certifired_img

Books and Documents

Radical Islamism and Jihad (20 May 2014 NewAgeIslam.Com)




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   192


  • Bokoharamis!
    By Jimmy - 1/10/2019 3:58:52 AM



  • Dear Gholam Ghaus

    My apologies!

    I see you must be profound in your faith as well as bold and courageous like a 'banda-e momin' in Iqbal's poetic vocabulary to endorse my bitterly truthful article in an unqualified manner. Since your visibility is high, you deserve special credit for joining me in expelling the terror outfits from the faith of Islam and calling for an international fatwa for the same based on historical precedent. Muslim Ulema will issue a fatwa when water rises above the head and some countries ban Islam - for a religion that appropriates terror is misfit for this era. Let us hope they wake up before that happens.    

    By muhammad yunus - 6/19/2014 8:07:02 AM



  • Dear Rational,

    We strongly feel that Boko Harams who are doing evil and injustice should be punished by Allah Almighty immediately. Almost every Muslim wants the perpetrator of injustice like to be taught a lesson. Though we know the numerous cases where Allah does justice at once in this life, we also see that many perpetrators escape punishment and seem to go on enjoying their lives. One may ask a question why Allah Almighty lets such cases happen. The answer lies in understanding the purpose and reality of this worldly life.

    According to Islamic belief, the final justice will be meted out on the Day of Judgment, the holy Quran says:

    So, Allah out of His Divine wisdom may choose to punish certain evil acts in this world and in some cases, He may give the perpetrators respite until the Day of Judgement when all accounts will be fully settled.

    “And had Allah seized people (instantly) for their injustice, He would not have left any living being (on the surface of the earth). But He grants them respite till an appointed term. When their fixed time arrives, then they can neither advance, nor hold it back for a single moment” (16:61)

    “Every soul is going to taste death. And your full recompense will be paid back only on the Day of Resurrection. So, whoever will be saved from Hell and admitted to Paradise will be truly successful. And the worldly life is nothing but illusory wealth”. (3:185)


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 6/19/2014 6:29:12 AM



  • Dear Muhammad Yunus saheb,

    I have already endorsed your referenced article, showing my courage. Please go through the comment section of your scholarly article.

    Here I am repeating that comment:

    “A sign of far-farsightedness I have traced in this article is a better solution to decrease the burden of moderate Muslims in a bid to save Islam from terrorists. Thanks Mr Muhammad Yunus for saying “it may be a fitting response to declare the al-Qaida, Talibans, al Shabab, Boko Haram and others, including lone terrorists who justify killing of innocent men, women and children in terror attacks and suicide bombing as apostates and renegades of Islam and refer to them as  Terrorist Apostate of Islam rather than Islamic terrorists”.

    We all peace loving Muslims should let the terrorists who justified killing of innocent lives be referred to as ‘Terrorist Apostate of Islam rather than Islamic terrorists’.”
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 6/19/2014 5:52:55 AM



  • Dear Gholam Ghaus
    "is not Allah nearer to jugular veins of the abducted girls? how much wailing is needed to bring Allah for their help?
    Boko Haramis are tested at the cost of those abducted girls. what is the test of those abducted girls??
    why are you silent? your test theory is not working.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/19/2014 5:41:11 AM



  • Dear Gholam Ghaus,

    Why don't you have the courage and clarity of faith to endorse my following article posted October last year. Honesty without courage and conviction cannot distinguish us from the Boko Harams and terror outfits.

     Call for international Fatwas to declare the terrorists who advocate wanton killing of innocent people in the name of Islam as ‘Terrorist Apostates’, like the Kharijites of early Islam.
    By muhammad yunus - 6/19/2014 1:09:19 AM






  • By Ravi Kumar - 5/28/2014 12:26:42 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus.
    is not Allah nearer to jugular veins of the abducted girls? how much wailing is needed to bring Allah for their help?
    Boko Haramis are tested at the cost of those abducted girls. what is the test of those abducted girls?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/27/2014 2:37:24 AM



  • "Many influential Islamic scholars believe that women would contribute more to a thriving society, only if they were educated. They would teach and train their children better than fathers, playing a pivotal role in developing a prosperous family life, hence a prosperous society. 

    1000% agree 



    By Atif Habeeb - 5/27/2014 2:02:28 AM



  • Please leave "for $12" and read it as " "It is extremely un-Islamic that Nigerian girls are being sold to be wives to Boko Haram militants"
    Thanks Rational.

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/27/2014 1:53:59 AM



  • Observer - 5/27/2014 1:24:27 AM
    well. Islamic world is full of liars and mischief mongers despite they are believers in the Quran.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/27/2014 1:53:58 AM



  • Rational,

    I have not called any person a liar without clear evidence. Challenge me if I have called anyone liar without evidence. It is only right that that a lie be exposed to cure people of the habit. The accusation of lie if false, can be easily exposed.

    What liars and mischief mongers think of me is of little significance.


    By Observer - 5/27/2014 1:24:27 AM



  • Ghulam Ghaus saheb you said:
    "It is extremely un-Islamic that Nigerian girls are being sold for $12 to be wives to Boko Haram militants"
    will it be Islamic if Boko Haramis purchase girls at the price higher than $12? How much price will make it Islamic?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/27/2014 1:15:07 AM



  • observer.
    one thing i forgot to mention: you are just one another Mullah when you call others liar for silly reasons. it seems calling people liar is first habit of Muslims when face they meet the situation they don't like. i put you in the same category despite i agree with you on most themes. will you get some extra Brownie points in the court of Allah for calling liar compared to your defense of Islam? at these times you violate the commands of the Quran.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/27/2014 1:08:43 AM



  • Observer - 5/27/2014 12:32:14 AM
    you also must know why ask these questions to people like you.
    Madarsa education doesn't play an important role in my life. i am a self learned person in many fields.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/27/2014 12:57:22 AM



  • Rational,

    Thanks! Sufi writers on wahdat al-wujud are entitled to use what is called "poetic license". They do no harm.



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/27/2014 12:52:00 AM



  • Rational,

    Why is apostasy and blasphemy not punishable as per the Quran but punishable as per the classical shariat law? If you can figure out the answer, you will also have the answer to your question. But why does  a madrassa educated have to ask these questions when he should know the answer better than me? 


    By Observer - 5/27/2014 12:32:14 AM



  • Rational,

    Why is apostasy and blasphemy not punishable as per the Quran but punishable as per the classical shariat law? If you can figure out the answer, you will also have the answer to your question. But why does  a madrassa educated have to ask these questions when he should know the answer better than me? 


    By Observer - 5/27/2014 12:30:13 AM



  • observer
    i repeat. why Muslims revolted against the SC if SC's verdict is same as Sharia?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/26/2014 10:35:57 PM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb- 5/26/2014 1:35:00 PM
    thank you for posting a very balanced view on which is unknowable and unprovable. Drugs can also produce mystical experiences. but saying it is the part of the Quran is far fetched belief which has no basis.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/26/2014 10:17:15 PM



  • The debate on wahdat al-wujud is in essence an attempt to define and describe something that is unknown and unknowable. Such discussions are not harmful but at the same time they are not very useful. 


    Sufis and yogis do attain an altered state of consciousness which they interpret as being united with God. Such an oceanic feeling may be physiological rather than spiritual. Whirling dervishes can attain it through a stimulation of the inner ear produced by whirling. It can also be achieved with some drugs such as LSD.


    While belief in wahdat al-wujud is not part of Islam, it is not antithetical to Islam. Muslims are monotheists, not monists.



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/26/2014 1:35:00 PM



  • To all WuW believers

    Did ever prophet say that he and the God became one at some stage? If he could not unite(fana) with the God, how come your Peers (Sufis) unite with God? Did any companion claimed he got united with God?
    if that is not and it is not how your Sufis dissolved in the God? were they above the prophets and his companions?
    Did ever the prophet command us to do so?
    when the God is in everything (Allah is nearer to you than the jugular vein, a verse used as proof of WuW) why  the prophet would ascend to heaven to meet his creator? was it a mystical experience or physical? 
    If everything is manifestation of the God, why Idol worship is greatest sin in the Islam?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/26/2014 5:52:03 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus.
    although there is no derogatory word i used, still i am sorry if you feel like that.
    leave the Wuw aside now. keep it in your heart.
    say something about Arsh. Since you are a believer in Ahadith i am asking you "does Allah sit on the throne as some Ahadith suggest?" If he is omnipresent why does he need a throne to sit?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/26/2014 5:26:39 AM



  • What is "Unity of Being" (Wahdat al-Wujud)? Does it Conform in Any Way to the Teachings of Islam?"

    Fethullah Gülen

    Monday, 26 December 2005 08:48

    Wahdat al-wujud (literally, oneness or unity of being) is a teaching mostly spoken of in connection with mystics and Sufis. Although the phrase refers to a subjective state or direct, inward experience attained by Sufis, it has also been understood and discussed as a philosophical concept and, as such, interpreted in different ways. Some have even considered it practically indistinguishable from wahdat al-mawjud (the oneness or unity of existents), a philosophy known in the West by the name monism.

     

    As with much else, wahdat al-wujud has reached us with excesses and extremes in the use and understanding of it. In some cases because of lack of suitable words to express the experience to which it alludes; in others because of inadequacies in the manner in which the phrase has been applied to the ordinary, visible reality of this world; in yet others because it inclines to a line of thought very like another philosophical doctrine, namely pantheism—the phrase wahdat al-wujud which, strictly speaking, can only be referred to God Himself, has been conceived and interpreted in diverse ways and led to a variety of unsound speculations and controversies.

     

    Those who uphold the teaching of wahdat al-wujud distinguish three modes of tawhid (oneness):

     

    1. Tawhid al-af'al (oneness or unity of the Agent): Meaning that, of every act, the sole and only, the absolute, Agent is God. It follows from this view that there is no need to look for any cause for whatever exists or happens in the universe; everything everywhere is directly the work of God. (Since we dealt with the issue of kasb (the performance or doing of acts) and khalq(the createdness of acts), matters pertaining to kalam (theology), in the questions related to destiny, we shall not repeat that discussion here.) Those who argue for tawhid al-af'al cite the following verses to support their view:

     

    But God has created you and what you do. (Saffat 37:96) . . . All is from God . . . (Nisa 4:78)

     

    2. Tawhid al-sifat (oneness or unity of the Subject): Meaning that of all predicates the sole and only Subject is God. According to this view, all volition, all forces and powers, all knowledge and faculties, belong to God only; they are an intelligible expression, or a work, or a realized state of Him.

     

    3. Tawhid al-dhat (also, tawhid al-wujud) (oneness or unity of Essence or of Being): Meaning that in essence all existence is One; and everything visible or knowable around us, other than Him, is a manifestation and disclosure of Him in certain states.

     

    There is much to say and dispute about here, from the modes of tawhid to the subtle nuances between manifestation and disclosure. However, since the question asked here concerns only the third mode of tawhid, we will only dwell upon the tawhid al-dhat (oneness or unity of Essence or Being).

     

    Given that such a view of tawhid, as noted above, is the result of an inward state or direct, inward experience (dhawq), many scholars do not consider the subject amenable to rational discussion.

     

    In fact, when existents and events are not referred ultimately to God and His Names, it is impossible to explain them fully. That is acknowledged by all people of sound learning who reflect seriously and pursue their reflections fully. There is considerable similarity between the understanding of tawhid of those who use rational methods of inquiry, and those who follow the disciplines of Sufism. Sa'd al-Din Taftazani, in his Sharh al-Maqasid (Explanation of Purposes), distinguishes two groups among those who argue wahdat al-wujud, of whom one he assesses to be within the bounds of the ahl al-Sunna, i.e. orthodox: there is no dispute about or with this group.

     

    According to Taftazani, the two groups are the sufiyya and mutasawwifa. The former hold to the plurality in wujud as is in mawjud, in essential being as in existence. However, when the Sufi reaches God, he is immersed in the ocean of 'irfan (perception, direct knowing); he experiences fana', the perishing or loss of the self in God and of his attributes in God's attributes. As a result of this mystical experience, he believes that nothing exists other than God; he regards himself as the focus (mikhraq) of all manifestation (tajalli) of the Divine Attributes: this is the state the Sufis call fana' fi l-tawhid or perishing into the Oneness. Unable at this point to understand the reality of the situation, the Sufis may exclaim in ecstatic utterances a condition of in-dwelling (hulul) in God or of "union" (ittihad) with God.

     

    According to some Sufis, such an understanding of tawhid is the result of that stage or degree of union with God (maqam al-jam). But this is firstly a matter of 'irfan, and then a matter of experience or tasting (dhawq). In this degree, attributing real existence to things could not but be contradictory to the Sufis' visions (mushahadat). That is why, to acknowledgeasbab (causes) in that state would be, in a sense, to acknowledge an associate with God (i.e. to do shirk). On the other hand, to deny the asbab without really attaining such a degree of consciousness, without really experiencing it fully, is hypocrisy and a merely theoretical assertion. Therefore, one who denies union (jam') is considered 'irfan-less (unknowing, unperceiving) and one who denies the difference between God and humankind (farq) which the Sufi overcomes in the experience of jam' is considered far away from the secrets of servanthood to God. The mature person is one who comfortably accepts both farq and jam', each in its necessary place.

     

    The second group comprise those who argue an absolute wahdat al-wujud. For them Being is One, which is nothing other than God. The multiplicity of the visible is only imaginary or illusory.

     

    While wahdat al-wujud is for the sufiyya a matter of affective state (hal) or direct experience (dhawq), the mutasawwifa seem to hold to it as an established conviction and philosophy. In fact, not a few theologians have shared that conviction. Some of them, such as Jalal al-Din Dawwani, have defended it vigorously. However, the general consensus of ahl al-Sunna scholars is that the (separate) reality of things in the world is thabit (securely established).

     

    Sheikhulislam M. Sabri in his Mawqif al-'aql (The Station of Reason) indicates that the concept of wujud al-haqq (unity or oneness of reality) is behind that of wahdat al-wujud. But, as is known and accepted by scholars and theologians, wujud is an addition to mahiyya (quiddity); this is so both in that which is wujub (necessary) and that which is mumkin (possible). However, Imam al-Ash'ari held the opposite, namely that wujud is the same as mahiyya both in wujub and mumkin. While the Philosophers agree with al-Ash'ari in regard to wujub, they side with theologians in regard to mumkin. Since the schools of al-Ash'ari and the Philosophers consider wujud to be ultimately from God Himself and from His Being (Wujud), they accord a derivative, relative wujud to everything and see all existence as ultimately from One, God Himself.

     

    In fact, whether the Being of God or His Attributes are the same as or other than God in Himself is a matter which has long been discussed. Some people, including very great scholars of Islam, considerwujud al-Bari' (oneness or unity of the Author) as the same as the Divine Being in Himself. To conclude from this that these people affirm the teaching of wahdat al-wujud and even of wahdat al-mawjud (monism) may lead one to claim that they are in error (dalala)—but that is a charge of such moment that we should not wish to bear the responsibility of it.

     

    Jalal al-Din Dawwani, in his Risalat al-Dawwani, remarked that the being of the Real (al-Haqq) is the same as His Essence (Dhat) and that there is no real being or existent other than Dhat al-Haqq; and that since wujud is wujud (since "being" is precisely that which "is"), it cannot but be the being of the Real, wujud al-Haqq. That entails that the being of all existents is not real but itibari (derivative, relative). Dawwani goes a step further and observes that it is impossible to consider the creation as comprising existents that are independently, fully existent (mustaqil) both in their being (wujud) and in their outward manifestness: "Regarding wujud, it is impossible to attribute [independent] existence to 'alam (the universe); it is impossible for anything to exist in itself. Regarding outward manifestness, it is impossible to attribute an independent existence to mumkinat, because a thing can only be manifest relatively to the Real Being, to the Wujud who is al-Haqq (the Real). No actual existent (mustaqil haqiqa) has its real being except in relation to Real Being, its being depends upon His Being—on that dependence it can be said to exist. Therefore, we should not consider entities that we know to be conjectural (wahm) and imaginary (khayal) as actually existent (mawjud)."

     

    Ibn al-'Arabi goes still further and insists that what is visible in the universe is a manifestation and reflection, it is never a mawjud (existent), not even derivatively. God constantly and continually manifests Himself and the universe is constantly and continually renewed. These manifestations succeed one other and the universe constantly and continually goes back and forth between existence and non-existence because of these consecutive manifestations. These manifestations succeed one another so rapidly that no interval or gap is perceived in the continuous hierarchy of beings.

     

    Mawlana Jalal al-Din al-Rumi shares the same views and expresses them in a colorful way: "O Soul of our souls! Who are we that dare to attribute existence to themselves? (in comparison to You, what or who are we that dare to make such a claim.) We are a large number of nothing. Our existences are nothing, either. As to You, You are the Wujud al-Mutlaq, who exhibits all the fani' (the transient, perishable entities) on a mirror in which everything is going to appear. Each of us is a lion, but one that is not real—one such as might be embroidered on a flag is moved by the blowing wind. Its movements are seen in the movements of the flag but the wind that moves them is not seen—may that Unseen never withhold His blessings from us! Our existence is bestowed by You and we are Your creation only. You made non-existence taste the flavor of existence, and made it in eternity Your enraptured (lover)." Such a view which holds everything to be the manifestation of al-Haqq cannot attribute being to anything. While Rumi considers that the universe does have being, that it exists, it does so figuratively (majazi) and because of its being a manifestation of al-Haqq.

