certifired_img

Books and Documents

Debating Islam

702 - COMMENTS

  • Please could you send me (or URL link) a copy of Sharia Law compatible with USA constitution, and then a second copy of the more extreme Wahhabi version. By William Smith - 12/5/2016 6:44:51 PM



  • Should Muslims disassociate themselves from Salafi, Wahhabi ideologies of permanent war with non-Muslims and moderate Muslims?

    Let's meditate سورة المائدة, Al-Maaida, Chapter #5, Verse #42, Mohsin Khan translation, below:
    '(THEY LIKE TO) LISTEN TO FALSEHOOD, to devour anything forbidden. So IF THEY COME TO YOU (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم), either judge between them, OR TURN AWAY FROM THEM If you turn away from them, they cannot hurt you in the least. And if you judge, judge with justice between them. Verily, Allah loves those who act justly.'
    The phrase, (They like to) listen to falsehood, could refer to those people Salafi, Wahhabi ideologies of permanent war with non-Muslims and moderate Muslims.  The subsequent phrase, turn away from them, implies Muslims should not associate with them since they deal with falsehood.

    The same is mentioned in (سورة المائدة, Al-Maaida, Chapter#5, Verse #77)-Yusuf Ali translation:
    Say: "O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, NOR FOLLOW THE VAIN DESIRES OF PEOPLE WHO WENT WRONG in times gone by,- WHO MISLED MANY, AND STRAYED (themselves) from the even way.
    As the phrase, nor follow the...people who went wrong...who misled many and strayed, is mentioned above, it implies that Quran demands Muslims to disassociate those people that would mislead Muslims to wrong truth and these include also Salafi, Wahhabi ideologies of permanent war with non-Muslims and moderate Muslims.

    Does Allah love the wrongdoers, i.e. Salafi, Wahhabi ideologies of permanent war with non-Muslims and moderate Muslims?
    (سورة آل عمران, Aal-i-Imraan, Chapter #3, Verse #57), Yusuf Ali translation:
    "As to those who believe and work righteousness, Allah will pay them (in full) their reward; but ALLAH LOVETH NOT THOSE WHO DO WRONG." 
    By zumamusa - 10/11/2015 8:14:56 PM



  • You may be right Mr. Sultan Shahin, but this is precisely what nearly all Muslims are doing, practising takfeerism and sectarianism. So what is the way out? A mere exhortation from you and some others is not going to make any difference.

    However, I must say your view is unexceptionable: "We cannot root out takfirism and sectarianism of the Islamist extremists by using our own brand of  takfirism and sectarianism."

    By Ali Abbas - 7/25/2015 1:16:55 PM



  • Dear Mukhtar Alam Saheb Ph D, We cannot root out takfirism and sectarianism of the Islamist extremists by using our own brand of  takfirism and sectarianism.

    ---

    "Thus, all KUFR of Wahabism needs to be denounced. Salaf obedient to Hadhrat Ali are only relevant and not those whose obedience score to prophet is not same as that of Hadhrat Ali and all pledged to Hadhrat Ali at Ghadir Khum."
    By Mukhtar Alam, Ph.D - 7/22/2015 5:29:14 AM

    By Sultan Shahin - 7/23/2015 3:49:21 PM



  • Hatred for all obeying 42:23 is clear from the communication of Abdul Wahab. This is the reason ,Saud bin Saud destroyed masouleum of Imam Hussain in 1808 distributed the usurped gains thinking that to be a war booty which was so wrong since all the caretakers of the masouleums were none but momineen pledged to Imam Hussain in history and obeying the Wilayat of Hadhrat Ali in post prophet and post messenger age existing as Light upon Light. Wahabis functioned like enemies of prophet PBUH and HF violating 42:23 with clear command for love of Qurba of prophet PBUH and HF. Thus, all KUFR of Wahabism needs to be denounced. Salaf obedient to Hadhrat Ali are only relevant and not those whose obedience score to prophet is not same as that of Hadhrat Ali and all pledged to Hadhrat Ali at Ghadir Khum. By Mukhtar Alam, Ph.D - 7/22/2015 5:29:14 AM



  • Mr. Abdul Khaliq,
    You have exactly said.  By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 2/27/2015 4:08:29 AM



  • السلام علیکم سلفیت وھابیت اسلام اورمسلمانوں کے لءے زہرقاتل ہے انہون نے احادیث کی کتابوں میں تحریف شروع کردی ہے جیساکہ ایک کتاب دینی تحریفات موجودہے لھذان سے خیرکی توقع رکھناعبث ہے By abdulkhaliq - 2/26/2015 8:58:53 PM



  • Dear Khalid Suhail - 1/10/2015 4:27:57 AM
    thanks for providing some portion of khan saheb's writing.
    you may have read i have asked sultan saheb why he mentions ibn e taimiyah, abdul wahab but never mention shah waliullah and imam sarhindi.
    they appeal ulema for sincere efforts but forget to mention mujhids, hujjat ul islams, Mujaddids awwal and thani knowing their extreme views.
    this makes his war against terrorism a sectarian war which renders it useless.
    Another moderate GM called shah waliuullah a reformer. we all know views of shawaliullah.
    you have rightly said. If Shah waliullah can't be wrong how mududi, wahab najdi can be.
    i always felt that moderates are not honest on many occasions. either they are afraid off going against mainstream or deliberately distort the truth to save Islam or cover hateful dangerous side of Islam.
    Is shah waliullah more than God for Ghulam Ghaus saheb. He first demanded proof, when proof is there he says to ignore.
    Give name Wahabi, lo and behold he will jump and bring articles to refute him, but not a word against his peers.
    In fact this war against extremism is not a true war. it is cutting branches and feeding roots.
    why they can't condemn shah waliullah for his extreme views on non-muslims. they are ready to go to extreme other personalities for same views.
    since it lacks honesty, it is not going to bore fruits of moderation.
    it is a dishonest war.
    GM wants word war on Fazlullah from me but not a single word from him of condemnation of Shah waliullah the jehad ideologue who influenced like maududi.

    i am really perplexed how they are going to bring a moderate era if they can't condemn a dead jehad ideologue. How they can challenge the live bombs of terrorism.
    another moderate questions the source. oh ! it is copied from islamophobic sites.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/10/2015 5:45:45 AM



  •   Ghulam Ghaus Saheb says,
    “if you, Mr. Kahlid Suhail, have any problem with the remarks of Shah Waliullah R.A, you can resolve the matter in the light of the Qur’an and Hadith on your own, provided you have ability for that. However this does not mean that Shah Waliullah R.A was at wrong. We can simply ignore this matter, thinking that our situation is totally different from his one.”
    I have only one problem: As far as I know, the views of Shah Waliullah are supported by the Quran and ahadith  themselves.
     Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, considered to be a moderate writes in his book, ‘Islam – Creater of The Modern Age’ writes,
    “God created a perfect world….Man was told, that there was only one creator who should be worshipped….But man went astray. He began to worship anything which was visibly prominent, such as rivers, mountains etc…. This worship of something, other than God finally developed into shirk or polytheism.
    All the prophets in the past had come with the mission of rectifying this perversion. In all ages of history of man, they called for the renunciation of shirk and adoption of monotheism.
    Efforts on the part of the prophets over a period of thousands of years had proved that any struggle which was confined to intellectual or missionary field was not sufficient to extricate man from the grip of this superstition (shirk).
    This was the state of affairs when the final prophet, Muhammad (PAH)  came to the word in the sixth century A.D.
    It was God’s decree that he be a da’i (missionary) as well as ma’hi ( (eradicator). He was entrusted by God with the mission of not only proclaiming to the world that superstitious beliefs were based on falsehood, but also of resorting to military action, if the need arose, to eliminate that system for all time.
    Note: The route verb of ‘ma’hi’ above is ‘mahw’ ( m-h-w), meaning eradicate, eliminate, obliterate, wipe out, etc. (emphasis mine).
    Addressing the Prophet, the Qur’an observed:
    “We have revealed to you this book so that, by the will of their Lord, you may lead men from darkness to light “ (14:1).
          This same mission of leading men from darkness to light had been entrusted to all the prophets in turn. The sense, however, in which the Prophet of Islam was distinct from the others was that, in his case, God had decreed-since no Prophet was to come after him-that he should not just communicate the divine message to humanity and leave it at that, but that he should also take practical steps to change the entire existing state of affairs.
          The prerequisites for putting this plan into action were all provided by God. Moreover, God also guaranteed that any shortcoming in worldly resources would be amply compensated for by special help from the angels.
    (Quran 8:12 “Remember, thy lord inspired the angels (with the message), “ I m with you: give firmness to the believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of unbelievers: Smite ye ( o angels) obove their necks and smite all their finger- tips off them. – emphasis mine)
          This point has been made in the Hadith in different ways. One hadith in particular is quite direct in its wording: “I am the eradicator through whom God will obliterate unbelief.” Thus the Prophet was not just a da’I (missionary) but also a mahi (eradicator).  He was the caller to the faith, but he had also to compel people to answer his call. The Qur’an clearly states that besides human beings, God’s angels would also help him in accomplishing his mission.
          This commandment of God was, indeed, realized through the Prophet, so that a whole new era could be ushered in.
    We have already discussed the views of Shah WAliullah, hence, no need to repeat them. Like Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, Dr Jawed Ahmad Ghamidi also believes that  “there are certain directives of the Qur'an pertaining to war which were specific only to the Prophet Muhammad and certain specified peoples of his times (particularly the progeny of Abraham: the Ishmaelites, the Israelites, and the Nazarites). Thus, the Prophet and his designated followers waged a war against Divinely specified peoples of their time as a form of Divine punishment and asked the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims.” Maulana Maududi, and other Islamic scholars like Ibn Taimiyah and Abdul Wahab Najdi against whom the so called moderates on New Age Islam forun are waging a war also have the same view as far a the question of offensive Jihad waged by hz Muhammad and his designated followers is concerned.  Some modern scholars may differ on the question whether this  offensive war was specific only to the time of hz Muhammad or it is an unfinished task which the muslim Ummah is obliged to continue  till polytheism is eradicated from the face of the earth. 
    When I compare this frank statement of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan  (which is basically addressed to the muslim masses as we see him  singing a different song when he addresses a different audience as we see in his book, “ The True Jihad”) with the views of Shah Waliullah, Maulana Maududi, Ibn Taimiyah, Abdul Wahab Najdi, and even Dr Jawed Ahmad Ghamidi I see no difference.
     You have said in your comment, “it does not mean that Shah Waliullah was at wrong”. If he is not wrong, then Maulana Maududi, Ibn Taimiyah, Abdul Wahab Najdi etc are also not wrong.
    When maulana Wahiduddin Khan says, “It was God’s decree that he ( hz Muhammad) be a da’i (missionary) as well as ma’hi ( (eradicator). He was entrusted by God with the mission of not only proclaiming to the world that superstitious beliefs were based on falsehood, but also of resorting to military action, if the need arose, to eliminate that system for all time”, Since that false system still exists, in larger parts of the world, It leaves the door wide open for many muslims like  Late Dr Asrar Ahmad of Pakistan,  people influenced by ISIS, Boko Haram and Taliban etc to believe that  the muslim Ummah has the duty to complete this unfinished mission. For this they find lot of support in the Quran and hadith.
    But I see the moderates are not honest and logical and I am sure, they will never accept the bitter truth.
    This may be my last comment on this thread as there is nothing left to discuss any more.
     
     

    By Khalid Suhail - 1/10/2015 4:27:57 AM



  • Islam from a rational ,social and historical point of view is nothing but a camouflaged SHIRKfor the sake of imposing Arabic culture on the non Arabs.The nonarabs  of the whole world are called by the Arabs nothing but a Dumb Ajami community,only the Arabs have tongues; only they can speak the rest of the world will hear and obey them.muhaddisin  old and new teach their students that Allah speaks only in Arabic.All his angels speak only in Arabic and all his prophets on the day of judgement will speak in Arabic. .After that day All in the paradise will speak in Arabic.
    No one in the history of quranic teaching and learning  has ever mentioned what will be the language of those who will live eternally in the Quranic Hell.
    Now  the new Khalifatulmuminin
    is bent on fulfilling this irrational ,and utterly foolish ambition by  forcing Arabic on every subject of his domain.
    The compulsive belief in such fabricated traditions is taken as sincere love for the Arabs and any thing which is called truly Arabic not imported from China and stamped " made in Saudi Arabia."
    The argument between the Asharis and the Motazalis about the creation of the Quran  is actually based on this belief that Arabic is the   native language of Allah the Almighty; therefore it is as uncreated as Allah himself.The Quran is therefore 
    as eternal as its author.
    It is an eternal Fatwa that whoever believes that the Quran is a created speech he will go to the hell  created by the followers  of Islam.
    Islamic jihad is war of culture domination and nothing else.
    Islam is a wonderful religion because it utterly hates all crazy,foolish and empty headed people of all origins.

    This is my favourite religion though I respect all other sensible religions.
    Thanks to this website which has brought so many morons and imbeciles to the front.xax


    By taqdeer - 1/9/2015 8:49:22 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus
    Shooting in Paris France is going on by terrorists. Can you tell me whose test is this? Of terrorists or those innocent people killed by them.
    Who test is this? Of Baghdadi or of those who are under his zulm?
    Whose test is this one who raped or who is raped?
    So much zul o sitam and you call it test! 
    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/9/2015 7:56:50 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus
    This test theory is nothing but irrational illogical sadist mentality of your Allah. He doesn't spare even children.
    To him children are guina pigs of his test laboratory. 
    Your Allah punishes those who use their freedom of choice.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/9/2015 7:47:21 AM



  • Mr. Rational, 
    The matter of giving reward or punishment is up to Allah Almighty. He Almighty has given this freedom to test the mankind. 
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 1/9/2015 7:29:07 AM



  • Mr. Khalid Suhail,

    I have read your comments. No need to repeat them time and again. The following lines taken from Hujjatullah Al-balighah written by Shah Waliullah R.A are the last and conclusion of the whole chapter.  

    “The domination should not be done by the sword. If it is done by the sword, the stain will not go out of their hearts, and they are likely to go back to their disbelief after a short while. So it is incumbent that the religion “deen” should be proved with the convincing evidences or useful discourses in the minds of the people

    Here I will say:

    ·         That the era of Shah Waliullah R.A is totally different from ours.

    ·         Difference in opinion is not a new thing. Despite the fact that there were great differences among all four imams – Imam Abu Haneefah, Imam Maalik, Imam al-Shaafa'i and Imam Ahmad in matter of deriving legal value from the Islamic sources, they were on the right path and revered among the mainstream Muslims as the guided ones. Similarly, after finding evidences from the Qur’an and Hadith, one can have difference with Shah Waliullah R.A in this matter.

    ·         It was the faith of Shah Waliullah R.A and all other renowned scholars of Islam that one should go through the Islamic sources; The Qur’an and Hadith, Ijma and Qayas in order to derive any legal value of Islam. Based upon this principle, I will say that if you, Mr. Kahlid Suhail, have any problem with the remarks of Shah Waliullah R.A, you can resolve the matter in the light of the Qur’an and Hadith on your own, provided you have ability for that, otherwise leave that matter up to Allah Almighty and do what the Quran and Hadith clearly say.

    However this does not mean that Shah Waliullah R.A was at wrong. We can simply ignore this matter, thinking that our situation is totally different from his one. Anyway, if time allows, I will read the whole book. Allah Almighty knows the best. By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 1/9/2015 7:25:17 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus
    But why Allah issues to those who for any reason refuse to believe in what the Quran demands to believe in? Why eternal punishment for choosing options? 
    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/9/2015 6:46:53 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus
    You invite me to which Islam? Sunni or shia? Wahabi or non-wahabi? 
    I don't believe in many unseen. I am doubtful. So I can't be guided by the Quran.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/9/2015 6:38:11 AM



  • Ghulam Ghaus Saheb,
    Please read the following,
    نبی کی ذمہ داریوں میں سے یہ بھی ہے کہ وہ اس دین کو تمام ادیان پر غالب کردے اور کسی کو دین کے غلبہ سے باہر نہ رہنے دے، چاہے عزت کے ساتھ یا ذلت کے ساتھ۔ چنانچہ لوگ تین فریق بن جائیں گے۔ ظاہر اور باطن میں دین کی اطاعت کرنے والے مجبور ہوکر اور سرکشی کی طاقت نہ رکھنے کے وجہ سے ظاہر میں اطاعت گزار۔ ذلیل کافرجن کو کھیتی کاٹنے، اناج نکالنے اور دوسری مزدوریوں میں کام میں لگایا جائے جیسے کہ کھیتی کرنے اور بوجھ اٹھانے کے لئے چوپایوں کو کام میں لایا جاتا ہے۔ نبی کے لئے ضروری ہے کہ وہ کافروں پر کوئی زجر اور ذلت کا قانون نافذ کردے اور انہیں مغلوب وذلیل کرکے ان سے جزیہ لے…. قصاص اور دیت میں کافروں کو مسلمانوں کے برابر درجہ نہ دے اور اسی طرح مناکحت اور انتظام مملکت میں بھی کافروں کو مسلمانوں کے برابر درجہ نہ دے تاکہ یہ پابندیاں انہیں ایمان لانے پر مجبور کردیں۔

    It is the duty of the prophet  to establish the domination of Islam over all other religions and not leave anybody outside its domination whether they accept it  voluntarily or after humiliation. Thus the people will be divided into three catagories.

    1)Those who follow the religion of Islam inwardly and outwardly ( sincerely).

    2)Tose  who follow Islam outwardly because they have no other option and no capability to resist.

    3) Lowly Kafir ( unbelievers ), who  have to be tasked with lowly labour works like harvesting, threshing, carrying of loads, for which animals are used. The messenger of God  also imposes a law of suppression and humiliation on the kafirs and imposes jizya on them in order to dominate and humiliate them …. He does not treat them equal to muslims in the matters of Qisas  (Retaliaton),  Diyat ( blood money), marriage  and  government  administration  so that  these restrictions  should ultimately force them to embrass Islam.

    Ghulam Ghaus Saheb, Please go through the whole paragraph, particularly the underlined words and tell me whether “ la ikraha fiddin” (there is no compulsion in religion) was applied here or not and also tell me what is the difference between Shah Walullah’s views and the the views expressed by  Maulana Maududi in his book, Al-Jihad Fil Islam?. And please take note of these words, “It is the duty of the prophet  to establish the domination of Islam over all other religions and not leave anybody outside its domination whether they accept it  voluntarily or after humiliation.”  Naturally, whenever and wherever this humiliation was accepted, there was no need of the sword. The sword played its role against those who resisted and refused to obey.So there is no contradiction.

    By Khalid Suhail - 1/9/2015 3:44:03 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus
    What are the evils of shirk and merits of tauhid? Why Islam wants to eradicate it at any cost? Why shirk is a heinous crime/sin so that Allah is not ready to forgo e it? How does it harm the humankind or Allah and how is it source of good? Can't a mushriks be kind humankind? If yes, why he has to be invited to tauhid? How it will help him? I am not against the conversion if somebody prefers one religion over other. But same freedom should be available to Muslims? You have ignored it in your response. The Quran calls this conversion 'mina zulumati ilan noor'. How the shirk is zulumat and tauhid noor? Both can serve the humambeings. Both can be source of hope. 


    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/9/2015 2:01:54 AM



  • Dear Ghulam.Ghaus
    You came to defend shah waliullah. What do you say about Imam shafi's views on jehad quoted by Mr.Khalid suhail?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/9/2015 1:42:27 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus
    La ikraha fid Deen is a verse by which you have want to cover other verses of the Quran which goes against this verse. The prophet himself gave two options in his invitation to monarches. Accept Islam or be ready to fight. Do.you call it invitation and application of la ikraha fid Deen?
    And.you must realize extremists are also successful in conversation
    See people are invited and converted. They are now fightimg for Islamic state.
    Can you show me a case where a single Sufi stood against the Muslim ruler's atrocities or you want to make beloved is Muslim rulers were farishtas?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/9/2015 1:37:18 AM



  • Mr. Rational, we have discussed a lot and finally I invite you to Islam. 
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 1/9/2015 1:36:18 AM



  • My intention is not to convert the people, but i have a choice to invite the people. They can accept my invitation or not, it is the matter of their choice. 

    As being a student of the Qur'an, i have understood so far that if my Allah Almighty had willed, all the people would have been Muslims. I have understood that He Almighty has given this choice to everyone whether to believe him or not. He Almighty has given only one choice to us Muslims and that is to invite the people to the way of the lord in the best manner. 

    After all, I have not yet invited the people. But I think I should start it right from you, in the following way.

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 1/9/2015 1:35:00 AM



  • The real conversion is a matter of the heart. In Islam no one is entitled to give guidance to anyone in the sense of “إيصال إلى المطلوب” (taking someone to the destination). His responsibility is not to convert the people, but he can only invite the people to Islam. This is because in the Quran Allah Almighty says:

    “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided”. (16:125)

    As for the guidance in the sense of taking someone to the destination, it is only up to Allah Almighty. The Qur’an says: “And Allah guides whom He wills to a straight path” (2:213)  

    If someone does not believe in Islam, it is his or her choice, and thus it is not the matter of fighting. The Quran says:

    “There is no compulsion in the religion” (2:256)

     “For you your religion and for me mine” (109:6) 

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 1/9/2015 1:19:58 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus
    Why do you want to convert people weather by convincing or sword? Do you give equal rights to non-muslims to convert Muslims into their respective religions.
    What stain you are talking about? Is it not the same dirt you call kufr/shirk?
    If somebody sees some good in tauhid and he wants to come to tauhid, it is perfectly fair. But the missionary spirit of conversion of Islam and Christianity demands more and more. It doesn't get easily satisfied.
    That shirk you want to remove from the hearts is equally useful for mushriks in the time of dispair. Why you want to.shove tauhid down the throats of people in one or another way?
    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/9/2015 12:32:35 AM



  • Mr. Khalid Sohail,

    The Arabic text typed by me and quoted by you here in this thread is missing the last paragraph from the same chapter of the same book. This is as follows:

    "ومنها أنه لما كانت الغلبة بالسيف فقط لا تدفع رين قلوبهم ، فعسى أن يرجعوا إلى الكفر عن قليل - وجب أن يثبت بأمور برهانية أو خطابية نافعة في أذهان الجمهور أن تلك الاديان لا ينبغي أن تتبع ، لأنها غير مأثورة عن المعصوم ، أو أنها غير منطبقة على قوانين الملة ، أو أن فيها تحريفا ووضعا للشيء في غير موضعه ، ويصحح ذلك على رءوس الاشهاد ، ويبين مرجحات الدين القويم من أنه سهل سمح ، وأن حدوده واضحة يعرف العقل حسنها ، وأن ليلها نهارها ، وأن سننها أنفع للجمهور وأشبه بما بقي عندهم من سيرة الانبياء السابقين عليهم السلام وأمثال ذلك ، والله أعلم"

    The Arabic readers can easily understand from this last paragraph, but for the English readers, I better derive the meaning from the above quoted paragraph that outlines the following features:

    It says that domination should not be done by the sword. If it is done by the sword, the stain will not go out of their hearts, and they are likely to go back to their disbelief after a short while. So it is incumbent that the religion “deen” should be proved with the convincing evidences or useful discourses in the minds of the people.   By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 1/8/2015 11:54:55 PM



  • Suhail Sb picks up something from Wikipedia on what Javed Ghamidi has said and then says:

    "As I said earlier, this is a personal opinion of Mr Ghamidi like many so called moderates like you and Observer, but he has produced no Quranic verse or hadith saying that this offensive Jihad was specific only to the time of hz Muhammad, while there are hundreds of verses and ahadith which prove otherwise."

    First of all, I doubt whether he has used the words "offensive Jihad" for anything that the Proohet (pbuh) undertook, secondly, it is ridiculous to assume that a scholar like Javed Ghamidi would express "personal views" on a religious subject unsubstantiated by the Quran and the Ahadith!

    His views are I think fully covered in an article of his associate found on Ghamidi's website. As a matter of fact, I had provided a link to a brief summary. In any case, the detailed version can be accessed using the link below:

    http://www.javedahmadghamidi.com/renaissance/view/the-islamic-law-of-jihad-part-2-2

    By Observer - 1/8/2015 12:11:27 PM



    •  Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 1/5/2015 12:23:54
    • Mr Khalid Suhail, 
    • I did not find "Hujjatullahubalighah, volum – 1, Chapter- 69, Page No 289". Can you please quote it with its original text in Arabic? 
    • I am posting the original text in Arabic along with its Urdu translation. Thanks.
    • نبی کی ذمہ داریوں میں سے یہ بھی ہے کہ وہ اس دین کو تمام ادیان پر غالب کردے اور کسی کو دین کے غلبہ سے باہر نہ رہنے دے، چاہے عزت کے ساتھ یا ذلت کے ساتھ۔ چنانچہ لوگ تین فریق بن جائیں گے۔ ظاہر اور باطن میں دین کی اطاعت کرنے والے مجبور ہوکر اور سرکشی کی طاقت نہ رکھنے کے وجہ سے ظاہر میں اطاعت گزار۔ ذلیل کافرجن کو کھیتی کاٹنے، اناج نکالنے اور دوسری مزدوریوں میں کام میں لگایا جائے جیسے کہ کھیتی کرنے اور بوجھ اٹھانے کے لئے چوپایوں کو کام میں لایا جاتا ہے۔ نبی کے لئے ضروری ہے کہ وہ کافروں پر کوئی زجر اور ذلت کا قانون نافذ کردے اور انہیں مغلوب وذلیل کرکے ان سے جزیہ لے…. قصاص اور دیت میں کافروں کو مسلمانوں کے برابر درجہ نہ دے اور اسی طرح مناکحت اور انتظام مملکت میں بھی کافروں کو مسلمانوں کے برابر درجہ نہ دے تاکہ یہ پابندیاں انہیں ایمان لانے پر مجبور کردیں۔

    • (حوالہ: حجۃ اللہ البالغۃ، جلد1، باب 69، صفحہ نمبر 289)

    • باب الحاجة إلى دين ينسخ الأديان
    • (المقتطفات من كتاب حجة الله البالغة للشاه ولي الله المحدث الدهلوي رحمه الله) 
    •  مست الحاجة إلى إمام راشد يعامل مع الملل معاملة الخليفة الراشد مع الملوك الجائرة . وهذا الإمام الذي يجمع الأمم على ملة واحدة يحتاج إلى أصول أخرى غير الأصول المذكورة فيما سبق .منها أن يدعو قوما إلى السنة الراشدة ، ويزكيهم ، ويصلح شأنهم ، ثم يتخذهم بمنزلة جوارحه ، فيجاهد أهل الأرض ، ويفرقهم في الآفاق ، وهو قوله تعالى : ( كنتم خير أمة أخرجت لناس ) .  
    • ومنها أن يكون تعليمه الدين إياهم مضموما إلى القيام بالخلافة العامة ، وأن يجعل الخلفاء من بعده أهل بلده وعشيرته الذين نشئوا على تلك العادات والسنن ،، ويوصي الخلفاء بإقامة الدين وإشاعته .   ومنها أن يجعل هذا الدين غالبا على الأديان كلها ، ولا يترك أحدا إلا قد غليه الدين بعز عزيز أو ذل ذليل ، فينقلب الناس ثلاث فرق : منقاد للدين ظاهرا وباطنا ، ومنقاد بظاهره على رغم أنفه لا يستطيع التحول عنه ، وكافر مهان يسخره في الحصاد والدياس وسائر الصناعات كما تسخر البهائم في الحرث وحمل الاثقال ، ويلزم عليه سنة زاجرة ، ويؤتى الجزية عن يد وهو صاغر . وغلبة الدين على الأديان لها أسباب : منها إعلان شعائره على شعائر سائر الأديان ، وشعائر الدين أمر ظاهر يختص به يمتاز صاحبه به من سائر الأديان كالختان وتعظيم المساجد والأذان والجمعة والجماعات . ومنها أن يقبض على أيدي الناس ألا يظهروا شعائر سائر الأديان . ومنها ألا يجعل المسلمين أكفاء للكافرين في القصاص والديات ولا في المناكحات ولا في القيام بالرياسات ليلجئهم ذلك إلى الإيمان الجاء .


    By Khalid Suhail - 1/8/2015 10:36:32 AM



  • GM
    No matter how much your views are valuable they are personal having no ground in Islam. 
     I appreciate them but don't find in Islam and I am not talking about a particular sect.
    Why so many ancient and recent scholars misunderstood the clear guide book?
    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/8/2015 9:33:37 AM



  •  Ghulam Mohiyuddin sb- 1/7/2015  
    " Suhail sb., the fact that Ghamidi believed that the Prophet and his designated followers waged a war against Divinely specified peoples of their time does not in any way conflict with the assertion that after the Prophet and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam. Your passion to find conflicts in Islam seems to get you all confused."
    As I said earlier, this is a personal opinion of Mr Ghamidi like many so called moderates like you and Observer, but he has produced no Quranic verse or hadith saying that this offensive Jihad was specific only to the time of hz Muhammad, while there are hundreds of verses and ahadith which prove otherwise.
    In one of his articles, Jawed Ahmad Ghamidi says, "the monster of extremism did not descend on us from the heavens; it is in fact the vile product of the religious thought that is taught in our religious seminaries under the topics of implementation of the Shari’ah and armed jihad and for the eradication of disbelief, polytheism and apostasy".
    All the madrasas in India irrespective whether these are Deobandi, Barailvi or Ahle Hadith also  teach the above mentioned topics i.e.  implementation of the Shari’ah and armed jihad and for the eradication of disbelief, polytheism and apostasy". 
    If some of these topics are not taught in detail in some madrasas, books like Al-Jihad Fil Islam, Fatawa Ibn Taimiya and numerous books on offensive Jihad and ela'e kalimatul haq ( estabiling sharia allover the world) are made available in all the Indian madrasas. 
    This is because this belief gets support in the teachings of the Quran and hadith. For example:
    Surat Al-Maida 5:50 "Do they then seek the judgement of (the days of) ignorance And who is better in judgement than Allah for a people who have firm faith."
    In tafseer of Ibn Katheer – (abridged) Volume. 3, page 202 – 203, the commentary of the above verse states:
    "Allah criticizes those who ignore Allah's commandments, which include every type of righteous good thing and prohibit every type of evil, but they refer instead to opinions, desires and customs that people themselves invented, all of which have no basis in Allah's religion. During the time of Jahiliyyah, the people used to abide by the misguidance and ignorance that they invented by sheer opinion and lusts......Therefore, whoever does this, he is a disbeliever who deserves to be fought against, until he reverts to Allah's and His Messenger's decisions, so that no law, minor or major, is referred to except by His Law."
    Ahmad Sirhindi (d. 1624) was an Islamic scholar and a prominent Sufi. He is regarded as having rejuvenated Islam, due to which he is commonly called "Mujaddid Alf Thani", meaning "reviver of the second millennium".
    He wrote, “Shariat can be fostered through the sword. Kufr and Islam are opposed to each other. The progress of one is possible only at the expense of the other and co-existences between these two contradictory faiths in unthinkable. The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects kafirs, dishonors the Muslims…..The real purpose in levying jizya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that, on account of fear of jizya, they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.
    Al-Ghazali (1058-1111) was a Persian jurist who contributed significantly to the development of Sufism and is one of the most celebrated scholars in the history of Islamic thought. He says,
    “One must go on jihad (raids) at least once a year ... one may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them.”
    Imam Shafii says, 
     Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion of Islam.  Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.
     The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (kafirs) ( provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)) - which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral regions) (and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (in accordance with the word of Allah Most High. (though if there is no caliph, no permission is required). Ref: Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi'i
    Al Azhar University Scholar, Dr. M. Sa’id Ramadan Al-Buti says,
    "The theory that our religion is a peaceful and loving religion is a wrong theory...The Holy war as it is known in Islam is basically an offensive war, and it is the duty of all Muslims of every age, when the needed military power is available, because our prophet Muhammad said that he is ordered by Allah to fight all people until they say ‘No God but Allah,’ and he is his messenger...It is meaningless to talk about the holy war as only defensive, otherwise, what did the prophet mean when he said, "from now on even if they don’t invade you, you must invade them.”
    These scholars did not invent or fabricate anything. Whatever they said they did honestly in the light of true (untwisted) teachings of the Quran and Hadith.
    And finally,
    It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) observed: By Him in Whose hand is the life of Muhammad, he who amongst the community of Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that with which I have been sent and dies in this state (of disbelief), he shall be but one of the denizens of Hell-Fire. (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0284)
    Hz Muhammad asserted that any Jew or Christian who hears about and rejects his message will be thrown into hell. He doesn’t limit this only to the people of his time.

    By Khalid Suhail - 1/8/2015 4:01:53 AM



  • http://www.missionislam.com/discover/believeitornot.htm By rational mohammed yunus - 1/8/2015 1:13:25 AM



  • Political Islam started in Medinah. Fights among companions were for polical gains.  By rational mohammed yunus - 1/8/2015 12:41:32 AM



  • Mr ahmed
    You said circimscision was Jewish practice not entirely Islamic? Was not hz Ibrahim a Muslim as per the Quran? Why his sunna is not Islamic?
    Do you not believe every person is à Muslim by birth but his parents make him what they are?
    Do you want to say followers of hz mohammed are only Muslims rest are not? 

    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/8/2015 12:35:12 AM



  • Mr ahmed
    Hz mohammed called himself on Deen e Ibrahim ie a Hanif. So he followed hz Ibrahim in khatna. Did Allah order hz Ibrahim to do khatna? Why Muslims do khatna when according to hadith muslims should not look like jews?
    You answered nothing but posted many questions. 
    Hz Mohammed wanted to be recognized by ahl e kitab so he had soft corner for them. When they rejected him they were called enemies. The Quran and hadith turned hysteric in abusing ahl e kitab. Now to Muslims ahl.e kitab are conspirators against Muslims.
    However calling azan from minarets and blowing into ears of infants is entirely different.
    Since you on are believer in ahadith you must know that Allah decides the fate of babies at the time of conception. An angle appear between the thighs of pregnant woman and stamps their fates.
    Are you unaware of this hadith?
    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/8/2015 12:23:37 AM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin
    I was searching mushira on internet. I foumd one named Imran Pratapgarhi. Many videos are available. You can find how musllims respond to a poet when he announces the punishment for gustakh e rasool. 
    So attack on gernalists in Peris, France is nothing new. Any ordinary Muslim can do it. You know well what owaisi has said. What he said is a common belief of Muslims including moderates. Every person is Muslim.by birth. Has he lied? On what ground he is wrong? 

    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/7/2015 11:56:53 PM



  • circumcision is a Jewish practice not truly Islamic. Muslims adopted circumcision to show solidarity with the Jews. It was an inclusive approach of Muslims.. By ahmad - 1/7/2015 11:45:52 PM



  • when everyone is born a Muslim why blowing azan into his ears?

    when everyone is born a Muslim Why saying La ilaha ill Allah ...
    when everyone is born a Muslim why offer ing namaz
    when everyone is born a Muslim why fasting
    when everyone is born a Muslim why going hajj
    when everyone is born a Muslim why enjoinin good and forbid evil
    when everyone is born a Muslimwhy offering namaz-e-janaza
    By ahmad - 1/7/2015 11:32:09 PM



  • when everyone is born a Muslim why blowing azan into his ears?

    when everyone is born a MuslimWhy saying when everyone is born a MuslimLa ilaha ill Allah ...
    when everyone is born a Muslimwhy offer when everyone is born a Muslimnamaz
    when everyone is born a Muslimwhy fasting
    why going hajj
    when everyone is born a Muslimwhy enjoinin good and forbid evil
    when everyone is born a Muslimwhy offering namaz-e-janaza
    By ahmad - 1/7/2015 11:28:42 PM



  • When Hindus consider many paths valid to reach to same reality why should be a ghar-waapsi?
    When everybody is born Muslim why blowing azan into ears of children and their khatna is required?
    This conversion and reconversion is political game played by Islam, Christianity and now Hindutwa.
    Garv we kaho ham Hindu hain. Fakhr se kaho ham musalmaan hain.
    Yeh kiyon nahi kahte ham sab insaan 
    hain
    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/7/2015 10:52:11 PM



  • GM
    What reforms were brought up by shah waliullah? By imam rabbani?
    These two scholars are revered by sufis and non-sufis alike. Both are considered sufis. 
    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/7/2015 10:20:55 PM



  • Rational says, "Sufi Islam is deviation from Islam". . . .


    As if Islam is a thing frozen in time! Adoration of the Creator and love of his creations is not inconsistent with Islam.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/7/2015 4:02:52 PM



  • Suhail sb., the fact that Ghamidi believed that the Prophet and his designated followers waged a war against Divinely specified peoples of their time does not in any way conflict with the assertion that after the Prophet and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam. Your passion to find conflicts in Islam seems to get you all confused. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/7/2015 3:54:48 PM



  • Sufi Islam is deviation from Islam.  It is corrupted form that is why it is inclusive to some extent. More deviant a Sufi is more he is inclusive. More he is nearer to original more he is exclusive.
    Views of great sufis regarding sharia and non-mualims under sharia rule can be read from Sufi sources.
    The Quran clearly divide the humanity into Muslims and kaafirs. To Quran they can't be same. So whoever claims they are same either are ignorants or not speaking truth.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/7/2015 10:25:12 AM



  • Recently a conversion took place between a fellow Muslim and me. He was telling the greatness of Islam for its stand on usery(interest) to a Hindu fellow.
    I tried to tell him that he must read modern views on interest. I gave one example. He called me immediately one from banu Israel (yahoodi). He is peaceful Muslim working in same organization I work in.

    So Muslims live by 7th century. That period is ideal to them. No deviation acceptable.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 1/7/2015 10:14:25 AM



  • @Sultan Sahab,

    when I read your reply  to GM, smile come to me. Saudi Arabia is  orgin of Islam. How could you say saudis  not following real Islam? Onething you can do, you your islam into sufi-Islam.  Even my dream, I met some sufis who all say Hindus and muslims are same and worshiping same God then need peace. Sufi -Islam is peaceful and co-existence with other religions. But,I have doubt with other sects.

    By Dharmaraj - 1/7/2015 10:01:13 AM



  • All that I have ascribed to Javed Ghamidi is:
    "Javed Ghamidi, a Pakistani scholar rejects “Political Islam” as against all canons of Islam."

    Political Islam is a 19th/20th century phenomenon. Khalid Suhail himself writes:

    "Dr Ghamidi, says that, “after the Prophet and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam”.

    Where is the contradiction? Does Ghamidi support the ideas of "political Islam"?

    By Observer - 1/7/2015 4:08:18 AM




  •  

    “The reason why the majority of ulema and the people reject the ideas of Political Islam is because these ideas are not rooted in Islam or its history.”

    Wikipedia, under the title, “Javed Ahmad Ghamidi”, discussing his stand on ‘Jihad’ writes,

    “Ghamidi believes that there are certain directives of the Qur'an pertaining to war which were specific only to the Prophet Muhammad and certain specified peoples of his times (particularly the progeny of Abraham: the Ishmaelites, the Israelites, and the Nazarites). Thus, the Prophet and his designated followers waged a war against Divinely specified peoples of their time (the polytheists and the Israelites and Nazarites of Arabia and some other Jews, Christians, et al.) as a form of Divine punishment and asked the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims. Therefore, after the Prophet and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam. The only valid basis for jihad through arms is to end oppression when all other measures have failed. According to him Jihad can only be waged by an organised Islamic state. No person, party or group can take arms into their hands (for the purpose of waging Jihad) under any circumstances. Another corollary, in his opinion, is that death punishment for apostasy was also specifically for the recipients of the same Divine punishment during the Prophet's times—for they had persistently denied the truth of the Prophet's mission even after it had been made conclusively evident to them by God through the Prophet.” Ref: Islamic Punishments: Some Misconceptions, Renaissance – Monthly Islamic Journal, 12(9), 2002.

    Therefore it is clear that even though Dr Ghamidi, says that, “after the Prophet and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam”. ( Off course this is his personal opinion which has been rejected by  majority of Pakistani Ulemas) But, contrary to what Observer sb falsely and repeatedly claims, he still belives that, the Prophet and his designated followers waged a war against Divinely specified peoples of their time (the polytheists and the Israelites and Nazarites of Arabia and some other Jews, Christians, et al.) as a form of Divine punishment.

    Javed Ahmad Ghamidi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javed_Ahmad_Ghamidi

    The same vies were expreesed by him in a Pak TV debate with Dr Asrar Ahmad. This vedio is available on the net.

     

    By Khalid Suhail - 1/7/2015 3:18:51 AM



  • The binary mode of thinking of “All or Nothing” is evident while discussing Shah Waliullah’s influence on Muslims in the sub-continent. Although Shah Waliullah’s influence is pervasive, he has not influenced everyone in the same manner or to the same extent or on the same subject. The range of those who have claimed to be his intellectual followers indicates the range, eclecticism and originality of his thought.

     

    Some of the prominent persons Shah Walullah  influenced were:

     

    1.  Sir Syed Ahmad Khan  founder of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College in Aligarh in 1875,

    2. Maulana Abul Kalam Aazad

    3. Sir Muhammad Iqbal 

    4. Muhammad Qasim Nanautawi (Deoband)

    5. Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (Deoband)

    6. Ahmad Raza Khan Qadiri Barelvi

     

    Sir Syed and Abul Kalam imbibed from Shah Wali Ullah’s thought his rejection of taqlid (legal conformism or following one of the major Sunni law schools) in favor of ijtihad (the exercise of individual reasoning or deduction) and tafliq (jurisprudential eclectism) for instance, in the light of their own modernist inclinations. They apparently did not care much for his other ideas. The Barelvi and Deobandi ulema, for the most part, took from Shah Wali Ullah different aspects of his legacy, such as a renewed emphasis on hadis scholarship while rejecting completely, his rejection of Taqlid.

     

    Shah Waliullah’s times were of despondency amongst the Muslims for having lost political power in every country which they had ruled earlier. Shah Waliullah and others pondered over the causes of the meteoric rise and ascendancy of the Muslims in the first century of Islam and their decline from the 6th century or 13th century CE and came to the erroneous conclusion that the Caliphate having given up wars and conquests after the 732 CE and lived in peace for several centuries, was the cause for the decline. Maududi and other leaders of political Islam also draw the same conclusions which can be easily shown to be erroneous both from the Islamic point of view and from what history teaches us.

    I have examined the same question and arrived at a totally different conclusion in my article “The causes for the rise and fall of the Muslims”

    http://newageislam.com/islamic-history/causes-for-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-muslims/d/10880

    We all know that whether it be Shah Waliullah’s or Maududi’s thoughts on what we describe today as “Political Islam” has few takers and this is evident from the fact that no Deobandi or Barelvi scholar has supported such thinking in their writings. They take from Shah Waliullah only what they can agree with and clearly reject Shah Waliullah’s rejection of Taqlid and his ideas which we today call “Political Islam”. 

     

    The reason why the majority of ulema and the people reject the ideas of Political Islam is because these ideas are not rooted in Islam or its history but in the fascist and totalitarian philosophies of Europe of the 19th/20th century. Maududi had to find fault with even the Khalifa e Rashidun, all the ulema and the history of Islam to justify his philosophy. Clearly therefore these ideas are out of tune with Islam.

    I have also briefly discussed the history of early Islam to show that Islam’s objective was never political domination of the world or spreading Islam through conquests in my comment below under an article by Nicholas Ginex who was arguing otherwise. Ginex tried but failed to contradict the point that I made in my comment.

    Javed Ghamidi, a Pakistani scholar rejects “Political Islam” as against all canons of Islam. Ghamidi’s views reflect those of the majority of the Muslims. Here is a link from his website to an article by his associate Dr Farooq Khan who is a martyr to the cause of fighting terrorism.

    http://www.javedahmadghamidi.com/books/view/qital-jihad-and-terrorism

    I agree with GM Sb. There are few takers for Shah Waliullah’s supremacist ideas while his influence as far as the great emphasis he placed on the hadis is considerable. The pity is that the area in which his influence is not even marginal, is being highlighted only because it suits those individuals whose sole objective is to destroy Islam. Why are people blind to the fact that while Shah Walullah was a ghair muqallid, the Barelvis and the Deobandis continue to be die hard believers in Taqlid and  therefore reject a major part of his legacy?

     

    Khalid Sahib talks about the true message of the Quran without twisting. In the past, I have shown him clearly, how the sites from which he downloads his stuff twist the simple verses of the Quran to covey meanings that are not there. It is therefore ironical that he who resorts to the deliberately twisted versions speaks about twisting!

    The untwisted and clear pluralistic message of the Quran is brought out in my article:

    The Concept of Unity in the Quran While Celebrating Diversity

     

     

    By Observer - 1/7/2015 1:55:36 AM



  • Sultan Shahin sahib, he is remembered but as a reformist and an advocate of social justice. Why dig up his lesser known views and belittle him? We should not use 21st century standards to judge 18th century views. In order to fight the battle of ideas, it is enough to take on Maududi, Qutb, bin Laden and al-Baghdadi. Our plate is full! By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/7/2015 1:31:53 AM



  • "dig up long forgotten rants of Shah Waliulla?"
    What are you saying Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb? Shah Waliullah is not forgotten. He is the most universally revered among Muslims. He is no Maulana Maududi either, who did acquire a sort of sectarian or group identity, as the founder-ideologue of Jamaat-e-Islami. All variety of ulema are agreed about Shah Waliullah's status of a mujaddid (reviver) of Islam in South Asia.
    By Sultan Shahiin - 1/6/2015 9:44:50 PM



  • Sultan Shahin sahib, the Wahhabis are giving enough publicity to the supremacists. We should have other things to talk about. Our anti-supremacist message needs to boost those leaders from the past who preached  inclusivism. The likes of Khalid Suhail are not trying to purge the supremacists from Islam. They are trying to purge Islam itself. We should of course express our sharp disagreement with Owaisi, but we do not have to dig up long forgotten rants of Shah Waliulla, who lived in a different era and in a different mahaul. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/6/2015 2:21:27 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb, we are no longer living in a world where things can be hidden. Most theological books or their relevant portions are available on the internet. These Islam-supremacists you want to banish from the face of the earth are not going away just because we ignore them even under fire from them. These Islam-supremacists are getting thousands of innocent people, mostly Muslims, killed by another batch of Muslims.

    Renowned historian Irfan Habib said in a debate on NDTV a couple of days ago that Wahhabi Islam is now mainstream Islam. I hope he is wrong.

    I am listening to a debate at this moment on Times Now TV in which the subject is Mr. Asaduddin Owaisi's statement that all humans are born Muslim and only later converted to other religions. Now if this is the case why we Muslims as infants have to hear azaan as the first thing we hear in this world, in order to be converted to Islam? It is clearly irrational. But can you find Muslims, barring me and you perhaps and of course a few more, who disagree with this irrationality, this Islam-supremacism of Mr. Owaisi.

    This ghar-wapsi sponsored by RSS-affiliated groups today is just another side of reversion to Islam. No Muslim will agree he/she is converting any one to Islam; they would say they are being reverted to Islam. Isn't ghar-wapsi another name for reversion? While there maybe some very very remote justification of sorts for the concept of ghar-wapsi, though it is clearly irrational, reversion to Islam has none whatsoever. But this Islam-supremacism is part of our faith. If Islam meant faith in a supreme power, this would still mean something. But no; Islam for most Muslims today does not even include Shias and Ahmadis, not to speak of Hindus, Christians, Jews, etc. All non-Wahhabi Muslims are out of the pale of Islam, and so on for most sectarian faiths, but every human is born a Muslim.

    We have to highlight all these flaws of ours and fight them. We cannot fight them by denying they exist. Most Muslims even deny that the Taliban engaged in these atrocities are Muslims. We have to highlight the fact that these Taliban are indeed Islamic scholars, graduates of Deobandi, ahl-e-hadeesi madrasas, and in the eyes of most Muslims, they know more about Islam than most of those Muslims who have not had the good fortune to have gone to study Islam in madrasas.

    GM Saheb, you seem to think knowing and highlighting what madrasa students believe in is a sure way to destroy Islam. However, I would beg to differ. Right from its infancy, Islam has had many enemies, as any religion or philosophy that is people-friendly, humanity-friendly will. Jesus was killed. So was Socrates. And so many other friends of humanity. Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) faced death so many times. I have no doubt that we Muslims will eventually defeat the Taliban as well as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, ISIS, and other enemies of Islam. Maybe we will lose all heritage of Islam in the Arab lands, but the world is bigger than Middle East and Muslims bigger than the Taliban, ISIS and Saudi Ikhwan, now Saudi National Guard.

    However, I don't think we can defeat them by hiding the so-called Islamic beliefs of the Taliban or Saudi, ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Lashkar-e-Taiba ideologues. I think we can only do that by highlighting the perversity of their belief systems and bringing them out before Muslims who deny - many genuinely out of ignorance - that such beliefs exist among Islamic scholars. Also, most Muslims do not understand the implications and irrationalities involved in these beliefs.

    All the shouting on Times Now is now over. But, I can assure you, Owaisi Saheb has succeeded in putting the fear of Islam in the hearts of millions around the world. I can also assure you he has raised his following among Muslims. He was not fighting so hard for nothing. He needs to be fought. Which means a basic Muslim belief needs to be fought. How can it be done by denying that such a belief even exists.

    By Sultan Shahin - 1/6/2015 11:52:40 AM



  • Instead of talking about what we want Islam to be, we seem to be stuck in the mud of what the supremacists of the past advocated! Add to that the intolerance of that Talibani scholar to whom NewAgeIslam gave so much space, and we  have found the sure formula to destroy Islam! In fact no religion can withstand such an assault. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/5/2015 2:36:39 PM



  • Some readers are having problems with  quotations posted by Mr. Khalid Suhail from Hujjatullahubalighah, volume – 1, Chapter- 69, Page No 289. as he has simply typed them in Roman script.  We are giving them in Urdu script below.

    In response to several readers unable to believe that Shah Waliullah may have said all this, and saying they did not find them in the Arabic original, and we should not go by Wahhabi-Salafi Urdu translation, Mr. Suhail has sent us some scanned pages in Arabic from the original book. We will get them typed in Arabic and post (with scanned pages, if possible) to help further the debate on these very serious charges, saying in effect that the greatly and universally revered Shah Waliullah too reached virtually the same conclusions after his independent study - he was a ghair muqallid - of Islamic scriptures as did Wahhabi-Salafi ideologues. This is deeply worrying to Muslims today, particularly to those in the non-Arab Muslim communities who have been reared on Sufi readings of Islam. We must clarify this.

    "نبی کی ذمہ داریوں میں سے یہ بھی ہے کہ وہ اس دین کو تمام ادیان پر غالب کردے اور کسی کو دین کے غلبہ سے باہر نہ رہنے دے، چاہے عزت کے ساتھ یا ذلت کے ساتھ۔ چنانچہ لوگ تین فریق بن جائیں گے۔ ظاہر اور باطن میں دین کی اطاعت کرنے والے مجبور ہوکر اور سرکشی کی طاقت نہ رکھنے کے وجہ سے ظاہر میں اطاعت گزار۔ ذلیل کافرجن کو کھیتی کاٹنے، اناج نکالنے اور دوسری مزدوریوں میں کام میں لگایا جائے جیسے کہ کھیتی کرنے اور بوجھ اٹھانے کے لئے چوپایوں کو کام میں لایا جاتا ہے۔ نبی کے لئے ضروری ہے کہ وہ کافروں پر کوئی زجر اور ذلت کا قانون نافذ کردے اور انہیں مغلوب وذلیل کرکے ان سے جزیہ لے…. قصاص اور دیت میں کافروں کو مسلمانوں کے برابر درجہ نہ دے اور اسی طرح مناکحت اور انتظام مملکت میں بھی کافروں کو مسلمانوں کے برابر درجہ نہ دے تاکہ یہ پابندیاں انہیں ایمان لانے پر مجبور کردیں۔"


    (حوالہ: حجۃ اللہ البالغۃ، جلد1، باب 69، صفحہ نمبر 289)

    By Sultan Shahin - 1/5/2015 1:01:10 PM



  • Dear Ghaus sahib, I also doubt if it exits in the original book in Arabic. I checked it out but could not find it. The commentator should have given the original text. We should not merely suffice with the Urdu translation. How can we rely on the prevailing Wahhabi Urdu translations and commentories (shuruhat) of books like Hujjatullahubalighah?

    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 1/5/2015 12:30:06 AM



  • Mr Khalid Suhail, 
    I did not find "Hujjatullahubalighah, volum – 1, Chapter- 69, Page No 289". Can you please quote it with its original text in Arabic? 
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 1/5/2015 12:23:54 AM



  • How Do We Protect Islam From Terrorists?
     Salaam  to all:
     Please note carefully that today's so-called terrorism is the Chain reaction of decades old State Terrorism of USA, Israel, India, Russia China and other colonial powers and dictators at global level, including the Muslim world and Gulf Sheikdoms. It would be a great tyranny if you all attribute it to Islam just out of ignorance and totally forgetting Western hegemony against the concept of Political Islam - a death knell to these secular cults. 
     This is modern Jahiliya [ignorance] - where the higher a person is educated, the greater he or she is ignorant of  the truth that how Islam as a System of life helps the humanity and solves the human problems that Western democracies couldn't solve in spite of their tall talks. Socialism and Communism have failed to do any harm to Islam. In the same pursuit, Capitalism is fast digging its grave and will not last long. The future of humanity is wide open for Islam and that is why all the western powers are scared of Islam and hurling wild propaganda stunts against Islam day in and day out and the secular press and media are its mouthpiece.
     Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. It is fighting all along just to deliver justice and fair play to human affairs and fill the human abode with justice all around. Islam is, thus, a challenge to all the secular cults that have no solution of human problems and are fast falling apart in their quest to dominate societies on false and untruthful policies and programs.
     Jews and Christians who lost Islam that was presented by Abraham, Moses and Jesus [pbut] are supporting the secular cults must understand  that Islam in the shape of the Qur'an is the only authentic version of the Abrahamic faith and their Nirvana lies only on rejecting these false cults and accept Islam as the boon for humanity as a whole.
     Please share it with your readers. If not, it would be unfair.   Thanks
     Shamim Siddiqi 
    By Shamim Siddiqi - 1/3/2015 8:09:52 AM



  • Rational says, "my emphasis is on Islam and Islam is not the Quran. It is more than Quran. and Islam based on Quran is no guarantee
    of tolerance, peaceful co-existence." . .


    One has to use discretion and judgement when reading the Quran. I too think that we should focus on Islam. A simple rule should be that any injunction that is not pro-peace, anti-violence, anti-coercion, just, righteous, egalitarian, tolerant, rational and compassionate is not Islam no matter what the source.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/2/2015 12:49:01 AM



  • dear khalid suhail

    we have Sultan shahin saheb who sees every evil in one sect. Wahabism is scapegoat for him. He thinks by condemning one sect he is doing great service to Islam.
    Another person  we have Observer Saheb. He doesn't see any problem in Islam. He thinks causes are external.

    While Muslims fought before wahabism came into being, Shah waliullah and Imam Rabbani were the first two modern inspiring personalities responsible for current uprise of extremism. 
    i agree Shah Waliullah is revered equally by Wahabis/Devbandis and Brailvis/Sufis.
    I add Imam Rabbani in the list.

    By ratioanl mohammed yunus - 1/1/2015 9:51:33 PM



  • Mr Sultan Shahin - 7/31/2014 1:22:37 AM
    if you find comfort in condemning of one sect and consider it defense of Islam, you can continue it with its uselessness.
    Muslims were killing each other before Wahabism came into existence.
    Didn't Muslim kill each other before wahabism?
    Were not they takfeeris before wahabism?
    Were not companions of the prophet first Muslims to launch mutual killing.

    instead of making wahabism a scapegoat   you should focus on Islam and Muslims as a whole.

