Books and Documents

Islamic Personalities (28 Mar 2015 NewAgeIslam.Com)


  • To: Respected Muslim Readers @ New Age Islam




    As-Salaam Alay-Kum


    From the two words “Kill” to “Slay” used by the Islamic scholars with reference to Surah: Al-Tawbah – Verse: 9:5, except for:


    Maulana Abul Kalam Azad used “put down,” and avoided using kill and slay.


    T. B. Irving used the word “Associators,” and not Polytheists, Idolators, Pagans and Mushrikun.


    Reading the translation of Qur’anic Verse: 9:5, all of you will find the translations of these two Islamic scholars to be far more balanced and sensible.


    Here’s how T. B. Irving translated the following Verse 9:6:


    “If one of the associators should ask for you for protection, then grant him aslyum until he has heard God’s word. Later on escort him to where he can find safety. That’s because they are folk who do not know anything.”


    Associators,” are those people who associates other deities and do not worship “One God” alone. Well then, there are many who remain gravely concerned over the use of the words, Polytheists, Idolators, Pagans and Mushrikun.


    Finally, I will personally opt for both Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s and T. B. Irving’s translations which do not consists of the two words, “Kill” and “Slay.”


    Thanks again for reading, I remain


    Very truly yours,


    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia







    Sūrah: Al-Tawbah (The Repentance) Chapter: 9 – Verse: 5


    Sahih International: And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.


    Pickthall: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


    Yusuf Ali: 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.


    Shakir: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


    Muhammad Sarwar: When the sacred months are over, slay the pagans wherever you find them. Capture, besiege, and ambush them. If they repent, perform prayers and pay the religious tax, set them free. God is All-forgiving and All-merciful.


    Mohsin Khan: Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.


    Arberry: Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.


    Maulana Abul Kalam Azad – But when the sacred months are passed, (the state of war is resumed) (in this state) put down the polytheists (who are against you) wherever you find them, and capture them and beleager them and lie in wait for them at every ambush. But if they turn to God and observe prayer and pay the obligatory poor dues, then do not pursue them any longer for God will forgive them (their past) and admit them to His mercy.


    T. B. Irving: When hallowed months have slipped away, then fight associators wherever you may find them; take them and beseige them, and waylay them at every outpost. If they should repent, keep up prayer and pay the welfare tax, then let them go their way. God is Forgiving, Merciful.


    Maulana Wahiddudin Khan: When the forbidden months have passed, kill the polytheists (who are at war with you) whenever  you find them. Take them captive, and beseige them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and take to prayer regularly and pay the alms, then let them go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.


    cid:image001.jpg@01D051C4.AC28A890  mohammedrafiqlodhia



    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 3/31/2015 6:20:14 PM

  • To: Respected Muslim Readers @ New Age Islam


    Talking about “Flip-Flop, here are some of the quotes which will help enlighten all of my fellow Muslims about a mysterious personality named “Secular Logic”:


    My being an atheist has nothing to do with whether I find your answer satisfactory or ridiculous, because though I don't personally believe in God, I empathise with people's need for belief in God. Some of the people I love most dearly are believers. Hindu, of course.


    By secularlogic - 3/31/2015 10:18:47 AM


    I do perform the rituals associated with idol worship. At that time, I strive to have nothing but the purest thoughts in my mind and pray for peace, tolerance and brotherhood of all mankind and say, if you exist, God, make the earth worthy of being called your creation.


    By secularlogic - 3/30/2015 12:35:50 AM


    I shall certainly worship all the idols that exist in the world, whether you like it or not.


    By secularlogic - 3/28/2015 12:13:02 AM


    I do not think it is a sin to worship idols or several gods. One may worship, one, many, or none so long as it brings him peace of mind and does not trouble others.


    By secularlogic - 3/27/2015 7:04:12 AM


    Respect, sir, has to be earned. I cannot force myself to respect anything. I do not place any religion to be exempt from critical examination. Most religions, after a point, require you to suspend disbelief, and believe in something because some Prophet, some book tells you it is so. This does not appeal to me.


    By secularlogic - 3/26/2015 11:48:00 PM


    Well, I do love stone metal wood idols, because they are a part of my culture, many of them are beautiful, and it is belief which endows them with godliness. Those who don't believe that God pervades every atom in the universe will see the idols as mere stones. Which is OK with me. The point is, if there is a religion that has idol worship as a part of its belief system, secularism demands that you respect it. Islam doesn't.


