equal in stature, if not superior to Quran. After all if people call themselves ahl-e-Hadees, they are clearly declaring that they do not care for Quran.

    Now since I have no doubt you will accept the historical facts of inclusiveness of Islam that Observer has presented as correct, I put to you the same question. Let me just repeat what I wrote to Observer:

    @Observer, On the basis of these well-known instances of co-existence between Islam and Christianity that you have cited, should we then infer that the following (sahih) ahadees are concocted? This is the question we started from and there needs to be some closure on the issue? Jihadis, Wahhabis, Islamophobes and Apostates consider these ahadees to be authoritative. Should moderate Muslim consider these ahadees as fabricated and thus reject them or join one of those groups who consider them to be authoritative? So the question boils down to this: is there room in Islam for moderates to remain moderate or they have no option but to join one of these groups: Jihadis, Wahhabis, Islamophobes and Apostates. Your narration of glorious historical incidents of religious co-existence and pluralism would suggest that the same Prophet could not have said such things: do you agree?

    Narrated Said bin Jubair: Ibn 'Abbas said, "The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula"-Sahih Bukhari 4:52:288

    In a late Medinan Surah 9:28 we read: “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean, so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque.”

    Yahya related to me from Malik from Ismail ibn Abi Hakim that he heard Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz say, "One of the last things that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said was, 'May Allah fight the Jews and the Christians. They took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration . Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the land of the Arabs.' " - Malik's Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.17

    'Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, 'Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,' and he therefore expelled the Jews from Khaybar." - Malik's Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.18

    It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim. - Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4366

    By Sultan Shahin - 10/23/2013 10:16:04 AM



  • Dear khalid suhail
    copy to dear hats off
    the emotional outburst of the Editor ha no effect on his comrades. We are unnecessarily mercilessly targeted for quoting the ahadith by senior moderates on this site.
    Mr Ghulam M recently was talking about DE-emphasizing. I hope his allies are doing DE-emphasis by following him. he remained silent on my quoting og Ghulam ghaus's article about the unseen knowledge of the prophet.
    Mr Observer has cited one christian alim perhaps monk. I don't know why Mr Sultan Shahin didn't catch him on his mention of warqa bin naufil.
    I heard a speech by a passionate maulana in which he complained that christian makes the issue of this warqa and hz mohammed meeting. Christians says Mohammed fabricated the Quran after he got the lessons from a christisn monk.
    another part is more interesting: This warqa bin naufil verified the prophet hood of hz Mohammed by a seal of the prophet-hood he found between his shoulder blades. Hz mohammed himself was in doubt about his prophet-hood.  warqa bin naufil consoled the terrified prophet. He sowed the first seed of hatred in the heart of the prophet about the Jews.
    Perhaps somebody will tell how many prophets from hz Adam to Hz Isa carried this seal pf prophet-hood? how many prophets other than hz mohammed were terrified by the Allah's message.

    This interesting story which Muslims quote in order to shine the prophet, in fact put him in bad light.
    an equally valid argument can be constructed here.
    Hz Mohammed when was weak tried to convince both Jews and Christians. when they refused to take him as prophet and later he became powerful he opened the chapters of insulting and killing of Jews and Christians.
    Has this "rational" or "hats of" or "khalid suhail" fabricated a single story to defame the prophet?
    who has made us apostates? By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 10:01:44 AM



  • Dear Secular Logic, I thank you for coming out in your true colours.

    The fact is Muslim robbers have looted temples undoubtedly. Over centuries. But they were not the only ones. Hindu robbers and even Hindu rulers and conquerors were not far behind in destroying temples of rival kings. Indeed, any place which has so much gold will attract criminals. However, in independent India I find that Hindu robbers have a monopoly over stealing valuable things from temples.

    Hindus have undoubtedly been the most broad-minded people in terms of religion. They already have 330 million gods: so what different would it make if one or two more gods were added to the list. They never had problem with accepting new religions. But temples have not been hospitable places for many people who are known as Hindus. Dalits, for instance. I understand, Jagannath temple in Puri did not allow the then Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi to enter the temple as she had married a Parsi and so was no longer a Hindu. Probably this practice still continues.

    However, we are discussing here Islam and those who believe Islam is a religion of pluralism and co-existence should fight for an inclusive Islam wherever they find instances of exclusivism and supremacism among Muslims. What Hindus and others are doing should not be our concern, though we may need to correct historical facts sometimes and should not allow communal people to distort facts.

    By Sultan Shahin - 10/23/2013 10:00:12 AM



  • it is in the very nature of religious texts to opaque.

    the reason is that when the need comes for you to kick the jews you have the appropriate verses ready.

    on the other hand (though impossible) if you decided to love the jews, you will still have something the verses.

    this is known as a rain check.

    this is like political candidate soliciting votes. a shrewd political strategist always has at least two retorts. one that is gentle and smiling, the other cruel and snarling.

    this is the minimum requirement for a religious text. this is why there is no religion based on euclid's elements. because except for the parallel postulate not much can be "interpreted". much of it is cut and dry. this is why euclid despite his abnormal intelligence and prophetic math, could never establish a geometric empire. other prophets with far less intelligence did much better.
    By hats off! - 10/23/2013 9:38:19 AM



  • @Observer, On the basis of these well-known instances of co-existence between Islam and Christianity that you have cited, should we then infer that the following (sahih) ahadees are concocted? This is the question we started from and there needs to be some closure on the issue? Jihadis, Wahhabis, Islamophobes and Apostates consider these ahadees to be authoritative. Should moderate Muslims consider these ahadees as fabricated and thus reject them or join one of those groups who consider them to be authoritative? So the question boils down to this: is there room in Islam for moderates to remain moderate or they have no option but to join one of these groups: Jihadis, Wahhabis, Islamophobes and Apostates. Your narration of glorious historical incidents of religious co-existence and pluralism would suggest that the same Prophet could not have said such things: do you agree?

    Narrated Said bin Jubair: Ibn 'Abbas said, "The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula"-Sahih Bukhari 4:52:288

    In a late Medinan Surah 9:28 we read: “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean, so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque.”

    Yahya related to me from Malik from Ismail ibn Abi Hakim that he heard Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz say, "One of the last things that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said was, 'May Allah fight the Jews and the Christians. They took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration . Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the land of the Arabs.' " - Malik's Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.17

    'Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, 'Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,' and he therefore expelled the jews from Khaybar." - Malik's Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.18

    It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim. - Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4366

    By Sultan Shahin - 10/23/2013 9:20:46 AM



  • Dear Mr Ghaus, thank you for your kind invitation, but I would rather desist. I have no wish to enter any mosque, or go to Mecca or Madina. The objection was to the statement that polytheists cannot go near these places because they are unclean in mind and body. It is an outrageous statement, and if people belonging to the second largest religion in the world think this way about others, it is frightening.

    As for rules regarding who may or may not enter a temple. As per my knowledge, there is currently no bar on entry. I have no idea why mr Ghulam had to pretend to be a Hindu. They do not have an entrance test, a la the killers of Westgate Mall.

    The last time Muslims were going to temples in droves, it was without permission and with weapons of destruction in hand. Idols of the deity were destroyed. Wealth was looted. The beautiful sculptures that adorned our temples now stand headless, noseless, breastless, limbless, mute witnesses to how much Muslims respect other faiths. After this destruction, stones that had Sanskrit verses were removed and used to build steps, so that people would walk over these words. The qutub minar complex is made from pillars looted from vandalised Hindu and Jain temples. In other places, the standing temples were destroyed and Masjids were built in their place. 

    Call it bearing a grudge over centuries, but I would be quite pleased if Muslims were barred from entering Hindu temples anywhere in the world. 
    By secular logic - 10/23/2013 8:55:47 AM



  • Suhail,

    If you are a man of understanding, reconcile the following historical facts with the verses quoted and try, if your feeble mind would permit, to understand that the verses quoted are specific for those times and the people in a state of war when the Christians, Jews and Pagans had ganged up for a last ditch effort to finish off Islam. You are a scholar of Arabic and you know very well that the the Surah Fateha makes no mention of Christians or Jews. You have taken the current official Saudi misinterpretation of the verse which amounts to falsely attributing to Allah words, that we're not revealed and are not there in the Quran. You only confirm that apostates and extremists are on the same wave length.

    Historical facts: 1) The first scholar of any religion to identify Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as a Prophet of God (Allah) was the Christian scholar Warqa Ibn Nawfal.
    2) Of all the places to flee to from the oppression of the pagans of Mecca; Muhammad (PBUH) ordered his followers to go to Abyssinia for it was ruled by, “A righteous Christian king.”
    3) The prophet performed the prayer for the departed or namaze Janaza for Negus, the Christian king of Abyssinia the very day he died. (Do not ask how, when it took a few days for the fastest messenger to travel from Abyssinia to Medina those days)

    3) In the tenth year of Hijra, the Prophet, as the most powerful man in the Arab Peninsula at the time, received the Christians of Najran in his Mosque. There, he allowed them to perform their prayers and pledged to give them the rights that Muslims had, and even promised to repair their old churches out of the Muslim treasury. The cost wasn’t even to be considered a debt upon the Christians! This leniency and civility in the seventh century is unheard of, even according to today’s standards. Was it just an isolated incident, for it was the Prophet himself, or is this Islamic law in general?
    “May Allah keep the rule of the Turks forever…they take the Jizyah tax and they never interfere with religions whether their people are Christians, Jews or Samarians, but the Cursed Polish are never content with the taxes and fees from their brethren in Christ, even though they serve them willingly, yet they put them under the authority of the unjust Jews, the enemies of Christ, who never allow them to build churches or leave them priests who know the secrets of their religion.” Makarius, the Patriarch of Antakya, (14th century).
    This telling quote not only shows the inherent leniency in Islam towards all non-Muslims, but also indicates the level of prejudice against Jews at the time in non-Muslim lands.
    4) If being a Muslim means automatically that you are anti-Christian, how is it that Islam is the only non – Christian faith that believes in the immaculate birth of Jesus (PBUH) and Virgin Mary, glorifies and testifies for them (PBU both of them)? How is it that the Muslims’ Holy Quran is the only Holy Scripture in the world (including any Gospel you may have), that has an entire chapter named after Virgin Mary, glorifying and describing her as the greatest woman that ever lived and will ever live? Read Holy Quran, Surat “Maryam” (Ch. 19), and “Al Omran” (Ch. 3)
    How is it, according to Islamic law, that if you do not believe in all God’s prophets, Jesus (PBUH) included, or in his original Gospel, you cannot be a Muslim?

    (The material has been downloaded from Moustafa Zayed's website)
    By Observer - 10/23/2013 8:05:48 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi sb, it is heartening to go through your enlightening and precious work as:

    “Since the process of compiling ahadith took place at least a full century after the demise of the prophet (PBUH). The early Islamic scholars with critical minds and scientific temperament established the Science of Jar’h (critising ahadith) and Ta’adil (prasing ahadith) in an effort to distinguish between the true and false sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This Science of Jar’h and Ta’adil (Criticism and Praise of Ahadith) is followed by the two canonical sources: the unanimity and the opinion, which together are purely part of human endeavour of scientific development. 

    Using theses sciences is an independent and free prerogative of all the expert scholars of Islam who are well-versed in other Islamic sciences. There have been many imams of hadith, in the past Islamic history, who wrote books with just jarh (criticizing ahadith) in them. It shows that there should not be blind faith in ahadith unless their texts and sources are scrutinised and validated on the set criteria of checking ahadith’s texts.”

    One can hardly find such explainatin to better understand the conflicts between varying ahadith, between ahadith and texts of Qur’an and between ahadith and existing general perception in society.

    Indeed, While debating on ahadith, it is not appropriate to reject ahadith outright. Instead, understand them in their right context using the sciences of ahadith. Because ahadith are needed to understand better the texts of Qur’an in many cases. Thus we must accomplish these sciences and utilize to examine the authenticity of ahadith.  

    It would be most beneficial for us (thousands of reader of NAI) if you present a comprehensive work explaining the implication of these sciences.

    By Misbahul Hoda - 10/23/2013 7:22:29 AM



  • Dear Mr. Sultan Shahin Saheb, editor, New Age Islam! Yes, there are so many Muslims with blind faith and untrue love for the Prophet (PBUH). They do not check the authenticity of the sayings attributed to the personage who they claim is the most beloved to them. Surprisingly, they go to the extent of sanctifying any words attributed to him by even his enemies. But, in reality, this unscientific attitude stands brazenly un-Islamic as well as irrational, as outlined in this Quranic verse:

    "O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful. (the Holy Quran-49:6)

    Since the process of compiling ahadith took place at least a full century after the demise of the prophet (PBUH). The early Islamic scholars with critical minds and scientific temperament established the Science of Jar’h (critising ahadith) and Ta’adil (prasing ahadith) in an effort to distinguish between the true and false sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This Science of Jar’h and Ta’adil (Criticism and Praise of Ahadith) is followed by the two canonical sources: the unanimity and the opinion, which together are purely part of human endeavour of scientific development.

    Using theses sciences is an independent and free prerogative of all the expert scholars of Islam who are well-versed in other Islamic sciences. There have been many imams of Hadith, in the past Islamic history, who wrote books with just Jarh (criticizing Ahadith) in them. It shows that there should not be blind faith in Ahadith unless their texts and sources are scrutinised and validated on the set criteria of checking Hadîth’s texts. Neither the doors to Jar’h (criticising Ahadith) and ta’adil (praising Ahadith) should be closed.

    To better explain it, I would like to reproduce the following excerpt from the recent article of mine posted on this website:

    “The Hadith literature serves as a secondary source of Islamic theology. Therefore, all its collections and compilations have been reviewed meticulously to ensure the authenticity of their contents. But this authentication process is ongoing. According to the progressive Islamic scholars, only Isnad (one component of Hadith i.e. its chain of narrators) is not sufficient to check the authenticity of a Hadith. Matn (the other component, i.e. the text of the Hadith) also should be given equal attention. Now when there are more chances for Hadith reports to be misinterpreted or concocted, we should consider the universally acceptable Islamic criteria to verify the Hadith text’s validity. It implies that while verifying the Hadith narrations, we should employ five most important criteria: (1) the holy Qur’an (2) rationally authentic traditions (3) sound reason (4) established history and (5) moderation of the ideas.

    URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-politics/ghulam-rasool-dehlvi,-new-age-islam/pakistani-jihadis--war-cry-of-ghazwa-e-hind-is-entirely-based-on-ahadith-concocted-by-the-ummayads-to-further-their-expansionist-and-imperialists-designs-on-india/d/14057

    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 10/23/2013 5:21:51 AM



  • dear mr khalid suhail, i think you will agree if i said none is as blind as one who will not see.
    By hats off! - 10/23/2013 5:21:14 AM



  • In response to Maulana Wahiduddin Khan’s claim that muslim seperatism is un-Islamic.
    Throughout the western world—there are hundreds of societies bearing the name of ISLAM. Examples: AMC, AMA, NABIC, ICNA, ISNA, CAIR etc. etc. There are hundreds of such Islamic organizations/societies throughout the North America and elsewhere in the whole world. These organizations mostly preach segregation/isolation of Muslims from other peoples in general in the host countries. They teach Muslims that they are superior and their religion is superior and ask to guard their children from mixing with the western society. As a result, future generations of Muslims can not blend with the society of host country resulting isolationists and problematic youngsters in an alien society.
    Why this is happening? Because Unbelievers (both christians, Jews and idolatars) are described by  the Qur'an as "the vilest of animals. Quran 98:6- "Verily, those who disbelieve from among the People of the Scripture and idolatars, will abide in the fire of Hell". They are the worst of creatures.
    Christians and Jews are hated by Allah to the extent that they are destined for eternal doom as a result of their beliefs. So, It would make no sense for prophet Muhammad to then recommend them to be taken in as friends by Muslims.  In fact, the Qur'an plainly commands believers not to take unbelievers as friends.
    Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
    Qur'an (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide."  Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell.
    Qur'an (3:28) - "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them..."
     This last part means that the Muslim is allowed to feign friendship if it is of benefit.  Renowned scholar Ibn Kathir states that "believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly, but never inwardly."
    Qur'an (9:23) - "O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers".
     Even family members are not to be taken as
     friends if they do not accept Islam.
    Qur'an (53:29) - "Therefore shun those who turn away from Our Message and desire nothing but the life of this world."
    Qur'an (3:85) - "And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers."
    Qur'an (1:5-7) - "Show us the straight path, The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray".
     This is a prayer that Muslims are supposed to repeat each day.  "Those who earn thine anger" specifically refers to Jews and "those who go astray" refers to Christians (see Bukhari (12:749).
    There are many more verses and Aha'dith with similar instructions.
    Apologists sometimes point to verse 60:8-9 which says that Allah doesn't necessarily forbid showing kindness to unbelievers, but to shun the ones "who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out."  This is an obvious reference to the Meccans, whose leaders expelled prophet Muhammad and his handful of followers from Mecca (following his declaration of war against them).  The verse was narrated shortly after their arrival in Medina, when it was necessary for the numerically disadvantaged Muslims to build alliances with non-Muslims (especialy Jews) in order to survive.  The verses quoted above from Suras 9 and 5 are narrated at a much later period, when Muslims had gained power. Thus, These  verses,9 and 5 expand the scope of unfriendliness to include anyone who is not Muslim. On the whole, Islam is very clear in teaching that there is no equality between believers and unbelievers, and hence no basis for a relationship of peers. This does not preclude Muslims from acting friendly toward others, of course, but this does not constitute friendship as it is generally understood in the modern world. This is nothing but separatism and segregation being followed by the nuslims all over the world. By Khalid Suhail - 10/23/2013 4:42:34 AM



  • dear mr rational, getting rid of the hadiths is not going to solve the problem.

    the problem will then be the sword verses, the al anfal verses (about not taking slaves before making the land thick etc etc. this is also very problematic. i read four tafsirs but i got the impression that there is something here that needs more invetigation) and so many other such verses.

    but a more critical aspect is being pointed out by mr khalid suhail. if the pillars of islam are not to be found in the koran, we are in serious trouble about koran only exegetics.

    so in the near foreseeable future, i think less than about five to ten percent of muslims alone will agree to do away with hadiths.

    but i seriously think that the concept of eternal texts (in the sense of being valid until end of times) is rather childish and those who believe in these texts become angry and confused exactly like children do when they are closely questioned.
    By hats off! - 10/23/2013 3:55:17 AM



  • Dear hats off
    day before yesterday Islamic territory included all places.
    Yesterday it shrank to four Khulfa e rashideen
    Todat it is limited to first generation of companions like the  Mughal emperor Jafar's yamuna bridge.
    for tomorrow you can guess.
    Universe is expending and true Islam is shrinking
    I would like to quote a hadith without bothering if it is weak or strong, hasan or gharib.

