20 मई, 2014
इस्लामी जिहादी संगठन बोको हराम के द्वारा ईसाई स्कूली छात्राओं को गुलाम बनाये जाने के बाद मुस्लिम बुद्धीजीवी अपना आत्मावलोकन करने के बजाय डैमेज कण्ट्रोल करने में लगे हुए हैं।
टोरंटो स्टार से लेकर दि इंडीपेन्डेंट, लंदन और सीएनएन डॉट काम तक पर मेरे सहधर्मी लेखकों के द्वारा लिखे गये लेख में शरई कानून के किसी भी संदर्भ से बचा गया है जिसमें गैरमुस्लिम महिला युद्धबंदियों को सेक्स के लिए गुलाम बनाने की इजाज़त दी गई है।
दरअसल तथ्य ये है कि पूरे इतिहास में मुस्लिम सेना को इस्लामी कानून के तहत गैर मुस्लिम कैदियों को सेक्स के लिए गुलाम बनाने की इजाज़त दी गई है।
कुरान की सूरे 33 और आयत 50 इस प्रकार है:
"ऐ नबी! हमने तुम्हारे लिए तुम्हारी वो पत्नियों वैध कर दी है जिनके महेर तुम दे चुके हो, और उन स्त्रियों को भी जो तुम्हारी मिल्कियत में आई, जिन्हें अल्लाह ने ग़नीमत के रूप में तुम्हें दी।"
इस मामले पर स्पष्टीकरण मांगने पर सऊदी आलिम ने सेक्स के लिए गुलामी की इजाज़त पर एक फतवा जारी किया।
सऊदी आलिम ने कहा: "इबादत सिर्फ अल्लाह के लिए है, इस्लाम मुसलमानों को चाहे उनकी बीवी या बीवियाँ हों या वो अविवाहित हो गुलाम औरतों से संभोग करने की इजाज़त देता है........ हमारे पैगम्बर सल्लल्लाहू अलैहि वसल्लम ने भी ऐसा किया था और जैसा सहाबा और विद्वानों ने भी किया था।"
आठवीं शताब्दी में जब अरबी सेना ने हिंदुस्तान पर हमला किया तो वो वापसी में हज़ारों महिलाओं को गुलामों के रूप में दमिश्क में खलीफा वलीद के पास ले गए जिन्होंने नए उभरते अरब कुलीन वर्ग के बीच इन गुलाम महिलाओं को उपहार के रूप में बाँट दिया।
नौवीं सदी के फारसी इतिहासकार अलबलाज़री अपनी किताब The Origins of the Islamic State में लिखते हैं कि जब अरब जनरल मोहम्मद बिन क़ासिम ने 711 ई. में भारत पर हमला किया तो गैर मुस्लिम कैदियों को मौत या गुलामी में से किसी एक को चुनने का विकल्प दिया गया था।
रूर शहर में साठ हज़ार कैदियों को गुलाम बनाया गया था जिनमें से "तीस महिलाएं शाही परिवार" की थीं और लूट का पांचवा हिस्सा और गुलाम खलीफा के खजाने में जमा कराने के लिए दमिश्क भेज दिया गया था और शेष को "इस्लामी सेना" के बीच बाँट दिया गया।
उन्नीसवीं सदी के भारतीय इस्लामी विद्वान अब्दुल्ला यूसुफ अली जिनका क़ुरान का अनुवाद बहुत प्रामाणिक माना जाता है उन्होंने उपरोक्त उल्लिखित कुरानी आयत पर फुट नोट (हाशिया) लगाते हुए ईमानदारी दिखाने की हिम्मत की: "अब ये मामला पैदा नहीं होता क्योंकि हालात और युद्ध की घटनाएं परिवर्तित हो गयी हैं और अंतर्राष्ट्रीय समझौते के द्वारा गुलामी को समाप्त कर दिया गया है।"
लेकिन आज मुसलमानों में हक़ीकत का सामना करने की हिम्मत बहुत कम है। मैंने दि टोरंटो स्टार और दि इंडिपेंडेन्ट के क़ालम लिखने वालों से सवाल किया कि उन्होंने उस क़ुरानी आयत पर चर्चा क्यों नहीं किया जो मुसलमानों को गुलाम रखने की इजाज़त देता है। उन्होंने इसका कोई जवाब नहीं दिया।
मैंने एक महिला को लिखा जिसने सीएनएन की क्रिस्टीना अमनपोर को ये बताया था कि ''बोको हराम को इस्लाम की समझ नहीं है।'' मैंने उस महिला से पूछा कि उसने शरई कानून के बारे में बात क्यों नहीं की, जो मुसलमानों को गैरमुस्लिम महिलाओं को सेक्स के लिए गुलाम बनाने की इजाज़त देता है। इस महिला ने भी कोई जवाब नहीं दिया।
आज हम मुसलमान इस समस्या में उलझ गये हैं। अगर अरबी जनरल मोहम्मद बिन कासिम आठवीं शताब्दी में भारतीय गैरमुस्लिम महिलाओं को गुलाम बनाने के लिए हमारा हीरो है तो फिर आज नाइजीरिया में वैसा ही काम करने के लिए बोकोहराम को गलत कैसे ठहराया जा सकता है?