    By secularlogic  - 3/26/2015 11:22:58 PM


    Guess what! Talking about “Insanity, here is a classic example of how “Secular Logic,” twist and turn using his “Unclean Heart. That’s exactly where the problem lies. Forget spirituality. Focus on insincerity on his/her part. Then he/she confirms that, “some of the people I love most dearly are believers. Hindu, of course.” Why not? Nothing wrong with having immense love for your own people. Though, I did not read any comment on this particular forum that forced “Secular Logic,” not to worship idols or to change his religion, or for the lack of better word, “Secularism.” Hence, why is this person carrying nothing but a personal vendetta against Islam and Qur’an?  


    What’s so remarkable is that he/she is relentless to compel Muslims to abandon Holy Qur’an. Ask yourself, why would a person who boast about, “I strive to have nothing but the purest thoughts in my mind and pray for peace, tolerance and brotherhood of all mankind,” smear the religion of Islam and continue to make insulting remarks about Muslims? After all, “What does all these quotes tells us about ‘Secular Logic’ own moral character?” Your guess is as good as mine, ladies and gentlemen.


    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia


    cid:image001.jpg@01D051C4.AC28A890  mohammedrafiqlodhia



    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 3/31/2015 11:45:17 AM

  • This article was written to counter the Sunni narrative according to which the Meccan pagans had no alternative but to accept Islam or be executed irrespective of whether they had fought against the Muslims or not although such a narrative runs counter to what the Quran says on the subject.


    Apart from words falsely attributed to the Prophet, these people falsely attribute to the Quran what the Quran does not say:


    Take for example the verse quoted by Secular Logic which is 8:38 translated by Mohsin Khan and highlighted with bold italics:


    Verse 8:36

    Mohsin Khan           Verily, those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (men) from the Path of Allah, and so will they continue to spend it; but in the end it will become an anguish for them. Then they will be overcomed. And those who disbelieve will be gathered unto Hell.

    Maulana                   Surely those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (people) from the way of Allah. So they will go on spending it, then it will be to them a regret, then they will be overcome. And those who disbelieve will be gathered together to hell,

    Pickthal                    Lo! those who disbelieve spend their wealth in order that they may debar (men) from the way of Allah. They will spend it, then it will become an anguish for them, then they will be conquered. And those who disbelieve will be gathered unto hell,


    Mohsin Khan           In order that Allah may distinguish the wicked (disbelievers, polytheists and doers of evil deeds) from the good (believers of Islamic Monotheism and doers of righteous deeds), and put the wicked (disbelievers, polytheists and doers of evil deeds) one on another, heap them together and cast them into Hell. Those! it is they who are the losers.

    Maulana                   That Allah may separate the wicked from the good, and put the wicked one upon another, then heap them together, then cast them into hell. These indeed are the losers.

    008:038 Khan        Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease (from disbelief) their past will be forgiven. But if they return (thereto), then the examples of those (punished) before them have already preceded (as a warning).

    008:038 Maulana     Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past will be forgiven them; and if they return, then the example of those of old has already gone.

    008:038 Pickthal      Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning).

     Maulana is literal and he does not add anything to say what the kafaru who had fought with the Muslims in the battle of Badr should “desist” from.

     Mohsin Khan adds on his own that they should desist from disbelief

    Pickthal says that they should desist from persecution of believers. Pickthal is closer to the truth but for a literalist the answer is in 8:36. They  should desist from hindering men from the path of Allah.


    Mohsin Khan is not an exception. Even Yusuf Ali has got it wrong. Rashad, Sarwar and Sherali has translated like Maulana and Sarwar has translated as desist from evil deeds.


    A literalist when asked the question desist from what, would pick up the answer from 8:36 as I have done, “desist from hindering men from the path of Allah. You can see how different this is from “desist from disbelief”


    Take verse 2:193


    Mohsin Khan           And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

    Maulana                   And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah. But if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

    Pickthal                    And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.


    Verse 2:191 describes what Fitnah is being referred to in verse 2:193 and taking Mohsin Khan’s own rendering of 2:191


    Khan                        And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers


    Fitna is “turning people out of their homes” or persecution. Specifically in this case, since it was driving people out of their homes for their faith, it is religious persecution. However Khan in 2:193 turns this into “disbelief and worshipping others along with Allah”.


    So if Khan and his ilk are to be believed, the wars were not to fight against oppression and religious persecution but to end disbelief. Unfortunately, this is what goes for most Muslims and even the moderate ones since this is woven into Sunni theology. I could quote from the books of acclaimed moderates to provide further proof.


    I am not surprised therefore, that only Muhammad Yunus and Siraj have appreciated this article.