    I just questioned your brailvi/Sufi bias.
    but my emphasis is on Islam and Islam is not the Quran. It is more than Quran. and Islam based on Quran is no guarantee
    of tolerance, peaceful co-existence because it is sufficient to so the seeds of division. It divides humankind into Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam stands on extreme division.
    By ratioanl mohammed yunus - 1/1/2015 9:42:14 PM



  • Asif Naqshbandi sb says, 
    “Perhaps NewAgeIslam.com needs to restart this debate. Maybe there will be more Muslim takers for this plea by Editor Sultan Shahin.
    Perhaps now,  after Peshawar massacre of 132 Muslim children by Deobandi madrasa students and Wahhabi-Salafi Islamic scholars (Taliban), Muslims will feel the "need to disassociate themselves from Salafi, Wahhabi ideologies of permanent war with non-Muslims and moderate Muslims." 
    While, Ajay Raj Sahni saheb says,
    “Come to think of it, it is not a few hundred, tens of thousands of Muslims, many of them, women and children, or civilians, have been killed by other Muslims in the last few years. By the way, like many others I am too beginning to wonder if it is just wahhabism-salafism or an extremist interpretation of Islam that is the problem or Islam itself." 
    I am not surptised at all at these two diamatericaly apposite understandings. I tend to aggree more with  Mr Ajay Raj Sahni sb in the light of what majority of  Islamic scholars have said about the nature of the Islamic offensive jihad and the true (untwisted) teachings of the Quran and Hadith. One of the greatest scholars of Islam, Shah Waliyyullah Muhaddith Dehlavi, who is considered an authority on Islam by both the Deobandis and Barailivis , while defining the task and mission of hz Muhammad, the last prophet, says,in his famous book, "Hujjatullahulba'lighah" which is revered by both Deobandis and Barailvis,
    “ Nabi ki zimme dariyon mein se ye bhi hai ki who is deen (Islam) ko tamam adya’n par ghalb kar de aur kisi ko deen ke ghalbe se bahar na rahne de, chahe izzat ke saath ya zillat ke saath. Chunancheh log teen fareeq ban jaenge.
    It is the duty of the prophet  to establish the domination of Islam over all other religions and not leave anybody outside its domination whether they accept it  voluntarily or after humiliation. Thus the people will be divided into three catagories. 
    Zahir aur batin mein deen ki ita’at karne wale. (those who follow the religion of Islam inwardly and outwardly ( sincerely).
    Majboor hokar aur sarkashi ki ta’qat na rakhne ki wajah se zahir mein ita’at guzar. ( Tose who follow Islam outwardly because they have no other option and no capability to resist )
    Zaleel kafir jinko kheti katne, anaj nikalne aur doosri mazdoorion mei( Nabi)  kam men lagayega jaise ki kheti karne aur bojh uthane ke liye chuapayon (animals) ko kam mein laya jata hai. Nabi ke liye zaroori hai ki who kafiron par koi zajr (suppression, ) aur zillat ( humiliation) ka kanoon nafiz ( impose) kar de aur unhein maghloob wa zalil karke unse jizya le…. Qisas aur diyat mein kafiron ko musalmanon ke brabar darja na de aur isi tarah munakehat aur intezame mamlakat mein bhi kafiron ko musalmanon ke brabar darja na de taki yeh pabandiyan unhen iman lane par majboor kar den.  ( Lowly Kafir ( unbelievers ),  have to be tasked with lowly labour works like harvesting, threshing, carrying of loads, for which animals are used. The messenger of God  also imposes a law of suppression and humiliation on the kafirs and imposes jizya on them in order to dominate and humiliate them …. He does not treat them equal to muslims in the matters of Qisas  (Retaliaton),  Diyat ( blood money), marriage and government administration so that these restrictions should ultimately force them to embrass Islam. 
    Ref: Hujjatullahubalighah, volum – 1, Chapter- 69, Page No 289.
    So, in the light of the above, Mr Ajay Raj Sahni's question "whether it is just wahhabism-salafism or an extremist interpretation of Islam that is the problem or Islam itself." asumes great significance.

    By Khalid Suhail - 1/1/2015 2:32:09 AM



  • As you can see Mr. Asif Naqshbandi, There are no takers on the website for your suggestion. It will take a lot more than just a few hundred children killed for Muslims to awaken.

     

    Actually, come to think of it, it is not a few hundred, tens of thousands of Muslims, many of them, women and children, or civilians, have been killed by other Muslims in the last few years. 

    By the way, like many others I am too beginning to wonder if it is just wahhabism-salafism or an extremist interpretation of Islam that is the problem or Islam itself.

     

    You see, Mr. Sultan Shahin and other moderate Sufi-type Muslims maybe just trying to protect Islam by making Wahhabism the culprit. But is Wahhabism alone the culprit? Or is it a problem with Islam itself?  After all, Muslims have been fighting and killing and getting killed from much before Wahhabism came on the scene.

     

    Don't you think so? Have Sufis not engaged in fighting?

     

    There is much in this thread, however, that is instructive and educational. Some very passionate views indeed from several sides. I got to read all this for the first time and am very confused and depressed.

     

    What does one make of Islam? I don't want to think ill of any religion. I don't want to insult millions of my countrymen who believe in this religion. But they should come out and tell us what is their religion, what is their idea of their religion. Otherwise, people like me will keep getting fewer and fewer.

     

     I wish I could believe Mr. Sultan Shahin, but I see, he has few takers in his own community. Perhaps the majority thinks Wahhabi version is right. If so, we, the others, should beware of this community.

    By Ajay Raj Sahni - 12/29/2014 1:13:24 PM



  • Perhaps NewAgeIslam.com needs to restart this debate. Maybe there will be more Muslim takers for this plea by Editor Sultan Shahin.

    Perhaps now,  after Peshawar massacre of 132 Muslim children by Deobandi madrasa students and Wahhabi-Salafi Islamic scholars (Taliban), Muslims will feel the "need to disassociate themselves from Salafi, Wahhabi ideologies of permanent war with non-Muslims and moderate Muslims." 

    By Asif Naqshbandi - 12/28/2014 6:46:45 AM



  • Mr Shahin,

    You have used the term Islamist for me and from what you say, you appear to think that the term is highly flattering to the person for whom it is used, and therefore should welcome being called "Sultan Shahin, the Islamist editor of NAI". Please confirm. If you have objections, then please let us know what you understand by the term and why you have objections.

     

    I didn't say Islam is xenophobic. I am merely countering your propaganda of painting every other sunni sect as xenophobic to show that the Sufis/Barelvis, if put through the same process, will prove to be far worse than the other sects, and even as it is, they are a lot worse on many counts.

     

    Shrine visitors bring donations and business and there aren’t many principled businessmen who refuse lucrative business on communal grounds although there are a few `principled' businessmen who do. We may question their `principles' and their communalism, but at least they are not unprincipled opportunists.

     

    In your comment now, you are careful in your use of words but you paint all non Barelvi sunni sects with the same brush including the Deobandis and the peaceful Tablighis.

     

    Xenophobia is not an Islamic trait. Islamic fascism or Political Islam is also a modern phenomenon and un-Islamic and owes more to fascist ideologies of Europe than to anything that can be found in the history of Islam.

     

    My interest is not in denouncing any of the sects. I only respond to your wholesale and indiscriminate denunciation of even what is good in other sects in which other Sufis/Barelvis join you, to expose the hypocrisy of the Barelvis.

     

    The fact is that the current state of affairs is being used by the Islamophobes  to attack Islam and by sectarian Barelvis  to attack all other sunni sects. I see no difference between the two. Neither group is interested in solutions. My repeated attempts to discuss solutions are encountered with stiff opposition. My attempts to explain the phenomenon is categorized as support and justification for what is happening and the solutions as something the NAI has no power to implement. Yes, only governments have the power to implement solutions. NAI has no power over anything except to create public opinion. No government can resist public opinion beyond a point. So if NAI is unwilling to create public opinion in favour of implementing solutions that will work, then clearly its objective is limited to using the situation as an opportunity to settle sectarian scores.

     

    To reduce the paranoia, we should be talking about what caused or causes the problem and the solutions. 

                                        

     Recently I discussed the same topic with Secular Logic who ended up  with the following conclusion:

     

    ·         Mr Observer, 

     

    Do you think it was possible to deradicalise Osama Bin Laden? Or Mullah Omar? Or Kasab? Or Yasin Bhatkal? 

     

    To expect that they should be absorbed into the armies of their own countries is the most outlandish suggestion I have heard you make! You think britain should bring back its scores of citizens who have joined isis, deradicalise them and give them jobs in the UK army? You think the Indian Army would be well advised to give Yasin Bhatkal the job of even an army cook? 

     

    Rehabilitating them is impossible, because of the intensity, depth and success of the prior radicalisation which made them ready for martyrdom in the first place!

     

    Imprisoning and killing someone who you have earlier used for your cause and now find inconvenient is too ruthless for any human being to advocate. 

     

    The only possible solution is that they should disband voluntarily, which is again not going to happen. 

     

    So yes, I think there is no curative measure. Nations must take preventive measures, however ineffective they may prove to be because of the way many Muslims place themselves vis a vis secular administrations.

    By secularlogic - 7/22/2014 2:15:08 AM

     

    My solution was:

    1.     Rehabilitate

    2.     Imprison

    3.     Kill

    The solutions are not mutually exclusive and the appropriate solution should be used for each category of the extremists. The majority should be rehabilitated and the rest should be either imprisoned or executed.

     

    The rehabilitation can undertaken by Saudi Arabia which funded and indoctrinated them in the first place, by absorbing them in their army and retrain them. Once they come under the command/control structure of the army and are no longer free lancing, the troubles will end. As long as there are hundreds of thousands militarily trained and armed civilians on the loose, the troubles will continue and only worsen.

     

    Do you think denouncing fatwas emanating from war torn Afghanistan will make any difference? You have no control over those who will be negatively impacted by publicizing the fatwas but can be sure that the extremists are not even reading what you write. If you think that publicizing these will prevent those who are unaffected from being affected, then there are better and proven methods of promoting and inculcating positive values. Publicizing the offensive fatwas is beyond doubt counterproductive as any good behavioral trainer will tell you. The fact is that NAI publishes these ridiculous fatwas only to stereotype all non-Barelvi sects as people who subscribe to the fatwas which is mischievous nonsense.


    By Observer - 7/31/2014 6:05:28 AM



  • Naseer Ahmed Observer Saheb, You consider Islamism a term of abuse. This implies you consider yourself a Muslim, of course, but not an Islamist. Will you please be so kind as to elucidate in some detail what is Islamism in your view. Why you consider it a term of abuse?

    Another thing. I find that Wahhabism-Salafism has a well-worked out theology of intolerance and xenophobia which sometimes leads to violence. Sufis talk about peace but do not have a similar narrative or theology of Islam as a peaceful religion. Hence their ineffectiveness in this era in which everyone is a scholar and can ask questions and needs to be satisfied. Sufi saints spread Islam by focussing on the peaceful verses of Quran and ignoring the xenophobic, hateful verses. This is not possible today. Hence their ineffectiveness. Wahhabis have gained ground.

    However, you seem to be suggesting that all Muslims are intolerant and xenophocic. You (and ex-Muslim Mohd Younus Rational) keep pointing to the intolerance of Sufi-Barailwis who constituted probably 99 per cent of Sunni Muslim community a hundred years ago and have been steadily losing ground to Wahhabis since then. I used to consider them a tolerant and inclusive bunch of people as I found people from all faiths praying together at Sufi shrines. Indeed, I found a large family of Sikhs next to ours during my recent trip to Ajmer Sharif. But you two keep giving us examples of Sufi-Barailwi intolerance and xenophobia. So, are you saying that  I should not be merely Wahhabophobic, but Islamophobic, that all of Muslim community is a fearsome ogre, not just Wahhabis. Do you know of any interpretation of Islam, any understanding of Islam that one does not need to fear?

    I would be grateful, if you take these questions in the spirit in which they are being posed, merely to enhance my own and possibly some other readers' understanding. You may not know it, but many people around the world are getting absolutely paranoid about Islam. These issues need to be clarified.

    By Sultan Shahin - 7/31/2014 1:22:37 AM



  • Mr Shahin,

    I have not asked any question to Mr Yunus. I am drawing his attention to my responses to Hamza on those four questions of his. 

    Mr Yunus may however respond to my comment on his advice on dietary prohibitions to which I have drawn his attention thrice.
    By Observer - 7/7/2014 8:26:18 AM



  • Dear Yunus Saheb, In his last comment on this thread Naseer Ahmed Saheb (he was not Observer then) had asked you some questions but in those days you were engaged in working on your forthcoming book and did not carry the conversation further.

    But it would be of interest to other readers including me if you gave your opinion on at least some of the issues, if you deem fit.

    But no hurry. This can be done after Ramazan too, now that it has been waiting for sol long.

    By Sultan Shahin - 7/7/2014 7:52:28 AM



  • Dear Commentators, After 2 PM (IST) today there may be some confusion in the posting of comments as we are starting final migration of the site to another vps (virtual private server) managed by a new webshost. So please - all commentators - save the comments you post and if they don't appear do please repost. Hopefully by early tomorrow morning, things will be in order. The site will also open faster than now. I have tried this in a trial run and the site on new vps seems to be working much better.

    Also, if any reader finds anything missing on the new site from tomorrow onwards, as sometimes happens in any shifting, do please inform us. We will try to retain the old site, though not working, for a few days, so that anything missing can be copied from there again.

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/30/2012 1:18:44 AM



  • Yunus Sb,

    I do not think that you have been following the arguments. I do not quote from any source other than the Quran or history written by western authors as I have no knowledge of any religious book other than the Quran.

    I have clearly stated that only for arguments sake, I take what Hamza has stated to be correct and only point that his own inferences are illogical or invalid or not the only possible explanation. These issues are however  the digressions of Hamza after his main questions were comprehensively answered which related to.

    1. Human Rights
    2. Why madinian Surahs are different from Meccan Surahs
    3. Distribution of inheritance
    4. Questions relating to the story of Dhul Qarnain

    I have neither read the fatwa nor the refutation as I have no interest in any fatwa. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/18/2012 11:17:24 PM



  • Dear Rationale and Hamza,

    Love is blind and same is the faith, all the religions practiced on the surface are generally changed by the parliament etc of the respective country and are hardly opposed by its followers. They live in the world according to their sweet will. For instance the civilized society allow women to marry women, man to man, adultery is at peak in human production and above all the state system in the style of machine is gaining momentum but has swallowed small kingdoms of family where affection for children, respect for elders, love for family was intact. The people of modern civilization live in a mob just like vagabond

    Besides, Islam does not allow you to live on the earth according to your sweet will but according to ways laid down by Allah Almighty in Quran and Sunnah of Muhammad PBUH.  Hamza and rationale keep away yourself from ridiculing Islam; work on strengthening of your religion rather than interfering in the religion of others.

    By Mumtaz Hussain - 12/18/2012 12:44:19 PM



  • Dear Naseer Sahab,

    You state; " If you hated Islam, and wanted someone to run a website which was apparently run by 'Muslims' to denigrate Islam and Muslims and provide `proof' from `authentic Muslim' sources against Islam and Muslims, you would have got a distinction for doing  what New Age Islam is doing."

    Suppose New Age Islam closes its door to people like Rationalist and Hamza whose singular mission is to charge Islam based on its theological sources - the Hadith, Sira and Classical Sharia of Islam, you will still have the likes of the Fatwa issued by the Talibans. Please read the first part and reflect what a non-Muslim or a Muslim who does not distinguish between the Qur'an and the words of its various Imams (like 99.9% of them) will think of Islam. 
     
    Kindly read my refutation of the Fatwa and post a comment.

    Hmaza Sb asks you questions quoting from the Sira and Islamic theological sources. You answer him quoting the same sources. What stops you from saying that the bulk of what is there in the Sira and Islamic theological sources is based on word of mouth, passed down many generation, couched in emotionally surcharged poetic imagery and embellished with speculative accounts and legends and therefore TECHNICALLY UNAUTHENTIC AND OF NO RELEVANCE this day. The argument will close there. Otherwise it will go on until eternity. Bite the bullet or else bear the agony of carrying an unwanted foreign material in the body of your faith. 
    By muhammad yunus - 12/18/2012 11:31:43 AM



  • Dear muhammad yunus - 12/18/2012 10:13:45 AM
    I repeat again and again because you leave important questions unanswered. I quote from corrupted sources to show the mirror to Muslims including you who believe in them and revere.
    I have repeatedly said to you that these questions are not for you. I have many questions on the Quran but you duck those questions.
     I have repeatedly said to you that I read your articles and agree with some of them. When I ask about free will and predestination you say you can't answer.

    If you can do me a favour please explain what is the divine-scheme in your understanding?
    I want your views on all these, free will, predestination, guidance etc.
    I request you to discuss on these issues and I will base my questions only on these issues.

    Please come on first on Allah's creation plan.
     And I am not forcing you to spend hours on me. Please don't oblige me I will not be able to pay you back anything.
    By rational - 12/18/2012 11:19:50 AM



  • Dear Rational. Your answer pleases me. It is free from any malice and focused. 

    You write so many commentaries on all that is lethal and pernicious in Islam as regardless of all my articles, which are read by a handful of Muslims, what you write largely represent Islam in its petrified form as captured in my article referenced below:


    So all that you say is nothing new. What you do not say or totally ignore is written in the concluding part of the above article as follows:

    "it is imperative for the Muslims to treat their theological discourses in their historical perspective as classical subjects in the higher academy, as happened in the past with other major theological disciplines – notably the asbab al nuzul and diverse schools of law. Since their primary source of guidance - the Qur’an is preserved in its original form, and free from all kinds of lethal and sinister accretions and space time specificity as with the Classical Sharia, Hadith and the early biographic accounts (Sira), they can home in on it to evolve a broader, altruistic and universal interpretation of its message. And that is certainly not impossible as reviewed in a forthcoming article."

    Thus you go on pointing out all the polluted elements of Islam one after another and rather than offering a way forward as the above and my various articles attempt to do, you try to establish that Islam is a false religion - a premise the Quraish of Mecca tried for over twenty years more than fourteen centuries ago and the Christiandom has been trying since the birth of Islam - without success.. Besides, how can you ever think to get the Muslims to dismiss the Qur'an when you have ignorant people ready to kill themselves to defend the Qur'an and men like me - no fools for sure who appropriate all faiths, atheism and even gay rights and Darwinism in Islam.

    Have you become my enemy? If not, please not read my recent counter-fatwa on Taliban's six part fatwa.
    By muhammad yunus - 12/18/2012 10:13:45 AM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed Saheb.
    Once I thought I should write my disagreement, but after knowing your brand (sorry!), I think it will be a waste of time. I agree with Mr Hamza.
    You have old justifications we are aware already by reading debates.
    i will finish my comment with " Allah is a failure in guiding the people to right path and has poor record in answering the prayers and prompt in sending the destruction". By rational - 12/18/2012 8:17:27 AM



  • Mr Naseer Ahmad is repeating the same tired and old excuses again and again without caring for the contents to which he has been specificaly asked to respond. Now, I am fully convinced that he has no answers to my specific questions. His latest comment does not merit any response. Therefore, I find It useless to waste any more time on such blind folks who cannot see the light of the truth because of their blind faith. 

    By Hamzah - 12/18/2012 6:26:41 AM



  • Mr Rehan Nezami is a stupid fellow because he comments on stupid questions of a stupid fellow called rational.
    You are but a believer in conspiracy theories.
    By rational - 12/18/2012 1:56:43 AM



  • Dear muhammad yunussaheb.
    I read horrible accounts in the Bible. 3 years old babies were not spared and skulls were dashed against the rocks.
    I am not going to be a christian. This site belongs to the Islam, so our focus in on the Islam.

    By rational - 12/18/2012 1:51:28 AM



  • Sadaf,

    If you hated Islam, and wanted someone to run a website which was apparently run by 'Muslims' to denigrate Islam and Muslims and provide `proof' from `authentic Muslim' sources against Islam and Muslims, you would have got a distinction for doing  what New Age Islam is doing. 

    I am surprised that something called 'New Age Islam' should tolerate sectarianism. I am also surprised that those who call themselves moderate, progressive and educated should totally ignore all empirical studies and research that throw light on the problem as well as the solutions.

    You may excel in mocking and satirizing and I am sure you have your admirers for your `art', but remember that you can get carried away and regret it later. It is better to stick to a straight format and say whatever you have to say with evidence.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/18/2012 1:31:35 AM



  • Dear sadaf
    Division in the Muslims took place immediately after the death of the prophet. Those who started fighting were early Muslims, companions of the prophet, recipents of direct teaching of the prophet. How come they didn't wait the burial of the prophet?
    Throwing blames on the Muhadithhen and, Imams later Ulema will serve no purpose. Why the true Islam lived a short life? Who is at true path if all sects claim the same.

    Dear sadaf, bal khaane se kuchh nahi hoga.

    kya hamari tareekh dushmanon ne likhi hai. Agar haan to hamaari tareekh kahan hai? Apni kamiyon ko chhupaane ke liye doosron ko jaahil batana ham logon ka shewa hai.

    By rational - 12/18/2012 1:20:11 AM



  • Dear sadaf
    Imamon(old and new) ko goli maro.
    If you include the prophet and Sahaba Karam, Tabaiyeen and Tabe tabayeen and .....in the same category of fallible people I have no problem with you. Saying me that I learned from the Jahils is of no use. Majority of the Muslims belong to this category.
    Those/These Jahils were/are very much capable than you and me. You simply can't beat them. They were not defeated in the past.
    Aap jaise aql ke putle unke aage paani bharte hain. Govts are weak before them who you and me are.
    In the early morning Tablighis were knocking at our doors. That is a one way (simplex) communication. You have to listen to them and agree, otherwise you will be their target. They are in majority, mosques are in their control and have jahils on their backs.
    I am interested to know what beliefs you have.
    Please avoid convincing simply state your beliefs if you also wish so that I can understand you and better communication may establish. Havrave a nice day. By rational - 12/18/2012 1:10:39 AM



  • Rational says:

    @ Naseer Saheb. Keep your answers to your self. These are not the answers. you are utterly failed on the all issues. After reading your recent posts I have no desire to have answers from you.

    But he will not say why he disagrees because there is nothing to disagree. He will also not acknowledge that his questions are answered since his motive is not to seek answers that satisfy but find ways and means to denigrate Islam. My purpose in insisting on closure was to expose his real motives. 

    These people will go on attacking irrespective of the answers they get. they are confirmed denigrators of Islam. 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/18/2012 1:05:55 AM



  • Hamza,

    Issue 1.

    If slavery was not abolished by Islam, it was because it was a necessity. This aspect has been covered before. Releasing a slave could expose the person to hardship as they would now have to find a shelter and work which was not easy. Quite often the option may have been to sell oneself back into slavery. A single woman from another country without a family to support her was even more vulnerable. So, it may have been unkind to release her especially if it went against her wish.

    Issue 2

    We have established that you would treat those portions of the Quran or Ahadeeth or books of Sira as true that show Islam and its Prophet in a poor light, but doubt everything that show Islam and the Prophet in a good light. You have only provided proof of your being a motivated denigrator of Islam  by showing such selectivity.

    Question 3

    Go back to your original question which is confined to your inability to correctly divide the inheritance. Without acknowledging this part of your question which has been answered, now you bring in some apparent difference between two verses which have been explained by scholars as one representing the share of uterine siblings and the other regarding full or co sanguine siblings. This has been raised merely to escape acknowledging that your original question has been fully answered. 

    Issues 4, 5, 6 and 7

    Your objection continues to be why did the Muslims ask for acceptance of Islam or submission to their authority and payment of Jiziya or war.

    I have answered by saying that while we can endlessly argue about each war and the events that led to it or justified it or we can view these conquests  from a historical perspective. We find  that the Muslim conquests proved to be a great boon for the population in every sense - freedom to practice any religion, lower taxes, peace and security for centuries, protection from war, exemption from military duty.

    Issue 8

    You do not touch upon it nor gracefully acknowledge that all your questions relating the stories in Surah 18  have been answered to your satisfaction.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/18/2012 12:55:08 AM



  • Dear Raihan Nezami.
    This comment shows how intelligent you are. You can't differentiate between a normal and sarcastic sentence. You need Dua and dawa for yourself. You might have recited "Ya hayyu ya Qayyum putting your hand on your head after every namaz. But I see that saying that have not  benefited you a bit.
    Reserve your seat in the mental hospital you will soon land there. By rational - 12/17/2012 10:58:04 PM



  • Dear muhammad yunus saheb.
    Please don't exhaust your energy in calling us agents, serpents, wolves etc.
    I have only one issue with you: You have put your whole energy to prove that Ulema are culprits for the corruption in Islam. But you revere the Ulema and imams and you have provided some historical back ground too.
    You ducked many questions we have raised.  
    Again I say why you are after the intentions and sources of the questions. If you have answer fine, otherwise go ahead. We are not holding you back. Just ignore them. They are not for you till you decide to reply.

    I put my self in the shoe of a doubter and raised the questions. I can put myself in the shoes of a believer and one answer will be enough. Beliefs need no proof no answer. By rational - 12/17/2012 10:41:38 PM



  • Dear Sultan Sahab, Hamza Sahab and Rational. 

    While some commentators on this site are keen to bring out the skeletons from the cupboards of Islam, one can find similar skeletons in the cupboards of other religions and it serves no purpose to discuss them this day. Look at this extract from the Internet [Ref. below] pertaining to early Medieval Christianity which I am forced to quote to explain the notion of historical relativism and to demonstrate how easy it is to copy and past from any link on the Internet, as those quoting from Islam's theological sources have been doing: 

    "Pope St. Nicholas I, writing in 866 to the recently converted Bulgarian prince, Boris, who has asked the holy pontiff for guidance on how a Christianized society should be run. Section 86 of Nicholas's long response reads as follows:

    "If a [putative] thief or bandit is apprehended and denies the charges against him, you tell me your custom is for a judge to beat him with blows to the head and tear the sides of his body with other sharp iron goads until he confesses the truth." 
    I do not mean to judge Christianity with this or any other graver examples of human rights violation. The Christians never discuss these things. They look forward and have leapfrogged he era of theological speculations and domination. But some Muslim intellectuals constantly look backwards and make a laughing stock of themselves and Muslims collectively in the eyes of the world - unless the people with Muslim names like Hamza, Mohammad Yunus (2) were non-Muslims - impostors, agents of Islamophobes:  
    Ref; http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7390&CFID=27568129&CFTOKEN=28601069
     
    By muhammad yunus - 12/17/2012 4:01:16 PM



  • Dear Mr. Sultan Shahin Sir. Regarding the positive news that was discussed few days back, I hope the following link you will not dismiss as unimportant and not positive.

    http://dawn.com/2012/12/17/small-revolutions-and-sewing-machines/

    To be honest, I haven't read the matter therein as yet (but which I'll do after I end this post), but I am forwarding this type of news as a sample for letting you know what news could be seen as positive.

    Needless to say that this piece was missed by your team and if it happened so because this piece appeared just 7 hours ago, I think, similar such pieces do keep coming up but we are not informed of these.

    Has there ever been a full focussed article on the works of Abdul Sattar Edhi? What motivates him? How much Islam is there in his motive? I guess, the article about him must have been there on New Age Islam as that article was quite prominent as it appeared in The Economic Times last year around this time. Or if it was not put up on New Age Islam then it should have been there.

    In fact such news should find a place in the highlighted column where Sir Syed Ahmad Khan's contributions are posted. In fact we should raise voice for a Nobel Peace Prize for the guy, instead of Malala or beside Malala. Similarly the works of Muhammad Yunus of Gramin Bank fame, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan should be highlighted. Similarly works of Greg Mortenson who is working in hilly regions of Pakistan to build schools should be highlighted. 

    Such news are important. Let me put it this way, that we need to be informed of four kinds of news items. One  is what Non-Muslims have to say about Islam and Muslims. I count all BBC & CNN kinds into this beside the regular propaganda and straight away lies of Jansanghi websites. Second is what Muslims have to say about Islam and Muslims. From Urdu and Arabic papers and websites to people like us over here writing in English. Third is what Muslims report about Non-Muslims like Zakir Nayak's research (I really do not not know what rocket science research they are doing) and Dr. Mr. Naseer Ahmad Sir's kind of material; and fourth is what Non-Muslims report about Non-Muslims. This last one is important to understand that whatever we hear about Muslims and Islam, whether it is exclusively from and among them or is it the general pattern. Here in the last category in fact I find the juiciest stories of father and father in law raping daughter and daughter in law kind of things and news about such detoriated societies are just too many from Non-Muslim community to easily outnumber such news coming in from Muslim community. Muslim community excel in different sort of crime; forced purdah, forced and unforced conversion, Honour Killing,Wanton Killing and Killing in the name of religion.

    Please sir, see what can be done to address this concern.

    By sadaf - 12/17/2012 3:52:11 PM



  • Mr Naseer Ahmad,

    On issue 1, You said in your earlier reply regarding Mary  , “how do you know whether she wanted to be freed in the Prophet's lifetime?”

    And I said,

    I want to ask you, “did Allah encourage Muslims to free only those slaves who wanted to be freed, as per your claim that Quran encouraged Muslims to free the slaves.”

    It seems you do not have a clear answer to this specific question. 

    On issue 2, I said,

    “It is the universally accepted principal that, in giving a reference, the targeted audience is always kept in mind. If the targeted audience is Hindu it is preferable to give them a reference from Gita, not from the Quran because a Gita reference will be more convincing for them. When Muslim apologists address a Christian audience they prefer to quote from the Bible to prove their point. But it does not mean that they necessarily believe that the existing Gita or Bible are truly the word of God.” You did not reply to this specific  question  too.

    On issue 3, I said,

    Quran, 4:12 says that in case there are no direct heirs (parents or children) then "brother or a sister, to each of the two a sixth" while 4:176 says in the same situation that "they shall receive two-thirds of what he leaves" (double of what 4:12 says)."that brother or a sister, to each of the two a sixth; in 4:12 . Muslim apologists say that here the brother or a sister means a brother or a sister from the mother, for Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas used to read, “...brother or a sister from the mother”( Walahu akhun au okhtun minal umm). 

    After presenting the two problems (the contradiction in the two verses 4:12 and 4:176 and the attempt of some scholers to solve this contradiction by bringing another reading of quran without which this problem can never be solved) I asked you  how are you  going to solve this problem of contradiction and another reading of the Quran which no more exists in the Quran.  But you did not even touch the issue.

    On issues  4,5 , 6, &7, I said

     My objection is to demanding of jizyah from people living outside the boundaries of the land of Islam and to wage war against them if they refuse.Why  should people living in a sovrein country be forced to  pay a tax to muslims, whatever  small the amount may be, while they did not even ask for their protection. I asked for a specific answer to this question.” Were the wars against Rome and Faras offensive or defensive.”

    This  specific question also remains unanswered.

    However it will not be appropriate for me to insist for answers  from a person who himself admits he does not have a deep  knowledge in Islamic theology beyond the quran.

    If yuo want to take this debate as closed,I have no problem. You are a nice person. If you have called me by abusive and insulting names , I do not take it seriously, considering that you might have done it out of your religious duty.  I wish you a happy life.

    By Hamzah - 12/17/2012 3:14:13 PM



  • @Rational, How come Islam is the problem when two who claim themselves as Muslims fight? How come Islam is the problem when two who do not claim themselves to be Muslims fight? Has the world not witnessed any war where Muslims weren't involved? Foolish questions!

    Most of the questions that you have is basically from your such understanding of Islam as has been told to you by your Jahil family and society. I am sorry to drag them here, but the point that I am making is that all questions are related to presumptions which are in itself a faulty understanding of Islam.

    You take for granted that all Hadees and all those Imams are infallible. They were the Imams of yesteryears. We are the Imams of today. The Jamat who follows our Imamate are on websites. Our answers are the answers which has been arrived at after collective knowledge of the past. You of course will not believe us, but then you believe those error filled writings and sayings because it suits you and those who wrote and said so are no more there to answer and even if they had been, they might not have had the advantage of being born in the era and generation as yours. You have time and again evaded from re-learning Islam as I propound or as many of us here propund. If you have some query there, then of course you should ask, but you do not listen to our version because you think our version is wrong and unauthentic. Well, then you go and ask your queries on outdated version of things to those who still subscribe to the outdated version of Islam. Why do you ask us, when we do not represent what bull-shit you are refering to. You asked one day about Jinn and Malaika, and you got the reply. You were stunned but basically that is what all those non-senses mean to me and yet I know I am a Muslim and I am in battle against people who are anti-Islam.

    By sadaf - 12/17/2012 2:14:26 PM



  • Mr. Rational is used to speak like this, "I forgot I should not ask such questions. I am sorry" after uttering a stupid thing. He should take cure for the short memory and also he should do "Dua" for the earliest recovery. There is another stupid question which  how can anyone reply "why so much bloodshed happened just after the death of the prophet?" May God bless him so that we can talk something useful. By Raihan Nezami - 12/17/2012 2:10:17 PM



  • Dear Mr. Naseer Ahmad Sir. You are a sectarian and that is why you dwell on Dawood Ibrahim issue. He wasn't an at all. The only other possibility is that you fail to understand the major point and remain stuck with something unimportant. With this approach, you will not be able to convince your ideas. Keep blabbering like all these  Jansanghis-Secular Logics, Satwa, or keep blabbering even like us- Non-Jansanghis, Non-Wahabi, Non-Barelvis.

    By sadaf - 12/17/2012 1:27:37 PM



  • Dear muhammad yunus saheb
    We have no desire to go back but our Muslim brothers pull us backward as the crabs stop there brothers who wants to come out from the basket.
    Please read my comment to Sulatn  Saheb. It is not something cooked up story. It is real encounter.
    If Islam was so good and Allah is merciful why so much bloodshed happened just after the death of the prophet. Why it had so short life?
    I forgot I should not ask such questions. I am sorry. Please go ahead.
    By rational - 12/17/2012 11:49:12 AM



  • @ Mumtaz Husain
    You believe that only Deobandi is on the right path.
    Take my words no unity is going to happen in the islam and it is better for the mankind. This prayer of unity of the prophet was rejected by the Allah. Why unity is not possible because the cause is the Quran itself. No external agency is responsible for divisions in the Islam as you think.
    There is no reform possible because you have closed your eyes and put the blames on the others.
    @ Naseer Saheb. Keep your answers to your self. These are not the answers. you are utterly failed on the all issues. After reading your recent posts I have no desire to have answers from you. The Islam is safe in your hands. Makes prayers. May your prayers be answered.
    By rational - 12/17/2012 11:31:15 AM



  • My objection is to demanding of jizyah from people living outside the boundaries of the land of Islam and to wage war against them if they refuse. Why should people living in a sovereign country be forced to pay a tax to Muslims, whatever small the amount may be, while they did not even ask for their protection? I want a specific answer to this question.” Were the wars against Rome and Faras offensive or defensive?” '

    By Hamzah - 12/17/2012 11:16:24 AM



  • Dear Rational! You say, "Mr. Muhammad Yunus has not come up so far to help the Editor how Imposters, ...can be kept away from the NewAgeIslam."

    My answer:

    I have tabled the following agenda /missions for this target website:

       

    To promote critical thinking (Ijtihad) in Islam

    To enlighten the Muslim community regarding the social, moral, ethical and pluralistic dimensions of Qur’anic message.

    To provide religious basis to the Indian Muslims to reform their society in accordance with the needs of the times – such as active participation in universal education, all art forms and national development projects    

    To bring the Muslims closer to the core scripture of their faith – the Qur’an and to relegate theological knowledge to the specialist in order to meet the skill and educational demand of the present day world.  

    To combat all communal, disruptive and militant, fanatic and demonizing elements

    To promote inter-faith relations

    To build a united and cohesive India and work towards an eventual cordial and harmonious relation with Pakistan.


     http://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/use-and-misuse-of-freedom-of-expression-on-this-islamic-website-(new-age-islam)-and-need-for-a-clear-agenda/d/8997

    By muhammad yunus - 12/17/2012 9:04:04 AM



  • Dear Rational! You say, "They are in the debate and bring some burried aspects of the Islam."

    Those who look forward will say: "zara dekh usko jo kuchch ho raha hai hone wala hai - dhara kya hai bhala ahde kuhan ki dastanon may."

    More importantly the buries aspects of Islam as of any other religion are innumerable dating a millennium and more ago. They are of no relevance whatsoever today. No other faith community is engaged in exhuming the corpses of its theological graves. The world is going forward and so we must or else we pay the price of the anachronism of our thoughts.      
    By muhammad yunus - 12/17/2012 8:56:52 AM



  • Mr Rational, Thank  you  for your appreciaitve words, though I do not consider myself  a scholar. Only I got the apportunity to read great scholars of Islam,called Hukama-e-Islam or Oqala-e-Islam.

    By Hamzah - 12/17/2012 6:22:37 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    I guess you have to come to your own conclusions through your own tortuous reasoning rather than accept at face value what I have said about myself regarding the exact nature of my own beliefs which put me out of the pale of every sect and in the opinion of many orthodox perhaps, from the pale of Islam itself.

    You exaggerate the chances of getting killed for one's beliefs and opinions. In any case, my standards of morality are higher than that of a Consequentialist.

    Talibanism is clearly a creation of three states - US, KSA and Pakistan. The rank and file Talibanis are victims of State Policy. You do not blame slaves for what they do. You hold the masters responsible. The ideology is only incidental and since KSA is involved, the ideology of the Saudi regime would play a role is a given.

    There is not an iota of proof to show that the Barelvis are less sectarian than the other sects and I refuse to subscribe to  Shahin Sbs sectarian goals, His obvious displeasure at my showing  Dawood Ibrahim to be a Barelvi and repeatedly saying that no other Barelvi is involved shows his sectarian stand. Dawood Ibrahim alone is a prominent person whose affiliation can be checked on the internet and by no stretch of imagination can it be said that he is the only one. Also he ignores that the Barelvis in Pakistan feel left out of Afghanistan and made a strong bid to get involved in Kashmir and also played a part in insurgency in Kashmir. They are also in the forefront of forced conversions and in blaspemy cases targeting the minorities in Pakistan. They were also in the forefront in getting the Ahmediyas declared non-Mulsim minority. I have nothing against the Barelvis and since my own family is Barelvi, (my beliefs are non-Barelvi, and non every other sect)  I have everything to gain from painting the Barelvi as a peaceful sufi. However, such sectarianism does not serve any sect’s interests and harms every Muslim and I would not like to be a party to the destruction of Islam by vilifying other sects. I condemn every ism that practices sectarianism in any form and prefer not to be selective in my condemnation.

     The Taliban are a war hardened militia group. Nobody underestimates the threat they pose to peace and to civilized life and I have been strongly advocating a solution to the problem and not just condemning them and continuing to live with the problem. Shahin Sb however seems to think that condemning is enough.

    I do not expect NAI to solve the problem on its own but to play its role in the solution. I have provided many links to news items concerning radicalization/deradicalization and also to research studies which tell us exactly what works and what does not work. NAI itself publishes no articles on the subject nor has it used the links provided to publish the material for a broader audience and a broader debate. Nor have I found a single article that puts “Islamic Terrorism” in perspective vis-à-vis global terrorism with facts and figures. Nor does NAI promote understanding and dispel prejudices by publishing research studies that tell us exactly what opinions Muslims in different countries hold on the important issues. We are only fed partisan articles and partisan reporting of news telling us how evil/backward/misogynists Saudis or the Taleban are.

    My showing the genesis of Islamic terrorism in the act of the US choosing to get involved in arming and training the Jehadis against the local communist government in Afghanistan, correctly anticipating that their involvement would provoke the USSR to send their troops into Afghanistan, which would give them an opportunity to give the USSR their Vietnam is treated with disdain as these verifiable historical facts are found to be inconvenient to the sectarian theories of the evil of Wahabism/Salafism/Khwarijism. When 250000 Afghans and 35000 Jehadis from 46 countries participate in fighting the Soviets, and these Jehadis are not disarmed and rehabilitated after the Soviets leave and later political events create conditions of further strife, the resultant rise in Islamic militancy in these 46 countries is only to be expected.

    The links below are to news items, research studies and to a lecture of a prominent person to help us better understand the problem and to consider the possible solutions.

    The following tells how terrorism spread to Indonesia and Malaysia and the efforts being made to deradicalize the groups.

    http://www.irinnews.org/report/96552/Analysis-Deradicalization-Is-Indonesia-s-approach-working

    The two links below contain findings of research studies that throw light on the process of both radicalization and deradicalization and tell us clearly that ideology plays no role in either a person joining a radical group or leaving it. This puts in perspective our misplaced emphasis on discussing various fatwas and ideologies to fight the problem.

    http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1053.html

    http://sites.duke.edu/ihss/files/2011/12/Morris_Research_Brief_Final.pdf

    The following talk provides a summary of a Gallup poll which tells us exactly what Muslims the world over think on important issues. It dispels many of our prejudices.

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/inside-islam-what-billion-muslims-really-think/

    The following is a talk by Noam Chomsky who clearly puts in perspective Islamic terrorism vis-à-vis state terrorism by Israel and the US.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urMxrdBDgnU.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/17/2012 6:01:32 AM



  • Mumtaz Hussain Sb,

    You are quite right. Hamza and Rational do not ask questions seeking answers. Their objective is simply to malign Islam. Answering them is a waste of time.

    I simply expose them for what they are and then leave them alone. I do not aswer these people normally beyond the first time. With Rational, I am only trying to close the old cases.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/17/2012 4:50:18 AM



  • Rational,

    Please focus on closing the discussion on  the four questions that you posed.

    refer to my post:12/15/2012 3:16:51 AM

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/17/2012 4:43:06 AM



  • Hamza,

    Issue 1 and 2

    I have made it clear that I have no knowledge of any religious books outside the Quran. Hamza should therefore quote exactly whatever he is trying to say, otherwise I have no way of knowing what part is from what source and what part is his own inference. My responses are based on taking his statements to be correct but in no way may be treated as my believing these statements to be true, based as they are on sources that are themselves doubtful.

    Neither he knows nor do I know whether Mary would have liked to be freed earlier. Knowing about the prophet’s personality and the fact that many persons of sterling qualities such as Abu Bakr (RA), Umar (RA) etc attached themselves to him when Islam was under dire threat of being wiped out and stayed fiercely loyal to him through all the vicissitudes, prove that the Prophet was indeed a very noble person to whom people were naturally attracted and to whom they remained loyal. It is also not very surprising that despite what the venom spewing Islamophobes speak about his wives, even the Jewish captive women who became his wives remained loyal to him and single and chaste after his death until their own death decades later and served the cause of Islam loyally. This proves beyond doubt that they married him out of their own free will after being freed.

    I have merely posed the question as to how Hamza knows that Mary did not wish to remain the Prophet’s slave until his death and that his freeing her a day before his death may have been exactly what she wished for. Hamza can only speculate but obviously neither he nor anyone knows the answer. So should one speculate? Or should one judge events by the broad picture of the Prophet’s generosity to slaves?

    Do you even need the Quran to tell you that a normal male is attracted by a woman’s beauty?

    You have laid a lot of store by the Quranic verse saying God himself says so which you are quite right in doing but my question is, do you then accept that the verse is from God and the Prophet would not himself write what may be held against him? There are several other verses which the Prophet may not have liked to be there in the Quran. You obviously will selectively take what you wish as God’s word if it puts the Prophet in a poor light, and I wanted you to say the same so that we know where you stand.

    Rational asks about specific dates about certain events in Islamic history knowing that only approximate dates are known but attaches great importance to what Ayesha (RA) said about her own age and does not question how she could have been a witness to her own birth nor does he cast doubts on her account of her age at the time of her marriage. You and Rational will also not question as to how she shows maturity beyond her supposed age in her sayings and the good works that she carried out. Nor do you have any saying of Ayesha(RA) or anyone else complaining of her having been underage at the time of marriage or of difficulties on account of her young age. The smallest opportunity for vilification is enough for the maligners of the Prophet.

    It is possible for the dumbest fool, to pick parts of any story, about any person, and speculate about what is not known to vilify the person. By doing so, he merely debases himself.

    Issue 3

    I have given the solution to every specific case that you said has a problem in distribution. I have also shown the broad approach with worked out examples proceeding from the clear cases to cases that become clear through analogy with the clear case. My solutions are in accordance with the Quranic Ayats. When every case that you have thrown at me has been solved, what remains? Your objective is neither to understand nor accept. You can keep on arguing endlessly and cite several scholars who may have erred because of their lack of understanding of Maths or logic. I am not answerable for any of them or for the great Imams if they have erred or differed with each other. You tell me if my solutions are not in accordance with the Quran and whether I do not proceed from cases that are absolutely clear to those that become clear through analogy of the clear cases.

    Issue 4, 5, 6 and 7

    I have quoted western authors on Islamic history which show that the expansion of Muslim rule liberated the Jews and minority Christian sects from religious persecution, that the easy conquests of the Muslims were in part aided by the local people who welcomed Muslim rule as it meant an end to the rule of repressive imperialist powers of the day. Military successes were swift with minimal bloodshed. Jerusalem, Baghdad and many other victories were bloodless as the rulers surrendered after a siege. The terms of surrender were highly generous.

    Jiziya was in lieu of military service and carried a guarantee of protection. It was only levied on males of military age. It was refunded when such protection could not be provided. Not only the females, the priests, the children and the old and the infirm were exempted from Jiziya but the state helped the old non-Muslims also from the taxes collected. Non-Muslims had equal rights and Islamic courts rendered justice and the Caliphs word did not carry more weight than that of a Jew is established through a clear incident.

    Such high standards of behaviour with conquered people from persons such as Umar (RA), Ali (RA), Khalid Bin Walid and the chivalry of even a Salahuddin centuries later, speak of Islam and the high standards of morality and generous behaviour that the Prophet demanded from the people. The broad picture that emerges puts in perspective the game of the haters of Islam who try to distort through their perverted speculations specific local events in the history of Islam.

    If your question is whether there should have been war at all, and for the moral justification of each war after the Prophets death, then we can go on debating endlessly how each war was morally justified or not justified. But if we look from the perspective of history, then clearly swift and relatively bloodless victories were achieved after which there was centuries of peace and prosperity in place of war every two years. Islamic lands were in their golden era when Europe was going through its dark ages, fulfilling the prophecy that the messenger was indeed sent as a mercy to mankind.

    Issue 8

    I take it as closed since you have said nothing.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/17/2012 4:37:54 AM



  • Mr Naseer Ahmed and Mr Hamza are nice men.
    They are in the debate and brings some burried aspects of the Islam.
    I like Mr Naseer Ahmed despite I disagree with him as I feel arguments are not convincing.
    By rational - 12/17/2012 2:42:58 AM



  • Mr. Muhammad Yunus has not come up so far to help the Editor how Imposters, Enemies of the Islam, haters, snakes, wolves, and so many......... can be kept away from the NewAgeIslam.
    Please bring a clear working formula to remove them. By rational - 12/17/2012 2:14:47 AM



  • "Invitation to Islam is not ultimatum to accept Islam."

    One should read the letters from Hz Mohammed to Kings of the Faras and Rome. Then letters of the Hz Khalid bin Wlaid and other sahaba.
    By rational - 12/17/2012 2:09:06 AM



  • I am glad Mr Hamza is here with his sound knowledge and very clear standing. I ask them same questions but in some crude form.
    Simply because I am not a scholar have no command on the language.
    But many are convinced that the questions are worth asking and they expect honest honest answers not mental acrobatics.
    Even if we are enemies of the Islam, these questions need answers befitting in modern time, it the Islam is for all times and places. 

    Scholars of Islam are at loss in satisfying the educated, thinking people virtually on all aspects of the Islam. Then they say We are attacking on every aspect of the Islam.
    By rational - 12/16/2012 10:41:59 PM



  • Dear Mumraz Hussain Saheb, Naseer Sahib is not wasting his time on one person whosoever he might be in your view. He has many more readers. Some have even asked for him to keep on fighting this battle of ideas. Many Muslims consider this important that answers be given to questions and doubts arising in Muslim or ex-Muslim or non-Muslim minds or accusations of Islamophobes and other enemies of Islam.

     I once called Naseer Saheb Wahhabi/Salafi, perhaps exasperated at his gestures and gyrations in what I considered his defence of Wahhabis. He had gone to the extent of bringing in Mafia Don Dawood Ibrahim to show that even Bareilwis are killers. I am not mentioning this to exhume an old and buried issue. I am doing so to take my words back. I was clearly mistaken, though he had in my view gone too far in his efforts. But the effort he is making now to defend his beliefs could itself jeopardise his life. Wahhabis/Salafis as Khwarij before them absolutely abhor ilmul kalam or Islamic dialectics.

     Ilmul Kalam is described in Wikipedia as: “Islamic philosophical discipline of seeking theological principles through dialectic. Kalām in Islamic practice relates to the discipline of seeking theological knowledge through debate and argument.”  Another website MuslimPhilosophy.com says: “'kalam is the science which is concerned with firmly establishing religious beliefs by adducing proofs and with banishing doubts' (from the Mawaqif of al-_dhi, 8th/14th cent.).

     Similar definitions are to be found in Ibn khaldun, and again in Muhammad 'Abduh: they summarize a long elaboration, but add nothing new. 'Ilm al-kalam is the discipline which brings to the service of religious beliefs ('aqa'id) discursive arguments; which thus provides a place for reflexion and meditation, and hence for reason, in the elucidation and defence of the content of the faith. It takes its stand firstly against 'doubters and deniers', and its function as defensive 'apologia' cannot be over-stressed.”

     Since discursive arguments have to be of necessity based on “aql” (wisdom or rationality), and aql is supposed to have no place in religious discourse in the view of most Muslim schools of thought, ilmul kalam has been frowned upon. Mutakallims have been considered deserving of death, even if all they are doing is defending Islam through rational arguments.  Hanbalis were greatly opposed to it. The mentor of Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahhab was Ibn-e-Taimiya, a Hanbali. Imam Hanbal himself was flogged for opposing the doctrine of the 'created Qur'an which had been imposed by then secularists. So no one in the Muslim word has avoided the temptation of imposing one’s religion through force or defending his religion through discursive arguments and yet rational arguments have been punished with flogging and worse. There are fatwas galore that mutakallims deserve death by beheading.

     So let us salute Naseer Saheb for putting his neck on the chopping block. Reasoning has never been easy in our Muslim world. Rationality is considered a great sin by most schools of thought, except perhaps Mu'tazilites who have been wiped out: they were given this name which means withdrawers, secessionists (not different from Khwarij, though ideologically poles apart) by Imam Hasan al-Basari in the first century Hijri when the founder of this school of thought Wasil ibn `Ata differed with him on a religious interpretation.

     With Wahhabi religious police roaming practically everywhere in the world, with Deobandi fatwas hanging as swords of Damocles, Naseer Saheb is showing great courage. Let us not forget that we are in the 21st century now. Even in seventh century AD some Muslims showed the inclination to reason and present rational arguments in theological disputes. Please don’t shut him up. He has many more readers than merely those he seems to address.

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/16/2012 7:57:26 PM



  • Dear Mumtaz Hussain,

    I have warned the website of impostors in these words: "The website also must guard against impostors and agents of enemies who can barge into it with Hindu and Muslims names in order to foil any healthy debate, block any reform in Islam, create inter-faith hostility and strengthen the hands of extremists, terrorists and fundamentalists – some of these are obviously on the payroll of the enemies of Islam and India but as traitors and mercenaries, they can be of any religion and assume any name."

    By muhammad yunus - 12/16/2012 5:18:01 PM



  • If you use Acquaguard, you will be safe. Does this statement means that if you do not use Acquaguard, you will not be safe? It does. But if you ask, does it mean you should get offended and war against someone for this statement claiming it as a threat. Then it is clearly no. Invitation to Islam is not ultimatum to accept Islam. This Hamza should understand and so should those Muslims who do not invite people to Islam as invitation should be but pester them and harass them, humiliate them, laugh at them, mock them, and keep saying to them that they will go to hell not knowing whether they themselve will be able to escape hell or not.  By sadaf - 12/16/2012 2:22:12 PM



  • Dear Naseer, Don't try to waste time on Hamza who is just hiding himself behind a Muslim name. He seems to be an atheist and just enjoying discussion and ridicule pious people. If he has the courage he should go and stand in front of Dr.  Naik, he is alive and capable enough to combat such battles. Mr. Hamza  should tell the truth about himself who is he?.

    By Mumtaz Hussain - 12/16/2012 12:59:10 PM



  • Mr Naseer Ahmad says,

     Issue 1.

    Hamzah,You said that the Prophet freed Mary a day before his death.

    You also said that Mary was his concubine.

    You also said that the Prophet wanted to free her and marry her but she refused.

    Your question to me was “why did the prophet not free her earlier?”

     My question to you was, “how do you know whether she wanted to be freed in the Prophet's lifetime?”

    To which you answered that he could have freed her and allowed her to continue as before if she wished just as Zaid did on being freed.

     My question to you is "allow Mary to continue as a free concubine?"

     Your suggestion as an Islamic scholar that Mary should have been freed earlier and allowed to continue as before is what I have pointed out as ridiculous since a free woman cannot be a concubine.

    So, if Mary was not keen to get freed during the Prophet’s lifetime, it is not surprising that he freed her a day before his death and Hamza’s insinuations against the Prophet only confirm his status of being a venomous hater of Islam and its prophet.

     ---

     My response

    I did not say that” the Prophet wanted to free her and marry her but she refused.”

    I said that  Muhammad offered to marry her if she accepted Islam, but she refused to accept that condition because she preferred to adhere to her old faith (Christianity) . My question is why Muhammad put the condition of accepting Islam for being freed, accompanied with additional condition that only Muhammad will marry her. Why such pre-conditions?

     As for as your question, “how do you know whether she wanted to be freed in the Prophet's lifetime?”

    I want to ask you, “did Allah encourage Muslims to free only those slaves who wanted to be freed, as per your claim that Quran encouraged Muslims to free the slaves. Therefore, I rightly questioned that if Quran encouraged Muslims to free the slaves (as Islamic apologists quite often claim), then  Muhammad should have freed Mary without any pre- condition and should have left to her alone the question whether she loved to stay in the company of the followers of Muhammad or leave  Mecca for a place of her choice. (may be her native place in Egypt or anywhere else or marry any person of her choice. So in that case where is the question of her being a free concubine, because after getting absolute freedom, she would have been a free person without the tag of concubinage. In the light of the above, it seems that, it is rather your answer which is ridiculous. You are again indulging in nonsensical acrobatics.

    Issue 2:

    When you quote an Ayat of the Quran and say that it is from God himself, how do you still deny that the Quran is God's word? Explain.

     My response:

    It is the universally accepted principal that, in giving a reference, the targeted audience is always kept in mind. If the targeted audience is Hindu it is preferable to give them a reference from Gita, not from the Quran because a Gita reference will be more convincing for them. When Muslim apologists address a Christian audience they prefer to quote from the Bible to prove their point. But it does not mean that they necessarily believe that the existing Gita or Bible are truly the word of God. Since Muslims believe that Quran is the word of God, and it can not be wrong, I produced the proof from the Quran itself in support of my claim that Muhammad was often attracted by women’s beauty. When we read the Hadith and seerah books, we find this statement of the Quran 100% true. It does not mean that just because Quran reveals the true human nature of Muhammad, I have started believing in the divinity of the Quran. I was expecting a categorical answer from you to my specific question” whether the Qur'anic statement about Muhammad having been attracted by women’s beauty is correct or incorrect.” Still waiting for your specific answer.

    Issue 3:

    Regarding inheritance, I have explained in great detail the concept of residuary. 

     My response:

    Quran, 4:12 says that in case there are no direct heirs (parents or children) then "brother or a sister, to each of the two a sixth" while 4:176 says in the same situation that "they shall receive two-thirds of what he leaves" (double of what 4:12 says).

    Now this has not been overlooked by the commentators and they try to get around this with some acrobatics, here Razi's comments on this issue:

    "that brother or a sister, to each of the two a sixth; in 4:12 'here the brother or a sister means a brother or a sister from the mother, for Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas used to read, “...brother or a sister from the mother”( Walahu akhun au okhtun minal umm). They have judged this way because at the end of the Sura Allah ta'ala said, 'They will ask thee for a pronouncement. (Yastaftunak. qulillahu yuftikum fil kalalah).Quran 4”176.

    Say: 'Allah pronounces to you concerning the indirect heirs. 4:176' thus He established that the two sisters receive two-thirds, for the brothers double that of the sisters, but here [4:12] established that the brothers and sisters will have the third, which means that the brothers and sisters here [4:12] is not the same as in 4:176. The brothers and sisters here (4:12) are those from the mother only, but there in 4:176 the brothers and sisters are from the father and mother or from the father. This is a very handy way of getting around the problem. But also notice they appeal to another reading of the Qur'an to explain the contradiction.

    Indeed if this reading had existed, there would have been no problem, but now these words are not found in the Quran.  This raises another problem: The present Qur'an is not all of the Qur'an, or more clearly, the Qur'an is corrupted because parts of it have been lost. Mufassir-e-Quran, Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmai admits the loss of this from the Quran.

    I would like to ask Mr Naseer Ahmad how he is going to solve this problem of contradiction and another reading of the Quran which no more exists in the Quran. Please explain.

