Books and Documents

Islamic Society (10 Dec 2016 NewAgeIslam.Com)


  • Hats Off,

    The agenda of Islamophobes is to defame Islam and to vilify Muslims by rehashing the worst aspects of Islamic history while ignoring similar atrocities in the history of other religions as well as the history of atheistic despotisms.

    The agenda of moderate/progressive Muslims is to bring liberalism and rationality into Islamic discourse, to condemn intolerance, violence and supremacism and to harmonize relations with other communities.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/13/2016 12:57:38 PM

  • what was mr. hajjaj's "agenda"? why did he collect and collate "garbage" so carefully?

    why did the succeeding muslim "agendas" retain the "garbage" without getting rid of it?

    what was the prophet's agenda? what was abu bakr's agenda? what was bukhari's "agenda"? what was ibn ishaq's "agenda"?

    what is the "agenda" of the "moderate muslims"? what is the agenda of "immoderate muslims"?

    why is an "agenda" such a heavily coded word?

    what is the "agenda" of the "islamophiles" as against the agenda of "islamophobes"?

    why is endorsement of sex slavery and jizya moderate while pointing out hateful hadees is not?

    what in fact IS an "agenda"?

    By hats off! - 12/13/2016 8:54:01 AM

  • Dear hats off!

    I have a broad idea of what you find in the u-tubes. I never access them. They are the counterparts of triple x sites - that is morally as vulgar. I now better appreciate your outbursts....

    By muhammad yunus - 12/13/2016 8:43:43 AM

  • As I understand Islamic theology, prophets did not have predictive powers. All theories about the schedule of end-days or Qayamat are idle speculations.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/13/2016 2:13:00 AM

  • I have heard that the Qayamat will come when not a single Muslim will be left. A Muslim could be any believer in God and the Last Day which includes the Jews.
    If the Muslims had believed in the hadith cited by Hats Off, the experience of the Jews under Islam as brought out by scores of Jewish historians  would not have been good.
    It is only an Islamophobe or an extremist who searches for such garbage and puts it across as mainstream belief to further their respective agenda.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/13/2016 1:41:00 AM

  • Hats Off, Everyone condemns acts of terrorism and extremism. However Islamophobes' target is not Islamists but moderate Islam. They do not waste much time writing about jihadis or Salafis. Their bete noir is progressive/liberal/moderate Islam. They visit progressive Islamic websites to interrupt the conversation there. Their aim is disruption and sabotage of progressive dialogue. While they have a right to their opinion and a right to express themselves, their intrusion in moderate conversations is simply bad manners.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/13/2016 12:46:36 AM

  • dear mr muhammad yunus

    about your question about if i have personally heard muslims say this.

    among my friends (as well as my enemies) my stand on the various religions, their nonsense and their polluting effect on human minds well known. they probably will never say or tell these in my earshot.

    i assure you, if i ever hear such nonsense from among my friends, they will get such a tongue lashing they will never forget it for the rest of their lives.

    there are literally hundreds and hundreds of toxic youtube video khutbas that say even worse. i am sure if you saw them, you would weep for the ummah - given your concern for it.

    among the more hair-raising khutbas is on the vexed topic of ghazw-e-hind. this is the favorite topic among the ulemas of pakistan. the middle-eastern khutbas is mostly about the jews.

    now that we have a google god, he helps us by instantly producing whatever we are searching for with the help of just a couple of keystrokes.

    i urge you to search the youtube channels. i am sure you will find even more horrific things from ulemas.

    each one of these khutbas (i am talking about) is delivered by trained ulemas. there are amateur ulemas as well as self taught ulemas, but i do not generally bother with khutbas from the freelancers and amateurs. i only bother about well known popular ulemas.

    these ulemas hail from all over the middle east, the europe, the americas and pakistan.

    by the way i have never claimed any infallibility. so i am afraid you have either imputed infallibility to me or you have misread my comments.

    on the other hand, i explicitly stated that i do not claim any infallibility. infallibility is the crutch of religious bigots by the way. not skeptics.