    "Abû Hurayrah relates that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “Islam began strange, and it will become strange again just like it was at the beginning, so blessed are the strangers.” [Sahîh Muslim (1/130)]

    `Amr b. `Awf relates that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “The religion will shrink back to the Hijâz like the snake shrinks back into its hole. It will cling to the Hijâz like the mountain goat clings to the mountaintop. The religion began strange, and it will become strange again just like it was at the beginning, so blessed are the strangers who restore what the people corrupt of my Sunnah.” [Sunan al-Tirmidhî (#2630)] Al-Tirmidhî grades it as good and authentic (hasan sahîh).
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 3:31:10 AM



  • "Mecca and Medina is simply that God wanted to keep these cities especially meant for worship and spirituality, and not for other mundane affairs like tourism and entertainment".
    Allah abhors laughing joking or any other form of entertainment. He rather is amused by killing and raping.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 3:18:02 AM



  • do not reject all the hadith and do not doubt all the hadith. some of them may be weak and others may be authentic. people can challange your being moderate, do not loose your heart. stand as you stood , they have challenged your faith, they may have you thought of every law as supremacy. it is you who can not let supermacy come into matter of prohibition of entry in kaaba but you can say it matter of sanctity.
    one day will come when they will try to demolish kaaba, you will be no longer at that time.  
    By Moderate - 10/23/2013 3:12:24 AM



  • Dear hats off. please read OCD in place of OSD
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 3:11:08 AM



  • Allah ki rahmat hai ki beshtar musalman nahi jaante ki woh kiya padh rahe hain.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 3:05:02 AM



  • “I did not come into contact with any Muslim before I embraced Islam. I read the Qur'an first and realized no person is perfect, Islam is perfect, and if we imitate the conduct of the Holy Prophet... we will be successful”. Cat Stevens

    and that is why he endorsed the fatwa for rushdie wajib ul qatl.

    indeed perfect emulation by a true convert

    I don't know why Barailvis could not convert him to peaceful corner of Islam.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 3:02:35 AM



  • “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time”. By Abraham Lincoln

    very true for moderates.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 2:58:20 AM



  • Moderation is part of faith, so those who accuse Muslim schools of fostering fanaticism should learn a bit more about Islam. Cat Stevens

    By Moderate - 10/23/2013 2:53:26 AM



  • cat stevens is very notorius for his comments on rushdie.

    when asked about his support for the fatwa making rushdie wajib ul qatl, he said in front of studio lights and video cameras in front of thousands of tv audiences, that rushdie should be killed. according to his standard operating procedure he retracted when cornered by other tv crews.

    that is cat stevens aka yusuf islam.

    this is what reversion did to cat stevens.

    do a google search before you start celebrity endorsements for islam. want to know what churchill said? what ambedkar said? what any number of celebrities have said? the field is about evenly divided. as many people have wonderful opinions about islam as those with adverse opinions of islam.

    or do you think islam is like boost which tendulkar drinks and so you will also start drinking it because tendulkar endorses it?
    By hats off! - 10/23/2013 2:53:18 AM



  •  Wo kya hain naa ki apne se bare logon ki baat man ni chahiye ye tarbiyat ka aham hissa hai “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time”. By Abraham Lincoln 

    By Moderate - 10/23/2013 2:46:41 AM



  • “I did not come into contact with any Muslim before I embraced Islam. I read the Qur'an first and realized no person is perfect, Islam is perfect, and if we imitate the conduct of the Holy Prophet... we will be successful”. Cat Stevens

    By Moderate - 10/23/2013 2:42:42 AM



  • “I did not come into contact with any Muslim before I embraced Islam. I read the Qur'an first and realized no person is perfect, Islam is perfect, and if we imitate the conduct of the Holy Prophet... we will be successful”. Cat Stevens

    By Moderate - 10/23/2013 2:42:30 AM



  • after i have read and reread mr sultan shahin's response, i have one question.

    if the jihadi-islamophobic-apostate alliance is denied the hadiths as a stick to beat islam with, does the problem disappear?

    the alliance has similar issues with many ayas of many suras. so do we do away with all those? if we do not, we are back to where we started. if we do, then we are talking about dr.taha.

    if dr. taha were the role model for followers of islam, islam would have already become the cynosure of other world religions. other religions would have hurried and caught up. dr taha's concept of meccan and medinan islams is the closest one can get to being liberal while still following all the pillars. if that were to have passed, we probably wouldn't have been screaming here on this forum.

    but that was not to be.
    By hats off! - 10/23/2013 2:41:27 AM



  • "Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right".
    Abraham Lincoln 
    By Moderate - 10/23/2013 2:40:20 AM



  • "I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear".
    Barack Obama 

    By Moderate - 10/23/2013 2:35:35 AM



  • "America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings". By Barack Obama 

    By Moderate - 10/23/2013 2:33:43 AM



  • Quran padho pyar se dil se mohabbat se samajh ke bar bar main apko ye sab yad dilata rahunga lagta hai ap log bhul jate hain ap logon ko ko hafizon k i tarah rat lena chahiye "A good action and a bad action are not the same. Repel the bad with something better and, if there is enmity between you and someone else, he will be like a bosom friend. (Surat al-Fussilat: 34) By Moderate - 10/23/2013 2:26:39 AM



  • Read Quran and forget everything ."To be one of those who believe and urge each other to steadfastness and urge each other to compassion. Those are the Companions of the Right. (Surat al-Balad: 17-18)
     
    By Moderate - 10/23/2013 2:23:14 AM



  • dear mr moderate, no. i do not want to visit any places of worship. including yours. i generally do not worship. sometimes i merely repent. i am incapable of obeisance.

    if i was caught in thunderstorm and if the only shelter was a place of worship, i'd rather get wet. i would not enter. for many humans are genetically incapable of religious faith.

    so you can go to your holiest of holy mosques completely free of the smallest doubt that i might ever disturb you there. you may by all means carry out your prayers with the complete surety that i will never ever bother you there.

    or the only way i would go to a religious place is if they kidnapped me. for actual fasad you should do a google search for tower hamlets. better still go there for a visit. then we can talk about fasaad.
    By hats off! - 10/23/2013 2:22:40 AM



  • In Surat al-Baqara verse 208, this command is given: You who believe! Enter absolutely into peace (Islam). Do not follow in the footsteps of Satan. He is an outright enemy to you”.  As we see in this verse, people will experience well-being and happiness by living according to the moral teaching of the Qur'an. God Condemns Mischief. God has commanded humanity to avoid evil; he has forbidden immorality, rebellion, cruelty, aggressiveness, murder and bloodshed. Those who do not obey this command of God are walking in the steps of Satan, as it says in the verse above, and have adopted an attitude that God has clearly declared unlawful.

    By Moderate - 10/23/2013 2:20:06 AM



  • "If you prevent me from entering temples, i will not be unhappy. With pleasure i will accept your law."

    i salute you for your sense of parity.

    i share with you my utter respect (even if with a certain contempt) for the local whims and fancies.

    however this is not what you are i were talking about.

    i am and have been talking of texts as guides to morality. i am saying none of the current crop among the various texts fits the bill.

    this is why we have other more WYSIWYG texts. in sofar as religious texts are not WYSIWYG we should just let them be on shelves of the library. that is where they belong.

    none of the religious texts extant today can serve as moral or ethical loadstones.
    By hats off! - 10/23/2013 2:11:35 AM



  • aqqal kahan chali gayee hai ye sare formula to har religion ke saath kya ja sakta hai. kaaba me daakhil mamnu hai to iska matlab separation thodi na hai, musalman to ibadat karne jate hain apni bakhsish ke liye jate hain magar tum log kya wahaan jakar takiya laga kar aaram farmana chahte hain. ghumne phirne ke liye itni saari jagah hai magar jaan buujh kar kaaba pe hi kyon aap log bhir gaye hain? aap log is tarah ke issue saamne lakar sirf logon ke andar fasad paida karna chahte hain  By Moderate - 10/23/2013 2:11:28 AM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin.
    would you ever be able to scrap the Sciences of Hadiths from the minds of your comrades?
    I don't mind if those are strong or weak.
    After we finish it we can come to the God's final speech.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 1:38:52 AM



  • Dear hats off
    "on the first glance, i got an impression that from his passionate 'outpouring' as mr mohammad yunus would have said, one could conclude that the true islam (whatever that particularly elusive material is) died with the prophet."
    I read this current outburst of our Editor. I liked your "true Islam died with the prophet"
    Only God Allah knows why He made it to happen? If the prophet was revolutionary why this revolution died so early. If he changed the course of time, if he changed the minds of his companions drastically how come his dead body was lying uncared among the most respected companions of the prophet busy in to decide who will rule the land. Ansars were cornered just because they didn't belonged to Quraish.
    How come they could not rise above this tribal mentality? If this was not political than what it was.
    Abu dhar Giffari was sent to silence zone.

    Our comrades on this site have shown their colors. A moderate who chase us doggedly must open his eyes.
    The war on this site is not about good verses bad, it is just one sect verses another sect.
    Islam's goods and bads, morals and immorals are different.
    What Hz mohammed said to do is good and moral what he said not to do is bad and immoral. It is nothing to do with universal goods found in the golden rules which are accepted to all.
    Now these moderates may start eating their words back.
    But the arrows of true faiths are shot, hence can't be sent back.
    The conclusion is "Non-Muslims are barred just because they are not clean physically and spiritually as per Islamic OSD of purity.
    Does this thread needs more explanation why separation universally prevails in the Muslim society?
    Beauty of this theme is , it is ending with a definite conclusion. Interested moderates may keep beating this unbeatable bush.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 1:34:40 AM



  • Hats Off says, " the moderates desperately wish that the apostates would close their eyes."


    Moderate don't give a damn what the apostates think. It is the apostates who are here to demolish people's faith. They behave as if they have developed  some great insights that they want to impart to all and sundry! Not unlike smart-alecky teenagers!


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/23/2013 1:11:01 AM



  • Dear Hats off , You may say it a miracle that for the welfare of all mankind the Hadith are authentic and if it goes against justice, peace, equality, it becomes weak. What a good fortune! By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/23/2013 12:54:21 AM



  • Dear Hats off, Rational and Logic, polytheists have no nothing to do with the entry of Harmain Shareefain.
    All the non-Muslims are most welcome to enter all the mosques of the world including Jama Masjid in Delhi. 
    If you prevent me from entering temples, i will not be unhappy. With pleasure i will accept your law. 

     
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/23/2013 12:48:57 AM



  • mr ghulam ghaus need not go all the way to mr asqalani.

    the first axiom of hadith sciences is - if it is uncomfortable, it is weak. if it is glorious it is strong. does it raise the trp of the prophet and islam? then it is strong. does it show the prophet and islam in a ridiculous way? then it is weak.

    the point here is that we have already judged the prophet. so we need to sift and filter the evidence accordingly so that the jury doesn't get confused.

    this is known in the kuffar language english as selective memory. that is i remember all the glorious things i did. i naturally completely forget all the dirty things i did.

    this is survival. good!
    By hats off! - 10/23/2013 12:39:01 AM



  • dear mr rational, you are spot on.

    i was referring to mr ghaus, ms varsha sharma, mr dehlvi, mr moderate and of course the hundreds of other "moderates" lurking on the site.

    what this forum means by moderates are those that are comfortable with a white lie. whereas the apostates and the kuffars and the hypocrites and the polytheists are color blind as they sort the lies and truths. the moderates desperately wish that the apostates would close their eyes. what the apostates want is for the moderates to open their eyes.

    so the both of us are like the tree crashing in the forest. did it make a sound? one can never say, because one was not in the forest to listen to the sound of the tree crashing.

    another problem here is that i have read mr sultan shahin's last post. i have to read it again.

    on the first glance, i got an impression that from his passionate 'outpouring' as mr mohammad yunus would have said, one could conclude that the true islam (whatever that particularly elusive material is) died with the prophet.

    so why bother about a non-existent thing?
    By hats off! - 10/23/2013 12:31:14 AM



  • Dear Khalid Suhail, please go through the following link that clearly refutes all the claims that every Hadith mentioned in Bukhari or Muslim is authentic. According to Allama Asqalani ra some hadith of Bukhari and Muslim are weak.  http://www.alahazrat.net/islam/bukhari-sharif-muslim-sharif.php

    Some important points of the given link I have pasted here below for you to ponder over. 

    “Hafidh Asqalani himself has criticized many of Imam Bukhari’s narrations. The preface of Fath-ul-Baari contains a list of all the scholars who have criticized Bukhari’s narration. In some places, he has tried to answer some of the objections raised. So how then can anyone claim that there is no argument concerning the narrations of both Imam Bukhari and Muslim?

    Hafidh Ibn Hajar Asqalani writes that Hafidh Saalih said: “One day, Hafidh Abu Zur’ah said to me “I have read Imam Bukhari’s Tareekh, and in it, I have found many mistakes.” I informed him “When a person of Bukhara (Bukhari’s home town) goes to Iraq and comes back with new information, Imam Bukhari always reads it. The writing style of these people was quite unusual. This meant that Imam Bukhari had difficulty in reading the narration. This is why Imam Bukhari made mistakes. Otherwise, he is the best from among all the scholars of Kharasaan”

    (Tahdheeb ul Tahdheeb, By Hafidh Asqalani, biography of Imam Bukhari)

    Imam Bukhari completed Sahih Bukhari in sixteen years. During which time, he continuously edited it. Towards the end, Imam Bukhari did not have the opportunity to make the final alterations because he passed away. Whenever we read Sahih Bukhari, we notice that it lacks fluency and it is disjointed. For example, we may find a chapter with a heading but nothing written in it and sometimes there might be a chapter written but no heading for it. The reason for this is that his students, from the materials that were left by Imam Bukhari, finally edited Sahih Bukhari. The students found that some material was written in final draft, some in rough draft form and some in brief comments on the sides of the pages. Hafidh Abu Is-haaq has said, “I copied the original copy of Sahih Bukhari, which was in the possession of Imam Bukhari’s student, Faraabri. From the material I collected, I noticed that some things were incomplete and some things were without any headings and also there were headings for chapters but nothing written in them. We had to join the material together.”(Preface of Fath-ul-Baari, page 10, by Hafidh Asqalani)

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/23/2013 12:26:26 AM



  • Dear hats off
    Mr Ghulam M is diverting you to traditional Muslims. I assume you pointed to moderate fighters Mr GRD and Mr Ghaus and their tribbes.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 12:10:34 AM



  • dear hats off! - 10/22/2013 4:09:36 AM
    you are right in your guess. Karim is generous.
    in return to Mr Moderate I said "Allah has nothing but Monotheism, we will ask everything from Mohammed"
    It was to expose the Shirk of Barailvis. Long ago I heard this piece of poetry from a Barailvi singing a Qawali. I assume you know the Qawali.

    I must thank Khadimul harmain sharifain for not allowing Barailvis to hold Qawali, Urs sessions on Masjid e Nabvi because they will do the shirk there and due to their noise people will not perform Ibadat in peace. For this reason kaffars and Mushriks are not allowed there as our Allama GRD has told.
    unworthy Muslims will attract the rage of Allah by entering the two mosques. I wonder what these Brailvis will attract when they will makes so much noise there. May be the prophet himself will come to attend the qawali, urs sessions and will bless them. some of them will go in whirls during dance(wajd). May be the prophet will join them.  
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/23/2013 12:05:36 AM



  • Secular Logic,


    I like visiting places of worship and have visited Mathura, Ram Krishna Mission in Kolkata, the Vatican and several churches in the UK, USA and Mexico. Assuming a Hindu identity is a small price to pay for visiting a place of worship. My resentment was not against Hindus but against a  particular rule.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/23/2013 12:03:41 AM



  • Hats Off says, "i think you would have glimpsed into the mind set of the so-called moderate muslims on this forum."