     Issues 4 , 5 & 6

    Hamza claims to be an Islamic scholar and must know very well that before the appearance of the Prophet, there were many Christians and Jews who were expecting the coming of a Prophet and when the Prophet came they refused to believe. It is specific groups of Christians and Jews who had disbelieved after proof had come go them who are referred to as disbelievers and not all Christians and Jews and certainly not the Romans.

     My response:

    Notwithstanding your false claim, the historical fact is that the war against the Roman Christians started just after the revelation of verse 9:123  which says” Oh ye who believe fight the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you.” Otherwise can you explain to me what justifies the wars against Rome and Faras in the light of the fact that neither Rome nor Faras did any harm to Muhammad or to Muslims. Instead it was Muhammad himself who wrote a threatening letter to the kings of both Rome and Faras saying to them,” If you accept Islam, you will be safe.” In other words, if you do not accept Islam you will not be safe. It was a clear provocation from Muhammad and latter on from Khalid Bin Waleed who followed the footsteps of his Dharam Guru. It is very disgusting to see that despite my repeated clarifications that the jizyah relating to Zimmis (non-Muslims living in the Muslim lands ) was never my issue. My objection is to demanding of jizyah from people living outside the boundaries of the land of Islam and to wage war against them if they refuse.Why  should people living in a sovrein country be forced to  pay a tax to muslims, whatever  small the amount may be, while they did not even ask for their protection. I want a specific answer to this question.” Were the wars against Rome and Faras offensive or defensive.” And no acrobatics please.

    Issue 7:

    Has Hamza understood why the Meccan and Madinian surahs contain what they do and why Meccan Surahs do not talk about war?

    My response:

    Yes I have fully understood the difference between the Meccan and Madinian surahs. In the Meccan surahs we find that Mohammad was devout and free from the vices of his time. He pictured the end of the world and the day of judgment as near at hand. With his thoughts fixed on the hereafter, he implored his Meccan compatriots to revere the Lord of the Universe, and condemned violence, injustice, hedonism, and neglect of the poor. Like Jesus, he was full of compassion. After the move to Madina, however, he became a relentless warrior, intent on spreading his religion by the sword, and a scheming founder of a state. A Messiah was transformed into a David. A man who had lived for more than twenty years with one wife became inordinately fond of women.

     In the course of the Madinan decade, however, and especially after the conquest of Mecca, changes occurred, and finally surah (at-Tawba) came down like a thunderbolt onto the heads of the scripture-possessors. These people, who at Mecca had on God's advice been politely answered and not threatened (any more than the common people) with future punishment for failure to embrace Islam, because the Prophet's function was solely to convey the message to them, were ordered in the year10 A.H. to choose between the alternatives of conversion, payment of tribute and acceptance of inferior status, or condemnation to death. The edict comes in verse 29of surah 9: "fight those who do not believe in God and the last day and do not prohibit the things which God and His apostle have prohibited. And fight possessors of scriptures who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior!" With the passage of the years, these scripture-possessors had become the "worst creatures" (sura 98, verse 5).

    Mohammad's announcement of this edict after the elimination of the Madinan Jews, the seizure of the Jewish villages of Khaybar and Fadak, and the conquest of Mecca, indicates that with Islam in power, polite and rational discussion with dissentients was no longer deemed necessary. The language of future discourse with them was to be the language of the sword. By Hamzah - 12/16/2012 10:39:04 AM



  • Hamza Sb,

     Issue 1

    You said that the Prophet freed Mary a day before his death

    You also said that Mary was his concubine.

    You also said that the Prophet wanted to free her and marry her but she refused.

    Your question to me was “why did the prophet not free her earlier?”

     

    My question to you was, “how do you know whether she wanted to be freed in the Prophet's lifetime?”

    To which you answered that he could have freed her and allowed her to continue as before if she wished just as Zaid did on being freed.

     

    My question to you is "allow Mary to continue as a free concubine?"

     

    Your suggestion as an Islamic scholar that Mary should have been freed earlier and allowed to continue as before is what I have pointed out as ridiculous since a free woman cannot be a concubine.

    So, if Mary was not keen to get freed during the Prophet’s lifetime, it is not surprising that he freed her a day before his death and Hamza’s insinuations against the Prophet only confirm his status of being a venomous hater of Islam and its prophet.

     

    Issue 2:

    When you quote an Ayat of the Quran and say that it is from God himself, how do you still deny that the Quran is God's word? Explain.

    Issue 3

    Regarding inheritance, I have explained in great detail the concept of residuary. The sister gets the remainder after the mother and the wife get their fixed shares. If the remainder was more than 1/2 then the sister's share is treated also as fixed and inheritance distributed in proportion of fixed shares. This concept has been explained by fully worked out examples. If you still don 't get it, blame your knowledge of logic and maths.

     

    The sister gets  1- 1/3 - 1/4 = 5/12

     

    If there were two sisters, each one of them would get 5/24.

     

    If there was a brother and a sister, then the sister would get 5/36 and the brother 10/36.

     

    Now let us assume that there was only wife and a sister (no parents or children)

    The fixed proportions then become ¼ and ½ and they distribute the inheritance in the same ratio or wife gets 1/3 and sister gets 2/3.

    If the inheritor were wife and brother, then the wife gets ¼ and the brother the remainder or ¾.

    The shares of residuaries if daughter and sister mentioned in the Quran are upper limits and not fixed proportions. Brother or sister are not even residuaries if there is a son. Unlike for daughters and sisters, no limit is mentioned for sons and brothers since they can inherit even 100% in the absence of fixed sharers.

    Do not quote to me what xyz have said on the same subject. I interpret directly from the Quran and explain with reference to the Quran alone. If you want to follow Shabbir or whoever, then seek your clarifications from them.

     

    Issue 4

    Hamza claims to be an Islamic scholar and must know very well that before the appearance of the Prophet, there were many Christians and Jews who were expecting the coming of a Prophet and when the Prophet came they refused to believe. It is specific groups of Christians and Jews who had disbelieved after proof had come go them who are referred to as disbelievers and not all Christians and Jews and certainly not the Romans.

    Issue 5

    As is Hamza’s wont, he has raised a fresh issue to run away from the already discussed ones.

    Islamophobes quote a single verse in isolation to attack Islam. Hamza proves his true colours of being an Islamophobe by disregarding verses that bring out the true nature of 9:5 which is specific to a people and not without discrimination between the disbelievers who kept their word and did not break the treaty and those who broke the treaty. The Surah starts with declaration of amnesty for four months. The following verses make the meaning and applicability of the verses amply clear.

    9:4. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

    5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

    6. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

    7. How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.

    8. How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked.

    9. The Signs of Allah have they sold for a miserable price, and (many) have they hindered from His way: evil indeed are the deeds they have done.

    10. In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds.

    11. But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.

    12. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.

    13. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

    14. Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,

     

    There is no authority above the Quran and if Hamza gives credence to what xyz has said although he claims to be an Islamic scholar who has read the Quran in original Arabic, I must doubt either his intelligence or motives.

    Issue 6

    I have narrated stories of Khalid bin Walid and Umar bin Khattab and quotes from historians which prove that Jiziya was in lieu of free military service. The Muslims were required to serve as unpaid soldiers and non-Mulsims were exempted from Military service and paid Jiziya instead. Payment of Jiziya was also a guarantee of protection and Khalid bi Walid returned the Jiziya collected when he was not in a position to provide protection.

    Jiziya was less than the taxes paid by the people to their erstwhile rulers and was never used as an instrument to force conversions. 

    Umar Bin Khattab (RA) also recognized the need to support old and infirm non-Muslims with funds from the state treasury and there were non-Muslim pensioners of the ‘state’ under the Caliphate of Umar (RA)`

    Issue 7

    Has Hamza understood why the Meccan and Madinian surahs contain what they do and why Meccan Surahs do not talk about war?

    Issue 8

    I take it that he has understood the stories in Surah 18 in their true perspective. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/16/2012 1:45:33 AM



  • Mr Naseer Ahmad said in his comment date 12/14/2012, basically directed to Mr Rational:

    “Hamza also asked his questions which were answered.

    Looks like he has understood why the Meccan and Madinian Surahs contain what they contain. However, he has not acknowledged or thanked me for clearing his doubts which remained with him even though he had studied religious books for 15 long years.”

    My response:

    First of all, let me tell the participants that I was totally out of touch with the ongoing debate for the last 5-6 days because the internet system in my computer developed some technical problem which was removed yesterday only. Mr Naseer Ahmad thinks that he has given the correct answers to all my questions and I have agreed with them. Dear Naseer Saheb, You are absolutely wrong. In fact you have utterly failed in replying to all my questions and I repeat some of them which still require satisfactory answers from you or anybody else.

    I had mentioned the following verse 33:52,

     “It is not lawful for thee (to marry more ) women after this , nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee , except any thy right hand should possess ( as handmaidens), we come to know from the source of God Himself that the prophet of Islam was often attracted by women’s beauty also."

    And you, instead of categorically accepting or denying that Muhammad was really often attracted by women’s beauty, you said,”Do you accept then, that the Quran is God's word and not that of the Prophet(PBUH)?” How can I accept that quran is God’s word while there are many evidences against it which I will present in detail at some appropriate time. And do you think it is the correct answer to my question? No, not at all. Here is a narration from A`aisha in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim about the instant help from Allah to Muhammad in his sex affairs. See the following Hadith,

    Narrated Aisha,

    “I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."

    Naseer Ahmad, in another comment said, Hamza says: Mary was a Coptic slave concubine of the Prophet .

    The Prophet offered to free her and marry her. She preferred to remain slave. Muhammad did not set her and other slaves off till one day before his death. When Naseer Saheb said they were so well treated that Zaid refused to go to his parents’ house. When I replied that Zaid, being Muhammad’s adopted son used to get special treatment among the sahabh and his case was different. Muhammad should have freed them first  and should  have left  to them whether they still wanted to remain with him or go their way, he (Naseer Saheb) commented, The Prophet could have still freed her and allowed her to continue as a free concubine if she wished. “

    My question: A free concubine?! And Hamza is an Islamic scholar! By Naseer Ahmed - 12/10/2012 7:39:26 PM

    I am surprised how an educated person and a star debater on this web site can give such a foolish answer.

    This phrase, “free concubine” is self contradictory. Free means free. Either a woman is free or concubine. She cannot be both at the same time.

    Naseer sahib further said that,

    ” He (Hamza) has not thanked me earlier also for answering his questions on the stories of Dhul Qarnain, People of the Caves, and the inheritance laws etc”.

    My response:

    Neither his answer to my question regarding Zul Qarnain nor inheritance were convincing. Here I leave the question of Zul Qarnain due to space limitation and less relevance of that matter, but take up the question of inheritance. I wrote in that comment,

    “When a man dies and leaves behind a mother, wife and one sister only, then according to 4:11 the mother gets 1/3 (because he has neither children nor a brother), the wife gets 1/4 according to 4:12 (because they have no children) and the sister gets 1/2 according to 4:176 (because he has no children). Not only do we have distributed more than there exists [1/12 in overdraft], we also have the very strange result that the direct heirs (people of direct relationship, spouse, children, parents get each less than the indirect heir which is his sister. It becomes even worse if he has more than one sister since they then get 2/3 instead of 1/2 and we get even more into overdraft.

    Anybody who has ever dealt with dividing out an inheritance will know how easily that can get nasty and how this can poison family relationships if people think they have been cheated. Promising certain people a definite share but not being able to pay them this share because more was promised than is available and that  is the surest recipe for disaster.

    Similaly, Quran, 4:12 says that in case there are no direct heirs (parents or children) then "brother or a sister, to each of the two a sixth" while 4:176 says in the same situation that "they shall receive two-thirds of what he leaves" (double of what 4:12 says).

    Now this has not been overlooked by the commentators and they try to get around this with some acrobatics, here Razi's comments on this issue:

    "that brother or a sister, to each of the two a sixth; in 4:12 'here the brother or a sister means a brother or a sister from the mother, for Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas used to read, “...brother or a sister from the mother”( Walahu akhun au okhtun minal umm). They have judged this way because at the end of the Sura Allah ta'ala said, 'They will ask thee for a pronouncement. (Yastaftunak. qulillahu yuftikum fil kalalah).Quran 4”176.

    Say: 'Allah pronounces to you concerning the indirect heirs. 4:176' thus He established that the two sisters receive two-thirds, for the brothers double that of the sisters, but here [4:12] established that the brothers and sisters will have the third, which means that the brothers and sisters here [4:12] is not the same as in 4:176. The brothers and sisters here (4:12) are those from the mother only, but there in 4:176 the brothers and sisters are from the father and mother or from the father. This is a very handy way of getting around the problem. But also notice they appeal to another reading of the Qur'an to explain the contradiction.

    Indeed if this reading had existed, there would have been no problem, but now these words are not found in the Quran.  This raises another problem: The present Qur'an is not all of the Qur'an, or more clearly, the Qur'an is corrupted because parts of it  have been lost. Mufassire Quran, Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmai admits the loss of this from the Quran.

    Imam Shabir Ali who is the president of the Islamic Information & Dawah Centre International in Toronto, Canada and  is also a Muslim activist, preacher and speaker on Islam and Muslims as well as  a debater engaging in regular debates in different parts of the world, admits the contradictions in the Quran. He says:

     All Muslim reactions either follow some school of Muslim jurisprudence and explain what should be done in the problem cases, or they propose own methods which have nothing to do with Islamic reality. But they only explain what is to be done when the Qur'an does not distribute all the estate or more than is available. However, in doing so they import data from the outside (Hadith, personal opinions,) and the issue of our discussion is whether the Qur'an is sufficient and consistent in itself. The conclusion is that the Qur'an is not logically consistent. In particular, the rule that one party (usually the spouse) is given their share first and then the remainder is distributed according to the given shares, is not found in the Qur'an but imported from the outside. And it is NOT the way the four schools of Fiqh are doing it. Furthermore, it does not solve all the problems either. It is not possible to obey the laws as given. None of the responders solves the problem that shares adding up to more than the available estate is a logical internal contradiction in the Quran'

    On the subject of offensive jihad also, Naseer Ahmad Saheb did not provide any clear-cut answer. In fact he  was surprised how can Quran refer to the Christians as unbelievers. He said in his response,

    “Hamza says: “9:123 which says” Oh ye who believe fight the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you.” This second verse was revealed to instigate Muslims to fight the Roman Christians after the conquest Mecca.”

    “Are Christians referred to as Unbelievers in the Quran? “ And I clarified it in the following statement.

    “yes, there are many verses in the Quran which refer to Christians as disbelievers or unbelievers. Below are some  examples.

    Quran 98:1,”those who disbelieve, among the people of the book and among  the polytheists were not going to depart from their ways until there should come to them clear evidence.”

    Quran 98:6,”those who disbelieve among the people of the book and the polytheists, will be in hell-fire to dwell therein (for aye) they are the worst of creatures.

    Quran 5:72,”certainly they disbelieve who say: allah is one of three (in a trinity)…

    Again, perhaps Mr Naseer Ahmad may doubt  whether  the word unbelievers in this war verse  really refers to the Roman Christians?

    Here is the revelational circumstance of this  verse, according to Maulana Muhammad Junagadhi in his tafseer-e- Quran, distributed by the Saudi embassy in India,” is mein kaafiron se ladne ka ahem usul bayaan kiya gaya hai kih( Al aqrab fal aqrab) ke mutabiq kafiron se jehad karna hai, jaisa ki rasulullah (pbuh) ne pahle jazeera-e-Arab mein aabad mushrikeen se qital kiya, jab un se faarigh ho gaye aur allah ne mecca, taif,yemen…………..etc, etc par musalmanon ko ghalba de diya ……to phir ahle kitaab se qitaal ka aaghaaz farmaya aur 9H mein roomiyon se qital ke liye Tabuk tashreef le gaye……aur isi ke mutabiq aap(pbuh) ki wafaat ke bad khulafaa-e- rashideen ne Room ke isaiyon se qital kiya”.

    Naseer Saheb added, “I wish Hamza had read some history also and the history of the wars of Rome and Faras. Rome and Faras were the imperialists of those days and in a big war every two years. The people were sick and tired of them as they were heavily taxed to support the wars. With such imperialists, it was a matter of time before war was forced on the new community of Islam. A defensive war can also be a pre emptive first strike. However, it was not even a pre emptive strike but a war after clear offer of conditions of peace which were rejected.”

    What a strange logic!  The fact is that neither Rome nor Faras did any harm to Muhammad or to Muslims. Instead it was Muhammad himself who wrote a threatening letter to the kings of both Rome and Faras saying to them,” If you accept Islam, you will be safe.” In other words if you do not accept Islam you will not be safe. And their reaction was natural.

    The following is from Wikipedia:

    A letter attributed to Khalid bin Walid said that "This is a letter of Khalid ibn al-Waleed to Saluba ibn Nastuna and his people; I agreed with you on al-jezyah and protection. As long as we protect you we have the right in al-jezyah, otherwise we have none.”

    Submit to Islam and be safe. Or agree to the payment of the Jizya (tax), and you and your people will be under our protection, else you will have only yourself to blame for the consequences, for I bring the men who desire death as ardently as you desire life.

    This letter was written by Khalid, from his head-quarters in Babylonia, to the Persian monarch Emperor Yazdegerd III before invading it. (History of the World, Volume IV [Book XII. The Mohammedan Ascendency], page 463, by John Clark Ridpath, LL.D. 1910.)

    Let us see what Quran says in this regard:

    Surah 9 verses 5: “When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters whenever you find them, and take them captive or besiege them”

    Sahih Bukhari, in the chapter headed “‘The statement of Allah” related to Surah 9 verse 5, claims:

    “Narrated Ibn `Umar: Allah’s Apostle said: I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Mohammad is Allah’s apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give obligatory charity (Zakah ). If they perform all that, then they will save their lives and property from me.

    Allamah Ibne Hajar Asqalani,the auther of Fathul Bari, an interpretation of Sahih Bukhari , while commenting on the above Bukhari hadeeth  with regard to jizyah  said ,”jizya zillat ki alamat hai. yeh allah ki rahmat hai ki kufr par qaem rehte huwe  bhi unki jaan baksh di gayee, warna kufr par qayem rahne ki wajah se who qatl ke mustaheq the. lekin unhen kam se kam us baat ke liye zaroor majboor kiya jayega jis se majboor hokar woh islam qubool kar len, aur who hai jizya."

     

     Does anybody or group of people have any right to impose their religious laws on the people living ouside their boundaries even if they do not interfere in their affairs?

     

    Conclusion:

     Mr Naseer Ahmad has totally failed to answer any of my questions so far. He is merely indulging in self conceit and some kind of verbal acrobatics in Zakir Naik’s style who receives tremendous applause from gullible Muslims, both literates, semi literates and illiterates, even for his most illogical and childish statements. By Hamzah - 12/15/2012 10:53:31 AM



  • Rational,

    I repeat the questions and answers. Record your agreement/disagreement for all to see how sincere you are in seeking answers.

     

     The Question

    His question was that as per the verses 1 to 5 of Surah 2, a person has to:

    1. Be a Muttaqi

    2. Believe in the Unseen

    3, Offer Salat

    4. Spend from what Allah has provided him

    for the Quran to become a source of guidance.

     

    So what about himself and others who do not satisfy those 4 conditions?

    The answer:

    The answer is very simple. If A implies B, then it does not follow that "Not A" implies "Not B" meaning, it does not follow that if a person does not satisfy those conditions, he will not find guidance in the Quran.

    I have elaborated by citing examples of persons who accepted Islam on hearing a recitation of the Quran.

    What the Quran guarantees is that a person satisfying those conditions is sure to find guidance but that that does not rule out all others.

    Guidance is also at several levels. The first level is when the heart acknowledges the truth and a person accepts Islam. For this obviously the only pre condition is a genuine seeker of truth (my assumption).

    For the Quran to open up all its meanings, obviously one has to progress on the path of Taqwa.

    The Question:

    This was on Loh-e-Mahfooz which has been repeated recently. Let Rational clearly record his agreement/disagreement with the explanation.

     

    The Question:

    "If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful." (Qur'an 4:15-16)

    Are not women subjected to severer punishment than men for the same crime?

    If you apply some logic, health wise gay practice between men is riskier than between women. The punishment for men is unclear and lighter than women which is almost clear and harsher. whether the benefit of repentance is for men or both. From verses it appears for men only. Is it not a partiality on the part of Allah?

    The answer:

    As regards your question on different punishments for men and women for the same crime of homosexuality, my take is that the same crime has vastly different consequences. The procreative ability of a society depends upon the fertility of its women and man's role can be performed by the remaining straight men but what is lost through a woman choosing the path of lesbianism is a straight loss to the society. You would also agree, that the Population of the World in those days, fluctuated, and entire communities sometimes went extinct due to war or disease and procreation was therefore important for the survival of the species. With the population standing at 7 billion today, there may be a case for looking at homosexuality differently. However, removal of social taboos will make for more people going the homosexual way than would be the case if the taboos are in place. You had an entire population turning homosexual according to the Biblical/Quranic story and this process may not be easily reversible.

    The Question:

    Another crucial point in the case of Lot the prophet.

    What was the mob after? Certainly it was not the normal intercourse? Then why the prophet offers  his daughters to angry mob? Does not it indicate daughters had no value in the sight of the prophet?

    If he had offered the angels they could remain safe because they were angles.

    Were daughters safe in the hands of angry mob?

    The answer:

    When Prophet Lut (pbuh) offered his daughters, he was unaware that his guests were angels. He was merely trying to protect his guests in the best manner possible. The angels reveal their true identity only later.  Before visiting Lut, they visit Abraham (PBUH) who also does not at first recognize their identity as angels. Read 11:77 to 11:81

    From Surah 26:160 to175, 27:54 to 56 and 29:28 to 32  we know that Lut preached to the people and was intimately familiar with the fact that they would not take his daughters. His offering of his daughters was therefore a desperate ruse to ward them off from his guests without any fear that the people would actually take them.

    54. (We also sent) Lut (as an apostle): behold, He said to his people, "Do ye do what is shameful though ye see (its iniquity)?

    55. Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!

    56. But his people gave no other answer but this: they said, "Drive out the followers of Lut from your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!"

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/15/2012 3:16:51 AM



  • Dear Mr. Sadaf and Naseer Saheb, my colleagues on the editorial desk have standard instructions to highlight Muslim achievements. They sometimes do, including news of girls winning Quran recital contests held regularly in the Gulf countries, etc. But I don't know why there are so few stories of Muslims winning Nobel prizes, Booker prizes, of inventing something new except, of course, conspiracy theories, which too we sometimes highlight as achievements, after all they too require flight of imagination. If you or any reader comes across any positive news about Muslims which has not been posted in Islamic world news or Islam, Women and Feminism (which covers news related to Muslim women) pages. I will not only post that but also ask my colleagues why we overlooked them.

    By the way, I too mostly write my comments in word and then post. It not only keeps the comment secure, but also helps me correct typing mistakes.

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/15/2012 2:38:55 AM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed Saheb, I have no problem wth an FAQ section. But what will it contain, who will prepare questions and answers, will the framing of these questions and their answers be disputed. I need an outline of what needs to be done. Please prepare them and help me.  By Sultan Shahin - 12/15/2012 2:25:33 AM



  • Dear Younus Saheb (Rational), Thanks for the Urdu font. I have asked someone which font it is and if it is available in MS Word. We use a good font, similar to this. But since the site has fixed a font and font size in English, regardless of the font or size in which articles are posted, so the Urdu font too changes shape. If I adopt a system in which articles appear in the font and size in which they are posted, my old articles, 9000 of them now start looking of various kinds and sometimes appear in a very bad shape.  Now I am getting all the previous articles checked and corrected to conform to our present standards. Once this is done, we can change the present system so that postings appear in the font and size in which they are posted. We are already using noori nastaliq, which looks similar to Urdu kitabat. The one you have sent is more compact and beautiful. I will see if it is available in word. We can’t use in-page fonts. Then articles have to be posted in jpg format and that makes the site heavy.

    Meanwhile you can increase the font size by clicking one of three A A A  s on top right of the articles. In increased font size, the text becomes more readable. If more is required, you can always use Control-Plus. I am sure you already know all this, but there are some people who do not. This might help them.

    Comments: You must get either of these two messages in red letters; either that your comment has been sent to editors for approval or that you need to fill the Captcha text again. If you get no message, it means that there is some mistake in e-mail ID or there is nothing in the space meant for name. Even an extra space in that column will stop the process.

    One problem that I have not been able to solve, or maybe the engineer did not understand me or could not manage, is that even after posting, after receiving the message that your comment has been sent to editors for approval, if you refresh the page to check if the comment has appeared, you again see the text you had sent. This creates the impression that your comment has not gone for approval, so you click the submit button again and it gets posted again. Usually, we notice that and delete one of the two. But perhaps some editors are in too much of a hurry sometimes and it actually appears twice. But it can be and should be deleted even after posting, if it is a repetition. So what I do now is once I have got the message that the comment has been posted and sent to editors for approval, I take this page to home and open it again or if I refresh I just check above and not worry about the fact that the comment is still there.

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/15/2012 1:28:22 AM



  • Rational, I you are not running away, then be specific. State my answer to each of your questions and the specific nature of your disagreement. What is my answer and what is your disagreement with the answer provided?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/15/2012 1:02:21 AM



  • Sadaf, You are right in guessing what I had in mind. I would like to see NAI also cover the good news and articles on say the experiments with the deradicalization process in various parts of the World. If one were to visit only NAI for all the news regarding the Muslim world, then one would think that there is only radicalization and there is nothing being done to reverse the process.
    We also do not see articles which promote understanding of the process of radicalization using research studies in social sciences. For example, the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment explain much of the behaviour of these militant groups and Khwarij theories explain nothing except prove the mulla mind set and thinking.  All that can be said is that all through Muslim history, violence to achieve political objectives has been common. But to link present day terrorism which is mostly backed and sponsored by states with violence by rebels against the legitimate political authority in the past only proves the abject lack of depth in our thinking and complete lack of knowledge of theories that fully explain these phenomena without bringing in religion into the discussion.  Most articles in NAI either feed certain sectarian prejudices or score self goals which combined with the comfort that apostates find in attacking Islam, strengthen the impression that this site stands more for the destruction of Islam rather than to harness positive energy in building  a strong community of people who can change things for the better.
    If every rape and murder in the US were to be given importance, then there will be no space for any other news. Murder and rape has ceased to be news at the national level and is reported only locally and that too not on the front pages. It is so much better to deal with issues which are summarized using statistics rather than blowing up each individual case which distorts perception. Creating hysteria should not be the objective of any responsible site. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/15/2012 12:55:47 AM



  • Naseer Ahmec,  "Can we have closure on your 4 questions? " Dear. My answer is affirmative in disagreement. By rational - 12/15/2012 12:50:55 AM



  • Shahin Sb, You may seriously consider my suggestion to start an FAQ section where all questions relating to Islam can be addressed and questioners directed to this section rather than repeatedly answering the same questions repeated by the same or different persons. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/15/2012 12:14:16 AM



  • Rational says: "You assume that you have given correct answers, or the questioners agreed. We become silent because generally they are just justifications or just twisting."
    That is a strange response. If you so easily give up, then you would be without any questions to ask. The very first time I answered your questions, I was insisting on closure. The closure can be agreement or even agree to disagree. A closure marks progress and prevents repetition of the same questions. Each time however, when you have nothing to say, you run away.
    Can we have closure on your 4 questions?
    1. Relating to Loh-e-Mahfooz
    2. Quran can guide the non-mutaqi to become a mutaqi
    3. Justification of Lut (AS) offering his daughters in place of his guests
    4. Justification for the punishment of homosexuality being differnt for females and males. By Naseer Ahmec - 12/14/2012 11:54:46 PM





  • Dear Sultan Shahin saheb. I attached an image showing a good font, but it does not appear in my comment.
    Above is one which can be read easily. It may help you.
    By rational - 12/14/2012 10:16:58 PM



  • I will request Mr Mohammed Yunus (1) who used to be kind person who equated me with donkey, serpent, in his allegorical  sentences to open the list of the the persons he thinks were vampires in the garb of Ulema. Who are they?
    At one side you say Ahadith and Sirah are corrupted by Ulema and at the same time you revere them. Who are those Ulema?
    What is this double standard you have? and then you vilify me. Once when you left with no convincing answer you quoted a Persian piece of idiom. That much Farsi I know if even you had not given English translation.
    Mr Manzoorul Haque reeks of his ego being a scholar and an Officer in the Govt he think is not doing justice to Muslims and unhappy with all non-Muslims, a believer in conpiracies.  .
    I will not even take the name of third who never tires to speak peace and justice are main themes of the Quran.
    I will not mind if Mr Sadaf, Mr Naseer, Mr Nezami or other commentators give me names knowingly or unknowingly. Generally I have returned good words. By rational - 12/14/2012 9:39:48 PM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin saheb. The problem in comment section is not grave one. Sometime we remain in doubt whether comment is posted or not. If not sure we try to upload it again then it appears twice.
    However it is not a very serious problem. It may be due to some connectivity  or browser or our impatience. I think it can go as it is.
    Urdu font is of Arabic style. Please see below  If you managed to use this type of font, it will be a great help. I think it is a Persian style. By rational - 12/14/2012 8:35:44 PM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin Saheb. In return I pray to God, He may bless you in your efforts for the betterment of humankind as you said I can bid good wishes. If prayers are good for some people I am nobody to stop them. It is their rights and I am not a rights snatcher..
    If Muslims believe in one one God I don't mind.
    If Christians believe in crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, it ts their faith and have rights to have any faith.
    If A Hindu Believe in One God and multiple gods, even believe god in everything, they have their rights to believe in any thing
    And like that goes for all believers.
    For me all beliefs are irrational, product of fear or some fantasies. this is my right to think in this way.
    If a believer follows a path of piece or taqwa that covers all goods is laudable.  If a non-believer do the same he is equally laudable. Because goal is taqwa how do you achieve it immaterial.
    The people who believe in none but achieving knowledge and committing no crimes and working hard for betterment of the humankind are perfectly illegible for all goods, God has in his store provided He exists.
    I respect Islam for some principals, Christianity for some, Hinduism for some, Buddhism for some, Science for most and so on.....though I can criticize any religion, any sect any personality. This is my way of life. I don't care if some people frown upon me.
    I feel no enmity towards any sect, religion, race, gender and so on......but has no blind reverence. I can tolerate any abuse but feel I have a right to react in my way.
    The problem is when I am accused for wrong reason with all words available in the dictionaries. I have used minimum words because I am not an expert in any language and have limited vocabulary.
    I am ready to accept the mistakes if pointed in my comments.
    It is clear from my comments to Mr Aiman Reyaz, I never misquoted the verses of the Quran, never twisted their meanings. Generally I used standard translation available on the internet  and maintained civility. I admire Mr Aiman Reyaz for his manners, certainly he is better than me. He has rights to believe in the Quran in whatever way he likes. I will continue irrespective of cries of some commentators.
    Once again thanks for making yourself clear on your goal to me. By rational - 12/14/2012 8:19:23 PM



  • Dear Naseer Saheb, If a hundred or two comments posted by Younus (Rational) and 10/20 by Mr. Hamza can turn this site to an apostate website, you are welcome to post 500 and turn it into a non-sectarian website. Have I ever censored any of your comments?  Please go ahead. Wahhabis too are welcome to try and take over and turn this site into a Wahhabi, Talibani website.

     If comments section is the criteria of what this website is, why don't you all try?

    Have I ever censored any of your comments or that of Manzoorul Haque Saheb or anybody else?  Please go ahead. Wahhabis too are welcome to try and take over and turn this site into a Wahhabi, Talibani website.

    How come only the "apostates", that too just the two of them, have the guts and the energy to do that. Moderate liberals, Fundamentalist liberals, Fundamentalist fundamentalists, all of you are welcome to flood the comments section with your ideas. COMMENTS ARE FREE. Avoid abusive language, it will be censored, or if mistakenly overlooked by some editor, it will be deleted when somebody complains. That is the only restriction.

    Main articles are the discretion of the editors. You can make suggestions, as many readers do, and most of the time, their suggestions are good and so carried out, but that remains our domain.

    Censoring anybody means we have no answers to their questions, as one of our readers pointed out sometime ago, perhaps Ms Kahkashan. The questions thinking Muslims disenchanted with Islam pose are all based on Quran and Hadees. We cannot ban them while also saying that every word, comma, or full stop in the Quran is of universal relevance, binding on us for all time and Hadees us is our sacred scripture almost of the same level as the Quran and that their compilers were revered Imams. By Sultan Shahin - 12/14/2012 4:59:29 PM



  • Dear Mohammad Yunus Saheb (Rational), you are wrong. I am not as balanced as you think. I too get hysterical sometimes, though I wish and try to be balanced.  I get hysterical at the thought of my children turning into terrorists and right this moment donning suicide belts to kill other Muslims in mosques and shrines, my girl children being raped right this moment in most parts of the Muslim world, their school buildings being demolished, Muslims killing Muslims practically everywhere, Muslims persecuting minorities, Muslims not taking up causes of protecting the weaker sections of society, and also at the thought of all these Muslims committing all these atrocities in the name of Islam.

     

    I do not get hysterical at “a ferocious attack mounted on all aspects of Islam by a hysterical attention-seeking mono-maniac whose frenzied outpourings are now totally dominating the site,” as Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb put it. Faith is a gift of God. Real faith that is. Hereditary faith is a gift of our parents. You already have that. All your near and dear ones are Muslims, who have probably turned into Wahhabis in their attitudes. Same is the case with Mr. Hamza, I think. He couldn’t have learnt Arabic except in a family of devout Muslims who may be sent him to a madrasa and must have turned Wahhabis by now.  

     

    See how hysterical I am towards Wahhabis. The reason is that Wahhabism and Mullahism of other schools of thought too affects my world. Wahhabism affects more because it is causing militancy, terrorism, supremacism, causing riots, killings, and suicide bombings. Other brands of Mullahism too are causing a lot of problems in society, say triple talaq in one sitting and resultant halala, for instance, but not terrorism and supremacism and a movement for Muslim separateness from other communities, so I am not so hysterical about them.

     

    However, your belief or lack of it does not affect me at all. If you argue with me, ask me why I am a Muslim, I will tell  you what I know, what I believe, and why, to the best of my knowledge, but won’t worry about whether you believe me or not. Belief, real belief, is a gift of God, that God has not given to most Muslims. I know that because belief completely transforms people, in a very positive manner. With belief, real belief, you become a force for good, real good, for humanity as a whole. Most Muslims and most other people from other hereditary religions who claim, actually think, they believe in God, do not really understand even the meaning of belief.

     

    I say this to you because I have always lived among people who think they are believers. I know a few non-believers too, that is people who think they are non-believers; I find them the most honest, truthful, god-fearing, god-loving people, of course, unconscious of these latter qualities. You will agree that the only political parties in India whose leaders are not facing any corruption charges, despite having been part of the power structure for decades, are the communist parties. Communists are atheists by definition. This is just one example. If you look around you will find many more.

     

    But hereditary faith is shakeable. That’s why Muslims, with hereditary faith, are so fearful of losing their faith because somebody questions their long-held hereditary, ancestral beliefs, which they merely inherited and have never thought about. See how Meccans were hysterical and wanted to kill the prophet and his few followers for their heresy and apostasy. Their faith was hereditary, ancestral; they had never thought about it, didn’t want to start thinking now, and so were hysterical.

     

    I am talking in paradoxes. But that is the kind of world we live in. God rules the world through immutable, unchangeable, Laws of karma, as Naseer Saheb has beautifully explained. But God also plays dice and the dice invariably falls in favour of people who pray to him. Miracles are being created every moment. Prayers are listened to. Common people with more intuition than intellectualism know that. That is why they throng to mosques and shrines. Prayers made in those places are listened to more quickly, more surely. Why? Well, you can pray in the quietness of your home and your prayer may be listened to. But in a power place like a mosque or a shrine or a temple or synagogue, church, the impact is surer and quicker, the possibility of your prayer being listened to greater.

     

    Why? [We are going off at a tangent. You can skip this paragraph if you want] It goes like this. You sit down at a place and unknown to yourself you leave something behind. A dog can sniff that place and find you anywhere in the world. Similarly a place where hundreds of thousands of people sit or stand in prayer and think good, kindly thoughts, pray for redemption, or for worldly problem-resolutions, whatever, but confine themselves to benevolent thoughts, sometimes seeking forgiveness, sometimes confessing to their crimes, but promising to be good in future, etc, they leave these good thoughts behind, making that place a power place, a place with the power to good. It doesn’t matter if a saint or a pretender was buried there, as long as people believe. You know the placebo effect. If you have the ability to meditate you immediately sense the difference. It is far easier in a mosque or a shrine or any prayer place to reach the alpha level of mind quicker and go even deeper and closer to divinity.

     

    Now why I am writing this. Do I want you to start going to mosques or temples or shrines? No. None of my business. The only belief that interests me is a genuine belief. It only comes from God and it comes not in the form of belief, it comes in the shape of knowledge, definite direct knowledge, making your belief unshakeable, transforming you completely. It is beyond any human to give you that experience, a mystical, spiritual experience. Too much rationalism, intellectualism, however, is an impediment. But, at the same time, faith cannot be irrational. It goes beyond rationality but does not contradict rationality.

     

    I am happy at your rationality; I would have been happier if you could go beyond it in the realm of spiritualism and mysticism, while retaining your rationality. But your faith is entirely your affair, doesn’t concern me. It is between you and God whom you do not believe in, as I didn’t believe in, as I didn’t know for most of my childhood and boyhood, teenage. I am only concerned about people who are engaging in the practice of evil and that too in the name of Islam. My campaign is only related to that. But. as this website would reveal, I am naturally a little partial to spiritualism, its traditions in all religions.

     

    However, I think you too should be a bit relaxed about other people’s faiths. How does it affect you if some one’s faith is genuine or fake, even rational or irrational? You must understand that rationality too is a gift of God. Of course, you don’t believe in God. But, after all, your rationality is not your achievement. It is ingrained in you. You honesty, courage to speak your thoughts, all of this is a gift, from wherever. So be kind to people who do not have these gifts or not in as high a measure.

     

    Now, tell me, should I become hysterical, if people take irrational positions, if some people can’t see something as plain as two plus two is equal to four. I know idiocy, irrationality, dishonesty is insufferable. But so maybe lack of faith for people who think they have faith. Let us all be kind to each other.

     

    We are like ants trying to decipher our merciless, cruel, irrational behaviour toward them. We all lack in some areas. None of us is perfect. We are too tiny beings to understand the mysteries of this universe. The more we know, the more we learn how little we know.

     

     Let us all pray for each other. You can’t pray, but you can have good wishes; that is as good as prayer. Please wish for me honesty, courage, intelligence, rationality; I will pray for you to be blessed with faith, real faith, knowledge of the unknown, unseen, unknowable, unseeable. Through rational brains. Rationality goes only as far as it goes. There is more to this universe than we can perceive through our five senses. Let neither of us be shrill, hysterical, just have good wishes and prayers for one another.

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/14/2012 3:39:02 PM



  • Few points are correct from Dear Mr. Naseer Ahmad Sir. Even though he fails miserably in communicating things properly, I can make out his concerns. In my words, it is something like this: Everyday we get to hear bad news related with Muslims and Islam and even though it is good that New Age Islam compiles it at a place so that we can swiftly go though what is reported where, New Age Islam's sole reliance on the world broadcasting does not give true picture of things. If the world is doing propaganda and amplifying issues out of proportion, New Age Islam is catching just that portion of the news from the Muslim world. 

     

    However we know that there exist much more in the world than that can fit in a newspaper or a TV screen. Such news too should have been there. 

     

    I understand the limitations but somehow things have to be worked out. We could be more vigilant and eagle eyed to spot any good story that is related with Muslims and Islam. And I think, there are some behuda websites who keep glorifying Muslims and spouting Subhan Allah, Maasha Allah  but very conveniently underplaying the wrongs done by Muslims. News from such websites can be a good feeder and it will bring back balance to New Age Islam as it is very meticulously reporting the Muslim involvement in all kind of negative news circulating the world over. And in a sense it is good that that way we stay aware of what is being reported of us. But then we should also report good things to differentiate this website from those anti Islam propaganda media. Between such media and those Behuda pro Muslim websites New Age Islam must tread.

    By sadaf - 12/14/2012 3:23:09 PM



  • “Muslims need to dissociate themselves from the NewAge Islam because Islam cannot coexist with atheism and heresy."

     

    This is a very negative approach like that of the Taliban and the members of Al Qaidah. They have declared their agenda to turn the whole world into an inferno unless every one becomes a musalman like them. They believe that non-Muslims (kafirs and mushriks both have been created by Satan so their Allah has commanded them to eliminate every one of them if they refuse to come to their shelter.

     

    Perhaps people like Manzurul Huque and Muhammad Yunus have their own hidden agenda in support of their ideology condemning those who do not agree with them.

     

    My humble advice to them is to set an Anjuman-e-tahseen-e-bahimi ( Society for mutual appreciation) so that the members of this Anjuman  may gather at a platform to help fortify their faith, belief and ideology and get rid of their adversaries in religion.

    By afaqsiddiqi - 12/14/2012 12:51:28 PM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed Saheb, Whether the questions are from our mind, or from apostate sites, or just hypothetical  how does it matter?
    You assume that you have given correct answers, or the questioners agreed. We become silent because generally they are just justifications or just twisting.
    For a believer their is no questions. Once a person start to believe the Questions loose their importance. Then he accept whatever is told to him.
    You are expert in analyzing the data and arriving at some result. How many Jehadis asked the Questions about Allah, Jannat and dozakh? Didn't they simply believe and made ghusl, sprinkled khushboo in the hope of meeting with hooris and accomplished the mission. 
    They never ask.
    Ask a believer how could the prophet Noah carry the pairs of the all species of animals. Have  Jews, Christians or Muslims  asked ever?
    I never asked when I was a believer.
    They generally simply believe. Questions are asked by those who are not satisfied with the established beliefs.
    You had long debate with Mr Sultan saheb. What is the result? Was Mr Sultan like us? No By rational - 12/14/2012 8:07:19 AM



  • Some star commentators are exhausting their entire vocabulary on a person who quoted from their own holy books.
    If they have backbone they should go to Jehadis and say at their faces "you are wrong or misguided"
    They are calling it attack. Who is under hysteria now? Who is showing the symptoms of hysteria?
    God knows what good they have arrived at so far? What solution they have found to stop the people they think are responsible for bad representation of their religion.
    Apne chehre dekh kar khas log, Aine ko hi bura kahne lage.(When some people were shown the mirror, they started to condemn the mirror).
    If they think banning me will save them from what they have in their holy books let the Editor ban. He is a sane person not under hysteria can take better decision.
    No better than those who roam the earth shouting " OUR WAY IS JEHAD" By rational - 12/14/2012 7:37:01 AM



  • Rational, I did not even agree to answer your question on the punishment of the people of Lut unless you first agreed that God exists. If God does not exist for you, why should you bother if God is just or unjust? I answered two other questions on the story:
    1. why did prophet Lut (AS) offer his daughters in place of his guests?
    2. Why is the punishment for the same sin of homosexuality different for men and women?
    You were satisfied with the answers.
    I have described exactly what I  think is in Loh -e-Mahfooz and also what the Quran is with reference to Loh-e-Mahfooz and how the revelation over a single night is both similar and different from the revelation over23 years and from what is in the Loh-e-Mahfooz. What is in the Loh-e-Mahfooz are the decrees or the Word or the unchanging laws which govern every phenomena and behaviour. In a way, therefore everything is contained in it in the sense that everything can be explained in terms of these laws. The Quran then being a book of guidance, provides guidance for success in terms of these laws with reference to the specific context of those times and the people but also containing universal and eternal principles.
    The indeterminate nature of the universe and physical phenomena  makes prayer meaningful. There is therefore very good reason to understand what these laws are and strive for worthy goals working in accordance with these laws and also pray for success. At the level of the individual, there is considerable freedom to choose and shape one's own future and destiny although at a macro level the patterns of behavior may be predictable which makes it possible to prophesy the future for the masses.
    You had asked another question on how non-mutaqi could benefit from a reading of the Quran when the first 5 ayats of Surah 2 say that the book is a guidance for those who believe, pray and give zakat. This was also answered.
    Hamza also asked his questions which were answered.
    Looks like he has understood why the Meccan and Madinian surahs contain what they contain. However, he has  not acknowledged or thanked me for clearing his doubts which  remained with him even though he had studied religious books for 15 long years. He has not thanked me earlier also for answering his questions on the stories of Dhul Qarnain, People of the Caves, and the inheritance laws etc.
    He has also ducked the following question:
    Hamza writes:
    "But when we read the verse 33:52, “It is not lawful for thee (to marry more ) women after this , nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee except any thy right hand should possess ( as handmaidens), we come to know from the source of God Himself that the prophet of Islam was often attracted by women’s beauty also."
    Hamza, Please confirm  that you accept then that the Quran is God's word and not that of the Prophet(PBUH).
    A Muslim can have a few questions that bother him which if answered, put him at ease. Both of you have fired your questions with great fanfare not expecting to be answered. The questions have been answered.
    Evasive action that both of you take when your questions are  answered and the manner in which both persist with attacking  Islam and it's Prophet, establish that your mission is not get answers to your questions but to encourage apostasy. I am aware that there are various sites which are dedicated to encourage people to become apostates. I am afraid, NAI has also become one such site. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/14/2012 5:31:38 AM



  • Sultan Shahin saheb says, " I cannot possibly ban ahadees from our site either."

    We are talking about a ferocious attack mounted on all aspects of Islam by a hysterical attention-seeking mono-maniac whose frenzied outpourings are now totally dominating the site. And you are talking about banning ahadees! That is very disingenuous. I am very disappointed with your response.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/14/2012 2:52:05 AM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed
    I think you are overemphasizing your arguments.
    Loh-e-Mehfooz is under discussion because of a verse in the Quran. I questioned it syaing the Quran is protected in the Loh-e-Mehfooz all things are pre-ordained.
    Now the Surah Masad is in the Quran in which Abu-Lehab is cursed alongwith his wife. I argued Abu-Lahab was destined to oppose the prophet. Hence is not responsible for his deeds. You caught my argument and said there is nothing pre-ordained and free will is given to everybody and based on people will be jugged. You knew it where I was. But this discussion is going into wrong direction so I cut it short. There is no question of running away like donkeys.
    You thought I am convinced with your argument on punishment of people of LOT. Not my dear. Your answer was not convincing so I left that issue and you got engaged with GM saheb.
    If you want to continue I am here.
    The subject is predestination ie taqdeer the part of the Iman. Here I will quote from the Quran, Ahadith because this subject matter is of the Islam not science. By rational - 12/14/2012 1:26:43 AM



  • Rational, You asked about pre ordination etc.When answered, you are running away like "frightened donkeys from lions".
    Nowhere, have I even hinted on the efficacy of prayers beyond saying that it is " conceivable that prayer may have an effect" if we accept the non-deterministic model of the world which is increasingly finding acceptance over the classical  deterministic model.
    I have emphasized understanding the laws and acting in accordance with these laws for success rather than banking on prayers and intervention of God who I have said prefers not to to intervene since that would be unjust to those who plan and work in accordance with the unchanging laws.
    You do not like your most difficult questions to be answered since that would leave you without your brahma astra. I hope, that you are able ro see that even with the unchanging laws of nature, the physical phenomena are best explained by probabilistic models. Hopefully you can see the contours of what is unchanging and what is subject to choices that we make. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/14/2012 12:42:18 AM



  • Sultan Shahin Saheb- excellent arguments by you in respect of corrupt ahadis in so called "Sahih" books. We should learn lessons from their misquotes and resultant losses to Ummah.
    Rational should be allowed to stay on the site. His questions and arguments both are very forceful. Sometimes, he is excessive but then other participants are also many times illogical in their arguments but are here. By Mohd Abis - 12/13/2012 11:25:53 PM



  • Dear Muhammad Yunus Saheb,

    You and other liberal moderates, even liberal fundamentalists are angry at prurient, pornographic, ahadees from Bukhari, Muslim, etc. assassinating the character of our prophet being quoted on our site. Let us first remember that these same are also quoted by Saudi Muftis and judges and our own Mullahs to justify their vile deeds. Saudis Muftis and judges and our Mullahs quote them with pride, critics of Islam quote them to denigrate Islam.

    I have no power to ban Saudi grand Muftis from quoting ahadees nor can I stop our own Mullahs from doing that. And I cannot possibly ban ahadees from our site either as long as almost all Muslims continue to place them alongside, and some Muslims like Ahl-e-Hadees as superior to Quran. Practically every Muslim believes we have two scriptures of equal importance, Quran and Hadees.

    We have to convince Muslims of the inauthenticity of Ahadees as words of the prophet, and also that even if some of these are indeed words of the prophet, they do not have the same sanctity as the words of Quran. But we will not be able to do that as long as we are rationalising the obvious concoctions and fabrications in Ahadees as due to the sacred screening methodology used by the revered Imams. So we have to think hard about how to go about our mission of making Quran alone Muslims’ sacred literature and the rest to be considered secondary, part of which, compatible with Quran, may be useful for us.  

    As for thinking Muslims, ex-Muslims, near ex-Muslims, exhausting us with their repeated questions from all and ever-newer angles, my view is this. These are good people, virtuous and honest to the core, who represent our failure to have done our job well. Instead of introspecting why we have failed, we have made it fashionable on our site to call them names like scorpions, snakes, impostors, apostates, etc. This merely reflects our frustration at our own failure. Instead of reflecting on our failure, and changing our course, if needed, we are merely venting our own frustration in the foulest words possible.

    When the Prophet (saw) was similarly frustrated, he did not start badmouthing the people he had failed to convince. He merely became depressed. God did not like even that. God admonished him. His depression merely showed that he was going beyond his brief. His job was simply to pass on God’s message to the people in this world and seek to convince them of the veracity of that truth to the best of his ability.  He was told that he would have probably liked to force people to convert. But converting them was not his job. The fruit of his efforts was in the hands of God. This is precisely the message Hazrat Krishna (saw) gave us. And I am sure other prophets too must have done.

    But we, the liberal reformers on this site take our job far more seriously than mere prophets. So much so that we don’t even give a damn about God’s admonition to the prophet in a verse recorded in the Quran he bequeathed us. Nor do we care to live in the boundaries set for human beings. We have arrogated to ourselves the divine power to judge who is an apostate. Why do we need God any more? We can ourselves decide who is fit for heaven or hell. We forget that all the scorpions, snakes, and kafirs who had frustrated the prophet so, to the point of depression, turned into stalwarts of Islam in a matter of a decade. We forget that the prophet we swear by refused to call confirmed hypocrites – confirmed by God himself – hypocrite and even prayed for their redemption. And we do this all the while claiming to be moderate and liberal and badmouthing Wahhabi and other Mullahs for their extremism and practice of takfir, etc. May God save us from ourselves!

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/13/2012 11:00:25 PM



  • @sadaf: "I hope we do not start hitting each other with the books that we are taking name of."
    Neither I want.

    By rational - 12/13/2012 9:39:08 PM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed saheb
    Be happy with your prayers. We will not be able to convince each other.
    I agree these are the models (whether religious or non-religious). to explain some phenomenons  There is no proof prayers do work. If it works for you fine. Keep it on but don't make it Dhanda as the religious people are doing to run their businesses. Through print and electronic media miracles of prayers are spread. Why so much showmanship for prayers. Why to convince who don't think it is worth.
    There is nothing wrong to bow your head before one or multiple gods. Now please don't start to prove monotheism is superior and polytheism is store of all vices. Both are at same level in irrationality.
    Enough blood is spilled over monotheism and polytheism but God is not still satisfied with the supply from human beings(Human blood and animal blood). God syas Hal mim Muzeed :D
    There is stark difference. Hindu noble prize winner is in full respect. Muslim noble prize winner out caste from momineen biradri. Atheist Hindu feel no fear, apostate of Muslim remains busy to save his life and family. Do you see the difference?
    Don't think we don't enjoy ironies? I mentioned where in dire need prayers simply don't work. It is a reply to your Allah intervenes in threatening situation. Of course you can bring numerous examples such miracles.
    Have a nice day or night. By rational - 12/13/2012 9:31:05 PM



  • Rational, unfortunately, there exist another book as well by the name of 'My great love for Jesus led me to Islam' written by Simon Alfredo Caraballo. I hope we do not start hitting each other with the books that we are taking name of. By sadaf - 12/13/2012 2:20:25 PM



  • Rational, You fail to notice and enjoy the ironies. If you take Einstein's or the classical physicists model of the universe, then the physical phenomena are deterministic and it does not help to pray for rain. But if you take the modern physicist's model of the universe, then it is conceivable that prayer may make a difference! So thank God that the modern physicist has increasingly proved to be right over the classical physicists. So are the classical physicists wrong? No, they are not! Their models explain much of the physical phenomena at the macro level but fail at the extremities.
    So what I said about auto pilot etc is correct. So try to understand the laws of God or Nature and act accordingly rather than depend on prayer! If God intervened based on every prayer then the laws have no meaning. Then what about those who plan according to the laws? They are short changed and that would be injustice!
    43:33. And were it not that (all) men might become  of one (evil) way of life, We would provide, for everyone that blasphemes against ((Allah))  Most Gracious, silver roofs for their houses and (silver) stair-ways on which to go up,
    God does promise a lot to the unbelievers and the blasphemers. So why does it come as a surprise that non-Muslims have done exceedingly well in the sciences? Those who believe that the life in this World is everything, are more likely to invest on making this life more enjoyable and comfortable than those who think that life on this earth is merely a test for the hereafter. It is difficult to say who is right. Consumerism has spiralled out of control and the resources of the earth may not be able to sustain living in this style for very long. That is not the full explanation either.
    Why has no Indian living in India won a Nobel Prize in the 65 years since independence? With one exception, the rest are ex-Indians. The exception also won it while working in England. Although India has made a name for itself in IT services, why no Indian company owns even a single World class product? They are all into IT services and not into products except three companies who have a Banking product which sell only in third world countries. There are very good reasons which explain these things. Coming back to the subject of rain, it pours when it rains. So wait for it to pour when the conditions are right and the current drought of Nobel prizes does not mean that the drought conditions are permanent.
    Muslims countries such as Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Jordan were at least on par with India as far as science and engineering is concerned but did not enjoy the same uninterrupted peace over the last 65 years. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/13/2012 8:16:40 AM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed Saheb. If the rain is in the administration of the Allah and rain is the mercy (Rehmat) of Allah, it raises the question on his ability as an administrator. I am not asking him to rain or stop the rain or to rain upward.

    I take one real example. In our area when the wheat is ready to cultivate or is in the open field for being threshed rain starts with thunder. Our Muslim brothers sincerely pray to stop the rain but He never answered their prayers. Many times wheat is destroyed that is after so much labour is in the hands of the farmer.

    One more example Bangladesh Bihar suffers from the drought and flood. Are prayers useful in any way? Saudi Arabia which has holiest Kaaba receives no rain (rehmat).

    Namaz-e-istishqa is also a futile exercise performed by the Muslims. Why not arrange these Namaz in the desert so that countless people may be benefited.

    But Allah is prompt in sending the destruction on largest scale.

    Prayer can be a psychological support for a believer. That's all

    There is a site named: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

    Am I talking hypothetically? I bring generally real examples.  

    One book "Unholy legacy of Abraham" is a worth read if you are interested in science and religion. Please don't get confused by its name. 