आज हम सभी मुसलमानों को अब्दुल्ला यूसुफ अली की आवाज़ को ये कहते हुए बुलंद करने की ज़रूरत है कि ''सातवीं शताब्दी में जिस चीज़ की इजाज़त दी गयी थी वो इक्कीसवीं सदी में लागू नहीं हो सकती है।" लेकिन अफसोस की बात है कि न तो ईमानदारी और न ही हिम्मत आसानी से आती है।
URL for English article:
http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/tarek-fatah/muslims-must-be-honest-about-qur ' an/d/87136
URL for Urdu article:
URL for this article:
Observer / Naseer Ahmed Saheb has long been on your forum contributing his
respective opinions on various subjects. Granted that some of his valued
comments are noteworthy, but only after glancing at certain rebuttals of yesteryear,
I can safely conclude that no readers have yet been able to pinpoint the real
identity of Naseer Ahmed Saheb.
truly surprised the hell out of me was when wise man like Ghulam Mohiyuddin
gave Naseer Saheb a pass by stating that he has the “Freedom Of Speech” to speak
out. Yes, he does, but he also has a moral obligation to reveal his belief if
he poses himself as a pious Islamic scholar. Why do “Moderate Muslims” continue to show weakness in our character by not
at least trying earnestly to question an Islamic scholar in a blunt manner? The
problem is that, we have become intellectually dishonest and have been living
in the twilight zone for quite a long time. To be quite candid, with such
mindset, we will create more so-called “Islamophobes” who will continue
to question our intelligence.
have a good hunch that he is a follower of Ibn Tamiyyah and Sayyid Qutb. Though
he has intentionally avoided making any comments on Maulana Maududi, and as
such, I feel that he is definitely a follower of “Political Islam.” Simply
look at how he skilfully dodges the questions and use abusive language when
Muslim like me try to flush his mind out. Of course, one should expect him to
be furious. I bet that if he was in the battlefield with his fellow Jihadists,
he will not hesitate a bit to order his comrades in arms to kill any Muslims if
they do not follow those revered Islamic scholars who has brought nothing but
calamity to the Muslim Ummah.
fact, I deeply suspected his character when he went out of his way to endlessly
Jamaat” without even making a sincere attempt to view all sides of
opinions. He will continue do so till his last breath. Now the hard question
is, “What is he really contributing to New Age Islam forum?” That’s a million dollar
question for you, owing to the ground reality that you are the owner and editor
of the forum. Simply put, you have an intellectual “Jihadist” who is
busy trying to divert and distract anything that can help contribute to finding
solutions to the scourge of terrorism in the Islamic world.
Sultan Sahab - By Aamir Mughal - Date
My fervent prayer is that May Allah save Muslims from
this Jamaat-e-Islami and Mawdudi Calamity who call the common-folk to bloody
revolution as a way to remove governments and establish Islamic Law.
me share the History of JI's Deviant Founder and it's Deviant Ideology as well
as their Deviant Followers:
- Mawdoodi and Jamat-e-Islami Part - 1
- Mawdoodi and Jamat-e-Islami Part - 2
- Mawdoodi and Jamat-e-Islami Part - 3
- Mawdoodi and Jamat-e-Islami Part - 4
Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb’s response to Naseer Ahmed Saheb – 12/12/2012
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?"