    You are referring to "traditional Muslims",  who are sometimes called "modertate" in the sense that they are not extremist or radical or Wahhabi. I on the other hand use the term "moderate" in the sense of moderate/progressive/liberal/reformist. There are gradations in between.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/22/2013 11:57:41 PM



  • "The Hadith "expel the pagans from Arabian peninsula" refers to those pagans who were always in a bid to wage a war among humans and Muslims. Today's pagans are totally different from the pagans who lived during the era of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.  By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/22/2013 7:21:34 AM"
    Emphasis is mine. It is good to know that humans and Muslims are two different categories.
    To days's pagans are different but are unclean because they don't follow the Islamic way of cleaning.
    Even though they are different but are not allowed to enter the Harmain Sharifain.
    Some Muslims say the command was for that specific time, but how many Muslims will sanction the entering of kaffars and mushriks into sacred places.
    At least these moderates on this site are against it because non-Muslims are unclean.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/22/2013 11:44:50 PM



  • By Ghulam Ghaus says, 
    "The actual text of the Hadith is “أخرجوا المشركين من جزيرة العرب". The word Mushrik did not include those people like Ahle Kitab who believed in oneness of God. He further says,
    "Dear Hats off, I request you to read out Fath ul-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari by al-Hafith Ibn Hajar Asqalani (ra)".
    Bellow are Some Narration's About The Expulsion Of The Jews From Arabia. Ref:- Fath ul-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari by al-Hafith Ibn Hajar Asqalani. 
    Abu Hurairah said: While we were in the Mosque the Prophet SallalLahu `Alayhi Wasallam came out and said, "Come on to the Jews," So we went out with him and came to the house where they read their Scriptures, and the Prophet SallalLahu `Alayhi Wasallam stood up and said, "If you Jews accept Islam you will be safe. Know that the land belongs to Allah and His messenger SallalLahu `Alayhi Wasallam, and I intend to deport you from this land; so if any of you has property (he cannot take away) he must sell it." Saheeh Bukhari, (p449, Vol.1). Saheeh Muslim, (p94, Vol.2). Mishkat, (p865).
    Ibn `Abbas told that Allah's Messenger SallalLahu `Alayhi Wasallam gave three instructions before departing from the world, saying, "Expel the polytheists from Arabia; reward deputation's as I did." Ibn `Abbas said either that he did not mention the third or that he (i.e. Ibn `Abbas), had been caused to forget it. Saheeh Bukhari, (p449, Vol.1.). Mishkat, (p865). Saheeh Muslim.
    Jabir Bin `AbdulLah said he was told by `Umar Bin Al Khattaab that he had heard Allah's Messenger SallalLahu `Alayhi Wasallam say, "I will certainly expel the Jews and the Christians from Arabia so as to leave only Muslims in it." Muslim transmitted it. A version has, "If I live, Allah willing, I will certainly expel the Jews and the Christians from Arabia." Saheeh Muslim, (p24, Vol.2). Mishkat, (p866).
    Ibn `Umar told that, `Umar Bin Al Khattaab deported the Jews and the Christians from the land of the Hijaz and when Allah's messenger SallalLahu `Alayhi Wasallam got supremacy over the people of Khaybar he intended to expel the Jews from it, for when the land was conquered it belonged to Allah, His Messenger SallalLahu `Alayhi Wasallam and the Muslims. But the Jews asked Allah's Messenger SallalLahu `Alayhi Wasallam to leave them on condition that they should do all the cultivation and have half the produce, and he replied, "We shall confirm you on that condition as long we wish." So they were confirmed till `Umar deported them during his period of rule to Taima and Jericho. Bukhari and Muslim. Mishkat, (p866).
    Ibn `Umar told that `Umar stood up to make a speech and said, "Allah's Messenger SallalLahu `Alayhi Wasallam employed the Jews of Khaybar to work their property and told them he would confirm them in it as long as Allah did; and I have now seen good to deport them." When `Umar decided on that, one of the Banu Abul Huqaiq came to him and said, "Commander of the Faithful, are you expelling us when Muhammad SallalLahu `Alayhi Wasallam has confirmed us in our property and employed us to work it?" `Umar replied, "Do you think I have forgotten what Allah's messenger SallalLahu `Alayhi Wasallam said when he asked how you would feel when you were expelled from Khaybar, your camel running along with you night after night?" He said, "This was a little joke on the part of Abul Qasim," to which `Umar retorted, "You lie, enemy of Allah." He then deported them, giving them the value of the fruits they possessed in money, camels and goods such as saddled, ropes, etc. Bukhari transmitted it. Mishkat, (p865).

    By Khalid Suhail - 10/22/2013 11:04:18 PM



  • In their reverence for ahadith some Muslims can make Islam a laughing stock of the world, if not a condemnable creed. This is no way to stop the Jihadi-Islamophobe-Apostate Alliance from increasing its influence on the umma.   More and more moderate Muslims are joining this brigade, partly as a result of exertions of common Muslims who unthinkingly accord reverence to any words that are attributed to Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) even by those who were bent upon his character assassination for very understandable reason from their viewpoint and then go to any length to defend them.

     In the absence of recorded Hadees during the Prophet's time, no Imam or Allama during the rule of the descendants of Abu Lahab and Abu Jahal had any business putting words into the Prophet's mouth and today's Muslims have no right to  assume that the Prophet actually said those things and then start speculating on why he would do that.

    Putting ideas into the prophet's mind is worse than putting words into his mouth.

    The important thing to remember is the character of Muslims prophet left behind (our salaf). Of course, there were some pious individuals. There always are and among followers of every religion. But what about the mass. Don't forget that they left his dead body to rot for several hours in the hot Arab weather while started fighting about who will gain political power.

    Then, following a period of relative calm in internecine warfare among the salaf (first generations) of Islam,  almost constantly fought among themselves till in the 48th year of the Prophet's demise they killed all members of his family including infants and women and accepted the chief assassin as their king.

    Yazid, the assassin-in-chief established a dictatorial monarchical dynasty in the name of khilafat that is continuing till today, though, of course, in the last 1400 odd years it has gone through several changes of fortune and now is more honestly calling itself kingdom. The progeny of the most inveterate enemies of Islam like Abu Lahab and Abu Jahal, however, had to rule in the name of Islam over a people who knew Quran by heart. Naturally they decided to create a parallel scripture to replace Quran.

    Over the next three centuries they claimed to have collected hundreds of thousands of so-called sayings of prophet Mohammad. If it is not possible for a human to narrate with precision a sentence heard a minute ago, what sanctity can be given to claims made by people that they had heard form a chain of fathers and uncles and grandfathers spanning two to three centuries that the prophet said this or that. More particularly, any Muslim should wonder how can you call hadees Islamic scripture when it clearly attempts at the character assassination of the prophet. And I am not talking about the so-called zaeef (weak) ahadees, but about those in the so-called authoritative Bokhari and Muslim. You will find examples of some on this website in other articles.

    However, this common sense eludes common Muslims who revere the Prophet so much that any words attributed to him by even his enemies become sacred.

    This has enabled ruling dynasties in the Arab world today to declare themselves to be ahl-e-Hadees (people of the Hadees). They say so with pride.

    They will have no answer if you asked them how does Hadees created hundreds of years after the demise of the Prophet become Islamic scripture when Allah declared Islam to have been completed during the Prophet's time.

     But who will ask them.

    They have the financial power today to silence all our media.

     They have the oil power to silence the west.

    Their ideology spawns men who go and blow up the heart of America's financial power, but America keeps bowing down to them, protecting them from all possible challenges, giving them weapons of mass destruction. It's ahl-e-hadees media that dominates anything that goes in the name of Islam, Islamic TV channels, Islamic radios, Islamic websites, Islamic bookshops, whatever. Islamic madrasas across the world use their text books to brainwash the minds of our children into believing in a supremacist, exlusivist Islam that is opposed to spiritualism and wants to conquer the world.

    I know the above brief narrative is of necessity very simplified and full of generalisations that have many exceptions, as all generalisations do. However, the common reader who may be baffled at the defence of supremacist, exclusivist ahadees by the use of bizarre theories coming from defenders of hadees may get an idea of the background from which these laughable theories are emanating. But, of course, as alliance partners with Jihadis and ahl-e-hadeesis, Islamophobes and Apostates will continue to find ways to justify Yazidi Islam as the true version of Islam and ahadees as genuine reflections of the Prophet's supremacism and exclusivism (nauzubillah).

    By Sultan Shahin - 10/22/2013 10:54:43 PM



  • Mr Ghulam,

    What were you doing in the temple at Mathura. You don't believe in idol worship. The Muslim is not allowed to be a part of such sacrilege, is he? 

    And you lied in order to enter the place? what did you get out of it? Another permanent resentment against Hindus, for a crime that Muslims commit across the globe on a daily basis? Imagine if I wear islamic clothes, pretend to be a Muslim and enter your holiest of holies, and wander about there without an iota of faith, but great cynicism in my heart.  What is the prescribed punishment? Death by stoning?
    By secular logic - 10/22/2013 9:16:05 PM



  • "Polytheists are totally unclean"!

    What a breathtakingly outrageous statement!

    For the sake of my own sanity, I avoid coming to this site and reading the views of the most biased, rabid, brainwashed, churlish and irrational people on this planet. 

    Yet, because these outpourings fall in the "horror" genre, they seem to hold some morbid fascination for me that I keep coming here to get outraged. 

    FYI mr whoeverhasmadethisstatement. Personal cleanliness is more a function of economic status, availability of water and upbringing rather than religion. I have passed on the road people of all faiths, Muslims included, who smell to high heavens and ALL of them have been economically from the lower class. I have come across people of all faiths who have impeccable personal and civic hygiene.

    You can wash your private parts a thousand times a day, but what are you going to do about the uncleanliness of the Islamic mind. Sheesh!
    By secular logic - 10/22/2013 8:52:32 PM



  • dear mr moderate, mr ghulam ghaus and mr ghulam rasool dehlvi, can you tell us what your response will be if the hindu right wing parties come to power and ban muslims from entering ayodhya, or mathura or madurai or tirupati or a thousand other towns whith a major hindu temple?

    you should let us kaffars and agnostics and atheists and apostates know.

    ps: sorry ms varsha sharma, i forgor to add you to the salutation. it figures because most of the religions strictly ban women from any kind of religious discourse, but that may be very agreeable to you on account of your excessive moderation.
    By hats off! - 10/22/2013 6:10:51 PM



  • bahai temples (they tell me) have no qualms about letting in anybody. they seem to be adding members to their faith.

    this is very early to say what trajectory this young maverick religion will choose.

    but of course all islamic countries (no exception) regard bahais as apostates from islam. this has all the scope for a prolonged bitter confrontation in the future.

    this must be the peace all religions are promising. the peace of death and the calmness of a graveyard.

    long live religions! and may the moderates flourish!
    By hats off! - 10/22/2013 6:05:18 PM



  • thank you mr ghulam mohiyuddin!

    i think you would have glimpsed into the mind set of the so-called moderate muslims on this forum.

    hear the silence of all the star moderates here. i was particularly frightened by mr dehlvi's ingenious explanation about traffic jams. another gem is about how polyheists do not wash after urination from our alim.

    if our moderate muslims and alims are of the mindset displayed by mr ghuas and mr dehlvi, i see very little hope of any interfaith.

    you go off the rocker when i let you know what i think of saudi arabi's interfaith.
    By hats off! - 10/22/2013 5:49:22 PM



  • No place of worship should exclude anybody. I resented the fact that I had to assume a Hindu identity when I visited the temple at Mathura. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/22/2013 12:10:25 PM



  • Hindus believe that their god is omni potent and omnipresent.  That is the reason they worship everything and everywhere. 

    Abrahamic zealous follower are keen to show their god's as neither omni potent nor omni present and hence the discrimination.

    However on the practical note, thanks to these type of statement that hindus and buddhist are becoming abrahamic follower on the count of tolerance for OTHERS
    By satwa gunam - 10/22/2013 10:09:37 AM



  • would all the moderates in favor of kuffar apartheid in mecca and medina respond similarly if vatican was to ban the muslims from entering? or lourdes, or madurai? or sabarimala? or haridwar? or rishikesh? or gaya?

    if the municipalities of the hindu temple towns requested the muslim residents to leave, would mr ghulam ghaus and mr moderate and ms varsha sharma feel ok with that?

    i think they would, in all fairness. i trust them to be entirely liberal. and totally just.

    or may be i could be totally mistaken. probably this line of reasoning can also explain the harassment faced by kuffars in tower hamlets in london, most of the slums of marseilles, and many parts of malmo.

    so after all, religious apartheid is not only liberal, it is recommended. and entirely befitting mecca. entirely acceptable to liberal moderate muslims such as mr dehlvi and mr ghaus, they should perhaps also agree with the south african model. why is apartheid based on skin color abhorrent while that based on the shahada is sacrosanct? or even desirable? while banning the kaffar from mecca is sound why is banning the black from suburbs of pretoria not?

    any ideas?

    this argument immediately legitimises the david dukes, the togadias and the sawarkars. how different are they? not much it appears. the moderates seem to be doing all the leg work for the extremists.

    in all probabilities, mr mohammad yunus will be in a tizzy if he is following this thread.

    nice to know. the apostates and the kuffar like to know exactly where they stand vis-vis the momeen.

    if the readers have been watching indian news, they would surely have noticed issues in a temple town of a south indian state about an islamic university. the local representatives of the right wng parties have already vowed to take the matter to court. a part of their 'logic' is exactly similar to the logic of mr ghulam ghaus and mr moderate and mr ghulam rasool dehlvi. the right wing hindu party has said the town in question is the sole property and enclave of the lord of their faith and that all the people of other faiths are merely allowed on the largesse of the majority relioginists. do we seem to have an issue here?
    By hats off! - 10/22/2013 9:49:23 AM



  • Thanks Ghulam Ghaus for giving a very balanced view. Allah knows the unseen knowledge that was why he forbade non-Muslims to enter the Harmain shareefain otherwise "additional tourist traffic would simply add to the congestion and detract from the spirituality of the pilgrimage visit". By Moderate - 10/22/2013 8:17:42 AM



  • at last i can understand why the prophet banned the kuffars from the holy cities. he was bothered about the traffic jams.

    this is very neat, secular and acceptable all around. i thank you mr dehlvi for your explanation.
    By hats off! - 10/22/2013 8:05:25 AM



  • Restricting access to the two holy mosques is meant for providing a place of peace and refuge for Muslims and preserving the sanctity of these two holy mosques. Now-a-days, millions of Muslims visit the cities each year. I also think like Mr Ghulam Rasool that additional tourist traffic would simply add to the congestion and detract from the spirituality of the pilgrimage visit.

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/22/2013 8:05:00 AM



  • @Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi
    "Millions of Muslims visit the two cities each year, especially during the pilgrimage (Hajj). So, allowing people from all religions will surely cause additional tourist traffic adding to the congestion and detraction from the spirituality and focus required for the pilgrimage."

    Sounds logical! Because, if it had not been the reason then why there is no general ban in Islam with regard to entry in all the mosques, wherever they may be found in the world?
    I don't think Islam bans non-Muslims from entering all mosques of the world. Had it been the case, the Prophet (peace be upon him) would not have let Thamaamah ibn Athaal al-Hanafi enter in the mosque before he became Muslim. And similarly, he would not have allowed the delegations of Saqeef and the Christians of Najraan to stay in the mosque.
    By Varsha Sharma - 10/22/2013 8:03:39 AM



  • To better understand the wisdom behind restricting non-Muslims access to Mecca and Madina, one should keep in view that millions of Muslims visit the two cities each year, especially during the pilgrimage (Hajj). So, allowing people from all religions will surely cause additional tourist traffic adding to the congestion and detraction from the spirituality and focus required for the pilgrimage. By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 10/22/2013 7:47:43 AM



  •  Dear Hats off, No Buddhist monk should walk (they are not walking) into the two holy mosques (Haramain Shareefain). Both mosques are places of worship and not of entertainment.
    I endorse Mr. Ghulam Rasool, "Mecca and Medina is simply that God wanted to keep these cities especially meant for worship and spirituality, and not for other mundane affairs like tourism and entertainment". 
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/22/2013 7:42:34 AM



  • Dear all,
    The sole reason why non-Muslims are forbidden to enter the two holy sites of Islam, Mecca and Medina is simply that God wanted to keep these cities especially meant for worship and spirituality, and not for other mundane affairs like tourism and entertainment. Since the Mecca has been accorded the status of “Baitullah” (the house of God), logically, there must be nothing but worship, prayer and supplication towards God in it. The same applies to Madina (that is regarded “Baitul Rasool” the house of the Prophet peace be upon him) which has been restricted to non-Muslims for the same reason. Thus it cannot be questioned nor can the argument of equal treatment be given here. And please don’t argue about what non-spiritual Muslims are doing there. If they, any way, engage in things antithetical to remembrance of God, the prime purpose of the two holy cities, then, of course, they will deserve the wrath of God.
    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 10/22/2013 7:27:04 AM



  • The Hadith "expel the pagans from Arabian peninsula" refers to those pagans who were always in a bid to wage a war among humans and Muslims. Today's pagans are totally different from the pagans who lived during the era of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.  By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/22/2013 7:21:34 AM



  • dear mr ghulam ghaus, this is to understand you more clearly. are you implying that a buddhist monk may undertake wuzu and ghusul can walk into haraam sharief?

    could you please clarify?
    By hats off! - 10/22/2013 7:14:49 AM



  • Thanks dear Moderate. What the Quranic verse 9:28 discusses is the matter of Islamic and spiritual hygiene and not that of exclusivity. Just as those Muslims who cannot enter Haram Shareef without ritual ablutions, so the polytheists who are always without ritual ablutions cannot approach it. I and you think there is no exclusivity but why our brother Hats off does not think like us.