    The implications are obvious. If the Prophet was fighting to end disbelief and not to end oppression and injustice, then the extremists are carrying on that tradition and Political Islam is true Islam! The difference between the moderate and the extremist is not in the ideology then but in their commitment to that ideology. The Islamophobes are not off the mark when they describe the extremists as better or more committed Muslims when the underlying ideology is:


    a)     All non-Muslims are Kafir

    b)     The wars of Islam were to end disbelief and not to end oppression and injustice.


    It is high time the Ulema come out clean on the above two points and until such time, the extremist ideology cannot be defeated. There is no point in Al Azhar making merely noises without attacking the roots of the defective theology based on falsifying the Quran and perhaps also by concocting a few ahadith.

    By Observer - 3/31/2015 2:19:38 AM



    We cannot afford in this heart-breaking time of crisis, to indulge in mutual recrimination; but let us appeal to all God-fearing Mohammedans for the sake of their own great religion and culture and for the sake of bleeding humanity, to join hands with us in dealing with evil which may grow into a permanent source of futility bringing upon our unfortunate country the disgust and derision of the whole world.


    Rabindranath Tagore

    Calcutta Statesman

    September 5, 1931   


    cid:image001.jpg@01D051C4.AC28A890  mohammedrafiqlodhia



    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 3/30/2015 10:00:41 PM

  • Secular Logic,
    I am aware of what Tagore, Sri Aurobondo etc have said and I have great regard for these people and aware of the fact that they are not speaking as Islamophobes but as those who could be friends of the Muslims only if .......
    I am also not saying that what I write is mainstream theology. On the contrary it is a fact that there are very few takers among the Muslims for what I write. All that I am saying is that what I write is literally and fundamentally the true message of the Quran and trying to make the Muslims accept it. Thanks for supporting me in that task.

    By Observer - 3/30/2015 4:15:50 AM

  • Dear Muhammad Yunus,

    The revelations were exactly what were needed for the moment. They could not have appeared as disjointed to its audience. On the contrary, to get the real sense of the revelations one must put oneself in the shoes of the Quran's immediate audience. That is what I have attempted to do which brings alive the story in a light in which others do not appear to have seen it. 

    The Meccans could not have missed the significance of the stories of the Prophets Noah, Hud, Salih, Shoaib, Lut and Moses especially since 32 of the Meccan Surahs in which these appear have only one purpose, and that is to warn its immediate audience which were the Meccans. As the Quran says, the Meccans dismissed the stories as “Mere Tales of the Ancients” even though the generation following Noah viz the people of Hud also dismissed the story of Noah likewise and the people of Salih similarly dismissed the stories of Noah and Hud and so on. The Quran even points out to the sites where these events took place and especially the site of the people of Lut which is covered with brimstones when the neighboring sites have no traces of such stones. And yet, the haughty Meccans chose to dismiss the stories as the ranting of a madman or a man possessed.

    The implications of 109:6 “To you (peaceful rejecter of the faith) be your way and to me mine” also could not have been lost on the people and the significance of the stories of the prophets Yusuf and Yunus (pbut) but the mighty Meccans were not willing to show any accommodation except if the Prophet agreed to dilute his message with polytheism.

    Dire warnings of a punishment which will come from directions that the people cannot even conceive is given in Surah 2 in chronological order. This makes clear very early in the prophetic mission that the form in which the punishment would come will be different from what came to the people of Noah, Hud, Salih, Shoaib, Lut and Moses.  

    When the Prophet migrates to Medina and the people are not destroyed by a shower of stones like the people of some of the earlier generations, the Meccans exult! They are pushed deeper into their way of thinking.

    Surah Al Hajj an early Meccan Surah, gives permission to fight and makes clear that the warnings delivered through the stories of the Prophets was about to come true. This, at a time when the Muslim numbers may have been less than 10% of the non-Muslim populations and the Muslims had to be ‘tricked’ into fighting the battle of Badr against heavy odds. At the end of the battle, there is an offer of peace “if you desist from hindering people from the path of Allah, the past will be forgiven”. The Meccans however return for the battle of Uhud in which they gain the upper hand although the battle finally ends in a stalemate. Encouraged, they form alliances and come with a 10,000 strong army to annihilate the Muslims and besiege their city. As the Quran describes:

    (33:10) Behold! they came on you from above you and from below you, and behold, the eyes became dim and the hearts gaped up to the throats, and ye imagined various (vain) thoughts about Allah!

    (11) In that situation were the Believers tried: they were shaken as by a tremendous shaking.

    (12) And behold! The Hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease (even) say: "Allah and His Messenger promised us nothing but delusion!"