Hats Off’s response to Naseer Ahmed Saheb – 11/29/2012
mr naseer ahmed should try applying his
theory to boko haraam, th indonesian ji, the european sharia for
britain/denmark etc, the uighyurs in china, to test his theory that religion
has nothing whatever to do with jihad, apostasy murders, kidnapped conversions,
blasphemy orgies, women tracked like fugitives, the taliban clearly telling mr
rehman malik that he can shove his peace proposal and that specifically they
are dead against western education and secular government (not my words), the
no-go areas of malmo, paris, marseilles, the saudi fatwas on faking friendship
with kafisrs, and the list could go on and on. like it has already gone on and
on. but like it is said none is as blind as on who will not see. the taliban,
the muslim brotherhood, the hizb-ut-tharir and let and jud and just about every
muslim sect with guns to hire, bombs to assemble, strangers to kill keep
telling us very very loudly (but it sounds not loud enough for mr naseer ahmed
to hear) that they are doing it to keep their religion pure and to go back to
the koran and the sunnah. but mr naseer ahmed is a hard
man to convince. not all the islamic suicide bombers can convince him about
what they believe and why they do it. tragedy. denial is not a river
Sultan Shahin Shaheb’s response to Naseer Ahmed Saheb – 11/22/2012
Naseer Saheb, I do not see how
the US government is involved in Taliban or other Jihadis belonging to various
strands of the Wahhabi ideology, the official religion and chief export of
Saudi Arabia, killing Muslims praying at mosques and Sufi shrines, children
going to schools, destroying shrines and girls schools, calling us all infidels
and prescribing our punishment as beheading.
To the extent, the US protects Saudi
Arabia, yes it is culpable. Since it is continuing to do that even after 9/11
in which 16 out of 19 terrorists were Saudis and 3 Egyptians, all schooled in
Salafi Wahhabi ideology, it’s behaviour is incomprehensible, except perhaps
that its need for oil is so paramount that it doesn’t mind endangering its own
and world’s security. But American perception of how best to serve and protect
its own interests is not for us to decide. We can criticise, of course, as we
keep doing. Practically every time I mention the Saudi regime, I remind my readers that is
protected by the US. But beyond this, how can we
blame the US for Kharjiiism, Ibn-e-Taimiiism, Wahhabism, Jihadism,
Ahl-e-Hadeesism, Salafism, Deobandism, etc. These are our
pathologies. We will have to look within to find a cure. We need to reach our own people and ask them
to stay away from extremist and intolerant, exclusivist ideas of some of our
sects. New Age Islam cannot be in the business of lobbying with the US what
policies it should adopt to run its own economy or polity. Our issue is developing a correct
understanding of our own ideology and interpretation of Islamic tenets.
Geopolitics is not our subject and certainly not the subject of this thread.
There are hundreds of pages in New Age
Islam criticising America. You are free to abuse America to your heart’s
content. You can write a full-fledged article condemning American geopolitics
and giving it advice. I will carry that. You consider America an enemy of
Islam, so America is doing what enemies should do. What is there to
complain? One has complaints and
grievances against one’s own people, not those one considers an enemy. America is not an Islamic republic with a Wahhabi ideology that it is
exporting and creating Jihadis. It may have and may still be
supporting Jihadis for its own geopolitical reasons, but that is entirely its
own business. We can analyse, criticise, condemn but not complain or advise.
You complain against and advise your own people.
Bringing in America’s role in world
affairs in an ideological Islam-related debate is merely a red herring. Since
you consistently keep doing that on all pages engaged in ideological debates,
one cannot help feeling you are deliberately trying to disrupt the debate and
protect Jihadis. Your reverence for
these terrorists is evident from your use of the term “Mujahedeen” for them.