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/22/2013 6:42:23 AM



  • dear mr ghulam ghaus, a very similar "explanantion" of caste distinction has now and then been offered as an argument out of the need to defend against accusations of caste based discrimination among the natives of india.

    many educated and well informed liberal individual, of any religious community will rarely marry into the lower caste. most of these people have defended their belief in caste system exactly on the basis of "cleanliness". this is at the heart of untouchability. every practice of ritual purity is morally defensible but ethically reprehesible. it separates the najis from the pak. and we are not even talknig about operating theaters. obsessive cleanliness would be a desired requirement here.

    a work around can be devised for any given verse that may be deemed to be politically incorrect (if i may say so). virtually anybody can do. this is called the process explanation. we all know this very well. we all know how things went wrong. we want to know why it went wrong. these are worlds apart.

    what we are asking about or questioning is the doctrinal explanation.not its denouement.
    By hats off! - 10/22/2013 6:36:44 AM



  • dear mr ghulam ghaus, i am flabbergasted when you so disarmingly say that polytheists do not wash after urinating.

    washing/wiping after defecation or urination is not a member of the set about the members of which we are arguing. in any case even the stone age man had already mastered the rudimentary steps of the art of separating the oral end of the existence to its ab-oral end. humans discovered the virtues of washing and bathing and the concepts of ritual purity some thousands of years before. you cannot claim that the monotheists discovered washing after urinating.

    we need more proof before we accept this statement.

    i know a hundred different polytheists, even human worshipers who are scrupulously clean. there are many polytheists, atheists, confused believers, clear headed believers, secret apostates, dishonest believers  in long, all kinds that make up this world. all most all of them wash. this is my lived experience.

    multi idol worship and personal hygiene are not at all connected either by cause and effect or by association. the surprise is that you are constrained to say you feel sorry for asserting that polytheists do not wash. this is derogatory and actually rather coarse.

    i do not understand the reason you are sorry. in any case you are not offending me here. you are talking about polytheists. and then you are saying generally polytheists do not wash themselves after relieving their bladders. where is the connection?
    By hats off! - 10/22/2013 6:17:37 AM



  • Good job dear ghulam ghaus! both the quranic verse and hadith you explained in your comments have nothing to do with exclusivism. I agree when you say that one should go through the circumstances if one wants to analyze the hadith.   By Moderate - 10/22/2013 6:07:14 AM



  • Dear Hats off and Khalid Suhail Sb, you quoted the verse “O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram” (9:28). Here, the Arabic words are “إنما المشركون نجس".  This verse can be explained that not to speak of polytheists (Mushrekeen) even Muslims cannot enter al-Masjid al-Haram if they are unclean i.e. without ablution. I am sorry to that polytheists don’t perform ritual ablutions—Wuzu or Ghusul (Islamic bathing)—they always urinate without water, and therefore they are unclean.

    Islam attaches extreme importance to cleanliness, including spiritual, moral, bodily and material cleanliness. Thus, those who associate partners with God are spiritually and canonically unclean. Just as those Muslims without ablution cannot perform the prayer and read the Quran, so the polytheists, who are totally unclean, cannot approach the sacred Mosque.

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/22/2013 5:20:00 AM



  • Dear Hats off and Khalid Suhail Sb, you quoted the verse “O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram” (9:28). Here, the Arabic words are “إنما المشركون نجس".  This verse can be explained that not to speak of polytheists (Mushrekeen) even Muslims cannot enter al-Masjid al-Haram if they are unclean i.e. without ablution. I am sorry to that polytheists don’t perform ritual ablutions—Wuzu or Ghusul (Islamic bathing)—they always urinate without water, and therefore they are unclean.

    Islam attaches extreme importance to cleanliness, including spiritual, moral, bodily and material cleanliness. Thus, those who associate partners with God are spiritually and canonically unclean. Just as those Muslims without ablution cannot perform the prayer and read the Quran, so the polytheists, who are totally unclean, cannot approach the sacred Mosque.

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/22/2013 5:19:47 AM



  • Dear Hats off, you quoted the Hadith “Narrated Said bin Jubair: Ibn 'Abbas said, "The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula"-(Sahih Bukhari Vol 4, Book 52, Hadith 288)

    The actual text of the Hadith is “أخرجوا المشركين من جزيرة العرب". The word Mushrik did not include those people like Ahle Kitab who believed in oneness of God.

    Dear Hats off, I request you to read out Fath ul-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari by al-Hafith Ibn Hajar Asqalani (ra) and what Imam Abu Haneefa, Imam Shafei, Imam Malik (May Allah be pleased with them) and the Majority scholars meant by the Hadith mentioned above. Since I did not find the English translation of the book to quote what is meant by the Arabian Peninsula mentioned in the Hadith, I am translating it here for you.

    “According to the Majority scholars (Ulama-e-Jumhoor), the polytheists (Mushrekeen, and not Ahle Kitaab) had not been prevented but only from Hijaz i.e. Mecca, Medina and Al-Yamamah. All the scholars unanimously agreed that Yemen is not forbidden for the polytheists, though it is a part of the Arabian Peninsula which includes many other cities. According to Imam Haneefa (ra), they are completely free to enter (the Arabian Peninsula) but not the mosque. According to Imam Malik (ra), they can enter only for trade. Imam Shafei says they can’t enter Haram without the permission of Imam and that too for the benefit of Muslims.”

    Let me remind you that this Hadith has been categorized in the chapter of Jihad. It has already been proven that Jihad was defensive and not offensive during the era of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. So the Hadith mentioned above was and is for the defense.

    To understand the very point of view, one should go through all the circumstances around the then period of Arabian Peninsula; the gravity of war-like situation—offensive aims of the then pagans at waging war among Muslims—backbiting, abusing the prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions, degrading the faith of Muslims, denying them of the religious freedom, and injecting the virus of hate and prejudice among Muslims and Ahle-Kitaab including Christens and Jews. Because of such reasons, they were not allowed.

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 10/22/2013 4:26:59 AM



  • Dear Hats off, you quoted the Hadith “Narrated Said bin Jubair: Ibn 'Abbas said, "The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula"-(Sahih Bukhari Vol 4, Book 52, Hadith 288)

    Let me first remind you that this Hadith has been categorized in the chapter of Jihad. It has already been proven that Jihad was defensive and not offensive during the era of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. So the Hadith mentioned above was and is for the defense.

    To understand the vey point of view, one should go through all the circumstances around the then period of Arabian Peninsula; the gravity of war-like situation—offensive aims of the then pagans at waging war among Muslims—backbiting, abusing the prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions, degrading the faith of Muslims, denying them of the religious freedom, and injecting the virus of hate and prejudice among Muslims and Ahle-Kitaab including Christens and Jews.

    The actual text of the Hadith is “أخرجوا المشركين من جزيرة العرب". The word Mushrik did not include those people like Ahle Kitab who believed in oneness of God.

    Dear Hats off, now I request you to read out Fath ul-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari by al-Hafith Ibn Hajar Asqalani (ra) and what Imam Abu Haneefa, Imam Shafei, Imam Malik (May Allah be pleased with them) and the Majority scholars meant by the Hadith mentioned above. Since I did not find the English translation of the book to quote what is meant by the Arabian Peninsula mentioned in the Hadith, I am translating it here for you.

    “According to the Majority scholars (Ulama-e-Jumhoor), the polytheists (Mushrekeen, and not Ahle Kitaab) had not been prevented but only from Hijaz i.e. Mecca, Medina and Al-Yamamah. All the scholars unanimously agreed that Yemen is not forbidden for the polytheists, though it is a part of the Arabian Peninsula which includes many other cities. According to Imam Haneefa (ra), they are completely free to enter (the Arabian Peninsula) but not the mosque. According to Imam Malik (ra), they can enter only for trade. Imam Shafei says they can’t enter Haram without the permission of Imam and that too for the benefit of Muslims.”

    Please wait for further.

    By Ghulam Ghaus - 10/22/2013 4:16:34 AM



  • dear mr rational, you did not respond to my 'educated' guess about mr naseer ahmad being back with all of us.

    read all the comments from the past couple of days. i think you will spot mr naseer ahamad's comments.

    please respond.
    By hats off! - 10/22/2013 4:12:35 AM



  • dear hats off, i got the billi thing right away. thanks as always.

    by the way what's mr moderate saying? what is it between you and him? he i think said god is bountiful or kareem is generous. what's with that?
    By hats off! - 10/22/2013 4:09:36 AM



  • Suhail, What the Maulana is talking about is secession. Is there a single Hadith or Quranic verse supporting secession? If not, then the Maulana is quite right in saying that movements for secession are not supported by either the practice or Hadith or the Quran.
     
    Only an intellectually feeble person will take an all or nothing position with reference to the work of any mortal such as the compilers of hadiths. The Quran will serve as the criteria to judge the hadiths. Rejection or acceptance of a Hadith is not a reflection on the integrity of the compilers. They are human prone to error. We also know that any story transmitted through a chain of just 4 transmitters in half an hour gets distorted. So what assurance do you have over stories carried over the centuries? The compilers themselves have cautioned about a few of such hadiths. What all we know anything about history is from the historians. Do we take an all or nothing stand on such works? We read various versions and form our own opinion and even revise our opinion based on fresh studies, archaeological findings, discovery of scrolls etc. At the same time, we do not dismiss the entire body of work as unworthy. Do we even take an all or nothing stand on the work of a scientist of the caliber of Einstein? There would be no progress if we did so.
    By Observer - 10/22/2013 3:18:25 AM



  • Dear Observer,

    You said, "As against the Hadith quoted which is from a work compiled more than a century or two after the Prophet's death (pbuh), we know that neither Jews nor Christians were expelled or ill- treated. On the other hand, we have stories of an Islamic court ruling in favour of a Jew against Ali (ra) who was the Caliph at that time and Umar (ra) sanctioning pension to support an old Jew. The conquest of Jerusalem was bloodless and Jews continued to occupy important positions in the administration whereas when Jerusalem was retaken by the crusaders there was mass slaughter. The story repeats in Spain where the Jews, Christians and Muslims together took civilization to great heights. There was no religious persecution. When Spain was conquered by the crusaders, there was slaughter, practice of Islam was prohibited, there was religious persecution and inquisitions".

    We also have the example of the prophet's treaty with the Christians of Najran which was totally one sided promising protection, and safety without getting anything in return. The delegation was also allowed to pray in the Prophet's mosque".

    "If the Prophet had really fostered ill will against the non- Muslims, we can imagine how these people would have been treated. The treatment of the non- Muslims by the companions of the prophet gives a lie to these so called hadiths".

    "So what do we make of such hadiths? Maybe they gave importance to hearsay to support current political mood? In view of the history preceding the compilation of the hadiths, such hadiths must be dismissed as mischievous interpolations".

    How do you know all these things? This information is not given in the Quran. It can only be found in the hadith and the Sira. Then how do you know Muhammad was born in 570 A.D. in Mecca and at the age of 40 he made his declaration, etc. etc.?

     Now, your comment that “In view of the history preceding the compilation of the hadiths, such hadiths must be dismissed as mischievous interpolations" is ridiculous.

    Therefore I said in my previous comment that This approach is intellectually dishonest . Either the Hadith are a valid source of information for Muslims or they are worthless. You cannot pick and choose which bits you want to keep and which bits you want to throw out when the good and the bad all originate from the same sources.

     I am really unable to understand why you are making so much hue and cry? I was just responding to the Maulana who seems (or pretends) to believe that no such separation policy was adopted during the life of the prophet, and the khulafa-e-rashideen and no proof can be produced in this regard from the Quran or hadith. He did not say that such a thing might have occurred at that time and that we should consider it as a 'historic incident' and move on.

     Gulam Muhiyyuddin Saheb appears nore reasonable when he said,

    " Maulana Wahiduddin Khan has one opinion on Hadiths. I have a different opinion".

    By Khalid Suhail - 10/22/2013 2:40:16 AM



  • Thanks Mr GM for adding this expression to my knowledge. I learned many words from you.
    It is again a subjective feeling of yours and yours tribe. You are just "khisyani billi khamba noche".
    I never wanted to be a useful/useful idiot for you and your tribes. I stand alone firm even if you empty all frustration in the forms of words and expressions such as  in all languages you know.
     



    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/22/2013 1:45:16 AM



  • I don't know many things. Only I know you speak from two corners of the mouth.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/22/2013 1:35:24 AM



  • Belief in the Prophet’s Knowledge of the Unseen (Ilm-e-Ghaib) Does Not Render Muslims Non-BelieversBy Ghulam Ghaus, New Age Islam

    Is it emphasis or de-emphasis? by moderate or fundamentalist/apostate/a member of Sultan Saheb's team?
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/22/2013 1:26:30 AM



  • Rational,

    You have posted two remarks on Hadiths. As they say in England, you are trying to be "too clever by half"! Obviously you do not know the difference between a traditional Muslim and a liberal Muslim.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/22/2013 1:21:30 AM



  • Nay, but by moderates.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/22/2013 1:19:49 AM



  • Rational says, "What we are reading so far is "emphasis" out of proportion."


    Yes, by fundamentalists and apostates!



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/22/2013 1:16:18 AM



  • "The Hadith and the practice of the Prophet encourages consultation and consensus building."
    by an observer
    "Exaltation of Hadith is a subtle form of worshiping the Hz Mohmmed, which is forbidden to Muslims"
    by Ghulam M
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/22/2013 1:12:44 AM



  • "by de-emphasis."
    Simply Great Mr GM!!! let us see how many says "labyak" to your call.
    What we are reading so far is "emphasis" out of proportion.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/22/2013 1:05:48 AM



  • "durbe baha diye he" was the kareem rearing chickens also. we were unaware of this. thanks a lot Mr Moderate
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/22/2013 1:00:56 AM



  • Yes the Quran is for every situation including, tona totka, jhar phoonk, jadu tona and many more.
    I wonder what is not in the Quran. You name it, it have it.
    Moderates like Ghulam M unnecessarily limits it to three words "peace, tolerance and justice"
    It is rozi roti too for countless people.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/22/2013 12:57:25 AM



  • Dear hats off
    Imagine a cat wants the milk hanging by some pole beyond her reach. Getting failed in having the milk she starts scratching the pole in frustration.
    This situation is described by the "khisyani billi khamba noche"
    Khisyana=frustration, failure, getting irritated on failure etc
    Khamba=pole
    nochna=scrathing.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/22/2013 12:52:43 AM



  • Mr Moderate - 10/22/2013 12:07:26 AM
    we need more and more. Please make the rivers flow on this site.
    one from my side as a gift.
    Allah ke palle men tauheed ke siwa kiya hai
    jo maangna hoga maanglenge mohammed se.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/22/2013 12:44:02 AM



  • thank you mr moderate. but you are casting precious stones in front of an urdu illiterate.

    if kareem has indeed given you all those rivers and oceans, i say be happy. enjoy them. imagine the swimming and sailing. kareem must be great man. all the best.
    By hats off! - 10/22/2013 12:23:57 AM



  • Hats off bhai ke liye, 
    Mere kareem se gar qatra kisi ne maanga,
    Dariya baha diye he, durbe baha diye he. Ahmad Raza (ra)
    If one asked a mere drop from my gracious master
    He has given him rivers in return, whole oceans instead!