     The people, imagined the worst and yet were saved by a most unseasonal hurricane that raged as long as the Meccan army lay siege and forced them to withdraw.

    (33:25) And Allah turned back the Unbelievers for (all) their fury: no advantage did they gain; and enough is Allah for the believers in their fight. And Allah is full of Strength, able to enforce His Will.

    This battle made the allies of the Meccans to desert them and join the Muslims making them strong enough to attempt performing the Haj for the first time after migration. They are stopped but they realize that the Muslims are in a position to push through their way through and enter into a treaty. The situation is described in the Quran thus:

    (48:26) While the Unbelievers got up in their hearts heat and cant - the heat and cant of ignorance,- Allah sent down His Tranquillity to his Messenger and to the Believers, and made them stick close to the command of self-restraint; and well were they entitled to it and worthy of it. And Allah has full knowledge of all things.

    On paper it was a one-sided treaty heavily favouring the Meccans. In its outcome, it was a victory for the Muslims although they had to return without performing pilgrimage, but they could return the following year. This in itself was a mighty blow to the prestige of the mighty Meccans. People sensed which way the wind was blowing and started entering Islam in hordes. Women deserted their husbands and crossed over and sought asylum with the Prophet.

    When the Prophet performed haj the following year and the Meccans had to clear out of Kaba to allow him to do so and when Bilal a former slave performed the call to prayer atop the Kaba, the sense of humiliation was complete.

    The treaty was for 10 years signed in 628. The Prophet died in 632. The treaty was meant to outlast the Prophet. But this was not to be. The Meccans could not control their rage at the turn of events and attacked a tribe in alliance with the Prophet and killed several people. The Prophet marched with his people into Mecca and the Meccans dared not oppose him. The Meccans had their chances to go the way of the People of Yusuf or Yunus (pbut) but in their arrogance they chose to violently oppose. They had their chance after the battle of Badr but they were still very powerful. They had their chance after the treaty of Hudaybiah to avert the ultimate humiliation but like anyone who has lost so much, they preferred losing everything rather than salvaging what could be salvaged. In the end, the following verse from Surah Al-Anfal (early Medinian) came true.

    (8:36) The Unbelievers spend their wealth to hinder (man) from the path of Allah, and so will they continue to spend; but in the end they will have (only) regrets and sighs; at length they will be overcome: and the Unbelievers will be gathered together to Hell;-

    The annihilation of polytheism in the Arabian Peninsula was achieved without violating the General Principles mentioned in the article and in complete justice by secular standards.

    Nothing could be more coherent than this!

    As regards the switching of the topic or covering the same topic over widely separated Surahs is concerned, this is not to impress upon the grandeur of the Quran. The Quran is not a flat text but a Book of great subtlety and deals with truths that are multi- dimensional. Muliti-dimensional truths can never be delivered through a flat text. If you have some idea of multi-dimensional databases (MDB), you can get an inkling of what I am trying to say. The subtlety will be lost if anyone tries to convert it into a flat text which of course every scholar does when he focuses on a single subject which is fine for that limited purpose. Because the Quran is a Book of great subtlety, it retains its power to fascinate even though I cover the entire Quran 6 times a year. My reading is not a simple reading of the text but very thorough and it takes two hours for me to complete 1/30 of the Quran. If you have actually used an MDB, you will realize how fascinating it is to explore the myriad forms in which the same data speaks to you and see the similarity with the Quran. For every question however, the MDB has only one answer but the number of questions for which it has answers are limited only by the imagination of the one asking the question and the data covered by the database and how detailed or granular the data is. The more granular the data, the more flexible the MDB is to answer more questions but the greater the complexity of the MDB and its size which grows exponentially. Technology can handle complexity and large sizes (but only now and not in the recent past) but the Quran is meant to be understood by humans. I achieve what would have taken others a lifetime with effort of a few days only because I am an expert in the technologies that I have just mentioned. That is not entirely true because my study of the Quran also spans a lifetime.

    I will cover some of these aspects by way of finding answers to specific questions just as many of my articles do that. My methodology is to bring all the relevant verses in the Quran to bear on any subject and then write on that subject ignoring nothing. That is exactly how an MDB functions. Depending on the question the answer varies but for every question there can be only one answer (unless you ignore some of the data). For example, for a Muslim “shirk” is an unpardonable sin. A Mushrik is however a kafir only if he rejects the sole Creator and sustainer of the Universe and dies a rejecting Him. However, if a Mushrik has never rejected for lack of knowledge or ability to comprehend or whatever, he is not a kafir. There is no direct answer to this question but the answer can be proved with a great deal of certainty. Then there are those in between positions of Christians etc. How can these questions be dealt with in any flat text without appearing to grant a loose rope to polytheism defeating the very purpose of revelation of the Quran?