     

    Yet there is a multiplicity and variety in the visible world. Some Sufis, as we have just noted, consider this multiplicity and variety as manifestation of al-Haqq and explain it as dependent upon the skills (istidat) of the mirrors; and they hold that such a view is not contrary or harmful to the unity of Divine Being.

     

    Junayd al-Baghdadi conveys the same view in his well-known remark: "The water takes on the color of the cup." True or Real Being is One. Just as the Light is One, for all that it illumines—all creatures are reflections and ripple-waves of this Light. Just as rain droplets, which appear in different forms, as water, ice and vapor, are different states of one substance. Similarly, things and events, which flow by and are differently manifest, are the manifestations of the same Reality.

     

    Unlike the early Sufis whose views lead to a sound belief in tawhid, those of the mutasawwifa group who treat wahdat al-wujud in a philosophical way have not been able to stay clear of expressions and utterances which incline to hulul and ittihad. In fact, when they expand on the subject scientifically and philosophically, they cannot be thought free from such a consequence. Indeed, they even seek evidence for their position in verses of the Qur'an and the hadiths of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.

     

    The verses are:

     

    It is not you who slew; it was God. When you threw (a handful of dust), it was not your act, but God's . . . (Anfal 8:17)

     

    Verily those who plight their fealty to you do no less than plight their fealty to God . . . (Fath 68:10)

     

    It was We who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than his jugular vein. (Qaf 50:17)

     

    The hadiths are:

     

    God the All-Mighty says, "O man! I was ill, but you didn't visit me." Man says, "My Lord! You are the Lord of all the realms, how can I visit You?" God says, "Do you not know that so-and-so of my servants got ill, but you did not visit him. If you had visited him, you would have found Me with him."[1]

     

    God the All-Mighty says: ". . . My servant does not draw near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties that I have imposed upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him, I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, his foot with which he walks. . ."[2]

     

    It would be possible to narrate many more such hadiths and other Qur'anic verses. However, believing that to do so would not add to the argument, we keep the discussion short. Also, the remarks on this subject of the great men of Sufism, of which we have mentioned only a few so far, are too many to ignore. However, as dealing with them fully in the scope of this question-answer would be impossible and, perhaps, unnecessary, we have limited our attention to only a few.

     

    First of all, characterizing the first two verses quoted above among the muhkamat (the clear truths) of the Qur'an and thus closing the door to any contradiction of the Muslim creed, is the surest way of right interpretation to which many great mufassirs (interpreters of the Qur'an) have adhered.

     

    It does not make much matter whether the action mentioned in the verse is ascribed to God or to His Prophet; either it is a miracle or an action that is attributed by God to His most glorious servant to assure his glory; or it expresses his might and power, confirming his truth.

     

    In fact, in the above verses, what is used to justify an extreme interpretation of wahdat al-wujud, rather emphasizes and confirms the (separate) reality of what exists in the world. For, the difference of unbeliever and believer, of slayer and slain, and muhatab (third person), are mentioned: it is possible to deduce unity of being only by means of elaborate and far-fetched interpretations. Especially to deduce from ". . .We are nearer to Him than his jugular vein," a meaning in favor of wahdat al-wujud is impossible.

     

    In the hadiths, what is obvious is separateness and multiplicity, not unity, of being. To acknowledge that a servant ('abd) is a distant, secondary creature until he acquires nearness (qurbiya) to God, and then to talk about unity of the two is a rather crude form of belief in hulul and ittihad (in-dwelling and union) which even the mutasawwifa do not accept. Moreover, even in the words of the "people of God," uttered to affirm Oneness of Being, a duality is evident:

     

    You are either the sun or the sea; either the Mountain Qaf  or Phoenix.

    O Being, who is beyond the comprehension of mind!

    You are the Eternal and Limitless.

    However, since You manifest Yourself in countless chapters (forms), both those who unite with or liken themselves to You are all enraptured.

    Rumi

     

    Without needing further comment and interpretation, it is obvious that everything there said or aspired to rests on duality and multiplicity. Although other people look for evidence for wahdat al-wujud in the words of the mutasawwifa, the mutasawwifa themselves are always seen to affirm the realm of multiplicity by their actions, such as to annihilate their nafs (selfhood, carnal self). Except for the separateness from God, what is the meaning of all the hardships and disciplines of those who hold to the teaching of wahdat al-wujud, of their striving for perfection, their seeking to be rid of their deficiencies? Moreover, the profound sincerity in the servanthood to God of those great people absolutely contradicts the extremist, philosophical understanding of wahdat al-wujud.

     

    As long as any believer in wahdat al-wujud accepts his own answerability to God, his servanthood to God, it means that he is acknowledging the difference of 'amir (the superior) andma'mur (the subordinate). After acknowledging subordination, to insist literally on unity of wujud is sheer self-contradiction. And, bar a few unbelievers who reject servanthood, no believer has ever dared to reject servanthood to God. Therefore, whereas the understanding of wahdat al-wujud of the sufiyya—which in reality concerns wahdat al-shuhud (the unity or oneness of witnessing)—is a result of the affective state in Sufism, istighraq (absorption in ecstatic contemplation, beatitude), and of a lack of words and phrases to express what they feel, the understanding of wahdat al-wujud of some of the mutasawwifa derives from the frailty and insufficiency of rendering in philosophical concepts and arguments what the Sufi experiences as inward consciousness and witnessing: moreover, these philosophical concepts and arguments have their origin less in Islam than in a school of thought developed out of a Western-Christian/Greek philosophy.

     

    The allegation should not be accepted that, under the influence of Neo-Platonist, some great Muslims sought to introduce a doctrine of "pantheism" into Islam. The most that could be said is that those Muslims may have considered it not dangerous temporarily to borrow some terms from the Neo-Platonist since they could not find the words they needed to express what they experienced in their mushahadat (visions) and perceptions. Otherwise, there is a world of difference between those two groups of people in terms of their understanding of the Divine Essence.

     

    A group of people who had found the balance of the world and the Hereafter as that balance is conveyed by the Qur'an can never be considered to agree on an understanding of wahdat al-wujud such as is attributed to the mutasawwifa:

     

    A belief in One God who is everything everywhere means accepting the most unsuitable and irrelevant things to be "God," the absurdity of which any sense must reject.

    The Qur'an adduces evidence from the universe and creation for the Oneness and Existence of God, which indicates that the reality of the created world is thabit (securely established).

    In the Qur'an, many verses reiterate that the universe is going to be destroyed, after which a new world will be established. The destruction and extinction of something is meaningless unless it first exists. To talk about the destruction of something whose reality is not thabit is absurd and futile. And the Qur'an is altogether free from of absurdity or futility.

    All the Prophets, peace be upon them, teach that all beings, great or small, were created second, and insistently reiterate the doctrine that the relation between God and all other existents is only a relation between the Creator and what He created. In the understanding of wahdat al-wujud attributed to the mutasawwifa, the Prophets and the truths given to them by revelation have to be declared false and denied, which is an abomination to heart and mind.

    Every piece of evidence adduced to support a simple, literal understanding of wahdat al-wujud, in fact gives support to the argument for multiplicity of being.

    A great number of verses in the Qur'an affirm that the obedient will be rewarded and the rebellious will be punished. From a literal understanding of unity of being, any judgment of this kind is an impossibility, since it would be impossible to answer such questions as, "Who is obedient?" "What is a blessing (ni'ma) and where is it?" "Who is guilty?" "What is punishment?" and so on.

    If all things are accepted to be of God and events to be some sort of manifestation of Him, it would be injustice to criticize idols and the idolatrous. For, as all events are manifestations of Him, idols and the idolatrous cannot be reckoned other than Him. On the other hand, it is obvious that the Qur'an and Sunna, which establish tawhid, are the greatest enemy of unbelief and idolatry.

    If wahdat al-wujud is accepted as the mutasawwifa accept it, it necessitates the idea that matter is qadim (eternal), which is, by the consensus of the community (bi-l-ijma') tantamount to kufr (unbelief) and those who are truly "people of God" are absolutely far from and free of committing such a kufr.

    There are clear differences between the mutassawwifa understanding of wahdat al-wujud and a literal-philosophical understanding of the concept which declines into pantheism. There is, to be sure, an outward similarity between the two. The philosophical understanding holds that God and the universe have the same being, a position divides into two:

     

    God is a Real Being and the universe is nothing but an assemblage or arrangement or composition of some manifestations (tazahurat) or emanations (sudurat). This is a view held by Spinoza and his followers.

    Only the universe is real. God is the majmu' (sum/whole) of all existents (mawjuds). This is the view of a naturalist pantheism sometimes associated with Hegel and his followers.

    In short, the difference is this: As a result of having experienced fana' (extinction) the mutasawwifa deny the reality of the universe, the philosophical group ignore the Creator of the universe and try to put Him aside. While the mutasawwifa understanding of wahdat al-wujud implies wahdat al-shuhud (oneness of witnessing), the others' understanding of it inclines to wahdat al-mawjud (monism). The first group, unable to express their affective state (hal), visions (mushahada) and istighraq (absorption), resort to mutashabihat (metaphors, allegories) due to lack of words to express what they experience. The other group theorize the concept, and try to make a formal philosophy, a science, out of it. While the first start with God and then evaluate existents and events from this respect, the latter start to deal with the experiencing subject, thus making God dependent on the existents. While there is direct experience (dhawq) of God with the first, there is only theory and speculation with the latter. While the first deny and lose their selves in humility before God, the latter make the philosophy of their being like wajib al-wujud.

    God knows best.

    http://en.fgulen.com/questions-and-answers/2121-what-is-qunity-of-beingq-wahdat-al-wujud-does-it-conform-in-any-way-to-the-teachings-of-islamq

     


    By Atif Habeeb - 5/26/2014 5:04:46 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus
    if you don't want to talk it is fine. but reference from Ahadith is due. you didn't produce any verse or Hadith in your support but just a book from a Sufi.
    Stay happy.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/26/2014 4:52:49 AM



  • Rational,

    One point to you. You've managed to exasperate one into declaring "katti", hahahaha. 

    By secularlogic - 5/26/2014 4:41:20 AM




  • Allah is everywhere

    Some people imagine that they themselves, matter and the world they see all around them are all absolute beings. But they regard Allah (surely He is beyond that) as an imagination pervading that absolute matter. Or else, since they cannot see Him with their own eyes, they say: “Allah must be somewhere we cannot see, in space or far away from human eyes.” (Surely Allah is beyond that.) But these are all grave errors.

    Because Allah is everywhere, not just in the sky. As the sole absolute being, Allah enfolds the whole universe, all people and places, the heavens and everywhere. And Allah is manifested in the whole universe. According to the hadith, our Prophet (saas) said that someone who said that Allah was in the sky was telling the truth. But this account in no way conflicts with the fact that Allah is everywhere. Because if someone at your location on Earth raises his hands and prays to Allah and thinks that Allah is in the sky, while someone at the South Pole turns to Allah in the same way, while someone else at the North Pole raises his hands and yet another individual in Japan, or America or Ecuador raises his hands to the sky in the same way and turns to Allah, then it is impossible to speak of any fixed direction. In the same way, if djinn, angels and demons at various points in space and the universe also pray toward the skies, it will again be impossible to speak of any fixed direction, and the situation will be one that covers the entire universe.

    We must not also forget that Allah is unfettered by time and space. Allah’s self is something different. But the manifestations of Allah are everywhere. If someone enters a room and says Allah is not there, he is denying Allah. The manifestations of Allah are in that room and everywhere. Wherever you may turn, manifestations of Allah are there. Several verses of the Qur’an state that Allah pervades all places, that He is closer to us than our own jugular veins, and that we will see His face wherever we look. For example, in verse 255 of Surat al-Baqara Allah says "... His Footstool encompasses the heavens and the earth...." Verse 92 of Surah Hud says, "...But my Lord encompasses everything that you do" meaning that Allah also pervades what people do.

    The truth revealed in the Qur’an is clear: Allah is not only in the skies. Allah is He Who enfolds and pervades all places. This knowledge is provided to us by way of the Qur’an. Describing the reality of the secret behind matter will enable people to better understand these verses. People who realize that matter is not an absolute entity will realize with complete clarity that Allah is everywhere at any moment, that He sees and hears them at all moments, that He witnesses all things and is closer to them than their own jugular veins, and that He hears the prayers of those who pray.

    Some verses of the Qur’an on the subject

    Both East and West belong to Allah, so wherever you turn, the Face of Allah is there. Allah is All-Encompassing, All-Knowing. (Surat al-Baqara, 115)

    Allah, there is no god but Him, the Living, the Self-Sustaining. He is not subject to drowsiness or sleep. Everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him. Who can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them but they cannot grasp any of His knowledge save what He wills. His Footstool encompasses the heavens and the earth and their preservation does not tire Him. He is the Most High, the Magnificent. (Surat al-Baqara, 255)

    When We said to you, ‘Surely your Lord encompasses the people with His knowledge.’ We only appointed the vision We showed you and the Accursed Tree in the Qur’an as a trial and temptation for the people. We frighten them, but it only increases them in their excessive insolence. (Surat al-Isra’, 60)

    There is no one in the heavens and earth who will not come to the All-Merciful as a slave. He has counted them and numbered them precisely. (Surah Maryam, 93-94)

    And other booty you do not yet have the power to take –Allah has already encompassed it.Allah has power over all things. (Surat al- Fath, 21)

    While Allah is encircling them from behind. (Surat al-Buruj, 20)

    We created man and We know what his own self whispers to him. We are nearer to him than his jugular vein. (Surah Qaf, 16)

    If something good happens to you, it galls them. If something bad strikes you, they rejoice at it. But if you are steadfast and have fear of Allah, their scheming will not harm you in any way. Allah encompasses what they do. (Surah Al ‘Imran, 120)

    They try to conceal themselves from people, but they cannot conceal themselves from Allah. He is with them when they spend the night saying things which are not pleasing to Him. Allah encompasses everything they do. (Surat an-Nisa’, 108)

    What is in the heavens and in the earth belongs to Allah. Allah encompasses all things. (Surat an-Nisa’, 126)

    Do not be like those who left their homes in arrogance, showing off to people and barring them from the way of Allah – Allah encompasses what they do. (Surat al-Anfal, 47)

    He said, ‘My people! Do you esteem my clan more than you do Allah? You have made Him into something to cast disdainfully behind your backs! But my Lord encompasses everything that you do!’ (11:92)

    What! Are they in doubt about the meeting with their Lord?What! Does He not encompass all things? (Surah Fussilat, 54)

    MR. ADNAN OKTAR’S REMARKS ON DESTINY, PREORDINATION AND THE FACT THAT ALLAH IS EVERYWHERE

    Adnan Oktar: The subjects on which people concentrate most are those such as the existence of Allah, death, what will happen in the Hereafter, and Destiny. In other words, no matter how much they try not to let on, this is the subject that occupies their brains day and night. Because every night, there is a film on the TV about someone dying. Even if a person sees a dead insect, it would remind him of death, and when he thinks about himself it reminds him of death again. 

    People are very troubled when it comes to destiny. There are still objections raised, even though I have talked about it at such length, they are still saying things. They say that Allah has created destiny, of course. There is Predestination, but there is also partial free will, they say, in other words a very small power unique to us that Allah - may Allah forbid- cannot control, which belongs to us. In other words, Allah does not know what we will do, or He knows, but only vaguely(May Allah forbid). And when we do something Allah shows us two paths, but cannot know which we will go down. We choose that path, may Allah forbid, with our own free will. And that comes up as a surprise information, may Allah forbid,  for Allah. That is to say something emerges that He encounters for the first time, and Allah thus tests us, and He understands accordingly (May Allah forbid). There is no such thing at all. Both Preordination and partial free will are created by Allah Himself. 

    Look, there exists just one single moment. What does a single moment in time mean? It means an infinitely short space of time. What we call “an instant” is an infinitely short time. Allah has created and completed infinite before and an infinite after within that infinitely brief moment. There is nothing to be done. There is nothing one can do. So how is that partial free will of yours not part of destiny? Consequently, such egocentric people who regard themselves – may Allah forbid- as divine, cannot get over this point one way or another. The fact that Allah has created Preordination and also partial free will disturb them for some reason. The second thing that disturbs them is the fact that Allah is everywhere. They want Allah to be up in the sky. They want Him to be in one specific point in the sky. Not everywhere in the sky, just in one specific location there. That means, relative to infinity that makes it a place that can count for nothing. Because compared to infinity, no matter how large something in a given place is, anything covering a given volume- may Allah forbid, we do not carry such a belief-  is still infinitely small. Isn’t it, it is infinitely small. It exists but is very small.

    Someone wrote in recently saying that if Allah is in our room, and everywhere in our bodies, then we must ourselves be Allah, may Allah forbid! We worship the Essence of Allah. Being a Manifestation of Allah is one thing, the Essence of Allah is different, isn’t it? We worship the Essence of Allah. Of course we are Manifestations of Allah and Allah exists everywhere. He is also in our bodies. Some people do not want Allah to be in their bodies. And they do not therefore want Him to be in the room, either. Where do they want Him? Up in the sky and far, far away. They want Him to be there, quadrillions of kilometers away, may Allah forbid!