    By rational - 12/13/2012 5:30:30 AM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed Saheb  My ears are soar now after listening a lot about the truth. I ask sincerely What is truth for a human being, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Jew and so on....?
    Where this truth resides? Who has got it? The veda is truth, the Upnishas is truth, the Gita is truth, the Bible is truth, the Quran is truth. then Veda is not the truth, the Bible is corrupted, The Quran is corrupted.  What is this truth everybody is claiming it is with him? By rational - 12/13/2012 4:37:09 AM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed Saheb. My comment with apology for using "rebuked" was not uploaded either by my mistake or of network malfunction.
    I am sorry to use this word. I have no grudge against you. We may differ in our opinions and understanding. That's why we are here.
    I will not insist on the quotation of Einstein but I read it in the books where this was quoted to prove the existence of the God. Perhaps it was in the book "God arises" by Maulana Wahidudin Khan. I am not sure. But it is sure I read it in this context only. It came into my knowledge from these Islamic books only.
    The experiment you are talking I went through it when I attended a continuous education program on the communication subject. I agree with you on this point.
    Loh-e-Mehfooz is a matter of the Qur'an not of the secondary source. Only my objection is Why a guide book should contain the ambiguous verses. Its objective is to guide the people not to misguide. Other verses clearly tell that Allah test the people by these verses. It seems in order to fill the hell Allah deliberately is misguiding the people.
    I am not convinced a bit on this guidance and predestination part of the Quran. By rational - 12/13/2012 4:17:14 AM



  • To all NAIzens. Once again there is a cry to ban the people like "Rational"
    Accusation: Hate and Insult to Allah and the Prophet.
    Fact: Not a single event I mentioned in my latest comments and old comments fabricated by me.
    1.These were fabricated by pious Muslims. Revered personalities for a 1.2 billion Muslim community.
    2. These are in wide circulation in print and internet.
    3. These are taught in the Deeni Institutions with great reverence.
    4. Majority of Muslims consider them holy and beyond doubt.
    5. There is no compliant from the Muslims why these shameful lessons are taught to young students.
    6. Ubaidullah Sindhi a convert from sikh to Muslim, a learned Maulana admitted " I can't teach  these Ahadith to young students.".
    7. We are told Dars-e-Bukhari(Recitation of complete Sahih Bukhari is beneficial in some situation.(Barkat ka sabab hai)
    8. For more reference " Criminals of Islam" by Dr shabbier Ahmed. present on this very site.
    9. In the eye of one star commentator work of Dr Shabbir Ahmed  is less worth.
    10. Rational has Quoted from the holy sources.
    I appeal to all readers on this site including the Editor keeping the points mentioned above and bringing your conscious into action to decide "where I am wrong"
    I abide my self with the terms and conditions of the site.
    Again I repeat I fabricated none, made no hate speech, and stated the history from Islamic sources.
    Some commentators not in position to defend themselves are creating the atmosophere of the enmity towards me.
    I question the conscious of Mr Haque, Mr Md Yunus(1) and Mr GM. For the sake of your beliefs you are slaughtering me. Have you taken any action against the fabricators and collectors of these Ahadith. Have you faced a single Maulana or Jehadi to stop them from the action.
    Now I doubt your sincerity . You are doing a lip service to Islam. In invite you all to Ahle-hadithee and apostate sites to do Jihadan kabeera.
    This is the reason I live a life of hypocrite. Living and writing in the western countries on the internet and living in a Muslim majority has a different meaning.
    THANKS TO YOU ALL THREE FOR SUCH A CRY
    HAVE YOU GOT YOUR ANSWER WHY I FIGHT THE BELIEFS. By rational - 12/13/2012 2:56:52 AM



  • Rational, You appear to be unaware of the context in which Einstein said  "God does not play dice with the World".
    It was in the context of developments  in Quantum Physics which was not to his liking since deterministic theories were being replaced by  probablistic or non-deterministic theories to explain the behaviour of sub-atomic particles. These theories can also be extended to propose alternate, multiple and probabilistic histories of the Universe!
    It has nothing to do with his belief  or lack of it in God.
    Neither has the quote been used to prove that Einstein believed in God. It has been used precisely in the sense that Einstein meant it and contrasted with the probabilistic view of natural phenomena to say that there is a non-zero finite probaility of rain in any area and the prayer of a person could conceivably make it rain. The prayer cannot then be said to be useless.
    This is also contrasted with prayer for time to stop running or for the sun to rise from the west which would be asking God to submit to man rather than man submitting to God's will and would be an exercise in futility.
    The post clear;y brings out the limits of the effcacy of prayer while countering the suggestion that prayer for rain is futile.
    There have been many instances of your understanding  just the opposite of what I said or meant. You also said that I rebuked you for asking the question on Loh -e _Mahfooz when actually I had answered it. There are numerous instances of others also getting quite the opposite of what I have said. So, you can imagine  the authenticity of secondary works which were compiled centuries after the death of the Prophet (PBUH) based on not direct written communication as between you and me, but oral transmissions over those centuries many people each one of whom would have embellished the story or filled in details for the part he had forgotten or not understood. The distortions are bound to be huge. Try a simple experiment of orally giving a one line message to someone to be passed on to another who in turn passes it on to the next person and then ask the last person what the message was. You will find it totally distorted. The secondary works cannot therfore be quoted to assert with any degree of certainty that these contain unassailable facts. They have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Comparison with religious scriptures of other religions also confirm the same phenomena that human accretions have distorted the truth. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/13/2012 2:26:33 AM



  • Mr Ghulam Mohiyuddi, When you will grow up? I have repeated Islamic History in my words which are more civilized then the real accounts in your holy books.
    You have tried it earlier. What is difference between you and those who riots and murder the people for cartoons of the prophet and you do lip service to condemn them. By rational - 12/13/2012 1:45:05 AM



  • Dear afaqsiddiqi sahib,

    Long back I wanted to comment to you, but was holding back my hand for obvious reasons. I read your comments and liked some like recent one.
    One Quote of Eisenstein is quoted by all God believing people. "God doesn't play dice". There may be some variation because I am writing from my memory. Here Muslims quote this statement out of context they accuse others for the same.
    If you believe in something I don't mind. If I question it you can say it is my belief. Now I know it is a belief only. Why should I fight with that person?
    But if that belief is the source of trouble for others they have right to question it.
    When repeatedly article are published on the wisdom beliefs carry behind them we are bound to question and ask the reply, because we are going to get effected in some way.
    I don't bother if scientists believe in God or no God or multiple gods. Some early scientists believed in a god who started this universe and now it is running in autopilot mode as Mr. Naseer Ahmed said in his comment. Why I should have a problem? When he said God intervenes in some critical situations I mentioned few when god fails to intervene. What is the problem in it?
    The real and sole motive of all Muslims is to establish Islamic rule. Some express it and some hide. This desire every Muslim cherishes.
    If the Rule of Allah is just and for every time and place as Muslims believe why these people want to reform it. Or they are smarter than Allah? Or they are deluding the people when the situation is grave.
    The religions are business tycoons investing nothing, risk none and profit unlimited. period
    By rational - 12/13/2012 1:37:09 AM



  • I agree with Haque Sb and Yunus Sb. Only an apostate website would let someone like Rational have posting privileges. Such a profusion of hate and insults for God and the Prophet may be meaningful to him, but he should be allowed to indulge in his hate and insults all by himself.  By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/13/2012 1:19:08 AM



  • Dear Yunus Saheb,

     

    The conclusion of your article on Ahadees and its compilers contains facts and opinion. I am separating them below for unwary readers, before I make my own submission, for your express consideration:

     

    "Conclusion:

    ·        Fact: “There can be no denying that the authenticated (Sahih) Hadith (sayings of the prophet) compilations contain some accounts that sound most bizarre and purport to provoke sexuality, induce terrorism, foment inter-faith hatred, and stand deeply misogynist, scientifically untenable, self contradictory and Qur’an-incompatible [2]” –

    ·        Opinion: “but this must not be attributed to any intellectual turpitude on the part of the Imams who compiled them.”

    ·        Fact: “The early compilers confronted hundreds of thousands of accounts in oral circulation and applied the prevalent isnad (integrity of narrators in the transmission chain) based screening methodology to accomplish their works.”

    ·        Opinion: “Human reason was in its primitive form and what appears most bizarre and grotesque today, did not register as such in the minds of the common people of Islam’s early centuries, as they were accustomed to believe in legends and fairy tales.” …

    ·        “The great Imams, who were among the most learned in their era, were cognizant of the ingress of forged and fabricated ahadith (plural of Hadith - sayings of the prophet) in their compilations, but they were not in a position to delete the suspect ahadith as long as they met their criteria of screening. Accordingly they warned the community and posterity about it."

    ·        ---

    My opinion: I believe that this is only partly correct and that there is reason to believe that the character assassination of the prophet was at least partly deliberate and for very understandable reasons. In power, in those times, were scions of the former elite and inveterate enemies of Islam whom Islam had displaced for a time after victory at Mecca and they had come back to power after massacring the prophet’s family and emasculating the rest of the community.

     

    That is why the first books of Seerat that were written in that era were called ‘Maghazi Rasoolullah or Kitāb al-Maghāzī(battle accounts of the prophet saw). I refuse to believe that all Muslims of that era merely venerated the prophet because he was a great warrior in their view and that none valued his instincts for peace, forgiveness, rahmat (blessing) for mankind. Similarly I refuse to believe that all Arab Muslims valued his sexual prowess and none the fact that there is no report of any irresponsible sexual behaviour on his part for the whole time of his life till the age 52 in his 62 years of life on this planet. In fact none of his enemies and enemies of Islam accused him of any immoral behaviour ever. All controversies start after he migrated to Medina. All of a sudden this person who brought to the world the Meccan Islam, unsurpassed in its beauty and benevolence, could not have turned into a violent misogynist, sexual fiend in his late fifties, a few years before his death.

     

    In spite of the bizarre reports of the prophet’s sexuality and love for violence, these same books of ahadees also give us good character certificates for the prophet. However, these bizarre stories have developed overriding importance now as many Muslims, particularly the new intellectual leaders of Islam, the Wahhabis, prefer to use these bizarre stories for their fatwas and for justifying their own and for their elite’s bizarre behaviour. How else indeed can you justify and present as the acme of “Islamic” behaviour the ‘halal’ prostitutions of the princes of Saudi Arabia?

     

    In the Medinan part of his life the prophet (saw) was faced with an extraordinary challenge. The Islam that had been revealed in Mecca had created bitter enemies and for very good reason – it conferred no superiority on any one person over others, leaving no room for hereditary tribal chieftains, monarchical set ups and dictatorships. It restrained people from immoral behaviour, from cruelty to women, boozing and gambling, and all sorts of vices.

             

             The extraordinary challenge necessitated an extraordinary, multi-layered response. The prophet made alliances and fought wars. He had to. We cannot fully understand the situation today and I find it pointless to delve too deeply into that today, especially because I find that we cannot even fully understand what is happening in our own age of instant recording of events and communication.

             

            The important thing is what view we have formed of the prophet (saw) in his half a century of Meccan life, the life before he was faced with the extraordinary challenge of helping Islam and its few followers survive in a battle of do or die. All his activities and the guidance of God in this period should be seen in this light.

             

             When the former Meccan elite came back to power, they had to rule in the name of Islam. Islam was incompatible with their designs, hereditary monarchy in the name of khilafat, imperialism and corruption of all sorts.

            

             (This also reflects the prevailing situation in much of Arabia today. Real Islam is incompatible with monarchy, suppression of democratic rights, massive boozing and gambling of the elite, extraordinarily luxurious life style, ‘halal’ prostitution.) 

              

             These hereditary ‘khalifas,’ the sons of Yazid, could not alter the Quran. They could not even create doubts about the character of the prophet’s Meccan life. He was too well-known as a trustworthy person par excellence in every respect. So they spread rumours about his Medinan life when he was facing an extraordinary challenge and naturally responding in an extraordinary manner, while fully retaining his love for peace and chastity. They told these concocted stories as if they were taking pride in the prophet’s sexual prowess, cruelty to Jews and contempt towards non-Muslims, love of violence, extraordinary calibre as a warrior and so on. They needed justification for all the things they wanted to do in their debauch lives as they do even now.

              

             (See how Saudi judges and muftis quote these fabricated stories from ahadees and sunnah books of early Islam to justify paedophilia and rape. See how Saudi-influenced Mullahs the world over use these same stories to justify their penchant for pronouncing divorce even before the drop of the proverbial hat and offering to do halalas, for instance, among many other reprehensible things.) 

             

             Now, I find it difficult to believe, that the intelligent, scholarly, devout, compilers of ahadees, included these concocted stories assassinating the character of the prophet, knowingly or at least suspecting their veracity (as you have pointed out), and called these compilations sahih (authentic, authoritative), merely out of devotion to their craft and methodology of compilation. This methodology, their ‘criteria of screening,’ was their invention; it could not have had superiority over their devotion to and understanding of the prophet’s spotless character. I know these imams are considered men of extraordinary piety, but I find it difficult to consider them dumb enough not to realise the consequences of the suspected concoctions and fabrications that they were allowing to go in their ‘authentic and authoritative’ compilations.  

            

             In any case, I find it difficult for me to unquestioningly revere the compilers of these ahadees, call them Imams, teach their works to our kids in madrasas (religious seminaries), calling then all the time ‘authentic and authoritative’, base our fatwas (religious opinions) on their narrations, sell them in open market, put them over internet for widespread viewing, and then expect Muslims or for that matter non-Muslim critics of Islam, to not read them, quote them, discuss them, form their opinion about the prophet’s character on that basis and express them.

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/13/2012 1:10:33 AM



  • Mr muhammad yunus. I went through your long with repeated statements in your comment
    Mr. Sultan Shahin better understands why he has allowed people like me on this site.

    In fact you never criticized the people who wrote the shameful accounts in holy books. You called them vampires to just shut my mouth. Don't I understand your strategy?
    The answers you have given in your comments to me were simply to stop me. These answers I have already in my pocket learned from the debates. For example:
    1. You quote out of context.
    2. You don't understand the real meaning. Your interpretation is wrong.
    3. This can't be translated fully into other languages.
    4. You are the enemy of the Islam.
    5. You are defaming the Islam.
    6. You have little knowledge.
    These are few points I have stated we hear when Muslims debate with non-Muslims or apostates.
    There is no need to reform the Islam. You are wrong. 1.2 billion Muslims have no problem. A few bunches of so called moderates are going to reform divine religion of Islam!

    You were good to me is now under question. It was just a ploy. How this idiot can be stopped. Your love ends where your love begins with Allah. You are not good because being good is a noble thing but only to please Allah.
    Indeed Allah has purchased your life at the cost of the paradise.
    You people are no more than Jehadis, stealth jehadis. Now you are crying to ban entry of me and my companions (I don't know them, except through their screen names).
    What reform you want to bring into Islam which is valid for eternity. Is it not a complete way of life controlling every aspect of a Muslim. Is it not for every time, place and situation? Are you smarter than Allah?
    Who are you to reform the Islam?
    I was not addressing you but you again and again write the something you accuse me for.
    What is the outcome of the debate that ran between stalwarts of Islam? Is Mr Naseer Ahmed agreed that Wahhabism is a problem. Is Mr. Sultan Shahin convinced that Wahhabism is a problem?
    If this matter can't be resolved what reform you will bring to a complete Deen as declared by the Quran.
    Why don't you now implement your belief that whatever is happening between you and me has some wisdom in the divine scheme. Why are you so frustrated?
    I leave this matter to Editor.
    By rational - 12/13/2012 1:02:18 AM



  • "Dear Md Yunus this the mentality we Muslims have and therefore questions are asked again and again."
    "OK. rational is Muslim" By curious - 12/13/2012 12:20:59 AM



  • Mr Naseer ahmed tried to explain some divine scheme and said that Allah intervenes in certain condition.
    I mentioned some situations in which God never answered the prayer. What is wrong in it?
    If people are disturbed by simple discussions why they are here. By rational - 12/13/2012 12:17:54 AM



  • Dear Aiman Reyaz It is not me who is finding negative in the Qur'an. In indirect way you are saying I must go like Muslims are going and when something wrong comes in their way instead of condemning it they go to justify it.
    At least I am not satisfied the reason given by the Quran for half testimony. It is clearly against the objective knowledge. Women are as men. Some time forgetful sometime irrational sometime turbulent mood. Men are equally irrational.
    Who suffers at the hand of the men when in fury or under intoxication he divorce his wife. Who is irrational here?
    In order to justify one thing wrong you are justifying it because it is said by the Allah.
    Clearly Muslims can't criticize wrong if it is in the holy books. Because they think there is something wisdom behind every Godly thing it is our limited mind that can't see it. This mystery kind of thing and   hallow around these godly things that stops the man from the criticism.
    I respect you for your gentle manners but I don't agree with you on religious matters. By rational - 12/12/2012 11:57:54 PM



  • By muhammad yunus,  You need not to write again and again to me. Please take rest. Don't tax your mind and soul.
    For example Mr Aiman Reyaz tried to elaborate why half testimony of women?
    The question of half testimony has been raised by non-Muslims. Muslims gave the answers. It is an age old issue. But again and again articles are written to justify one wrong thing. Why you need to justify everything that is said by Allah or practiced by the prophet?
    Muslim will keep writing articles to justify and we will continue to ask questions.
    We question the wisdom behind divine schemes because we have thinking mind. If you have surrendered  your reasoning to Allah that is fine.
    The question about the mysterious things are not for you. Please ignore them.
    Those true jehdis are at least honest. They don't justify they simply believe and act.
    Kisi bhi tarah yeh sabit karna hai ki jo kuch allah ne kaha hai ya uske rasool ne kiya hai ekdam theek hai. Hamari aql se bahar hai. Hamri aql is layaq nahi hai ki ham uske ahkamat ko samajh saken. Hamen to bas amal karna hai.
    Dear Md Yunus this the mentality we Muslims have and therefore questions are asked again and again. By rational - 12/12/2012 11:54:25 PM



  • dear Rational, scientists  find it impossible to believe in a God who claims to establish his kingdom with the help of a political army. They  do believe in a God who gives them oxygen to breath,water to drink and a brain to work  hard to reach their desired goal. It is absolutely wrong to think that scientists have no God.But it is true that they do not believe in a God who has exhausted  his wisdom or creative power,or the one who has finally written a syllabus for mankind to follow till the end of this marvellous beautiful world.Though I am not a scientist in an academic sense but I am always inclined to think logically. By afaqsiddiqi - 12/12/2012 11:10:22 PM



  • Dear Manzoorul Huq Sahab Copy: Sultan Shaheen Sahib,

    I fully agree with your remark:  Muslims need to dissociate themselves from New Age Islam, because Islam cannot co-exist with atheism and heresy.

    If New Age Islam puts any of its staff to summarize all the comments made by say, Rational (who claims to be a Muslim, named Mohammed Yunus) and all the explanatory remarks posted by me it will become apparent that this Muslim commentator (Rational), who is not the lone Muslim is unfailingly dismissing Islam, the Qur'an and the Prophet. Let me elaborate this a bit for the general readers better understanding:

    The rational and his accomplices ask a set of questions challenging one or the other aspect of the Qur'an or the Hadith/ Sira. You explain to them in their historical and literary context; they raise another set of questions and if you answer them they come up with yet another set of questions and this goes on and on and all their questions are designed to dismissing Islam, the Qur'an and the Prophet. They do not want any reform in Islam. They want to prove that all the filthiest things are in Islam by quoting from its medieval theological archives totally disregarding historical relativism - that is such accounts are found in the medieval discourses of all religions. They claim to have mastered all branches of Islamic theology but ascribe the Hadith accounts as the words of Imam Bukhari, quote verses of the Qur'an out of historical context, question why in the opening passage of the Qur'an it says zalikal kitab and not hazal kitab (I was compelled to explain this absurd question), quote sexually surcharged literal rendition of Qur'an's gender neutral terms insisting that Qur'an has pornographic statements, declare that the Prophet lived lavishly, cut and past from various Islamophobic sites, talk about issues or notions that fall into the realm of the mutashbihat that Muslims are barred from debating, and then they have the shamelessness to say they are not alone. Having been tired of answering an endless barrage of their repetitious questions,  I had adopted a poetic imagery and likened them with vampires and other lowly creatures in their insistence to conflate Islam with what is the worst in its archives and indoctrinating others with their poison; but that makes no difference to them.

    Dear Manzoorul Huq Sahab.  You have taken the words out of my mouth. My following remarks extracted from an article substantiates my foregoing comments:

    "The website also must guard against imposters and agents of enemies who can barge into it with Hindu and Muslims names in order to foil any healthy debate, block any reform in Islam, create inter-faith hostility and strengthen the hands of extremists, terrorists and fundamentalists – some of these are obviously on the payroll of the enemies of Islam and India but as traitors and mercenaries, they can be of any religion and assume any name."

    http://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/use-and-misuse-of-freedom-of-expression-on-this-islamic-website-(new-age-islam)-and-need-for-a-clear-agenda/d/8997

    This also reminds me of my following remark appearing in yet another article:

    "Note of Caution to Islamic Scholarship

    The Islamic scholarship may do better to allocating minimal time on probing what the Qur’an forbids it to probe – its ambiguous (mutashabihat) verses, and to actively probe and appropriate its definitive (muhkamat) commandments (3:7) – its social, moral and ethical paradigms, its functional and interpersonal tenets – good deeds, sharing of wealth with the poor, good neighbourly and inter-faith relations, charity, generosity, justice and equity; mercy, compassion, patience and tolerance; peaceful conflict resolution, vying with each other in goodness and lawful pursuits, use of reason and discernment, repelling all negative thoughts, unremitting effort for improvement - to cite a broad cross section of the Qur’an’s definitive tenets.  

    Those who discuss those aspects of the Qur’an that it commands the believers not to probe and supplement their discussions with the Islamic theological sources have virtually swapped the definitive commandments of the Qur’an – the core of its book (ummul kitab) for the obscurantist aspects of its message. As the Qur’an put it, “there is perversity in their hearts and they only seek Fitna (confusion, sedition, chaos)” (3:7), and they keep Muslims and Islam stagnated in the track of civilization and its scholarship imprisoned in a closed medieval domain. God alone knows what fate awaits the Muslims for their remoteness from the essence of the Quranic message – the saddest episode in Islamic history [13]."

    Ref:  http://www.newageislam.com/ijtihad,-rethinking-islam/challenging,-and-shed-of-its-literary-glory-in-translation,-the-qur-an-offers-clear-clues-to-exploring-its-core-commandments---now-obscured,-corrupted-and-distorted-by-secondary-theological-sources/d/9039

    But the Rational and his accomplice, with Muslim names simply duck these remarks which only capture the conclusion of well laid out and duly substantiated ijtihad works.   

    It is people like these who interpret the Qur'an to commit incest, or having committed  an incest - as the case of Imrana in India demonstrates. As Muslims committing incest, however few in number, must necessarily appropriate it in the Qur'an, those who want to indulge in sexual orgy must quote the Hadith about the Prophet Muhammad embedding with forty or whatever number wives and the Prophet Solomon embedding with a hundred wives simultaneously - in spite of being repeatedly explained of the presence of legendary and apocryphal materials in the theological discourses.

    By muhammad yunus - 12/12/2012 10:38:33 PM



  • So Janab Sultan Shahin sb, your pujari has made his statement, which you have published with relish. As far as I am concerned, ‘pujari’ does not exist. But now, I can give you an authentic reply, which meets the civilized standards. Muslims need to dissociate themselves from New Age Islam, because Islam cannot co-exist with atheism and heresy.

    By Manzoorul Haque - 12/12/2012 2:30:53 PM



  • Dear Rational!

    You have posed me the question on the arbitrariness of sufferings that visit humanity many times and I have answered you each time that human mind cannot answer these question. It is for you to deny God for the apparent arbitrariness in which the "lightening strikes" - an expression that you can elaborate by giving millions of examples - each case of rape, birth of a child with congenital defect, incidence of cancer is a bolt from the. But a faithful takes these as the divine test and the faithless as increases in their disbelief. 

    My question to you: Why do you ask the same question again and again and again and again...
    By muhammad yunus - 12/12/2012 1:50:52 PM



  • Dear Rational!

     

    I have written you detailed comments on theme in the past and have done an article defending the great imams whom you ignorantly quote because Imam Bukkhari only wrote what other people narrated quoting somebody else from the preceding generation and the latter narrated quoting somebody else from his preceding generation and so on stretching back to the Prophet's era. Both Imam Bukhari and his immediate successor Imam Muslim - the most reputed and earliest of the compilers of Hadith had cautioned the posterity of the apocryphal character of most of what they had compiled as 'sahih' - as explained in the following extract of my article referenced below:

     

    "Thus, the first compiler of the Hadith, Imam Muhammad Ibn Ismail al-Bukhari (194-256 AH/ 810-870 CE) declared:

    “Why do people impose conditions which are not in Allah’s book (Kitab il lah)? Whoever imposes such conditions as are not in Allah’s Laws (Kitab il lah), then that condition is invalid even if he imposes one hundred such conditions, for Allah’s conditions (as stated in the Qur’an) are truth and more valid” [3].

    The second great compiler of Hadith, Imam Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, (202-261AH/ 817-875 CE), who, like al-Bukhari came from Iran was also highly suspect of the authenticity of many ahadith that he recorded in his compilation. He records his doubts in an oblique manner by citing the example of an arbitrary critical scholar who demands a proof of personal meeting between the narrators and transmitters of ahadith in each of the seven to eight generations back to the Prophet’s era. He then says: 

     "If we discuss about all those accounts which are held authentic (Sahih) before the learned, and suspect by the critical scholar, we would simply be tired (because they are so large in number)." …‘This argument is novel in its approach, and it is wrong that early scholars did not believe in this. Neither is its denial by those who came later, any ground for its repudiation... and God is there to help repudiate what is wrong in the religion of the learned and I trust in Him” [4]."

    "Conclusion:  There can be no denying that the authenticated (Sahih) Hadith compilations contain some accounts that sound most bizarre and purport to provoke sexuality, induce terrorism, foment inter-faith hatred, and stand deeply misogynist, scientifically untenable, self contradictory and Qur’an-incompatible [2] – but this must not be attributed to any intellectual turpitude on the part of the Imams who compiled them. The early compilers confronted hundreds of thousands of accounts in oral circulation and applied the prevalent isnad (integrity of narrators in the transmission chain) based screening methodology to accomplish their works. Human reason was in its primitive form and what appears most bizarre and grotesque today, did not register as such in the minds of the common people of Islam’s early centuries, as they were accustomed to believe in legends and fairy tales. The great Imams, who were among the most learned in their era, were cognizant of the ingress of forged and fabricated ahadith in their compilations, but they were not in a position to delete the suspect ahadith as long as they met their criteria of screening. Accordingly they warned the community and posterity about it."

    http://newageislam.com/islamic-sharia-laws/by-muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/defending-the-hadith-and-its-compilers-–-the-great-imams-who-are-sometimes-misunderstood-and-even-reviled/d/8011

     Kindly read my article for fuller clarification of the theme. ' By muhammad yunus - 12/12/2012 1:40:29 PM



  • "God's active intervention is only in special circumstance when you are in distress and call out from the depths of your heart."
    Perhaps women don't call from the heart when they are raped. Perhaps parents don't call Him  from the heart when a child suffers from incurable disease. Perhaps the people don't call from the heart when they are under a tyrant rule.
    Perhaps people don't call from the heart when they are under excruciating pain.
    What about animals? Are not these poor innocent the creature of God? Do they call Allah when they are slaughtered in his name?

    Allah use autopilot system to run the universe. What Allah do in spare time? This was thinking of some early scientists. Later with advancement in science eminent scientists  rejected the God. Despite of extreme crippled body Stephan Hawking don't believe in the God.
    By rational - 12/12/2012 11:07:24 AM



  • "With such votaries on the side of atheism, we have to just rest, because ‘atheism’ is in safe hands for ensured stunted growth."

    With such votaries on the side of Islam, we have to just rest, because ‘Islam’ is in safe hands for ensured stunted growth.
    By rational - 12/12/2012 10:24:12 AM



  • "An atheist can never understand religion."
    How can an atheist understand an irrationality called religion. It is the property of a believer to say Amanna wa saddaqna.
    The duty of a Islamic scholar is to justify the irrationality is in the Quran and Suna.
    By rational - 12/12/2012 10:19:52 AM



  • Some commentators do not mind if Bukhari says the prophet had the sexual strength equal to 40 men. Hz Jibril brought a potion to enhance his sexual power. Indeed prophet needed that power. After all Allah is in the service of the prophet.

    By rational - 12/12/2012 10:13:01 AM



  • One can't except ranting from a applauder of a prophet who makes his daughter-in-law his wife or copulate with a minor after the sanction of the God who is the fount of wisdom and mercy and is called haque(the truth). We know how the believers abuse boys and girls when teaching the holy books. Scandal is suppressed  to save the religions.
    Failure in math doesn't mean he can't do excellent in other fields. We are not creating kafirs, mushriks, munafiqs. 
    We are not among the people who used to drink the water dripping from the nose and mouth of the holy prophet.We are not among those were murdering the ameer-ul-momineen in the worship place and commenting on the wife of the ameer-ul-momineen. We are not among the people who raped the daughter of a chief after killing the family members. We are not among the people who were dining on the corpses of the people. We are not among the people who make the daughter in law their wives and make the son husband of the poor women. We are not among the people who tore apart the legs of an old women.
    What crime is not done by the fearful ghulams of Allah. We are not fleecing the people in the name of God.  We are not among the people whose god is khair-ul-makireen. At least we abstain from the evil by law of the land.
    We have our common sense to understand the good and bad. Wee need not to please the God.
    You bunch of zombies. Why the people are not at peace with you on this planet? 
    Scientists have no time to dash their heads before a tyrant god. Neither they have time to call the people to imaginary entity called God.
    Jaise devta waise pujari. By rational - 12/12/2012 10:00:04 AM



  • Hats off, What argument of yours was demolished by the Shaitan? Is the post even addressed to you? Why do you have this nasty habit of butting in?

    By the way, the Shaitan model has a longer standing than the standard model. As long as it explains some phenomena accurately there is no harm in using it.  A model is a model. Anyway, found you unwilling to use the findings of research studies also, so where exactly do you stand?

    By the way, have you figured out about Boko Haram, and reasons for extremism in Indonesia, Malaysia etc.? Why couldn't you find out on your own? I have provided the answer but I am not sure what works on your neurons. The following is a link to a story about how a single Indonesian who took part in Afghanistan returned to Indonesia and trained 200 persons in Indonesia and Malaysia and is now working for de-radicalisation. There were 35000 foreigners from 46 countries in Afghanistan so now you know how it spread to these countries.

    http://www.irinnews.org/report/96552/Analysis-Deradicalization-Is-Indonesia-s-approach-working By Naseer Ahmed - 12/12/2012 5:01:20 AM



  • An atheist can never understand religion. He will come up with ‘show me this’, ‘I challenge this’ etc. He is also very subjective. If you ask his name or his parents’ names, he would hide their names and identities.  In short, he can’t even show his face. Challenge? Ha,ha,ha! He is a spook. He exhibits all the qualities of a coward and a criminal. He may not commit crime for fear of law and till then he may convince himself as being the ‘best specimen of humanity’,  but once the fear of law (or society) is removed, there is no check on his life to commit any crime or immorality in his self-interest. It is logical. Religionists have not allowed these fellows to acquire strength for the simple reason that they will rise as the force of anarchy. For this reason, most leaders even in the liberal West try to stick with some kind of religious identity. It is not that atheists and anarchists have not tried, but they have failed in every age guaranteeing the growth of civilization. For this reason, we do not know much about what life would have been, if atheism and anarchy had succeeded.
    We have already discussed, how a person who has, for any reason, failed to attain faith, till a certain stage of his life, is not considered an atheist. An atheist is a person who actively propagates atheism.  I have not seen any inventor or scientist fighting for the cause of atheism. It is only ‘maths’ failed types who challenge others in science and technology to advance atheism. In his convoluted understanding, an atheist looks for science in religion, but worse still religion in science , displaying thus his ignorance of both – because at the end of the day he finds nothing in neither. What a void his life is! With such votaries on the side of atheism, we have to just rest, because ‘atheism’ is in safe hands for ensured stunted growth.
    However, I must concede. An internet atheist is a frightening creature who can sting from behind the screen, who can do your MCBC from the dead darkness where he lives, who can position himself as being against all religions but abuse Muslims exclusively and throw challenge for an objective study of Muslim’s books and ignore calls for the comparative study of books of all  religions. In short, he is not only an atheist, but he is a pathological enemy too, of the Muslims! By Manzoorul Haque - 12/12/2012 4:17:44 AM



  • Rational, Do not mix up what I have said with what others say. I have not said that science is in the Quran.
    Please read carefully  before commenting. It does not matter whether  Ramanujam , Einstein or  Feynman or others  believed in God or not although quite a few did believe in divinity at least if not in a personal God.  Scientific inspiration does not require belief in God nor did God say in the Quran that only those who believe will be rewarded with the fruits of their labour. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/12/2012 3:54:43 AM



  • Naseer Sb, Your study of philosophy, psychology etc is laudable. I am not sure however whether your use of that knowledge in discussing Islam enhances our insight or deepens our understanding of the subject. But if your approach is meaningful and satisfying to you, by all means continue with it. I summarized my simple thoughts when I said, "It seems both Muslims and ex-Muslims have nothing better to do than carry on useless arguments over what was written a thousand years ago! Don't we have any positive agenda for now? What do we have to do now in order to become better individuals and better communities? Can't we use our common sense and our folk wisdom to address the problems of violence, internecine bickerings and obnoxious self-righteousness? Can't we move forwards instead of going around in circles?" By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/12/2012 2:24:02 AM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed Saheb, Perhaps the Dynamo Mr Michel Faraday invented was in the mind of the Farady in his Embryonic Form. Allah Kareem used a Non-Muslim to invent the electrical machines which changed the course of this world. Biggest Allama. Hafiz, Muhadith, Hakeemu-ummat, Hujjatul Islam were not the choice of the Allah Kareem but those who disbelieved, ridiculed the religion pushed the science in the forward direction. Mutazilas were not Muslims.
    The line of argument used by you is favorite of the seekers of the science in the Quran.
    It is interesting the God had been very helpful to non-believer scientists. Muslims were simply spared from the hard task of inventing/discovering something important. Eminent scientists remain non-believers in the God even after observing so many wonderful truths. Even those who studied the Quran and said it is from the God never accepted the Iman.
    The explorers never accepted Islam even after exploring the wonders of the nature.
    In fact God's emphasis (if any ) on exploring the universe has no meaning for the Muslims. How many members of Discovery team (for example) who are observing the wonders of the nature are accepting the Islam?
    Let me give one Example: There is a brief mention of the Iron in the Quran where we are told it has very mush strength.
    Were the people before the Quran unaware this fact. were not they using the iron in their weapons and farming tools. What extra knowledge Quran added to Muslims on the Iron. Is there any mention in the quran that it is important constituent of the blood.
    In fact religions are hampering the speed of the science using different tactics. One is ban on the stem cell research fearing that it can be fatalistic to God's faculty in organics.
    Ask a Muslim what is their contribution in the science. He replies " Ghair Muslim kar to rahe hain. Hamen kya zaroorat hai. Hamen to us ko istemal karna hai paise dekar istemal kar lenge. Musalman ke liye to akhirat hai. Usi Abadi zindagi ki tayyari karni hai.
    There is no science or scientific truth in the Quran. Muslims are stretching their imagination beyond the limits and are laughing stock. No non-Muslim is reading the Qur'an to find the science. I think some of them keeping Muslims in their wild dreams so they can't even think of any science.
    In fact so called seekers of science in the religious books in fact playing an important role to keep back the Muslims in the ignorance and false pride.
    Mr Naseer Ahmed you have understood the Quran very well. I challenge you to invent or discover something importand on the basis of the Quran.
    I challenge you to write a book on your subject in the style of the Quran and see how many People understand the subject.
    In earlier comments I proposed an objective study on the Quran.
    I repeat it.
    Distribute the copies of the Quran in English (literal) among few hundred people who don't have any background in Ahadith and sirah or any other so called Uloom and after giving sufficient time. Let not them share their understanding. Now tabulate their understanding. Analyze it and make it public. Am I asking a wrong thing?
    Does it need any genius to predict the result?
    Fact is even clear verses are not clear and at last Muslims say Wallaho-Aalam.
    Remain busy in finding the science where it is not. It is easy to find the science in the Quran and hard to find it in real. By rational - 12/12/2012 1:05:35 AM



  • GM Sb, and Shahin Sb, Who is living in the past and who is living in the present?
    While discussing the past, I made it a point to discuss the present. My para on Dawa today was not required to answer Hamza but was added to provide the Islamic perspective in the light of the Quran based on today's realities while answering his question on the Meccan and Madinian suras. This made clear that no ‘jehad’ is required anymore for the spread of the word of Allah since it has already spread and is available to all unreservedly throough the medium of the internet and the TV.
    While GM Sb has quoted Yunus Sb  saying “The Qur'an calls for use of reason (aql), reflection (fikr), logical thinking (fiqh) as well as mutual consultation”, he has missed out a very important aspect of gaining knowledge which has been mainly responsible for the rapid progress that man has made in every field and that is empiricism. The Quran does emphasise this aspect when it asks man to ‘see, observe, reflect and ponder’. Empiricism is sadly lacking in everything the Muslims do and it is one aspect that finds a very strong focus in whatever I say. I support my views with research findings including expounding the wisdom of the Quranic prescriptions based on modern research findings. Education is meaningless if it does not make us empiricists. Show me a person on this site who makes use of his learning in subjects such as Philosophy, History, Psychology, Sociology/Anthropology and Economics to make his point.
    So your appeal to modernity and science is only lip service unless you show willingness to use and accept the findings of empirical studies. Without empiricism, it is like rowing in the middle of the sea on a dark starless night and without navigation instruments. You do not know where you are going. The `Mulla’ mentality in rejecting evidence based on research finding is clearly evident on this website. Some of the articles which I would never write without collecting adequate and proper data to support the thesis glibly ignore this requirement. I wonder whether such articles should be classified under the genre ‘based on divine revelations’ or ‘fiction’.  However, these are eagerly lapped up if they are in accordance with the ‘group thinking’ on the subject. ‘Group Think’ destroys all reason and dynamism and conforming to the group’s beliefs become most important.  There is no attempt to get the full report on the Gallup Survey on what a billion Muslims think and discuss the findings on this website or of any such useful activity.
    When I clearly show what will not work and may cause more harm than good, it is ignored because what I say is not in accordance with the `Group Think’ although it is supported by research. When I discuss solutions, everyone is interested only in tearing it down rather than making their own positive contribution. Whoever said that NAI can on its own solve anything? It can however reorient itself to talking solutions rather than reporting all the bad news from the Muslim World and bemoaning Wahabism/Salafism and petro dollars. Moulding the orientation of the readers to think in terms of solutions would make them expect solutions from themselves from their governments etc and demand the same. We all know what the problems are. What is NAI’s strategy to bring about change apart from saying that ‘if only we become better people who are tolerant, multi cultural, inclusive, democratic etc’? By Naseer Ahmed - 12/12/2012 12:45:09 AM



  • Posts on Loh-e-Mahfooz, Science and Religion.
    The Quran is straight forward in its message. You will not find any deviousness in it. It is self explanatory and not allegorical or indirect requiring interpretations of the learned. There are very few allegorical stories which are not to be taken literally and the allegorical language used makes the intention very clear. The Quran should however be understood  as a whole and not in parts - especially not by single ayats. You cannot then go wrong even with the literal meaning and even without knowing the context. There are some verses which are cryptic in their message and require deeper thinking. For example, the verses on creation where the angels are aghast that God has created man who will cause much bloodshed and tyranny and God responds saying that the Angels do not know what God knows.  God then proceeds to teach man the "names of all things" and then asks the Angels the names of things and the angels reply that they only know what God has taught them. The superiority of man is established and the angels are asked to prostrate to Adam.
    So what did God teach man? Name also means attributes or the nature of things or the knowledge about material things or even the laws that govern them. This knowledge has been given by God to man. It has been there with man always in some embryonic form and all his discoveries are nothing but retrieving from within the knowledge that is given to him. Most scientific discoveries are of that nature - seeing the truth in a flash of sudden understanding. The logic and confirmation of that truth through logical argument and experiments follows later. Did not Einstein scribble as an afterthought his famous equation E=mc^2? Once it is stated, the truth of this equation is obvious even to a bright high school student of physics who is familiar with dimensional analysis. Yet, it is an amazing insight. The same holds good for all the equations and theorems and much of the work in theoretical physics.
    Then there is that Ayat which says that God taught man by the pen. Taught him what he knew not. The pen is what enables man to record his learning for posterity and for sharing with other human beings. The gains are therefore cumulative. Not everyone needs to invent the wheel. Without these cumulative gains man would have made little progress.
    There are ayats which says that God does not change his ways or that no one can change his words. I understand by this that the laws are unchanging and laws are nothing but God's word which no one can change. This is a great boon enabling man to learn by experience. If laws kept on changing, his experience means nothing since it does not teach him what to expect in the future.
    The laws for achieving success in this life and the hereafter are also described. There is that amazing ayat which says that God does not change the condition of man until he changes himself. What this means to me is that if you are not succeeding, it is because your actions are not the right ones for achieving success  and unless you start doing the right things, nothing will change for you. So better start figuring out what is going wrong with you and why and start learning how to do the right things to achieve success. Prayers alone will not help you.
    God has therefore set in motion his laws and provided guidance through the Quran to navigate one's life and achieve success in this World and the hereafter. In most matters therefore, the World is on auto pilot and God does not intervene in every matter. Things happen in accordance with his laws.
    God's active intervention is only in special circumstance when you are in distress and call out from the depths of your heart. God then gives you a fresh start and it is back to auto pilot. So expect nasty things to happen you in life for your mistakes or even as random or chance phenomena. Do not then ask "why did this happen to me? What wrong did I do". It happens according to the laws of God which are designed for the benefit of mankind and you just got into the wrong way with these laws and hurt yourself. Patience under trying conditions is the litmus test of your faith in God and God appreciates and rewards both patience and gratitude.
    While Prophet Isa (PBUH) and Musa (PBUH) could perform "miracles", Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was not given any such power. The people also taunted him on this account. Clearly, the message was, 'the age of reason' has dawned and you do not need miracles to believe. Your own heart and mind will recognize and respond to the truth provided you do not cover it with arrogance. Also, isn't the World wondrous as it is? Why does anybody need miracles? What is it that he cannot achieve the straightway following the laws of nature?
    There is a reference to "The Book". What is that Book which contains everything? Taking the analogy of an Application, the Book is the source code of the master Application containing all the laws of nature. Everything therefore happens according to the book and is there in the Book. Are all revealed scriptures including the Quran the Book or part of the Book? My understanding is that the scriptures are a version of the book in the sense that they are for human consumption and understanding with reference to the specific context of the times when these are revealed but also containing an eternal meaning.
    We also read that the Quran was revealed in a single night on the "night of Power" in the month of Ramadhan. We also know that the revelation was spread over 23 years. What do these apparently conflicting versions mean? My understanding is that the revelation in a single night was akin to the form in which God taught man "the names of all things". The teaching was complete for the Prophet to understand the deen in its totality but not in the form of experiential learning with reference to the context which the Quran is. Yet there is a close connection between the Quran, the revelation over a single night and "The Book" which contains everything. By Naseer Ahmed - 7/16/2012 3:00:37 AM
    Naseer Ahmed’s comment   ”God does not change his decrees and a law is God's decree”
    One good reason when we pray for things that may require some perturbation in the law of physics such as praying for  rain through Nemaz- e- Is-tis-qua  we should not be dis- appointed if our prayers are sometimes—  not answered ---not because  we are bad people but because that may require some major meddling with the law of physics that god himself has laid out, and he is not going to change it for a few tiny insignificant individuals sitting in some remote corner of the cosmos.
    In response to Naseer Ahmed, What I see we should restrict our prayers only to the areas that does not ask God to defy any physical laws and thus save our time and God’s too.    Curing of disease in some cases falls in this category too; I believe.
    By Syed Rizvi - 8/6/2012 2:58:35 AM
    8/7/2012 3:17:40 AM      Naseer Ahmed
    Remember Einstein saying that "God does not play dice with the World" and modern physicists proving just the opposite?  Einstein became relatively unproductive after taking that stand since he had unwittingly taken the wrong path.
    What this does mean is that the chances of rain in a particular area during the season at a particular time are never zero and there is always a finite probability. The prayer of the insignificant being sitting in some corner of the cosmos could make that become a reality.
    Yes, and I agree that there is no point in praying that the time should stop for you or that the sun should rise from the west. You need to submit to God and his laws willingly or unwillingly and not vice versa.
    8/8/2012 8:29:21 PM       Naseer Ahmed
    Is the nature of Qur’anic revelations different from Scientific insights? Can scientific insights be called receiving wahi from Allah?
    Consider the following verses of the very first revelation that the Prophet (PBUH) received in the cave.
    96:3. Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,-
    4. He Who taught (the use of) the pen,-
    5. Taught man that which he knew not.
    Man would say that the pen is man's invention but God claims that He taught man the use of the pen!
    Consider any great scientific or mathematical insight. It comes as a flash of understanding. The logical arguments and experimental confirmations come later. These insights of course do not come to the un-initiated. They come only to those who acquire knowledge and seek further knowledge and ask the right questions.
    Was the Prophet also not a disciplined seeker of knowledge before the revelations started coming to him? Interestingly, the revelations through the agency of Gibrail (AS) are few. Most of it came through inspiration. The first revelation through the angel was necessary to make Mohammed (PBUH) realize and accept that God had chosen him as the Prophet. Even then it to took some convincing and I think three years before the nature of the tremendous mission that he was being entrusted with dawned on him. Once he accepted the mission, and his role as messenger of God, the agency of the Angel was no longer necessary and the revelations came through inspiration alone. Are these inspirations different from the insights that a scientist receives?
    Many of the proofs of Ramanujam's mathematical theorems were provided by other mathematicians and not Ramanujam himself. Even without proving the theorems, the mathematicians intuitively sense when the theorem is true and when it is doubtful. That is the beauty of truth. Clearly Ramanujam's insights were just those insights.
    The conclusions that we arrive, based on purely logical thinking, are for the smaller problems or the corollaries. No great discovery is a result of following a series of logical steps alone. Insight is very much part of every great advancement in Science.
    We have the Quran revealed already. So what more needs to be done is Mr Shahin's question. We need to understand the Quran in a manner that it becomes a personal revelation to us. That requires effort, discipline, thinking, acting.
    When our being responds to even a single verse of the Quran as if it was a revelation to us (meaning that we understand it the way it should be understood), our whole being is shaken up and it resonates with its meaning and we are reduced to a state of awe. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/11/2012 11:39:15 PM



  • When Muslims leave no chance to Quote the Non-Muslims for their benefit to validate some Islamic thing we Bring the quotes from the same personalities what they say about the religions, Islam and the prophet.
    Once Mr Md Yunus(1) mentioned a name Karen and her book on Islam, I quoted a passage from the same author about the prophet. This quotation brought anger of one star commentator.
    So Muslims are justified to quote if it is in their favor (even if from The Hitler) but if we quote they will become angry.
    Mr Md Yunus(1) has mentioned many names of the non-Muslims like, Karen, Maxime Rodinson, Burtrend Russel and many more. I can bring their views on the religions, Islam and the Prophet 
    In the same way we mentioned Burtrend Russel. Now Mr Haque saheb is peeling his skin. By rational - 12/11/2012 11:04:40 PM



  • Thanks Shahin sb, thank you very much for bringing out my comments on Lauhe Mahfuz. I seem to have lost it in my computer.
    About the second issue/post. I am not at all happy with reviling of our sacred personages. I condemn everybody down the line who has participated in this exercise. But if I have to investigate this ‘libel’ I will have to start with my immediate surrounding and Dr. Shabbir Ahmed will be the first to be questioned in the chain. Why I value discourse is because it helps us – provided we do not make it an ego thing. Now I will not say that Dr. Shabbir Ahmed is libelous because he is bad or has an evil intent towards Islam. On the face of it, he appears to be a more concerned Muslim than I am, for having worked so hard on the issue. He is disturbed, as you can read from his tenor, to hear such things and has rightly brought out these to the public view – though at his cost. Now I point out to him that in substance, these matters were neither irrelevant nor salacious, but only badly-worded or differently-reported. This bad-wording or different-reporting must have taken place during the long course of the travel of the talk, and whosoever has done it down the ladder, fully or partially as an accretion, is accountable to Allah for his/her sin.
    I have repeatedly said Muslims are needed to mature up.
    I agree with Janab Mohiyuddin sb that we seem to have nothing better to do than indulge in useless arguments over what was written a thousand years ago!
    As to positive agenda for now all my bold posers have been thouroly ignored so far,  the latest of which I reproduce: “
    The important principle introduced by the prophet was transparency in sexual relationship whereby ‘stealth sex’ was discouraged. Actually, this should be a subject matter of debate. Should ‘stealth sex’ be completely banned? What was the degree of discouragement of ‘sex outside marriage’ in the original Islam? Does complete banning of ‘sex outside marriage’ correspond to the reality of human life, especially of life today? What is going to be the general nature of sexual relationship between man and woman and
    how does Islam fit in? What about ‘variety being the spice of life’? For example, I would like to throw a small but modular question straightway. What about a husband and a wife reserving 60 to 80% (a model of partially compromised fidelity) of their sexual life for their spouses and permitting 20 to 40% of their sexual life for casual encounters of all kinnds? Will such arrangement  suit men or women more? Are non- Islamists (say Hindus) going to accept it as a principle? Are ‘modern’ Muslims (a large number here, who can throw light) going to accept it? Are Islamists going to accept it???(A big question). What if a wife practices it but the husband does not accept? Will he be violent? Should he be violent? What if a husband does it and wife does not accept it (of course, it has been common, but should we allow to continue it as a one sided game?). How much the Western people have accepted this 80-20 doctrine (which you can call the doctrine of partial fidelity in marriage) since they are the pioneers generally? If they, the West,  have accepted ‘partial fidelity’, are we, the lesser mortals- Asians and Africans – Hindus, Muslims, alike not destined (or pre-destined) to follow this path of 80-20 or better still 60-40 , with or without our willingness? By Manzoorul Haque - 12/11/2012 10:53:02 PM



  • If we read Quranic verses, the verses on the predestination are more in number and clear in meaning. These verses are supported by Ahadith. Whole Ummah believe in it. She is forced to believe in it.
    I don't believe in this jargon of improbabilities. I write because predestination haunts all believers and Muslims particular. Hindus can be Hindus without believing in anything. Many Christians question historical jesus. Many of them question many beliefs but are muslims free to question.  What about Muslims? Is not the predestination part of the Iman.
    Any mental gymnastic to separete the Islam from predestination is useless. This issue is not dead. It is very live in the lives of the Muslims. I write about it not because I am a believer but because I want to tell it is irrationality that is promoted by Islam in full force.
    I don't take it granted that this word is created by some God. It is a belief again not fact. I abhor beliefs because they kill the rationality and faculty of questioning.
    Yes you are free to believe in any irrationality includiong God. angles, jins, divine scheme etc. By rational - 12/11/2012 10:00:39 PM



  • Sultan Shahin - I thank you for putting your views in this comment. I applaud you for your humanistic approach  you reflect  it in the from of New Age Islam.
    Some commentators are trying hard to apply the censorship to NewAge Islam. They are modern Mullahs. By rational - 12/11/2012 9:59:39 PM



  • Sultan Shahin saheb, What you describe is unfortunately the true state of affairs. It is so much easier to reprise old squabbles and to relive old customs than to think about "What do we need to do now?" By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/11/2012 8:18:12 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb, Most Muslims live and are encouraged to live in the 7th century AD. Our minds constitute a colony of the Arabs. Our outer appearance too is now more and more resembling Arab culture. Our masques too have all acquired Arab architecture, whether we live in Bosnia, England, America, India or Indonesia. Our intermingling with our local culture or attempt at co-existence with neighbours is frowned upon. We are told that we are Muslims only if we resemble 7th century Arabs, fight their battles, live like them. No matter how our Arab masters treat us we should revere them as Arab-us-Saaleheen, the descendents of Salaf-us-Saaleheen and always be servile to them in our short pajamas and long kurtas, our medieval hooded capes and cloaks.

    Islam was brought to us by Sufi saints. They presented Islam as a set of values, much needed in our societies. Values of equality – above all equality of all kinds -, justice, fairness, love and compassion, honesty and trustworthiness. They got us acquainted with the last sermon of the Prophet, the Meesaq-e-Madina with its secular charter, the treaty of Hudaibia with its spirit of compromise for the sake of peace. They told us stories of how anyone could stand up in a mosque and seek Khalifa Umar’s accountability in the smallest possible mater of a piece of cloth he was wearing. Total democracy, total equality, total freedom of expression. Our forefathers fell for them, made an effort, howsoever flawed, to follow them. That was hard work.

     

    But now we have learnt that Islam actually stands for an apparent adoption of Arab culture. It is so much easy to change our dress. It is so much more difficult to refrain from speaking a lie, to be honest in our dealings, to be treating our different neighbours as one of us, to be treating all humanity as one, to be observing nature and seeking to unravel its secrets.

     

    Life is too complex in the 21st century.

     

    Please let us live in the 7th century. Life is so simple here. All that we need to remember is which foot the prophet put first in the toilet and follow that. We are home, paradise is waiting for us. Those of us in a hurry to get there can always manage to kill a few non-Wahhabi Muslims. They are everywhere, in their mosques, in their shrines. Not too difficult really. We can reach paradise instantly. Why do you keep insisting we should start living in the 21st century?

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/11/2012 5:06:36 PM



  • So Manzoor Saheb you are happy with the revered companions of the prophet spreading rumours of his great sexuality and wonderful love of violence and our great imams accepting them in their collections of authoritative ahadees and Saudi judges quoting them to justify paedophilic marriages and Salafi terrorists and their ideologues quoting them to justify killings of innocent men, women, children.

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/11/2012 4:31:37 PM



  • Manzoor Saheb, you are probably looking for this comment made by you:

    "There have been many comments from our Hindu brethren about, taqdeer, predestination, lauhe-mahfooz etc. I feel responsible to write something because there seems to be serious misunderstandings.

    "I shall be short, abstract and sweeping which can always be elaborated later. The verses in Sura 2 that speak of the fate of the deniers are addressed to a prophet or a dayee, who invites people towards Truth. When he suffers disillusion because of callous attitude of the listeners, he is addressed by God, to let him not feel guilty of failure, because these deniers are those who will not listen and the responsibility for their not listening is not on the prophet or the dayee but on God himself. How?  Is it because God has condemned them to go to hell? No (I repeat No). That would amount to prejudgment and not allowing free-will to them. This is a cause of concern to some of the non-Muslim commentators here.  At this point, I would humbly refer to one article of mine on this website captioned “Existence vs. non-Existence”, where I have tried to explain the God’s play/leela allowing operation of free-will to human beings. It is because of God’s scheme of giving men free-will and exposing them to the uncertainties of an un-deterministic life that they are moving in a wrong direction with a determination of their own for which they will eventually be accountable to God. The thrust of the verses is not that God will send them to hell, but that they are likely to be such cases along the pathway of dawah work and the dayee need not become despondent. It is perfectly possible that a man who is ridiculing a prophet today, may on a later occasion on his own revert to his teachings, or may revert to his teachings on another occasion of prophet’s preaching. How can these individuals be condemned before exhausting full chance?  I think simple logic should convey the proper meaning of these verses. 
    Yes there are other number of verses elsewhere which clearly tell that men will reap the reward of their own doings which are being recorded somewhere. There is no question of recording of the future actions or consequences of a man who is endowed with free-will. In fact from these verses are derived the free-will theory of the holy Quran –which a prophet or a dayee explains to the laity (one doesn’t have to be a philosopher to accept it). Incidentally these verses led to the building up of a whole industry of Sifli Ilm and Zinda Tilasmat of Baba Bengali, where man’s taqdeer, is predicted by a peep into Lauhe Mahfooz ( a word not found in the holy Quran or even in Hadiths). To  my Hindu friends who are looking for “true Islam”, I am quoting the following – quite a laughing gas for me: 


    HIS SIGHT ON LAUH-E-MAHFOOZ (THE PROTECTED TABLET):
    "It is written in one narration that Shaikh Abul Hafs r.a. states: “Our Shaikh Abd al-Qaadir Jilani r.a. used to fly in the air and would say, ‘The sun does not rise before presenting Salaams in my court. By the Wrath and Honour of Allah! All the good and bad persons are before my sight. My eyes are fixed firmly on Lauh-e-Mahfooz. Time and again, I immerse myself in the sea of knowledge and wisdom blessed by Allah and I am the Sign (Nishaan) of Allah to the people, and the specially appointed representative of my forefather, Nabi Muhammad, s.a.w.s., and I am his viceroy on this earth.’”
    http://dargahawlia.wordpress.com/
    "Let me please make it clear that the concept of God’s Leela is not there in known  Islamic literature, to my understanding. And the projection of mohd yunus (a pseudonym) of God’s Leela being rigid,  according to which all present Hindus are predestined as playthings to fry in an oven discards understanding of the free-will theory where they have all the options to save themselves from Baba Bengali’s Lauhe Mahfooz. As far as God is concerned, He will judge them on their faith and conduct taking into account the last moments of their life. Nothing is prejudged. 