    Deep contemplation of the Quran while guiding you to the straight path makes you a liberal as far as other people are concerned. Those who turn narrow minded fanatics are far, far away from the message of the Quran and to answer Secular logic, these are some of the people who have gone astray.    


    By Observer - 3/30/2015 3:48:57 AM

  • Maybe I am not alone in my misgivings. This is the FB post of Francois Gautier, a journalist.

    Francois Gautier shares Historic Quotes on Islam:

    Every world leader is looking for a Moderate Islam so as to be able to dialogue democratically with Muslims. Its it possible?

    Read some of these below quotes by eminent thinkers, many of whom cannot be accused to be 'Hindu fundamentalists'.

    Rabindranath Tagore:

    A very important factor which is making it almost impossible for Hindu-Muslim unity to become an accomplished fact is that the Muslims cannot confine their patriotism to any one country. I had frankly asked many Muslims whether, in the event of any Mohammedan power invading India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common motherland, I was not satisfied with the reply I got from them.

    Rabindranath Tagore:

    We want to draw a veil over our past to appease the Muslims…. We have done it for a long time. It is time we lift the veil from our eyes.

    Lala Lajpat Rai:

    I have devoted most of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim History and Muslim Law and I am inclined to think that Hindu-Muslim unity is neither possible not practicable… I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity and desirability of Hindi-Muslim unity. I am also fully prepared to trust the Muslim leaders, but what about the injunctions of the Koran and Hadis. The leaders cannot override them.

    Sarat Chandra Chatterji:

    If we go by the lessons of history we have to accept that the goal of the Hindu-Muslim unity is a mirage. When Muslims first entered India, they looted the country, destroyed the temples, broke the idols, raped the women and heaped innumerable indignities on the people of this country. Today it appears that such noxious behavior has entered the bone marrow of Muslims. Unity can be achieved among equals…. I am of the view that Hindu-Muslim unity, which could not be achieved during the last thousand years, will not materialize during the ensuing thousand years.

    Annie Besant (The founder of the Congress Party):

    The inner Muslim feeling of hatred against ‘unbelievers’ has spring up naked and unashamed…. We have seen, revived, as guide in practical politics, the old Muslim religion of the sword…. In thinking of an independent India, the menace of Mohammedan rule has to be considered.

    Sri Aurobindo:

    I am sorry they are making a fetish of this Hindu-Muslim unity. It is no use ignoring facts; some day the Hindus may have to fight the Muslims and they must prepare for it. Hindu–Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of the Hindus. Every time the mildness of the Hindu has given way to barbarism of Islam. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organize themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve the problem.

    Sri Aurobindo:

    You can live amicably with a religion whose principle is toleration. But how is it possible to live with a religion whose principle is ‘I will not tolerate’? You cannot build unity on such basis. Perhaps the only way of making the Mohammedans harmless is to make them lose their faith in their religion.

    Dr. B.R. Ambedkar:

    To talk about Hindu-Muslim unity from a thousand platforms or to give it blazoning headlines is to perpetrate an illusion whose cloudily structure dissolves itself at the exchange of brickbats and desecration of tombs and temples….Nothing I could say can so well show the futility of Hindu-Muslim unity. Hindu-Muslim unity up to now was at least in sight although it was like a mirage. Today it is out of sight and also out of mind.

    Dr.B.R. Ambedkar:

    The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt, slavery and enmity.

    Ram Swarup:

    Religious harmony is a desirable thing. But it takes two to play the game. Unfortunately such a sentiment holds no position in Islamic theology.

    Shiv Prasad Roy:

    Pakistan and Bangladesh are their fixed deposits. Those are Islamic states. No one else can lay claim on them. India is a joint account. Plunder it as much as you please.

    Francois Gautier:

    This is a profession of faith of a Muslim: ‘I certify that there is no God other than Allah, of whom Mohammed is the only prophet’, which means in effect: After and before Mohammed, there is nobody else…’Thus the whole religion of Islam is based on negation: nobody but us, no other religion but ours’. And if you disagree, you shall die. This puts a serious limitation to tolerance and from this strong belief sprang all the horrors of the Muslim invasion of India.

    Francois Gautier

    Let it be said right away: the massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese in early days of America.

    Will Durant

    The Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history.

    Alain Danielou

    From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions.

    Rizwan Salim

    Their minds filled with venom against the idol-worshippers of Hindustan, the Muslims destroyed a large number of ancient Hindu temples. This is a historical fact, mentioned by Muslim chronicles and others of the time.