    Why do they say it has to be like this, why do they believe in this, I really don’t understand. It means that when such people are asked if Allah is here, they would say He is not. Where is Allah? Up in the sky, but Allah is not here, they would say. Consequently, they would say Allah is not on earth (may Allah forbid), right?  They would say Allah is up in the skies but He is not here. They say only His knowledge can reach us, but not Him. They say: “we are the absolute beings, Allah is but a shadow”.

    I used to hear that in my childhood. Prove that Allah exists, they used to say. And then they would say; “Can you show a TV image, or a radio sound, or your own mind? Can you show us the inside of your mind?” Then they used to say since you can’t show your own mind, you can’t show Allah, either, that was their explanation. It is true that Allah cannot be seen or touched, and is not an object. He is not an entity with time and space. He is outside time and space. But these people’s real aim in that, is very different. For instance they say there was a young girl, and Rasulullah (saas) came by. He asked “Where is Allah?” She replied “He is in the sky.” “You are right”, said the Prophet (saas). They show this as a proof and believe that Allah is in the sky. Alright, Allah is in the sky. When a child points upward, she points to the skies and she is in Arabia. Someone at the North Pole raises his hands to the sky and prays to Allah, or at the South Pole. Someone at the Equator raises his hand. People all around the whole globe, point their hands upwards. Other entities on Mercury or Uranus and all other planetary systems also point upward. In that event, a state of affairs arises that actually covers the whole voids of space, doesn’t it?

    Since everyone everywhere raises his hand, and since the sky is everywhere. For example, for someone on Mercury, the skies is also the Earth, and when he points upward he is pointing toward the Earth. And when someone on earth raises his hands to the skies he would be pointing to another planet. For that reason, the result is a situation covering the whole 360 degrees. They have failed to appreciate that. Once we said that, these people pulled up in their tracks instantly and these peculiar beliefs were never raised again. But such people still turn up from time to time and say these kinds of things. There are still those who insist on partial free will. OK, partial free will does exist, but within destiny. It exists within the destiny created by Allah. It is created and over and done with inside destiny. You choose, you make your own choice, but it is within your own destiny. For that reason, may Allah forbid, you do not have the means to make a surprise for Allah. In other words, you cannot do anything that Allah does not know.

    You just do something that already exists, that has already happened before, that is all.

    http://harunyahya.com/en/Articles/20320/allah-is-everywhere



    By Atif Habeeb - 5/26/2014 4:37:23 AM



  • Mr Rational 
    Do not use such a derogatory word. Do not mention my name. Do what you want......I am not interested in talking to you. 

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/26/2014 4:28:41 AM



  • why I should read "Asrare Haqiqi" when the Surah Ikhlas clearly reject wahdat ul wujood?
    these philosophies are just mental gymnastics nothing to do with the Quran. Sufis have forcefully wrapped the Quran over WuW. you can keep it to your heart but don't put it into the mouth of Allah.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/26/2014 3:32:31 AM



  • dear Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/26/2014 2:51:54 AM
    instead of giving a reference book of a Sufi(Sufis introduced alien concepts and practices into the Islam) please quote from the Ahadith. make sure Ahadith are not fabricated or Hasan or Zaeef.

    it seems you give prefer Sufis over the prophet and Sahaba.



    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/26/2014 3:24:40 AM



  • "Wahdatul wujud is the matter of heart. Let it be confined to my heart."
    then don't push it into the Quran.
    it has nothing to do with the Quran.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/26/2014 3:19:31 AM



  • saqib al-hasan - 5/25/2014 12:39:01 AM
    why are you staying there? you must return to where you belong to.
    agar in buraiyon ki wajah se wahaan ki zameen phat gayee, to kiya aap bach jaaoge.
    So before such calamity occurs you should return to your home immediately.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/26/2014 2:55:06 AM



  • Please read a book "ASRARE HAQIQI" written by Hazrat Khawaja Gharib Nawaz RA for knowing wahdatul wujud.
    God is only one. This is according to Surah Ikhlas. Everything in the world is created by him. Everything is Faani, every being is dependent on the existence of God Almighty. God's existence is Laafani and self-dependent. 

    Mr Rational 
    Wahdatul wujud is the matter of heart. Let it be confined to my heart. 


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/26/2014 2:51:54 AM



  • "The SC has not erred and correctly interpreted the shariat of the Quran and relied on the following verse:"
    then why Muslims revolted against SC?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/26/2014 2:47:47 AM



  • dear mr rational, if i may please say so,

    scientists keep moving. for a scientist, there is no "eventual" or "eventually". the main thrust of science is "how". not "why". at the very cutting edge, sometimes it is difficult to sift the "hows" from the "whys"

    if one really needs to have an eventuality, it is generally portrayed as the thermal death of the known universe. but of course as scientists say they are just finding out. they didn't make it. they are just studying it. no vested interests. no school of thought. no college of priests. only inquiry.

    regards

    By hats off! - 5/26/2014 2:07:06 AM



  • "Scientists do eventually reach where sufis, rishis, munis, saints of all description, have been reclining for aeons."
    then how many scientists became believer?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/26/2014 1:25:21 AM



  • Sultan Shahin, Misbahul Huda  and Ghulam Ghaus sahibaan.
    How do you take Surah Ikhlas and wahdat ul wujood at same time?


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/26/2014 1:21:28 AM



  • Muslims invite people to Islam intellectually and with kindness; they do not terrorize countries with suicide attacks

    By Harun Yahya

    ‘Suicide bombings in Iraq killed 12 … Suicide attacks claimed five lives in Pakistan … Afghanistan was shattered by fresh suicide attacks that killed 46 people’. Regrettably, we are all too familiar with this news appearing in the world media on a frequent basis. The statistics also show that there has been an alarming rise in the total number of suicide attacks carried out.

    Political suicide attacks in the Middle East initially emerged in the 1980s, during the Lebanese Civil War, when Hezbollah began to use suicide attacks against its targets. From then on until the early 21st Century, some 200 suicide attacks were carried out in different parts of the world. Yet, it was only in the 2000s when these attacks began to grab the headlines with an ever-increasing frequency as the number of total attacks over the past three decades reached 3,500. Only in 2013, 291 suicide attacks were carried out in eighteen countries, claiming the lives of 3,100 people, marking a dramatic increase of 25% compared to previous year (with 230 attacks).

    Most of these attacks were staged in Muslim countries.  The Middle East, with Iraq coming in at the top of the list, saw too many suicide attacks to count over the last ten years. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Tunisia, Libya, Somalia, Mali and Nigeria are among the Muslim countries that are frequently hit by suicide attacks. 

    What drives the increase in the attacks? The political instability in these countries is an important factor. Despite the common assumption that suicide bombings target occupying powers, only 32 percent of the attacks were actually carried out in countries where a foreign army is present. 68% of the bombings target the own citizens of the country; in other words, innocent civilians are overwhelmingly the victims in these attacks. In countries like Iraq and Syria, the attacks are usually prompted by sectarian and ethnic differences, while in Egypt they are usually carried out due to conflicts between nationalist secular forces and Islamic groups. The suicide attacks usually target the most crowded areas like restaurants, markets, mosques, mass transportation vehicles; in other words, places where civilians can easily be found and  women, children and the elderly,  are specific targets in these attacks. But surprisingly, when the perpetrators are asked to explain the reasoning behind their actions, because of their deficient educational background and unawareness of true Qur'anic moral values, which in truth embody forgiveness, peace and love, they claim to be doing these atrocities in the name of Islam.

    Sometimes people with wrong ideas about Islam mistakenly imply that Islam allows for suicide attacks, when in truth, Islam aims for absolute peace all around the world for everyone regardless of ethnic background, religion or location. Just like how killing a person is prohibited in the Qur'an, killing oneself is also explicitly prohibited in Islam. God says in the 29th verse of Surat an-Nisa’: "And do not kill yourselves", clearly prohibiting suicide. No matter the reason or rationalization, it is illegal according to Islam for a person to kill himself.

    Committing suicide by launching a suicide attack and ending the lives of other people is most certainly against the morality of Islam. Therefore, it is impossible for a person who truly believes in God and follows the Qur'an to perform such an act. It is an outrageous offense that can be perpetrated only by those who have a very wrong idea of religion, unaware of the real morality of the Qur'an, and have no reservation in abandoning reason and conscience. These people are usually brainwashed into acting with hatred and vengeance. It is essential that everyone takes a firm  stance against such acts. 

    Suicide bombers on the other hand tend to claim that their actions are based on the Qur'an and they have even managed to convince themselves that they are serving Islam when in truth, with their actions, they flagrantly violate the principles of the  Qur'an and inflict massive damage not only on  themselves, their people and societies, but Islam itself.

    God tells us in the Qur'an that all Muslims should work to ensure the reign of goodness in the world and end  oppression and evil. However, the way shown in the Qu'ran to achieve that is not ‘through fighting’: On the contrary, God encourages responding to evil with goodness, adhering to the principles of love, compassion, understanding and patience and encouraging others to do the same. Muslims are supposed to engage in an ‘intellectual effort’ to make the whole world a place of serenity, peace and understanding for all, and urge all of  humanity to have such an approach. In other words, Muslims’ only actions will be ‘making an intellectual effort to spread their ideas’; it must not be done by shedding blood, coercion or bombing buses, cinemas and pizza parlors. Indeed, Muslims that know about  true Qur'anic moral values are fully aware of this fact and that is the only manner in which they go about spreading the morality and message of the Qur'an in the world. They use all the gifts of technology to spread the beauty of Qur'anic moral values, with books, magazines, movies, conferences and other similar avenues.

    There is absolutely no room for hatred, anger  or terrorism in the morality of the Qur'an and unleashing terror on another human being, guilty or not, can most certainly never be justified in Islam. Those  who stage such acts and claim that they do so in the name of Islam are indeed ignorant people with radical tendencies and either follow superstitions and interpretations that have no basis in the Qur'an.  

    God describes such people in the Qur'an as blood-thirsty people who attempt to associate hostility, oppression, lack of love, brutality, cruelty and lack of compassion with the Qur'an and try to fool people using the name of God:

    Among them is a group who distort the Book with their tongues so that you think it is from the Book when it is not from the Book. They say, ‘It is from God,’ but it is not from God. They tell a lie against God and they know it.” (Surah Al ‘Imran, 78)

    In the 208th verse of Surat  al-Baqara, our Lord explains us how we should choose peace:

    “You who have faith! enter Islam totally. Do not follow in the footsteps of satan. He is an outright enemy to you.”  The word ‘Islam’ is derived from the Arabic word ‘slm’ which has meanings such as peace, entering peace, surrendering, obedience, keeping to the right path, being content with the fate created by God and brotherhood. 

    Surely, as a religion whose very name that means peace, love and brotherhood, the religion itself is the foremost defender of these concepts. Indeed, the entirety of Quran is based on peace and love. God says: 

    “Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair admonition, and argue with them in the kindest way. Your Lord knows best who is misguided from His way. And He knows best who are guided.” (Surat an-Nahl, 125)

    As explained in this verse, it is incumbent upon Muslims to invite everyone to the safe and understanding atmosphere of religion. God advises us in the Qur'an to ‘Invite (all) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching’, therefore Muslims should always adopt a ‘beautiful preaching’ in their efforts to serve Islam. 

    Adnan Oktar's piece on Al Quds:

    http://www.alquds.co.uk/?p=157691


    By Atif Habeeb - 5/25/2014 11:57:33 PM



  • Whoa! Momin attack alert! :)
    By secularlogic - 5/25/2014 10:58:33 PM



  • saqib al-hasan. you are just one step behind Talibaan. Just give actions to your thinking and lo and behold we have one more Jehadi talibaan.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/25/2014 10:41:30 PM



  • saqib al-hasan - 5/25/2014 12:55:00 AM is a lover of conspiracy theories which harms Muslims more than so called Munafiqs.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/25/2014 10:38:24 PM



  • non muslim.
    agree. all comments don't need responses but it is worth to see why silence on such comments while comments of less significance draw more responses.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/25/2014 10:36:17 PM



  • muslimah - 5/25/2014 1:00:13 AM
    many of your imams (ancient and recent) fall into the category of Munafiqeen. if you read them they call each other liar and jahil.
    Whole Islamic world is full of Munafiqeen. Who knows you may be one of them!

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/25/2014 10:33:31 PM



  • Abdul - 5/25/2014 12:44:02 AM
    thank you very much. when Muslims use this kind of terminology against their opponents, they put more bloats on the chador of Islam.
    you can pour as much you can.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/25/2014 10:20:40 PM



  • Poetic expansiveness and metaphysical speculations such as Wahdatul wajood and  Waḥdat asḥ-Shuhūd may be harmless in themselves but they should be kept separate from religion. We do not need to add any more controversial topics to Islam.


    Hinduism too is rich in such metaphysical concepts ("Those who see Me in everything and see everything in Me, are not separated from Me and I am not separated from them." - Gita). Indulging in such metaphysical explorations must be satisfying to our egos but they provide only illusions of knowledge, not real knowledge.



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/25/2014 2:23:44 PM




  • Nafi-e-Hasti Ek Karishma Hai Dil-e-Agah Ka
    ‘LA’ Ke Darya Mein Nihan Moti Hai ‘ILLALLAH’ Ka


    The denial of Existence is the Love’s gesture of the informed heart
    In the river of 'La' is concealed the pearl of 'Illallah'


    -- Allama Iqbal in Bang-e-Dara: A Tribute to Swami Ram Tirath

    http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.in/2011/03/bang-e-dra-066-sawami-raam-tirath.html


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/25/2014 8:14:05 AM



  • The difference in the arguments when people debate the concept of 'wahdat-ul-wujood' is often only in semantics because of ambiguous language. Literally, ‘wahdat-ul-wujood’ means unity of existence and there is no doubt that this is true when we consider all of creation. As I said before, there is much in common between the human gene and that of animals and we even share 25% of our genes with a grain of rice. If we are what we eat, then it is clear that each one of us contain some part within us of what exists outside us. The relation between matter and energy is far more obvious when we consider biological processes. We convert what we eat into energy which is expended as part of the process of living and convert part of it into stored energy in the form of flesh, muscle, bone or fat. The controversy comes when this unity is extended to the ‘Creator’ for which we find no evidence or support from the Quran. God manifests through His creation and the Quran says the same thing by referring to the ayats of God or the signs of God while describing the wonders of creation. This is clearly not the same as saying that God exists in everything. But for the fact that the Quran categorically rejects the idea of Jesus (pbuh) as the ‘son of God,’ there is far greater ‘evidence’ in the Quran for someone to jump to the erroneous conclusion that Jesus is son of God!

    (4:171) O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

    While the verse clearly says that Jesus is ‘His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him’, the verse also disabuses all notions of Jesus being the son of God and stresses on the Tauheed (unity) of Allah by saying   ‘for Allah is one Allah’. The unity of Allah is distinct from the Unity of Allah’s creation which is further confirmed by ‘To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth’. Belonging is clearly distinct from being. We are not part of whatever belongs to us or part of what we create although people may recognize us in our works such as in our writings, paintings, compositions, voice etc.

    Further, we have in surah Ikhlas:

    (1)    Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; (2) Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; (3) He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; (4) And there is none like unto Him.

     

     


    By Observer - 5/25/2014 5:16:51 AM



  • Wahdatul wajood is the essence of all religions, all spiritualism and now science, which is trying for half a century to prove the Theory of Everything. Those who love humanity and all creation of God will do so without knowing, believing in wadatul wajood but some others too might take the path of love if they came to be convinced of Islamic, indeed every religion's and all forms of spiritualism's basic concept of tauheed understood as wahdatul wojood.
    lt is not a difficult philosophy to understand. Sufia-e-karam reduced it for our better understanding to: zarre zarre mein Khuda hai.
    It cannit be understood by a rational mind, until scientists succeed in their quest, to understand. It requires a  heart and intuition to believe this, know this. The least rationalists can do, even reason will tell me this, that not every one has to be coldly rational like them. That there are some people in this world, who use heart and intution, not just logic, to understand things. Leave them alone as they should leave you alone. Scientists do eventually reach where sufis, rishis, munis, saints of all description, have been reclining for aeons.


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/25/2014 4:35:05 AM



  • I have just gone through the SC judgement on the Shah Bano case in detail. The SC has not erred and correctly interpreted the shariat of the Quran and relied on the following verse:

    2:241
    And the divorced women, too, shall have [a right to] maintenance in a goodly manner: this is a duty for all who are conscious of God.

    This applies to women divorced for no fault of theirs and until their remarriage.

    There are other verses that deal with all cases of divorce such as maintaining the wife for the period of iddat in the same manner as before, supporting a divorced wife for two years for the weaning period if they have a child etc.

    Beyond those specific periods of iddat and weaning period, verse 2:241 would apply and the SC has done so. It's verdict was as per the shariat and that is what the SC also maintained. The government's ordinance failed to achieve anything, since the SC has successfully maintained its position on the subject and the fact that their verdict does not violate the shariat.