    "Unlike in the Hindu philosophy of karma where Ishwar does not intervene or cannot intervene, the Islamic philosophy is explicit that God makes exceptions to His Great Game by hearing the prayers of men and WITHDRAWING THEM FROM THE EXPOSURE TO THE UNCERTAINTIES. As creator of man and as the one who exposed him to the uncertainty of an un-deterministic life, He has the power to withdraw man from the chessboard, which He does in favor of man for a while and from time to time. MEN SHOULD  THEREFORE ALWAYS PRAY TO ALLAH FOR HIS MERCY AND BE GIVING THANKS TO ALLAH. Incidentally, I doubt if Ishwar has the power to help a soul, as per Hindu philosophy. 


    "The real big question of an intellectual should be – why does God place human beings in different situations? My hunch is that it has something to do with the program that God has created for governing the evolution of animal world. The point is – is he unjust in making one a king and another a pauper; in making one an Olympian and another a sickly weakling? And of course the long list of woes of men and women narrated by Mr mohd yunus (2) with undoubted compassion. This question haunts every one of us. We have to take a strong emotionally turbulent journey to come to a meaning of all this through a rather short discourse. Imagine a model of the Lucky Upper and the Unlucky Lower to describe inter-se physical situations of any two individuals in the world, and let us look for proportionality elsewhere as a compensating factor. According to Islam, life of man is also charged with the requirement of movement from Evil to Good. Now, if in the cognition of God, movement of the Unlucky Lower from Evil to Good demands less effort (more chance of spiritual redemption or moksha), and of Lucky Upper from Evil to Good demands more effort (less chance of spiritual  redemption or moksha) and if that proportion exactly sets off the proportion of ‘good luck vs. bad luck’ in the lives of the two individuals compared,  can we say that God has been just and balanced? There are evidences in Quran and Bible that the better off will be judged more strictly. In my own thesis, a destitute or an unfortunate sufferer, more so a woman destitute, of any caste, creed or corner of humanity, will automatically shift to the redemption side. 
    By Manzoorul Haque - 7/26/2012 6:08:00 AM

    ‘Can’t a Muslim Who hasn’t Attended a Madrasa Speak for the Community?’ Asks Sultan Shahin

    http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-personalities/%E2%80%98can%E2%80%99t-a-muslim-who-hasn%E2%80%99t-attended-a-madrasa-speak-for-the-community?%E2%80%99-asks-sultan-shahin/d/7921

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/11/2012 2:29:24 PM



  • It seems both Muslims and ex-Muslims have nothing better to do than carry on useless arguments over what was written a thousand years ago! Don't we have any positive agenda for now? What do we have to do now in order to become better individuals and better communities? Can't we use our common sense and our folk wisdom to address the problems of violence, internecine bickerings and obnoxious self-righteousness? Can't we move forwards instead of going around in circles? By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/11/2012 1:40:16 PM



  • Can somebody retrieve my posting on the subject matter of Lauhe Mahfuz?

    By Manzoorul Haque - 12/11/2012 1:14:20 PM



  • Dr Shabbir sb needlessly worked so hard. His work is not worthy of my consideration. However, since our worthy editor has brought up, let me pick a random quotation of his:

     

    “The Prophet disapproved of his companion Jabir’s plan to marry a widow and asked, "Why did you not marry a virgin so that you played with her and she played with you?"

     

    Suppose prophet knew Jabir’s nature and thought he is marrying a widow alright, but may not be able cope up emotionally (even I have such friends, who value such things too much), so he made a sound suggestion but the words may not have been so titillating as being reproduced in English through several language barriers and it could have been like this : ‘why don’t you marry an unmarried one, so that you are happy with her and she is happy with you’. Anything wrong in this discourse?

     

    If you wish, I can repair (which in fact are very much reparable for being so outlandishly remote) all statements in English narrated by honorable Dr. Shabbir sb but would not like to deprive the ‘sexual escapade’ of impotent (I have to call impotent, seeing their preoccupation) commentators of the 21st century.

    Please let me try my hand with one more: “The Messenger (S) used to have intercourse with all of his wives in one hour (Was it one hour or one pahar? Did they have an hour of sixty minutes?) of the day and night (without taking a bath) and these (wives) were eleven. The narrator tries to pre-empt an objection by stating that he had the (sexual) power of 30 men.”

     

    Now ‘intercourse’ in English is such a vulgar word but in Urdu we had much beautifully guarded words following perhaps the tradition of Arabic whose specimen has just been exemplified by the most beautiful expression of Hazrat Ayesha ever heard on the subject.

     

    However, in the use of language I will follow the English tradition for the ‘benefit’ of my readers. Forget about nine (or eleven?) wives and thirty horsepower (and the narrator having a power-meter), if I am seized with a stupid question of whether I can fuck my woman for the second time without washing, I will be confused, if I consider washing as a necessity after every fuck. Then somebody will explain to me ‘arre yaar, consider it an interrupted stroking and carry on without a wash. Yes, quite reasonable. Now suppose there is a more modern Muslim (I would have liked to cite one name from New Age Islam, but have given second thoughts) than me, having another woman in another room of the hotel and he is required to repeat his performance, then a bigger question arises. Now this time tell, whether you will wash or not or will proceed with the same lungi? By now the guru also is a little confused because it is not ‘coitus interruptus’ , whose help he had taken and the ‘chela’, is adamant because it is an important question of life - ‘to change the lungi or not change it’. To cut the long story short, a religious authority will have to be contrived to satisfy the cretin who would not leave you in peace. Obviously, the statement has to be made with the full force because you never knew the cretin in question was the king himself. Folks this is how great stories are made of small men, and small stories are made of great men! Good night and sweet dreams!!

    By Manzoorul Haque - 12/11/2012 12:51:27 PM



  • Rational, I am surprised that you say that I rebuked you for asking the question about Loh e  mahfooz. I didn't. As a matter of fact,  I explained what I understood by it. You want me to repeat it for you? By Naseer Ahmed - 12/11/2012 12:18:44 PM



  • mr naseer ahmed's recourse to satan for proof simply puts the argument out of my league.
    here i am, unable to convince one little neuron in mr ahmed's brain, and mr ahmed simply brings in the shaitan to demolish my argument as well as his credibility.
    it is poor logic, insipid rhetoric and dubious scholarship that needs recourse to the shaitan.
    common sense is much less demanding and cheaper by the dozen. By hats off! - 12/11/2012 11:53:31 AM



  • The following links will probably help provide us with a more informed debate:

     

    Wrongs From The “Right” Bukhari

    The Hadith Collection by “Imam” Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Ismail Bukhari is considered by Mullahs and their blind followers as the most authentic book on earth after the Quran. Let’s examine it. .... Please know that an outstanding scholar of Islam, Ubaidullah Sindhi concedes, "I cannot teach Bukhari Hadith to any youngster, or to a non-Muslim because of shame." (Preface to his Tafseer, Ilham-ur-Rahman). Let’s explore why he said this …

    The Messenger (S) used to visit all nine of his wives every night. [Vol 3 Pg 52 Book of Nikah, #34]. On the other hand, Bukhari repeatedly narrates that the Prophet used to stand at prayers all night, so much so that his feet used to swell.

       The Messenger (S) used to have intercourse with all of his wives in one hour of the day and night (without taking a bath) and these (wives) were eleven. The narrator tries to pre-empt an objection by stating that he had the (sexual) power of 30 men. [Vol 1 Pg 189, Book of Bath #266].

    The Mullah mind has so terribly affected our masses that even derogatory statements such as this become praiseworthy. The exalted Prophet was a perfect guide to humanity. He was not a man of unbridled desire. The women who lived in his household were primarily there for shelter. Only a contemptuous mind can perceive the Mothers of Believers as objects of pleasure for the Prophet. Bukhari highlights the above Hadith by putting a special heading: “To have sex with many women with only one bath..” That stifles any apologetic defences of this Hadith by the Mullahs.

    The Prophet said that the best man amongst his followers is the one who has the greatest number of wives. [Vol 3:52 Book of Nikah #62]. Many Mullahs offer an apology here that the Prophet (S) is referring to himself. Well, that only compounds the insult. There have been ‘Muslim’ kings who had harems of hundreds of women. The Quran (49:13) tells us that the best person is the one who is best in conduct. ...

    Ayesha said to the Prophet, “Won’t you rather graze your camel onto a tree whose leaves have not yet been grazed?” ‘Arwa bin Zubair said that Ayesha meant she was the only virgin the Prophet had married. [Vol 3 Book of Nikah Pg 55 #71]

    The Prophet disapproved of his companion Jabir’s plan to marry a widow and asked, "Why did you not marry a virgin so that you played with her and she played with you?" [Same Volume, same page]. The Prophet (S) was extremely compassionate to widows and divorced women. --- Dr. Shabbir Ahmed
    http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/wrongs-from-the-“right”-bukhari-/d/2749

    -----------------------

    The Hadith Conspiracy and the Distortion of Islam

    The Koran's Verdict: " And the messenger says of Judgment Day, "O my Lord! My own people took this Koran as a thing to be shunned (KORAN 25:30)."

    The Koran says in well over 15 places that it is "explained in detail (6:114 etc)." One word used is Tafseel which means a detailed explanation. It further says that it contains a Biyan or clear exposition of everything (16:89). God says in the Koran that He neglected nothing in the Book (6:38). The Koran talks about Moses' Book being Tamam (which means complete), and that the Koran is in no way less than that. The Koran also suggests that it should be Kaafi meaning "enough" for guidance by itself (29:51).

    The Koran states explicitly that the messenger's duty was only "to convey the message (29:18)," and he said nothing on his own as his own sayings (69:44). It states that the message that the messenger conveyed was the Koran only (42:52 & 14:52 & 69:44). Therefore, to follow God's words in the Koran would be to follow the messenger, (4:80), as the words of the Koran is the messenger's speech (69:40). It also claims to be the Qawl or the speech of the messenger (69:40).

    The Koran claims that it contains answers to ALL relevant questions (25:33) and contains the best explanation (Tafseer) of itself (25:33 & 2:159). The Koran claims to be the Hukm or commandments of God, according to which humankind is to be judged (5:48). It also states that it is the Shariah or law/way with which God sent the messenger (45:18 & 42:13).

    Who would know best on how to talk to humankind but their creator? Therefore, it makes no sense to say that outside sources better explain God's word. The Koran claims that it is explained fully in detail and lacks nothing. Therefore it must, according to its claim, contain a full explanation of everything in Islam, including Salaah (prayer). It surely does, we just need to study it. A careful reading of the Koran reveals that we are to get our Salaah from the Masjid-el Haraam [the continuous practice at Mecca since the time of Abraham], specifically the "place of Abraham (moqaam e Ibraheem)." The Koran tells us that the purpose of Hajj is to educate Muslims in Islam (Koran 22:27-28) and that the Masjid-el-Haraam is "guidance for all the worlds (3:96)." -- M. Asadi
    http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/the-hadith-conspiracy-and-the-distortion-of-islam-/d/2711

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/11/2012 10:32:43 AM



  • Dear hats off! Some Amaranth was there. I have read some passages of Burtrend Russel. His views on religions. I have not read kanchan illahia's work.    Thanks for mentioning his name. I will read as it is available freely. By rational - 12/11/2012 9:23:38 AM



  • Naseer Saheb was the person who rebuked me on Loh-e-Mehfooz. That was/is not an invalid question. Predestination is the part of the Iman. The Quran has explicit verses on the predestination. Few verses on the free-will.
    Bal huwa Quran-u-majidun fee lohim mehfooz.
    It is a clear verse supported by Ahadith. No ambiguity of anykind. Mr Dear Sadaf joined his hands with Mr Dear Naseer Ahmed at that time. By rational - 12/11/2012 9:06:06 AM



  • We need not to revile the great Imams. They were reviling each other. Kindly refer to " criminals of the Islam" by Dr Sabbir Ahmed. By rational - 12/11/2012 8:53:35 AM



  • There is something, which may be called Bertrand Russell syndrome. According to Russell, he was so well-known because of his views on ‘sex’, but in his own words, the subject occupied less than two percent of his written work. He explained that it was on account of people’s preoccupation with sexual thoughts [[‘acts’ are so demanding that most ‘men’ (ah, women just don’t fail) will fail much below two percent of their thoughts.  Of course the masterpiece on the subject is “I ‘dunno’ (stands for ‘don’t know’, expressed sheepishly) what the question is, but the answer is damned sex”]]. I hope New Age Islamists looking for sex in Islamic literature are not suffering from Russell syndrome.

    If intellectuals vigorously discussing the finer aspects of life, fall back for validation of their ideas on the idle understandings of the masses of people, then the bankruptcy of the rational is visible. The men occupying the base of pyramid, have their own ‘make-do’ understanding of things, even amongst Muslims, (Baqadre paimanaye takhaiyull saroor dill me hai khudi ka..) and they are not averse to getting finer, if somebody can spend energy and resources on them. But of course they will not go to hell for failing to develop grand theory of life based on Islam or atheism (already answered number of times). They have just to decide to be on the side of ‘good’, which implies being a believer, and without being a thinker of confused ideas, which of course they are not. (The problem of confusedly educated will perhaps take maximum attention of God).

    Aristotle was a great scholar, but he did not know women had equal number of teeth as men had, though he had two wives (didn’t get time to count while in proximity). Our old scholars of Islam may have erred here and there, but to call  them ‘criminal scholars of Islam’ by some fashionable and laborious Muslim scholars of the day simply serves to  throw light on the pathology of the fashionable scholars on one hand and on other, on the futility (or infertility) of their labour of love.

    Well, ladies and gentlemen (addressed to fashionable scholars), your spurious scholarship does not cut much ice with a prudent mind. You have to grow up. Though this is a website infested with ‘critics’, I have yet to see a worthy ‘critique’ of Islam.

    Age of Hazrat Ayesha is of academic value and different documents/ facts point to different results. That is the end of it. The important point is that it was not considered important enough then, when it mattered most. The principle of marriage-ability has been stated in the holy Quran. Also, the principle of old men or women marrying younger women or men on exceptional occasions cannot be faulted (It cannot be a strict no). The principle of letting girls marry at young age to start the career of a homemaker cannot be faulted (It cannot be a strict no) just as the principle of letting a woman to marry at advanced age after completing her MD and DM in heart surgery cannot be a strict no.  The principle of maintaining chastity (avoiding sex beyond marriage or irresponsible sex) by men and women cannot be faulted (It cannot be a strict no). Doubt may be about the principle of not-maintaining chastity, as we shall see.

    The important principle introduced by the prophet was transparency in sexual relationship whereby ‘stealth sex’ was discouraged. Actually, this should be a subject matter of debate. Should ‘stealth sex’ be completely banned? What was the degree of discouragement of ‘sex outside marriage’ in the original Islam? Does complete banning of ‘sex outside marriage’ correspond to the reality of human life, especially of life today? What is going to be the general nature of sexual relationship between man and woman and how does Islam fit in? What about ‘variety being the spice of life’? For example, I would like to throw a small but modular question straightway. What about a husband and a wife reserving 60 to 80% (a model of partially compromised fidelity) of their sexual life strictly for their spouses and permitting 20 to 40% of their sexual life for casual encounters of all kinds? Will such arrangement suit men or women more? Are non- Islamists (say Hindus) going to accept it as a principle? Are ‘modern’ Muslims (a large number here, who can throw light) going to accept it? Are Islamists going to accept it??? (A big question) What if a wife practices it but the husband does not accept? Will he be violent? Should he be violent? What if a husband does it and wife does not accept it (of course, it has been common, but should we allow to continue it as a one sided game?). DOES IT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE QURANIC FOREBODING THAT AN ADULTERER WILL MARRY AN ADULTERESS? How much the Western people have accepted this 80-20 doctrine since they are the pioneers generally By Manzoorul Haque - 12/11/2012 8:49:55 AM



  • Dear Sadaf, I read some passages about monotheism and polytheism in the book "Why I am not a Muslim". Monotheism had been/is non-tolerant. It can't simply bear the presence of other faiths. It simply can't make possible the peaceful co-existence with other faiths.
    Now you may say I am advocating the polytheism.  No. I simply not a believer. I am stating the fact. By nature monotheism waged wars on other societies. It is quite possible some societies who were monotheistic in beginning evolved into polytheistic societies hence more tolerant.  You may not agree. That is perfectly fine. By rational - 12/11/2012 8:38:57 AM



  • Dear Mohd Abis I agree that we should change our outlook and think in positive direction. Who is responsible for Muslims are taking back route? Some will say, Salafi others will say Brailvi. Some will say Ulama some will say moderates.
    In my view our excessive dependance on religion (Quran, Ahadith, Sirah and Ijma) is the root cause.
    These sources contains material that is inimical to reason and modernity. Muslims are not ready to say goodby to irrational. Who are keeping these sources as guidance? Are not these Muslims.?
    Why should not we quote from these sources to prove their irrationality and their uselessness in contemporary time?
    The criticism of these sources have brought this time at least some Muslims are starting to think. If we don't attack these will remain holy and this holiness is the root cause of all problems.
    Why we can't put the Quran under critical analysis? If it stands against scientific scrutiny fine otherwise what is the need of this book in this time.
    Finding miracles, scientific principles, telling it the Messiha for all problems will not do any good. Time has come to think critically and reject if it is can't move with time.
    I am also a part of this Community but I feel fear in expressing my views. Moderate Muslims claim that there is no death penalty for apostasy in the Qur'an but it is in the Islam in very live form.
    The advent of the internet has made it possible that we can express our views with some impunity. This is the gift from the Kuffar the enemies of the God not from the Merciful God .
    Muslims are trying hard to control the internet and to push their agenda of anti blasphemy laws in the garb of the protection of all beliefs. In fact it is for particularly Islam. Why religions need protection of any kind if they are not ready to protect the others.
    Why they ask freedom for themselves if they can't give it to others.
    I am moving towards Atheism because divine scheme answers few questions but raises unlimited.
    Except this disbelief and quoting from the authentic sources I drew enmity of these commentators. otherwise I am participating on this site within civility.
    I will not leave any stone unturned to bring out the ugliness behind the religions. Islam is under focus because this site is about the ISLAM. By rational - 12/11/2012 8:17:18 AM



  • dear mr rational do you mean you read mr kancha ilaiah's why i am not a hindu? and bertrand russel's why i am not a christian? both are good books to jolt complacent guys out of their skin a little.
    it is another matter that in course of time, most of those jolted simply slip back into their old skins. By hats off! - 12/11/2012 7:44:32 AM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed saheb. You have opened Pandor's box. I don't believe in Allah-Satan story. If this is the divine scheme it is most irrational thing that can be. 
    More I read about this divine scheme of guidance and testing the way Allah accomplish it, I am driven away.
    Now you are speaking the language of a true Muslim. This is the will of Allah that is making believers and unbelievers and poor unbelievers will be subjected to torture and believers by luck will be engaged in perpetual enjoyment in the garden. They will taste what is forbidden in this world.
    Dear Naseer this is the real part of the Islam rest is rubbish people are talking. This is the most objectionable for me. poor puppets of Allah kareem Thanks for being honest. By rational - 12/11/2012 7:37:08 AM



  • Dear muhammad yunus saheb.  We will keep quoting from these sources to show what these contain. If we don't do it, is there any possibility that Muslims will think to reject them as a source of law or guidance. These sources are live even after 1300 years and effecting our lives badly.
    You are free to agree or disagree but I think that the Quran is not a guide book. Because it is not clear.It is subjected to interpretation. What you have said in your article or book is ultimately yours interpretation.
    You bring some verses to show that the Allah is merciful fount of wisdom and taqwa. But from the same source, history, observation and analysis of events it is manifest that He is not merciful and just.
    It should be as you say in your articles but it is not. It is a good human being inside you that speaks so many good things but it is in you not in these sources.
    It is my opinion and you are not required to believe in it. By rational - 12/11/2012 7:24:25 AM



  • Dear sadaf,  You took it literally. Your ideas are interesting. But I take Islam as  a whole not Quran in the sense that some commentators are angry why do I quote from the Ahadith and Sirah. They say these are hearsay fabricated accounts. But my argument is they are constitutional parts of the Islam. I am free to quote from anything so they are.
    I take side of neither of you or nor of Mr Naseer Ahmed. I express what I like from any commentator. You all are learned person than me. I am reading "Why I am not a Muslim" by Ibn Waraq. Interesting book indeed. Freely downloadable.
    I used to read "why I am not a Hindu" and "why I am Not a Christian". I like to read from the rival parties. By rational - 12/11/2012 6:55:56 AM



  • Dear Mr. Rational, what do you mean by "Brain is off when we are said to read with open mind"?
    Brain should not go off when  reading with 'open mind'. You have to stay awake and keep your self balanced.
    As for your question: "Do I need to believe in Malaika, jins etc?"
    As you said "It is a belief only", so just go ahead and believe. That's it. What wrong would happen in believing such non senses as long as you do not put up idols of these and start praying to the these and hoping that these will do you any good or bad.
    You know most of the Muslims are actually polytheists who think that these things can effect them in anyway. However let me assure you, that these jins aren't as smart as us.Even as much as Satwa. We are the best. Ashraful Makhluqaat- we are. In fact till date these jins and Malaika have not been able to establish any communication with us and therefore we of course have no proof whether they even exist or not. But then who is asking for proof. It is all a matter of belief. 'Belief' is a beautiful word to thwart away anyone who asks you explanation or reason for anything that you do. It gives a lot of freedom for you to keep doing whatever you want to do in the name of belief. Freedom from reasoning.
    When you say: "I have my own understanding. I take Islam as a whole not the Quran alone."
    You are doing perfectly correct and I am proud of you. I have time and again said Quran is just a book. That's it. That is what it declares of itself.
    It is only because some people have spare sanctity and reverence that they make the book chu chu ka murabba and cover it with colourful cloths and tie it with strings and then place it on the topmost self where no one can reach it till the time when someone dies in the family or something of that scale happens. Books are otherwise meant to be read, ideas to be made use of, and that's it.
    You are free to take sides. I would prefer that you take mine. But if you feel like taking Dear Mr. Naseer Ahmad Sir's side, then also I am OK with that. He needs your support more than I. By sadaf - 12/11/2012 4:21:01 AM



  • Dear All, Those who attempt to find fault in the Qur'an or malign the Prophet by quoting Ahadith or revile the great imams who compiled the Ahadith must take note of the following conclusive remarks of an article posted almost a year ago on this website:

     

    "Conclusion: There can be no denying that the authenticated (Sahih) Hadith compilations contain some accounts that sound most bizarre and purport to provoke sexuality, induce terrorism, foment inter-faith hatred, and stand deeply misogynist, scientifically untenable, self contradictory and Qur’an-incompatible [2] – but this must not be attributed to any intellectual turpitude on the part of the Imams who compiled them. The early compilers confronted hundreds of thousands of accounts in oral circulation and applied the prevalent isnad (integrity of narrators in the transmission chain) based screening methodology to accomplish their works. Human reason was in its primitive form and what appears most bizarre and grotesque today, did not register as such in the minds of the common people of Islam’s early centuries, as they were accustomed to believe in legends and fairy tales. The great Imams, who were among the most learned in their era, were cognizant of the ingress of forged and fabricated Ahadith in their compilations, but they were not in a position to delete the suspect Ahadith as long as they met their criteria of screening. Accordingly they warned the community and posterity about it. This happened a little over two centuries after the Prophet’s death. The canonization of the Hadith as indirect revelation and repository of all worldly knowledge happened after another two centuries or so."

     

    Ref: http://newageislam.com/islamic-sharia-laws/by-muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/defending-the-hadith-and-its-compilers-–-the-great-imams-who-are-sometimes-misunderstood-and-even-reviled/d/8011 By muhammad yunus - 12/11/2012 4:09:38 AM



  • I am keenly reading the articles surfacing on these pages. I could not intervene because it is difficult for me to bring my thoughts in writing. Several good articles have appeared but the discussion has slipped from its original theme/question put by the Editor. Also several people have become too harsh criticizing religious leaders and others. While Mr. Hamza and Rational are harsh on the Prophet, Mr Mohd Yunus and Mr Naseer Ahmad are harsh on the duo. I can say what Mr. Sultan Shahin says is that leaving old things, let us brainstorm for the time ahead in 21st century.


    Any argument, in my opinion, will not justify keeping ghulam and kaneez and that too intercourse with kaneez even without her consent and their numbers unrestricted. Similarly, any aggression by an individual or group or community on any pretext will remain unjustifiable although one can bring one thousand defences for that. There may be valid reasons for several fallacies in early stages of Islam which is not possible to be analysed now because we can't feel those circumstances in which those events occurred.

     

     Books of Ahadis and Sira have also been written after a long period of beginning of Islam, therefore, incorrect version in those books could easily appear and might not be reliable. But to accept some of them and to reject others is difficult choice for a neutral person. Best course is to leave them. We have to agree on disagreements without any grudge for others to carry on the business.

     

    That is the way I think we may achieve our goal. If we fight like we are fighting on these pages, we are doing the same things which so called early salafis as per articles on these pages have earlier done or present salafis are allegedly doing.


    In this century, it is imperative that we should change our outlook according to evolution of the mankind. If we can adopt all new technologies invented by others and be happy, why we cannot adopt progressive ideas of others in respect of child marriage, democratic set up of the society, education, tolerance, etc. We have been taught that "Deen mein koi jabra nahin hai". Then why so much shor. Mohd Abis
    By Mohd Abis - 12/11/2012 12:10:10 AM



  • Rational and others, Every  religion has been affected by creeping polytheism and idol worship. So also Islam. Yet Islam  still remains a religion with many who are fiercely monotheistic and will not allow polytheism or idol worship to become a part of their religion. Allah has reprieved Satan upto doomsday and Satan will not take things lying down. He cannot touch the Quran which is protected by Allah himself but he has infected every other book. So it is not surprising that all secondary and tertiary works are infected with satanic influences. The followers of Satan will follow Satan and the followers of Allah and his Prophet will submit to Allah no matter how much you malign the Prophet (PBUH) and the sahabae ikram. Any unworthy story regarding these people is proof of the lack of authenticity of the source and will be rejected. The purveyor of the story will be taken to be another misguided soul and worshipper of Satan. You and others can only misguide those whom Allah allows to be misguided.
    The story of the Satanic verses although denied by some scholars,  insulated Islam  once for all, from any suggestions to dilute the concept of monotheism with suggestions of including the role of interceders. It also clearly showed the manner in which Satan attacks the purity of divine revelations and the manner in which Satanic influences work.
    As regarding asking people to read the Quran, if you see the context in which it is said, it is addressed to those who follow Mullahs rather than read, understand and follow the Quran based on their own understanding. The statement is not applicable to those who do not believe in the Quran. Ironically, in response to my posts saying
    Mullahs have  no locus standi in Islam, more mulla quotations or interview is posted!
    The sectarian clashes, the attempts to tamper with the Quran under whatever pretext etc is a last ditch attempt by Satan to destroy Islam. It is bound to fail. At the end of this struggle, there will be many who will find themselves clearly to be on the wrong side.  Maybe this is another means of making clear distinction between the believers, the hypocrites and the unbelievers among the Muslims. By Naseer Ahmef - 12/10/2012 11:40:40 PM



  • Ahadith Sira etc may be hearsay tales for some Muslims. But the Muslim majority have no problem in excepting the all hearsay tales as attributes of the revolutionary prophet.
    I visited an Ahl-e-hadithi site. There Ahl-e-Hadithi clearly use Quranic verses to authenticate the Ahadith.
    We wonder why Imams and and Muhaditheen invented such stories? There is a reason given behind it in "why i am not a Muslim" by Ibn Waraq.
    The most important thing Allah allowed all these slanderous hearsay tales for his beloved prophet for which He created this Universe. Who can understand the divine scheme of His Majesty Allah? Is Allah not going to fill the hell with jins and ins.
    Even sexual hearsay tales are took in great pride. By whom Muslims or Non-Muslims? When you belittle other prophets, make the prophet sit on other prophet's heads , make other prophets his followers and when you declare he is Masoom the questions will be raised and ammunition is available in the stores of the Muslims.
    One question somebody has raised why Allah took the prophet to Jerusalem before ascending to heaven. Was not the kaba His house? By rational - 12/10/2012 9:53:24 PM



  • Dear Sadaf, Brain is off when we are said to read with open mind. Do I need to believe in Malaika, jins etc. It is a belief only.
    I have my own understanding. I take Islam as a whole not the Quran alone. I am neither at your side or Naseer saheb's side. I liked some of your ideas and some of Naseer sahib. By rational - 12/10/2012 8:04:43 PM



  • Hamza  says: Mary was a Coptic slave concubine of the Prophet ( PBUH)
    The Prophet offered to free her and marry her She preferred to remain slave. The Prophet could have still freed her and allowed her to continue as a free concubine if she wished.
    My question: A free concubine?! And Hamza is an Islamic scholar! By Naseer Ahmed - 12/10/2012 7:39:26 PM



  • Sadaf, What exactly are you trying to prove with  the post of GR? Why have you not included my response to his post? Do that, and take some more eggs in your face.
    Have you run out of your steam and trying to now involve others?
    Will somebody hep this lady in distress? Oops someone said you are a man! Anyway will someone come to the rescue of this person in distress? By Naseer Ahmed - 12/10/2012 7:16:18 PM



  • Very nicely put by Dear Mr. Ghulam Rasool Sir. Some more eggs on Dear Mr. Naseer Ahmad Sir's face. Either he is paying for those Gold coins that he received in advance as bargain for his loyalty or he is truly a follower of Muhzor Zakir Nayak. The only third possibility is that both these points are true. 

    By Ghulam Rasool - 11/5/2012 9:31:07 AM" "Quoted from: Millat Ka Tarjuman Jaam-e- Noor, Urdu Monthly (Special issue on Jihad, first Edition 2007, Published by Maktaba jam-e-Noor,Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid,Delhi-6 )"

    "One of the leading Urdu Islamic Monthly magazines Jaame Noor (New Delhi) took an interview with leading Ulema of various sects on the theme of Jihad. These leading Islamic scholars were Maulana Abdul Wahab Khilji (Former Director General Markazi Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith), Maulana Shafee Monis (Jamat-e-Islami), Maulana Yasin Akhtar Misbahi (an eminent Barelwi scholar) and Maulana Wahiduddin Khan. Each of them is looked upon as representative of his own sect in India, except the last one who openly denies belonging to any sect and relies upon his own interpretation of Islam. Now I am quoting below only two questions and their respective answers and leaving them to you to reflect upon them:

    Q: Does Islam give sanction to suicide attacks in the name of Jihad?

    Answer by Maulana Yaseen Akhtar Misbahi (Barelvi):

    “Suicide has been explicitly declared to be unlawful under all circumstances. This sinful act of timidity earns abode in hell, the place of blazing fire”.

    Answer by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan:

    “Both suicide and suicide attack strictly forbidden (Haram). And no forbidden act can be treated as permissible under any circumstances, neither in the name of Jihad nor in Islam. Strangely enough, the so-called warriors of Jihad in the present time launch suicide attacks on the enemies of around the world, though they are aware of the stern prohibition on such acts”.

    Answer by Maulana Shafee Monis (Jamaat-e-Islami, India):

    “Jihad carried out in the name of Allah with strict observance of its codes and conduct and qualifying its conditions is a virtuous act of great merit. One’s act of laying one’s life in the way of Allah earns one the exalted rank, martyrdom, which fetches one raised status in heaven and life of great felicity therein”.

    Answer by Maulana Abdul Wahhab Khilji (Ahl-e-Hadisi, a Salafi, Wahhabi organization, supported by Saudi Arabia):

    “Suicide is a forbidden act. But it may be permissible in order to protect the community against danger. Allama Yusuf al Qarzawi also subscribes to the same view of point. Though, a controversial point, the scholars must ponder over it”.

    ---

    2. Q: Do you agree with the organizations active in waging war in the name of Jihad in various countries?

    Answer by Maulana Yaseen Akhtar Misbahi (Barelvi):

      “One can neither blindly approve every act of the Muslim organizations active in different countries nor side with them. Similarly, it is not morally correct to brand every act of Muslim organizations as unlawful, thus go on opposing them”.

    Answer by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan:

    “The measure taken by non-governmental Muslim organizations in the name of Jihad, which actually amounts to Qital, involving actual fighting are no doubt un-Islamic. It is nothing but mischief-making in the name of Jihad”.

    Answer by Maulana Shafee Monis (Jamaat-e-Islami):

    “We do agree with those organizations which strive in the way of Allah for depressing mischief and persecution in a peaceful way with the dissemination of divine message”.

    Answer by Maulana Abdul Wahab Khilji (Ahl-e-Hadisi, a Salafi, Wahhabi organization, supported by Saudi Arabia):

    “The voice raised against the persecution and operation everywhere in the world echoes the feelings of every believer. Every just and fair person must approve the noble endeavours to remove the obstructions in the way of propagating Islam and establishing the sovereignty of Allah’s word”.

    By sadaf - 12/10/2012 3:20:49 PM



  • Dear Mumtaz Hussaun Saheb, It is indeed very embarrassing or as you put it “very shameful” for us as believing and practising Muslims to come across such fatwas and writings of Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Khomeini, Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, and pornographic quotations or stories of improper sex and aggressive violence spread by our Sahabae–e-Karam and collected by authoritative Imams in revered books of Ahadith and Seerat, and interpretations of the holy Quran, considered sacred by practically every Muslim. It is these books that have engaged in the character assassination of the prophet. Today’s Mullahs and others are merely reading and quoting these books. Either they are a victim of these books or they are knowingly exploiting for their own ends the reverence Muslims have for these books.

     

    It is not right for me to call Bukhari Imam, Khomeini Imam, Maudoodi Maulana, and then ban their quotations or call those who quote them as apostate. Of course, I would ban anyone who is giving wrong quotations, saying that Bukhari or Khomeini or Maudoodi says this, even though they didn’t. I ask people to read Quran in context, though revered companions of the Prophet, our sahaba-e-karam and the first generations of Arab Muslims, our Salaf, have done everything possible to erase the context from the collection of Qur’anic verses.

     

    But who am I to declare apostate or Kafir or Mushrik the Salafi Mullahs, for instance, or Talibani fatwa-mongers or Saudi judges and grand muftis who continue to quote Quran out of context to promote violence and hatred and paedophilic marriages and repression of women or banning education etc. I cannot call Qur'an divine and call those Mullahs who quote Qur'an even out of context apostate or kafir or Mushrik. I can engage with them in a debate but cannot pronounce a fatwa of apostasy on them. Nor can I ban them from an Islamic website.

     

    Even if I wanted to, do you think it is possible to censor these books? Is it possible for us to erase all these books from existence, even from our memories? I suppose God Almighty could do that. But instead, He is making it possible for more and more people to read these books and believe in their authenticity.  He is giving enormous wealth and motivation to people who want to distribute for free all such books among Muslims and to our children in madrasas around the world. He alone knows his scheme of things.

     

    This website in general and this page in particular is giving you an opportunity to disassociate yourself from these “authoritative” books and these writers and their character assassination of the Prophet, their pornographic material, their presentation of Islam as a backward, repressive religion of violence and uncontrolled sex.

     

    Embrace the Islam for which Prophet Mohammad and his companions had to leave Mecca.

     

    Quran exegete Muhammad Yunus has given us a great yardstick: set aside those verses of the Quran which require a context to be understood. Embrace those from early Islam which are of universal significance. The rest came to guide the prophet (saw) on issues that arose from time to time. These require a context to be understood. That context no longer exists today.

     

    So they are of historical value to us. No more and no less. For history too is of enormous importance. We need to understand what near-insurmountable difficulties the prophet faced in protecting the religion of Islam that was revealed in Mecca.

     

     We don’t live in those times now. Islam is no longer a nascent plant, forever in danger of being uprooted from the face of the earth. We are no longer fighting Jang-e-Badr. We don’t need to. We are no longer riding camels in the desert, mounting raids on caravans coming to attack us, getting slaves and concubines as war booty.

     

     Let us come out of the 7th century mindset. Let us open our eyes and look around. Let us start living in the 21st century.

     

    Let us create our own vision for the life today based on the universal Qur’anic principles of taqwa, compassion, charity, honesty, justice, fairness, good deeds, education, contemplation of nature, study of science, rationality, remembrance of God and meditation several times a day upon our status in the universe and God’s scheme of things. Let us live with an attitude of gratitude for all that God has bestowed upon us; let us use our ingenuity in making God-given things better, not in destroying them.

     

    Let us follow the prophetic values of forgiveness, as after his victory at Mecca, looking for peace, even at the cost of apparent self-humiliation as in the case of the treaty of Hudaibia.

     

    Let us follow the values of peace and pluralism in political life as adumbrated in the Meesaq-e-Medina, the Charter or Constitution of Medina that the Prophet created, reflecting some of the basic tenets of Islam.  There is so much good in Islam that we can follow and make life better for all humanity.

     

    Let us abstain from seeking to settle the political and other controversies of 14 centuries ago. If we can’t truly understand what is happening today in our age of mass media and unparalleled communication revolution, how can we know what actually happened then in the various controversial events of that era. Let us not go merely by the understandings of our Salaf, let us use our own minds for a change. By Sultan Shahin - 12/10/2012 3:14:19 PM



  • Hamzah Sb says, "the problem arises only when the so called Muslim apologists insist that whatever Muhammad did in his whole life is exemplary and he could not do any wrong as he was divinely protected."

    Probably the best approach is to emphasize his contributions as a reformer and leave the rest unsaid.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/10/2012 1:19:43 PM



  • Sorry for butting in, Mr.Hamza (and your team). With ‘profound regards’ for ‘the great revolutionary’ Muhammad (pbuh), how could you malign him 1400 years after his death by merely but exclusively examining the hearsay tales of his sexual exploits to examine his character. You have just vented you hatred for the Islamists (as you said) who have not yet (probably in your opinion) started paying obeisance to the grave of this great revolutionary under the spell of his own teaching – defying your ‘Indian’ tradition by unduly delaying to confer divinity on him.

    To the general principle, I have stated, you have tried to cite a number of exceptions of child marriages in Yemen. That is a poor and backward country with no ‘call centres’ as a support system. Good they are all marriages, and not cases of stealth sex (outside marriage). If you compile one month’s news of India, you will find ten times the number of cases of girls under five raped in India in a month (by close relatives), despite there being so many ‘call centres’ as a support system. However, I know that it is against Indian law and Indian public opinion. That is why I do not hold it against Indians. Religion, law and tradition may remain on one side but stray violators of norms will always remain and in Islamic societies too, eternal vigilance will always be needed as the price of a good life. Government of Muslim countries I find are more alert on these issues, and public opinion is more robust.

    You are making too much of the ‘waiting period’, clause of the holy Quran, forgetting that nearly 50% of women at one time or other of their lives suffer from irregular menses. It is clear that “those who have no courses” is not the equivalent of “girls who have not yet menstruated”. This clause is to be read for this purpose only and I am surprised even Maulana Maududi had the good sense of getting it. I know for deriving a meaning of a legal rule, constructive interpretation is a legal necessity. The clauses relating to marriageable age are contained elsewhere and are crystal clear – puberty as well as the age of reason. Putting an exact figure like 16 or 18 years, as a cut-off date is not the best way to tackle the issue because it leads to difficulty in settling individual cases. Indian courts routinely violate the strict age-bar rule to decide individual cases.

    On the whole, the scene is not so disappointing for the Muslims as is being made out to be by the propaganda machinery to demoralize Muslims. My experience is, just scratch the surface, and you will find the falsehood of these propaganda. For me, my direct observation is enough to give me ideas and areas of reform and I do not have to depend on propaganda material. In my view there are other areas relating to marriage and sex that need Muslim attention. By the way I have no desire to argue for the sake of argument.

    By Manzoorul Haque - 12/10/2012 1:19:25 PM



  • "read things without using brain"?

    From where did he (Sadaf) get that? Too much egg in the face, I guess. No, but then he never ever gets anything right! Why does he not just give up and accept that it is not possible for him to understand everything. 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/10/2012 12:58:31 PM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin,

    It is really very shameful for all Muslims to discuss pious people including phrophets in this style led by you. Most of the commentators are non Muslims, hardly believers of any religion and just busy in character assassination of historic people. You must stick to relevant discussion or remove this topic from the top. Better to say good bye to the page rather than becoming sinners.

    By Mumtaz Hussain - 12/10/2012 12:45:17 PM



  • whatever mr manzoorul haque meant to say, i am very wary as well as chary of religions. once you strip away all the metaphysics, morals, dialectics, discourse and commentaries, all of them (without exception) revolve around the unfulfilled predatory male sexuality. it is either sublimated by "marriage" or precipitated by "prostitution".
    whatever claims religions as well as their prophets and the followers make, ultimately a freudian fear of female allure and irrepressible male sexuality is at the very core of any religion all else is euphemism. By hats off! - 12/10/2012 11:32:54 AM



  • Dear Hamzah, One answer we get from the Muslims that in prophet's era it was common in their society to marry in the very early age like Hz Aisha. The Question is: is not a 9 year old girl child?Even if she menstruate early, is it ok to have her as wife. Another point the prophet was a reformer so he could set an example for others by acting opposite. After all  he was setting other examples against the other customs of that society.
    One more justification from Muslims: What was the consent age of the girls in other societies? The answer is: Muslims boast that their religion is far ahead in uprooting the social evils. Other societies are moving towards better future in all respects and are not condoning or justifying the evils but Muslim Societies are taking backward rout.
    If  Muslims can't identify it as evil and there is an example from the most exemplary prophet in its favor how can Muslims condemn this practice loudly. Some people are raising voice due to various reasons is a good sign but they lack in the authoritative power. By rational - 12/10/2012 11:32:27 AM



  • Haan yeh sahi bola Rational....Dear Mr. Naseer Ahmad Sir is asking to read things without using brain while Rational is being asked by some to use brain while reading things. I hope the two will settle the matter among themselves. By sadaf - 12/10/2012 11:18:49 AM



  • Dear Hamza,  Hz Zaid didn't have what Hz Mary the copt had, so there is no question to free her. Even the prophet faced a scandal and admonition from the Allah for her. He retired with her and left his wives as punishment. How could he free her? Hz Hafsa was not young and beautiful as Mary the copt. By rational - 12/10/2012 11:03:13 AM



  • Dear Hamzah, When Muslim claim this world is created because Allah wanted to create the Mohammed. When Muslim claim he was rahmatul-lil-Alimeen. Whem the Muslims claim he never took revenge. and so..... many claims.
    What we are writing about him are not our words. These are mere quotes from the sacred books of the Muslims. Majority of the Muslims have no objection what  Mohammed did. What he did he brought Allah for his help to validate it. Hz Aisha said Allah hastens to fulfill your desire.
    He was one of the history makers. How he made history is another issue.
    You are putting your views very nicely. By rational - 12/10/2012 10:53:37 AM



  • Manzur ul Haque sahib says, “There is nothing like ‘paedophilic child marriage’, there is only ‘paedophilic child sex’ (below puberty) practiced in the West. On the other hand, child marriage is practiced in India among rural Hindus or rural-Hindu-influenced Muslims. The Muslims all over the world otherwise follow the ‘puberty’ and ‘the age of reason’ (age of consent) clauses as enjoined by Islam.”

     

    Bellow are given some incidents which have been reported from the Middle East, Yemen and Saudi Arabia,

     — In November 2005, Arwa Abdu Muhammad Ali walked out of her husband’s house and ran to a local hospital, where she complained that he had been beating and sexually abusing her for eight months. Arwa was 9 years old. Within days, Arwa — a tiny, delicate-featured girl — had become a celebrity in Yemen, where child marriage is common but has rarely been exposed in public. She was the second child bride to come forward in less than a month; in April 2005, a 10-year-old named Nujood Ali had gone by herself to a courthouse to demand a divorce, generating a landmark legal case.

     

    Together, the two girls’ stories have helped spur a movement to put an end to child marriage, which is increasingly seen as a crucial part of the cycle of poverty in Yemen and other third world countries. Pulled out of school and forced to have children before their bodies are ready, many rural Yemeni women end up illiterate and with serious health problems. Their babies are often stunted, too.

     

    The average age of marriage in Yemen’s rural areas is 12 to 13, a recent study by Sana University researchers found that The country, at the southern corner of the Arabian Peninsula, has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world.

     

    But despite a rising tide of outrage, the fight against the practice is not easy. Hard-line Islamic conservatives, whose influence has grown enormously in the past two decades, defend it, pointing to the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to 9-year-old Ayesha.

     

    When Nujood’s case was called the next Sunday in the courtroom, the courtroom was crowded with reporters and photographers.  The judge, Muhammad al-Qadhi, asked the girl, after hearing her testimony and that of her father and her husband. “Do you want a separation, or a permanent divorce?”

     

    She replied, without hesitation.  “I want a permanent divorce,” The judge granted it.

    Nujood’s case only reached the court because she took such a wildly unusual step and happened on a sympathetic judge.

     

    A 1992 Yemeni law set the minimum legal age of marriage at 15. But in 1998 Parliament revised it, allowing girls to be married earlier.

     

    That change reflected the triumph of northern Yemen’s more conservative Islamic culture over the secular and Marxist south after North and South Yemen united in 1990. In South Yemen, the government had passed a law in 1979 setting the age of marriage at 16 for women and 18 for men. But in Yemen, as in Afghanistan — another country where child marriage is common — the fight against Communism ended with the triumph of a hard-line Salafi Islam. After war broke out in 1994, Ali Abdullah Saleh, then North Yemen’s leader, sent jihadists to fight South Yemen. Critics say he had become politically indebted to conservative Islamists.

     

    The widespread prevalence of child marriage in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been documented by human rights groups. Saudi clerics have justified the marriage of girls as young as 9, with sanction from the judiciary There are laws.

     

    Now let us see what the Quran says even about pre-pubertal girls getting married.  

    Quran 65:4, says: Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period , if ye have any  doubts, is three months and for those who have no courses,(it is the same): and for those who are pregnant, their period is until they deliver their burden.

     

    Early scholars of Islam claimed that Q. 65:4 refers to pre-pubertal girls getting married and divorced by Muslim men. Notice what the modern, late Muslim commentator Syed Abul-Ala’ Maududi wrote regarding this very verse:

     

    "They may not have menstruated as yet either because of young age, or delayed menstrual discharge as it happens in the case of some women, or because of no discharge at all throughout life which, though rare, may also be the case. In any case, the waiting-period of such a woman is the same as of the woman, who has stopped menstruation that is three months from the time divorce was pronounced.

     

    "Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Qur'an the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible."

    --- (Maududi, Towards Understanding the Qur’an, volume 5, p. 620, note 13.

     

    Khomeini's Fatwa on sex with infants:

    "A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."

     

    The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in "Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom"

    http://www.homa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&a...

    Bahraini Women's Rights Activist Ghada Jamshir Attacked Islamic Clerics for Issuing Fatwas Authorizing Sexual Abuse of Infants, in an interview which was aired on Al-Arabiya TV on December 21, 2005

    By Hamzah - 12/10/2012 10:45:35 AM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed, You are advising to read literal translation while other Muslim star commentators accuse me of taking literal meaning of the Qur'an. By rational - 12/10/2012 10:39:03 AM



  • Well let me post this: ‘Mr.Sultan Shahin  sb is in the august  company of Mr. hats off to stumble on the news that Muslims are puritans, which came out as a skeleton from the cupboard of  Janab Muhammad Yunus sb.  My surprise is, if they are not puritans, why the heck is this hungama? Send a bevy of hot-panted ‘cheer leaders’ from the West and India to the terrorists,  wherever you find them , and get them ‘dis-em-balled’. They will not have the balls to handle terror’. By Manzoorul Haque - 12/10/2012 10:36:18 AM



  • Dear Naseer Sahab, Thanks for your very reassuring comments.
    Fortunately I have never used the word 'salaf' in any single of my articles or comments. I normally use the word of Greek origin, 'orthodox' that conflates with blind conformity with the original teachings of Christ. [e.g. Orthodox Church]. Even this word I use with qualification, 'a section of ultra-orthodoxy/ orthodox ulama."
    I am grateful to you for defending against vampires of faith and the scorpions and snakes who mingle with us as fellow Muslims to sting the ignorant or semi-educated Muslims to mortify their souls and inspire them with a contempt of Islam and its Prophet. Having unmasked them in my mental imagery and verbalized it in several comments, and having spent long hours over the last six months or so with utmost patience and the penultimate of my scholarship, I now realize, that the pimps of Islam who try to prostitutionalise it, the vampires of Islam whose intellect is poisoned with Islamophobic scholarship and who rely entirely on what Ibn Hishma or Imam Bukhari or Imam Muslim recorded in their era, totally and deliberately blind to historical relativism. But if they are non-Muslims with Muslim names, they have 100% right to say whatever they wish against Islam. Let the vampires, snakes, scorpions and pimps of Islam who say seductive things about their own mothers (as Muslims the Prophet's wives are as good as their mothers) not charge me of saying one single demeaning word against my fellow non-Muslims or atheists for my agenda is, as articulated several times on this website is to bridge the gap between the Muslims and non-Muslims whom all my articles regard as co-equals to the Muslims in divine court.
    Kindly read my refutation of the Taliban's fatwa to fully appreciate my feelings lest you may fail to understand my deep concern and agony against the deliberate demonizer and distorter of Islam by quoting forged, fabricated, embellished materials from its medieval archives.     By muhammad yunus - 12/10/2012 10:24:58 AM



  • Gulam Muhiyyuddin sahib,

    Whatever I have written about Muhammad on these pages, in response to the Islamists, was not because I hate him or want to malign him. I consider him as a great revolutionary of his time as I have already declared in one of my earlier posts. I profoundly respect him.

    But the problem arises only when the so called Muslim apologists insist that whatever Muhammad did in his whole life is exemplary and he could not do any wrong as he was divinely protected, and therefore his life is “uswa-e-hasanah for all the Muslims of all the times, and present unfounded “facts” about him, then we are left with no option but to expose his mistakes that he might have made as a human-being just to prove the point that he was not the sort of a divine figure Muslims consider him.

    All the prophets were reformers of their times, as Sir Syed Ahmad Khan has said in his Tafseer-e- Quran and I quote,”Aise log jab samaj mein bhalaee ka kam karne ke liye khade hote hain to aise kam ko mazhabi zuban mein nubuwwat ( prophethood) aur tamadduni zuban mein islahi kam (reforms ) kahte hain. Wish you good day.'

    By Hamzah - 12/10/2012 9:25:22 AM



  • Some people are prone to get egg in the face.

    9/5/2012 3:45:01 AM

    Naseer Ahmed

    If all the Muslims read the Quran and follow it and disregard the Mullahs what can they do?

    What is it that they control? Does the Quran grant any authority to the `scholars, maulanas etc' over the common Muslim?

    The problem is that the common man will make no attempt to read and understand the Quran and has 'abdicated' his responsibility. The Quran is meant for every Muslim to read, understand, and follow.

    I repeat for the upteenth time that the Quran can be understood from a simple, unadorned, literal translation.

     

    10/23/2012 8:11:08 PM

    Naseer Ahmed

    In all seriousness, a poor Muslim child can get free education with a free meal only in a Madarsa and free lodging too if he requires it. Since poverty is greater among Muslims, more Muslim children receive religious instruction to the exclusion of secular subjects than any other community although there is no requirement of clergy in Islam.
    I wish there is more discussion on the practical aspects of bringing about change in society. Hand wringing, finger pointing kind of discussions are a waste of time. Let us also eliminate the word 'fight' from our vocabulary. There are better ways of resolving problems.

    View Article

    9/5/2012 3:20:23 AM

    Naseer Ahmed

    The solution lies in every Muslim reading the Quran for true guidance. Reading of a simple, unadorned and literal translation is enough. The Mullah's can be put in their place only when the common Muslims equip themselves with the knowledge of the Quran.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/10/2012 9:21:01 AM



  • Naseer Ahmad Saheb ,

    There is a big difference between Zaid and other slaves and concubines. First let me correct you. Zaid did not declare himself as Muhammad’s son; instead, Muhammad adopted him as his son. This fact has been clearly mentioned in all the tafaseer and seerah books. All the sahaba and prophet of Islam himself treated him like this. Thus he enjoyed a special status in Madina. So why would he go back to his poverty- ridden homeland. If he preferred to live with his father- some one of the status of Muhammad - it was quite natural. But what about other slaves and concubines like Mary the Copt? Should it not have been more appropriate for him to set them free and leave the choice of staying with him or leaving him on their own choice? At least in that case they could have chosen their husbands and wives with their free will. It is noteworthy that despite Muhammad’s offer of marriage, in case if her accepting Islam, Mary preferred to adhere to her religion, Christianity.

    If she was so happy with her master, then common sense demands that she should have accepted Islam.

    By Hamzah - 12/10/2012 8:16:26 AM



  • Mr Sadaf, I never expected such a term as” rubbish” you have used to describe the  references I have  given in my latest comments. May be it was out of ignorance in this particular subject or because it hurt your faith. If the latter is the case, then I am sorry. However, for the sake of correcting it on record, I would like to ask you to please give me a single instance in which the reference I have produced is wrong. I will be grateful.

    By Hamzah - 12/10/2012 4:15:46 AM



  • And in any case there can be no contract possible, meaningful and acceptable by individuals who are mentally unfit or of age below the worldwide acceptable age of having grown up or any individual who is under duress either by their captives or their guardians. By sadaf - 12/10/2012 3:42:15 AM



  • For all such nonsenses, coming out in the name of Saudi clerics or whoseoever, first of all it must be determined that indeed it has come from them. If it has not come from them then it is proved that it is the handiwork of propaganda by mischiefmongers. However if it is true then the famous 'eggs on face' will be on those who advocate clerics and their ideologies simply because of their bias in favour of the Muslim sounding name of such idiots.  By sadaf - 12/10/2012 3:38:40 AM



  • Outrageous claim of a Saudi Marriage Officiant: 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'

    Saudi Marriage Officiant Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi: "Marriage is actually two things: First we are talking about the marriage contract itself. This is one thing, while consummating the marriage – having sex with the wife for the first time – is another thing. There is no minimal age for entering marriage. You can have a marriage contract even with a one-year-old girl, not to mention a girl of nine, seven, or eight. This is merely a contract [indicating] consent. The guardian in such a case must be the father, because the father's opinion is obligatory. Thus, the girl becomes a wife...

    But is the girl ready for sex or not? What is the appropriate age for having sex for the first time? This varies according to environment and traditions. In Yemen, girls are married off at nine, ten, eleven, eight, or thirteen, while in other countries; they are married off at 16. Some countries have legislated laws forbidding having sex before the girl is eighteen."

    http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/outrageous-claim-of-a-saudi-marriage-officiant----it-is-allowed-to-marry-a-girl-at-the-age-of-one-/d/159

    ---

    July 29, 2011

    Cleric Fights Saudi Bid to Ban Child Marriages

    BY ANGUS MCDOWALL AND SUMMER SAID

    RIYADH, Saudi Arabia—A senior Saudi cleric issued a religious ruling to allow fathers to arrange marriages for their daughters "even if they are in the cradle," setting up a confrontation between government reformers and influential conservative clergy.

    Sheik Saleh al-Fawzan, one of the country's most important clerics, issued the ruling after the Justice Ministry said this month it would act to regulate marriages between prepubescent girls and men in the Islamic kingdom.

    "Those who are calling for a minimum age for marriage should fear God and not violate his laws or try to legislate things God did not permit" them ...

    online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903635604576472011907391364.html.

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/10/2012 2:06:25 AM



  • Haque Sb is quite right. People do not understand the meaning of historic relativism. It was for the first time, that vast territories came under a single rule and enjoyed peace and security for several centuries when earlier, they were subject to frequent wars, extortionary taxes, and raids by marauders. Trade caravans had to travel with their own small army adding to the costs. During the Islamic reign, trade caravans and people could travel without fear of robbery or attack by marauders. The punishment for highway robbery was crucifixion and highway robbery soon became a thing of the past.

    Extract from Paul Grieves book – Islam (History, Faith and Politics: the complete introduction)

    Muslim expansion into Spain was Islam’s most dramatic move westward. The speed of the victory reflected the ill will of the native Spanish for their Visigoth rulers. Spanish Jews who had been continuously persecuted and subjected to forced Christian conversions by the previous regime also welcomed the Arabs. Then from their new forward base in Spain, Muslim horsemen raided north across the Pyrenees into modern France. The Arabs captured Narbonne and Toulouse in 718 CE, but their excursions were stopped by the Frankish General Martel at the battle of Poitiers (732 CE). Muslim historians maintain that the dark ages of Europe date from the Muslim defeat: lost centuries that would have been avoided had the light of Islam been permitted to shine.