    Rizwan Salim

    Savages at a very low level of civilization and no culture worth the name, from Arabia and west Asia, began entering India from the early century onwards. Islamic invaders demolished countless Hindu temples, shattered uncountable sculpture and idols, plundered innumerable palaces and forts of Hindu kings, killed vast numbers of Hindu men and carried off Hindu women..….. But many Indians still do not seem to recognize that the alien Muslim marauders destroyed the historical evolution of the earth’s most mentally advanced civilization, the most richly imaginative culture, and the most vigorously creative society.

    Irfan Husain

    The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed many dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Indeed, the presence of Muslim historians on their various campaigns has ensured that the memory of their deeds will live long after they were buried…..Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster.

    Dr. Younis Shaikh

    ….eighty million were slaughtered and millions of women were raped…..it was standard practice for Islamic warlords like Ghori and Ghazni to unleash the mass rape and enslavement of hundreds of thousands of women after the slaughter of all males. 
    An extremely large percentage of Muslims in South Asia today are the progeny of forcible conversions and systematic rape campaigns by marauding Muslim invaders.

    Koenraad Elst

    ..the number of victims of the persecutions of Hindus by Muslims is easily of the same order of magnitude as that of the Nazi extermination policy, though no one has yet made the effort of tabulating the reported massacres and proposing a reasonable estimate of how many millions exactly must have died in the course of the Islamic campaign against Hinduism (such research is taboo). On top of these there is a similar number of abductions and deportations to harems and slave-markets, as well as centuries of political oppression and cultural destruction……

    Dr K D Prithipal

    Muslims will only live as an oppressive majority and a turbulent minority.

    Sardar Ballavbhai Patel 
    A nationalist Muslim is only a contradiction in terms.

    By secularlogic - 3/30/2015 1:55:15 AM

  • Mr Observer, you must not feel slighted by disagreement. 

    I have read the Quran. I have read how some verses jeer at polytheists and idolators. I have read about the horrific scenes awaiting them in the purgatory. I felt ill after reading that women are tilth, they should be beaten lightly to discipline them, female slaves were legal sexual objects, that polytheists should be slaughtered in the day or night after holy months had passed.... I felt ill for a day after that, and wondered what kind of God could put such things in a holy book. 

    I have also read your articles justifying/denying/rationalising most of it. I am frustrated about my lack of scholarship to have a proper debate with you about your conclusions. But I am acknowledging that if your understanding of the Quran is correct and if it becomes mainstream, it will go a long way towards creating a more harmonious atmosphere when people of different faiths live together. 

    why this should offend you I dont understand.

    By secularlogic - 3/30/2015 1:44:49 AM

  • Secular Logic,

    You insist on being churlish even though in your own words, you cannot prove what you are saying!

    Wait till I cover every single word in the Quran. What will you be left with to say then?

    By Observer - 3/30/2015 1:34:09 AM

  • Mr Observer, I am sorry that my quoting of your words sounds churlish to you. But it seems to me that the shoe fits, even if you refuse to wear it.

    Even if that is what I think, I wish your efforts success. The truth sometimes becomes less important than the objectives, and your objectives are desirable. 

    By secularlogic - 3/30/2015 1:28:02 AM

  • Secular Logic,

    You quote my own words in the most churlish manner which describe what others do  when I ask you and Rational to hold me by my word in my article that I ignore nothing and take a very literalist and fundamentalist view.  I accept that you are not in a position to do that but there are others who can and are silent. 

    Khalid Suhail is a scholar of Arabic who has read all great works in Islamic literature in Arabic whereas my reading is confined mostly to the Quran only and that too only in translation. Rational also has a far better foundational base having studied in a madrassa. You have two persons you can depend upon to ensure that what I may have ignored to cut short the story is not material.

    Yes there is a part that I have ignored and perhaps will cover some other time as the story otherwise would have become too long. It is the story of how the Prophet through the support of the word of God made a small number of his followers stand up to the might of the Meccans and come out victorious. It is a fascinating story that needs to be told. It is a story of how someone who derives strength from orienting towards God and moulding all his behaviour in accordance with what is right and just can achieve results that are unimaginable.

    By Observer - 3/30/2015 1:13:08 AM

  • Mr Observer, thank you for directing my attention to this article. 

    It sounds to me like a historical account of the simultaneous geo-political and theological evolution of Islam. 

    I will not offer my opinion on the same for reasons quoted earlier. Quote: "It is a truism that you can prove anything by ignoring half the data. Therefore, by choosing the verses you wish to ignore, you can distort the message and try to prove your view point." Unquote.  However, I do wish you success in your endeavors in the interests of the greater common good. 