    By Moderate - 10/22/2013 12:12:23 AM



  • it would be illuminating to find out the polled opinions of this forum on what mr ghulam mohiyuddin says.
    that many (if not most) of the moderate muslims are wondering how 1) to explain some touchy verses 2) do not know how to interpret them 3) how they got i there in the first place.
    all three choices are hobson's.
    the first case leads us (again and again) to "interpretation". the second is (once again) related to better "interpretative' technics. the third case leads to a very dangerous place.
    i mean how many moderate muslims (on this forum) would agree with mr ghulam mohiyuddin iff (if and only if) he said that he does not know how the verses got in there. By hats off! - 10/22/2013 12:11:56 AM



  • Allah re kya Jahannam ab bhi na sard hoga,
    Ro ro ke Mustafa ne dariya baha diye he. by Ahmad Raza (ra)
    Allah! Have the fires of Jahannam still not frozen over?
    Beloved Mustafa has wept oceans of tears! (for saving his Ummah)
    By Moderate - 10/22/2013 12:07:26 AM



  • i am willing to wager that we have mr naseer ahmad back with us. from the past couple of days.

    this is good news! (i think)

    what do you say mr rational? would you agree with what i said? would be highly interesting to have your opinion on this 'educated' guess i took.
    By hats off! - 10/21/2013 11:56:58 PM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin
    Hats Off says, "thinking muslims do not feel the need for either love or hate for the prophet. they only admire him."
    That should be no problem if thinking Muslims see their main mission as advancement of  ideas, bringing about reforms and finding solutions rather than hero worship.  All religions have undesirable aspects, which should be dealt with not by confrontation but by de-emphasis. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/21/2013 11:03:38 PM



  • Hats Off,
    The Quran is not a uni dimensional book. It is a book that covers every situation that human beings are likely to encounter and provides guidance. It covers peace as well as war. Let alone killing, there is no verse in the Quran that supports unjust treatment of non Muslims.
    Why is it surprising that different people take different meanings from the Quran? If the Quran simply said "do not kill no matter what", there would have been no scope for interpreting that in any other way. The followers of Islam would then have been destined to a life of slavery. Haven't Buddhists been some of fiercest warriors? If their religion does not support just war, it is their religion which is deficient in providing complete guidance. The fear of misinterpretation should not lead to absence of guidance. It is a moot point whether, given the current political situation in the world, the Muslims would have behaved worse or better in the absence of the Quran. I shudder to think how the Muslims would have behaved if they had been Tamil Tigers! What comfort would it give only because these people did not quote the Quran?
    The Muslims of the sub continent and elsewhere are fighting or have fought for "self determination". Maulana Wahiduddin correctly points out that this is "unislamic" and such movements have not been blessed anywhere in the world. It is defeatist mentality that is at the root of such movements and not Islamic teaching. Even with the best of guidance, people go astray. People take out different meanings from any work. The more multi layered and multi dimensional the work, the more complete it is and on the flip side, the greater the scope for widely varying interpretations. However, given that a large body of people will converge to the correct interpretation in a given situation, the downside is limited. The caveat however is that the masses should have a say. If it is a small group that hijacks the political agenda, then all bets are off. The Hadith and the practice of the Prophet encourages consultation and consensus building.
    By Observer - 10/21/2013 11:00:54 PM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin
    Hats Off says, "gandhi was doing exactly what the moderate muslim apologists do today. the moderate muslims hold candles for their violent brothers, who quote the exact same verses for murdering, which the moderates use for whitewashing."
    This is a false analogy. Gandhiji did believe in the caste system. The moderates do not believe that Jews and polytheists should be killed or hated. They do not agree with certain verses. They may try to explain them, but they do not really know either how to interpret them or how they got in the Book in the first place. But they certainly do not accept them, and rarely quote them.
    The common feature between apostates and  literalist mullahs is that both of them base their discourse on violent or obscurantist verses, the former in order to defame Islam, the latter to create awe in their congregation. They both use the same verses that the moderates reject and ignore. The comparision is limited to this point and should not be taken further.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/21/2013 10:52:43 PM



  • Dear Khalid Suhail,
    As against the Hadith quoted which is from a work compiled more than a century or two after the Prophet's death (pbuh), we know that neither Jews nor Christians were expelled or ill treated. On the other hand, we have stories of an Islamic court ruling in favour of a Jew against Ali (ra) who was the Caliph at that time and Umar (ra) sanctioning pension to support an old Jew. The conquest of Jerusalem was bloodless and Jews continued to occupy important positions in the administration whereas when Jerusalem was retaken by the crusaders there was mass slaughter. The story repeats in Spain where the Jews, Christians and Muslims together took civilisation to great heights. There was no religious persecution. When Spain was conquered by the crusaders, there was slaughter, practice of Islam was prohibited, there was religious persecution and inquisitions.
    We also have the example of the prophet's treaty with the Christians of Najran which was totally one sided promising protection, and safety without getting anything in return. The delegation was also allowed to pray in the Prophet's mosque.
    If the Prophet had really fostered ill will against the non Muslims, we can imagine how these people would have been treated. The treatment of the non Muslims by the companions of the prophet gives a lie to these so called hadiths.
    So what do we make of such hadiths? Maybe they gave importance to hearsay to support current political mood? In view of the history preceding the compilation of the hadiths, such hadiths must be dismissed as mischievous interpolations.
    To prove your charge against the Maulana's article, I asked you to produce an example of the Prophet or his companions or even later followers supporting any movement for independence by the Muslims in a non Muslim majority state. The Maulana's article is about such movements and what do you have by way of example, Hadith or the Quran supporting such movements?
    By Observer - 10/21/2013 10:08:14 PM



  • an apostate is really infuriated by lies and deception. they hate to be led to the slaughter believing that the butcher is taking them on a picnic.
    what irks the apostate is the ease with which the moderates wiggle in and out of the sword verses and the peace verses.
    what irks the apostate is the consistency with which the extremist manage (each and every time) to "misinterpret" the verses.
    the apostates are devastated that after about twenty years or thirty years of intense koranic studies, wahiduddin understands something diametrically opposite to qaradhawi.
    the apostates have every right to suspect the "good cop" who is in lock step with the "good cop". both of them are out to get you. either your soul or your life. wahiduddin wants your soul, qaradhawi probably is more interested in your blood. doesn't really make any difference to the westhall children whose fingers have been sharpened to write their names on fresh white walls of westhall.
    apostates do not wish to go into self deception trying very hard to believe that religiuon did not motivate the hasans, lewthwaites, the faisal shazads, the tamerlanes and any number of "misunderstanders" of religion.
    on the other hand, they are not much bothered about kinana, safiya, zainab and of course the 600 headless jews. they realize that the god, ok, whether you like it or not is fond of murder and loves the smell of fear mingled with fresh blood. and his followers ever ready to oblige with fresh separated heads and disemboweled bodies blown to smithereens.
    the apostate died even as he took that final step out of the oppressive house of worship and walks into the bright illuminating sunlight of peace.
    By hats off! - 10/21/2013 7:46:55 PM



  • dear mr rational, what is the meaning of this billi saying in hindi/urdu? could you please take a moment off to tell me?
    thanks in advance.
    By hats off! - 10/21/2013 7:33:15 PM



  • @an observer
    it is my practice to read from all sides. i read islamic version whole life including wahabiyat and sufiyat. later i started to visit and read apostate and anti- islamic sites.
    if you want to limit your study to washed and bleached version it is your choice. we can quote from any source from mehmood taha to qardawi and from md yunus to ibn waraq.
    by equating apostates with wahabis is similar to khisyani billi khmba noche.
    beside that if khalid id notching the khamab 
    like the cat it is better than hacking someone's head.
    we are obstacles in the path of sectarian fight on sectarian basis. it is not a reform it is barailyiat verses wahabiyat. 
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/21/2013 7:05:09 PM



  • the answer mr ghulam moiyuddin, is that the muslims are so scared of their prophet, that they are unable to come to their own well considered opinion about the prophet. you can never have your own opinion of the prophet. you are only allowed to purchase the single model on sale.

    mostly for fear of being killed. this is not some stupid phobia. all and any muslim scholar that tried to analyse the prophet as a mere man, with all his follies, vanities, pride and of course love, compassion and brotherhood.

    muslims only want to to be told the good parts. they would hate to wonder about the fire on kinana's chest or the consummation of marriage with safiya. on the night of the massacre of her whole family.

    thinking muslims do not feel the need for either love or hate for the prophet. they only admire him. they neither hate him nor love him. they look (if allowed to) at him as man like any other. but this is totally unacceptable to the moderate as well as the extremist. the apostate of course does not bother, as he is probably too busy trying to save his neck from separating from his chest.
    By hats off! - 10/21/2013 5:36:41 PM



  • mahatma gandhi has always staunchly defended the caste system. this will no doubt really put off the chamars, the night scavengers and a host of the victims of the caste system. when pressed he glibly asserted (a la moderate muslims) that he is absolutely against untouchability and further that the caste system had been hijacked by bad interpretation of the varnashrama dharma concept. not much of use for the khairlanjis.
    no wonder it totally pissed off dr ambedkar.
    gandhi was doing exactly what the moderate muslim apologists do today. the moderate muslims hold candles for their violent brothers, who quote the exact same verses for murdering, which the moderates use for whitewashing. so you have these fantastically flexible verses, which one may use either for general slaughter or general peace.
    never mind if the prophet and or the allah has unequivocally stated their eternal hatred and malevolence against the infidel, moderates want the victims to accept a wholly untenable proposition that the prophet and or allah is merciful and forgives, by somehow internalizing that hatred that drips from the text is a misinterpretation.
    (personally, i would really really be wary/chary of any man with bloody sword who pouts verses of forgiveness and mercy. one can be sure that he is inherently dishonest and he has perfected the art of lying with a straight face. deadpan)
    there is a parallel here. the koran contains hate verses against jews, christians and of course islam's favourite beating boy the polytheists. but when people point it out, most muslims (except the apostates) simply hide under a series of blankets. one blanket is the all time favorite: out of context. the second universal blanket: they are misinterpreted. there are other silly childish excuses offered, but never a manly admission of of the mistake. always subterfuge. blame taymiah, blame gazzali, blame hanafi, anyone but.
    insofar as a moderate muslim would conflate the apostate with the extremist, the apostate is wholly justified in concluding that the moderates provide cover while their extremist brethren go ahead and make slaughter in the land. many apostates are apostates precisely on account of the hundreds of unconscionable verses of plain intolerance, exhortations to kill and maim. if the moderates would have us believe that killing, maiming and slaughtering are to be interpreted as contextual, the apostate wonders what actually separates a prophet from a street thug. not much on examination.
    while the extremist put his money where his mouth is, the moderate provides the cover for him and both of them start shooting at the apostste.
    and of course this passes for exegetics in islam. look at the glee with which the moderate islamic countries hound any of those that dare have a freedom of conscience. like for instance here. the so called moderates. these moderates are as intolerant of critical examination as the extremist.
    now looking at this circus, can anyone be blamed for wondering if the extremist are being honest in their interpretation, while the moderates are simply employed for stunning the goats for the extremists to slit their throats at leisure. moderates lull the victims into a false sense of security in the koran, who then may be mowed down.
    i would suggest we conflate the moderate with the apostate and stop bothering about westgate malls, beslans, the daily car bombings of iraq, the weekly christian hunting in egypt, the honor of denigrating bahais in iran, and of course the mushrikoons and the munafiques whose throat was indeed designed for slitting..
    By hats off! - 10/21/2013 5:00:54 PM



  • Dear hats off!

    As you may know, the conflicting ulema and followers of mththaheb (law schools) in early Islam took to the kharijite doctrine of takfir that justified treating any Muslim as apostate and killing him. Kindly bear in mind that kharijites were a break-away group born in the immediate aftermath of the Siffin war (657 AD) in which Caliph Ali had agreed to an arbitration with Muwaiya - the rebelling governor of Syria. A fanatic group of his followers claimed that he as a Caliph defied the law of God by this concession to a rebel and revolted against him. They were the first to use the doctrine of takfir to kill any dissident, even their own parents and one of their number assassinated Ali. As they only represent a terrorist faction of early Islam who were banned, attacked and killed, their terror inducing doctrine of takfir should also be banned, and like the word 'Negro' 'kafir' may also be banned in its militant or derogatory usage such as any Muslim calling a non-Muslim a kafir. So I may reword the heading to give it a legal texture.

    Thanks for your prompt and positive response to my highly sensitive write up that someone not well versed in Islamic scripture/doctrines could take propagandist.     
    By muhammad yunus - 10/21/2013 4:35:37 PM



  • Dear Observer, you say, "The  point that I made which remains unresponded is that the Quranic verse quoted by Suhail concerns a historic incident and only the Masjid-e-haram.  By no stretch of imagination can this be interpreted as defining the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims for all time to come and in every region/place.
    But the Maulan is not saying this.  He actually challenged those who may not agree with him by saying, 
    "This politics of separation which Muslims are engaged in in different countries is, however, totally un-Islamic. It has nothing to do with the Islamic teachings. You cannot find a single reference for this in the Quran or Hadith. Also, you cannot find any example of this kind of politics in the biographies of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and in the accounts of the lives of the Sahaba, the Prophet’s Companions". 
    Only on his demand, I produced a Quranic verse and  some authentic ahadith from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslam which disprove maulana's claim. Also, let me inform you that a couple of years ago, when I met Maulana Wahiduddin Khan at his residence and in the course of discussion, asked him about the status of Bukhari , his reply was: We can not doubt Bukhari because if we doubt Bukhari the Quran itself will become doubtful. I have given at least one Hadith from Bukhari ("The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula"-Sahih Bukhari 4:52:288) which supports the Quranic verse ( “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean, so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque”). 
    Now, whether this order was only for that particular time or for ever is another matter. But common muslims who always try to follow the sunnah of the prophet can not be blamed in any way. 

    By Khalid Suhail - 10/21/2013 1:56:03 PM



  • Suhail Sb, says, "Muhammad was the first to violate the Treaty of Hudaibiya".
    The suspicions, fears and dynamics of that period cannot be reconstructed now. Our concern is with Muhammad the Messenger, not Muhammad the military commander. The message he brought to us says, "O children of Israel! Call to mind the special favor which I bestowed upon you, and that I prefer you to all other nations," and, "...nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant".
    Passages contradicting the above should be attributed to the processes adopted several years after the Prophet's death of writing down verses from memory and compilation techniques available at that time. The Prophet was not just a messenger. He also had other roles e.g. a teacher and a leader of a community.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/21/2013 1:31:20 PM



  • Rational says, "Muslims run riots on just quoting the Ahadith or Sira written by respected Muslims." Hats Off says, "msulims display a unhealthy fear of their final prophet".
    We all know that. But how is that an answer to what I had said, namely that Christians have no problems ignoring Biblical passages expressing violence or hatred? If you ignore the sword verses and expound on the Meccan verses, who is going to kill you? It seems you simply want to create snags in the path of anyone who attempts to bring some sense in this discourse.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/21/2013 12:42:39 PM



  • What is common between the hostile apostate and extremist is that they agree on what the "true version of Islam" is. What is not common is that their objectives are poles apart. The extremist's objective is to make the world unsafe for others and the objective of the apostate is to make the world safe from the "Muslims". The apostate is also either innocently diabolical or it is a master piece of subterfuge in that they describe all Muslims as extremists unless proven otherwise. In this, they are no different from the Islamophobes and infinitely more dangerous since as ex Muslims, what they say is more credible. I am sure the apostates are quite comfortable in their own shoes and do not feel the pinch.

    Imagine attacking the laudable article by the Maulana. What is it about the article that infuriates the apostate?

    By Observer - 10/21/2013 11:02:15 AM



  • dear mr mohammad yunus, this comment ought to have been a post script. but perhaps god willed other wise ;)
    there is a small thing about this site that has disturbed me right from the moment i read it.
    i can generally put myself in any one's shoes. in other words, i can think even from the point of view of a goat with its gullet slit. consequent to this assertion i can even put myself in the shoes of mr sultan shahin.
    and when i do, immediately the shoe pinches my insole.
    i think he is doing a great disservice to his whole raison de etre by conflating the wahabis with the apostate. while rhetorically sound, it is very poor strategy. similar to my complaint on the koran.
    in many verses, it conflates mohammad with allah and vice versa. may be you found the key and i am searching still.
    his angst is understandable, but to take refuge in intellectual subterfuge and scholarly dishonesty will impact adversely the long term goals. that is to retrieve islam from the muslims.
    even with all that, conflating the wahabi with the apostate is either innocently diabolical or a master piece of subterfuge.
    in either case it is deplorable. i think you should be able to tell him.
    By hats off! - 10/21/2013 9:56:25 AM



  • It is pertinent to note that Khalid Suhail and Rational Mohammed Yunus choose to quote verbatim an article from a site dedicated to malign Islam. These are desultory arguments and irrelevant to the charge against the Maulana's article. Khisyani billi khamba nochne lagi! The  point that I made which remains unresponded is that the Quranic verse quoted by Suhail concerns a historic incident and only the Masjid-e-haram.  By no stretch of imagination can this be interpreted as defining the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims for all time to come and in every region/place. Surely Suhail knows this very well. From quoting out of context and irrelevant "hadiths",  Suhail is now quoting verses that are not relevant and do not support his charge against the Maulana's article. He has failed to even quote one verse or Hadith that can be considered relevant to the subject matter of the Article.
    As regards the article about the Hudaybiyah treaty, the patently dishonest and desultory arguments can be exposed in a separate post if Suhail has the stomach for it By Observer - 10/21/2013 9:53:31 AM



  • dear mr mohammad yunus, as long as people like yourself, your namesake and nemesis mr rational, mr syed rizvi, mr khalid suhail (even if you will never answer him), mr afaq siddiqui and others whose names slip from my memory, are alive and well, islam will be alive and well.

    al razi died a natural death. so i am very optimistic.
    By hats off! - 10/21/2013 9:44:09 AM



  • dear mr mohammad yunus, i respect you.

    in my understanding, love is just a hand maiden to respect.