    By Observer - 5/25/2014 1:24:58 AM



  • my comment gives you more detailed than you, bhai abdul aur saqibul hasan ...........reeeedd

    The Signs of a Hypocrite in Islam:

     

    The Signs of a Hypocrite in Islam:

    Abdullah ibn ‘Amr (RA) says that Rasulullah (SAW) said: “Four traits whoever possesses them is a hypocrite and whoever possesses some of them has an element of hypocrisy until he leaves it: the one who when he speaks he lies, when he promises he breaks his promise, when he disputes he transgresses and when he makes an agreement he violates it.” (Muslim and Bukhari)

    1)  Other wordings of this same hadith: “The signs of the hypocrite are three: when he speaks he lies, when he promises he breaks his promise and when he is entrusted he betrays the trust.” (Bukhari and Muslim)

    “…even if he prays and fasts and imagines that he is a Muslim.” (Muslim)
    2) Nifaq (hypocrisy): in the Arabic language means the general category of deception, scheming and presenting an outward appearance of good while concealing its opposite.
    3) In the Shari ‘a, nifaq is of two types:
    a) Greater (An-Nifaq Al-Akbar):
     To present an outward appearance of belief in Allah, his Angels, his books, his messengers, the last day, etc. while concealing within that which negates all or some of that. This is the hypocrisy which Rasulullah (SAW) confronted during his life and the ones who Allah said in the Qur’an that they are in “the lowest depth of hell-fire”.
    b) Lesser (An-Nifaq Al-Asghar) or hypocrisy of action: To present an outward appearance of good and good deeds while concealing within that which negates that. This form of hypocrisy is built on the 5 things mentioned in the hadith at hand.
    4)  The actions in this hadith are all part of lesser hypocrisy: One who has these character traits in interaction with other people is most likely to have them with regard to Allah and his Prophet’s (AS’s). That is why the existence of them is a ‘sign’ of the existence of greater nifaq.
    5) Lying. Al-Hassan Al-Basri said: “Nifaq is the difference between the inner and the appearance, between statement and action and between entering and leaving and it used to be said that the foundation of nifaq upon which it is built is lying.”
    6) Breaking Promises. This falls into two categories: a) Making a promise with no intention of keeping it. Al-Awaa’il said that one who says “I will do such-and-such Inshallah” without intending to do it has committed both lying and breaking a promise.
    b) Making a promise intending to keep it and then later deciding to break it.
    7)  Transgression in Dispute: The main meaning of ‘transgression’ here is to intentionally speak other than truth making truth falsehood and vice versa. Lying “calls to” this as in the hadith: “Beware of lying for lying guides to transgression and transgression leads to the fire.”  (Bukhari, Muslim). Rasulullah (SAW) said: “The most hated of men to Allah is the one given to fierce and violent disputation.” (Bukhari, Muslim) Rasulullah (SAW)) said about the one who takes what is not his through clever speech has only been given a piece of the fire.
    8) Breaking Agreements. Allah said:

     وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا مَالَ الْيَتِيمِ إِلَّا بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ حَتَّىٰ يَبْلُغَ أَشُدَّهُ ۚ وَأَوْفُوا بِالْعَهْدِ ۖ إِنَّ الْعَهْدَ كَانَ مَسْئُولًا

    “And fulfill your agreements for verily agreements will be asked about.”(Surah Al-Isrâ 17: 34)  

    Allah says: وَأَوْفُوا بِعَهْدِ اللَّهِ إِذَا عَاهَدْتُمْ وَلَا تَنْقُضُوا الْأَيْمَانَ بَعْدَ تَوْكِيدِهَا وَقَدْ جَعَلْتُمُ اللَّهَ عَلَيْكُمْ كَفِيلًا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ مَا تَفْعَلُونَ

    “And fulfill Allah’s agreement when you have made an agreement and don’t violate your oaths after they have been established and you have made Allah your guardian (therein).” (Surah An-Nahl 16: 91)

    The most serious oath to dishonor is the oath of allegiance to the khalifah of the Muslims.
    9) Betraying of Trusts: When a Muslim is entrusted with something, he must do his best to protect it. Allah said:
     يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَخُونُوا اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ وَتَخُونُوا أَمَانَاتِكُمْ وَأَنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ

    “O ye that believe! Betray not the trust of Allah and the Messenger, nor misappropriate knowingly things entrusted to you.” (Surah Al-Anfaal 8: 27)
    10) These issues have all been connected to hypocrisy in the Qur’an:
    a) Surah Al-Munaafiqoon 63: 1-2 (Lying, breaking oaths)
    إِذَا جَاءَكَ الْمُنَافِقُونَ قَالُوا نَشْهَدُ إِنَّكَ لَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِنَّكَ لَرَسُولُهُ وَاللَّهُ يَشْهَدُ إِنَّ الْمُنَافِقِينَ لَكَاذِبُونَ

    َ اتَّخَذُوا أَيْمَانَهُمْ جُنَّةً فَصَدُّوا عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ۚ إِنَّهُمْ سَاءَ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ

    “When the Hypocrites come to thee, they say, “We bear witness that thou art indeed the Messenger of Allah.” Yea, Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His Messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the Hypocrites are indeed liars.They have made their oaths a screen (for their misdeeds): thus they obstruct (men) from the Path of Allah. Truly evil are their deeds.”
    b) Surah At-Taubah9: 73-77 (False oaths, breaking promises (to Allah), lying) 

      يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ جَاهِدِ الْكُفَّارَ وَالْمُنَافِقِينَ وَاغْلُظْ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ وَمَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ ۖ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ

    يَحْلِفُونَ بِاللَّهِ مَا قَالُوا وَلَقَدْ قَالُوا كَلِمَةَ الْكُفْرِ وَكَفَرُوا بَعْدَ إِسْلَامِهِمْ وَهَمُّوا بِمَا لَمْ يَنَالُوا ۚ وَمَا نَقَمُوا إِلَّا أَنْ أَغْنَاهُمُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ ۚ فَإِنْ

    يَتُوبُوا يَكُ خَيْرًا لَهُمْ ۖ وَإِنْ يَتَوَلَّوْا يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللَّهُ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ ۚ وَمَا لَهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ مِنْ وَلِيٍّ وَلَا نَصِيرٍ

    ۞ وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ عَاهَدَ اللَّهَ لَئِنْ آتَانَا مِنْ فَضْلِهِ لَنَصَّدَّقَنَّ وَلَنَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ فَلَمَّا آتَاهُمْ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ بَخِلُوا بِهِ وَتَوَلَّوْا وَهُمْ مُعْرِضُونَ

      فَأَعْقَبَهُمْ نِفَاقًا فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ يَلْقَوْنَهُ بِمَا أَخْلَفُوا اللَّهَ مَا وَعَدُوهُ وَبِمَا كَانُوا يَكْذِبُونَ

     “O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeedThey swear by Allah that they said nothing (evil), but indeed they uttered blasphemy, and they did it after accepting Islam; and they meditated a plot which they were unable to carry out: this revenge of theirs was (their) only return for the bounty with which Allah and His Messenger had enriched them! If they repent, it will be best for them; but if they turn back (to their evil ways), Allah will punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: They shall have none on earth to protect or help them. Amongst them are men who made a covenant with Allah, that if He bestowed on them of His bounty, they would give (largely) in charity, and be truly amongst those who are righteous But when He did bestow of His bounty, they became covetous, and turned back (from their covenant), averse (from its fulfillment). So He hath put as a consequence hypocrisy into their hearts, (to last) till the Day, whereon they shall meet Him: because they broke their covenant with Allah, and because they lied (again and again).”

    c) Surah Al-Ahzaab 33: 72-73 (Betraying trusts)
    إِنَّا عَرَضْنَا الْأَمَانَةَ عَلَى السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَالْجِبَالِ فَأَبَيْنَ أَنْ يَحْمِلْنَهَا وَأَشْفَقْنَ مِنْهَا وَحَمَلَهَا الْإِنْسَانُ ۖ إِنَّهُ كَانَ ظَلُومًا جَهُولًا

    لِيُعَذِّبَ اللَّهُ الْمُنَافِقِينَ وَالْمُنَافِقَاتِ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ وَالْمُشْرِكَاتِ وَيَتُوبَ اللَّهُ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتِ ۗ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا

    “We did indeed offer the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth and the Mountains; but they refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof: but man undertook it, He was indeed unjust and foolish, (With the result) that Allah has to punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the Unbelievers, men and women, and Allah turns in Mercy to the Believers, men and women: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
    11) Umar (RA) mentioned Rasulullah (SAW) saying: “The thing from which I fear for you the most is the knowledgeable hypocrite.” Umar (RA) was then asked: “How can a hypocrite be knowledgeable?” Umar (RA) answered: “He speaks with wisdom but acts with injustice.”

    12)  Ibn Umar was told: “We enter the presence of the ruler we speak to him other than what we say after we leave.” Ibn Umar said: “We used to consider that hypocrisy.” (Bukhari)
    13) Ibn Abi Malaika said: “I encountered thirty Companions of Rasulullah (SAW)) every one of them fears hypocrisy for himself and Al-Hassan Al-Basri used to say about it: “No one fears it but a believer and no one feels safe from it but a hypocrite.” (Bukhari)
    14) Another aspect of hypocrisy:  to do apparently good deeds with wicked intentions. Allah said:

    وَالَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا مَسْجِدًا ضِرَارًا وَكُفْرًا وَتَفْرِيقًا بَيْنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَإِرْصَادًا لِمَنْ حَارَبَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ مِنْ قَبْلُ ۚ وَلَيَحْلِفُنَّ إِنْ أَرَدْنَا إِلَّا الْحُسْنَىٰ ۖ وَاللَّهُ يَشْهَدُ إِنَّهُمْ لَكَاذِبُونَ

    “They set up a Masjid for the purpose of harm, Kufr, creating division among the Muslims and as an outpost for those making war against Allah and His Prophet before this and they will swear “We only intended good.” And Allah bears witness that they are liars.” (Surah Taubah9: 107)
    15) Allah says:

    لَا تَحْسَبَنَّ الَّذِينَ يَفْرَحُونَ بِمَا أَتَوْا وَيُحِبُّونَ أَنْ يُحْمَدُوا بِمَا لَمْ يَفْعَلُوا فَلَا تَحْسَبَنَّهُمْ بِمَفَازَةٍ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ۖ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

    “Do not imagine that those who are joyful with what they have done and love to be praised for that which they did not do – do not imagine them to be safe from punishment – and theirs is a painful punishment.”  (Surah al-Imraan 3:188)

    “Inshallah we KEEP the PROMISES and OATHS that we take, May we be saved from hypocristy. aameen Thuma Aameen”


    By muslimah - 5/25/2014 1:00:13 AM



  • non muslim,  secularlogic, rational mohammed yunus, these three names are of only one man hiding identity ................ they are hypocrites, liars, foolish, they think whole world is foolish,,,,,,,,,,,,,,they seem to be like spies........that one man is using his muslim identity but he hates islam, muslims for being paid money, dollars,  .....who is? he knows................
    By saqib al-hasan - 5/25/2014 12:55:00 AM



  •  rational mohammed yunus
    you are a hypocrite. 

    By Abdul - 5/25/2014 12:44:02 AM



  • Today's Muslim hypocrites:

    Since I lived all of my adulthood so far in the West, and had the chance to learn about the life style of the Arabs and Muslims who are living in the United States, I think I can safely declare that more than 95% of the Arabs and Muslims in the US are indeed hypocrites!  They declare that they are "Muslims" with their mouths, but they have deserted Islam with their culture and ridiculous life style, and liberal beliefs.

    Allah Almighty is currently cursing them.  The Muslims in the West are known to be more and more materialistic.  They demand too much money when it comes to marriage, and they love to show off.  They are also very disrespectful and despising to Islam, too ridiculously open to a point where many of the Muslim women wear inappropriate and too revealing cloths, and carry very dangerous liberal beliefs that contradict Islam in every way.

    They view Islam as something backward that must be fought, and they use the Taliban and other Muslim extremists as an excuse to their evil actions and life style that they adopted.  The Talibans and the extremists from the Muslims who despise women and humanity in general, don't represent much of  Islam, if they even represent Islam at all.  But unfortunately today, if a Muslim doesn't have the "extremists" beliefs, then most likely in the West, he/she would be a hypocrite one; one who adopted the evil life style and liberal beliefs.

    So while I personally strongly disagree with the Muslim extremists and their life style, but I must admit that they are far better than the majority of those who are not.   It is very difficult to find moderate Muslims today, even in the Muslim countries themselves, because I see everyday on my Arabic Satellite TV how the Arabs are becoming more and more Westernized in the negative way.  They are too materialistic, and social morality is endangered.  It is common these days to see "boy friends and girl friends" in the Arab world.  It is common to hear about illegal sex.   It is common to see inappropriate cloths being worn by both men and women.  Even tattoos and men growing their hair; even beyond the shoulder level, are becoming normal in the Arab and Muslim world today!  It wouldn't even surprise me if homosexuality is on the rise over there!

     


    By saqib al-hasan - 5/25/2014 12:39:01 AM



  • @Rational

    :-)

    Well, I commented to the whole section of people. It was just pivoted around his comment.

    Sometimes it's important that others read, rather than respond. Right?

    By non muslim - 5/25/2014 12:21:15 AM



  • Abdul - 5/24/2014 11:08:49 PM
    yeh site chhui mui (touch me not plant) logon ke liye nahi hai. apne jaise logon ko bhi is site se bachaayen. kitna kamzor imaan hai jo halke jhonke se bikhar jaaye.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/24/2014 11:44:40 PM



  • koi fayda nahi hai is site par aane ka. jo allah pak uske rasoole pak aur uske deen se muhabbat karta hai uske liye ye behtar ki ye site chor de......apne kaam me lag jaae allah pak khud apne deen aur apne bande ka muhafiz hai.......
    By Abdul - 5/24/2014 11:08:49 PM



  • non muslim - 5/24/2014 7:56:42 PM
    you are the first to comment on the comment of mr ghulam m. you will notice deafening silence from the Sufis of this site. how can they comment on such daring comment!
    when everything associated with Islam is just perfect  and it is complete only God preferred deen, such comment is tantamount to denial of Islam.
     

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/24/2014 9:53:43 PM



  • Mr observer . this kind of language suits to you. keep it up

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/24/2014 8:53:03 PM



  • Observer - 5/24/2014 7:38:35 AM
    i am not astonished at all. how much you will stoop.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/24/2014 8:42:01 PM



  • "

    Religions should have no say regarding laws on marriage, divorce, taxation, treatment of war prisoners, slavery etc. These are all temporal matters and should be determined by contemporary and representative men of wisdom.


    Religions deal with spirituality, worship,  ethics and morals in general terms and tell us that our laws and our behavior should be righteous, just, rational and compassionate."


    That's a wonderful idea. An Idea that is entrenched in Eastern or Dharmic religions.

    But it contradicts completely with Abrahmic religions to an extent and goes completely against Islam which is seen as a Deen.

    And an overwhelming majority of Muslims (not just Mullahs) are insecure about such ideas and will disagree with this idea.

    I don't see why though, because it works perfectly in western countries where Muslims are happier than their native countries.

    Most unfortunate part is people take Islam as a complete and perfect way of life. This is holding back a lot of its followers.


    By non muslim - 5/24/2014 7:56:42 PM



  • Let us leave Wahdat ul wujood to idle philosophers. It is just a plethora of words and a waste of time.



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/24/2014 2:14:54 PM



  • Religions should have no say regarding laws on marriage, divorce, taxation, treatment of war prisoners, slavery etc. These are all temporal matters and should be determined by contemporary and representative men of wisdom.


    Religions deal with spirituality, worship,  ethics and morals in general terms and tell us that our laws and our behavior should be righteous, just, rational and compassionate.


    Let us protect our religion (mazhab) from being weighed down by a host of burdens that men themselves should bear. We need a mazhab, not a deen!



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/24/2014 2:08:25 PM



  • Mr Non Muslim,

    Of course every religious group has had its violent movements. But very few of them sought validation in their scriptures. One must distinguish between the two. Even atheist communist countries go to war. 

    It is only Islam which exhorts its followers to adopt violence to spread, ironically, the geographical area under 'the kingdom of peace'

    Another factor that separates Islamic community from other communities is in the nature of its evolution. While most other faiths are making attempts, some successful, some not so, in breaking away from or toning down the aspects of their religion that is not in keeping with the values and customs of evolving society, we see no such attempts among the muslims. If anything, they are regressing in the name of "Islamic code" ; As a result they go about looking like someone straight out of the bedouin era with their bushy beards and floating pajamas and their womenfolk of all ages draped in stifling black shrouds. Of course they stick out like sore thumbs. The outward signs are taken by most to be a manifestation of inward radicalisation as well - which most often turns out to be a correct guess when you speak to them. 

    I do not agree with your statement that all religious groups went to war at some time, therefore they are all the same. They also stopped the warring later and moved towards peace. Muslims, on the other hand, have only turned the war into a guerilla one. Waged through terrorism and social radicalisation.

    By secularlogic - 5/24/2014 8:47:10 AM



  • Rational,

    Regarding the acts of the Boko Haramis. these are criminal. Learn to distinguish between what is unethical and what is criminal.


    By Observer - 5/24/2014 7:40:49 AM



  • Rational,

    You are a slanderer. My very precise views on reform issue wise are on record. You are nothing but a miserable liar.

    Seeing your behaviour, I can understand those who misuse blasphemy laws. Your behaviour is no different. Falsely accuse someone of blasphemy,   gather a crowd of like minded bigots, and burn the person before the truth can be established!