    Best regards

    By secularlogic - 3/30/2015 12:47:14 AM

  • Dear Observer,

    Point taken!

    You may read my comments to Siraj that has our explanation on why people entered Islam in hordes and even delegations came from far and wide to pay allegiance to the new faith.

    By muhammad yunus - 3/29/2015 10:24:24 PM

  • Dear Siraj Sb, I have complemented Observer for his approach. I fully agree with him that they were relevant for the Meccan period as the Meccan audience had remained consistently opposed to the Prophet over a long period of time. So the divine voice had to warn them repeatedly. 
    My jt. publication under posting explains the repetition as well as the apparent disjointed, incoherent and sketchy diction of the Qur'an as raised by Thomas Carly as a deliberate design to prove the divinity of the Qur'an as follows:

     Genesis, Literary Grandeur and Consistency

    The revelation came like ad hoc passages, without any continuity of theme or rhythm. Moreover, no attempt was made by the scribes to record the revealed passages in a chronological order: the Prophet directed their exact location in the Qur'an. This led the Prophet’s Meccan enemies to question his claim to be God's messenger. The revelation responded by challenging its audience to produce a chapter like it (2:23/24):17

    “If you (O people,) are in doubt concerning what We have revealed to Our Servant, then produce a chapter like it; and call on your witnesses besides God – if indeed you are truthful (2:23). But if you do not do (it) - and you can never do (it), then heed hellfire, whose fuel is human beings and stones - prepared for the disbelievers” (2:24).

    The Qur’an also claims that no one can even forge it (10:38),18 and asserts that it is of such a literary grandeur that only God Almighty could be its Author (10:37):

    “This Qur'an could not possibly have been devised by (anyone) other than God – rather, (it) is a confirmation of what was (revealed) before it; and a fuller explanation of the Book in which there is nothing doubtful, from the Lord of the worlds (10:37). Do they say, he [Muhammad] forged it?’ Say (to them): ‘Then bring a chapter like this, and call upon anyone besides God you can - if indeed you are truthful’” (10:38).

    At the height of literary eloquence, the Arabs had great poets and poetry was big part of their lives, but they recognized in the Qur’an, the most eloquent language they had ever heard. The Qur’an virtually cast a spell on the listeners, so much so that the Quraysh asked people to chat and make noise during Qur’anic recitation, understandably, to foil its magical effect.19  

    The Qur’an also challenged the priests and the learned among its audience to probe into it and find any contradiction in it (4:82) and asserted that its self-consistency is yet another illustration of its divine character (18:1):20

    “Don’t they ponder over the Qur’an?  Had it been from (someone) other than God, they would have surely found much contradiction in it” (4:82).

    “Praise be to God who has revealed to His devotee the Book, and did not put any distortion in it” (18:1).

    As the revelation progressed, the seemingly unrelated passages fell in place and created an immensely intricate and inexplicably harmonious pattern of the Qur’anic text. This fully convinced the Arabs, who had opposed Muhammad for almost two decades, of the divinity of the Qur’an, and they came to the Prophet in large numbers from all over Arabia to embrace the new faith. 

    By muhammad yunus - 3/29/2015 10:18:59 PM

  • Siraj,

    I am not speculating when I say that the stories of the prophets Yusuf and Yunus (pbut) are found in the Meccan Surahs and what the relevance of these stories was to the people of Mecca. Clearly their stories are more relevant to the Meccans than to the Medinians as they were first time prophets to their people or prophets sent to a nation comprising of primarily the "unbelievers".

    This is what Allah says repeatedly in the Quran:

    (17:77) (This was Our) way with the messengers We sent before thee: thou wilt find no change in Our ways.

    (33:62) (Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: No change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.

    (35:43)....But no change wilt thou find in Allah´s way (of dealing): no turning off wilt thou find in Allah´s way (of dealing).

    (48:23) (Such has been) the practice (approved) of Allah already in the past: no change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.

    In view of the verses quoted above which says that "Allah does not change His ways or Sunnat", can there any doubt that the fate of the Meccans would have been the same as that of the people of Yusuf or Yunus had the people acted in the manner of the people of Yusuf or Yunus?

    Or for that matter, like that of the people of Noah, Hud, Salih, Shoaib, Lut or Moses if they had actively opposed Muhammad (pbuh)? 

    By Observer - 3/29/2015 12:17:30 PM

  • Muhammad Yunus Sb,

    In your article you have mentioned Thomas Carlyle talking about tiresome repetitions in the Quran.