    regards.
    By hats off! - 10/21/2013 9:26:14 AM



  • Dear hats off!
    I just sat at my laptop and was scanning through your comments as they can be highly stimulating and enlightening.
    I am touched by your statement: "the polytheists cannot read the koran except with tears in their eyes and anger in their hearts" and would like to have your comments to my following write up that is drafted for the expanded edition of my joint publication subject to approval, cut and paste in blue. Ignore it if it is too heavy or if you think it is propagandist - for believe me it is simply an honest hobby for me for what difference can one soul make in global affairs/ reforming a community of 1.5 billion, changing a perception 15 centuries old. Nevertheless, it is for me an intensive probe into the Qur'an and I like to exchange views with you as you also seem to be reading a lot about Islamic faith, keeping tears from rolling down your eyes, with a clear vision not clouded or blinded by faith :
    1.1.            Antagonism against the mushrikin (polytheists) in the Qur’anic discourse - an existential probe. 
    The Qur’an singles out shirk (associating partners with God) as the most abominable crime (zulmun azim, 31:13) and unpardonable sin (4:48, 4:116) that bars entry into paradise (5:72). Hundreds of its verses threaten the kafirin (the atheists, polytheists) and the mushrikin (polytheists) of agonizing punishment unless they renounced their beliefs and embraced Islam. The question is whether the Qur’anic warnings to the unbelievers (atheists and polytheists) are to be taken as eternally valid proclamations or comprehended against its holistic message and historic context.
    The Qur’an came with a clear agenda: to bring humanity out of darkness into light (14:1, 57:9) and to lift the burden that lay upon it from before (7:157). Given the all pervading moral degradation of pre-Islamic Arabia and the global human society at large (Foreword), the Qur’an was up against an almost impossible task, which it aimed at accomplishing through human institutions - that is, without direct divine intervention by way of a miracle (Note 9, Ch. 3). Therefore, like all social revolutions in human history, it needed a core ideology, or sort of a mission statement, which had to serve as the bedrock of all its ensuing reforms. The Qur’an’s mission statement was very simple and straightforward: ‘There is no deity but God’ – a declaration of pure monotheism that virtually annulled Arab paganism and all concomitant vices. Hence, any form of atheism and polytheism stood as an anathema to its core ideology - the greatest and unpardonable offence. But whether God will forgive the foremost in good deeds and moral integrity among the atheists and polytheists of a later era must be left to Him to decide and cannot be deduced from the Qur’an as a priori – given the existential dimension and agenda of its mission.
    From a different perspective, in the divine scheme, all humanity, including the atheists and polytheists, are inspired with a conscience (taqwa) (Ch. 8.2) – an inborn morality, a notion of good and evil, and God will judge all including the atheists and polytheists (22:17/ Ch. 9.5). Thus, it may be misleading to take the Qur’anic warnings to the unbelievers (atheists and polytheists) literally and in isolation with its foreging considerations. It may therefore detract from the Qur’anic message on the universal brotherhood of humanity (Ch. 9.7) to condemn the atheists and polytheists to divine punishment for all times. This corroboration sounds too anarchist to be acceptable to any school of thought in Islam’s theological scholarship and needs some hard evidence from the Qur’an furnished below to gain some credibility:
    i. A number of Qur’anic verses dating from the Medinite period, refer to the hypocrites (munafiqin) as deviants or fasiqun (9:67, 9:80), hurl divine curse on them (9:68, 48:6), and warn them of enduring and humiliating punishment (9:68, 58:16). In others, it pairs the hypocritical Muslims with the mushrikin and kuffar as sinners (9:68, 33:37, 48:6).
    “The hypocrite men and women are of the same kind…they are the deviants (fasiqun) (9:67). God has promised for them as well as the unbelievers (kuffar), the fire of hell and that is enough for them; for them is the curse of God and an enduring punishment” (9:68).
    And never (O Muhammad) pray for any of them (hypocrites) who dies, nor stand at his grave, for they were unfaithful to God and His Messenger, and died as deviants (fasiqun)” (9:84).
    “God will punish the hypocrites - men and women, and the mushrikin - men and women; and God will pardon the believers in One God - men (muminin) and women (muminat), for God is Forgiving, Merciful” (33:73).
     “(God will) punish the hypocrites - men and women and the mushrikin - men and women, who conceived an evil opinion of God; an evil turn of fortune awaits them. God is angry with them and has cursed them and prepared for them hell – a wretched abode (48:6).
    “They (the hypocrites) have made their oaths a cover; they hinder (others) from God’s path, so they shall have a humiliating punishment” (58:16).
    Any literal interpretation of these verses will render the hypocrital Muslims – who remain a part of Islamic community, eternally condemned – a proposition no Islamic scholar or theologian is likely to accept. 
     ii. The revelation had asked the Prophet not to seek any forgiveness for the hypocrites (9:80) or even to stand at the grave of any of them (9:84 above)
    “Whether you (O Muhammad) seek forgiveness for them (hypocrites) or you do not seek not forgiveness for them (it makes no difference.) Even if you ask seventy times for their forgiveness, God will not forgive them, because they have rejected God and His Messenger, and God does not guide the deviants (fasiqun)” (9:80).
    However, it is a historical fact that the Prophet led the funeral prayer for the chief of the hypocrites, Abdullah Ibn Ubayy who died just a few years before the close of the revelation. When reminded of the Qur’anic prohibition against seeking forgiveness for the hypocrites (9:84), the Prophet is reported to have said that he would seek forgiveness for more than seventy times to earn their forgiveness.
    iii. The Qur’an allows the offspring of a mushrik who has entered Islam to pray for his parents, dead or alive: 
    “Your Lord has decreed that you serve none except Him, and be kind to parents. If one or both of them reaches old age with you - never say uff*, nor scold them, and speak to them in noble words (17:23); and lower your shoulder (of humility) to them with affection, and say: ‘My Lord! Have mercy on both of them - as they nurtured me (when I was) small’” (17:24). *[An Arabic utterance, indicative of deep frustration.]
    iv. As God said to Jesus whether he had asked his followers to deify him and his mother, he instantly denied having made any such suggestion (5:116-117) and made this supplication to God: ‘If you punish them, they are your servants; if you forgive them, You are Mighty, Wise’ (5:119).
    In consideration of these Qur’anic illustrations, any suggestion to regard polytheists and atheists and any other category of unbelievers as unworthy of divine mercy will be tantamount to intercession with God and therefore untenable. Every individual Muslim must think whether he or she earn divine mercy and leave the case of polytheists and atheists in divine hand.
    1.2.            Muslims to refraining from calling the non-Muslims ‘kafir’:
    Verse 4:94 (Ch. 9.3) forbids calling any non-Muslim who offers peace ‘you are not a believer,’ while 49:11 (Ch. 20.3) commands the Muslims not to mock other people who may be better than they, nor insult others with scornful nicknames. Since in today’s populist vocabulary, the word kafir when slapped by a Muslim upon a non-Muslim carries a notion of contempt and abhorrence and can be highly insulting to the non-Muslims (Hindu, Christian or Jew), Muslims must not label this rubric on any non-Muslim.
    The ‘kafirs’ referred to in the Qur’an were no other than its highly recalcitrant audience whom the Qur’an constantly engages in its ontological debates and to suggest any division of humanity between the Muslims and kafir for all time will seal up the Qur’anic vision of pluralism and brotherhood of all humanity (Ch. 9.7)   
    Thanks. By muhammad yunus - 10/21/2013 8:26:51 AM



  • Dear Rational, thank you very much for providing this link.
    Dear Observer says,"This was however not to be and the Meccans violated the treaty and killed Muslims in the state of prayer in Kaaba. What followed was therefore fully justified. The pagans could not be trusted with treaties either. The pagans brought the situation on themselves".
    My response:-
     "The terms of the Hudaibiya treaty specified that any Muslim who flees Mecca for Medina (where Muhammad resided) must be returned.  But when a group of Muslims did exactly that a few weeks after the treaty signing, Muhammad did not return all of them, but kept the women.  A verse from Allah arrived conveniently to justify his decision (60:10)". (quoted  from the link provided by dear Rational Muhammad Unus http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/muhammad/myths-mu-hudaibiya.htm).
    When I consulted Tafseer Ibn Kathir, I found the following.
    Quran (60:10)"O you who believe! When believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them; Allah knows best as to their faith, then if you ascertain that they are true believers, send them not back to the disbelievers. They are not lawful for the disbelievers nor are the disbelievers lawful for them. But give them (disbelievers) that which they have spent (on their dowry). And there will be no sin on you to marry them if you have paid their due to them.
     In Surah Al-Fath, we related the story of the treaty at Al-Hudaybiyyah that was conducted between the Messenger of Allah and the disbelievers of Quraysh. In that treaty, there were these words,
    "Everman (in another narration, every person) who reverts from our side to your side (i.e. from  the disbelievers of Quraysh to believers of madina) should be returned to us(i.e.to Quraish), even if he is a follower of your religion.'' (i.e. the religion of Muhammad).
    Ibn Kathir explains, 
    "Umm Kulthum bint Uqbah bin Abi Mu`ayt emigrated and her brothers, Umarah and Al-Walid, went after her. They came to Allah's Messenger and talked to him about Umm Kulthum and asked that she be returned to them. Allah abolished the part of the treaty between the Prophet and the idolatars about the women particularly". 
    I am again taking the liberty to quote from the above link provided by Rational.
    "After the treaty of Hudaibiya was made, two feuding tribes aligned themselves on opposite sides of the Meccan-Muslim divide.  The tribe allied with the Meccans had suffered a series of murders at the hands of the other prior to the alliance, which they sought to avenge".
    "Rather than get bogged down with names for the moment, let’s summarize it as follows:
    "A member of Tribe A (later allied with Mecca) is murdered by members of Tribe B (later allied with Muhammad).
    Tribe A murders a member of Tribe B in revenge.
    Tribe B then murders three members of Tribe A in revenge.
    After committing these murders, Tribe B joins the Muslim alliance.
    In response, Tribe A joins the Meccans.
    Tribe A then seeks revenge for the last murders by killing members of Tribe B".
    "This is detailed in Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 803, in which Tribe A is called the Banu Bakr and Tribe B is the Khuza’a.  Although the Khuza’a had started the original chain of murder, the fact that they were attacked by the tribe allied with the Meccans after allying with the Muslims constituted a technical breach of the treaty - which Muhammad then capitalized on by marching his superior forces into Mecca and establishing the authority of Islam by force". 
    "On the surface then, it would appear that the Meccans were the first to violate the treaty.  Even though most Muslims admit that the Meccans did not want a war, they still insist that Muhammad was justified in taking Mecca because of the treaty violation".

    But, in fact, Muhammad was the first to violate the Treaty of Hudaibiya.  Even the Qur’an acknowledges this, which means any knowledgeable Muslim must as well"(Unquote).
     That 'the Meccans did not want a war' is also supported by Wikipedia which says, "After the incident, Quraysh sent a delegation to Muhammad, petitioning to maintain the treaty with the Muslims and offering material compensation.(However, the Muslim forces had gathered in strength to settle account with Quraysh and for the final attack and the conquest of Mecca.
    So the article whose link has been provided here rightly concludes,
    (Thus), In this case, he (prophet Muhammad) was the first to violate the treaty of Hudaibiya.
    By Khalid Suhail - 10/21/2013 6:56:56 AM



  • dear mr rational, to my limited understanding, through reading translations and tafsirs online, it has always seemed to me that at many places, there is some overlap between the prophet and allah. sometimes it seems to me that allah has the whole rigmarole just to please the prophet. but i thought i should read them through 'islamic' eyes if i have to overlook a whole lot of uncomfortable sensation one gets on reading the translation.

    another such very jarring thing is the koran's unmitigated spite against the jews primarily, the christians secondarily. the polytheists cannot read the koran except with tears in their eyes and anger in their hearts. and men may be genuine bilievers in polytheism. for a god to rave and rant through his prophet against such an innocent thing as nature worship or idol worship is uncalled fro, provocative and inherently divisive. god's hatred of idol worship completely vitiates any mercy he might be postulated to have.
    By hats off! - 10/21/2013 4:04:29 AM



  • Dear hats off! - 10/21/2013 2:54:26 AM
    Bible contains the stories of sexual exploits of Dawood and Suleiman paighambars. People quote the Bible but have you heard some heads were hacked of for this reason.
    On the contrary Muslims run riots on just quoting the Ahadith or Sira written by respected Muslims and taught with great respect and zeal.
    Hz Mohammed instilled such fear in the minds of the Muslims that they cant,t tolerate the criticism of the prophet but can kill anybody.
    After all disobeying the prophet is disobeying the Allah. If it doesn't make the prophet God, IT CERTAINLY MAKEs THE PROPHET EQUAL TO GOD.
    Dr Khalid Sohail called the Quran Deewan -e Muhammed and at least some moderates protested. They are in Canada, just imagine if he had uttered such blasphemy in muslim countries what would have happened to that man. By rational mohammed yunus - 10/21/2013 3:18:46 AM



  • christians can ignore the whole shebang because, they have a healthy disrespect for all their groggy old prophets, but in contrast the msulims display a unhealthy fear of their final prophet.
    By hats off! - 10/21/2013 2:54:26 AM



  • "You seem to be more interested in creating confrontations between others than in advancing the discussion further."
    As there is no confrontation in the Muslims.
    did I create the confrontation if you insist calling it confrontation among the Khalid, observer and Lodhia sahebaan?
    You are growing in stupidity day by day.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/21/2013 2:01:14 AM



  • Interested readers may go through this link to have counter argument.
    The Myth:

    The Meccans were the First to
    Break the Treaty of Hudaibiya

    The Truth:
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/muhammad/myths-mu-hudaibiya.htm By rational mohammed yunus - 10/21/2013 1:38:48 AM



  • Khalid Suhail days:

    "Finally, after the conquest of Mecca, the following verse was revealed,
    "O you who believe! Verily, the Mushrikin (unbelievers) are impure. So let them not come near Al-Masjid Al-Haram after this year; and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you if He wills, out of His bounty. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise".  
    Can you tell me how are you going to translate this verse in order to make it conciliatory without twisting its meaning.The meaning of this verse is obvious. 
    Thus the prophet finally declared that believers and un-believers can not live together. Only this verse, without a reference to the hadith, is sufficient to debunk the false claim of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan. Sorry if I have hurt your feelings."

    The conquest of Mecca was preceded by the treaty of Hudaybiah which was for a term of 10 years. The Prophet lived only for about 3 years from the date of this treaty. Had the Meccan pagans observed the treaty, Mecca would not have been taken by the Prophet in his lifetime nor the Kabah ceased to be a common place for pilgrimage by Muslims and pagans.

    This was however not to be and the Meccans violated the treaty and killed Muslims in the state of prayer in Kaaba. What followed was therefore fully justified. The pagans could not be trusted with treaties either. The pagans brought the situation on themselves.

    The verse concerns a historic incident and only the Masjid-e-haram. By no stretch of imagination can this be interpreted as defining the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims for all time to come and in every region/place. Surely Suhail know this very well.

    By Observer - 10/21/2013 1:11:56 AM



  • The Medina verses are very similar to the contents of the Old testament. Ignoring the violence and hatred of the Old testament is not a problem for Christians. Why are the Medina verses such a big problem for us?
    Taha believed that Islam "in its original, uncorrupted form", which is in the Mecca Qur'an, accorded women and non-Muslims equal status.  He believed that while the Medina Qur'an was appropriate at its time to be the essence of Shariaa, it is now time to bring the Mecca Quran to legislate. He was executed by the Sudanese dictator Gaafar Nimeiry. But what he advocated should not die. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/21/2013 12:42:35 AM



  • Respected  Asif Merchant saheb - 10/20/2013 11:04:59 PM
    If Khalid Suhail uttered a blasphemy, few remains the Muslims. God knows how many Muslims are in "Quran only" category.
    If we assume Ahadith were fabricated and recorded 100 years after the death of the prophet, what about the Muslim who believed in so many strong and weak Ahadith. Were they and their Imams blasphemers of the Quran? Do you think Islam produced so many blasphemers Including Sufis.
    Can you tell me some Sufis who rejected the Ahadith?
    Bokhari was smarter than Hz Mohammed in this case. Millions of Muslims are believing in Ahadith. You need not to run into search you will find some of them here in so called moderates.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/21/2013 12:37:26 AM



  • Dear Mr Khalid Suhail,

    You obviously have some knowledge of the Quran and Hadith and also some knowledge of the real world.

    There are various management styles such as autocratic, consultative, democratic, chaotic, laissez faire, paternalistic etc. There are managers who have a natural inclination for one of these styles and do a great job when the situation they are called upon to handle suits their style and are utter failures when the style and requirement do not match. There are managers who can switch styles based on the requirement and can succeed in any company/environment. Thus while managing highly motivated workers, they may be democratic, they can easily slip into the autocratic style when dealing with immature workers.

    Is there anything wrong with a manager who switches from laissez faire, to consultative to democratic as the situation demands? No that is a sign of greatness.

    The prophet (pbuh) and the message of the Quran must be understood in this light. Neither is the message inconsistent nor does one verse override another just as a text book describing different management styles for different situations is neither inconsistent nor improper.