    Certainly, Islamic Spain was spared the bleak fate of the rest of Europe during the middle ages, stretching from the ninth to the eleventh centuries CE. The Umayyad established their capital in Cordoba, which was to become the largest, richest and most civilized city in Europe during the two centuries up to the end of the first millennium. The great mosque of La Mezquita was built in the city centre, one of the most beautiful buildings in the world until punctured by a Christian church during the sixteenth century on the orders of Charles V, the holy Roman emperor (who on visiting the site came to regret his actions, even before the roof of the church was on). Islamic religious and racial tolerance formed the basis of a brilliant Arab-Liberian civilization. Science flourished, with advances made in botany, medicine, philosophy, irrigated agriculture and astronomical mathematics. Later Spain was to contribute this fund of invaluable knowledge to the reawakening of Europe during the Renaissance. Arts of all kinds were practised: poetry, song (which has influenced Spanish flamenco and Portuguese fado to this day), ceramics, textiles and most famously of all, architecture. The Alhambra Palace in Granada was the culmination of Moorish achievement in Spain and the basis of Western Gothic architecture in subsequent centuries.

    Unified Umayyad rule disappeared from Spain in 1031 to be replaced by fractured  Arab-ruled kingdoms and principalities squabbling among themselves . The last of these, based in Granada, was overthrown in 1492 by the strengthening Catholic powers from the north. Under Spanish rule, starting with King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, Islamic tolerance came to an abrupt end. Conversions to Christianity were once again forced, books were burned, the inquisition was established, and all non-Christian practices suppressed. Even regular washing was suspect, linked to the Muslim practice of ablutions before prayers. After a number of protest risings against Catholic persecution, the entire Muslim and jewish populations of Spain were expelled. “The Moors were banished: for a while Christian Spain shone on, but like a moon with a borrowed light. Then came the eclipse, and in that darkness Spain has grovelled ever since.’ (Lane-Poole, Moors in Spain 1934)

    Hamza Sb,

    I missed responding to a few points.

    You are a scholar who must be knowing that Zaid was also a slave who was freed by the Prophet (pbuh) but refused to return to his people and stayed with the Prophet declaring himself son of the Prophet. So what makes you think that the other slaves of the Prophet that you mention  wished to be freed during his lifetime? As a scholar, you should also be knowing that the slaves were treated extremely well just like any other member of the family in every respect -  in the matter of food, clothing,  share in work,  rest etc. The slaves were not even scolded for their mistakes.

    Hamza writes:

    "But when we read the verse 33:52, “It is not lawful for thee (to marry more ) women after this , nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee except any thy right hand should possess ( as handmaidens), we come to know from the source of God Himself that the prophet of Islam was often attracted by women’s beauty also."

    Do you accept then, that the Quran is God's word and not that of the Prophet(PBUH)?

    Thank God that the Prophet comes across as a normal male with normal instincts and drive. Else, I shudder to think what people would have made of his chaste life upto his marriage at age 25 to a widow 15 years his senior and his monogamous 25 year relationship until her death and then his marriages to widows for reasons other than physical attraction!

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/10/2012 12:53:39 AM



  • By Hamzah - 12/7/2012 1:55:37 PM
    What have you written Hamzah? The references you have quoted are all rubbish. These were tampered much along ago, upstream, by the enemies of Islam and has been there because of foolish Muslims who believed in it. Somehow there is no forensic evidence left perhaps to prove that these have been tampered. But then there is again no forensic evidence to prove that all these rubbish are true.
    By sadaf - 12/10/2012 12:53:17 AM



  • Yunus Sb, I hold the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) in the highest regard. Therefore, I find any indirect irreverence to them also unacceptable. That is when we criticize the Salaf or the orthodox which in their original meaning mean the early Muslims.
    Being anti progress or inability to interpret the Quran under changed circumstances is a different issue altogether. The  early Muslims showed a great deal of flexibility and adaptability and willingness to change and  brought in several changes over the next 300 years to meet the increasingly complex requirements of governance. They also assimilated from every other culture during this period. The standards of behaviour, of justice and tolerance set by them have never been equalled let alone surpassed. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/9/2012 11:29:17 PM



  • A point I would like to clarify, which I have not covered before. There is nothing like ‘pedophilic child marriage’, there is only ‘pedophilic child sex’ (below puberty)  practiced in the West. On the other hand, child marriage is practiced in India among rural Hindus or rural-Hindu-influenced Muslims. The Muslims all over the world otherwise follow the ‘puberty’ and ‘the age of reason’ (age of consent) clauses as enjoined by Islam.  Minus India and some Western countries,  Muslims can very well follow the Muslim practice because there is nothing sacrosanct about the age of 18, which is scientifically meaningless. Now about marrying young women by old men or marrying more than one women; these cannot be a rampant practice by the law of statistics - there could be very special circumstances, in a complex social scenario, linked with responsibilities rather than sex, and so sex maniacs cannot be expected to take a sound view on this question.
    While examining the expansion of Islam in particular period of ancient  history, I find some shortsighted and bigoted persons applying their geographical knowledge of 21st century. They somehow think that the boundaries of countries could be seen on Google-earth in the 6th century. The boundaries of the countries were notional without any actual boundary and with no knowledge of the actual shape of the country. A country was known and identified with the help the  of the centres of population ‘to the North’ or the South or the East or the West etc. Large chunks of populations in smaller pockets were not sure of their nationality and remained unprotected. A ‘dabang’ son of a king, on taking over as king, could march into unclaimed territories as his own. Under the circumstances , the Islamic forces offered very just terms to provide state protection. People opted more for the Islamic forces even in areas where there was a recognized kingship operating (generally with cruelty).
    Propagation of faith is a civilized way of evolution and is accepted by all constitutions, which cover multi-faith populations in the modern day. Today propagation of faith is an option, in ancient days it was necessity because many people needed faith. By Manzoorul Haque - 12/9/2012 10:30:27 PM



  • Salafis and apostates are equally mired in "what is written". As such they are either defending or tearing down much that is not relevant today. They are both living in the past. Neither wants to concern himself with the priorities of today.

     Certain things need to be asserted because they are inherently valid. We do not need corroboration from the scriptures for obvious truths. Thomas Jefferson's ringing words "We hold these truths to be self-evident" should be an example for us.

    As such we can declare it to be our creed that killing innocent civilians, especially women and children, is forbidden in Islam, that violence is taboo, that killing in the name of religion is a grave sin, that respect for the beliefs of others and peaceful co-existence are requirements of all Muslims, and that trying to force one's beliefs on others is unacceptable.

    The truth lies somewhere in between what Naseer Sb and Shahin Sb are saying. Our problem is not with all Salafis but only with those Salafis who want to force their beliefs on us, and who are intolerant, supremacist and violent. Similarly we do not have problems with all apostates but only with those apostates who aggressively preach disrespect for what most peace loving Muslims hold dear (God, Prophet, Quran), and who are out to disrupt the conversation of moderate Muslims who are endeavoring to bring in liberalization and reforms.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/9/2012 1:53:48 PM



  • Dear All,

    Different Sects came into existence long ago but they used to abstain from writing Fatwa relating to issues of higher importance or other religion or states etc because it was the responsibility of Muslim State. But the moment the Muslim countries were urged to wage war against USSR in the name of Islam by organizing different sects under war lords and its worst implication in front of Muslim communities have sensitized Muslim Community that Muslim World leadership are just puppets in the hands of the West which has already been foretold that Imam Mehid will appear in such like a situation.

    Beware; this is not the time of disassociations but mainstreaming as what is ongoing in Bermuda Triangle, the Devil Sea and its allies.

    By Mumtaz Hussain - 12/9/2012 12:03:38 PM



  • Naseer Sahab!

    Please be fair to the companions of the Prophet. The Qur'an refers to them as those active in good deeds. They were the early thinkers of Islam who used aql, fikr, fiqha and tadabbur. They were the most enlightened people of their era.

    In classical Islamic scholarship orthodox refers to the conservative scholars of 3rd-4th century of Islam who opposed all advancement of knowledge. 
        
    By muhammad yunus - 12/9/2012 11:49:26 AM



  • Hamza,

    Suggest you do the following research:

    1.       Do a search on Age of Consent and read continent wise, down the centuries, what the age of consent for marriage and for consensual sex has been. Childhood, and dependence on parents these days is extended on account of the years required to support oneself which requires a 17 year study period. People in those days, matured faster and took on responsibility earlier. Expectations of roles required to play, make all the difference in preparing a person for the role. These days, there is no expectation of a girl or boy taking on responsibilities early in life. A paedophile would have married several young girls and not just one. Ayesha was the only virgin , the Prophet (PBUH) married. On the positive side, Ayesha because of her young age, learned quickly and in the 9 years of her association with the Prophet, proved to be the wisest and most gifted and contributed more than anyone else to the fund of knowledge on the sayings and Sunna of the prophet and in teaching other women. None of his other wives equalled her in these gifts of knowledge, learning, ability to recall and remember and ability to teach. Maybe it was on account of her young age. So count the blessings.

     

    2.       Download and read the book by Moustafa Zayed which answers Robert Spencer. You will find a wealth of material including the questions asked regarding Prophet (PBUH).

    I am not answerable for what xyz has said or not said. Take up the issue with the authors, their legal representatives or their descendants.

    Take the example of Jerusalem which was under Roman occupation and the Jews were persecuted. Jerusalem fell to the Muslims after a siege and the Romans left. Not a drop of blood was spilled. The Jews were now free to practice their religion and were given important positions in administration. Ridding these states of the repressive and exploitative imperial powers of the day was in every case, welcomed by the local people.

    Jiziya, in those early days, was in lieu of military service and for protection and was not demeaning. There is an instance when Khalid bin Walid in the time of the Caliph Umar (rA) failed to protect the city of the Christians of Homs (Emesa), as he did not posses the power to repel the attacks of the Christian Byzantine Emperor Heraclius on Homs. He returned to them their taxes saying:“We accepted (the Jizyah) as a token of your good will and in return for defending you, but (in this), we have failed (you).”

    History is no longer important and therefore I have added a para on “Dawa today” which is in accordance with the meaning of the relevant Quranic verses and also on the non-applicability of Jiziya.

    Looks like you have understood why the Meccan and Madinian surahs contain what they contain. However, you do not acknowledge or thank me for clearing your doubts which have remained with you even though you have studied religious books for 15 long years. You have not thanked me earlier also for answering your questions on the stories of Dhul Qarnain, People of the Caves, and the inheritance laws etc.

    If your question does not relate to the conduct of the early Muslims does not mean that my answer cannot explain the meaning of the Quran in terms of the conduct of the early Muslims who were closest to the understanding of the Quran. You are an Arabic scholar and must know that the earliest Muslims are called the Salaf. Or are you learning this also from me? Do you also want me to teach you how to check if somebody has downloaded material from the internet? First learn to thank for what I have taught you, before asking any more questions.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/9/2012 11:39:54 AM



  • Dear Shahin sb.,   I have just tried to give full marks to the evil and yet distinguished myself away from it. For a Muslim it is important to keep away from evil.
    I believe in the autonomous existence of good and evil.  Evil has a logic as much as good has. When both collide in a historical context or even in a local situational context, the result is a greater evil or a greater good. 
    I don’t think reason alone can take us to good. There is something at the subliminal level which I would like to call ‘instinctive reasoning’ at which level our free-will operates.  That is why it is easy for the least educated and the least intelligent human being to ‘be good’. The acceptance of good comes in a flash and no scholarship of the holy Quran is needed (answers some questioners). Quite often, the great scholars of holy Quran such as we find on New Age Islam fail to ‘reach’  (answers some questioners). But there is no denying that holy Quran is an instrument of good, being a product of the pursuit of ‘good’. Having a good look of Quran, from time to time, in the course of our eternal struggle against ‘evil’, cannot be faulted. A belief that mere reciting of a word of God (without even understanding) can bring us good omens and keep us to good path, is also not based on an invalid presumption, if there indeed is a God somewhere, which to a Muslim is an article of faith, imbibed as a result of flash of instinctive reasoning  (answers some questioners).
    Evil has another characteristic. It can masquerade as ‘good’ (famous pseudonymous commentators who have latched on to New Age Islam from day one). Good cannot masquerade as evil. In our battle with evil, it is a necessary tactic to de-identify ourselves with evil. Because of the masquerading power of the evil, battle of good and evil in human mind becomes tougher, and human mind is the only arena where the ultimate battle between good and evil takes place.
    In the field of ‘instinctive reasoning’, if a thing said is instantaneously understood, then that is the only proper understanding. That is why I do not think it wise to repeat an answer to the same questioner while dealing with faith matters. By Manzoorul Haque - 12/9/2012 11:11:50 AM



  • hats off mr hamza. By hats off! - 12/9/2012 11:10:36 AM



  • Mr Naseer Ahmad says, Hamza says:“9:123 which says” Oh ye who believe fight the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you.” This second verse was revealed to instigate Muslims to fight the Roman Christians after the conquest Mecca.”
    “Are Christians referred to as Unbelievers in the Quran? “
    yes, there are many verses in the quran which refer to Christians as disbelievers or unbelievers. bellow are some  examples.
    quran 98:1,”those who disbelieve, among the people of the book and among  the polytheists were not going to depart from their ways until there should come to them clear evidence.”
    Quran 98:6,”those who disbeliev among the people of the book and the polytheists, will be in hell-fire to dwell threin(for aye)they are the worst of creatures.
    Quran 5:72,”certainly they disbelieve who say: allah is one of three (in a trinity)…
    Perhaps Mr Naseer Ahmad doubts  whether  the word unbelievers in this war verse  really refers to the Roman Christians?
    Here is the revelational circumstance of this  verse, according to maulana Muhammad Junagadhi in his tafseer-e- Quran, distributed by the Saudi embassy in India,” is mein kaafiron se ladne ka ahem usul bayaan kiya gaya hai kih( Al aqrab fal aqrab) ke mutabiq kafiron se jehad karna hai, jaisa ki rasulullah (pbuh) ne pahle jazeera-e-Arab mein aabad mushrikeen se qital kiya, jab un se faarigh ho gaye aur allah ne mecca, taif,yemen…………..etc, etc par musalmanon ko ghalba de diya ……to phir ahle kitaab se qitaal ka aaghaaz farmaya aur 9H mein roomiyon se qital ke liye Tabuk tashreef le gaye……aur isi ke mutabiq aap(pbuh) ki wafaat ke bad khulafaa-e- rashideen ne Room ke isaiyon se qital kiya”.
    Naseer Saheb adds, “I wish Hamza had read some history also and the history of the wars of Rome and Faras. Rome and Faras were the imperialists of those days and in a big war every two years. The people were sick and tired of them as they Swere heavily taxed to support the wars. With such imperialists, it was a matter of time before war was forced on the new community of Islam. A defensive war can also be a pre emptive first strike. However, it was not even a pre emptive strike but a war after clear offer of conditions of peace which were rejected.”
    What a strange logic!  The fact is that neither Rome nor Faras did any harm to Muhammad or to Muslims. Instead it was Muhammad himself who wrote a threatening letter to the kings of both Rome and Faras saying to them,” If you accept Islam, you will be safe.” In other words if you do not accept Islam you will not be safe. And their reaction was natural.
    “The spread of the message has been made incumbent on the Muslims.  This they could have done by sending proselytizers. An offer for the acceptance of Islam was made and war declared only on its refusal or refusal to submit. After conquest, the people had a choice to accept Islam and pay zakat or pay Jiziya or be killed as rebels. Jiziya was levied only on males capable of military service and these people were exempted from military service. No jiziya was leviable on the old, the disabled, the priests, women and children. In almost every case, Jiziya was less than the taxes these people were paying to their erstwhile ruler.”
    Does a civilized world gives legitimacy  to such an act  which is considered  nothing  but  bare-faced aggression. I am really surprised to see  how an educated person like Mr Naseer Ahmad can justify  such an aggression. If America is persuing its hegemonistic / imperialistic  policy  and coerces a country to subjugate to it  and, in return, gives the dominated nation  lot  of  material support , does its act becomes  legitimate?  Today, only because of this coercive policy , it is facing world-wide condemnation including from muslims.
    “There is no evidence of anyone being forced to accept Islam and this fact is widely acknowledged and accepted by all historians. Also, the fact that the Jiziya amount was less than the tax the people were paying earlier. The Jews and some of the persecuted sects of Christianity welcomed the Muslims as it ended their persecution at the hands of the majority community.
    The following is from Wikipedia:
    A letter attributed to Khalid bin Walid said that "This is a letter of Khalid ibn al-Waleed to Saluba ibn Nastuna and his people; I agreed with you on al-jezyah and protection. As long as we protect you we have the right in al-jezyah, otherwise we have none.”
    Submit to Islam and be safe. Or agree to the payment of the Jizya (tax), and you and your people will be under our protection, else you will have only yourself to blame for the consequences, for I bring the men who desire death as ardently as you desire life.
    This letter was written by Khalid, from his head-quarters in Babylonia, to the Persian monarch Emperor Yazdegerd III before invading it. (History of the World, Volume IV [Book XII. The Mohammedan Ascendency], page 463, by John Clark Ridpath, LL.D. 1910.)
    Human Rights”
    My question has no relation to the legitimacy of taking jizya from zimmis( non- muslims living in the land of Islam). My question is related to forcing non muslims (people of the book and majoos  living outside the boundaries of the land of Islam to give jizya  for no fault of theirs if they refuse  to accept Islam. And attacking  them if they refuse to accep this humiliating condition.
    Therefore many muslims even today think it their religious duty to wage aggressive wars on non- muslim states to establish world-wide Islamic supremacy as soon as they gain enough power to do this religious job.
    In 2007, the U.K. Sunday Times published a comment detailing the views of Mufti Taqi Usmani,the son of maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s khaleefa, Mufti Shafi saheb , one of the world’s most respected Deobandi scholars of Pakistan, on jihad which argue that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims to establish worldwide Islamic supremacy.
    According to the paper, Mufti Taqi Usmani believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims “to establish the supremacy of Islam” worldwide. Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.
     The chapter “jihad” in the Fiqh Encyclopedia whose reference I gave in my earlier comments very clearly states that after the revelation of the verse of sword, offensive jihad became mandatory for Muslims ( a farz-e-kifayah which has to be waged at least once in a year) in which the land of infidels has to be raided by armed Muslim army led by Ameerul Mumineen or someone appointed by him. In the first stage they will be invited to accept Islam. If they do not accept Islam, they will be asked to pay jizyah as a sign of subjugation. This will be the second stage. And in the third stage, if they refuse to pay jizya they will be fought till their defeat. This offensive jihad may be delayed as per the prevailing conditions of Muslims’ military preparedness. But the ultimate goal should be Islam’s world. domination. ( Ref: Almausuatul Fiqhiyyah under jihad page no 126. Now let us see what Quran says in this regard:
    Surah 9 verse 5: “When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters whenever you findthem, and take them captive or besiege them”
    Sahih Bukhari, in the chapter headed “‘The statement of Allah” related to Surah 9 verse 5, claims:
    “Narrated Ibn `Umar: Allah’s Apostle said: I have been ordered to fight against the people until
    they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Mohammad is Allah’s
    apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give obligatory charity (Zakah ). If they perform all
    that, then they will save their lives and property from me.
    Allamah Ibne Hajar Asqalani,the auther of Fathul Bari, an interpretation of Sahih Bukhari , while commenting on the above Bukhari hadeeth  with regard to jizyah  said ,”jizya zillat ki alamat hai. yeh allah ki rahmat hai ki kufr par qaem rehte huwe  bhi unki jaan baksh di gayee, warna kufr par qayem rahne ki wajah se who qatl ke mustaheq the. lekin unhen kam se kam us baat ke liye zaroor majboor kiya jayega jis se majboor hokar who islam qubool kar len, aur who hai jizya.
    Does anybody or group of people have any right to impose their ideology or religious laws on the people living ouside their boundaries even if they do not interfere in their  affairs?
    Manzur sahib says, “  Slavery is not categorically prohibited by the Quran, for seventh century economic, moral and humanitarian reasons, but slavery is judged to be against God’s will and freeing a slave is extolled as a charity and a virtue. Without prisons and slavery, war prisoners would have been put to death.”
    But HZ Muhammad himself had many slaves and concubines including the famous Egyptian Maria Qibtiya and Rehana and despite the encouragement and desire of Allah he did not set them free  till  only one day before his death.Ref:Rehmatul-lil- Alameen by Qazi Muhammad Sulaiman Salman Mansurpuri , p.248.
    Mr Naseer Saheb said,  “Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had ten close Sahabis who helped him in his task of teaching Islam to the people. Do not women also need to be taught? Should the Prophet then also not have ten close female companions to learn Islam from him and teach to the rest of the women? Marriage puts the relationship beyond all speculative gossip. As far as the choice of these women as wife to the Noble Prophet is concerned, they had to fulfil very demanding conditions including remaining chaste and single after the Prophet’s death since their remarriage was prohibited.”
    Even if we accept the vabove argument for the sake argument , it still does not explain why Allah could not foresee that millions of young girls today would face pedophilic child marriages, explicitly using Muhammad and Aisha's relationship as justification .
    The word Salaf used in his long  comment and  bringing the totally unrelated issue of Zimmis and their rights in the Islamic state wihich I never raised, clearly show that  it has either  been downloaded from some orthodox Salafi Islamic  websites( though it is not an issue for me) or he himself is an orthodox salafi Islamist. By Hamzah - 12/9/2012 9:39:53 AM



  • Yunus Sb, My comment mainly related to your calling the author of the fatwa ultra orthodox rather than criminal.
    I defined orthodox like the Christians do, referring to the early Muslims mainly the Prophet and the first four Caliphs. By Naseer Ahmef - 12/9/2012 9:36:33 AM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin saheb. How do you define "Salaf'? Just I want to know to clear my understanding. It may not be what I and Naseer Saheb think. By rational - 12/9/2012 8:55:39 AM



  • Dear Aiman Reyaz. I am not convinced . Tha's all. It is up to you now to answer or not. In future I will avoid questions, I will put my views. By rational - 12/9/2012 8:40:10 AM



  • Dear Naseer Sahab, I neither said anything about the 'salaf' nor did I refer to the 'non-Muslims' as Rational purported to suggest. I only referred to 'early terror outfits (kharajites)' and 'a section of the ultra-orthodox.' Kindly appreciate, I am walking at the edge of a cliff for the greater cause of Islam. Having spent more than thirty to forty hours of patient exhortations to no avail. I, as a witness to humanity, am determined to expose people who enter this site with Muslim names, claim to be from Muslim families and then quote all that is pernicious and vituperous in the archives of the Islamic literature/ theology to demonize it deliberately ignoring no less preposterous materials in the theology/ literature of other religions of that era. They are vampires of present day Islam. Or like the pimps who encourage flesh trade, they trade in the flesh of Islam and enter this site to postitutionalize it and derail any fruitful discussion on any of the myriad of issues facing Islam. If I blunder in my statements, the vampires will turn into wolf or vulture and tear me apart or like a snake or scorpion sting me. So, please do not make any suggestion that will be tantamount to pushing me over the edge of the cliff. Thank you. Of course, I have no doubts about your honest intentions and genuine concern against using a sectarian vocabulary which I have always avoided or used in a very guarded manner. By muhammad yunus - 12/9/2012 8:26:52 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, are the khwarij part of our salaf? What about those Muslims who killed nearly a hundred thousand Muslim followers of both Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Muawiya? What about members of the Prophet's family who fought bloody wars? What about the Quraish who fought bloody wars among themselves? What about the killers of rightly-guided Caliphs? All these were Muslims killing Muslims which the holy Quran specifically forbade? Were they all our Salaf? These are not quotation, but facts. Or do you think none of this happened?

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/9/2012 7:46:03 AM



  • @Rational, you have not yet replied to my comment. Have we Mr Yunus and I lessened, if not removed some of your doubts regarding Islam? If you ask questions then I expect you to read and comment on them otherwise it is no use replying to your questions if you do not read them and do not give you feedback. Just by saying "thank you" won't suffice, at least for me. I need to know whether you are satisfied or not. If you are satisfied then please say so and if you are not then also please inform me or us and others so that I or we or all of us can help to remove your and others' doubts. Thank you By Aiman Reyaz - 12/9/2012 7:44:42 AM



  • Dear muhammad yunus,  Don't question my honesty. I need not any certificate of honesty from anyone. I am not calling any non-Muslim to my support. Only I need approval of my conscious and when I compare it with many of my Muslim brothers I find my self better. It is neither a self-praise nor inflation of my ego.
    I write what I understand and not twisting the words of any holy text. When I feel I am wrong or you make me realize I apologize.  How are you? What Dr has diagnosed? By rational - 12/9/2012 7:06:24 AM



  • Yunus Sb, The following is from your comment:
    “The above graphic accounts and their association with Islam are no more that sadistic machinations of some criminal minded people whom the early terror outfits of Islam (the kharajite) called imams. These diabolic thoughts and other outrageous statements are quoted by two category of people - a section of the ultra orthodox such as the author of the fatwa and a section of intellectual with Muslim names.”
    I am afraid that you are equating criminal minded with the ultra orthodox and calling the author of the fatwa ultra orthodox rather than criminal.
    Orthodoxy by definition refers to the creed of the early Muslims meaning the Prophet and the Sahabae – Ikram which in Arabic would mean the creed of the Salaf.
    It may be a different matter that there are criminal minded scholars who attribute to these people, acts that they never committed or views they never held. Orthodoxy does not include criminal distortions of the creed of the early Muslims.
    I hope the distinctions are kept clear and you realize that condemning Salafism is tantamount to condemning the creed of the early Muslims or Orthodoxy. You could  make a distinction by saying `distorted version of Islam falsely claimed to be the creed of the Salaf’ or simply Islamic extremism nad refer to the peole as Islamic extremists or Islamic criminals. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/9/2012 3:34:20 AM



  • Naseer Sb, Reading the Quran can make one either a fanatic Salafi, or a balanced moderate Muslim or a sneering apostate. Hence I do not know how to take your supercilious one-line comment. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/9/2012 2:05:22 AM



  • Dear Rational!

    I am talking about the vampire-like Muslims who inject youth with venom and NOT non-Muslims. Don't bring in non-Muslims to get their support. Be honest please.
    By muhammad yunus - 12/9/2012 12:42:44 AM



  • GM Sb,

    ..... Or best of all, one need  not even read the Quran but still make supercilious one line comments!

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/8/2012 11:17:27 PM



  • I read some where the sarcastic remark of vivekananda that a person requires to earn and then relinquish and seek renunciation. 

    Good behaviour of people when they have everything is the real test of one's faith and character.   

    Pls go around the world belonging to any religion, the obvious would be that the rich tends to do everything for self aggrandization crossing all line of religious teaching.


    By satwa gunam - 12/8/2012 9:01:15 PM



  • Dear Mohammed Yunus
    "The latter do it to lure the Muslim youth away from Islam and to have a complete licence to commit all kinds of immorality like adultery, debauchery, gluttony, greed, gambling, drinking bouts, sexual lust and obsession, amassing wealth by accepting bribe, cheating others, even committing incest for any morality-divorced mind will find all such crimes less grave compered to what the above statements conjure."

    Are really Muslims away from the sins you mentioned as above and non-Muslims are sunken in all these sins.
    By rational - 12/8/2012 8:56:55 PM



  • Dear Yunus Saheb, I am heartened and very gratified to know that Muslim youth stay away from "all kinds of immorality like adultery, debauchery, gluttony, greed, gambling, drinking bouts, sexual lust and obsession, amassing wealth by accepting bribe, cheating others, even committing incest for any morality-divorced mind will find all such crimes less grave compered to what the above statements conjure." By Sultan Shahin - 12/8/2012 7:50:12 PM



  • Dear Gholam Hussain Sahab,
    Copy: Sultan Shahin Sb and others 

    I have been thinking in the same line as you: "I see Salafism and apostasy as two independent enemies of moderate Islam rather than see one as a reaction to  the other." The difference is my thought comes from a mental imagery that captures the irony and ugliness of the situation that your scholarly statement misses. 
    I view both the category of people as vampires - in my mind they wear the mask of harmless people but are capable to protrude poisonous teeth with the singular intention of increasing their number by biting others. It sounds sweeping, but let me give you a concrete example.

    Part 1 of Taliban Fatwa that an article decisively refutes has the following graphic description of the mutilation of the corpses of enemy that some enemies of Islam did against the Muslims martyrs and allegedly the Prophet planned to retaliate correspondingly: 

    "Ibne Abi Sheba narrates that when the mushriks (the idol worshippers) left the battlefield after the battle of Uhad, Muslims observed that they had mutilated the dead bodies of their brethren by cutting off their noses and ears and slitting their abdomens. On the occasion, the apostle of God said, “If God gives us victory over the infidels, we shall do the same to them.”     

    Part-2 of the fatwa concludes with this statem: "Therefore, the killer will be killed in the same way or with the same tool he has used to kill his victim, unless he has committed the murder in an immoral way, say, through sodomy or by forcing the victim to drink wine. In that case, the killer will be killed with a sword. The Shafayites are of the opinion that he should be killed in the like (immoral) manner. Therefore, a resembling wooden shaft will be pushed into his anus till he dies. Instead of wine, he will be forced to drink excessive water to cause his death.": "

    The above graphic accounts and their association with Islam are no more that sadistic machinations of some criminal minded people whom the early terror outfits of Islam (the kharajite) called imams. These diabolic thoughts and other outrageous statements are quoted by two category of people - a section of the ultra orthodox such as the author of the fatwa and a section of intellectual with Muslim names. The former do it to radicalize Muslim youth - indoctrinate them to commit wanton terror.  The latter do it to lure the Muslim youth away from Islam and to have a complete licence to commit all kinds of immorality like adultery, debauchery, gluttony, greed, gambling, drinking bouts, sexual lust and obsession, amassing wealth by accepting bribe, cheating others, even committing incest for any morality-divorced mind will find all such crimes less grave compered to what the above statements conjure.

    The refutation of Fatwa-1 concludes with the statement: "A deadly spiritual potion is thus being brewed under the cloak of a fatwa which contradicts the Qur'an on many counts, is self contradictory, bizarre and untenable on others, suicidal for Islam and the broader Muslim community and a grave threat to human civilization." The Vampires on this site who are scheming to exploit all that is filthy and grotesque in the archives of Islam (as is the case with the archives of other major religions as well) must take note that their attitude of injecting venom into others by suggesting that they are not alone in their demonizing activity, will not go unchallenged. They are free to remain buried in their intellectual coffins like dead vampires. But if the prowl about to lure victims, they will be exposed. 
    By muhammad yunus - 12/8/2012 6:43:34 PM



  • Naseer Sb and Hamzah Sb,

    One can read the Quran and attack it and try to discredit it, or one can read it and defend it and extol it. Both the derogators and the glorifiers seem to see it as a static object that one can worship or shoot at.

    However for those who are not interested in either fasaad (discord) or ultra-orthodoxy,  the Quran is a historic document which lends itself to interpretations which are appropriate guides for any given generation. As such one can see it as a resource from which one can derive the message that is most concordant with contemporary ethos. The Quran itself asks us to do that. As Yunus Sb has written,  "The Qur'an calls for use of reason (aql), reflection (fikr), logical thinking (fiqh) as well as mutual consultation......The spirit of upholding universal justice is reinforced by the Qur'an's categorization of justice as a harrama or binding instruction (6:152) that must be upheld justly (4:58)". 

    In practical terms, our generation should look for and find support in the Quran for abhorrence of violence, murder and intolerance, and for promoting peaceful co-existence,  and respect for other religions and other sects. We should also seek ways to come to terms with modernity which includes science, democracy, secularism and freedom of speech.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/8/2012 1:49:17 PM



  • Dear Manzoor Saheb, You have written: “Mr. Hamzah, what you have written is logical and is quite destructive of Islam.”

     

    I fail to understand how an argument that is logical can be quite destructive of Islam. Do you mean to say that logic destroys Islam and so we should stay away from logic? But logic is taught in our madrasas as well. Has been taught for over a millennium. All the arguments we try to give in favour of a moderate interpretation of Islam is based on logic or so we believe.

     

    Maybe you explained this cryptic comment in the next and main paragraph. But, honestly, I couldn’t make any sense out of that. You might like to explain. Maybe some other readers too felt like that.

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/8/2012 10:56:58 AM



  • In Africa white is the colour of Satan.When I was there I saw the students of the Students of the State college of aArts and Science were presenting a drama in which a boy was painted with chalk powder to portray the evil character.
    They were taught exactly as the whitemen o r the brown men paint their Satan black. This is done to show that Evil does not belong to them,it is some thing foreign to their society.
    This website accepting both the colours shows that  it has no bias against men like Mr Rational or men like GM and Manzurul Haq The purpose of the Editor is to present  the conflicting and supporting arguments to the viewers of this Wbsite.The editor of any write ups does not stand as a judge on it. He enjoys his liberty like another reasonable person to agree or disagree with the views of any ones believe or his line of thinking.When he wants to express his views he writes as an independent person not as an editor.
    Therefore ,It is unjust to accuse the editor of becoming a mouthpiece of one party. By afaqsiddiqi - 12/8/2012 4:50:00 AM



  • Dear Shahin Sb, Although I have not specifically discussed the lesser shirks, what this is, becomes obvious when we understand the concept of the hypothetical and categorical imperatives. It comes through in the discussion also; although I have not used the word lesser shirk. You will find this discussion in an article on the subject:

    http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/islam-and-kant’s-principle-of-morality/d/8219

    More material can be found in references provided below:

    9/3/2012 11:28:56 AM

     Naseer Ahmed

     Aiman,

    The following should be a good introduction to a very fascinating subject.  Michael  Sandel is a very popular teacher and I am sure you would enjoy his lectures while learning Kant's philosophy. You may like to listen to the entire series covering other philosophers also. There are about a dozen episodes.

    Links to two lectures by Michael Sandel, professor of philosophy at Harvard University, and a write up on the subject of morality

    Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) - Justice with Michael Sandel

    http://www.justiceharvard.org/resources/immanuel-kant-groundwork-for-the-metaphysics-of-morals-1785/

    Episode 06 - Justice with Michael Sandel

    http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-06/#.UETXawn3XQs.mailto

    Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 07: "A LESSON IN LYING"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqzW0eHzDSQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/8/2012 2:16:02 AM



  • Sultan Shahin saheb, Your standpoint, as you explained it, is honorable and sincere. I see Salafism and apostasy as two independent enemies of moderate Islam rather than see one as a reaction to  the other. The moderate space may be shrinking because those two of our "enemies" are much more aggressive in spreading their message. Salafi literature is here because of editorial choice. Apostate literature is here because apostates will invade any Muslim site that gives them an opening. None of the apostates writing in this website is likely to return to the fold, and yet so many of the posters here waste their time trying to answer them, thus giving them a lot more exposure than they would otherwise receive. More important than condemning Wahhabism or apostasy is the task of devoloping a coherent and cogent narrative of moderate Islam. The Wahhabis and the apostates do have such narratives. We are far behind. Asghar Ali Engineer and Irshad Manji have made valiant efforts to develop such a narrative. Ziyauddin Sardar and Yunus saheb have worked untiringly to give Quranic support to such a narrative. But we still have a long way to go. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/8/2012 2:04:25 AM



  • This is in response to Hamza’s earlier post. The response to his recent post is also given.

    Let us first understand who Hamza is from his own self introduction.

     

    “…  the conclusion I have reached is the result of my direct understanding of the Quran , without the help of any translation, interpretation,  secondary sources or seerah books as I have sufficient knowledge of Arabic and sufficient religious background. I turned to the  orientalists only  after  my elaborate study of quran, Hadith   and the writings of  Islamic thikers like Al-Ghazali, Ibne Rusd, Imam Razi , Shah Waliyullah Muhaddis Dehlvi,Allama Shibli Nomani etc for about 15 long years. As for as I am concerned, I have found  that you do not need any secondary source  to reach the conclusion that I have, provided you read the quran without any pre-conceived belief and fear of the Hell, and just for discovering the truth. By Hamzah - 11/20/2012 5:59:46 AM

     

    He is a formidable scholar. The only religious book that I have read fully is the Quran, and that too in translation only. I must therefore beg his forbearance for my bold attempt to try to answer him. He may only be testing our knowledge by posing questions and since he quite obviously expects those less learned than him to answer, I make bold to answer him.

     

    To Muslims, Islam is a religion, and the Quran a book revealed in stages spread over 23 years to the last Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Understanding the correct meaning of the verses in the Quran was facilitated by incidents in the history of Islam and in the life of the Prophet and the people which provide the context. The changing nature of the verses reflects the changing circumstances of the new nation of Islam that was forming. These verses show the different behaviours expected under different circumstances. There is therefore a range of behaviour that is appropriate depending on the circumstances.

     

    Hamza says “It is a remarkable and significant fact that the Meccan suras contain no mentions of holy war or fighting polytheists, whereas the Madinan suras are so full of verses on the subject that this obligation appears to be more heavily stressed than any other.”

     

    It would have been remarkable if Meccan verses had contained instructions to fight even though the Muslims were persecuted, tortured, killed and the ones who did not enjoy protection by virtue of being members of powerful tribes  had to migrate to neighbouring Abyssinia to save their lives. If Allah had revealed verses which asked Muslims to fight back, the small Muslim community would have been wiped out. There would then have been nothing remarkable to discuss today. The Prophet himself had to migrate to Medina after the death of his Uncle Abu Talib and wife Hazrat Khadija, having lost two very powerful protectors. So the lesson we draw is to be practical and not indulge in anything suicidal.

     

    It would also have been very remarkable if laws were revealed to Jesus (PBUH) because Jesus (PBUH) was not a ruler and in a position to implement any law if it was revealed to him. Jesus(PBUH) therefore only endorsed Mosaic law but could not pronounce sentences in accordance with it if the punishment went against the Roman law under whose occupation Jerusalem was. The life and teachings of Jesus (PBUH) is therefore an object lesson in how to live under non-Muslim rule where you "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's". The Quran clearly enjoins a Muslim to believe in all the previous Prophets and books of revelation.

     

    The Meccan Surahs and the example of the conduct of the Muslims during this 10 year period and the example of Jesus (PBUH) are therefore of universal and eternal relevance for Muslims who find themselves in similar circumstances.

    Now coming to the Medinian period, during which time the Prophet (PBUH) had become a ruler, the revelations take a different hue and the verses now include laws – civil, criminal and laws for conducting war and of governance. These verses were relevant to his changing and changed role.

     

    Hamza says that during the Medinian period, “war was made obligatory through verbs in the imperative and emphatic moods. Many passages in suras 2 (al-Baqara), 8 (al-Anfal), 9 (at-Tawba), and other Madinan revelations enjoin use of force. I find no explanations for verse 9:111 which says, “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods for theirs(in return) is the garden(of paradise). They fight in his cause and they slay and are slain. A promise binding on him, in truth, through the Torah, The Gospel and in the Quran.”

     

    Hamza, a scholar surely knows that the Muslims were prevented from performing pilgrimage for 6 years after migration to Medina, that there were several battles and the Meccans had launched a massive attack alongwith all their allies in a bid to annihilate Islam, when they attacked Medina with a large force which may have outnumbered Muslims by five times. The Muslims dug a trench to impede the progress of the Meccans and defeated them. The Muslims were clearly outnumbered in all the wars and were fighting for their survival. So is it surprising that fighting is enjoined to save themselves and the nascent religion of Islam? Was this not fighting in the cause of Islam and Allah in which the fighters were either slaying or being slain? Fighting had become obligatory for every Muslim and therefore Allah says that he has purchased “of the believers their persons and their goods”. These verses continue to be relevant in a state of war when war is declared by the political leader and become applicable to its army.

     

    Hamza says:

    “9:123 which says” Oh ye who believe fight the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you.” This second verse was revealed to instigate Muslims to fight the Roman Christians after the conquest Mecca.”

    Are Christians referred to as Unbelievers in the Quran? In a state of war, when the enemy is determined on your annihilation, should he find softness in you so that he is emboldened to attack you?

     

    Hamza says:

    “No amount explanations can justify the attacks on Rome and Faras , the then Persia as defensive wars.”

     

    I wish Hamza had read some history also and the history of the wars of Rome and Faras. Rome and Faras were the imperialists of those days and in a big war every two years. The people were sick and tired of them as they were heavily taxed to support the wars. With such imperialists, it was a matter of time before war was forced on the new community of Islam. A defensive war can also be a pre emptive first strike. However, it was not even a pre emptive strike but a war after clear offer of conditions of peace which were rejected.

     

    The spread of the message has been made incumbent on the Muslims.  This they could have done by sending proselytizers. An offer for the acceptance of Islam was made and war declared only on its refusal or refusal to submit. After conquest, the people had a choice to accept Islam and pay zakat or pay Jiziya or be killed as rebels. Jiziya was levied only on males capable of military service and these people were exempted from military service. No jiziya was leviable on the old, the disabled, the priests, women and children. In almost every case, Jiziya was less than the taxes these people were paying to their erstwhile ruler.

     

    There is no evidence of anyone being forced to accept Islam and this fact is widely acknowledged and accepted by all historians. Also, the fact that the Jiziya amount was less than the tax the people were paying earlier. The Jews and some of the persecuted sects of Christianity welcomed the Muslims as it ended their persecution at the hands of the majority community.

     

    We can understand the meaning of the Quran best from the conduct of the earliest Muslims or of the Salaf as model examples of Islamic practice.

     

    The following is from Wikipedia:

    A letter attributed to Khalid bin Walid said that "This is a letter of Khalid ibn al-Waleed to Saluba ibn Nastuna and his people; I agreed with you on al-jezyah and protection. As long as we protect you we have the right in al-jezyah, otherwise we have none.”

     

    Submit to Islam and be safe. Or agree to the payment of the Jizya (tax), and you and your people will be under our protection, else you will have only yourself to blame for the consequences, for I bring the men who desire death as ardently as you desire life.

    This letter was written by Khalid, from his head-quarters in Babylonia, to the Persian monarch Emperor Yazdegerd III before invading it. (History of the World, Volume IV [Book XII. The Mohammedan Ascendency], page 463, by John Clark Ridpath, LL.D. 1910.)

     

    In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. This is given by Khalid bin Al Waleed to the people of Damascus. When the Muslims enter, they (the people) shall have safety for themselves, their property, their temples and the walls of their city, of which nothing shall be destroyed. They have this guarantee on behalf of Allah, the Messenger of Allah, on whom be the blessings of Allah and peace, the Caliph and the Faithful, from whom they shall receive nothing but good so long as they pay the Jizya.

    The pact signed by Khalid at the Surrender of Damascus after a siege lasted for a month.

     

    According to Muslim accounts of Umar, in his time some payers of the jizya were compensated if they had not been cared for properly. The accounts vary, but describe his meeting an old Jew begging, and assisting him; according to one version:

    Umar said to him, "Old man! We have not done justice to you. In your youth we realized Jizyah from you and have left you to fend for yourself in your old age". Holding him by the hand, he led him to his own house, and preparing food with his own hands fed him and issued orders to the treasurer of the Bait-al-mal that that old man and all others like him, should be regularly doled out a daily allowance which should suffice for them and their dependents.

     

    In Khurasan, the native aristocracy reduced jizya, while increased taxes on the Muslim inhabitants, in order to prevent the non-Muslim conversion to Islam that jizya encouraged.

     

    There is no evidence of forcible conversions or even an attempt to use Jiziya as a means for conversion.

     

    If you look at the wars, the Romans, the Persians and the various empires were constantly at war. The people were taxed heavily to support these wars; religious persecution of minorities was the order of the day. Muslim conquests were swift and with very little bloodshed followed by centuries of peace and security. Taxes paid in the form of Jiziya were less than the taxes paid to erstwhile rulers. Trade caravans could travel in safety. Trade flourished and the regions became prosperous and the promise in the verse "We sent you only as a mercy to the world's peoples" was fulfilled. This is acknowledged even by non-historians such as Matt Ridley who explains why Islam and prosperity flourished side by side.

     

    Human Rights

    ·         Slavery is not categorically prohibited by the Quran, for seventh century economic, moral and humanitarian reasons, but slavery is judged to be against God’s will and freeing a slave is extolled as a charity and a virtue. Without prisons and slavery, war prisoners would have been put to death.

    ·         The right to life and property was made sacrosanct.

    ·         The right to take part in government was instituted by the Shura

    ·         The right to freedom of religion and conscience is specifically set out in the Quran:

    Let there be no compulsion in religion, Truth stands out clear from error 2:256

    ·         The concept of fundamental human equality is repeated many times in both the Quran and the Sunna, specifically summarized one again in the Prophet’s farewell address. ‘No Arab has superiority over a non-Arab, neither does a man of brown colour enjoy superiority over a man of black colour, nor does a black man enjoy superiority over a man of white colour except by piety.’

     

    ‘Verily, the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is he who is most righteous of you’ 49:13

     

    In law, non-Muslims had equal rights and there is a famous case in which Hazrat Ali (RA) who was the Caliph at the time, lost a case to a Jew in an Islamic court. The allegation against the Jew was that he had stolen Ali’s shield and since the Jew had possession of the shield, possession was taken as 50% proof of ownership and Ali’s word against the Jew’s word was given equal importance. The Jew therefore had 50% proof of ownership and Hazrat Ali just had his word and that of his son against the Jew. The son was not treated as an independent witness and his word therefore did not count.

     

    ·         Islam was the first to give women rights as an individual to own and inherit property and to give testimony, right to choose husband, right to divorce, right to remarry, right to support by members of her family.

     

    ·         Killing by burning is banned in Islam. In medieval Europe killing by burning as part of their `judicial process’ was common till the eighteenth century. Killing by torture including emasculation was also common for male prisoners in Europe.

    The advance made by the Quran in creating personal rights under the conditions of the seventh century can be readily appreciated, coming a thousand years before similar measures were even considered in Europe.

     

    Dawa Today

    As far as Dawa is concerned, even the Prophets had the limited mandate to communicate the message. They were neither responsible nor held accountable for converting the people. Nor did the Salaf force Islam on the conquered. The message of Islam has reached all corners of the World and is unreservedly available to all through the internet and the TV.

     

    There is no further need to communicate the message but only a need to help and guide those who approach for guidance. The need is to set a good example of what it means to become a Muslim. Conquest in earlier times was to facilitate Dawa which is rendered unnecessary today. Jiziya was to provide protection to the people while exempting them from military service during times when the soldier was not paid a salary. A Muslim therefore rendered military service without salary and a non-Muslim paid Jiziya in lieu of service. Today, soldiers are paid salaries collected through taxes levied on all people. Jiziya on non-Mulsim citizens has also therefore become irrelevant.

    As regards Hamza’s recent post, my previous response to him holds good and is repeated. However, a broad answer is also provided:

     

    Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had ten close Sahabis who helped him in his task of teaching Islam to the people. Do not women also need to be taught? Should the Prophet then also not have ten close female companions to learn Islam from him and teach to the rest of the women? Marriage puts the relationship beyond all speculative gossip. As far as the choice of these women as wife to the Noble Prophet is concerned, they had to fulfil very demanding conditions including remaining chaste and single after the Prophet’s death since their remarriage was prohibited.

     

     The younger they were at marriage, the more demanding was this requirement. Only Allah could have chosen such wives who though very young at the time of the Prophet’s death, fulfilled this demanding condition some of whom lived another forty plus years! There is a way to judge from a broader perspective rather than peep into the bedrooms. Peeping toms will however only derive their kicks from peeping and reading or writing pornography.

     

    9/29/2012 5:02:25 AM

     Naseer Ahmed

     Repeating an earlier comment in response to Hamza, One of the most vocal and rabid denigrator is Robert Spencer who has written several books including “The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion”. Most other denigrators have little knowledge of Islam themselves and rely on material from people like Spencer to spread calumny. The arguments and language that all of them use is similar. They are foot soldiers who are sent out to fight with material that is supplied to them.

     

    Moustafa Zayed has responded with an excellent rejoinder point by point in his book “The Lies-About Muhammad - How you were deceived into Islamophobia”.  You can download a free a scanned copy from or purchase the book from Amazon: 

    http://www.islamicsearchcenter.com/library/allegations/The-Lies-About-Muhammad.pdf

    You can find answers to every question that is raised in this forum relating to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

     

    Interestingly, Robert Spencer has also written a book “Did Muhammad Exist”? When Spencer is not even sure if Muhammad existed, how could he write a book on the Prophet and say it was the truth about him? But such niceties and logic is not what the denigrators care about - hate and envy blinds them to their own debasement.

    “By a lie, a man...annihilates his dignity as a man.”   Kant, Immanuel View Article

     

    Haque Sb,

    Hamza made a grand entrance with what he felt were unanswerable or the toughest questions. Read the correspondence that you will find under the comments in the following article

    http://newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/khaled-hroub/a-culture-of-religious-fanaticism/d/8786

     

    My response begins with my comment 10/4/2012 3:01:35 AM

    His comments and the question running into pages were straight downloads without quoting the source. His subsequent set of questions which you will find in comments under the present article was also several pages downloaded straight from WikiIslam which he did not acknowledge either.

    Hamza can keep downloading the massive amount of stuff on Islamphobic sites. Are we going to keep responding to him?

    I would expect a scholar to answer and not ask questions. If I am an expert in my filed, would I seek answers to the doubts in my field from a lay person? If I was a fraction of the scholar that Hamza claims that he is, and if I had entertained the same doubts, I would simply walk away from Islam. I would not engage lay people into discussions. His purpose is clearly not to seek answers and he is best ignored. He must be exposed for the charlatan that he is posing as a scholar of Islam to add weight to what he downloads straight from such sites.

    My suggestion to NAI is to create an FAQ section so that oft repeated questions and comments of this nature are answered with a simple refer to FAQ By Naseer Ahmed - 12/8/2012 1:46:07 AM



  • Dear Naseer Saheb, I think I agree with most of what you have written here, particularly, your assertion: “parroting words of Tauheed do not make a believer.” However, I do not fully understand how “the notion of the lesser shirks … represent the hypothetical imperative of Kantian philosophy,” as you put it.

    I wonder if you could elaborate a little. This may help other readers too who maybe similarly challenged.

    I am repeating your full comment below for the sake of those who may have missed it or not understood it full import:

    “Shahin Sb, I subscribe to the notion of the lesser shirks. They represent the hypothetical imperative of Kantian philosophy. Kant also sees moral worth only in actions that emanate from the categorical imperative. The Islamic concept is also the same. Rewards in the hereafter are for purity in our intentions.
    However, I also consider every person irrespective of his religion or even atheists and agnostics, who act in accordance with the categorical imperative to be true believers since they act out of no consideration other than for the sake of goodness alone which is another way of saying for God alone, even though they may not even believe in a personal God.
    Following the categorical imperative without a belief in
    God and the hereafter is easy under normal circumstances but gets severely tested on a few occasions and that is when we prove ourselves to be either a true believer or an unbeliever. Parroting words of Tauheed do not make a believer.” By Naseer Ahmed - 12/6/2012 11:31:08 PM

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/7/2012 11:54:42 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb, There are two trends growing very fast in the Muslim community today. Both under the massive onslaught of Wahhabi Islam. Growing radicalisation or Wahhabisation because Wahhabi Islam is confused with real Islam. Growing disenchantment with Islam, what you would call apostasy, again because Wahhabi Islam is confused with real Islam. There is a large section that is embracing Wahhabi Islam with relish; there is a small but growing section that is leaving Islam as it is a group of former moderate, liberal, thinking Muslims who cannot accept Islam if it is the religion that Wahhabis paint it as. Both for the same reason.

     

    New Age Islam’s comments section reflects both these trends.

     

    Let me explain with one example how the same interpretation of Islam, known as Wahhabism/Salafism is having two opposite impacts. Saudi Judges force fathers of young girls aged ten to send their daughters to the house of their 60-year-old husbands from where they have run away, citing the example of Prophet Mohammad (saw) who was an ideal human being we must emulate. The most influential Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia in recent times Bin Baaz supported and justified this on the strength of same ahadeeth and seerat books numerous times. This is what Muslim ulema all over the world do.

     

    Reactions are of two kinds.

     

    One reaction: A large section of Muslims laps it up and rushes to emulate it, sends its girls to be raped by their aged, perverted husbands at an early age. I personally know of this happening in India and Pakistan. But from newspaper reports it is clearly happening all over the Muslim world. Even in the liberal West, where laws against paedophilia are very stringent, Muslims try their best to emulate this trend, sometimes sending their young daughters to Pakistan on some pretext to be married off early enough.

     

    Second reaction: A small but vocal, so giving the impression of being large, section of Muslims is getting disenchanted with Islam. It says if this is Islam as found in its most authentic scriptures and practised in the pristine Islamic country, then we can have nothing to do with it.

     

    Let us understand that Saudi Arabia is not an ordinary Muslim country. Saudi Islam is bound to be considered pristine, puritan Islam. It is the cradle of Islam. Even the Western media refers to Wahhabi Islam as puritan Islam. We may consider it a corruption of Islam, but for the general populace Muslim and non-Muslim alike it is the pristine form of Islam. We may consider Bukhari and Muslim and Bin Baaz perverts and enemies of Islam. But for the rest of the world they are the most authentic voices of Islam.

     

    We have discussed the age of Hazrat Aisha several times on New Age Islam and our write-ups have proved that she was more likely 19 at the time of her marriage. But we should not expect to carry greater weight than Al-Sihah al-Sittah, "The Authentic Six" books of Hadees (Hadith) all of which present the prophet in a prurient light.  Muslims love them, seek to emulate them as they should, after all Prophet is an ideal human being in our belief system, a messenger of God almighty, the Lord of all universes. With its present resources, New Age Islam, cannot and should not expect to carry greater weight than all the secondary and present Islamic literature and what appears on the thousands of Wahhabi Islamic websites with their advertisement budgets of millions of dollars.  

     

    [Actually, Bukhari and Muslim are greatly revered figures of Islam and from most accounts available genuinely loved the prophet and were sincere Muslims. In our times Bin Baaz too carries great respect in the Muslim community around the world. And this is what confuses many thinking Muslims when they read books of hadees and fatwas of Bin Baaz like figures now freely available anywhere.]  

     

    If we give space in our comment sections, and occasionally in our main article sections to Wahhabi thoughts, it is basically to contest them. This does not make us a Wahhabi/Salafi website. Wahhabi sites are not fighting Wahhabism. They are promoting Wahhabism. We are on the contrary fighting Wahhabism; we are trying to arrest the growing radicalisation of Muslims under their Wahhabi onslaught.

     

    Similarly if we give space in our comments section to disenchanted Muslims, whom you call apostates, we don’t become an apostate site.  (I don’t call them apostates because I hope that they will come back if we answer their questions and resolve their doubts diligently enough; even the prophet did not call hypocrites hypocrite and even allowed the most inveterate enemies of Islam to embrace Islam). Apostate sites promote apostasy. We are fighting this trend as much as we are fighting the trend of growing radicalisation and trying to stem it.

     

    Moderate Islam is fast disappearing. It will not survive if moderates bury their heads in sand. If we shut our eyes the ugliness does not disappear. We must take the source of our trouble head on. We live in a world where censorship does not work. There is no way we can hide the ugliness in our midst. Even if hiding were to do any good.

     

    Merely shouting from rooftops, Islam is a moderate religion, a religion of peace, a religion of civilisation, a religion of human rights, is not going to help. Wahhabis says the same thing. They just interpret these words differently. For us peace means peace of the hustling bustling bazaar. For them peace means peace of the graveyard. Do we want their version of peace? We have to fight this interpretation of Islam. Calling Wahhabis or their victims names like apostates does not help. We should address the specifics. We cannot do that unless we have them before us.

     

    Why did I post Talibani fatwa justifying violence against innocent civilian men, women, and children? Does that make New Age Islam a radical Wahhabi website? No, I published so that we can collectively fight it. Now you are seeing a series of articles by different authors denouncing them, point by point. This I believe is the way to stem the rot within.

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/7/2012 10:01:00 PM



  • Mr. Hamzah, what you have written is logical and is quite destructive of Islam. But your situation is no different from Mr. Rational or Mr. Hats off because all of you are the stealth fighters of the crucible of New Age Islam.

    Logically, I would be redundant, if I reply you for the most part. Because my very theory is a comprehensive reply of all these calumnies you have repeated. About the amorous assaults of VIPs of other traditions (you can guess what I am referring to), I take a view that it is in the nature of small men like me (not you, whom I find belonging to the divine club of Mr. Rational), to develop myths with great authenticity. I just wonder why,  I cannot extend this courtesy to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Well I do. And, it’s your problem that you don’t. If you are wondering how this asymmetry of viewpoints can sustain itself, it is because New Age Islam is above all laws - and therefore it surprises me no bit.

    I do not expect the stealth warriors of New Age Islam to be sympathetic to Muslims on any issue and so your singing paeans to the UN is quite in order. Only problem is, UN is not sympathetic to us Indians too, because they treat us as third-raters or third-worldists. I am also not in favor of all countries becoming Saudi Arabia, else vices will have no place to flourish. And, without vice, life for the well-heeled will be quite uninteresting and further they could be more destructive if flow of their immense neural energy was stopped through the genital channels.