You don’t even put that within inverted commas or use a qualifying term like
so-called. No, for you they are Mujahedeen engaged in Islamic Jihad, Jihad in the
way of Allah, as ordained in the Quran. Hence your reverence. Of course, at the
same time you also agree that there can be no Jihad without the declaration of
Jihad by a legitimate government. How are these people then engaged in Jihad
and how do they become “Mujahedeen.”
You ask for solutions. Your solution is:
lobby with America to adopt good policies. My solution is: stay away from
extremist, intolerant, exclusivist, supremacist interpretations of Islam. Adopt
tolerant, peaceful, inclusivist, loving, interpretations of Islam which are
available in plenty in the teaching of our great and revered Sufi saints who
introduced Islam to our forefathers and because of whom we in South and East
Asia are Muslims. Let us keep the debate here within its ideological ambit.
Naseer Ahmed Saheb response to Sultan Shahin Saheb – 11/4/2012
How can then the Muslims fight the menace of Terrorism ?
They can make it known to every Muslim that
acts of terrorism are only helping the US and no one else. The US and the Great
Britain are not at all worried about "islamic terrorism" since the
incidence of Islamic terrorism results in less number of deaths than number of
people dying falling from the stairs or less than 0.1% of deaths due to road
accidents. So all of their efforts do
not amount to much. Moreover, such acts are unislamic and the perpetrators are
destined for hell. If they eschew terrorism, the US
will be left without a reason for waging the war on Islam and they would
achieve their objective without a fight. Unknown to themselves,
while they believe that they are waging jehad, they are actually working for
the enemy. They should not therefore fall into the snare of Satan.
How do we reclaim those that have taken the wrong paths?
Why do people treat the Afghan Mujahideens
as some kind of alien from space who are beyond understanding and beyond
redemption? Is the solution really to nuke Afghanistan and Pakistan? A Mujahid
with a gun is a psychopath on the loose. It does not matter whether he is
Islamic, Christian or Jew. The US army's selection process carefully filters
out white supremacists because experience has taught them that military
training turns them into uncontrollable monsters. The Muslim countries
have however done just the opposite. They set up madarsas to indoctinate young
minds with hate ideology promising them heaven in the hereafter.
The US invasion of Afghanistan has solved
nothing except Talibanizing Pakistan. So much for military solutions! Pakistan
and Afghanistan are incapable of solving the problem on their own. They need
huge funds. The only way to put the devil back into the bottle is to bring all
the Mujahideen under tight control. They will have to be employed and re
trained for constructive activity and exposed to a peaceful ideology. There are
no short cuts. Else the region will continue to bleed.
Was the Prophet (pbuh) indiscriminate in war
Shahin Sb, the Prophet (PBUH) was never
indiscriminate even in war. The general amnesty after the fall of Mecca to the
Muslims was to avoid bloodshed. Surah 9 (Taubah) restored order avoiding
bloodshed. The verse 5 which you are now citing gave permission to
fight and kill the infidels belonging to specific tribes only and not all
infidels. Moreover, this verse was a warning to such tribes to either accept
Islam or leave Mecca. Without this verse, it was
certain that these tribes which were responsible for practising the most
horrendous atrocities on Muslims would have continued to misbehave and the
Muslims would have been hard pressed to restrain themselves. A blood
orgy was therefore certain. Revelation of the verse and its proclamation in
Mecca by Hazrat Ali (RA) was to warn such tribes so that they could save
themselves. The verse was never given effect to as far as I know and my several
posts in this forum on the subject did not elicit a different view. Surah Taubah therefore, by intent and outcome
(since the outcome was known to Allah), turned out to be one of the most
merciful Surahs. Your interpretation unfortunately, coincides with that of the
extremists and the Islamophobes!
Saturday released U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, taken hostage in 2009, to U.S.
Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan in exchange for the transfer of five
Afghan Taliban prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay prison to Qatar, U.S. officials
who was the only American prisoner of war, was captured nearly five years ago
near his base in Afghanistan, and the U.S. has conducted on-again, off-again
talks with the Taliban in hopes of securing his release.
Well, well, well ……….