    In any case, your response has little to do with my post in which I said that your quoting various hadiths was irrelevant to the Maulana's article.
    By Observer - 10/21/2013 12:03:01 AM



  • we should have a new name now. i would make a nice name such as taha's conjecture. this posits that the islam and or preaching of the prophet should be compartmentalized into a meccan and a medinan parts.mahmood taha was (may be someone earlier also said it, but i do not know) the first to say it and consequently met his fate precisely on accountof this conjecture.

    i also remember reading that the women among his followers used to stand on street corner in "modest" head and hair covering distributing pamphlets to people and no one really bothered to harass them or him. but finally he had to be gotten rid of and so what tool better than one of apostasy, or blasphemy or whichever is handy. a true post mortem of the death of dr taha can supply the sorely needed insight.

    why is it that there is such a shortage of references to ali dashti and mahmood taha? i think we need to think outside of texts. not inside them. the "learned" scholars of the past have beaten it to an inch of its life but failed to get the picture.

    its time someone did a deep and detailed write up on mehmoud mahmood taha for the immense benefit of this forum. (if we can pull it off we can take the next dose of medicine. ali dashti).

    dr. mehmoud mehmood taha was one of the most daring and original thinkers who put his life on the line for what he believed (me too) to be the mysterious "true" islam. he also satisfies the inherent need for martyrdom as demanded by god now and then. he was murdered by the state. in a way, an utter shutting out of these two scholars of islam, bodes very ill for moderate islamic discourse. (i think ali dashti died a natural death)

    there is an urgent need for an article on these two all time greats.
    By hats off! - 10/20/2013 11:56:12 PM



  • Mr Mohammad Rafiq Lodhia,
    Let me use the Arabic word for the way the hadiths are classified. These are classified as "Sahih" and "Zaeef" which can be translated as correct/ strong or weak. The classification is by the compilers of Hadith themselves.
    There is no such classification for Quranic verses. While I say amin to your prayer to God for granting me wisdom, may God grant you elementary knowledge about the Quran and Hadith. Amin.
    I do not think that you understand the discussion regarding the expression "logically unfeasible". This expression is used by Khalid Suhail and I have commented on it. I have not used that expression and I have called it meaningless.
    By Observer - 10/20/2013 11:43:09 PM



  • Dear Observer/copy to dear Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia. 
    You said, "Let him(Khalid Suhail) give an example of the Prophet or his companions or his followers supporting Muslims in a non-Muslim majority country to demand independence from the rule by the majority community if he seeks to discredit what the Maulana has said in his article".
    My response:-
    Islam is a journey from peace to violence. The early writings of prophet Muhammad are very distinct from latter ones. When prophet Muhammad started his prophetic career, he had no earthly powers and the verses that he wrote during that period are all conciliatory and tolerant. 
    In the verse 2.256  he says: 
    “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error”. And 
    “If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!” 10:99  Or 
    “The truth is from your Lord": Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)” 18:29. 
    But these are the Meccan verses. He wrote these verses when he was weak. It would have been impossible for his handful of followers to wage war against thousands of unbelievers and win. In these verses the prophet contented himself by telling his followers that the unbelievers will be severely punished in the afterlife as the verse 18:29 makes it clear 
    “We have prepared a Fire whose (smoke and flames), like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem them in: if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass, that will scald their faces, how dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to recline on!” 
    However when he became powerful and managed to win a sizable number of men who rallied around him and who were ready to kill at his behest, his “revelations” underwent a drastic change and he took it upon himself to bring upon those who denied his claim the severest punishments.  
    So while in Mecca, he said “Speak good to men... ” 2:83, “be patient with what they say” 20:103 , 73:10 , and preached about the virtues of Abel saying to Cain:  “If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of the worlds” 5:28, But when he went to Medina and became powerful he started giving a different kind of message.  There he wrote: “Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you” 9:123 ;  “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off. ” 8:12 , “Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him" 3:85 ,  “Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them” 66:9 , “When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives” 47:4 , “rouse the Believers to the fight” 8:65, “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies". 8:60.
    In fact most of the Quran is filled with such violent verses. Definitely the verses written in Medina contradict those written in Mecca. Which ones should we take? Logic says that if I tell you one thing now and another thing the next day, you should follow my last instructions. The latest verses of the Quran are those written in Medina and they are the harsh and violent ones.
    Finally, after the conquest of Mecca, the following verse was revealed,
    "O you who believe! Verily, the Mushrikin (unbelievers) are impure. So let them not come near Al-Masjid Al-Haram after this year; and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you if He wills, out of His bounty. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise".  
    Can you tell me how are you going to translate this verse in order to make it conciliatory without twisting its meaning.The meaning of this verse is obvious. 
    Thus the prophet finally declared that believers and un-believers can not live together. Only this verse, without a reference to the hadith, is sufficient to debunk the false claim of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan. Sorry if I have hurt your feelings.

    By Khalid Suhail - 10/20/2013 11:10:31 PM



  • Khalid Suhail says : " . . .we must understand that Quran is unintelligible without the hadith."
    Is he aware of the blasphemy he has just uttered?

    He is implying that God was unable to speak intelligibly, and so it was necessary for Bokhari and others to come to the rescue and write the various Hadiths.

    The less said about such a 'scholar', the better.
    By Asif Merchant - 10/20/2013 11:04:59 PM



  • dear mr mohammad rafiq lodhia, my elders (mind you, not my religious texts) have taught me that the message is more important than the messenger. they also taught me that if i wanted to buy a cow, i hould not decide the purchase on the length of its tail.
    It is only in islam that i am having to believ that the messenger is probably more important than his message. while one might safely discard his message without a punishment here, any criticism of the messenger will immediately bring a bad name to muslims and islam as some fathful believer will simply blow a fuse.
    i still feel that all religious texts (excluding none) are memoranda of power crazed individuals sponging on the average joe. al-razi, a giant among men thought that prophets simply exploit gullible illiterate people to gain power and pelf.
    every prophet has pretended to preach peace while his immediate followers have depended upon their swords more than on their words. it happened to buddha and to jesus. while they preached love and peace, their immediate followers simply went into an overdrive or orgiastic violence and mayhem. please do a google search on animosity between mahayana and hinayana buddhism. it will make some startling reading. as soon as the prophet died, people apostasized in droves. think about it. could it not be that there was fear of reprisals and the death of the prophet relieved them so much that they rejoiced?
    ridda wars are the weakest aspect of the islamic histiriography. if the prophet had so profoundly changed the hearts of men, why ridda? why did the early sahabas refuse to give the prophet a pen and paper on his death bed? is it because as muslims claim he was illiterate? what does that tell you? abu bakr had to take the help of his blood soaked sword to bring it all together again. ridda wars are more central to islam than the prophet. it was the make or break point of islamic expansionism and arabian imperialism. unsurprisingly most of the muslim majority nations find themselves at odds with the rest of the family of nations. if anything, the islamic texts have been more consistently "misunderstood" than they were ever "understood" as they are currently "understood" by mr mohammad yunus. that he depends upon accreditoin from one of the most rigid islamic authorities says something about the dangers of islamic exegetics.
    yususf al qaradhawi (a supposedly moderate islamic scholar) is on record saying "if there were no death for apostasy, islam would have disappeared long ago"
    think about it.
    my name is just given to me by my parents. i simply have to take their word for it. but what i write and think and comment is entirely mine own. whether my name is john, jeelani or jeetendra.
    look at the message. you get nothing by dissecting the messenger. dissect his message instead. regards. By hats off! - 10/20/2013 10:41:03 PM



  • Rational, Again, instead of asking me "Why this simple idea doesn't hit the minds of your allies in your mission?", why don't you tell us what you think of the "simple idea"? You seem to be more interested in creating confrontations between others than in advancing the discussion further. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/20/2013 10:25:01 PM



  • Dear Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/20/2013 10:04:40 PM
    Why are you so much haunted by the titles the commentators adopt for their representation on the forums?
    Do the titles like Ghalib, Zauq, Meer, Daag, Aatish, Deewana, Mastana, Parvana add beauty to their poetry?
    I took this title as a fashion. Now tell me how does it benefit you?
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/20/2013 10:22:50 PM



  • "The exhortation, "follow the Quran and my Sunnah," was appropriate in 7th century Arabia. For us it simply means, "Be righteous and just". It is a simple reaffirmation of taqwa."

    Why this simple idea doesn't hit the minds of your allies in your mission?
    Is it so simple? Ask your Sufi brothers if they are ready to except "it was appropriate for 7th century"
    Of course you can utter such words in the Darul Harab.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/20/2013 10:13:37 PM



  • As-Salaam Alay-Kum - Mohammed Yunus Saheb

    Good grief! I cannot believe reading, "soon we will see another form of intellectual terrorism in the name of "Quran" only." Such remarks are uncalled for Younus Saheb.

    What about "Intellectual Deception" that has long been applauded and supported by so many Muslims all because of their belief in both the weak and strong Hadiths. Small wonder that the Muslims are lost in the wilderness owing to so many compilations of Hadiths. There is no end to it and I doubt that it will ever end.

    You claim to be a "Rational" person, then why not try to enlighten all of using a very simple language in order for a common Muslim to understand the logic behind all these arguments and rebuttals.

    Awaiting the favor of your intelligent as well as rational response.

    Sincerely yours, rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org
    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/20/2013 10:04:40 PM



  • Dear Mr Rafiq.
    I wish the Quran could help the simple mind of "rational". He is caught by intricacies of Clear and obscure verses from all-knowing merciful Allah. He is caught in intricacies of interperatation, out of context, you don't know the Arabic, you are ill intentioned etc.
    He is caught between the interpretation game of Mr Md Yunus and Mr Thanwi. One theme is common that the Quran was not easy for for addresses, it needs a lot of knowledge in many sciences. But the outcome of these two scholars is pole apart.
    He is caught between who tells the Quran can't be understood without Hadith and one who says the Quran can be understood by the common man like you.
    He is caught between "submitters" and who open the chapters of philosophy and rationality behind the every verse.
    So let us close the Madrsas, Universities or any other institutions those award scholarship and shoot the scholars as they have become godhead of their sects.

    If this commentator called "an observer" reveals his name how will it effect you. Would it change the meaning of his comment or you will discredit his comment if it doesn't suit to you.
    I my memory doesn't fail me you had some conversation with some other commentator somewhere.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/20/2013 10:01:23 PM



  • Dear hats off
    another voice from "an observer" is killed by another voice from a believer in only one holy text.
    Soon we will see another form of intellectual terrorism in the name of "Quran only".

    Mr Ghulam M's ideas enter into one ear of Mr Ghulam Ghauss and Mr GRD and comes out from other without leaving any dent on their soul.
    Mr GM said recently "Exaltation of Sunna is the subtle way of worshiping the prophet and it is forbidden for Muslims", but both "Ghulams" rely heavily on secondary sources. pardon me Mr GM if I don't quote your quote in ditto.
    Both Ghulams will quote the same secondary sources which according to our Editor and senior star commentator Mr M were fabricated and compiled after 100 years of death of the prophet.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/20/2013 9:39:11 PM



  • As-Salaam Alay-Kum - Mr. Hats Off
    Impressive. What is so problematic when a person who is so much assured about his belief and confirms another Muslims about the genuine authenticity of Hadiths, should have no problem to reveal the name.
    You are forgetting that if he/she is not at all criticizing Islam, but have nothing but praise for those who think that "Quran is unintelligible without the Hadith" will get all the support of many Islamic forums. Hence, what is the motive behind hiding the name?
    Alright then, Mr. Hats Off. Your very own good name is hidden too. What say you, Mr. Muslim or whatever? How can any one be sure?
    Sincerely yours, rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org  By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/20/2013 9:37:48 PM



  • demanding that commentators reveal their names is a little bit problematic.

    people who criticize islam or muslims or the prophet need first of all to secure their physical safety. after the experience of rushdie, hirsi ali, maryam namzie and a whole bunch of muslims who thoroughly criticize islam are living their lives under the shadow of death. this is the august status of the tolerance of the muslims.

    to demand that a commentator reveal his her name is rather faintly threatening.
    By hats off! - 10/20/2013 8:55:41 PM



  • As-Salaam Alay-Kum - An Observer
    This so-called "Observer" status without revealing the real name has always remained a mystery to me. Such a response from an unknown Muslim leaves a very bad impression upon others. What is someone hiding? 
    Islam is a very simple and moderate religion. It has become so much complicated by so many compilations over and above our Holy Quran. It is truly unbelievable to realize the extent of the complications which we the Muslims have collectively contributed towards our great religion.  
    I am afraid that the rebuttal given is more so confusing too. Are we suppose to worry and be concerned about the weak versus strong Hadith? That's plain absurd so to speak. In fact, it does not make any sense at all. You mentioned "Logically Feasible." How on earth a common Muslim will know the difference between the two? Will you as a Muslim dare to translate the Quranic verses as weak or strong? I doubt that you will even think of doing that.
    You wrote "What the Prophet simply said was to follow his example?" Well then, aside from the five time prayers, can you kindly elaborate what was the character of  the Prophet of Islam? Are the bloodthirsty killers in our midst actually following Prophet living example or they are merely are being confused over the weak versus strong Hadith? Does any one of them refer to Holy Quran verses? May be, they might have been told to consult with the Ulemas to find out the actual authenticity of the Quranic verses by comparing to the Hadiths.
    Let's face it, somewhere along with line by dwelling into the weak and strong theory of Hadiths, the devout Muslims who believes in their hearts that "Quran is unintelligible without the Hadith" has completely and thoroughly managed to sideline the commandments of our Holy Quran, period. No logic will ever be able to convince this simple minded Muslim named Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia. You can try as much as you want, but I am sorry to say that I will not budge from my wholehearted belief in the Holy Quran. 
    Have a blessed day, "An Observer." (Who ever you are?) May Almighty Allah bestow wisdom upon you so that you can be courageous enough to reveal your true Muslim name. Sincerely Yours, rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/20/2013 8:14:16 PM



  • Khalid Suhail says. "The hadith about the last sermon, which was claimed to be witnessed by more than one hundred thousand believers, says the prophet said  "follow the Quran and my Sunnah"".
    The Sunnah refers to the living example of the Prophet (pbuh). The prophet did not say follow the Hadith compilations of Bukhari, Dawood or Muslim. These did not exist and there is reason to believe that the Prophet advised against recording his sayings. What the Prophet simply said was to follow his living example. Some of the things we have from his living example in the form of an unbroken tradition are the five times obligatory prayer, method of performing wudhu etc. These would have survived whether or not Bukhari and others had compiled the hadiths.
    Khalid Suhail says that "Hadith is the basis for Sunna". He is putting the cart before the horse! The Sunna is simply the practice of the Prophet and the hadiths record these and his sayings. The Sunna is therefore the basis for Hadith and not the other way round. The Sunna would have been followed as tradition, whether or not the recordings in the form of hadiths been compiled.
    Looking at the Hadith compilations of various compilers, we find that these works, by the very  nature of the work, are not identical. The compilers have also graded the hadiths as weak, strong etc. The compilers themselves have cautioned that some of the recording although supported by a chain of narrators are doubtful. When the compilers themselves do not demand a complete and unqualified acceptance of the body of work as authentic, Suhail saying that you cannot pick and chose from such a body of work is either being intellectually dishonest or plain stupid.
    He uses the expression "logically unfeasible".  Feasibility has nothing to so with logic and logic has nothing to do with feasibility. It is a strange expression!     A motivated and dishonest attack results    in such idiotic expressions.
    His quoting various "hadiths" to discredit the article are irrelevant as far as the article is concerned. Let him give an example of the Prophet or his companions or his followers supporting Muslims in a non-Muslim majority country to demand independence from the rule by the majority community if he seeks to discredit what the Maulana has said in his article. By Observer - 10/20/2013 7:21:19 PM



  • As-Salaam Alay-Kum, Khalid Suhail Saheb, You stated that the educated moderate Muslims of the 21st century do not like what they see in the Hadith is out of place. Every Muslim first and foremost task should be to follow the Quranic commandments only. Respecting the sayings of the Prophet of Islam is equally important too. I am baffled to read "Islam without Hadith," sounds like you are giving much less importance to the Divine Laws of Almighty Allah. May I humbly ask, "How did the religion of Islam spread in the first 100 years?" Did the companions of the Prophet, or for that matter, early Muslims referred to the so-called science of Hadith?" If you can give an intellectually honest answer to this very question then I will respect your view point. What is much more disturbing is another statement of yours, "We must understand that Quran is unintelligible without the Hadith" is grossly misleading. By making such an unintelligent remarks, you with your right mind has "Devalued" the Holy Quran. This, Suhail Saheb is unacceptable to the 21st century Muslims with whom you have an issue with. The word to the wise is sufficient. Yours sincerely, rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org 
    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/20/2013 4:20:16 PM



  • Suhai Saheb,
    The exhortation, "follow the Quran and my Sunnah," was appropriate in 7th century Arabia. For us it simply means, "Be righteous and just". It is a simple reaffirmation of taqwa.
    As you said, there is no mention of "Five Pillars" in the Quran. The true five pillars of Islam should be monotheism, peace, righteousness, justice and compassion. Congregational prayers, five-prayers-a-day and compulsory prostration should not be obligatory in Islam. Prayers should come from the heart, express thanks and ask for guidance as well as forgiveness. Ritualistic prayers may be offered by those who prefer such a mode, but need not be compulsory.
    As you insinuate yourself, Hadiths are useful for those who want to weaken Islam. For those who want to make Islam a simple, uncomplicated and rational force for good, which is not in conflict either with other religions or with Western ethos, Hadiths are only of historical interest. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/20/2013 11:59:24 AM



  • Dear Gulam Muhiyyuddin says, "Exaltation of Hadiths and the Sunnah are subtle ways of Muhammad worship, which is forbidden for Muslims. Hadiths and Sunnah also make Islam an easy target for apostates. Earlier, he said, Hadiths are not credible as guidance. There is no sanction in Islam for separatism. Any Hadiths which assert the contrary must be discounted". 
    The hadith about the last sermon, which was claimed to be witnessed by more than one hundred thousand believers, says the prophet said  "follow the Quran and my Sunnah". and in the Quran Allah says follow the example of my messenger. 
     33:21 Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah much". It does not contradict the Quran but ratifies it. 
    The concept of five pillars in Islam is practiced and preached widely in the Muslim world and is a crucial part of the Muslim way of life. Yet this concept is not described or defined in the Qur'an in any way. It is only found in the hadith. Looking at the pillars individually, four out of five of Islam’s Pillars would not make any sense without the Hadith, therefore making Islam impossible to practice. All these details are in the hadith which constitute the bases of the sunna. Similarly the “compulsory congregational prayer” is not described in the Qur’an at all. In fact, the Qur’an says that there should be three prayers, none of which it depicts, and the Hadith demands five. The only explanation of the obligatory prostration is found in the hadith.  Islam without the Hadith and Sunnah of prophet Muhammad is like Buddhism without the Buddha or Christianity without the Christ.The fact is that the educated moderate muslims, especially those who have awakened to the higher human values of the westin the 21st century do not like what they see in the hadith, as the details in these ahadith embarrass them. So instead of being honest and admit the weaknesses in their religion they  try to dismiss all the hadiths. They think if they put their head in the sand and pretend they do not see; the problem will go away. 
    This approach is intellectually dishonest and logically unfeasible. Either the Hadith are a valid source of information for Muslims or they are worthless. You cannot pick and choose which bits you want to keep and which bits you want to throw out when the good and the bad all originate from the same sources.