    Please don’t mind my not replying you. I am a bit discourteous to the disingenuous.

    By Manzoorul Haque - 12/7/2012 9:41:25 PM



  • Mr Manzoorul Haque
    I
    and my backers are not jeopardizing the lives of human being. It is you who is justifying all injustices done by Muslims.
    Irrational ideology suits well to you. I have also no desire to engage with you. Hope you will keep in mind you will not throw any dust on my face in support of your criminal ideology because ultimately it will return to you.
    As a rational person I tolerated your bakwas without any greed of jannat but I know now what to do with your likes.
    I am fine with my straight reasoning which not requires any twisting of realities like you are busy in defense of so called peaceful Islam.
    I will end my communication to you with a Hadith in my words. Hz prophet hired a sahabi Hz Hasan bin Thabit the poet to attack the people who used to compose poems to ridicule the prophet despite the clear disdain of the Allah Kareem for the poets.
    So much of prophet's tolerance to opponents.
    Have a nice day.

    I thank Sultan Shahin Saheb for impartial editorship.

    By rational - 12/7/2012 8:37:35 PM



  • Although the word "apostate" is frowned upon, has anyone else noticed that the NewAgeIslam site is beginning to look more and more like some well-known apostate websites? By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/7/2012 7:47:17 PM



  • Sultan Shahin sahib, You are really a gentleman. I appreciate your equal treatment and humanism. By Hamzah - 12/7/2012 2:02:56 PM



  • Mr Manzurul Haque says,

    “If the ‘mother population, of society in whose arena the tussle is unfolding begins to support the maverick, the moral advantage lies with the maverick……:Prophet of Islam (pbuh) knew the fate of ‘Faras’, as the fate of one who is pitted against a moral force. For Romans, it was a second time, in the first instance they were brought to dust by Prophet issa

    “Violence is started by the vested interest at the sight of a puritan ideology, and ends with the victory of the righteous and this is what happened with the history of Islam too.”

    My response:

    Let me start with the question of morality on which Mr Manzurul Haque has based his whole theory justifying the all the Islamic wars, human violations, including those with Rome and Faras. Bellow I examine the character of Muhammad to see whether he really possessed the assumed high standard of morality.

    Prophet Muhammad’s Personal life

    According to the Islamic code of “Shariah law” (which is the nucleus of the Islamic Code of life) Muslim girls mature at the age of 9 (Nine); that is at the age of 9 a Muslim girl can be lawfully wedded. Why? Because, Prophet Muhammad married Hazrat A’isha when she was only six (6) year old baby girl and Prophet slept with her when she was Nine (9) year old. Today, in this civilized world, anybody could be labelled as a pure paedophile if he marries a girl of 6 or, even 9 year old girl.

    `A´isha Bint Abu Bakr was Prophet Muhammad's third wife. `A´isha herself narrated, "The Messenger of God married me in Shawwal in the tenth year after of his prophethood, three years before the Migration as I was six years old. I was nine years old when he consummated the marriage with me.

    Sahih Bukhari: According to Muaallah Ibn Ashad, Hazrat Aisha narrated: "when I (Aisha) asked why he married me? Messenger of Allah said, I saw you in dream twice. I saw (in a dream) you are covered by a silk chaddar and Angel Gabriel told me, here is your wife'. When I removed the silk-chaddar I found you were the woman under the silk chaddar. After that I (Muhammad) said to Angel Gabriel, if this is the wish of Allah then it of course shall be fulfilled."

    Sahih Bukhari Hadith: Uroowaa (ra) narrated, “Nabi Karim (Prophet Muhammad) himself proposed to marry Aisha Bint Abu Bakr while Aisha was only six year old girl. Then, Abu Bakr said, O Messenger of God, I am your brother, how can you marry my daughter?' On reply Nabi karim (sa) said, you are my brother only in the religion. Therefore, Ai'sha is halal for me to marry".

    Recent (2004) fatwa by Shaikh ibn Baz who was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia :

    “I advise the young ladies not to refuse a man because of his older age. Even if he be ten, twenty or thirty years older, this is not a valid excuse. THE PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM) MARRIED AISHA WHEN HE WAS FIFTY-THREE YEARS OLD AND SHE WAS NINE YEARS OLD.”

    We understand from early hadiths that Prophet Muhammad had a special inclination to women. For example, he said: "Two things of this world I cherish: women and perfume, prayer being the comfort of my eye.” Al-Hasan al-Basri narrated: The Messenger of God said, "The only two things I cherish of the life of this world are women and perfume.

    The same thing has been narrated by Hazrat `A´isha in different versions: "The Prophet of God liked three things of this world: Perfume, women, and food; he had the (first) two, but missed food (Sahih Bukhari)."

    Most apologists usually blame authors (who brought untold stories of Islam by saying: (a) Lack of knowledge (b) Misinterpretation or mistranslation of scriptures or by (c) Some lame excuses, such as the Prophet had to marry due to political reasons and not for sex, he was forced to marry, or simply wanted to rescue widows etc.

    But when we read the verse 33:52, “It is not lawful for thee (to marry more ) women after this , nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee except any thy right hand should posses ( as handmaidens), we come to know from the source of God Himself that the prophet of Islam was often attracted by women’s beauty also.

    The issue of Marrying adopted son’s wife is well known, and due to space limitation, I avoid to go in detail except summarizing it in a few words. Allah or Muhammad himself causes a scandal and then Allah sends Gabriel to officially justify the scandalous action of Prophet Muhammad with Qur'anic revelations. First he forced her to marry his adopted son Zaid and again Allah married her to him without asking her consent. No wonder why Muhammad’s youngest wife Aisha once teasingly said: “You (Prophet) are so lucky that every time you are in a mess Allah immediately jumps on rescuing you from the mess.”

    Prophet Muhammad’s Political life:

    From its inception the new religion “Islam” (created by Prophet Muhammad) had been the most violent political ideology spread throughout the Arabia and beyond in the garb of so called “peaceful religion” of Allah. This issue has been extensively discussed on this website, hence no need for further discussion.

    Prophet Muhammad ‘s sex with concubines and slave girls

    Like any other ordinary man, leader, or king of the 7th century period, Prophet Muhammad also readily had sex with his slave girls or concubines he got as reward from other kings, or from war booty. These unethical sexual behaviours have been recorded in the Qur’anic verses, sahih hadiths and Islamic history.

    Prophet’s zeal of having sex with captives owned from war booty:

    Jewish young lady Safiya was captive from the battle of Khyber. Safiya was a paragon of  beauty and was very young (in her teen) when she was forcibly married by Prophet Muhammad (after killing all her relatives including her newly married husband only to have sex with her same day in a hurry) in the caravan tent while returning to Medina. Shafiyya was first distributed as ghaneemat from the battle of Khyber to other Islamic soldiers, but when Prophet Muhammad heard about her beauty then he took her for his wife. Reyhana was another very beautiful and young Jewish girl (Booty from Banu Quryza).

    Of course, Prophet of Islam had formidable license from Allah to have sex with slave girls and concubines. Below I am giving the readers some “Gems” from Holy Quran:

    QURAN 70:22-30: This verse very clearly states that Quran allows Muslim men to have sex with their wives (of course) and their slave girls too.

    This is the high standard of morality which gave the prophet of Islam full legitimacy to destroy all other political and religious systems inside and outside the Arabia and that is why verse 9:123 which says” Oh ye who believe fight the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you” to instigate Muslims to fight the Roman Christians after the conquest Mecca.

    It should be noted that neither Rome nor Faras did any harm to Muhammad or to Muslims. Instead it was Muhammad himself who wrote a threatening letter to the kings of both Rome and Faras saying to them,” If you accept Islam, you will be safe.” In other words if you do not accept Islam you will not be safe. And their reaction was natural.

    Mr Manzurul Haque did not state categorically whether these wars were offensive or defensive, particularly in the light of the above verse 9:123.

    Many Middle Eastern Muslims countries still follow Qur’anic privilege of having sex with their slave girls. In Saudi Arabia,

    Kuwait and other Islamic paradises Arab Muslim masters are routinely having sex with their maids even today. Frequently we get to read many horrific cases of sex-scandals about maids in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Some time ago I read the news of numerous (hundreds of) sex-scandals with Indonesian maids in

    Saudi Arabia in an Arabic newspaper. This is the Islamic privilege that Allah so graciously sanctioned in the holy Quran which is prevailing in most Muslims countries even today.

    In the light of the strange philosophy of Mr Manzurul Haque, (“If the‘mother population, of society in whose arena the tussle is unfolding begins to support the maverick, the moral advantage lies with the maverick…”)

     If we judge Shaikh Abdul Wahhab Najdi, the torch bearer of Salafi Islam, in this light, we will have to give distinction marks to him: a maverick of his time who simply followed the footsteps of his Dharam Guru in order to cleanse the whole Arab peninsula of the evil (shirk) as per his understanding, and because people did not follow the Islamic tenets fully in his view. He also got support of mother population in the form of his disciples who indulged in the acts of large scale killings, bloodshed, looting and stealing in the name of Islam.

    If this world starts to follow the footprints of the Prophet of Allah and does the job exactly like the Prophet did, how good will it look for the world? What are the minimum standards of universal golden rules, or at least UN Charter for international humanity, and how could these be compared with the code of principles that was set by the most compassionate prophet of Allah?

    Manzur Saheb says, “Had Islam travelled to India the way it did to Indonesia and Malaysia, things would have been different.” I fully agree with him. Really if Islam had travelled to India, things would have been entirely different as India, then, would have become a second Saudi Arabia and I am sure about one thing: we would not have been debating Islam with freedom like this on The New Age Islam today.

    By Hamzah - 12/7/2012 1:55:37 PM



  • Yes Mr. Rational. You have given enough dose to me for today. But believe me as a Muslim I am used to taking bigger doses – without protest. At least Mr Sulltan Shahin gives the likes of us opportunity to express few words of anguish. In that sense, I am in equal awe of him. I can withdraw my request to him, as an unworthy cause. After all why can’t you be divine, in the general frame acceptable to Indians? I know it will devastate you, but I humbly submit that I find it difficult to accept your divinity, however powerful you or your backers may be. You will perhaps like to argue with me. But I have no desire because of the unevenness of the playing field. By Manzoorul Haque - 12/7/2012 11:44:34 AM



  • Naseer Sb says, "if they do not cooperate, remove them from the scene by putting them in prison and go to the next rung of leaders and then the next until they cooperate."
    How do we remove these powerful leaders? Why would they listen to us? What makes you think we can do things that even the Pakistani Army is hesitant to do? By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/7/2012 11:44:16 AM



  • Naseer Ahmed - 12/6/2012 11:31:08 PM
    Dear Naseer Ahmed saheb
    I am glad with this comment of yours referred above.
    The term "Ikhlas" in Islamic terminology is "Doing good for Allah only". Doing good because it is good, indeed is nobler than doing for Jannat. It fits in my thinking.
    God and hereafter explains some situations nicely, rebirth explains some other situations but ultimately every theory has its limit.
    Adhab-e-qabr is one issue which can be discussed at the moment. Reward or punishment after one is judged for his actions has some meaning but Adhab-e-qabr has no sense. Why one should be under this punishment before weighing the one's Aamal and declaration of judgement?
    In this matter most of the scholars here have wider view. Even skeptic like me if do good aamal is worth.
    I hope I will remain skeptic because my mind does not accept many things which are the essential components of the Iman. By rational - 12/7/2012 10:00:59 AM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed Saheb, you write: “Read the next line of the same post which says that if they do not cooperate, remove them from the scene by putting them in prison and go to the next rung of leaders and then the next until they cooperate.”

     

    I have read your prescriptions in great detail and told you that we do not have the resources to create a global army more powerful than American, NATO, Pakistani put together.

     

    However, have you tried to follow your prescription? With what result? How many Taliban Mullahs cooperated with you? How many were you able to remove from the scene and put them into prison? Which prison are they in? Are you now going to the next rung of leaders and the next? Have you reached any high-level leader yet who will cooperate with you in this noble venture?

     

    We at New Age Islam would all love to follow your example and try the same with JIhadis all over the world, wherever we are. Just share with us the results of your endeavours. That will be a great inspiration.

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/7/2012 9:46:00 AM



  • Read the next line of the same post which says that if they do not cooperate, remove them from the scene by putting them in prison and go to the next rung of leaders and then the next until they cooperate. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/7/2012 3:21:59 AM



  • Ali Janab Manzoorul Haque Saheb.
    You said"
    "It is not without reason that the forces of anarchy have attached themselves to New Age Islam from the day one of its inception. I find on this website the latest incarnation of one Majzoob masquerading himself as the parallel of Allah. He races his bicycle down the slopes of a hill and wants us to applaud at his speeding skill. For thousands of years, trillions and trillions of human beings have not been able to think, what he is capable of thinking and spreading on your website. I think as editor and publisher of this website you have a duty to tell him, that Allah is the Only and Supreme Deity of all of us Muslims, and it is not open for him to ridicule Allah."
    The greatest Majzoob is Allah Kareem who produced a book for which Mr Mohammed Yunus wrote long paragraph in his article. The so clalled Quran-um-mubeen which guides few and astray major part of mankind. This is the book wrote in Aalam-e-Majzoobiat which Muslims don't understand and those understand create new sects and then  issue the fatwas of takfeer and then shed the blood in the name of most merciful Allah. This is the book that was called Asateer-ul-Awwaleen. This is the book which is called miracle. Yes it is the only miracle in the sense not understood and still has 1.2 billion followers.
    Darwin was that fool who trod where angels (Muslims) were afraid to rush. Copernicus and others were the fool who trod where angles (Muslims) were afraid to rush.
     And please don't call Motazilas (gone scientists) Muslims because they ridiculed the prophet and Deeni Uloom. They were not Muslims like you are.
    I hope you have received your dose for today. Be with me you will receive more from the Islamic literature.
    I need not applauds from you or your likes who can applaud only the jumbled book.
    Aap sikhayenge Editor ko Adaab-e-editory. Moonh dho rakhen.
    By rational - 12/7/2012 1:34:15 AM



  • Naseer Sb says, "My solution asks that these leaders themselves now issue fatwas for an end to Jehad."
    I do not know any such leaders who will take your advice. Do you? By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/7/2012 1:09:41 AM



  • Shahin Sb, I subscribe to the notion of the lesser shirks. They represent the hypothetical imperative of Kantian philosophy. Kant also sees moral worth only in actions that emanate from the categorical imperative. The Islamic concept is also the same. Rewards in the hereafter are for purity in our intentions.
    However, I also consider every person irrespective of his religion or even atheists and agnostics, who act in accordance with the categorical imperative to be true believers since they act out of no consideration other than for the sake of goodness alone which is another way of saying for God alone, even though they may not even believe in a personal God.
    Following the categorical imperative without a belief in
    God and the hereafter is easy under normal circumstances but gets severely tested on a few occasions and that is when we prove ourselves to be either a true believer or an unbeliever. Parroting words of Tauheed do not make a believer. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/6/2012 11:31:08 PM



  • GM Sb, No one asked you to soften your stand on the leaders whether it be Hitler or the ideologues of political Islam. I was talking about the followers. My solution asks that these leaders themselves now issue fatwas for an end to Jehad and if people do not fall in line, adopt harsh measures.
    Shahin Sb,
    If you think that any of your question is not answered, repeat it. You may not understand my response or be satisfied by it  but that is your problem. For example, I have answered umpteen times why Islam or ideology is not the primary cause of Islamic terrorism. Recently, I have strengthened my argument with research findings. You find even that objectionable and refer to my penchant for western urls while others extol western education and western values! Are we not having double standards? I have used research findings even to explain Quranic wisdom and made a very categorical statement that we should seek validation of Quranic prescriptions through empirical research and on the findings of such research. You may however still think that your question as to why if Muslims quote the Quran to justify their acts, religion or ideology is not the cause of the problem. I cannot understand the answer for you.
    Hats off kept repeating Malaysia, Indonesia, boko haram etc. You also took up his question. It was answered. I ignore questions if I think they are already answered in a generic way. Also questions which are irrelevant to the subject being discussed. I also expect people to come with their own analysis of the problem rather than just ask questions. If hats off could write pages criticizing my thesis , why can he not put forward his thesis?
    What is your thesis Shahin Sb except that Salafi/Wahabi Islam and petro dollars is the sole cause of the problem and must be defeated?  It does not matter what your thesis is  as long as you are interested in a solution. How do you defeat it? I have a very straight forward solution to the problem. It may be called zero tolerance to the menace. Get the leaders to cooperate in reversing the process or remove  them from the scene by imprisoning them. Get the second rung to cooperate and so on till you get them to cooperate. Seek a complete end. Sweeten the deal if necessary by providing employment assistance etc. Surrender of arms is a must. Political will is required to end it. If there is no political will, then the public needs to bring pressure.
    Goes without saying that any fatwa or fatwas that are being used are unislamic, the leaders are not ideologues but rogue politicians etc and are the enemies of people and of Islam. Be specific in what you target. But if you make this out into your own sectarian war against all people of  other sects including Deobandi, Salafi etc, then I must question your motives and take you for another rabble rousing politician. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/6/2012 11:11:07 PM



  • Dear Manzoorul Haque Saheb, I would just like to make a few quick points.

    1.    I do not identify with any sect at all. I believe in ideas of Tauheed, wahdatul wajood and wahdatul shohood and do not see any contradictions in them. I abhor the extremism and intolerance of Khwarij, Ibn-e-Taimiya and Mohammad Abdul Wahhab in their exposition of the idea of Tauheed. I find then ignorant of the vastness of the universe that is suffused with the spirit and energy of God. I abhor the superstitions of some people displayed at some Sufi shrines. But I find the Sufi shrines the only place where followers of several prophets of God come together on a seemingly religious platform. If there is one idea of Islam, I am too attached to it is the idea of God practically forcing us to believe in all prophets of God and put them all on the same pedestal as Prophet Mohammad. If there were a sect focussing on this idea, I would have been too attached to it, but unfortunately there isn’t. In fact I find that even Muslims who visit Sufi shrines are supremacists in their mindset, all the more so now under the Wahhabi supremacist mindset.

    2.    I love your comment: “I treat every ‘kalmago’ as my partner in faith.” If only our ulema from different sects would say that, we would have saved so much bloodshed, shedding of Muslims’ blood. But this definition of a Muslim, the only natural one, would also make Ahmadis, Wahhabis, Barelvis, Shias, all of them Muslim, and lead to closure of many Mullah shops; hence the fudging. You remember that when Justice Munir Ahmad of Pakistan asked the heads of different sects who is a Muslim, they all fudged their definition, so as to continue with their takfiri practices, calling all other sects kafir.

    3.    I cannot help being concerned with a large number of good, moderate people either leaving Islam or becoming intolerant supremacts, even terrorists under the Wahhabi onslaught.

    4.    Calling Younus Saheb (Rational) is a travesty. No wonder he relishes that. Most people around the world have the highest reverence for those who are considered mazjoob, totally absorbed in the idea and worship of God. From all accounts, including his own, Rational Younus is incapable of even appreciating mysticism. Becoming a mazjoob is the height a mystic master aspires for.

    5.    I hope all this discussion inspires you to study some Wahhabi texts and make up your own mind. If Islam has to survive as a significant religion, it has to oppose extremist ideologies within Islam. Belief in Tauheed, oneness of God, is good. But believing that those who bow to someone to show respect are committing shirk, the sin of idolatry or polytheism, attributing partner to God, making them liable for beheading,  is the height of absurdity. We can only survive as ummat-e-wasta, a moderate, balanced, tolerant, pluralistic, civilised community that God wanted to make us.

    6.    Look at some examples of lesser shirk from Wikipedia in the following ahadees, that ahl-e-hadees sects set great store by:

    A person commits hidden polytheism when he says tawhid, there is no god except Allah, but his thoughts and action does not reflect his belief.[1]

    Lesser shirk fundamentally stems from an underestimation of God. This intellectual defect leads to pride, arrogance, and self-delusion.[8]

    ·        Muhammad said[1]

    "One who offers the ritual prayers in an ostentatious way is a polytheist. One who keeps the fast, or gives alms, or performs the Hajj to show the public his righteousness or to earn good name is a polytheist"

    ·        Other accounts

    "Mahmud ibn Lubayd reported, "God's messenger said: "The thing I fear for you the most is ash-Shirk al-Asghar."

    The companions asked "Oh! messenger of God, what is that?"

    He replied "Ar-Riya (showing off), for verily God will say on the Day of Resurrection when people are receiving their rewards, 'Go to those for whom you were showing off in the material world and see if you can find any reward from them."

    "Mahmud ibn Lubayd also said, "The Prophet came out and announced, 'O people, beware of secret Shirk!'

    The people asked, 'O messenger of God, what is secret Shirk?'

    He replied, 'When a man gets up to pray and strives to beautify his prayer because people are looking at him; that is secret Shirk."

    Umar Ibn Al-Khattab narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: 'Whoever swears by other than Allah has committed an act of kufr or shirk.’” (graded hasan by Al-Tirmidhi and saheeh by Al-Hakim)

    Ibn Mas’ood, one of Muhammad’s companions, said: "That I should swear by Allah upon a lie is more preferable to me than that I should swear by another upon the truth.”[9] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirk_(Islam)

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/6/2012 4:44:44 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb, I didn’t request you to reply in detail to Hamza sahib. That is entirely your choice. The length and manner of your reply or a decision to ignore some comment is entirely for you to choose. I appreciated Haque Saheb asking you to engage with Hamza sahib in a different, unstated context.  I find another intellectual on the site Naseer sahib whom Haque sahib appreciates a great deal running away from pointed debates and never engaging with the questions he is asked, and Haque Saheb never asking him to answer questions he is asked.

    Don’t get me wrong, Haque sahib. I am an admirer of Naseer Saheb too.  If I had a mind to become a politician, I would request him to become my guru. I admire the thick skins and temerity of politicians I watch on TV debates; they keep saying what they want to regardless of the questions asked. The only option the anchor is left with sometimes is to bang her/his head with the nearest wall. I hope none of New Age Islam commentators or readers have resorted to this in dealing with Naseer Saheb. It was in the context of Haque Saheb’s great admiration for Naseer sahib’s contribution that I made that remark.  It is entirely your or any other commentator’s choice what he or she wants to do.

    By the way, I too admire Naseer saheb’s depth of knowledge and collection of url from American websites on some subjects. That’s why I offered to publish separate articles on all those subjects he was introducing in our debate as, what some commentator called, red herrings. Unfortunately, he did not take those offers, as probably his idea indeed is only to keep us from debating the so-called true and pure Islamic ideology behind intolerance and suicide attacks against mainstream Muslims in all parts of the world.

    I do, however, maintain that like the fundamentalists we cannot dismiss questions as coming from apostates and wash our hands with them. Somehow, instinctively, I don’t like the idea of branding any one apostate. In my mind, the idea of apostasy and its association with beheadings does not jell with the idea of “No compulsion with religion” that I believe in.  But, of course, anything I think or feel doesn’t have to be the final word for anyone else.

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/6/2012 4:43:15 PM



  • About those who are already dead and gone in history the Quran reminds us that they will be accountable for their deeds and we will not be asked about them; We need to worry about ours.
    To take history written down many generations after the blessed Muhammad as Gospel Truth is indulging in a fallacy with no end. Each sect has it's own favorite version. Why in the world we think we have the right version?
    If Islamic history was to be of vital importance, the Messenger and his first four successors would have made it their business to have it written down. They did not. We need to read the Qur'an and through mutual consultation apply it's guidance to suit our present times. Legislation of the past by jurist imams can be considered if still applicable subject to revision. By Mubashir - 12/6/2012 1:37:58 PM



  • Dear Janab Sultan Shahin sb,

    I am on same page with you over most of the things that you write. Please do not unduly worry about some Muslims leaving Islam; it is important for us that we are not leaving.

    I think you like to hear somebody condemn Wahabis/Salafis. To make you feel happy, let me state, I hereby condemn the sect of Wahabism/Salafism (based on your testimony, that for them sect is more important than Islam). [Please take it lightly. I know some of our fundamentalists are nuts and you are deeply concerned about their growing stature. Let us remain firm, steadfast and articulate in our moderation, and let us not yield the main space to them, by rightly identifying ourselves with common and central Muslim interests]. I condemn them while adding, I know nothing about them. Then why did I condemn them? I condemn everybody who identifies himself too strongly with a sect within Islam.

     If you also identify yourself (too strongly) with some sect, then please take it that you stand condemned in my eyes.

    As for me, I don’t identify myself even as a Sunni, to which family I am told I was born. I treat every ‘kalmago’ as my partner in faith. On other non-religious issues, I can denounce even my blood-brother. Also, I am not entirely against the existence of sects, groups, nationalities etc (that’s why the above words ‘too strongly’) which I see as a natural process of differentiation to add colors to the caravan of Muslims, provided this differentiation is not at the cost of the integrative spirit of Islam, in its essential tasks of the pursuit of ‘good’ for the mankind. I hope you identify me as an ultra-modern (my bad luck, for having seen much rough and tumble of life) person who likes to introduce himself as a conservative Muslim, because of striking resemblance of his social orientation with the social philosophy of Islam.

    When I look at the world around me, I painfully notice how man (by the traits he has been known) is losing his foothold so fast from the scheme of life, and in the void that may arise, forces of anarchy are preparing to take over. Islam is the only force I find today that is holding out in favor of mankind. Hence my affiliation.

    It is not without reason that the forces of anarchy have attached themselves to New Age Islam from the day one of its inception. I find on this website the latest incarnation of one Majzoob masquerading himself as the parallel of Allah. He races his bicycle down the slopes of a hill and wants us to applaud at his speeding skill. For thousands of years, trillions and trillions of human beings have not been able to think, what he is capable of thinking and spreading on your website. I think as editor and publisher of this website you have a duty to tell him, that Allah is the Only and Supreme Deity of all of us Muslims, and it is not open for him to ridicule Allah.

    About Godhra thing, I never had a doubt that it was an accident and have written a pretty analytical piece on it, which was quoted the other day by Mr. Sadaf. Now you are seeing another piece on you website about how Ibn Taymiyya’s Madrin Fatwa could be distorted and misused. My thrust has always been to request readers not to run after the ‘crow’, they must first see whether their ‘ears’ are in the place. Your website is doing a wonderful job by making readers, commentators and writers alike to ‘grow more mature’, which is needed to come at par with the western/world standards.

    By Manzoorul Haque - 12/6/2012 1:31:40 PM



  • Since both Haque Sb and Shahin Sb say that I should have answered Hamzah Sb, let me say that I did give my answer when I said, "While I too cherish freedom of speech and freedom to think, in my view our pursuit of reforms and liberalization will not necessarily be helped by apostate rhetoric." Please do not expect lengthy answers from me.

    Which is true Islam? The Wahabbi/Salafi version or the tolerant, inclusive and rational version? Well, both versions lay claim to be true Islam. This battle is still to be fought and won. It has to be a battle of the minds and not of guns. It will be a fierce battle. Let us not assume that we shall win. An unfortunate scenario that could possibly unfold may be that instead of the two sides being Salafis vs Moderates, they may be Salafis vs Apostates. The moderates can be wiped out unless they take this battle seriously. The Salafis think they are the true Muslims. The apostates too think that the Salafis are the true Muslims. The Hindutvawadis, the Zionists and the Islamophobes too think that the Salafis are the true Muslims. That may suggest that no one takes the moderates seriously. It should give us, the moderates, an idea of how steep is the hill that we have to climb.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/6/2012 1:31:10 PM



  • Naseer Sb,

    Analyzing behavior is a legtimate activity for academicians, but it should not lead to a softening of our attitudes towards either Hitler or the Talibans. Complacency is the last thing we should try to cultivate when individual freedom is at stake.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/6/2012 12:42:31 PM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin Saheb
    My mind doesn’t accept mystical things. Allah and his plan of creation or his testing of people is beyond my comprehension.
    If I don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution I am not bound to hell. It is equally applicable to all that I don't understand in the science. The problem with religion is if i don't believe in God or afterlife etc I am bound to hell even if I am a good person. It is my argument not declaration that I am a saint. I do commit many mistakes as a normal human being does.
    The Quran doesn't give me all answers. Specially will of God, testing and guidance, predestination etc. I have posted clear verses that confuse my mind but not a single suitable answer I have got. It is quite possible there is no answer. When someone say I must read the Quran with open mind, for me it is like someone saying close your mind.
    If Allah wants to throw us into the hell for our disbelief let him do it. I am fearless. If I do something wrong it will affect me in some way. How I don't know. No one has come back to tell what happens after one dies. All are speculations, rebirth or judgment day etc.

    I thank you for your kind words and a soft corner you have for me and persons likes me.
    By rational - 12/6/2012 11:09:08 AM



  • @Mr GHULAM GHAUS. I could write on the wives of the prophet and their relations but I will be hurled with venom by these moderate Muslims like Jehadi Mullah as it happened when I quoted about the prophet from the Sira, Ahadith and history. By rational - 12/6/2012 9:34:39 AM



  • A correction: Mr Ghulam Ghaus not Mr Ghulam Rasool. I sincerely regret using name of Mr Ghulam Rasool.

    [Correction has been carried out in the previous comment. -- Editor]

    By rational - 12/6/2012 9:25:44 AM



  • @ Mr Ghulam Ghouse. I have been reading from my childhood. The references you have given and talk  between Heracules and Abu Sufyan. I have read Seerat by ibn e hisham. Seerat by Syed Sulaiman Nadvi. Book on Hz Umar Farooq and Imam Ghazali by Allama Shibli.
    I read Mukammal tarikh-i Islam by Shaukat Ali Fahmi. Even I know how Muslims defend the wars within Muslim community specially between Hz Aisha and Hz Ali.
    Every bit you wrote from the history in your comment is in my knowledge. You say I know nothing about Islam and history. What a joke?
    Either you or Mr Mohammed Yunus is wrong about my knowledge of Islam and history.
    That's why Mr Md Yunus said " you are internal witness to out side world against the Islam.".
    What about the murder of Hz Uthman at the hands of the sons of Jaleel-ul-qadr sahabas and their comments on the wife of Hz Uthman Hz Naila?
    Mr Ghulam Rasool whatever defamatory material is in Islamic books is, is not written by me. It is written by your revered holy people.
    You belong to Sufi version of Islam. The writings of Sufia karam is full of shirk and bidat and their practices are alien to Islam.
    You might have gone through "Criminals of Islam" by Dr Shabbir Ahmed. What he has quoted from the Writings of these holy people of Allah is worth reading. I have got it printed for reading. If you want to refute, refute this book. It defame all your saints and Imams saying criminals.
    When I stayed in Bangle wali Masjid (Tablighi Markaz) in Hz Nizamuddin there was a series on Fadail-e-sahabab after Isha. They used selective Ahadith to glorify every sahaba. But Ahadith and history are full of derogatory accounts about sahaba and other Islamic personalities.
    If you like I can continue.....
    It is my way of learning. I read works of Muslims and Non-Muslims. I visit Islamic and Apostate sites both.
    You are a good man. If you think it is due to Islam. That is fine. I have nothing against you. I am also not a criminal. If quoting from Authentic sources makes me criminal then I am. And I don't ask any pardon from anybody including Allah. By rational - 12/6/2012 9:21:32 AM



  • Dear Manzoorul Haque Saheb,

     

    If only you stopped confusing Wahhabi-Salafi Islam with Islam or equating this intolerant, extremist, exclusivist, aggressive, misogynist, virulent, violent version of Islam with Islam, you would not write the following:

     

    “The question about terrorism, asked by Janab Sultan sb and the questions raised by Janab Hamza sb, arising from the explanatory note of Janab Yunus sb may be having different perspectives but both questions are having the same direction. The direction points to inherently violent nature of Islam as some of the liberal Muslims have begun to believe along with non-Muslims.”

    Do I not consider Wahhabi-Islam as Islam then? I do. They are a version of Islam that has existed since earliest times in Islamic history in different names, with new ideologues adding to its virulent ideology and practice. But we cannot, we should not disown them. However, we should contest their interpretation of Islam and present what we consider the correct version of Islam, that is Islam which in our view is tolerant, inclusive (indeed, I consider Islam the most determinedly inclusivist religion), pluralistic, loving, women-friendly, human-rights-friendly, environment-friendly, middle-of-the-road religion which wants us to be an ummat-e-wasta, a community, moderate, balanced, cantered, never extremist in any respect.   

    Yes, you are right in one respect, though you don’t understand the reason behind it. You love Wahhabis too much to see what lies behind the phenomenon.

     

    I have pointed out many a time in the past, and with great sadness and regret, that many moderate, liberal, peace-loving Muslims who could have been a great support to the task New Age Islam has set before itself, have practically left Islam, at least in their minds, though for various personal reasons, family, social pressures, fear of Wahhabis, do not declare their disbelief. I have many friends, (most of them Jannatis, in my mind, as they are good people) who tell me that I am selling a fake version of Islam. Under massive Wahhabi propaganda, backed by hundreds of billions of petrodollars, they have come to believe that Wahhabi-Salafi Islam is the real Islam, and since they are too good a people to believe in a religion like that so they do not consider Islam a good religion anymore and themselves not Muslim, at least in their minds.

     

    Some of those who are similarly affected by Wahhabi-Salafi propaganda about Wahhabi Islam being “true” Islam but love Islam too much to renounce it even in their minds engage with us moderates.  I would put Mr. Hamza and Mr Younus (Rational) in this category, whether they agree with me or not. Some of their ideas and questions may have come from their interaction with people who have renounced Islam altogether under the Wahhabi onslaught. But if we do not engage with them, try to answer their question to the best of our ability, (I am glad you requested GM Saheb to reply to Hamza Sb’s questions regardless of where they came from), we are simply asking them to renounce Islam.  

     

    It is true that no matter how adequate your reply, some people will not see what you see in those arguments. Obviously faith comes from somewhere beyond rationality. You need to go beyond rationality to find faith. But faith cannot afford to be irrational. Blind faith is not faith. It’s superstition, ignorance. Our religion asks us to think, question, observe, and then believe.

     

    Now things happened in the time of the prophet which we do not understand fully. Some people will not accept the prophet as prophet until they understand these events fully. Of course, they never will. This they do not see. But am I being irrational in my faith in the prophet. I don’t think so. Why? I see that things happen today in my personal, family and public life that I don’t understand fully. Can anybody tell me for sure what happened at Godhra? I believe it was an accident, though preceded and followed by events that are bound to raise doubts and other beliefs, all equally valid and invalid. I saw recently pictures of train bogeys burnt in an accident caused by some electrical fault. The picture was so eerily familiar to me and so reminiscent of Godhra train’s pictures that I still wonder why no one else, to my knowledge, connected the two.

     

    Anyway, the point is there are so many things happening today in this age of media and communications revolution that we do not know exactly what happened and why. To expect to understand fully why the prophet did what he did 1400 years ago, and even exactly what he actually did, not to speak of his motivations, is to my mind not being rational but irrational. As long as I see that the overall message of Islam, particularly the Meccan Islam, for which the prophet and his followers had to migrate, appeals to my heart and mind, I have no problem believing in Allah’s divinity and Mohammad’s prophethood.

     

     However, to rationals their logic and to me my logic. As long as I see rationals as good people, engaged in good deeds in their life, at least refraining from bad deeds, particularly if they have at least treated weaker sections of their family and society kindly, I see then as jannatis, regardless of whether faith has entered their hearts or not. This is what I have learned from Islam. Our God is Rahman and Rahim, words used more than 150 times in Quran, not wrathful (word used only thrice in the whole Quran).

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/6/2012 8:43:10 AM



  • Fabulous reply of Mr. Ghulam Ghaus sb. to rational etc. I had hoped Mr. Naseer Ahmed or Mr. Muhammad Yunus sb to be coming forth with such a well-researched response, but am doubly glad to see that we have yet another.

    I had formulated my own response to the questions raised, without the backing of references etc., but on the basis of my general understanding of issues and of historical events. However I delayed posting the same because I wanted to see how Mr. Mohiyuddin sb tackles these questions. After reading, the detailed write-up of Mr. Ghulam Rasool my response is not needed on the subject and yet I am posting it below, for some gentlemen to know that these are established doctrines within Islam - believed by those who are normal Muslims. The human rights angle has also been taken care of by me, because the reactionary forces would just not like to see any advancement of justice and peace:

    “Already 406 comments. And with the following, Mr.Hamza has opened another Pandora’s box, “The other is that the method necessarily involves trampling on the most precious of human rights, namely the right to freedom of thought and belief. This has evoked widespread criticism, which is not easily answerable. Is use of the sword to force people into profession of a doctrine or a religion meritorious? Is it compatible with ideals of justice and humanity?” and “No amount of explanations can justify the attacks on Rome and Faras, the then Persia as defensive wars.”

    The question about terrorism, asked by Janab Sultan sb and the questions raised by Janab Hamza sb, arising from the explanatory note of Janab Yunus sb may be having different perspectives but both questions are having the same direction. The direction points to inherently violent nature of Islam as some of the liberal Muslims have begun to believe along with non-Muslims.

    Good that Mr. Hamza has brought up the most precious question of trampling of the human rights, namely the right to freedom of thought and belief. Else, I would have brought up this question first. Thank God there are powerful Christians in this world who got the judicial authorities, the world over, including India (please look for India’s Supreme Court judgment on this), to permit inclusion of the right to‘propagate’ as inherent part of the right to belief.

    Now let us examine the process of ‘propagation’and the role of violence in it, especially in the days when there were no Supreme Courts. There is a ‘mother population’ which does not believe in a clear-cut religious doctrine or they passingly believe (in the sense that they are receptive to new ideas too) in some kind of superstitions and voodoos. There are local leaders who control and promote the superstitious activities to extract some privileges for themselves. In this situation a maverick introduces new set of ideas challenging (all prophets and dharma gurus did that) the old exploitative ideas. What does the human rights doctrine say? The maverick should be beaten or killed by the local leaders for trampling upon the most precious of human rights, namely the right to freedom of thought and belief.

    There is a possibility that in the larger arena of the society, the local vested interests will initiate a fight against maverick and his team and demolish them. Indeed many such flames of change are extinguished in the beginning, sometimes for the better, because all agents of change are not always good.

    However, the real tussle starts when the impending good is pitted against existing evil. Who has got a better claim over human rights? If the ‘mother population, of society in whose arena the tussle is unfolding begins to support the maverick, the moral advantage lies with the maverick. A study of the institution of prophet-hood would reveal that in the formative stages of the human civilization, prophets were born who were extreme mavericks with highest standards of morality and righteousness (it is no coincidence that institution of prophet-hood is over, because such men are born no more).

    Prophet of Islam (pbuh) knew the fate of ‘Faras’,as the fate of one who is pitted against a moral force. For Romans, it was a second time, in the first instance they were brought to dust by Prophet issa (pbuh), who precipitated the enactment of his crucifixion, though Romans tried everything to avoid it, because Prophet Issa knew the fate of one who is pitted against a moral force.

    Violence is started by the vested interest at the sight of a puritan ideology, and ends with the victory of the righteous and this is what happened with the history of Islam too (all initial clashes resulted from illegal hindrance in the movement of Islamic ideas to the local populaces), except when the later-day fights were purely for the expansion of empire by kings who happened to be Muslims and who fraudulently derived the advantage of Islamic fervor to spread the light of Islam. Had Islam travelled to India the way it did to Indonesia and Malaysia, things would have been different.

    The present state of conflict of Muslims with surrounding non-Islamic societies in respective local situations or with the so-called world powers in global situation is a two-way affair. Even if Muslims crave for peace (appeals to reason that a weaker party would like peace), the enemies of Muslims would not handover peace so easily. The more peace-lovers we have, the more chances there are for the peace to elude us.

    This is unfortunate, but this is what we are witnessing. The situation has come to pass, that the enemies will spend money to create peace-lovers amongst Muslims. Therefore, as one who craves peace, I do not place much premium on the well-healed peaceniks, who can be seen pushing me from behind to make declarations."'

    By Manzoorul Haque - 12/6/2012 6:15:56 AM



  • GM Sb,

    I am not interested in defending or attacking anyone. I am analyzing behaviour for proper understanding.

    The Taliban are violent psychopaths who live by the gun. The behaviour expected from such people is:

    Aggression, Coercion, Blackmail, Extortion, Rape, killing, Sadism

    In terms of detail it may take forms which you may identify as an ideology.  ‘Ideology’ is a misnomer. At the top of the pyramid is the leader.  Most leaders even in politics and business are psychopaths although not given to violence. A psychopath by definition is a person who lacks conscience or the ability to make moral choices. Lack of moral compulsions makes them manipulative. Their charisma consists in the charm that they can turn on to achieve their ends and even serial killers possess such charm in ample measure. Their victims walk into their traps most wilingly. Charismatic leaders attract a large following. The followers trust their leaders and follow them. It is enough if the leader says that what he is asking them to do is morally and religiously justified. The followers are largely incapable of thinking for themselves and even if they entertain doubts, they are quickly `satisfied’ with the ‘explanation’ or ‘justification’. Going up in the esteem of the leader by pleasing him or getting close by winning his trust, is the goal of most people and not moral correctness. If you have worked for any large organization, you would have observed such behaviour. The exceptions are few and either leave on their own or are fired. It comes therefore as no surprise that large scale frauds involving hundreds of employees have taken place in Enron, Worldcom or closer home.

    From an article on this site you may have read that Ibn Tamiya’s fatwa was progressive for his times. A word in the Fatwa has been changed to justify terrorism today. Is the person who changed the word an ideologue or a rogue politician? Can the fatwa or any religious text deliberately tampered to suit someone’s political objectives be called an ideology?

    So such ‘ideologies’ change with the times and compulsions of the day and is the handmaiden of the leaders.

    Man has a need to feel that whatever he is doing is good. So an `ideology’ is cooked up by the leaders to satisfy the needs of his followers. Philosopher Fredrick Nietzsche declared that God is dead.  If God is dead, then morality is a matter of personal choice. The root of a person’s denial of God is also the person’s moral depravity. It is far too uncomfortable for a morally depraved person to believe in God. So such an `ideology’ today has many takers. Nietzsche has merely manufactured a `product’ that has a wide market. So also the leaders concoct extreme ideologies to suit their political ends and their violent followers.

    What makes you look for rationality, justice, compassion, equality etc in religion? You will follow someone who provides what you crave for. Or if you are the type who must first like the person and then you follow whatever he says, or the type who goes along with his best friend, then you would be one among the common masses.

    Read about Milgrams experiments. They explain how Hitler could make otherwise decent Germans 'cooperate' in targeting Jews or how anyone in a position of 'apparent authority' can do the same or why New Age Islam can never be truly democratic.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/6/2012 5:31:36 AM



  • Naseer Sb, Trying to find explanations for the Talibans who oppose girls' education may be okay but when they shoot Malala and destroy girls' schools, and when they are the same people who punish men for shaving off their beards, who destroy Bamiyan Buddhas and who require Hindus in Afghanistan to wear identity labels, we are dealing with a backward and virulent ideology. At some point we have to stop looking for excuses for them. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/6/2012 2:42:15 AM



  • Hamzah Sb, apostasy is not a crime, but using the writings of others as one's own is not considered good practice. However I shall not let it be a cause of disrespect for you.

    Hat Off, I do not use the word "apostate" inappropriately. Read my comment again and you will see that the word has not been used pejoratively as you allege. We cannot discuss what we discuss here without using words like apostate, atheist, Salafist, wahabist, Sufi, Barelvi etc. Some well-known apostates have created a website which proudly calls itself "Apostates of Islam".

    http://www.apostatesofislam.com/index.htm

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/6/2012 2:22:35 AM



  • GM Sb, Take the simple Malala case, the various articles and comments on the subject. All of them blame radical, ultra conservative, Islam for it. Now look at my comment on the subject that I am reproducing from an earlier comment:
    “The Malala case is about women’s education. Even in India today, a highly qualified woman with a good job has a problem finding a mate since men will not marry a woman who is more qualified. The problem is particularly severe in rural areas where a well educated woman will find it impossible to find a match. Families in states like Haryana, Rajasthan, Bihar, UP actively discourage women from pursuing studies beyond the 7th class for fear that they will not be able to find a match. The Taliban’s opposition to women’s education has to be understood in this light. He has from an early age, gone for military training and is mostly uneducated and would not like to have an educated girl as his wife. The solution lies in first educating the men.
    The fact of the matter is that in today’s world pre marital sex among the Muslim in India, especially among those girls who are employed is becoming common. Divorces have also become common. Divorces are certainly preferable to a life of slavery to a despotic husband and maybe Muslim society is transitioning to getting used to a more liberated female. These changes will be resisted. We have to find ways of modernising without turning into an adulterous people.
    Now while the Taliban and every Muslim seeks to justify all his actions in terms of religion, the real cause and its solution is what I have described above.”
    The views of those who blame the ideology is what we may refer to as the “literalist” view. They take literally what the person is saying and the reasons he assigns which is nothing but rationalization of a deeper underlying reason which are his fears of the consequences of the women get educated when he himself is uneducated. The solution therefore is not to justify women’s education in the light of the Quran or ideology but to ensure that the men are educated.
    All my analysis ignores the ‘literalist’ approach. It is not too difficult either. Look at behaviour from the perspective of who all, apart from the Taliban, behave in a similar fashion and what is common among them. Religion and ideology are not common among the Taliban and the Haryanwi rustic. What is common is their lack of education and tribal patriarchal cultures.
    Do you have any reason to believe that the Barelvi and indeed the Christian or the Jew is less sectarian? In fact, we have every reason to believe that the Barelvis are equally sectarian because they were in the forefront in getting the Ahmediyas declared non-Muslim minority and Ahmed Khan Barelvi issued a fatwa declaring the Shia, Deobandi, Wahabi etc as apostate. There were anti Shia riots before the Taliban days in which the Barelvi participated.
     There are well documented research findings that prove that before taking responses to questions, if a person is asked to handle a gun for five minutes, he chooses the aggressive response vis-à-vis persons who are given some other object to handle. Significant increase in testosterone levels after mere handling of a weapon has also been measured. People who are muscular tend to display aggressive behaviour. Take any young person and see the change in his behaviour after he starts going to the gym regularly. He becomes more aggressive (he can be counselled into adopting normal behaviour).  If mere handling of a gun for five minutes can change a person’s responses and testosterone levels so dramatically, the effect of military training and carrying arms combined with group dynamics make him lethal. Exposure to war does other things to a person’s psyche and I have discussed these in detail. His behaviour is therefore fully explained by factors other than ideology and religion.
    The educational levels of the Muslims being what it is, they are mostly literalists. Where they are not literalist is when they allow their imagination to run wild and make interpretations and draw inferences that are not supported by data and by relevant analogy. That is when they show themselves to be imbeciles as we quite often see on this website.
    It has largely been a pleasure to interact with you GM Sb, and wish you all the best. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/6/2012 1:09:30 AM



  • Dear rational, I think you have no knowledge of Islam and its history which is full of peaceful suggestions and preferences even in the warlike situations .You need go through Islamic concepts regarding war, mutual conflict ,violent incidents ,the cause of splinter injury, killing of innocent lives in all the way as much as possible. You ask questions" How many wars were fought in defence by the prophet? ".

    As is it very clear that each and every war was fought in the defence just to make peaceful environment .Islam is the religion of peace: its meaning is peace (السلام ). The daily greetings of Muslims and angles is 'peace'(السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته) meaning peace be upon you .Paradise is the house of peace (دارالسلام ). Peace is the nature, the meaning, the emblem, and the objective of Islam. Every being is entitled to enjoy the peace of Islam.

    There is no religion or consideration or constitutions that guarantees peaceful freedom religion and forbids compulsion in religion except Islam."There is no compulsion in religion"(surah Al-Baqarah verse no-256).In Islam, every effort is thus made to protect the peace of not only the Muslims, but also of the followers of other faiths. Allah Almighty says:

    And if Allah did not defend some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques wherein the name of Allah is oft remembered. (Ch.22: v.41)

    However, Muslims have been warned by the Holy Founder of Islam, Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, that when they enter the territory of those who have been terrorizing and harshly persecuting them, they should not lose all sense of perspective and justice, and be tempted to start acting savagely, like the terrorists themselves. The worst crime of ungratefulness would be that committed by a people who, having forgotten that they had just been subjected to terrible cruelties, start meting out the same, if not worse, cruelties to others.

    The Prophet ordered: ‘You will meet those who remember Almighty Allah in their houses of worship. Have no dispute with them, and give no trouble to them. In the enemy country, do not kill any women or children, or the blind, or the old. Do not pull down any tree; nor pull down any building.’ (Quoted from Halbiyyah, Vol.3). "And kill not your own selves. Surely Allah is Merciful to you. (Ch.4: v. 30)"and cast not yourselves into ruin with your own hands… (Ch.2: v.196)"Islam strictly forbids the killing of innocent, non-aggressive people:…no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors. (Ch.2: v.194)."Once the evildoers have ceased misbehaving and have been justly punished for their crimes, then Allah Almighty says:" And fight them until there is no more persecution, and religion is freely professed for Allah. But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors. (Ch.2: v.194).

    And many other sayings of Allah the Almighty and his beloved prophet Muhammad peace be upon him reveal true concepts regarding war. So how can this religion claims innocent lives without any reason. Those wars were in fact made just for the defense.In every war the holy companions, tried first to bury the hatchet and patch up whereas the enemies were restless to commit bitter blood-letting in the shed of deep rooted- conspiracy against Islam, the prophet in order to annihilate and root out the holy companions’ lives.

    As for the Persia's king, you need go through properly, who was just killed by his own son. Continue to read on.... One of the superpower of the day was the Persian Empire. Its Emperor was Khusru II, who acceded to the Persian throne in the year AD 590. Historians agree that Khusru II was one of the most powerful emperors of Persia that in his reign the Persian Empire reached the pinnacle of its affluence. He even claimed that he was a god in the shape of a man.

    The Prophet sent his brave companion Abdullah ibn Hudhafah with a message inviting Khusru to Islam. The Prophet’s letter ran as follows:
    “In the name of God, The Merciful, the Beneficent. From Muhammad, God’s Messenger, to Khusru, the leader of Persia. Peace be to him who follows right guidance, believes in God and His Messenger, and declares that there is no deity but God, the only God who has no partners, and that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger. I wish to convey to you God’s call, for I am God’s Messenger to all mankind, sent with the task of warning all those who are alive that doom will befall the unbelievers. If you submit to God you will be safe. If you refuse, you shall bear the responsibility for the Magians.”

    When Khusru read the Prophet’s letter, he flew into a fury tearing it to pieces, saying:
    “How dare he write this sort of letter to me when he is my slave” ?”
    Khusru then wrote to Badhan (or Badham), who was governor of Yemen, a Persian province ordering him to send some soldiers to arrest the Prophet and bring him to his court. Immediately Badhan sent one of his assistants, and a Persian officer called Kharkharah with a warrant which required the Prophet to surrender himself to them and go with them to Khusru. Badhan, however, asked his assistant to find out the truth about the Prophet.

    Abadhaweih and his companion travelled from Yemen until they arrived in Ta’if, about 100 kilometres from Makkah. Its people told them that the Prophet was now in Madinah. The Ta’if people – who were not Muslims at the time – and the Quraysh were very pleased when they learnt that the Persian Emperor had ordered the arrest of Muhammad feeling that Muhammad was now facing his most difficult test.

    The two officers from Yemen came to the Prophet in Madinah. Abadhaweih said to him: “Khusru, the king of kings, has written to Badhan, the king of Yemen, commanding him to send us to take you to him. If you comply, Badhan will write to the king of kings interceding on your behalf. This will spare you a great deal of trouble. If you reject his order, you know how powerful he is. He is sure to destroy you and your people as well as your country.”

    The Prophet asked them to wait till the following day when he was to meet them again. In the meantime, the Prophet received information through the Angel Gabriel that God had caused Khusru to be killed by his own son Shirweih, giving him the exact time of night and the date when Khusru was killed.

    The Prophet called in the Persian messengers and told them of the killing of their Emperor. They said to him: “Do you realize what you are saying? Your arrest has been ordered for something much more trivial than this. Do you still wish us to write this down and inform King Badhan of what you have just said?” The Prophet replied: “Yes. Tell him also on my behalf that my religion and my kingdom will replace that of Khusru and will sweep all before it. Tell him also that if he accepts Islam, I will give him what he has now under his authority and will make him a ruler in the area he now governs.” The Prophet also gave Kharkharah a sack of gold and silver which was sent to him as a present by another king. About the Roman king Hercules.......

    Heracules was the man who rescued the Byzantine Empire and gave it a new lease of life after it was about to collapse before the Persian Empire. He was a military commander in Carthage when he was summoned to take up the positions of Emperor and Military Commander of the Empire in AD 610. He was able to bring about a radical transformation in the fortunes of the Byzantine Empire. In a few years, he inflicted a heavy defeat on the Persian Empire which threatened its very existence. This victory took place in AD 625.

    Four years later, he went to Jerusalem to fulfil his pledge of returning the holy crucifix to it after recovering it from the Persians. He was given a grand reception, with people laying out carpets for him to walk on and saluting him with flowers and cheers. A grand celebration was organized for the return of the holy crucifix to its place. It was during his visit to Jerusalem that Dihyah, the Prophet’s envoy, arrived there to give him the Prophet’s message. Heracules read the Prophet’s message which ran as follows:

    In the name of God, the Merciful, the Beneficent.
    From Muhammad, God’s messenger to Heracules , the Byzantine ruler. Peace be to those who follow right guidance.
    I call on you to believe in Islam. Adopt Islam and you will be safe, and God will give you a double reward. If you decline, you shall bear responsibility for the Arians. (The Arians were the followers of Arius, the Egyptian who believed in the Oneness of God and denied that the father and the son were two manifestations of the Lord.)
    Heracules received the Prophet’s envoy well, but he wanted to establish for himself the Prophet’s true nature. He, therefore, ordered his aides to find any person from Arabia who happened to be in the area, so that he could question him about the Prophet. It happened that Abu Sufyan, the Quraysh leader, was in Gaza. He was brought to Heracules with a number of his compatriots.
    Heracules spoke to them through his interpreter, asking them first: “Who is the closest relative among you to this man who claims to be a prophet?” Abu Sufyan told him that he was. Heracules asked him to come forward.
    He also placed the other Arabs just behind Abu Sufyan and told them that he was about to put some questions to him. He wanted them to point out to him any lie Abu Sufyan might tell. Abu Sufyan, however, did not wish to be known for telling a lie in that company.
    The conversation went as follows:
    Heracules: What sort of family lineage has he among you?
    Abu Sufyan: His ancestry is a distinguished one.
    Heracules: Was any of his forefathers a king?
    Abu Sufyan: No.
    Heracules: Has anyone among you come out with a similar claim before him?
    Abu Sufyan: No.
    Heracules: Do the majority of his followers belong to the aristocracy, or are they poor people?
    Abu Sufyan: They are poor.
    Heracules: Do they increase or decrease?
    Abu Sufyan: They are on the increase.
    Heracules: Does any of them turn away from his religion after having embraced it?
    Abu Sufyan: No.
    Heracules: Have you ever known him to lie before he started to make his claim?
    Abu Sufyan: No.
    Heracules: Is he given to treachery?
    Abu Sufyan: No. We, however, have an armistice agreement with him for the time being, and we do not know what he will do during this period.
    Heracules: Have you ever fought him?
    Abu Sufyan: Yes.
    Heracules: How did your fighting go?
    Abu Sufyan: Sometimes he wins and sometimes we win.
    Heracules: What sort of commandments does he give you?
    Abu Sufyan: He tells us to worship God alone, without ascribing Divinity to anyone else. He tells us not to follow our fathers. He commands us to pray and to be truthful and chaste and kind to our fellow human beings.
    HERCULES: You have mentioned that he enjoys distinguished ancestry, and this is the case with all prophets and messengers. Since you say that no one else among you has made similar claims, I cannot say that he is imitating anyone. You also denied that any of his forefathers was a king, which means that he is not a claimant of a kingdom. You also say that he was not known to tell a lie before he came out with his message. Well, I know that he would not start by lying to God.

    You also denied that he is treacherous, and no messenger of God was a treacherous person. You also said that he calls on you to believe in the Oneness of God and to pray and to be truthful and chaste. If what you have told me is true, then he will have the supremacy right here where I stand. I knew that his time was due, but I did not think that he would belong to your people. Had it been in my power, I would certainly have taken the trouble to meet him and wash his feet.You have stated that the poor are his followers, and this is the case with all messengers from God. The fact that his followers are on the increase again confirms a phenomenon which is always associated with true faith, until it is completed. You have also mentioned that no one turns away from his religion after having embraced it. This is a characteristic of faith when its light shines in people’s hearts.