Mr. Observer / Naseer Ahmed Saheb what do
you have to say now? Can you enlighten the readers on hostage taking by the
brutal murderers who believe that they are following the Sunnah of Prophet of
Low life Talibans are nothing but “Blackmail
let alone being merciless killers. Where did they learn all these evil deeds?
Was it State sponsored as you so claim or were they educated at the Islamic
Come on now, Mr. Observer. Try to observe everything
and do not be afraid to make you usual comment in your own fashion. Let’s face
it, you are the only “Self-Righteousness Islamic Scholar” on the “New Age Islam” forum.
Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia
I signed in after a few days
to find that this debate has taken on a robust life of its own, and all
participants including dear Mr Observer who I flatter myself has agreed to stay
on after I appealed to him to do so are doing a fine job of splitting hairs and
continuing to argue their case with spirit. I apologise for not responding to
the couple of comments you addressed to me. Frankly, I am quite sick of it now;
it is more fun to sit in the sidelines and watch people wrestle futilely with
the 'elephant in the room'. As usual, Hats off is the one I am rooting for. :)
By secularlogic - 5/31/2014 11:54:41 AM
Hello Secular Logic,
Thanks for your kind
response. I do not blame you for being sick of this circus that goes on and on
and on. Yes, Mr. Observer / Naseer Ahmed Saheb will stay on, but he will dodge
all the pertinent questions when it comes to confronting head-on the “Islamic Ideology.” “Islamic Scholar in disguise” is what one should
refer to rather than “Elephant
in the room.” Ha,
Have a good day or evening.
Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia
Relax! This is not leading us anywhere. This will be my last post in this thread.
Fine. Give an example of what you call as “Smear”?
Enlighten me so that I can at least write to him and point it out. Fair enough!
Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia
Lodhia sb says, "Likewise, let Andrew McCarthy speak up too. Why do you call his thoughts as “Smear”?....
I considered his words to be smears, but I never questioned his right to speak those words or to remain silent.
Jihad on Trial
Instead of processing terrorist suspects
exclusively through the court system, McCarthy asserted that the "only
sensible counterterrorism strategy is a holistic, comprehensive one that brings
to bear all of the tools of government." McCarthy's approach would not
only include the courts, but also the resources of the U.S. military, various
intelligence services, and the Department of the Treasury. Above all else,
however, McCarthy felt that it is imperative that the U.S.
recognize the central role that Islamist ideology plays in terrorism, and to
make this the basis of all future policy.
As I said, it is his choice. Freedom of speech means freedom to speak as well as freedom to not
By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/31/2014 1:38:42 AM
That’s fine and dandy. Likewise, let Andrew
McCarthy speak up too. Why do you call his thoughts as “Smear”? He is speaking his mind
and he possess a freedom to do so in the United States of America. He does not
use abusive language to silence his critics like the disgruntled Islamic
scholar does on “New
Age Islam” forum.
The point I am trying to make is that, if
we the Muslims continuously cover up the thoughts of our Ulemas and Scholars on
the basis of “Freedom
of Speech,” then who will confront those who smear the
religion of Islam? Any thoughts, Mohiyuddin Saheb?
Sure, let Naseer Ahmed Saheb continue to play
and hide and seek with his thoughts. Then, you tell me who is the honest to
goodness learned men in the world of Islam to address the sensitive issues? We
are swift to call any critics as “Islamophobe,” and yet, we will give pass to
our scholars to remain silent.
You were rather quick to raise your concern
over Mr. McCarthy, but you have a soft corner for Naseer Saheb. Now, that is
not fair or is it?
Tuesday, April 15, 2014 2:40 AM
Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia
Re: THE ROOTS OF CAIR'S INTIMIDATION CAMPAIGN
Andrew McCarthy is a right wing
Republican propagandist and a bitter foe of Islam. He is one of the
leaders in the smearing campaign against CAIR, a civil rights advocacy group
that fights hate and discrimination that American Muslims are subjected to.
Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia <email@example.com>
Message to American
Muslim & Indian Muslim “Public Leaders”
Intelligentsia” and “Islamic Scholars”
ROOTS OF CAIR’S INTIMIDATION CAMPAIGN
As I said, it is his choice. Freedom of speech means freedom to speak as well as freedom to not speak.