    By Observer - 5/24/2014 7:38:35 AM



  • a bunch people of primitive society captured captives and had sex with them. now a bunch of modern educated men is justifying that act. has no guts to call it unethical..
    mr observer consider jizia mercy and mr Ghulam ghaus think mushriks are unclean in spirit. these people are modern torch bearers of Muslim community with rusted ideas in the mind.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/24/2014 6:10:25 AM



  • mr observer
    why are you talking about reform. in the past you have said Islam needs no reform.
    it is mr Sultan shahin, mr Ghulam M and like them who want reform. but how can you bring reform when everything with Islam and Muslims is just fine
    Hell with Islam and its reform.
    your knowledge of Islam doesn't remove ego from your head.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/24/2014 5:58:27 AM



  • dear non muslim - 5/24/2014 5:40:12 AM
    mr observer found a reason to call mr sultan shahin a liar. calling others liar is an age old tradition of Imams.
    if i quote it, mr observer will call me a rift creator among the pious Muslims. he has done it in past when mr mohammed yunus and he exchanged Islamic pleasantries.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/24/2014 5:51:02 AM



  • Mr Observer - 5/24/2014 5:32:53 AM
    perhaps we are incompetent compared to you. at least we are not jizia and sex with captives synthesizers. I don't do mental gymnastic to prove unethical ethical. you can continue.
    i just asked opinions of other readers on the topic and you went berserk. this is the height of tolerance of our learned scholars on diverse opinions on some important issue.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/24/2014 5:43:10 AM



  • "Neither you nor non muslim is capable of keeping the discussion at the level of the principle involved in the case."

    Nice!

    To that I will only quote what Mr. Shahin said: "Islam supremacism is so rampant practitioners don't realise they practice it. A moment's reflection would bring them to reality. But why reflect?"
    By non muslim - 5/24/2014 5:40:12 AM



  • A bunch of rabble rousers trying to reform Islam? They can't even stick to the subject. They jump from Shah Bano to triple Talaq, to sex with female slaves to Jiziya!

    When reason fails spray in all directions!


    By Observer - 5/24/2014 5:39:38 AM



  • dear hats off! - 5/24/2014 5:15:13 AM
    it is a pleasure to have you. i was missing you. i abhor discriminatory tax. i don't stand by any person who think jizia and taking captives and sex with male or female captives is ethical.
    they run in circles to prove it ethical just because ideal persons (heroes) did it with the sanction of their respective Gods .


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/24/2014 5:33:04 AM



  • Rational,

    Neither you nor non muslim is capable of keeping the discussion at the level of the principle involved in the case. 


    By Observer - 5/24/2014 5:32:53 AM



  • dear mr rational, glad to see that you still occasionally play chess with the pigeons! all the best! i miss our blazing gun republican all american humdinger three fisted supraman! (apologies to joseph heller)

    do you seriously believe that those who feel that sex with women prisoners of war is compassionate - and that the extortion of jizya from the infidels is ethical - will find anything the matter with meher and shahbano?

    i think not.
    regards.

    By hats off! - 5/24/2014 5:15:13 AM



  • Mr Observer
    you don't want the comments on shabano case because you are on Mullah side. BTW why Mehar? what is Mehar? Why other communities don't set any mehar? Is it sufficient to support the women in crisis?


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/24/2014 4:47:20 AM



  • Mr Observer
    you support inhumane laws just because they come from Sharia. Is there any positive progressive discussion in Muslim community against triple talaq?
    you are a blind supporter of rusted, stinking sharia at the cost of poor people. People like you are sympathizers of radical elements. i need not to go in search of such people, i can find one in you.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/24/2014 4:36:44 AM



  • mr Observer - 5/24/2014 3:43:46 AM
    do all others have same views on Shahbano case as you have? why  this upset you? are you afraid of others diverse opinions on this matter?
    where is the reform activity within Muslim community. if it is not the job of SC (i agree), where is any discussion on this issue. it remained limited to opposition of the SC. Has the condition of Muslim divorced women progressed?
    can a mehar of Rs 5000/- solve the financial crisis of divorced Muslim women?


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/24/2014 4:28:32 AM



  • digressing from the topic, I have to ask the Sharia words for the following terms, if anyone can help me with:

    1) complainer (or aggrieved)
    2) the defendant
    3) financial contract
    4) complaint
    5) ruling

    By non muslim - 5/24/2014 4:27:41 AM



  • @Observer

    Twisting facts won't help. Supreme court did not go beyond its powers.

    It was well within its powers and that's why the government covered behind the Mullahs to punish a hapless woman (and every woman after her) to change the law itself.

    Sharia is unjust in many cases related to women. And hence either changes are required in Sharia or complete removal of MPL and implementation of UCC.

    Sharia of India and elsewhere itself is a tinkered version. For example triple talakh which is obvious to everyone who reads Quran.

    Yet Sharia had been tinkered by Mullahs to suit the menfolk IN THE NAME OF IJTEHAD several times (you just need to google to find out the cases). It's not a case of Ijtehad gone wrong. It's a case of selective use of Ijtehad.

    Without digressing. The fact that people saw injustice happening to a 80 year old woman and did nothing.

    If this was a blind support for Sharia, that also proves my point that the society is largely sympathetic to the radicalization of Muslims.

    Why doesn't all the liberal MAJORITY of Muslims oppose the Mullahs in a free country like India against an unjust triple talakh law?

    You can twist as much as you like, a large section of Muslim society is radicalized (at various levels).

    Mr. Shahin is right in this. This also reflects on the poor performance of Muslims in every field and why they have, unfortunately, not been able to enjoy the 8-9% growth.

    By non muslim - 5/24/2014 4:23:34 AM



  • Rational Yunus is just a rabble rouser.  It is not the job of the SC to reform and this is not the way to reform. Laws are for the people and the people must be involved in the reform process. Is that too much for Rational to understand?  I have explained the principle involved in the issue and not expressed any personal views for or against the law. Any reform will necessarily have to be holistic. I have explained that if a male gets twice the inheritance that of the female and if it his duty to support his female relatives, why cannot the law compel him?



    By Observer - 5/24/2014 3:43:46 AM



  • Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/24/2014 12:50:58 AM
    please re-read my comments.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/24/2014 3:33:41 AM



  • Mr sultan Shahin, Mr Ghulam M, Mr Ghulam Ghauss, Mr Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi and other readers as well should comment on shahbano case.
    Mr Observer has posted his views on shahbano case. was the opposition by Muslims in this matter right? How reform within Muslim community will come if Muslim will oppose anything change in sharia.

    What if the amount of Mehar is meager insufficient to solve the economical crisis of divorced women. what if her male relatives don't pay anything? recently a mehar of Rs 5000/- was set. how it is going to help? Nobody including Imams giving anything as inheritance to women.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/24/2014 3:10:33 AM



  • Non Muslim,

    As far as the Shah Bano case is concerned, a divorced wife is entitled to maintenance for a limited period from her husband according to the Islamic shariat besides being paid her mehar if this has not been paid already. The responsibility for her maintenance beyond the limited period  is that of her own male relatives (father/brother/uncle) and not that of the estranged husband if the woman is not economically independent. The inheritance laws are  based on the same principle that males have the duty to support the females and for this reason their share is greater. A woman is not required to support even her own children out of her means and if she does so, it counts as zakat. This is the shariat and the Supreme Court ruling went against it. If the woman needed financial help, the SC could have compelled her relatives to provide the required help. Shariat is a way of life and tinkering with it is to change the way of life. Such tinkering should not be done on a case to case basis. In the beginning we shape the laws and thereafter, the laws shape our way of life. Either shariat is accepted for implementation through courts or it is not accepted. You cannot say that Muslims are allowed to follow their  `personal laws'  and also tinker with it. It is not the job of the courts to make the law but to only implement it. The Supreme Court clearly went beyond its powers. The principle on which the SC decision was opposed is very clear. 




    By Observer - 5/24/2014 2:55:49 AM



  • @Observer

    Even that is not completely true for Pakistan. Silent majority is not silent because they are afraid, but because they have sympathy for such people. When Qadri murdered another Muslim, the majority was not silent, they hailed him.

    Pakistan is a gone case, we cannot consider that as an example for anything.

    Why in a country like India hardly a few speak up against absurd fatwas from DArul Uloom Deoband?

    There is not supporting government in UK, yet london bombings happened and those who were involved were brainwashed in London Madressahs.

    In fact, if you are not a Muslim or to make it even more clear, if you are not a hardcore bearded Muslim, you cannot go to certain streets in London where there are Muslims.

    What happened in Shah bano case? Where was the society protesting against a historical injustice to a poor woman which would have a profound, long lasting impact on the future of Muslims.

    Contrary to that all Mullahs became united and militant and forced a naive Rajiv Gandhi to pass an unjust law. These Mullahs do come from society. They are not taught in Pakistan.



    By non muslim - 5/24/2014 2:18:23 AM



  • Non Muslim,

    The loosening up starts and has started from the top. Once a few elements get encouragement they can organize anything. In Pakistan, even a Muslim is not safe from a false charge of blasphemy/apostasy. Once a charge is made the person is burnt alive in no time. The entire act is orchestrated and pre planned and the target is mostly innocent of what he/she is accused  of. The common man therefore has little choice but to flow with the tide or appear to flow with it or be made a target.   

    As far as Pakistan is concerned, there is complete anarchy and no law and order worth the name. An advocate dare not represent a person accused of blasphemy/apostasy,  a judge dare not acquit an accused, a journalist dare not .....You call that a society where people can be themselves? If people are not free to be themselves, how can we judge them? How can we judge the German people for example, who apparently cooperated with Hitler and with what he was doing?

    As far as politicians and their speeches are concerned, they have their chamchas placed strategically in a crowd to cheer and clap on cue. The people are also paid to attend the meeting and will clap on cue. 

    If you can, read the book "Pakistan a hard country" by Anatol Lieven

    The trouble makers are always only a few in number but they are visible and take up leadership positions. The silent majority which is good will keep silent or appear to cooperate with the mischief makers until there is a strong leader who can be trusted  and  ready to take on the trouble makers. The silent majority will then align with such a leader. However, since people have  more often than not been betrayed by leaders who flatter to deceive, winning their trust is not easy.


    By Observer - 5/24/2014 2:01:52 AM



  • What a great problem!
    Terrorists are against Islamic teachings in the name of Islam. Others are against Islam in the name of terrorism. At this stage, what would happen to majority Muslims. They are being suffocated from two sides. 

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/24/2014 1:45:41 AM



  • Mr Secular Logic

    It is not only your matter of concern but also mine. Whatever concerns me is happening in the world against true teachings of Islam from two sides; one from terrorists who are misusing Islam for wrongdoings and second from those who intend to fight against Islam rather than terrorism. We should use moderate path between these two sides. We should be together to fight every injustice taking place around the world.

    As for Islam, you know better that it encourages peaceful coexistence among all religions. All the oriental faiths have the same prescription. But the misinterpretations and unempirical observations of religions lead to the exasperation of conflicts and wars. We repeatedly see some so-called leaders of religions incite fanaticism, extremism, aggression, hate and xenophobia – even legitimise violent and bloody conflicts. The misuse of religions is often stimulated to actualise power-political dreams. We can witness barbaric acts often made in the name of religion in human history consecutively from past to contemporary.

    We have made great achievements in science yet paradoxically failed in the protections of weak nations. Arms and ammunition are manufactured that are not only capable of destroying the weak nations but even the entire humanity. Thus we are unable to resolve the war within and outside Islam. As a result, religious intolerance has caused immense injury and merciless killing of human beings. Particularly, Iraq, Afghan, Syria, Palestine and Pakistan etc are such top listed names where evils of terrorism, religious extremism, and genocide of Shiites, Ahmadis, and religious minorities as well as destruction of Islamic cultural heritage are at its peak.

    This debate needs to be dealt with carefully defeating the destructive elements of religions.  Moreover, the peace-building elements among religions should be fostered. In other words, religious representatives ought to perform their moral authority in the peacemaking. The rest of people, in return, must take cognizance of the religious factors to cooperate with religious leaders in interpreting peace. 


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/24/2014 1:42:15 AM



  • If we judge a religion by what people does, then there is not a single religion that is peaceful on earth.

    Hindus have committed atrocities against Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Muslims and Sikhs.

    Should we judge Hinduism on the basis of that?

    If we don't take a middle path, we don't go anywhere.

    By non muslim - 5/24/2014 1:34:31 AM



  • Mr. Observer

    Absolutely right solution “Extremism should be dealt with as a law and order problem”. We all Muslims and non-Muslims should be globally together to root out extremism rather than mixing it with any particular religion. This way will lead one to more extremism. All men of the world should ensure themselves that religion has nothing to do with extremism and come out hand in hand to eradicate terrorism, extremism, violence, injustice.

    We should not forget that majority of Muslims are peaceful, if we mix extremism with Islam, the terrorists can easily brainwash some of majority Muslims.    


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/24/2014 1:32:51 AM



  • Dont quote the Quran to me. The Quran also prescribes that a Muslim may not be punished for killing a non-muslim. It also prescribes the most horrifying fate for female prisoners of war.

    I will judge the religion by what I see. And what I see is - a person arrested for atheism in Malasia; atheism declared a crime equal to terrorrism in SA; a catholic woman sentenced to be hanged in some islamic country on charges of apostasy; small mentally challenged girls charged with descretion of Quran, and the whole community of catholics in the village having to flee; Kashmiri Pandits deprived of their homes- and taunted with threats like 'you flee Kashmir or we will kill you, but leave your wives and daughters behind" . That is how we see Islam in action. 

    By secularlogic - 5/24/2014 1:25:02 AM



  • @Observer

    I agree with most of your point about the official patronage. But to absolve the society is not correct.

    "It is not the people who sympathise with them."

    This is where you are completely wrong. Who is the government, the police and the army? They come from ordinary people.

    Even if you discount the army for the reason that they develop a different mindset, politicans, leaders and police come from ordinary people.

    There is a great deal of support to terrorists from ordinary people.

    Who garlanded Mumtaz Qadri? Who gives donations to someone like Hafeez Saeed? Who cheered when Asaduddin Owaisi was making a speech? Who abducted Hindu girls and converted them in Sindh.

    To deny this fact and to say that only a small percentage of people are at fault is meaningless. We have to accept that there is a great deal of support to extremists from ordinary people. In the worst case many people are sympathizers.

    And one important point you are forgetting is extremism is not just what Boko Haram does or Al Qaeda does.

    The fatwas of Darul Uloom Deoband or CII are also extremism only. They are as dangerous as gun totting men. Don't these people have the patronage of ordinary Muslims?

    By non muslim - 5/24/2014 1:23:48 AM



  • Mr non-Muslim
    Your latest comment is worth pondering for Muslims. 

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/24/2014 1:21:30 AM



  • The diversity of religions across the world demands tolerance and respect to the other from everyone. A close study of the holy Quran and Hadith fulfils that demand.

    The holy Quran says “And had Allah so willed, He would surely have made you one single community; instead, (He gave each of you a Law and a way of life) in order to test you by what He gave you. Vie, they one with another in good work. Unto Allah is the return of all of you; and He will then make you understand the truth concerning the matters on which you disagreed.” (5:48)

    Many wonder how we could develop tolerance and peace when there were so many differences among religions in matters of faith. This was the concern already resolved in the life of the prophet pbuh.

    Allah Almighty says “To those who do not believe the way you do, (o, prophet pbuh) tell them, “O disbelievers, I do not worship those whom you worship, Nor are you worshippers of Him Whom I worship, Nor am I a worshipper of those whom you have worshipped, Nor are you worshippers of Him Whom I worship. For you is your religion and for me is mine.”(1-6: 109). It was and is surely the most secular thought, the world had ever seen.

    As far as the Muslim world is concerned, they should remember the following verses.

    “There is no compulsion and coercion in regard to religion”. (2:256). Muslims believe in all of the prophets and are strictly prohibited from showing any point of disrespect to any prophet or religion which he taught to his followers. This verse commands Muslims not to use coercion in the religion. That is to say that Muslims are not allowed to establish forcibly their religion on the earth. The very principle was highlighted in the practice of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. This great verse guarantees freedom of worship to all religious communities. It is in tune with the Quranic spirit where God says that He has made people into nations and tribes so that they can know and deal with each other in an equal temper of kindness and generosity.

    Therefore, the mainstream Muslims accept other religions as the faith of the fellowmen no matter how incorrect they may seem to them from the Islamic point of view.


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/24/2014 1:17:01 AM



  • "Who is stopping Muslims from progressing? Why cant they limit their families, get proper employable education and skills, stop their exclusivist and non-secular dialogue in their mosques and gatherings, condone terrorism, which puts their own community under a general cloud? Why dont they allow their own women a better life, instead of putting toddlers in burqas?"

    Those are what one needs to ask and not in a rhetorical fashion but in a way that will lead to answers and take all of us in the right direction.

    Who should ask those questions and bring the changes, all of us who believe in social responsibility.

    And how do we do this, I don't have a clear answer but this site is a good start.

    In fact, I intend to, in a few months time, as I wait for something, organize an interfaith discussion in Bangalore.