    By Khalid Suhail - 10/20/2013 6:04:30 AM



  • "the world is full of followers".
    That includes Rational and Hats Off, but they do not know it! By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/19/2013 11:13:54 PM



  • dear mr rational mohammad yunus, i learnt a wonderful sentence from you today!
    "the world is full of followers"
    this reminded me of pt barnum's famous saying "there is a sucker born every minute"
    think about it. By hats off! - 10/19/2013 11:10:19 PM



  • Rational,  You are just beating around the bush. I have described my belief in plain words. Instead of agreeing or disagreeing with me you are expounding on the difference between me and the "moderates"!
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/19/2013 11:09:55 PM



  • Are you blind?
    Nay, he is not blind by birth.
    Khatamallaho ala qulibhim, wa ala sam ihim wa ala absari gishawa......
    In His arbitrary choice His merciful Excellency bestowed you with Hidaya and us Dhalala.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/19/2013 10:38:01 PM



  • "Was Islam created for the ordinary man or for scholars?"
    From the debates going on this very forum it is for scholars.
    Ordinary men are doing what they are suppose to do. They are not selling the softcore and hardcore Islam like moderates and wahabis.
    Do ordinary men understand the intricacies of holy texts? Do they differentiate between Allah's and prophet's words. They readily believe whatever said in the name of Allah and His prophet.
    For example:
    some scholars sell the Jehad. They find their followers
    Some sells Qabrparasti/buzurgparasti, they too find their followers.
    The world is full of followers. This Simple Truth is known to every scholar of Islam.
    Islam indeed a play of scholars.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/19/2013 10:29:47 PM



  • Dear Khalid Suhail - 10/19/2013 5:11:37 AM

    In reference to response of Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/19/2013 1:57:05 PM to you.

    I am caught among the Opinions and Fatwas of defenders/savers/mujahids/mufassirs/mujaddis of Sunni/Shia/Devbandi/Wahabi/Barailvi/Sufi/Moderates Islam.

    GM saheb says "Exaltation of Hadiths and the Sunnah are subtle ways of Muhammad worship, which is forbidden for Muslims. Hadiths and Sunnah also make Islam an easy target for apostates."
    This forbidden is dearest to almost all Muslims including moderates. anyone can read the articles of moderates on the prophet. I will name one at this moment. He is Mr Ghulam Ghauss.
    Saying Hz Mohammed is above our blood relations like father, mother and our progeny takes us to root of intolerance against the critics/maligners of the prophet.
    When I paid some respect to Mr Mohammed Yunus and criticized the prophet this was his reaction. It will be every Muslim's reaction.
    Hence anybody can kill any apostate with impunity from Muslims.
    They can talk day and night on tolerance but in their hurts they carry the hate for the critics of their prophet. Criticism/mocking brings the real truth which never comes on their tongues under normal conditions. I am living example on this site.
    What GM Saheb is  talking about Exaltation of Hz Mohammed is known as Shirk. GM saheb deliberately might have avoided this word Shirk.
    Why this Merciful Allah is so much intolerant to Shirk to an extent they he will forgive any grave sin including murder and rape but not Shirk?
    Shirk is the most talked central theme of the Quran. It may be an exaggeration but it is truth. Peace, tolerance and justice which are according to Mr GM central themes of the Quran are in fact debatable. Muslims may have different meanings for these terms.

    Mr GM tries hard to exhibit the tolerance for apostates but simply fails.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 10/19/2013 10:28:40 PM



  • Mr. Suhail, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan has one opinion on Hadiths. I have a different opinion. Exaltation of Hadiths and the Sunnah are subtle ways of Muhammad worship, which is forbidden for Muslims. Hadiths and Sunnah also make Islam an easy target for apostates.
    Does "original Islam" include all the voluminous stuff written long after the death of our Prophet? The essential message of the Quran is, "be good, do the right thing, do good deeds, be just, be kind, do not kill, be rational". Do we need to know where Masjide-Aqsa is? The life of the Prophet and his parables are interesting reading but they are not an essential part of Islam.  God's entire message to Moses could be accommodated in one page. Jesus's Sermon on the Mount is only four pages. Was Islam created for the ordinary man or for scholars? All I am saying is that let common sense rule.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/19/2013 1:57:05 PM



  • Mr Hatsoff,
    Don't impose depression on your goodself.Dont curse yourself even ironically. God has given you eyes,ears and brain to counter what is evil.You must use them sincerely for the benefit of you soul and for the good of others.
    By afaqSiddiqi - 10/19/2013 8:16:39 AM



  • Afaq Siddiqi Saheb, 
    Thank you very much for your support and encouraging words.
    By Khalid Suhail - 10/19/2013 5:18:51 AM



  • Dear G. Muhiyyuddin says, (1) "Hadiths are not credible as guidance".
    First of all it is maulana Wahiduddin Khan who challenged those who may not agree with him to produce any proof from either Quran or Hadith by saying that "You cannot find a single reference for this in the Quran or Hadith. Also, you cannot find any example of this kind of politics in the biographies of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and in the accounts of the lives of the Sahaba, the Prophet’s Companions". I brought the proof from both the Quran and Hadith.
    Mr G.M. further says, " Islam needs a lot of pruning"
    The problem here is that whatever I have produced is not overgrown branches or stems of Islam. It is the original Islam. If you try to prune it, Nothing or very little will be left. And whatever will be left will not be Islam any more.
    Secondly,we must understand that Quran is unintelligible without the hadith.
    By the way can anybody tell me where is Majid-e- Aqsa without referring to hadith? Nobody can. From the Quran alone, and without a reference  to hadith, we can’t learn about prophet Muhammad, his companions, his linage, his wives and family, his deeds, his wars, his rituals and many other stories that make Islam understandable. Quran makes some passing mentions of the wars but certainly it is not a book of history of Muhammad’s prophetic career. Can we explain  Sura 38:41-44, or for that matter any sura, without referring to the hadith? 
    38:41 And remember Our servant Ayub (Job), when he invoked his Lord (saying): "Verily, Shaytan has afflicted me with distress and torment!''
    38:42 (Allah said to him): "Strike the ground with your foot. This is (a spring of) water to wash in, cool and a drink".
    38:43 "And We gave him (back) his family, and along with them the like thereof, as a mercy from Us, and a reminder for those who understand".
    38:44 "And take in your hand a bundle of thin grass and strike therewith  and break not your oath.''
    "Truly, We found him patient. How excellent a servant! Verily, he was ever oft-returning in repentance (to Us)!"
    Can anybody help me to understand this story of Job without a reference to Hadith? By Khalid Suhail - 10/19/2013 5:11:37 AM



  • Mr Khalid Suhail has very authentically exposed the murky scholarship of Allama waheeduddin khan.there are some commentators and self appointed reformers of Islam on this website who have formed a club of LA YU QILOON.If some one puts a true Hadith or a true line from the Quran and if it goes against their ends and proves their lofty claims of superintelletion nothing but fraudulent,then they say without shame that Ahadiths are not credible as guidance and Islam(quran) needs a lot of pruning.
    Hatsoff has commented on their attitude very brillienlty
    My respectful salutes to Khalid Suhail.
    By afaqSiddiqi - 10/19/2013 3:34:44 AM



  • by god's disgrace, i am blind, deaf and mute. i hope this is ok with you. as and when you need more disabilities, you may kindly post here and i shall be granted those disabilities. for god is indeed merciful god is bounteous. By hats off! - 10/18/2013 11:26:59 PM



  • Hats off says, "when mr khalid suhail speaks, the the moderates suddenly loose their tongue." -
    Are you blind? By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/18/2013 11:09:06 PM



  • Dear hats off!
    You state: "while the koran recommends following the prophet in all details, it does not contain substantial details for the momeen to actually follow the sunnah of the prophet."
    The following statement (in blue ink) appears in my duly approved and authenticated jointly authored book, published more than four years ago, not yet banned by any ultra-orthodox quarter:
    "The orthodox quote the Qur’anic oft-repeated exhortations to love, obey and follow the Prophet9 as an indication to follow his normative behavior (Sunna). Qur’an, however, does not connect the generic term sunnah to the Prophet but uses it to refer to universal laws and patterns in both physical and moral realms [Ch. 15]."
     Note 9. This is explained as follows (blue ink) in one of my articles referenced below:
    9. The Qur’anic instruction to love, obey and follow the Prophet.
    The orthodox quote the Qur’anic oft-repeated exhortations to love, obey and follow the Prophet (3:31, 3:32, 3:132, 4:69, 4:80, 5:56, 5:92, 24:52, 24:54, 24:56, 47:33, 64:12) as an indication to follow the Hadith or the sayings of the Prophet that are conflated with his normative behavior (Sunna). But the Qur’anic instructions obviously aimed at establishing the Prophet as the ultimate and most honored and beloved leader of the community – a love and honor that he deserved as the Prophet of God. Accordingly, people at different historical junctures were asked to obey the Prophets Hud (26:131, 26:150), Jesus (3:50, 43:63), Lot (26:163), Noah (26:108, 26:110, 71:3), Shoaib (26:179), Salih (26:144, 26:150) and to follow the creed of Abraham (4:125, 16:123). Thus, the Qur’an, does not bind the followers of a prophet with his sunna, but uses it to refer to universal laws and patterns in both physical and moral realms (3 above, Part-I). Furthermore, any command to observing the Sunna (normative ways) of the Prophet Muhammad would have contradicted the notion of shir‘ah wa minhaj (dynamic system of law and code of life - 5:48, as the Qur’an envisions for humanity in its concluding legislative phase [16], and froze Islam, veritably, at the seventh century Arabia. It was conceivably for these reasons that the Qur’an did not connect its message with the Sunna of the Prophet – though based on the pre-Islamic norms, such a connection was a historical necessity in that era. History had to take its own course and accordingly it saw the evolution of the institution of Hadith sprouting from the pre-Islamic concept of following the Sunna of the ancestors. In absence of any Qur’anic mandate to follow the Sunna of the Prophet, there can be no breach of faith in any manner by treating the Hadith that is supposed to be a repository of the Prophet’s Sunna – as a historically informed and conditioned space-time specific theological discipline – rather than an intrinsic part of the eternal message of the Qur’an.'

    The evolution of the Hadith sciences and the Ref: Prophet’s Sunna and the need for a Major Paradigm Shift regarding the role of the Hadith Corpus and the scope of Madrassa education.
    http://newageislam.com/islamic-sharia-laws/evolution-of-hadith-sciences-and-need-for-major-paradigm-shift-in-role-of-hadith-corpus-and-scope-of-madrasa-education/d/6581

    Point 2. It is too late in history for the eternal text to die. Did I not cut/paste to you my following remark (in blue) from a refutation of my Fatwa issued from the quarter that terrorizes the whole world and keeps Homeland Security and FBI on their toes:
    In a grand irony of history the divine scheme has set the mightiest nation on earth to defend the faith of Islam on pressing political and terrorism grounds, but which country can be more suited for this noble task than the One that has the name of God engraved in each of its trillions of coins and billions of currency notes.
    No doubt, the liberals, the fanatic secularists among the Muslims, the Islamophobes and the mullas and terrorist - all want to kill the text of the Qur'an for their respective agendas. Pastor Jones plans to burn copies of the Qur'an for he blames it for 9/11. His Muslim counter-part and internationally recognized scholar and alim, Abdulla bin Baz kills the universal spirit of the Qur'an by partly quoting the concluding words of the verse 5:5 to suggest that the deeds of humans will not be accepted by God unless his theological doctrine is correct. The liberal Muslims hate its moral imperatives, the Christian West blames it for losing the Eastern Christendom soon after its birth, the monarchs and dynastic rulers were so threatened by it that they declared, anyone who discusses about this book in any context other than spirituality incurs sin. If I remember correctly I cut/pasted the following to you from our Washington presentation:
    The egalitarian message of the Qur’an challenged the restrictive and enslaving tenets of the ‘aqida’ and classical Sharia law. Therefore, the Ulama were strongly discouraged from undertaking any critical interpretation of the Qur’an following its internal clues. “According to a number of sources, Imam Abu Hanifa was imprisoned by Caliph al-Mansur (754 – 775) for defying him in religion. Imam Malik ibn Anas, the founder of another school of law was also flogged during his rule” [8]. Before long, the door to any critical scholarship of the Qur’an was closed by a ruling that “Any Qur’anic verse which contradicts the opinions of ‘our masters’ will be construed as having been abrogated, or the rule of preference will be applied thereto.
    No doubt there is an ongoing conspiracy to kill the text of the Qur'an but it is very much alive and bothering so many people and still attracting few of its enemies. They say it won the heart of Tony Blair's sister - a vocal critic of the Qur'an.
    Sorry about this longish outburst. Regards, Yunus

    By muhammad yunus - 10/18/2013 9:43:48 PM



  • the koran by itself is un-understandable unless studied in conjunction with the sunnah. this sunnah is only known through hadith.

    while the koran recommends following the prophet in all details, it does not contain substantial details for the momeen to actually follow the sunnah of the prophet.

    so all those muslims who fondly imagine that all issues can be resolved by the koran only method, will have many lacunea and loopholes. either these have to be filled after ijma or ijitihad.

    both of these are in very short supply among the islamic scholars.

    in the near foreseeable future, it will be rather impossible to do away with hadiths.

    if and when hadiths are abandoned, the issue then will be between the meccan and medinan korans. here is where mahmood taha slipped, fell and lost his life.

    dashti tried putting the whole koranic texts on the basis of a blasphemous proposition. being aware of what happened to taha, he was shrewd enough to delay the publication of his book until after his death.

    in either case there are important lessons here. one obvious lesson is the casual ease with which koranic scholars may be legally murdered. the other lessons is for the interpretationists. one small mistake here or there, the interpretationsist will have to swing from thick ropes.

    if and when the yemeni sana koran is published, we can expect another routine upheaval in the constantly upheaving ummah.

    someone somewhere needs to wake up. the eternal text is dead.

    the ephemeral text has come to stay.
    By hats off! - 10/18/2013 6:34:23 PM



  • when mr khalid suhail speaks, we all can be sure of a resounding silence.

    when mr khalid suhail speaks, the interpretationists go into hiding. the moderates suddenly loose their tongue. the exegetes scamper out of their korans.
    By hats off! - 10/18/2013 6:02:13 PM



  • Hadiths are not credible as guidance. There is no sanction in Islam for separatism. Any Hadiths which assert the contrary must be discounted. As a matter of fact, religions should stay out of political matters and confine themselves to moral and spiritual matters. Islam needs to do a lot of pruning. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/18/2013 12:59:39 PM



  • Maulana Wahiduddin Khan says, "The contemporary Muslim separatism is a new phenomenon. It has nothing to do with Islam. But unlike what some Muslims may believe, there is no sanction for this in Islam. You cannot find a single reference for this in the Quran or Hadith. Also, you cannot find any example of this kind of politics in the biographies of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and in the accounts of the lives of the Sahaba, the Prophet’s Companions". 
     I can not imagine that such a great scholarof Islam may be unaware of the following ahadith which totally refute his baseless claim. or may be he is also practicing Taqayya like other muslim apologists. The following ahadith clearly prove that prophet Muhammad himself adopted this policy of seperatism.
    Narrated Said bin Jubair: Ibn 'Abbas said, "The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula"-Sahih Bukhari 4:52:288
    In a late Medinan Surah 9:28 we read: “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean, so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque.” 
    Yahya related to me from Malik from Ismail ibn Abi Hakim that he heard Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz say, "One of the last things that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said was, 'May Allah fight the jews and the christians. They took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration . Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the land of the Arabs.' " - Malik's Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.17
    'Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, 'Two deens 
    (religions) shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,' and he therefore expelled the jews from Khaybar." - Malik's Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.18
    It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim. - Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4366

    By Khalid Suhail - 10/18/2013 11:57:12 AM



  • supremacism is the heart of unwillingness to integrate. integration is experienced as a dissolution of jealously/zealously held identity baggage every muslim carries conciously or unconsciously. in sofar as it substitutes for his non-existent personal identity, he is loath to let it go.

    this attitudinal load comes partly from the parental brainwashing on the "us" versus "them" formula. the defining aspect of an islamic upbringing is the absolute domination of the message that islam is the perfect religion and that the muslims are the best among the nations. jews used to think similarly until their god told them otherwise.

    add to this free-for-all the ethnic identities, the cultural identitiies, the linguistic identities and the fundamentalist indoctrination of 'jahiliyya' and you have a truely explosive cocktail.

    this seals any rational approach to anything at all. urdu is spoken by less than 15% percent of pakistanis, but they shamelessly promote it. arabis is spoken by less than about 6% of muslims, but they blindly believe it to be the language of gods.

    coming down to it if khadija, an elder widow could propose to a young mohammad without embarrassment indicates that jahiliyya is a coocked up concept. that she was a successful businesswoman, who could employ unmarried males hints to the liberated women in the pre-islamic times. that the prophet dared not marry another during the lifetime of khadija points to the strong matriarchical trends in pre-islamic society. today the comparison sticks out like a sore thumb.

    once you posit that everything before islam was a period of darkness and sin and excesses, the seeds for self loathing are sown. this explains the ease with which the kashmiris have detached from their hindu roots and the vehemence with which pakistanis denounce their 5000 year plus archeology.

    any convert conditioned to hate his past is an automatic candidate for the universal misfit.
    By hats off! - 10/17/2013 11:47:39 PM



  • Very good article. I wish there were more people like him. I, however, differ with him on his analysis of identity of Muslims. Not just Muslims but almost every community has this problem, except Hinduism, I guess; because Hinduism accepts differences with open arms. But in recent times rightist groups have captured Hinduism just like rightist groups have captured Islam and other major religions. We are not living in a world of spiritualized religion but we live in a world of politicized religion.  By Aiman Reyaz - 10/17/2013 7:10:46 PM