    This is the most authentic report of Heracules’ reaction when he received the message sent him by the Prophet. There are other reports which are less authentic, suggesting that Heracules tried to persuade his bishops and his advisers to embrace Islam, but they were all unanimous (with one exception) in opposing him. One report suggests that the exception was the Archbishop, who was killed on the spot when he declared that he believed in the new Messenger.

    Whatever the truth about these reports ,the fact remains that Heracules did not adopt Islam, and that perhaps this was due to his fear that he would lose his throne as a result. Heracules also chose to send back a diplomatic reply, pretending that he personally accepted Islam but was prevented from publicizing the fact by the opposition of his Church. He gave Dihyah, the Prophet’s envoy, a sum of money in gold currency and the Prophet distributed it to the poor in the Muslim community.

    In sending his messengers far and wide, Prophet Muhammad was to make a point of the universality of Islam that it was not a religion just for Arabs or Arabia, rather for the whole world.

    In the mentioned conversations between Hercules and Abu Sufiyan it is clear that the prophet along with his holy companions lived very simple life.

    As for the holy wives go through its depth with far-sight" In Surah Ahzab chapter 33 verse 52:
    "It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as hand maidens) and Allah doth watch over all things ". [Al-Qur’an 33:52]
    This verse clearly gives Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) the permission to keep all his previous wives but prohibits him to marry any more women except those which his right hand possessed i.e. slave girls.
    The Prophet (pbuh) was allowed to keep all his previous wives because no one was allowed to marry the Prophet’s wives (ra) after they were divorced or widowed as they were ummul-momineen (mother of the believers)
    People falsely accuse the Prophet (pbuh) of being hypersexual, because he had eleven wives. If you read the life history of the Prophet (pbuh), only two of his marriages one with Khadija (ra), and the other, with Ayesha (ra) were marriages in the normal course. All his other marriages were contracted as a necessity and were based on various considerations.
    The first marriage of the Prophet (pbuh) took place when he was 25 years of age and he married Khadija (ra) who was twice widowed, and was 40 years old. If the Prophet (pbuh) was hypersexual, why would he marry a woman who was 15 years older than him and already twice widowed?
    Until his first wife, Khadija (ra) was alive, he never took a second wife. Khadija (ra) expired when the Prophet (pbuh) was 50 years age and only after this, did he marry the others. If he married eleven wives for sexual reasons, he should have had multiple wives during his youth. Contrary to this, history tells us that all his marriages with his remaining ten wives took place when he was between the age of 53 and 59 years.
    All his wives (ra) were between the age of 36 to 50 years, except for two wives (ra). His reputation had spread far and wide, not only in Arabia, but also in the neighbouring countries. Could he not have easily got younger and lovelier girls to marry? Most of his marriages were for political gain and for the spread of Islaam.
    In Arabia, no one could carry on the work of reform and upliftment unless he belonged to, or was related to some specific and respectable tribe. Thus, in the interest of his mission, the Prophet (pbuh) needed inter-tribal relationships. He wanted to weld the quarreling tribal and clannish factions into one Muslim ummah, as brethren in faith (Ikhwan fi’d-din).
    For instance, his wife Juwayreeyah (ra) belonged to the Banu Mustaliq clan, which was very powerful. The entire clan was a bitter enemy of Islam from the start, and they were finally suppressed by military action. When the Prophet (pbuh) married Juwayreeyah (ra), the Muslims released all their prisoners, saying that they could not keep the prophet’s relatives in bondage. It was due to this marriage that the whole clan of Banu Mustaliq accepted Islam and became peaceful and obedient to the laws of the new Islaamic state. Maymunah (ra) also came from a very powerful and recalcitrant clan from Najd and was the sister of the wife of the chief of the clan in those days. It was this clan which had brutally murdered seventy members of an Islaamic missionary deputation. The Prophet’s (pbuh) marriage with Maymunah (ra) changed the whole atmosphere and Najd accepted Madinah’s authority under the leadership of the Prophet (pbuh). Umm Habibah (ra) was the daughter of the Quraysh chief, Abu Sufyan. It was after the Prophet’s (pbuh) marriage to Umm Habibah, that Abu Sufyan never fought against the Prophet (pbuh). This marriage was largely responsible for the conquest of Makkah. Furthermore, Umm Habibah was first married to a certain Ubaydullah and emigrated with him to Abyssinia, where Ubaydullah became a Christian and a drunkard. Excessive consumption of wine killed him since it was a double shock to her that her husband had become a Christian and later died, she was badly in need of solace.

    Safiyyah (ra) was the daughter of a very prominent Jewish chief, Huyyah ibn Aktab. In consideration of her family status, she could not be merged into an ordinary household. So the Prophet (pbuh) himself married her. After this marriage, the Jews did not dare to revive their opposition to the Prophet (pbuh) and his mission. In the case of Hafsah (ra), it was the Prophet’s (pbuh) desire to bind in relationship with those of his great companions (sahabah) who were his advisers and who were trained for future leadership.

    He had married Abu Bakr’s (ra) daughter, married two of his own daughters to Uthman (ra) and one to ‘Ali (ra). ‘Umar (ra) could not be kept outside this wide circle of relationship. By marrying Umar’s daughter Hafsah (ra), the Prophet (pbuh) forged a strong bond of relationship within the Islamic movement thus strengthening the pillars of the ummah.

    The Prophet (pbuh) had married his first cousin, Zaynab (ra), to his freed slave, Zayd ibn Haritha (ra), whom he had adopted as his son. This marriage of Zaynab (ra) with Zayd (ra) was intended to break the family and social barriers, but the marriage did not prove to be successful and ended in divorce. When the Prophet (pbuh) saw that Zaynab (ra) was left alone, he felt his responsibility in the matter. He also had to break another convention, according to which an adopted son became a real son. This difficult problem was solved by the Prophet’s (pbuh) marriage to Zaynab (ra) (as mentioned in the Qur’an, in Surah Ahzab, chapter no 33 verse 37) to annul that pre-Islamic conception and promulgate an Islamic law instead. Another lady Zaynab (ra), Umm al Masakin (mother of the poor and helpless), daughter of Khuzayma ibn Al-Haith, belonged to the Hawazin clan. Her husband was killed in the battle of Uhud. To rescue her from widowhood, the Prophet (pbuh) took her as his wife.

    After the revelation of the verse in Surah Ahzab, chapter 33 verse 52, the Prophet (pbuh) only married Mary the Copt who was a slave girl sent as a present by the Christian Muqauqas of Egypt. Since the Christian Chieftain of Egypt sent Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) a slave girl as a present, he could not refuse this gift as a refusal would have disturbed the political alliance. He could not keep her as a slave girl, since Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) preached that slaves should be freed. The only option left with him was to marry her, since the Qur’an gave him the permission to do so. Later on she became the mother of Ibrahim (ra) who died in his infancy.

    It is very good to ask questions and try to remove doubts but it is very bad to have short-sighted views. The man is endowed with good skills by Allah the Almighty, for instance at the times of the prophet many came to Islam and a few who were in doubts despite everything was clear: the tree, the moon, the sun and the stone and many others admired and witnessed that the prophet's compassion, affection, love and brotherhood was for the entire humanity. The prophet who never liked a bird or an animal to be killed, how can that prophet take the life of innocent lives and make the war. The ones who claim, as you did, may be ignorant.

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 12/6/2012 12:43:18 AM



  • Gulam Muhiyyuddin Saheb, Apostasy is not a crime, nor is taking help from a site, or from any of the books written by Muslim intellectual ulemas, called uqala-e-Islam like Razi, Gazali, Shibli Nomani or western orientalists etc, if they provide useful information which enlightens us. If somebody presents it, after making it suitably fit for the situation, with some additions and deletions as I, and many other people on this site sometimes do, there is nothing wrong in it and I do not think it necessary to give attributes every time. What is important is the point being raised, not the source. And you should know, I did not take the whole paragraph ( it is a portion of it ) from Iranville (frankly, I have heard this name for the first time from you only),but, yes, I took a portion of it from another source and suitably added my own words to it. For example the following words are mine,”
    I find no explanations for verse 9:111 which says, “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods for theirs (in return) is the garden (of paradise). They fight in his cause and they slay and are slain. A promise binding on him, in truth, through the Torah, The Gospel and in the Quran.” and verse 9:123 which says” Oh ye who believe fight the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you.” This second verse was revealed to instigate Muslims to fight the Roman Christians after the conquest of Mecca. No amount of explanations can justify the attacks on Rome and Faras , the then Persia as defensive wars.”
    One more thing. When you appreciated my view in one of my earlier posts with regard to the status of Muhammad, whether he was an infallible prophet divinely protected or a fallible human being) you also became an apostate.
    By Hamzah - 12/5/2012 11:31:07 PM



  • I think Mr. Mohiyuddin sb should try to reply to Mr. Hamza – even if it comes from an apostate. In any case the apostates are not  here to help us. By Manzoorul Haque - 12/5/2012 10:21:44 PM



  • hope mr ghulam mohiyuddin gets out of the habit of hurling the word "apostate" as if it were javelin. the connotative way it is being used, it appears more like an accusation rather than a legitimate position as staunchly adopted by almost all the so called prophets.
    just to reiterate, the prophet was an apostate from the religion he was born into. so! By hats off! - 12/5/2012 8:47:30 PM



  • Dear Mr. Naseer Ahmad Sir says: Try accusing me of any kind of prejudice and you will only get egg in your face. As for analyzing my style, do that. I also have an interesting psycho analysis of your personality and can return the compliment.

    Now let us see what eggs he is talking about; the two which he has replaced for his eyes because the fifth paragraph of my post clearly says: “If only he had realized that he has hatred for the entire establishment of America for the wrongdoings of some he could have seen where he is going wrong.

    I did not blame him for his love or hatred for Americans and Jews. Loving or hating American and Jews is different from loving or hating ‘American Imperialism’, American Policies’ and ‘establishment of America’. Now does anyone require any proof that who has got eggs fitted in place of eyes?

    Let us see his writing further. He says: “I hero worship Einstein and Feynman both of whom I have discussed in my posts. All these are Jews.”

    Who knows, there is a possibility that he is an American Agent who wants Muslims to get more and angrier with America and stay in a continued state of war and suffer the consequences of it. When America can do all kind of sinister activities, (and yes, I do not doubt about that, but then I don’t believe in what they or their propaganda machinery broadcast), they could have hired this person having a Muslim name, or maybe his is a pseudonym. When American agents are doing undercover activities of exploding bombs, this is something not very difficult for them to do. In response he can always blame me to be an American agent.

     As for his blind belief in the writings of other Anglo-Saxons, Americans, Christians and Jews I hope that he similarly blindly believes in the theory of Darwin that suggests that there was no Prophet Adam(Peace be upon him) and if it at all he was, then he must be an ape. Nauzobillah. The so called researches by the twelve researchers are the kind of material what we identify as propaganda material aimed at Muslims created by their enemies. He wants us to believe those. It is impossible that I will ever do so.

    A rigid, sectarian, anti-Amrican, Wahabi he is and is asking to us to “take a step back and look at the problem and the situation purely as observers without bringing into the picture our respective identities as Muslims and all our other sub identities.” And then he begins parroting once again: Amme Amme Rica, Amme Amme Rica. Oh has Barelvis green colour got to do something with parrot? And Wahabi’s flags too?

    By sadaf - 12/5/2012 2:54:24 PM



  • Mr. Hamzah has lifted a whole paragraph from an apostate site called "iranville" without giving any attribution! While I too cherish freedom of speech and freedom to think, in my view our pursuit of reforms and liberalization will not necessarily be helped by apostate rhetoric. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/5/2012 2:26:24 PM



  • Naseer Sb,

    However much you may try to fudge the issue, the fact remains that radical Islam is a problem. It is a reality that the vast majority of radical Islamists at this time belong to the Salafi/Wahabi/Ahle-Hadith/Deobandi schools of thought, but if there are radical Islamists who are Barlevis, they too are a problem.

    We are not talking only about the problem of terrorism. We are talking about intolerance, forcing their views on others, believing themselves to be the only correct interpreters of the Quran, expressing views that offend other religions and other sects (a la Zakir Naik), curtailing the civil rights of other religions and other sects, being backwards in education and science because of their opposition to "Modernism" or to "the West", opposing democracy and secularism, opposing free speech, and one way or another isolating themselves from the mainstream. They are not like the Pennsylvania Amish, who confine themselves to small geographic areas as religio-cultural relics. Radican Islam is is a fast spreading virus to which defeated or  despondent Muslims fall an easy prey.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/5/2012 2:00:28 PM



  • Dear Hamzah saheb. You raised very important and valid questions in a perfect manner. Reality is to save Islam anything can be sacrificed.
    How many wars were fought in defense by the prophet? Why Persia was attacked? You must be aware that the letter sent by the prophet was torn by the Persian king Khusro. The prophet prophesied that the kingdom of the Khusro will be torn in like manner. So to make that prophecy true, Persia was attacked.
    The Roman king Hercules gave respect to letter of the prophet and sent gifts still the Rome was attacked. Where the defense comes into picture?
    We are told the companions of the prophet lived a life of extreme poverty. Is it really true? Somebody I am forgetting at this moment has estimated the possessions of the prophet.
    The companions became Mala-maal and the prophet too. Now you may hear that prophet had no oil in his lamp at the time of the death.
    How many wives you can afford Mr Hamza? I am talking financially. How many wives prophet was having? Why should we malign the Bukhari and company. They were pious Muslims. Why would they write defaming Ahadith. By rational - 12/5/2012 10:32:00 AM



  • Janab Muhammad Yunus Saheb says in response to my post regarding Mufti Taqi Usmani’s views on offensive jihad,


    “the orthodox theologians have been clinging to a dream of world domination through the medieval ages. As it jolted up from sleep with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the ambitious theologians formed the Muslim Brotherhood with express ideology of world domination. The ideology has no Qur'anic basis at all."


    But the reality presents a different picture. . I think there is indeed a Quranic basis for the dream of world domination of medieval ages and that of Muslim Brotherhood. A critical analysis of the Quran makes it quite clear that , first, war was only permitted; in the words of sura 22:40 "Permission is given to those who fight because they have been wronged." Subsequently it was made obligatory through verbs in the imperative and emphatic moods. Many passages in suras 2 (al-Baqara), 8 (al-Anfal), 9 (at-Tawba), and other Madinan revelations enjoin use of force. It is a remarkable and significant fact that the Meccan suras contain no mentions of holy war or fighting polytheists, whereas the Madinan suras are so full of verses on the subject that this obligation appears to be more heavily stressed than any other.I find no explanations for verse 9:111 which says, “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods for theirs(in return) is the garden(of paradise). They fight in his cause and they slay and are slain. A promise binding on him, in truth, through the Torah, The Gospel and in the Quran.” and verse 9:123 which says” Oh ye who believe fight the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you.” This second verse was revealed to instigate muslims to fight the Roman Christians after the conquest Mecca. No amount explanations can justify the attacs on Rome and Faras, the then Persia as defensive wars.

     

    Two comments spring to the mind in this connection. One is that the Prophet Mohammad, being aware of the difficulty of controlling unruly Arabs and forming an Islamic state and society without recourse to the sword, probably chose that method because it was rooted in Arab custom and capable of influencing the Arab mind. The other is that the method necessarily involves trampling on the most precious of human rights, namely the right to freedom of thought and belief. This has evoked widespread criticism, which is not easily answerable. Is use of the sword to force people into profession of a doctrine or a religion meritorious? Is it compatible with ideals of justice and humanity?


    Obviously injustice and evil have in varying degrees permeated many communities in different times and places; but to discerning minds there is no tyranny more cruel, irrational, and pernicious than a ruler's or a ruling group's denial of the people's freedom to think and to believe. Attempts by a ruler or government to suppress opposition, though inconsistent with humane principles, may be presented as moves in the struggle for political survival; but attempts to compel all the people to think and feel in the same way as the power-holders cannot in any circumstances be excused. History shows, however, that all nations have at times experienced oppression of this type. Disregard for human rights and individual personality is a very widespread and multiform phenomenon, by no means confined to ruling groups; it is also found among the masses, who can be as opinionated as any tyrant and equally intolerant of ideas and beliefs other than their own.

     

    Such fanaticism has been the source of dark phases in the life of mankind. It has impelled men to burn, behead, hang, mutilate, and immure their fellows, and not only this, but also to perpetrate wholesale massacres. In our own age there are the examples of Nazi and communist bloodshed on a vast scale.


    The fact that freedom of thought and belief has been violated in many countries around the world is not in dispute. The question requiring study is whether such violation was consistent with the duty of the spiritual guide who had made known that "there is no compulsion in religion",verse2:257 and that God had decided that "those who perished should perish by a clear sign, and those who survived should survive by a clear sign" verse 8:44. Had not God said to His Apostle, "We sent you only as a mercy to the world's peoples" verse 21:107 and "You have moral strength" (sura 68:4)

    By Hamzah - 12/5/2012 4:20:07 AM



  • Let us take a step back and look at the problem and the situation purely as observers without bringing into the picture our respective identities as Muslims and all our other sub identities.
    Islamic terrorism did not exist prior to the 1980s outside the Palestine/Israel region.
    The problem very clearly has its origins in Afghanistan going communist and sections of the population opposing it on grounds of religious ideology. Without the interference of the US and Pakistan, the situation would have come to normal on its own or at worst resulted in insurgency of a kind milder than we find in the North East.
    However, the US saw in it an opportunity to get the USSR directly involved and give them their Vietnam. (The US did not do it because it is anti-Islam, but because it was a cheap way to defeat the communist Russians). They start ‘assisting’ the ‘Mujahideen’ from July 1979. Russia, seeing the involvement of the US and a potent threat to end of communist government in Afghanistan, send their troops to prop up the government in Decenmer 1979 (six months after US involvement) and finally take over the administration.
    The end result is creation of militarily trained 250,000 Afghans and about 100,000 from 46 other countries to oust the soviets.
    The first set of the Afghan Mujahideen had purer and limited objectives but the later batches are the riff raff of the Muslim world and this riff raff has spread to at least these 46 countries.
    The ones who are motivated purely by religion have very low affiliation needs and stick to religious objectives and can switch from a state of war to a state of peace with ease and observe all rules of the war including not harming the civilians intentionally or adopting means that result in it.
    However, the militants of the later batches are motivated less by religion or by any clear objective and more by politics and affiliation needs. Principles and ideology therefore do not matter very much and are only incidental. They attack an enemy who is weaker if they cannot attack the ‘real enemy’. Killing has become a way of life and terrorism is self perpetuating. It is this self perpetuating nature of the disease that results in killing of even their own people. Muslims are highly sectarian in their outlook and have deep prejudices about every sect other than their own. It is not surprising therefore to find them killing people of other sects. People of other religions are safe from these people. Sectarians have relatively very little animosity to people of other religions. They have more animosity for people of other sects. The Barelvis would have done the same had they been in the same position but were kept out by the Saudis.
    A person who cannot vent his frustration in the office will vent it on his wife and Children. The numerically superior Barelvi finds himself outgunned by the numerically inferior non-barelvi and takes it out on the minorities. The Barelvis are in the forefront in forced conversions and in blasphemy cases and not the militants.
    Today, the root cause of the problem does not matter except that if we confuse the problem with an ideology, our `remedies’ may only make it worse. The solutions are to be found not in religion but elsewhere. There is nothing wrong in assuming that it is due to Khwarijism and that we will ultimately defeat it. The fact is peace has to return in the long run whether we act correctly or not. The evil force that has been unleashed will one day exhaust itself. The question is, can we hasten and shorten the process by doing the right things and without making it worse? By Naseer Ahmed - 12/5/2012 3:28:15 AM



  • Naseer Sb, Vocational assistance after prolonged incarceration would be helpful for all criminals, not just terrorists, provided the state has the funds and the economy has the jobs to make such programs possible. We do not know what impact such programs would have on terrorist recidivism. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/5/2012 3:05:12 AM



  • GM Sb, Surely, if imprisoning is a cheaper solution and if after release from prison, they do not relapse to former behaviour, which they will without finding employment. So you will be back to square one after the prison sentence. Is there any study which suggests that they do not relapse after serving prison sentences? In fact there is reason to believe that they do,  and fake that they are reformed by the de radicalization process just to get released from prison. This only goes to confirm that ideology plays a relatively insignificant role and affiliation a greater one. After release from prison, they will join groups that meet their affiliation needs the best.
    Reforming them as a group, by changing their behaviour from killing to one of making a living can transform them while fully meeting their affiliation needs. Keeping them together and making them work for wages is also like a prison without calling it as such. It has all the characteristics of a prison while making it look as voluntary submission. Point number 5 of the summary that I posted earlier covers this.
    5.It is important that reformed militants are assisted in finding a job and locating a supportive environment for them. In addition, it is prudent to continue counselling and to monitor their behaviour and associations closely. The proposed solution of starting projects on which these ex-militants can work, meet all of these objectives where they could be employed together and support each other and also enable close monitoring of the group’s behaviour and for providing continued counselling. Affective commitment is an emotional attachment to other members of the organization and to the group itself which is achieved by keeping the people together. Pragmatic commitment is assured by the wages they earn through halal means by their effort. The ideological component justifies the actions that the militant is asked to take and the hardships that he or she must endure to achieve the group’s objectives of now excelling in peaceful existence after having won the ‘war’ and in earning halal livelihood through the sweat of his brow.
    The option of tougher measures on those who do not fall in line is always open. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/5/2012 1:01:20 AM



  • Dear hats off, thak you very much for your valuable advice. I am always alert and keep my eyes open especially because there is no dearth of such people in my own family. By Hamzah - 12/5/2012 12:31:11 AM



  • Shahin Sb, You miss the point entirely. Irrespective of the sect of the extremist and his religion whether Christian, jew or Muslim, his behaviour would have been exactly as that of the Taliban. If Islam was sect less, the Taliban would have killed people form their own sect.
    GM Sb, You also miss the point entirely. The problem and the behavior of the Taliban and the solution has reference to considerable research material in the area of problems with maladjusted war veterans especially those with extreme right wing inclinations. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/4/2012 11:52:05 PM



  • Congratulations to all those who participated in this worthy, lively, knowledgeable, scholarly debate and above all defining and researching upon the most demanding problem of the Muslims which has been haunting us for ages. It has been the most enriching and enduring task at hand which Muslims have to tackle with all sincerities. By Raihan Nezami - 12/4/2012 9:54:25 PM



  • Naseer Sb, There are probably dozens of think tanks like the Rand corporation putting out these studies. To consider any one of them to be authoritative is risky. Researchers may know a lot by now about how these terrorists get recruited and motivated, but very little is known about how to "de-radicalize" them. We have not seen any reliable studies describing successful re-habilitation of either the Irish IRA, the PLO terrorists, Irgun terrorists, Tamil Tigers, the Naxalites, Al Qaeda terrorists, the Taliban or the Spanish  Basques.
    Let us not waste our time talking about rehabilitation when we know that what we have to do first is to defeat them, arrest them,  try them in courts, and inprison them before we can even think of applying these unproven de-radicalization measures. Maybe we can later do a controlled study comparing whether 10 years of imprisonment with de-radicalization programs produces better results than 10 years of imprisonment without de-radicalization programs. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/4/2012 8:41:14 PM



  • I m glad Naseer Saheb has at last acknowledged his awareness that Wahhabi/Salafi terrorists are mainly killing mainstream Muslims, men, women and children, in their mosques, shrines and schools all over the Muslim world and forcibly converting and killing minorities of Hindus and Christians where they can. The question of cure arises only after you acknowledge that there is a disease. Those who live in denial and only blame others for their ills have no business talking of solutions.

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/4/2012 8:21:37 PM



  • Shahin Sb says:
     
    "But the most intriguing thing is: what is the process through which hatred of America leads to killing of Muslims by a well-defined section of Muslims. Another amazing fact is that from all accounts those Muslims killed, Shias, for instance, hate America no less. So how does one America-hating Muslim group start killing another America-hating Muslim group? Of course, ideology cannot be involved in anything Muslims do. So some political theory or sociological principle must be involved. Or maybe social psychology. Some American political scientist or sociologist or social psychologist must have studied this too. Maybe Rand Corporation itself. Please find that for us. Your blind faith in all-encompassing American scholarship and American power to run the world is of course admirable. If only America also had the power to control Muslim hatred toward itself. So many Muslims would be spared their lives, so many Malalas would be safe, so many Muslim school buildings would be flourishing with Muslim children acquiring religious and worldly knowledge and wisdom there."

    I am speechless! Have I not discussed the nature of the problem and also the only solution that will work in very great detail - every aspect of it, including the Malala case, the certain prospect of the Taliban targeting every other sect etc?

    I suggest that people read my posts once more.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/4/2012 7:57:23 PM



  • GM Sb,

    Are you implying that nine researchers ( researchers are specialists in the field that they research) are talking about   Something they know nothing about?Their field of research is Islamic terrorism.

    Take the specific case of the Taliban. Did they join because of ideology? They were indoctrinated as part of their training. Today, they are fully indoctrinated and are acting in accordance with whatever ideology they were indoctrinated in. Ideology plays a part in all cases. The point the paper is making very clearly is that affiliative factors and not ideology is the reason for joining or leaving. Once they join however, they learn the group's norms, ideology, objectives etc and act accordingly.

    Ask your question clearly. What part of the research findings do you think is inapplicable to the Taliban? Or let us have your criticism of the research paper before I respond  so that I know precisely what is bothering you.

    The research paper only confirms my independent conclusions that I have been presenting in this forum starting not from this thread but earlier threads which have been intensely debated upon. For example, my unequivocal assertion from July onwards (in fact my second post in NAI) that religion is not the primary cause of Islamic terrorism and objecting to the terms Islamism and Islamists on these grounds.

    The nature of the Taliban problem and the solution was discussed with you in an earlier thread but not in the same detail as in this one. 

    The problem that you are having I guess is that suddenly you are confronted with research findings that confirm the thesis that you and others have been resisting all along and are therefore trying to discredit the research. Your acceptance of the research findings would mean that you accept my thesis and that you and the others find unpalatable for some reason.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/4/2012 7:22:50 PM



  • Naseer Sb,

    You said, "Angel Rabasa, Stacie L. Pettyjohn, Jeremy J. Ghez, Christopher are quoting the findings of nine other researchers in 12 papers spread between 2004 to 2009."

    Blind leading the blind? You did not answer my question, which was, "Do Angel Rabasa, Stacie L. Pettyjohn, Jeremy J. Ghez, Christopher Boucek of the Rand Corporation know much about radical Islam in general and about Afghan and Pakistani Talibans in particular?"  Not addressing the points raised by others seems to be typical of you.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/4/2012 1:59:40 PM



  • Dear Shahin sb

    I have to request you to be kind to yourself. After achieving a wonderful feat like incepting “New Age Islam”, I thought you would have done well to be seen as least controversial. We have not reached the end of our journey and Insha Allah you will see many sterling contributions to be coming forth on these pages on diverse topics.

    Please wind up this thread with a vote of thanks to Janab Naseer sb for so engaging a discussion and request him to keep enriching the pages of New Age Islam.

    I request other genuine Muslim commentators to understand the essence of debate amongst ourselves. This is not for winning or losing. This is to bring out the best of our understanding of Islam and the problems besetting the whole of Muslim community. We owe this to our families and future generations.

    By Manzoorul Haque - 12/4/2012 1:04:44 PM



  • Shahin Sb, You will find an answer to your questions in KPS Gills analysis of the path that terrorism takes when it finally turns towards its own people and loses support and dies out eventually.
    When there is no external enemy to fight or the enemy is too formidable to fight they choose soft targets. I have actually covered this aspect in my past posts and am sick of repeating myself.
    I have also said that the solution should be supported by all other sects, the minorities etc because otherwise they will be the target of a fierce genocide.
    You and others however seem to think that my insistence on a solution is to favour the Taliban! By Naseer Ahmed - 12/4/2012 6:17:05 AM



  • Sadaf, What makes you so cocksure about what you write?
    I have talked about the American people in several posts where I have said that the majority are good people who can be counted upon to support just causes. I have also said that the very fact that the media and the official machinery feed lies and manipulate public opinion so well is because the people will not tolerate the involvement of their government in unjust wars. I have also said that the US government represents the views and interests of its top 1% only and the rest of the people are not responsible for what their government does. Does all this sound as hating the Americans?
    In this trail itself I have quoted Daniel Kahneman who is an Israeli Jew. I quote Chomsky often. I hero worship Einstein and Feynman both of whom I have discussed in my posts. All these are Jews
    Try accusing me of any kind of prejudice and you will only get egg in your face. As for analyzing my style, do that. I also have an interesting psycho analysis of your personality and can return the compliment. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/4/2012 6:03:41 AM



  • GM Sb, I did not anticipate that I would have to teach you a lesson on how to judge the strength of academic findings. Anyway, since you show a total lack of familiarity with judging anything well, take this as my last gift to you.

    Angel Rabasa, Stacie L. Pettyjohn, Jeremy J. Ghez, Christopher are quoting the findings of  nine other researchers in 12 papers spread between 2004 to 2009. The details are as follws:

    Sageman, 2004, 2008; Horgan, 2005; Bjorgo, 2009; Benard, 2005; Nesser, 2005; Bakker, 2006; Hegghammer, 2006a, 2006b; Cragin et al., 2006; Noricks, 2009a). As Noricks (2009a)

    In these 12 papers, nine researchers have reached a remarkable consensus on the role of social networks in contributing to both recruitment and radicalization.

    If you know anything about academic research, then you would know that no researcher is happy to merely confirm the findings of the previous researchers and is keen to contribute fresh insights. So we can take the above finding as ‘God’s truth’.

    You can now anlayze the rest of the paper. The links to the paper is below:

    http://sites.duke.edu/ihss/files/2011/12/Morris_Research_Brief_Final.pdf By Naseer Ahmed - 12/4/2012 5:52:04 AM



  • But Naseer Saheb, how does hatred for America translate into Wahhabis declaring all other Muslims Kafir deserving death and then some of them even going on to killing them in mosques and shrines and mourning processions in Moharram? Do Muslim suicide bombers kill other Muslims only because they hate American foreign policy or also because they have been brainwashed into believing that this act of killing Muslims during prayer will lead them to heaven where all the goodies denied to them in this world would be available in plenty. I asked you before, then Sadaf Saheb too asked you: How many Muslims have these Wahhabi/Salafi terrorists killed and how many Americans? If they hare America, they should be killing Americans, not that this would be the right thing to do, but why are they mainly killing Muslims? All over the Muslim world, Wahhabi Muslims are mainly killing other Muslims.

    Yes, yes, yes, a few former non-wahhabis, from Sufi backgrounds, are also joining the killing spree. But they are converting to Wahhabism apparently under the massive Wahhabi propaganda and in an atmosphere of competitive militancy. Let us remember that nearly all the Wahhabis of today come from Sufi Muslim backgrounds. And perhaps before that many of them come from Hindu or Buddhist backgrounds. So let us not start blaming their backgrounds. At the moment they are Wahhabis ideologically, regardless of what they were before or which denomination they came from originally.

    But the most intriguing this is: what is the process through which hatred of America leads to killing of Muslims by a well-defined section of Muslims. Another amazing fact is that from all accounts those Muslims killed, Shias, for instance, hate America no less. So how does one America-hating Muslim group start killing another America-hating Muslim group? Of course, ideology cannot be involved in anything Muslims do. So some political theory or sociological principle must be involved. Or maybe social psychology. Some American political scientist or sociologist or social psychologist must have studied this too. Maybe Rand Corporation itself. Please find that for us. Your blind faith in all-encompassing American scholarship and American power to run the world is of course admirable. If only America also had the power to control Muslim hatred toward itself. So many Muslims would be spared their lives, so many Malalas would be safe, so many Muslim school buildings would be flourishing with Muslim children acquiring religious and worldly knowledge and wisdom there.

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/4/2012 5:25:48 AM



  • Kaise karega koi, is another subject altogether. The point is does Pakistan acknowledge that they have created Jihadis? Does Saudi Arabia acknowledge that they have passed on such an ideology to make a Jihadi of Pakistan and Afghan nationals?
    Reorienting the issue to what America did only indicates that the fixation about America. and not the concept of Jihad and people involved in such so called Jihad.
    They day Saudi and Pakistan admit that they have made fool of the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan and used them for their own interest, or if they do not say that they have made fool of them but simply that they have been used purposefully and now their use is over and come out with bold headlines in newspaper, that would have effect much lethal than any 'Fatwa for ending the state of Jihad'. Acknowledging the truth can have its effect. But do we have any acknowledgement coming from a Saudi or a Pakistani renowned figure. Is the scholarship of Dear Mr. Naseer Ahmad Sir limited to just what some Americans have said? I guess, yes.
    From Barelvi camp, I remember of having heard a Naat- Har marz ki dawa hai Salle Ala Muhammad. (PBUH).  Laalach buri bala hai Salle Ala Muhammad. (PBUH). Similarly, if we are to believe Dear Mr. Naseer Ahmad Sir, then what he says is something like: Har dard ki wajah hai Amme Amme Rica. Nafrat ki ek hi wajah hai Amme Amme Rica.
    Or, maybe it is that I am wrong. He might add Israel too as reason for his hatred and pain. It is people like Dear Mr. Naseer Ahmad who have made America what it is- a giant, that too the most brilliant one. People like him do not realize that making the target of bludgeoning the America and all the data collected from here and there, however unworthy these may be, is only going enhance more hatred among the gullible peace loving citizen to make them a foolish Jihadi.
    He is talking about de-radicalizing them. Does he realize that how his approach is radicalizing more and more of them? I will be not surprised if some idiot starts using these references to justify Jihad and murdering innocent people for apparently not being innocent to him and for having a connection however farfetched it may be with some real wicked conspirators.
    If only he had realized that he has hatred for the entire establishment of America for the wrongdoings of some he could have seen where he is going wrong. His act will not only create more Jihadis from the susceptible lot, but will initiate and spiral mutual hatred among people who are presently moderates against likes of them for their continued contribution to hate-mongering. Allah has indeed made all arrangements to maintain the balance.
    His inflexibility should be the real worry for those wanting something good to happen. He will quickly have something to say against others’ inflexibility against Jihadis. Let him say it. He will extend that blame of inflexibility of others’ for their stance on Wahabis/Salafis and a whole lot of them roaming around in various brands. To him it is sectarianism not realizing that his own stance is anti-Americanism. The two diagrammatically opposite ends will likely to remain diagrammatically opposite and no solution will come out. So much for his insistence on pondering over solution! He must realize that these are the biggest of his drawbacks- his unrealized inflexibility and his anti-Americanism. There are smaller diseases also with him, but considering the biggest disease, that is of hate-mongering, I think, others doesn’t need as much attention.  Yesterday, I wrote a four page analysis of his previous post. Then I didn’t send it thinking, what’s the use when he isn’t going to change his mind. On a second thought I realized that my own writing was mainly on finding faults in his writing so I sat up and edited out and believe me, the hajamat almost brought out the writing looking like bald, reducing it to just one and a half page. But again I did not send it thinking, what’s the use when he is not going to change his mind.
    However the willingness to overcome this impasse brought me back on the keyboard. I just have to say, that his suspicion of us being sectarian is just that-his suspicion. The agenda of New Age Islam is not just anti-Wahabi and if it appears to be so then New Age Islam should definitely look to address it. ‘The war within’ as its previous tag line said, is not a war just against Wahabis. In fact it is at war with all such ideology which is within and amongst us and which is detrimental for the Peace. That is the agenda- very much open and stated. Things have to change from what it is at present. Of course we (the Anti-Americans and the anti-Wahabis all put together) cannot know, whether we are heading towards further wrong instead of going in right direction, or we are on correct path, but one thing is sure, such hatred, such bias against others who don’t see the way others see is not going to be resolved with such rigid stand. Till the balance is not restored from any of the end, things will not improve. Perhaps the anti-Wahabism is because of anti-Americanism or perhaps it is the other way round but just saying that it is because of any one of the two is where this problem begins.
    I make it a point that I denounce American policy- the imperialist policy every time, I word my views against Jihadi/Wahabi. That I do in order to retain the balance. It is not reciprocated from people who are more erudite. May be, it is that we, the so called and well accepted, anti-Wahabis, are more focused on our own ( our own means all those who go by the name of Muslims) shortcomings than to blame others and by that we admit yet again that the players who make up for our shortcoming are ours, but they (pro-Wahabi anti-Americans) are so unmindfully focused on blaming others. And maybe they consider even us- the anti-Wahabi but not pro-American imperialism ones also among others. We oppose them on purpose that there are hundreds of websites for Anti-Americanism and pro-Wahabism, but we have almost none of the reverse kind. We see that things are deteriorating and needs reversal. They see all these development as success. Islam zinda hota hai har Karbala ke baad kind of theory! Clearly there is a divide and there is a trust deficit between the two factions.
    The story doesn't end here, however. They will not be able to reduce this trust deficit if they intend to win their war. They may win our head but not our heart. We of course are on the losing side. If we are turning or have turned Islamophobe, as alleged, then is it because we are ourselves to blame or are they also contributing to drive us outside the brotherhood of Islam much against our wishes? By sadaf - 12/4/2012 4:28:55 AM



  • Hats off and others, Now irrefutable research confirms what I have been saying all along that religion is not  the primary cause for acts of so called Islamic terrorism. I have been advocating that we look  for the reasons and the solution outside religion and even suggested a ban on discussing religion for one month.
    "Ideology, thus, is not indicated in the literature as the primary—or perhaps even a primary—motivating factor for participation in terrorist organizations (Sageman, 2004, 2008; Horgan, 2009; Bjorgo, 2005; Stern, 2010). Several authors, indeed, note that the individual’s adoption of a terrorist organization’s ideology typically occurs largely after the individual has joined the organization (Sageman, 2004, 2008; Horgan, 2009; Bjorgo, 2005)."
    To the question as to why then they quote the Quran/Hadeeth  to justify their acts, my response has been that it is natural for Muslims for whom religion plays such an important part in their life, to seek religious justification and a fatwa  for everything they do. For every other people, religion is less important. I also gave the example that a Muslim will enter the toilet with a dua and exit with another dua while others do not. Should we then say that a Muslim goes to the toilet because of Islam?!  Everyone including the IRA, the LTTE, Muslims etc indulge in acts of terrorism for a cause, or to avenge a grave wrong or injustice or to repair damage to their self esteem. In England, Islamic extremists or those who behave as if they belong to such groups, have driven Paki bashers underground. For these people therefore,  it is protection from harm from the skin heads.
    With our discussions on ideology and demonizing Salafis/Wahabis/Deobandis etc, we are only doing the work of the Islamophobe but with much greater effectiveness. While what the Islamophobe says carries little credibility, what Muslims say about themselves will naturally be taken as the truth by others. The worst part is that we are attributing it to Khwarijism or in other words, agreeing with the Islamophobes that Muslims or a section of them have always been and are evil and violent. People do not know how to make a distinction between a Sikh and a Muslim in the US. With Muslims condemning themselves, there will be little sympathy for them when the white supremacists and skin heads strike, and they will certainly make no distinctions.
    You can go ahead with your program of self condemnation. I am neither standing in the way nor trying to divert anyone. Let this be my last post and I request everyone not to respond or address me any further in your posts. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/4/2012 3:40:10 AM



  • Naseer Sb, Do Angel Rabasa, Stacie L. Pettyjohn, Jeremy J. Ghez, Christopher Boucek of the Rand Corporation know much about radical Islam in general and about Afghan and Pakistani Talibans in particular? By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/4/2012 2:04:04 AM



  • Naseer Sb says, "The pakistan and Afghanistan government will have to negotiate for their surrender. Pakistan organizes the trainings etc and it is their job to arrange for the scholars who were involved in their indoctrination and use them now for ending the state of ' jehad'."
    Afghan government has been secretly negotiating with the Talibans for a long time, but I doubt if they are talking about surrender. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/4/2012 1:55:51 AM



  • The following is from the research paper of Angel Rabasa, Stacie L. Pettyjohn, Jeremy J. Ghez, Christopher Boucek and published by the Rand Corporation. The document  can be accessed:

    http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1053.html

    The findings very clearly bring out that ideology is not a factor for either joining a Terrorist Organization or leaving it. Trust, Love and affiliative factors are most significant. Adoption of the group’s ideology typically happens only after joining the group.

    Condemnation of an ideology and dissociating are the opposite of building trust, showing love or sympathy and discourage these people from leaving their present affiliations for the hostile world outside the group. Such acts only make these people bind together stronger and is counterproductive. It can never work since ideology is not a significant factor for either joining a group or leaving it.

    The condemnations and demonstrative acts of dissociation being confrontational, make enemies out of people we would like to influence. If the motive is to make enemies out of them and/or a way of expressing or describing or announcing this group’s identity, then it makes sense. However, my interest clearly is in solving the problems and not in confrontations with groups that need to be dissolved or weakened. I am not interested in ensuring a long life for such groups by adopting means that only make the groups stronger and provide fresh meaning and rationale for their anti social activities.

    Terrorist Organizations: Entry, Exit, and Deradicalization

    A. Entry and Exit

    The most robust findings on individual motivation for participation in terrorist organizations concern the substantial significance of affiliative factors, including personal relationships, social networks, and a sense of community or “belonging” (Sageman, 2004, 2008; Horgan, 2005; Bjorgo, 2009; Benard, 2005; Nesser, 2005; Bakker, 2006; Hegghammer, 2006a, 2006b; Cragin et al., 2006; Noricks, 2009a). As Noricks (2009a) states

    If any area of terrorism studies can be said to have reached a level of consensus, it is the role of social networks in contributing to both recruitment and radicalization. It is therefore extremely likely that this particular factor will also play a key role in deradicalization.

    McCauley and Moskalenko (2008) identify 12 mechanisms as contributing to radicalization. Of these, 3 concern radicalization at the “mass” level (for instance, a nation’s mobilization for war), and 5 concern radicalization at the group level (for instance, the progression toward increasingly extreme actions by a political organization). The remaining 4  mechanisms identified concern individuals’ motives for participation in terrorist organizations and activities.

    Of the four individual-level mechanisms identified, the first, individual victimization, relates radicalization to abuses against the individual or his or her loved ones by the later-targeted group. Concerning the second mechanism identified, political grievance, the authors note that “cases of individual radicalization to political violence, that is, cases in which the individual acts alone rather than as a part of a group, are relatively rare.”

    The third mechanism identified actually constitutes not a positive motivation for participation in terrorist organizations but, rather, a potential obstacle to disengagement. Each terrorist act committed by an individual, the authors observe, increases the individual’s investment in justifying that behavior and commensurately increases the cognitive-dissonance costs of disengagement. Terrorist activity may be, to this extent, self-perpetuating. (This problem is discussed further in the section on Research Indicated.) The fourth mechanism cited, “the power of love,” directly concerns motivations for participation in terrorist organizations or activities. Here, the authors note that

    Individuals are recruited to a terrorist group via personal connections with existing terrorists. . . . Trust may determine the network within which radicals and terrorists recruit, but love often determines who will join. . . . [D]evotion to comrades is not only a force for joining a radical group, it is equally or more a barrier to leaving the group. (McCauley & Moskalenko, 2008)

    While affiliative factors are, thus, described in varying terms in the research, the literature reflects virtual consensus that such factors play an important role in individual entry and exit decisions (Sageman, 2004, 2008; Horgan, 2005; Bjorgo, 2009; Benard, 2005; McCauley & Moskalenko, 2008; Noricks, 2009a; Nesser, 2005; Bakker, 2006; Hegghammer, 2006a, 2006b; Cragin et al., 2006). In analyzing risk factors for participation in terrorist groups, Bjorgo (2009) suggests that deficiency in an individual’s primary relationships may prompt the pursuit of substitute familial relationships or the search for identity as a member of a close-knit group or community. Sageman (2004, 2008) contends not only that the desire to establish belonging within a social network is a significant risk factor for participation in jihadist terrorist organizations but also that it is the primary motivating factor for joining such groups, particularly among members of Muslim communities in Western Europe.

    The literature is more disparate, less clear (and, perhaps, less rigorous) regarding the influence of economic incentives on participation in terrorist organizations. While a number of researchers suggest that financial incentives (direct payments) are significant or primary factors motivating individuals’ (particularly poor individuals’) participation in terrorist activity, the support offered for that proposition has been limited to anecdotal material or the assertion of the same proposition by others (Benard & O’Connell, 2005). A conflation of micro- and macro-level economic analysis also has introduced ambiguity into the literature on economic factors. For example, while Sageman (2004, 2008) contends that individual poverty is not correlated with likelihood of participation in a terrorist organization, Noricks seeks to support the contrary view with data showing a (negative) correlation between a nation’s wealth and its incidence of terrorist activity (Noricks, 2009b).

    Ideology, thus, is not indicated in the literature as the primary—or perhaps even a primary—motivating factor for participation in terrorist organizations (Sageman, 2004, 2008; Horgan, 2009; Bjorgo, 2005; Stern, 2010). Several authors, indeed, note that the individual’s adoption of a terrorist organization’s ideology typically occurs largely after the individual has joined the organization (Sageman, 2004, 2008; Horgan, 2009; Bjorgo, 2005).

    De-radicalization

    Notwithstanding the foregoing findings on motivations for entry into and exit from terrorist organizations, current de-radicalization programs focus largely on ideology (Barrett & Bokhari, 2009; Boucek, 2008, 2009; Boucek, Beg, & Horgan, 2009; Abuza, 2009; Ashour, 2008, 2009). The programs consist primarily of “dialogues” between program participants and moderate imams, who attempt to persuade participants, through religious discussion and debate, to abandon terrorist ideologies in favor of a more moderate, nonviolent understanding of Islam (Barrett & Bokhari, 2009). Omar Ashour (2009, p.6) describes deradicalization as “primarily concerned with changing the attitudes of armed Islamist movements towards violence.”

    No program—other than that of Saudi Arabia, to some extent—addresses the affiliative factors to which the relevant literature consistently attributes great importance in motivating entry and exit. The Saudi program seeks the involvement of participants’ family members in the de-radicalization process and, reportedly, in some cases also provides assistance in finding a wife (Barrett & Bokhari, 2009; Boucek, 2008, 2009; Stern, 2010). Beyond those features of the Saudi program, current de-radicalization programs are designed largely without attention to the very affiliative factors—personal relationships, social networks, and the sense of community and belonging—that, the research suggests, are highly influential in decisions to join such organizations and may remain highly influential in decisions concerning exit (Barrett & Bokhari, 2009; Boucek, 2008, 2009; Boucek, Beg, & Horgan, 2009; Abuza, 2009; Ashour, 2008, 2009).

    While the literature is equivocal on the role of economic incentives in motivations for joining terrorist organizations, some de-radicalization programs seek to reduce potential economic barriers to disengagement through the provision of social services such as job training or placement, educational opportunities, or modest cash stipends (Barrett & Bokhari, 2009; Boucek, 2008, 2009; Stern, 2010). Seeking to diminish the influence of factors potentially inhibiting exit and to foster social reintegration, some governments provide amnesty from criminal prosecution, or protection from dangers posed by their former organizations, to participants who “successfully” complete the de-radicalization program (Barrett & Bokhari, 2009).

    That “de-radicalization” programs would focus on de-radicalization is not surprising. But the data on motivations for entry into and exit from terrorist organizations raise the question of whether de-radicalization programs that are heavily focused on ideological transformation are likely to be effective in achieving participants’ disengagement. The literature on terrorist motivations, reviewed above, would indicate that de-radicalization—the transformation of ideology—should not be the primary focus of programs seeking to foster disengagement from terrorist activities. If the findings on entry and exit motivations are accurate, then programs seeking to effectuate disengagement from terrorist organizations by disputing terrorist ideology would be expected to have limited efficacy By Naseer Ahmed - 12/4/2012 12:52:40 AM



  • For the benefit of one thousand and one Mr. Nishats, let me announce one thousand and one times, in a one thousand and one times louder voice  (since they are differently abled) that I condemn any Wahhabi fatwa justifying killing of innocent men, women and children . I would further like to inform him that I do not believe in any sect within Islam.
    Beyond this Mr. Nishat does not have to be part of my discourse. If I find anything of intellectual worth in his words, I will respond. By Manzoorul Haque - 12/4/2012 12:36:38 AM



  • Shahin Sb, War veterans is just a special case that requires a special treatment since such special treatment will be required even for rehabilitating the US war veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq. It is by no means the general case. The general case is explained in the following paragraph:
    Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer argues that terrorist attacks (specifically al-Qaeda attacks on America) are not motivated by a religiously inspired hatred of American culture or religion, but by the belief that U.S. foreign policy has oppressed, killed, or otherwise harmed Muslims in the Middle East, condensed in the phrase "They hate us for what we do, not who we are." U.S. foreign policy actions Scheuer believes are fueling Islamic terror include: the U.S.-led intervention in Afghanistan and invasion of Iraq; Israel–United States relations, namely, financial, military, and political support for Israel.; U.S. support for "apostate" police states in Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Algeria, Morocco, and Kuwait; U.S. support for the creation of an independent East Timor from territory previously held by Muslim Indonesia; perceived U.S. approval or support of actions against Muslim insurgents in India, the Philippines, Chechnya, and Palestine; U.S. troops on Muslim 'holy ground' in Saudi Arabia; the Western world's religious discrimination against Muslim immigrants'; historical justification, such as the Crusades.
    GM Sb, The pakistan and Afghanistan government will have to negotiate for their surrender. Pakistan organizes the trainings etc and it is their job to arrange for the scholars who were involved in their indoctrination and use them now for ending the state of ' jehad'. Since these scholars are state sponsored, they will now serve the state as per the changed circumstances and convince them that they should now take up a peaceful profession and lay down their arms. Not all of them may do so but many will. Others will follow the example of the first lot and the numbers of those who take the new path will grow day by day till the last few also finally succumb to the demonstration effect. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/3/2012 10:59:28 PM



  • Nishat Sb, I fully agree with you. We have wasted a lot of time on Mr. Naseer Ahmed and all to no avail. Do stay and continue participating in these discussions. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/3/2012 9:46:05 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin, I find it difficult to resist joining you and Sultan Shahin Saheb in this battle of wits. It seems Naseer Saheb and Manzur Haq Saheb's purpose is simply to keep you people from doing whatever little you can do to keep Muslims away from radical Wahhabism and its myriad avatars around the world. You two should not fall for the red herrings they constantly dangle and just focus on making your contribution as you deem fit. However, one thing one can clearly see that they have nothing but red herrings in their store. They can simply not engage with the substantial questions. New Age Islam is for instance posting a Wahhabi fatwa justifying killing of innocent men, women and children with the headline demanding that it be refuted.  None of these worthies is interested. If they can’t refute the fatwa they could take it some of their ahl-e-hadesi aalim friends and ask them and honestly report to us if Indian ulema too believe in these justifications. Could the Prophet have said and done what he is supposed to have done? Can we continue to revere the prophet as we do as a love and compassion-incarnate if the hadeeses quoted there are correct? Did America also write these hadees books. Was Bokhar a CIA agent? Was Muslim a Pentagon agent?

    By Nishat - 12/3/2012 9:25:02 PM



  • Moderate Muslims must expressly state that they categorically reject the concepts of aggressive military jihad and the establishment of worldwide Islamic supremacy. ' By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/3/2012 9:18:42 PM



  • Naseer Sb carries on without telling us who is going to formally end the state of Jehad by announcing victory or which Islamic scholars will articulate theologically grounded imperatives for renouncing violence. Has he talked to any of these scholars and are they inclined to do what he wants them to do. Does he know the difference between planning and wishful thinking? 

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/3/2012 9:08:30 PM



  • Dear Naseer Saheb, your learned exposition of American perfidy around the world is excellent. It would even appear to some that it is America which is running the world, not God. Be that as it may, that is not our issue at the moment.

    Since you headlined your comment: “To answer Shahin Sb question,” I must remind you that my immediate concerns, not to speak of many unanswered questions that I posed earlier were the following:

    “Dear Naseer sahib, Do you consider Indian Deobandi ulema war veterans. Boko Haramis? Indonesian Islamist terrorists? British terrorists? Indian Islamist Terrorists? Are these all American war veterans that have been denied rehabilitation by Americans? Is Jamaat-e-Islami a group of war veterans? Is Zakir Naik a war veteran? And what about and his ahl-e-hadeesi support group? All these and many more around the world are intolerant extremists, some engaged in terrorism in deed, through arms, and some through words; the one thing that links them all is their Wahhabi ideology and Saudi support.

    “You don't need to rehabilitate them; you need to loudly, repeatedly, disassociate yourselves from their extremist ideology and propagate the correct and peaceful and tolerant version of Islam, which accepts all other creeds as God's creation.”

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/3/2012 8:35:55 PM




  • To answer Shahin Sb question,

    The Islamophobe's theory is that Islam is a necessary and sufficient condition and they cite examples of neo converts who were involved in extremist acts. All that it takes is for a person to adopt Islam.

    The Khwarij theory is that all these people have a common ancestor in Abu Sufiyan. The involvement of neo converts is explained by them as Children of non- Mulsims concubines of Abu Sufiyan's descendants.

    According to the theory which holds the US involvement in Afghanistan from 1979 responsible, it is explained by the fact that some "35,000 Muslim radicals from 43 Islamic countries in the Middle East, North and East Africa, Central Asia and the Far East," fought for the Afghan Mujahideen. Tens of thousand more foreign Muslim radicals came to study in the hundreds of new madrassas in Pakistan and along the Afghan border, that the Pakistan government funded. Eventually "more than 100,000 Muslim radicals were to have direct contact with Pakistan and Afghanistan and be influenced by the jihad." 

    Myopic western scholars, who cannot see beyond 1979, further strengthen this theory.According to Burgess, the escalation of terrorism during the later 20th century has its roots in three pivotal events circa 1979: the Iranian Revolution, the post-Cold War global religious revival, and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. These events, Burgess goes on to argue, were factors that fueled a recourse to religious terrorism. American historian Walter Laqueur described the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan as the "global trigger" of Islamic terrorism

    Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer argues that terrorist attacks (specifically al-Qaeda attacks on America) are not motivated by a religiously inspired hatred of American culture or religion, but by the belief that U.S. foreign policy has oppressed, killed, or otherwise harmed Muslims in the Middle East, condensed in the phrase "They hate us for what we do, not who we are." U.S. foreign policy actions Scheuer believes are fueling Islamic terror include: the U.S.-led intervention in Afghanistan and invasion of Iraq; Israel–United States relations, namely, financial, military, and political support for Israel.; U.S. support for "apostate" police states in Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Algeria, Morocco, and Kuwait; U.S. support for the creation of an independent East Timor from territory previously held by Muslim Indonesia; perceived U.S. approval or support of actions against Muslim insurgents in India, the Philippines, Chechnya, and Palestine; U.S. troops on Muslim 'holy ground' in Saudi Arabia; the Western world's religious discrimination against Muslim immigrants'; historical justification, such as the Crusades.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/3/2012 7:22:32 PM



  • dear mr hamza, beware of people who lull you into sleep. people could harm you in your sleep. when people ask you to ignore the madcaps, be very very alert and keep your eyes wide open. 'ignore' is exactly waht created these demons in the first place.

    mr haque's advice to you is the classical good cop-bad cop technic.

    mr naseer and mr haque are the 'good cops'. the talibans and the boko haraams are the 'bad cops'. the fact is both the cops are the employees of the same department.

    you ignore the 'madcaps' at your own peril!
    By hats off! - 12/3/2012 6:56:47 PM



  • Dear Hamzah  Sahab!
     
    You are indeed a learned man in the diverse Islamic theological sciences and know it well that the orthodox theologians have been clinging to a dream of world domination through the medieval ages. As it jolted up from sleep with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the ambitious theologians formed the Muslim Brotherhood with express ideology of world domination. The ideology has no Qur'anic basis at all. It has proved a failure in the past and today it is a political stunt taken seriously by the ignorant among the Muslims to the utter surprise of the Western world.  
    By muhammad yunus (1) - 12/3/2012 3:51:37 PM



  • Mr.Hamzah,

    Here is a theorem called ‘the theorem of madcap’: ‘ A person who takes a madcap seriously, is also a madcap, exception being reciting this theorem’

    By Manzoorul Haque - 12/3/2012 2:19:38 PM




  • GM Sb,

    You excel in playing the game of yes, but.

      The following has never been a part of the process in the case of prisoners which c