    By non muslim - 5/24/2014 1:14:20 AM



  • Non Muslim,

    You are the one who is missing the point totally. Extremism should be dealt with as a law and order problem. Why waste everyone's time discussing ideology? Who cares about the ideology of psychopaths?  Their acts are clearly in violation of the laws of the country in which they operate. The government should bring them to book. It is these various governments (especially Pakistan)  who are hand in glove with them and are their sponsors. It is not the people who sympathise with them. The demand by the international community should be to hold such governments accountable and punish them with sanctions if they are not seen to be doing enough to end the scourge.

    Whether it is extremism or communal riots or any other law and order problem, these cannot flourish without official support.




    By Observer - 5/24/2014 1:14:19 AM



  • Mr Ghaus, 

    I do not need your sermon. I already practice all that, even though I dislike Islam. Your advice will serve your community better.

    By secularlogic - 5/24/2014 1:12:13 AM



  • Secular Logic sahib,

    Everyone loves his respective religion. Despite a lot of many differences, we should make peace of treaty. Whatever your religion allows or does not allow should be your personal religious matter. Whatever my religion allows or does not allow should be my personal religious matter.  Neither I nor you should make any barrier to your religious ways or mine. No force, no violence, no oppression, no injustice, equal opportunity, equal treatment regardless of religion, culture, caste should be the prime focus of our daily life.  


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/24/2014 1:08:57 AM



  • Non Muslim,

    By all means the disease must be fought. But by whom? By non Muslim and secular logic?

    Who is stopping Muslims from progressing? Why cant they limit their families, get proper employable education and skills, stop their exclusivist and non-secular dialogue in their mosques and gatherings, condone terrorism, which puts their own community under a general cloud? Why dont they allow their own women a better life, instead of putting toddlers in burqas?

    Is the way they are following going to lead to great progress? With the ideology they follow, education backs up nefarious plans, they produce even more dangerous terrorists - from country made bombs they upgrade to flying planes into buildings. Educated people on this site are sticking their heads ostrich like in total denial of Islamic terrorism. Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries, has the most regressive customs and legal systems, and in addition is totally anti-non-islamic faiths. So neither education nor properity make a jot of a difference. I see no solution in sight.

    By secularlogic - 5/24/2014 1:07:56 AM



  • That's not the point even if that is true.

    You don't fight a symptom, you fight a disease. The disease of extremism, illiteracy, unemployment, poverty, excess religion (which Islam forbids by the way).

    Salam, Namaste are symptoms, they are not the disease. Instead of talking about the disease, if we bicker on the symptom, what's the point?

    By non muslim - 5/24/2014 12:56:01 AM



  • Mr Rational

    In the previous comment you said “i don't know which philosophy is true WuW or WuS” when you do not know what wahdatul wujud is, why you have said in another thread, “you can adopt Wahdat ul Wujood contrary to the Quran's teaching”

    I am sorry but true to say that you are running with binary thinking. 


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/24/2014 12:50:58 AM



  • revulsion of Islam. I do not believe I have ever hidden it. But even with this revulsion, I have no hesitation uttering Assalam Aleikum. You are my brother, the divine spark that is in me is also in you. Even if we belong to different faiths, we share the same human and Indian DNA. History has separated us. But it has separated us so badly that reconcilation is difficult as people of your faith are becoming more and more hardline with each passing day. 
    By secularlogic - 5/24/2014 12:48:57 AM



  • Mr Secular logic

    You said “I do not adopt Islam because I do not agree with its ideology.” I do not want to say “your preference for sticking to your way stems from your revulsion of Islam”.

    Is it your revulsion of Islam or matter of choice? Please be true to your point.       


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/24/2014 12:44:43 AM



  • Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/24/2014 saheb12:01:10 AM
    you failed to understand it entirely. nobody is forcing you to say namaskar/good morning etc. you are hiding yourself behind the “for you your religion and for me mine”
    it is fact Muslims in majority keep distance from local customs just for religious supremacy.
    you can adopt Wahdat ul Wujood contrary to the Quran's teaching just because of your peers but can't say namaskar just to promote some brotherhood. Religious and cultural habits die hard.
    Dai se pet chhupaana mushkil hai.
     


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/24/2014 12:37:12 AM



  • Non Muslim,

    What you see as silly bickering is only a manifestation of a larger underlying problem - people wanting to create islamic enclaves within the larger Indian ethos. If a community wants to remain different and isolated, and then make it a point of grievance that is used as justification for terrorism, it is not incumbent upon others to constantly nurse their sense of grievance and hold the larger community guilty for their self-inflicted backwardness. 

    By secularlogic - 5/24/2014 12:34:56 AM



  • Mr. Rational 
    The concept of wahdatul wujud is the subject of Awliya and Sufis. Please go to them if you want to be understood. Philosophers will get you confused. 
    What wrong with you is that you need a doctor but you are going to the one who is some one other than a doctor. 
    If you are really interested in this subject, I can suggest you more books on that.

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/24/2014 12:32:26 AM



  • Similarly,  I have only heard snatches of the Gurbani, but find them to be beautiful. In general, the Sikh faith is also very humanitarian and flexible, and has just the right amount of self-defensive norms which I feel is necessary if it is to survive in the face of the marauding invasions by other faiths. Never have Sikhs gone on rampage converting people to Sikhism, even though the religion has a martial aspect. It is easy to be friends with them. And the Parsis. And the Jains. And the Christians, if one can ignore their stealthy conversion mission.
    By secularlogic - 5/24/2014 12:31:00 AM



  • If I may say something...

    Move beyond these petty issues. These are not the problems of the world/India today.

    Doesn't matter whether one says Hello, or Salaam or something else.

    I think we Indians have fought too much on silly things, that are not important.

    My biggest concern remains how to include Muslims and Dalits into the growth that India is witnessing.

    Now this is not a simple question with simple answer. Many things come here...historical, political, social, cultural, religious factors.

    And that's where sites like this will be useful. Instead, if we go back to the same old bickering, then what's the point?

    By non muslim - 5/24/2014 12:27:07 AM



  • Mr Ghaus,

    Have you heard of the term perspective?

    From my perspective and sensibility, it is okay to be wished in any way, or not to be wished at all. Similarly, I have no problem wishing others in my way or their way. Everything is okay.

    From my perspective, your preference for sticking to your way stems from your revulsion of anything that is non-islamic.

    I do not adopt Islam because I do not agree with its ideology. And that is putting it mildly. On the other hand, I have seriously considered whether I can have a dual religious passport - Buddhism and Hinduism. Buddhism is atheist, takes the middle road to everything, is non violent, does not dictate to or bully its followers, is malleable about everyday food, dress and custom, believes in good action, and is totally secular. It is a good offshoot of Hinduism. 

    By secularlogic - 5/24/2014 12:23:46 AM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin
    it is difficult to digest the root of wahdat ul wujood in the Quran and Sunna ie Islam. However i don't condemn it. it is another way to look the world. i don't know which philosophy is true WuW or WuS. both may be untrue, one may be true  but both can't be true at one time as they are opposite in nature.
    my objection is limited to someone who says it is in the Quran. it seems the quran is near to wahdat us shahood or not clear on philosophical matter.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/24/2014 12:21:47 AM



  • Mr. Secular Logic

    “We are happy if you wish us as per our custom, or as per your custom” if you are happy, why have you said “It is mean spirited to refuse to utter a particular word because it belongs to a particular faith”?

    If I say “for you your religion and for me mine” does it give you any sense of mean spirited?  If it is mean spirited, then why do you refuse my religion?

    For example, Hindus refuse Islam. Muslims refuse Hinduism. Christians refuse Hinduism. Jews refuse Islam. Muslims refuse Judaism etc. This happens in the world. Moderation appears perfect when everyone lives peacefully despite these differences. But raising a sense of supremacy only because they are not following my religion, my custom, my ways of living makes no sense, hence no moderation in itself. 


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/24/2014 12:12:50 AM



  • Mr. Rational 
    The meaning of namaskar is "I bow to the divine in you". I only bow down in divine to God Almighty. It is my personal freedom. This does not harm you while i do it. But you want to force me to say namaskar under the pretext of supremacy.
    Please think for a short a while. The mirror you have used to describe my preferring Aadab to namaskar as supremacy. The same mirror lets me come to the point of your supremacy over me. Please do tell me Is it not your supremacy over me when you force me to say namaskar?
    The act you do not like does not mean that it gives a sense of supremacy. For you your act and for me mine. As for supremacy, I know what, when and where it happens.   


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/24/2014 12:01:10 AM



  • Mr Ghaus,

    You are mistaken. I, and most of my fellow Hindus, (or Sikhs or Buddhists or Jains) do not care whether you say Namaskaar or not. We are happy if you wish us as per our custom, or as per your custom. If you don't wish also, it is okay. Or you can say Hi. Or Bye, which is a short form of "God be with you", a parting salutation that stems from Christian culture. Language is immaterial, the spirit is what matters. And so I will have no hesitation in saying Namaskaar, or if it pleases the listener, Salaam Aleikum. It is mean spirited to refuse to utter a particular word because it belongs to a particular faith, and I think it is a reflection of the superiority complex and exclusivist thinking of the person who thinks he is going to be polluted by mere words of greeting. 

    You are free to divide the world and its people, its objects and its customs, its laws and its arts, its food and its dress into Islamic and unislamic. You are free to see the world through the prism of a religion that is foreign to Indian culture, the spirit of India. You are free to keep your people isolated from the rest of the country's population, sitting in little cesspools of 'islamic beliefs'. You are free to deny that there is any Islamic terror, while Malalas continue to be shot, girls continue to be abducted, commuters continue to be bombed and knifed, religious structures continue to be razed, minorities continue to be persecuted and killed - all in the name of Islam. 

    But then don't demand that others be obliged to feel kindly towards you, make efforts to integrate you, not hold you guilty for crimes that others commit in the name of Islam. Don't demand respect when you dont give respect. What you call respect for all religions is actually majboori. You are forced to live with non-muslims due to circumstances beyond your control, so for the sake of peace you at least have to make a show of tolerance. Apologists and hand wringers are equal partners in the crimes.

    It is people like Mr Shahin and Mr Mohiyuddin who win my respect; they love their religion, but they are also honest enough to admit to the horrible manifestations that religion can take. 

    By secularlogic - 5/23/2014 11:47:33 PM



  • Wahdat ul wujood is not understood. Nor is tauheed. What is ingrained is a sense of superiority, exclusivism. Let us look within for a while. Many revelations will come.
    By Sultan Shahin - 5/23/2014 11:08:30 PM



  • Islam supremacism is so rampant practitioners don't realise they practice it. A moment's reflection would bring them to reality. But why reflect?

    There is no field in which Muslim community is better or worse than others. We have as many truthful people or liars among us as any other religious community. If anything corruption is more rampant in Muslim countries, though Islam and corruption should be antonyms. We have as many rapists and murderers as others. We have as many honest people as others too, of course. By and large. I don't see what distinguishes us from others. Why should we feel superior? Islam itself never claims to be superior. It only says that it is a reiteration and revalidation of religions sent before.


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/23/2014 11:03:51 PM



  • Sultan Shahin saheb
    aap kyon halkaan hue jaa rahe hain? 99.9% are peacfull, represent true mainstream Islam. you need not to focus on 0.1%. Either close the site or start counting the accomplishments Muslims have accomplished in every field.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/23/2014 9:44:44 PM



  • dear non muslim - 5/23/2014 8:23:47 PM
    i endorse your comment. sympthisers are in majority. Terrorists too have contexts for the verses they use for their cause.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/23/2014 9:33:49 PM



  • I don't know why Mr Ghulam Ghaus a believer in wahdat ul wujood has problem in saying Namaskar. Somewhere in his psyche it is un-Islamic and he prefers aadab which is nowhere Islamic invented by Nawaabs

    i have no problem using any word of greeting mr ghauss uses to greet. the problem is in the reasons which stop him from using other words, which is clearly Islamic supremacy over others. I understand his problem as i had been like him.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/23/2014 8:43:51 PM



  • dear Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 4:36:39 AM
    the question is what is wrong with 'namaskar'? My Hindu friends are not restricted to Namaskar, they also greet me with Aadab, Asaalam alaikum.
    there is no problem in Aadab, but ahy you don't say Assalam alaikum to them. Are they not worthy of salaam? it seems you have religious reservation saying Salaam to Non-Muslims. this is the disease Muslims suffer from. your respect is superficial. somewhere you feel superior as a Muslim.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/23/2014 8:24:36 PM



  • @Observer

    You are missing the point entirely.

    You say the terrorists and extremists are not presenting the right Islam. I agree. But, to them that is the perfect Islam. Who is going to tell them otherwise risking being beheaded?

    And the most interesting factor is, these people are using Quranic verses to justify their actions (yes they are taking them out of context) and there is no way of giving context to Quranic verses because you cannot please all: Deobandis, Salafis, Barelvis, Sufis, Ahle Hadees, Ahle Quran...Shia/Sunni. There is a great deal of resistance to reform among a large section of Muslim community.

    Now the question how is it that they thrive in Muslim societies? They thrive because they have a vast support system or at the least sympathizers.

    These terrorists maybe in minority, but their sympathizers are not in minority. The sympathizers are in majority. Otherwise such elements simply cannot sustain in any society.

    Like Mr. Shahin says, a big chunk of Muslims, arguably a good majority, are leaning to the extreme. They are not terrorists or suicide bombers but they are sympathizers.

    No non Muslim can bring about any change because he will always remain an outsider. But the thinkers within the community start denying the problem, it won't help.

    By non muslim - 5/23/2014 8:23:47 PM



  • Observer and Ghaus Saheban, come out of denial. Look around yourself. Almost the entire community is in the grip of radicalisation. World over. Don't push the community towards suicide.
    By Sultan Shahin - 5/23/2014 12:33:15 PM



  • Ghaus Sb,

    I agree with your point that the extremists are far from the teachings of Islam and they do not represent the other 99.9%. 

    By Observer - 5/23/2014 7:33:01 AM



  • Question of love doesn't arise here. That's my point.
    And in today's media, every single news/writing is liked or disliked, sometimes to the extreme. This is not unique to this site.
    Go to New York Times, Guardian, Times of India...go to any site, you will find people fighting over the silliest thing as Aishwarya's Cannes looks.
    That is the nature of modern media.
    That does not reflect anything on the media itself.
    I think some people have a particular expectation from this site. Then such people look elsewhere to fulfill their expectations.
    But the question of love doesn't arise.
    I don't know if another comment was directed at me...
    However, if offensive comments stops people from visitng a site of disillusions them with the content and the comments, then I guess, such people should not look at any site that allows open discussion.
    Such things are a part of electronic/internet media.
    By non muslim - 5/23/2014 7:19:53 AM



  • Mr. Observer 
     Do you think is there any "Islamic terrorism"? 
    Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. Islam should never be bracketed with terrorism. 
    Boko Haram is not Islam. Al-Qaeda is not Islam. Taliban is not Islam. Mainstream Majority Muslims condemn every act of injustice, killings. Please remember the point that if you use "Islamic terrorism", it would greatly hurt those moderate Muslims. 

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 7:00:23 AM



  • Ok, then how would Muslims come to see this site and try to introspect if they see a sort of relation between Islam and terrorism being made by some commentators of new age Islam. You condemn them and expect them introspection. Is it that the way of introspection?

    One does act of terrorism and you make all madrasa students responsible for that act. This is your way of making them introspect. Then your efforts will bear no fruit.

    You can say me an spy for madrasa students and i have explored their attitudes they are very good in moral and attitude. But if you accuse them of being followers of Boko Haram what would be? Would they come to see your site? They are not ready to be depressed.

    Sorry for this harsh comment. 


    By Ravi Kumar - 5/23/2014 6:48:02 AM



  • Violence by Muslims is global news.
    Violence and killings by separatists and revolutionaries is local news which is deliberately under reported as the governments do not want a bad name.
    Look up the global data base of terrorism and you will find that incidents of Islamic terrorism are less than the proportion of Muslims in the World population.
    The TV and the newspapers report what is sensational. We end up getting a distorted view of the world. Reading magazines is a lot better since the periodic nature of a magazine is not suited for sensationalism but for analysis. Magazines therefore give a  more balanced view. Reading books is the best. These days how many people read books or magazines? We get our news mostly from the TV. The visual format with replays are most suited for sensationalism.
    NAI focuses on the worst in Islam. Do not depend upon NAI to get a balanced view of the Islamic world. In fact take a break frequently so as to avoid getting  a totally warped view of the Islamic world.

    By Observer - 5/23/2014 6:47:59 AM



  • non-muslim says "Websites don't love anybody."  then he says "the site is forcing Muslims and non Muslims to introspect and look towards the real spirit of every religion, not just Islam."
    how is it that the site does not love anyone? it wants to bring muslims and non-muslims to real mirror of every religion.
    real mirror of this site is not to love anybody? 

    By Rashid (2) - 5/23/2014 6:26:34 AM



  • Websites don't love anybody.
    If  anything some people like the site, others don't.
    I think the reason why so much violence appears is because unfortunately so much violence happens in the name of Islam.
    Real spirit of Islam is lost like a needle in a haystack.
    The site is not responsible for holding the mirror to reality.
    One should appreciate that the site is forcing Muslims and non Muslims to introspect and look towards the real spirit of every religion, not just Islam.
    By non muslim - 5/23/2014 6:16:15 AM



  • New Age Islam is a sadistic site. Only war, fighting, violence appears on this site.  it claims love on and off, but has no love for either Muslims or Hindus. 