    with many regards

    By hats off! - 12/13/2016 12:10:18 AM

  • Dear hats off! I was truthful when I said, “I am 70+ and have lived among Muslims of diverse background. I swear by Allah, I never heard that “that qayyamat will not come until the last of the jews is killed? My memory failed me in claiming that I did not find it in any of the four compilations. Kindly, please tell me truthfully have you personally heard any Muslim quoting the referred hadith. If so how many times?
    By muhammad yunus - 12/12/2016 9:22:16 PM

  • Dear hats off!
    It only shows I am not infallible – never did I claim to be.
    Your last remark also shows that you are not infallible – for I had said in my previous comment to you:  “I have read the Qur’an, the four major compilations of hadith and the Sira back to back – never found such a statement.,” but you are saying that I had claimed to have read all the above books four times.
    So we quit.
    The truth is I read Imam Bukhari compilation – each narrative and identified those that contradicted the Qur’anic message. That’s why I quote only from this Imam. I read the other three compilations cursorily. So when you read something cursorily – as you did my last comment – you goof up.
    Anyway, your detailed answer to my two fundamental questions were enlightening and I will reply after I am finished with an important article.
    By muhammad yunus - 12/12/2016 9:15:40 PM

  • dear mr muhammad yunus

    can you please go through the hadith no 6985 in sahih muslim book number 41?

    i wonder how you missed this. you said you have read all the hadees back to back four times. then how come you missed this?

    i am providing the link below to spare you the bother.



    By hats off! - 12/12/2016 5:28:27 PM

  • dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-4025660/Protestors-attack-Ahmadi-mosque-Pakistan-prophet-Mohammads-birthday.html

    mr ghulam mohiyuddin probably thinks islamophobes are behind this? or a well financed anti-islam brigade is behind this?

    another faithful blew himself up at a coptic church in egypt dispatching about twenty unbelievers. another one somalia dispatched about twenty believers the other day. another faithful dispatched about thirty believers in nigeria.

    may be islamophobia and enemies of islam did this? or a well financed campaign against islam is behind this? or some conspiracy by zionists? or the raw or cia?

    his pseudo-outrage should probably be displayed here as well.

    islamophobes and enemies of islam seem to be harmless in comparison to moderates who pretend outrage at comments while the world is being torn apart in the name of the religion of peace and love of the prophet. what moderateness? and he has the gall to vent his inanities on this site against my comments.

    his pretended-indignation at comments on this site doesn't do a thing except perpetrate his pseudo-victimhood couched in pseudo-moderate praseology while literally all over the world muslims (or pseudo-muslims) are doing the unimaginable in the name of love for there prophet and in the name of islam. wound collectors have already damaged any prospect of coming to grips with the problem at hand.

    and he thinks that contempt for the dunya and love of the aakhirat does not have any role in the casualness with which the believers are able to kill themselves and take others with them.

    islam-has-nothing-to-do-with-this argument is the most insidious tacit support believers can give to murderous religious goons all over the world.

    theo van gogh died as a result of some muslim's love of his prophet. i can list others, but mr ghulam mohiyuddin is so allergic to comments that i will rather not.

    and he thinks my comments are immoderate.

    the so-called moderates are probably the biggest stumbling block in the path to islamic reform.

    apart from pretending outrage, screaming islamophobia, or enemies of islam, the peaceful moderate majority is completely irrelevant. and when they come they are going to get the moderates too.

    his sense of perspective is incredible!

    its time for pseudo-moderates to pack their pseudo-concern for islam and muslims and face the fact that islam has at least something to do with this or do some customary ranting here as well.

    if mr ghulam mohiyuddin wants to safegaurd his pseudo-sensitivities, he should stop visiting the site rather than fake his outrage here.

    By hats off! - 12/12/2016 4:14:32 PM

  • Hats Off,

    The editor can make his decisions himself, but you should try getting your Kanchan Ilaiah or Periyar views on Hinduism published in Hindunet.com! See what happens.