    Observer' article brings out which of the stories are repeated and why only in the Meccan period Surahs. He also explains the relevance of the stories of the prophets Yusuf and Yunus to the Meccans even though their stories are different as the three different paths the story of the Meccan pagans could have taken depending on how they behaved. Is this is the first time someone has brought this out? More importantly,  do you agree with the analysis? In my opinion, this analysis puts the entire story is a totally different light.

    By siraj - 3/29/2015 11:36:30 AM

  • As far as the translation of verse 1 Surah An-Nasr is concerned, many of the translators have translated  "Fatah" as Victory (Maulana, Rashad, SherAli, Yusuf Ali, Sarwar, Shakir and even Asad) or Triumph (Pickthal) which means the same. 

    From my perspective, it does not matter either way and can be taken as meaning  'opening'.   What I am trying to point out in my article has more to do with  verse 2 which says that "the people are entering Islam in hordes or large numbers"  

    By Observer - 3/29/2015 11:16:57 AM

  • My guess as follows: 

    1. Badr - 30 dead 20 wounded
    2. Uhud - 45 - ok
    3. Battle of Trench - a hundred or two from among the Qurayzah. Ibn Ishaq furnishes only five names. If there were 500 or 800 as he suggests, he could have given at least some 50 odd names. 
    4. Battle of Hunayn
    5. Siege of Taif
    6. Mecca - after the amnesty period.

    The last three are tricky but given the population was very scanty in those days and killing was considered as the very last option and there was always a risk of vendetta - I would think altogether (1-6) the number would not have exceeded a thousand or may be much lower.  

    By muhammad yunus - 3/29/2015 10:48:57 AM

  • Dear Muhammad Yunus,

    Thanks for your comment.

    If none were executed after the fall of Mecca and before the amnesty period of 4 months, I have no problem with that.

    I have no problem even if some "Chiefs of Unfaith" whose acts were beyond pardon and deserving of the death punishment and whose presence would have encouraged defiance by others if they were executed. Where is the wisdom in keeping such people alive who would endanger many more lives?

    I have no problem even if only a few hundreds were killed in all the battles put together but I do not think that my estimates are off their mark. The fact is the numbers are not available and can only be guessed. Please put your own number against the following major battles and arrive at your number:

    1. Badr - 70
    2. Uhud - 45
    3. Battle of Trench -
    4. Battle of Hunayn
    5. Siege of Taif
    6. Mecca - after the amnesty period

    The number in my opinion will add upto a few thousand but since this is only a guess estimate, your guess is as good as mine.

    By Observer - 3/29/2015 10:38:04 AM

  • Dear Observer,  Excellent article. Great effort. You have captured the major events through the Qur'anic allusions - an approach adopted in our work that is under posting. Also reassuring to read " he and Abu Bakr escaped to Madinah together in the night, and received a joyful reception by the leaders of that town who willingly adopted Islam." The leaders were not killed. 

    You mention about execution of Quraysh leaders after Mecca's integration. Qur'anic allusions do not support this and you cannot privilege Ibn Ishaq's report over the Qur'an. Lesley Hazelton also talks about 'general amnesty.' Even Hind was forgiven as you will know. 

    I still have one comment: 
    The statement: "This rule has however been perverted to equate apostasy with treason where apostasy itself implies treason" in act conflates apostasy with treason and therefore justifies punishment for apostasy that the article refutes. 

    By muhammad yunus - 3/29/2015 10:05:37 AM

  • You should publish in academic journals when the articles are original. That is the way to spread the knowledge and gain credibility. You do not even use your name. How will anyone quote you? 
    By siraj - 3/28/2015 11:30:37 AM

  • Siraj,  You ask questions that require research before they can be answered! But thanks, I have found them useful in further exploring the subject.

    This is all I found on the subject of repetitions in the Quran:

    What is the reason why some anecdotes, verses, and sentences are often repeated in Quran?

     The cited response completely misses the point that I have made that these were repeated warnings (32) to the people of Mecca of the fate that awaited them if they continued to hinder people on the path of Allah and found only in the Meccan Surahs.

    Mr Muhammad Yunus may know if there are other works by scholars which have touched on the subject of the repetitions.

    By Observer - 3/28/2015 10:22:42 AM

  • Brilliant! Now I know why the Meccan and Medinian Surahs are different and yet not different.
    I also understand why some stories are repeated 30 times. Can you point to more material on the subject?

    By siraj - 3/28/2015 8:39:13 AM

  • Secular Logic,

    Most of the verses on which you wanted a response, are covered in this article

    By Observer - 3/28/2015 8:07:13 AM