    By Rashid (2) - 5/23/2014 5:07:14 AM



  • Mr. Secular logic,

    The reasons offered for forcing one to say 'namaskaar' are the ones that also display adamancy on religious grounds.

    Saying 'namaskar' or Aadaab or assalam alaikum is not the apple of discord between Muslims and Hindus.

     But how to make to you understand that you have displayed your own adamancy on your religious grounds. 


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 5:02:02 AM



  • Mr Ravi Kumar,

    Read the entire response. The opening line is misleading. Also, you might explore that site while you are about it and find out what kind of 'fatwas' are being pronounced on hijab, buying meat in shops that display amulets, whether marriage fixed by a man for a daughter he sexually abused is valid or not. 

    It transported me to some region of surreality. 

    By secularlogic - 5/23/2014 4:43:19 AM



  • No. No problem at all. But if you want to be especially nice, you can try namaskaar for variety. The reasons offered for not saying 'namaskaar' are the ones that display adamancy on religious grounds.
    By secularlogic - 5/23/2014 4:40:29 AM



  • When I meet any Hindu friend I usually greet him saying Aadaab (آداب) meaning respect and politeness. Is there any problem if I prefer Aadaab to Namaskar?


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 4:36:39 AM



  • "There are differences of opinion among contemporary scholars on the ruling on practising yoga. Some of them are of the view that it is not allowed at all, others are of the view that it is permissible without any reservations. Yet others differentiated between some of its practices and others; they allowed those that are in accordance with sharee‘ah and forbade those that are contrary to it."
    By Ravi Kumar - 5/23/2014 4:29:24 AM



  • You may also amuse yourself with this. Totally forbidden, and full of the most funny reasons.

    http://islamqa.info/en/101591

    Rational, do Yoga at your own risk :) It has "shameful poses", lol.

    Further information : I do Yoga sporadically. I feel great after doing it, and wish I was more regular. And no, I do not have to get up at 3.30 am and do yoga in the buff. 

    By secularlogic - 5/23/2014 4:20:22 AM



  • Anybody can google search, but here is the meaning of Namaste in detail, specially sourced by secular logic for Mr Ghaus :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namaste

    "I bow to the divine in you"

    I can guess what the verdict will be. :)

    By secularlogic - 5/23/2014 4:03:07 AM



  • What is the meaning of Namaskar/ Namaste? I will come back after offering Juma Namaz to see your answer. 
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 3:27:06 AM



  • I am not sad for the ones who have left Islam. But sometimes i feel sympathy because he has left blessing. Islam is hundred and thousand times blessings for me which i can feel. Its teachings are also beneficial for every human being. Do not think i am forcing you take this blessing. It is your own matter of choice. 


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 3:21:34 AM



  • I am not sad for the ones who have left Islam. But sometimes i feel sympathy because he has left blessing. Islam is hundred and thousand times blessings for me which i can feel. Its teachings are also beneficial for every human being. Do not think i am forcing you take this blessing. It is your own matter of choice. 


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 3:21:27 AM



  • The ways of yours and mine are different in thinking. You think that taking pride prevents one from introspection. But I am asking a question that if a Hindu or Muslim takes pride in his religion but makes more introspection, with the idea that he should make more efforts to implement peaceful teachings of Islam or peaceful teachings of Hinduism. I do not think such type of taking pride is harmful.

    As earlier said that taking pride in order to harm others, degrade others, is of course bigger harmful.

    For example, I am proud to be an Indian, but my India is still regarded backward in comparison to other countries. Thus Indians like me introspect and think a lot how to take India to the higher culmination of development. However, they are proud to be Indians. Similarly, Arabians, Americans, Europeans are proud to be in the countries they are. But they introspect how to do better for their countries.

    Mr. Rational, I understand your mind. From your point of view I agree that taking pride is harmful. 


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 3:14:30 AM



  • i don't know if he is a kuchha or pukka muslamaan. are you in the shoes of the God?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/23/2014 3:12:36 AM



  • dear ghulam ghaus
    is Islam only blessing? why are you sad if somebody doesn't understand it and leave it?
    you believe in abrogation. do you not? you have accepted it as a reality. are not some verses abrogated by another verses and la ikraha fiddeen falls in the abrogated category.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/23/2014 3:07:04 AM



  • Ghulam Ghaus sahebغلام غوث - 5/23/2014 2:47:07 AM
    it is not Hindu who talk about punishment, it is Muslim who talk about it. For Hindus any path can lead to God.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/23/2014 3:00:51 AM



  • Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 2:41:39 AM
    I often hear Hindus say assalam alaikum, inssaallh etc without hesitation. but is it true for muslims too. they have some reservations saying Namaste/namaskar. Hindus often says Allah khuda but Muslims seldom say bhagwan/ishwar. Mahatma Gandhi used to sing Ishwar Allah tero naam. they feel free to call Allah, Ishwar, khuda etc but it is not equally true for Muslims.
    our religious-socio-cultural upbringing prevent us from using the religious-socio-cultural symbols of others. Muslims went against Vande Matram. why?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/23/2014 2:58:10 AM



  • Mr Rational 

    I already pointed out that taking pride causes problem when it is done by abusing any other's religion. In other words, when it is done and meant for degrading other religions. 


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 2:56:14 AM



  • Ghulam Ghaus is not a kachcha musalman, rational bhai. his answer has satisfied me. 
    By Ravi Kumar - 5/23/2014 2:51:50 AM



  • Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث -saheb 5/23/2014 2:37:39 AM
    hue and cry is created by Muslims. taking pride prevents one from introspection which is a topic continuously talked about here. why should someone mend his ways if he thinks he is doing right and take pride in it. if a Muslim take pride in killing for honor how can you make him understand? If a Hindu take pride in following the cast system and take pride in being upper cast how he is going to introspect.
    taking pride and introspection can't go hand in hand.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/23/2014 2:49:46 AM



  • Why does he believe the verses of punishment, while he says that he does not believe Islam. 
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 2:47:07 AM



  • Mr. Rational 
    The very simple answer is that if a person rejects the truth Islam, why does he fear punishment? This is the matter binary thinking. 
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 2:44:50 AM



  • Dear Rational,

    The meaning of OM is good, as far as I know. But no matter whether Muslims chant it or not. If they chant it for taking greater benefit from yoga, no problem would happen to them, even if they do not do it. No wonder yoga can be done with different ways.

    Similarly, there are many scientists who regard Namaz as one of the best exercises, but no matter if Hindus do not do it. Let it be gone because Muslims offer Namaz for God Almighty and not for exercise.   


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 2:41:39 AM



  • Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث -saheb 5/23/2014 2:27:15 AM
    that i too do. i accept even 'parsaad' from Hindus. I don't encourage Muslims to hurt the sentiments of other people.
    I have asked "if a person rejects the truth (Islam) what is the punishment" La ikraha fideen goes against other strong verses for example the only religion acceptable to Allah is Islam. how do you explain it?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/23/2014 2:39:33 AM



  • I do not think that taking pride in anything would make something happen wrong. Hindus take pride in their religion. Christians take pride in their religion. Jews take pride in their religion. All are same, even Muslims take pride in their own religion. Their following their respective religion is tantamount to take pride in their own religion. Thanks God they are not sad like many so-called Muslims. All of them are free to take pride in their own religion, culture, family, caste, etc. Such type of taking pride does not harm. But what is harmful when it is done by abusing any other's religion.   

    Any way simply taking pride is not harmful. Then, why there is so hue and cry about it. 


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 2:37:39 AM



  • Dear Rational,

    What have you understood when I said “I respect every religion”?

    Let me explain it for you. Respecting other religions do not mean that Muslims should follow Hinduism and Hindus should follow Islam. It means not to hurt any Hindu or Muslim for religious matter, not to disturb, not to condemn and not to abuse. Hindus and Muslims should not condemn one other’s religion.

    Since, you talked about practical respect of Muslims for Hindus; I feel a humane duty to give an example of how Muslims like me are doing respect for Hindus. Many Hindu friends come to meet me. Sometimes it happens that they come while I am performing Namaz. They wait for and do not talk to me until I complete my prayer, Namaz. In the sense I believe that they respect my religious prayer, though they do not offer Namaz with me. On the contrary, when I go to meet them, sometimes I find them worship on their own way. Similarly I wait and do not disturb him until he completes his prayer. The long and the short is that neither I try to disturb the religious issues of any of my Hindu friends and nor do they make anything unlike me. This is the way of respecting. But claiming that there is no way of respect between a Muslim and a Hindu is merely the result of reading only Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, Taliban, or extremist Muslims or Hindus and thus is tantamount to break a sort of respecting relation among them.
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 2:27:15 AM



  • Majority of Muslims including Aalims believe that the Quran is preserved in the loh e mehfooz in conventional manner and they take pride in it. they believe even a single dot is preserved. events happened because they are written already. any hint going against this belief infuriates Muslims. they don't want to listen a single word against the hadith leave the Quran aside.
    I have seen anyone who starts to take interest in the Islam, he quotes hadith more than the Quran. for them they are equal. how moderates will change this mindset?


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/23/2014 2:19:12 AM



  • Ghulam ghasus saheb
    "What i feel for him is a sort of sympathy that he is unable to understand Islam and thus going to leave the blessing of Allah Almighty."
    So others are not blessed just because they left the Islam due to their inability to understand it? if they reject the truth what is their punishment?


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/23/2014 2:11:22 AM



  • dear Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 1:04:55 AM
    you are contradicting. were not there extremists at that time?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/23/2014 1:42:19 AM



  • For example, i have been taught in Madarsas but i condemn Boko Haram, Taliban and al-Qaeda etc. perhaps more than anyone else on this site. 
    It is also pitiful that some condemn Islam and Quran rather than only Boko Haram, al-Qaeda or Taliban etc. I do not understand why they do like that, whether they intend to stop hatred or lead hatred. 
    I do not wonder when any thinking Muslim leaves Islam. What i feel for him is a sort of sympathy that he is unable to understand Islam and thus going to leave the blessing of Allah Almighty.  
    "There is no compulsion in the religion" 


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 1:21:21 AM



  • I do not agree that believing the Qur'an to be preserved in al-Lawh al-Mahfuz would make one start following Boko Haram or al-Qaeda etc.
    Where was al-Qaeda and Boko Haram when the concept of al-Lawh al-Mahfuz was believed by all Muslims except Muatazala since the advent of Islam till the emergence of Boko Haram or al-Qaeda or Taliban?

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 1:04:55 AM



  • Ghaus Sb,

    First of all the concept of abrogation of verses within the Quran is an obscene concept which is capitalized by the extremists to reject verses that go against their thinking. This concept is also used by those who bend the interpretation of the Quran to suit their predilections. I reject this concept totally and unreservedly. How can people talk about abrogation and the Quran being preserved in Loh -e Mahfooz in the same breath? Is it not a logical contradiction?

    We have confirmation in the Quran that different shariat were prescribed for different people. For the followers of the Quran, all previous shariat are abrogated and replaced by the shariat of the Quran. This is to prevent the possibility of people confusing themselves and others with varying shariat in the different 'Books' and following their own desires rather than clear injunctions in the Quran. Also, the revelation of the verse of abrogation was in response to the attempt of the Jews to misguide Muslims based on their interpretations of their books. The verse of abrogation put an end to such attempts. 


    By Observer - 5/23/2014 12:52:55 AM



  • Dear Observer sb,

    What a miracle of the holy Qur’an! The unchanging laws of God Almighty are fit for the changing circumstances of the world. 

    For example you quoted a Qur’anic verse: “To each among you have we have given a law and a way of life. If Allah had so wanted He would have made you a single people (professing one faith and following one law) but He wished to test you in what He has given each of you. So excel in good deeds. To Allah will you all return in the end and then He will show you the truth of the matters in which you disagreed.”

    (Sura Maida, verse 48)

    How nicely the unchanging law mentioned in this verse is fit for the changing days of our time and in every place. 


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 12:50:21 AM



  • God Almighty has preserved the holy Quran in al-Lawh al-Mahfuz. He knew what would happen. He prescribed all the ways of living for the believers in the Quran. Some of them are very clear and some others are not clear but they are analyzed under the principles of sciences of Quran.

    The holy Qur’an gives solution to every issue taking place in the world in every time and place. But it is important to know sciences of Quran /uloom Al-Qur’an; without which certain issues of the modern world may not be better dealt with. While understanding and implementing sciences of Quran covers the causes of revelation (asbaab an-nuzool), the knowledge of makee and madanee revelations, the knowledge of the various forms (ahruf) it was revealed in, the understanding of its abrogated rulings and verses (naasikh wa al-mansookh), the knowledge of the various classifications of its verses (muhkam and mutashaabih, ’aam and khaas, mutlaq and muqqayad, etc.), the knowledge of its interpretation (tafseer), the grammatical analysis of the Qur’ân (’iraab al-Qur’ân) etc. 


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/23/2014 12:25:48 AM



  • Boko Haram is a renegade criminal group and must be brought to book. The  problem should be treated as purely a law and order issue and dealt with accordingly. Treating it as an ideological issue is to grant it some legitimacy.
     

    By Observer - 5/22/2014 11:32:39 PM



  • Observer Sb.,

    What you say makes sense. The laws of science are eternal. But does God need to  write them down in a book? Loh -e Mahfooz (heavenly tablet) should be seen only as a symbolic concept. "Written in stone" conveys the permanence of the laws of physics.

    Many Muslims however believe that the Quran is part of the Loh -e Mahfooz. If a concept is likely to be misinterpreted and if it is not of much practical value, it is best to put it on the back burner.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/22/2014 1:59:28 PM



  • GM Sb,
    “….. To each among you have we have given a law and a way of life. If Allah had so wanted He would have made you a single people (professing one faith and following one law) but He wished to test you in what He has given each of you. So excel in good deeds. To Allah will you all return in the end and then He will show you the truth of the matters in which you disagreed.”

    (Sura Maida, verse 48)

    Proof that the unchanging laws of God preserved in al-Lawh al-Mahfuz do not refer to the shariat laws since different shariat was prescribed to different people at different points in time.


    By Observer - 5/22/2014 11:00:09 AM



  • GM Sb,

    What is preserved in al-Lawh al-Mahfuz are the unchanging laws of God and these are not to be confused with the shariat laws.

    Shariat laws are for mankind and not for God and the Quran provides considerable leeway in their implementation. The only law on which the language of the Quran is uncompromising is for the punishment for adultery. The requirement of evidence for adultery is four eye witnesses and if the requirement falls short of meeting the standard, the witnesses are punished with 80 stripes. It is therefore impossible to convict anyone of adultery unless the act is carried out in public view or brazenly.

    If the laws of God were changing, then there wouldn't be a subject called "The Sciences" and no human progress would have been possible. Not only that, but there would not even be life or a livable planet such as the earth or an ordered universe. What I therefore understand by the Al-Kitab preserved in al-Lawh al-Mahfuz are the laws that govern us and our physical world. 


    By Observer - 5/22/2014 9:17:21 AM



  • Concepts such as "Al-Kitab preserved in al-Lawh al-Mahfuz", even if they are in the Quran, would not be very meaningful to rational and progressive Muslims. Hence they should be considered parts of obsurantist Islam.



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/22/2014 3:23:14 AM



  • Dear sultan Shahin
    "But are Muslims interested in changing their condition: that is the first question."
    I think not. they are not ready because everything associated with Islam and Muslims is just perfect for every time, place and situation. what probably could be wrong with a religion which is only a way of Allah for mankind?



    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/22/2014 12:39:16 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/21/2014 1:12:14 AM.
    Recently my sikh friend is attending the Yoga classes where the Om is chanted before the class starts. I am aware of benefits of the Yoga and considering it to bring to Muslim brothers. Due to my cultural upbringing chanting OM is a bit difficult. It is something cultural/religious hardening in our psyche that despite claiming the respect to all others we find it difficult to put into practice. Perhaps symbolism has more weight than the actual spirit behind the act.
    I discussed it with my friend. He told me that the teacher (a Hindu) is ready to teach the Muslims keeping the  Muslim's sensitivity in the mind. Muslims/Sikhs/Christians can utter similar sound. He has customized the course for Muslims.
    I I am trying to find a suitable way. I can overcome my sensitivity but it is very difficult my Muslim brothers because some of them think it is a cultural invasion from the Hindus. Muslims want to take benefit but have cultural/religious hitches specially in public.
    However I am getting ready to break the barrier.
    What is wrong with Om if Muslims chant it for greater benefit? Do you think it is not permissible in Islam? Doesn't your respect to all faiths motivate you to step forward to have better relations with other communities. or you fear you will loose your Muslim identity? Since you are not a Quran only Muslim, Muslim Identity is important for you at some occasions more than anything.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/22/2014 12:16:36 AM



  • @kidnapping of girls,trading of women and girls, schooling them in the college of pornography are as old as females in human society since their evolution as an only natural  source of sexual pleasure. This pleasure has been one of the greatest enemy of human society in the sphere of communal harmony. Some readers may claim this instinctive urge as naturally beneficial to mankind. To some some extent I do agree.But the fact is that all great men tried to abstain from such carnal appetite as it proved ,to them, a great hindrance in the achievement of spiritual power and inner happiness. The prophet of Islam was given full liberty by his Allah to enjoy the company of women till the last breath of his life but many of his great lovers and 'worshippers' ' did not even express any desire to marry any woman of any age; among such great men Sufiz
     of Islam in India,Pakistan ,Iran and Iraq are counted.They are believed to be the worthiest Muslims in the divine court of Allah..
    Alqaidah ,BokoHaram and such great lovers of the quran and the Sunnah are the great lovers of girls of 12years or even less than it.The hold the licence from holy Sunnah
     
    To save their girls from ignominy and cruelty the non Muslim minority would have no option but to kill them as soon as they are born as during the Jahiliya period the Arabs were doing.Then another prophet will appear on this earth to save them.A new history of Islam will begin.

    By Taqdeer - 5/21/2014 11:50:12 PM



  • Mr Ghulam Ghaus:
    If the Quran is preserved in Loh -e Mahfooz, doesn't it mean Abu lahab was bound to oppose the prophet. How could he go against what the God has ordained for him to do long before the creation of the prophet and abu lahab.
    re-interpretation of the holy text is not going to help because you can't say you are only right others are wrong. after all Maududis ,Qutubs and Bannas were Aalim Fadhils not Jahils. what about those who followed them because they themselves could not read the Quran by their own.
    It is God's fault he created a book which is bound to get interpreted the people want. Nobody knows exactly what actually Allah wants. It is the Aalim including you who is telling this is what God wants. Similarly Aalims of Boko Haram are telling their followers what is Islam. You have no basis to call them wrong for their interpretation. If the Quran is to be interpreted in order to understand it what is wrong with other interpretations.  Are not they using their own rights to interpret the holy speech. God has not whispered into your ears to tell you you are only right. your interpretation is also a guess work like all others.
    when others use the force they too follow the Quran. Those who do Dawa work peacefully  also follow the Quran. these two diametrically opposite modes can be derived from the Quran.
    For example there are verses supporting the idea of unseen knowledge of the prophets and the verses opposing it. It is only possible in the so called clear book which is not.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/21/2014 10:54:00 PM



  • Mr Ghaus,

    Your argument does not stand the test of reason. God has not created anything for anybody. Man is born without religion. He is born to parents who have a religion. Some people are born into a religion and later adopt another of their own free will; some are forced to adopt another under threat of death. If God has made everything, he has also made all religions and it is stupid to place one religion on a high pedestal. However, if we agree that religion is a man made construct, as I do, we can evaluate religions on basis of their relative merits and demerits.

    Respect is a function of the mind. It has to be earned. Not demanded. I do not care if people who have read and understood Hinduism do not respect it. Similarly, after I have professed that I have made an attempt to understand Islam, you must permit me to be a critic. You claim to respect all religions. I think it is a false claim, because it is antithetical to the philosophy of Islam.

    By secularlogic - 5/21/2014 10:48:40 PM



  • Satwagunam, 

    Thanks. Yes, the God within oneself concept is very appealing to me. Hindu philosophy gives a person the reins of his own present and future. Rather than work for Karmic gains or punishments ( a theory that is difficult to prove or disprove),it is better to just do what is right, according to dharma - the fruit of action should not be the motivator. The chaturashram system, with duties of student, householder, elder and eventual retirement spelt out, are also extremely wise. Advaita philosophy of God and Man being one and the same is my path of Hinduism. 

    But Hindu thinkers also recognised that different people have different approaches to life. the different Yogas - Dnyanayoga, Karmayoga, Bhakti Yoga - allow one to choose the path that satisfies his own soul the most. Dnyanayoga appeals to me, but I can also understand those who choose other paths. 

    I could go on and on about the beauties of Hinduism, but this is perhaps not the place to do so. I came late into religion. A catholic schooling makes catholic students religious and non-catholic students irreligious. At home, the atmosphere was very liberal. Apart from a few shlokas and the morning namaskaar, nothing was enforced, no custom was compulsary. In Hinduism, the seeker must go to the scripture. The scripture does not come running after you and regulate your existence with dos and donts and threaten you with consequences. It lets you be. It allows the existence of Charvakas. 

    Other faiths could take a page out of Hinduism if they really want to reform.

    By secularlogic - 5/21/2014 10:35:16 PM



  • Observer Naseer Saheb's insights are worth pondering over. They should be read and re-read before one makes any comment.

    All that Ghulam Ghaus Saheb is, however, implying is that God was an illiterate 7th century baddu while organsing his lauh-e-mahfooz aeons ago. The worst compiler of quotations and the worst editor that even this world could produce while there must be other worlds created by God where even more intelligent beings must live. But if, as Ghulam Ghaus Saheb implies, God was so inefficient a compiler, how did he manage to guide the Prophet (pbuh) correctly in proper sequence, tell him exactly what was needed to be said at the right time. After all, Quran was revealed by God slowly in a sequence that no longer exists. So the book preserved in lauh-e-mahfooz is this jumbled pile of quotations that exists today or the book that was actually revealed in a sequence and which early Muslims must have memorised in that sequence. What happened to that sequence?

    This brings me back to Naseer Saheb's observations. We should study them carefully. There maybe something inthem. I have only read them cursorily yet. Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb's idea of creating an essential Quran is also worth consideration. In any case, something has to be done. Otherwise, if we go by Ghulam Ghaus Saheb's ideas, the ones taught in all madrasas, we will all have no option but start following Quran in the manner of the Boko Haram, Taliban, al-Qaeda. No wonder so many thinking Muslims are leaving Islam.


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/21/2014 2:59:45 PM



  • @secular logic

    Hindu philosophy defines god as the witness in the human for waking, dreaming and deep sleep and externally power which sustain the creation, maintenance and destruction of the world. God empowers the human through thebody mind and intellect.  

    Can any body say what was his religion in his sleep.  In case a  person dreams of a hindu in his sleep has be commited sin against  religion  

    By satwagunam - 5/21/2014 10:28:17 AM



  • What is the Quran?

    (10:37) This Qur´an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.

    The Al-Kitab preserved in al-Lawh al-Mahfuz is the book of God's Laws - physical, behavioural or of cause and effect from which is derived the shariat or a way of life that is designed to produce the maximum good based on the laws that operate on us and  contained in Al-Kitab.

     God's laws are unchanging and we have several verses that confirm that God does not change His ways or none can change his Words (laws) etc. These laws are in Al-Kitab preserved in al-Lawh al-Mahfuz.

     To every prophet was given the Al-kitab and Al Hikmat. The Al-Kitab is the law and the Al- Hikmat is the explanation appropriate for the people and their context. Different shariat was ordained for different people depending upon the times and the level of their understanding and the requirements of their society but in accordance with the same unchanging laws of God.

      The Quran says that the deen was both completed and perfected through the revelation of the Quran which makes it a book of guidance for all time.

     We also learn that the Quran was revealed in a single night on the Lailutal Qadar. What was this Quran? This may have been only the bare essentials Al-Kitab to enable the Prophet to get a complete understanding of the religion while the contextualized Quran with hikmat in the form of experiential learning was revealed over a period of 23 years. The two Qurans are therefore essentially the same but differ in their form and detail.

     All the scriptures revealed at different times were for the purpose of guiding people to successful living and therefore  based on the same unchanging laws preserved in al-Lawh al-Mahfuz and in a form and to the extent that could be understood by those people and covering the realities of their existence. 

     While the revelation of the Quran was going on, people were free to raise questions and the Quran provides answers to every question.

     This is my understanding and therefore only a personal opinion and I cannot cite any scholarly references for it.


    By Observer - 5/21/2014 9:34:23 AM



  • Dear Secular Logic,

    When we say that God Almighty has created everything we mean to say everything and do not exclude anything. God Almighty has chosen Islam for Muslims and they do what Islam says.

    You seem to have hatred towards Islam. Do not do that. Though i do not follow your religion, I respect your religion. To respect other religions is Islamic. The holy Qur’an suggests the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him to say to every non-believer “to you your religion and to me mine”. This way Muslims and non-Muslims can coexist peacefully.  But you want me to change my mindsets. I will not change my mindsets. 


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/21/2014 4:38:00 AM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin Sb,

    In all our Madarsas this is unanimously agreed upon that the holy Qur’an was preserved in al-Lawh al-Mahfuz (the Preserved Tablet) before it was revealed to the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. I also believe the same. The holy Qur’an has clearly described this fact in the following two verses: 

    “Surely, this is a Glorious Qur’an (which is being sent down on the most Glorious Messenger [blessings and peace be upon him]). It has been (inscribed) in al-Lawh al-Mahfuz (the Preserved Tablet) before this” (56: 77-78)

    “It is indeed the Glorious Qur’an, (Inscribed) in the very Well-guarded Tablet (al-Lawh al-Mahfuz) (85: 21-22)

    To say it is the miracle of the Qur’an or the matter of the unseen knowledge of God Almighty that he knew what would happen in the era of his beloved prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. He preserved his holy book in al-Lawh al-Mahfuz (the Preserved Tablet) before its descent (nuzul) and revealed it to his prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, in its context. Thus it is also clear that some verses of the holy Qur’an have its particular contexts and situations.

    The problem arises only when some so-called radical Muslims disregard the context of Qur’anic verses and miscontextualize them for their foul intentions.
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/21/2014 4:12:17 AM



  • Sultan Shahin sahib,...

    I do not know whether making the Quran "a creation of God" would make much difference. A scrutiny of the compilation that took place several years after the Prophet's death by people who had no expertise in compiling or editing may be worthwhile at some point, although at this time our community is not ready for such an undertaking. God's Commandments to Moses consisted of only one page. Jesus's Sermon on the Mount is only four pages. Instead of saying that the Quran is the word of God we should perhaps say that the word of God is in the Quran, but one has to find it and write it in simple, plain and exhortative language, exemplified by the First Commandment to Moses: "Thou shalst not kill".

    The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount must be taught in our madrasas. After all both Moses and Jesus are our Prophets too.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/21/2014 3:34:53 AM



  • Mr Ghaus:

    God has created everything, which means he has also created Hindu chants. Why must they be replaced with Muslim chants while doing Yoga? Is Hindu God different from Muslim God? Will the Muslim suffer instant death if he utters "Om"?

    It is the effort of seemingly more peace loving people like you to put everything in Islamic mould in order that it becomes "halal" that is extremely annoying.

    By secularlogic - 5/21/2014 3:14:36 AM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin: "Why the Quran can be misinterpreted by so many people (including Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Al Shabab, Talibans etc) is a serious problem that we cannot escape considering. Saying that these people are wrong is not enough. Why are so many Muslims violent, irrational, backward in education and science, subjugators of women and disrespectful of other religions? Is it something about the religion itself or is it about how it is taught? What kinds of bold and radical corrective actions are necessary? Is it un-Islamic to ask such questions?"

    Very good and perhaps most important and urgent questions before Muslims. However, these are also questions that Muslims are not willing to or dare not ask.

    I would take this opportunity to repeat what I said in another thread. A beginning can be made from declaring Quran a creation of God, rather than "an uncreated" being, divine in itself, parallel to God, as is taught in all our madrasas, making all its exhortations sacrosanct regardless of context. Then, of course, a lot more is required to be done. But are Muslims interested in changing their condition: that is the first question.


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/21/2014 1:54:41 AM



  • Using Boko Halal in reply to Boko haram is a solution. but for that to be true, you have to take cooperation from governmental departments. governments ought to say the same in reply.
    By Ravi Kumar - 5/21/2014 1:49:11 AM



  • Dear Mehnoor,

    Allah Almighty says, “Allah has created you and all your doings” (37: 96).  It means that He almighty has created every man and all his doings. But according to a hadith, Muslims should take good and leave evil.

    It is important to note that maintenance of health is of great importance in Islam. There are many physical exercises, in addition to yoga. Yoga is a good exercise and can have its legitimacy from Islamic jurisprudence if it is used with Muslim chants like reciting Qur’anic verses, remembering God Almighty and his beloved prophet Muhammd peace be upon him etc. 

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/21/2014 1:35:39 AM



  • Dear Ghaus, 
    How has yoga been created by God Almighty? you please explain it.

    By Mehnoor - 5/21/2014 1:14:31 AM



  • Mr. Secular logic
    What is the need of the hour?  You comment has confused me. Why should i not use 'Islamic'? Please explain it.
     
    As for yoga, Muslims can take the benefits of this physical exercise by doing it with Muslim chants. They know that everything in the world is created by Allah Almighty.  


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/21/2014 1:12:14 AM



  • Mr. Secular Logic,

    I should not change my mindsets.
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/21/2014 12:45:27 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin sb,

    Violence, irrationality, lack of education and science, degradation of women and disrespect towards other religions are such consequences that are all because of un-Islamic attitudes being instilled in Islam by both radical so-called Muslims and non-Muslims.

    They are not Muslims who are on such un-Islamic path. The corrective actions should be taken by refuting their false ideas and even stop calling them Muslims. How can they be Muslims while they are rejecting the teachings of the holy Qur’an and Hadith? They should be disassociated from Islam.

    Our Muslim intellectuals are somewhat apologized. On the one hand they refute the terrorist ideologies of some so-called Muslims, describing them as the rejecters of the Qur’an; on the other hand, they call them Muslims.  


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/21/2014 12:38:12 AM



  • Mr Ghaus

    Instead of twisting oneself into knots saying everything that is desirable in modern life is "Islamic", I think you should try to change mindsets. 

    Currently, even the doves among the Muslims like you try to moderate the dialogue by saying something must be allowed because it is Islamic. The need of the hour is to say that something must be adopted for its intrinsic goodness and value, rather than on basis of whether it is Islamic or not. 

    Yoga, for instance. The benefits of this physical exercise are well known, and proven, and are there for the benefit of all mankind. It has Hindu chants because it was developed in a culture that was Hindu. Are you going to recommend that Muslims do not do yoga because it is, obviously, an unislamic science? Or are you going to struggle with an argument that it is islamic because the prophet said that Muslims must always strive to be the best they can be or something?

    Isn't it more sensible to say, hey, this is something that is going to steady your mind and keep your body supple, so even if it has been developed by Hindus, do it for your own well being? Same applies to western education, secular laws, women's emancipation, western medical science....

    By secularlogic - 5/20/2014 10:54:30 PM



  • Good article! Neither wanton killings, nor abduction of girls nor banning education (western or eastern) is permissible in Islam. Why the Quran can be misinterpreted by so many people (including Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Al Shabab, Talibans etc) is a serious problem that we cannot escape considering. Saying that these people are wrong is not enough. Why are so many Muslims violent, irrational, backward in education and science, subjugators of women and disrespectful of other religions? Is it something about the religion itself or is it about how it is taught? What kinds of bold and radical corrective actions are necessary? Is it un-Islamic to ask such questions?


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/20/2014 1:17:03 PM



  • The western education we say is actually Islamic education. If someone gets western education, he will be more able to understand reality of Islam.

    Albert Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” I believe it be true to a great extent. There are many verses in the holy Qur’an which cannot be understood without having knowledge of science such as the verse:

    “Verily, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of the night and the day, and in the ships (and vessels) which sail through the ocean carrying cargo profitable for the people, and in the (rain)water which Allah pours down from the sky, reviving therewith the earth to life after its death, and (the earth) in which He has scattered animals of all kinds, and in the changing wind directions, and in the clouds (that trail) between the sky and the earth, duty-bound (under Allah’s command)—certainly (in these) are (many) signs (of Allah’s Power) for those who put their reason to work” (2:164)

    Without science one can have complete faith in the above mentioned verse but cannot take the hidden treasure of knowledge out of the verse.  

    The western education we say is actually Islamic education. If someone gets western education, he will be more able to understand reality of Islam. 
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/20/2014 8:34:42 AM



  • Dear Mehnoor, Boko Haram has grown up so violently because of its idea that “Western education is sin” is against Islam itself. The first verse revealed to the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was ‘read’. Our prophet Muhammad peace be upon him has laid great emphasis on seeking knowledge in different ways:

    “Seeking knowledge from the cradle to the grave”

    “Seek knowledge even if it is far as China”

    “Seeking knowledge is a duty of every Muslim man and woman”

    "Wisdom is the lost property of the believer, he should take it even if finds it in the mouth of a Mushrik"

    The Hadiths mentioned above are some of uncountable teachings of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him that encourage seeking knowledge for every Muslim regardless of gender.

    What has been mentioned above on the importance of knowledge refers to both, the religious as well as the worldly or secular knowledge. The worldly knowledge all of us know includes western education.

    Boko Haram has created problem with the western education that is permissible in Islam.  Thus, Boko Haram is the worst enemy of Islam. 


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/20/2014 8:24:20 AM



  • Dear Ghaus, What are the reasons for Boko Haram to grow up so violently?
    By Mehnoor - 5/20/2014 6:56:09 AM



  • Dear Mehnoor, I and you may not be able to take the bombs and guns out of the hands of Boko Haram, but we can of course look into the reasons that have instigated them to do so un-Islamic act of abductions. 

    A point that the terrorist group Boko Haram has binary thinking is that the group claims “Western education is forbidden” yet records its threats with hi-tech video equipment and adopts advanced ammunition. It says something and does something else. 
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/20/2014 6:54:00 AM



  • As being a Muslim, I burst into tears while getting to know Boko Haram abducting teenage girls the other week. What happened to these girls is still unknown to me. It is time to think about what the reasons are for Boko Haram to kidnap these teenage girls. Book Haram seems to have it allies released from the Jail. Another point they may put into their mind is may be the removal of western education from their syllabus.    


    By Mehnoor - 5/20/2014 6:15:26 AM