    And asking me to read an Islamophobe's definition of Islamophobia should go against your own oft repeated admonition against using the Quran as evidence while arguing with an agnostic!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/12/2016 1:10:39 PM

  • dear mr muhammad yunus
    could you kindly follow the link i have provided below regarding your comment that in your seventy years of life you have not come across anything like what is wrote?



    By hats off! - 12/12/2016 9:15:25 AM

  • mr ghulam mohiyuddin should lobby the editor to block comments by pseudo-scholars.
    he should not get himself into a bind.
    he should also take the trouble to go through the following link.

    By hats off! - 12/12/2016 2:33:01 AM

  • The advantages of a good secular education in understanding the Quran better should be obvious from the following articles:

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/12/2016 2:06:05 AM

  • Hats Off, If you wish to attribute anything to me, you better quote me verbatim.

    It is a fact that even an indexed Quran was not available till lately whereas there is no serious book coming from the western world which is without a helpful index. 

    The importance of index to focus attention on a single topic discussed in several places is obvious to any serious researcher. Without the index,  a Quranic scholar has to rely on his memory and I know Muftis who are also hafiz who cannot pull out all the relevant verses when discussing a topic. Islamic scholarship therefore remained tentative and impressionistic rather than bold and forthright backed by  irrefutable evidence. Why is it that I am able to say that there is not even a single verse of the Quran in which kafir means non-Muslim? It is because I have studied every verse that contains the word. Why is it that I am able to say precisely the different shades of meaning kafir has? Because I have studied the verses by grouping them by various classifications - by the religion of the people referred to, by the subject matter of the verse whether it relates to the temporal or the spiritual dimension etc. I am therefore able to state boldly without ifs and buts and without hiding behind the ubiquitous "Allah knows best" that kafir is a faith/religion neutral term and has been used for the Muslims as well and not even once for all the people of any faith and not even for all the polytheists of Mecca at any stage of the prophetic mission of Muhammad (pbuh)

    Why is it that I am able to say that Jiziya applied equally to the polytheists except that there were no jiziya paying  polytheists because all of them had accepted Islam? Because 9:29 clearly refers to them as well and not only to the people of the book because there is no verse of the Quran where the people of the book have been accused of "not believing in Allah and the Last Day" whereas the polytheists of Mecca have been accused of it. Just because there wasn't a single Jizya paying polytheist, the Islamic scholars have assumed that they had no choice except to accept Islam or be killed. They are of course helped in such belief by supporting ahadith in which the Prophet is alleged to have claimed that he had been sent to end kufr. Even if he had actually said this, to me it only means to end oppression and injustice.

    Why is it that I am able to say with certainty that in 8:39 which says fight until الدِّينُ كُلُّهُ لِلَّه Deen is completely for Allah only, it does not mean till everyone worships Allah but it means till the law of Allah prevails which means justice, end of oppression and no compulsion in religion. No compulsion in religion and to the peaceful rejecter of Islam be his way is an integral part of the law or the Deen of Allah. How easily however, the scholars twist this to mean "until faith in Allah altogether and everywhere prevails"? The reason why I could altch on to the correct meaning is because the Quran uses the term Deen-i-Maliki where it means the law of the king and there is no doubt that it means the law of Allah here. Moreover, my understanding eliminates the contradiction with 2:256 and 109:6 which is caused by how other scholars understand  and translate the same verse. Why should I then not be certain of my ways? I understand the Quran in its entirety without a single contradiction and without considering any verse as abrogated. There cannot be a better assurance of getting the meaning right. The Quran makes the claim that it is a Book that makes everything clear, is without crookedness and without contradictions and I have found this to be true. The Quran itself tells you when you have got the meaning right. The right meaning is both the literal meaning as well as the meaning that does not contradict any other verse.

    For that reason, I am also able to assert, without ifs and buts, that the law of Allah contained in 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in religion" and 109:6 (To the peaceful rejecter of Islam be his way), is without any qualifier and held for all the prophets and holds from the beginning of mankind till the end of time.

    The tools of research and the methodology, plus the fact that the Quran is such a perfect Book amenable to such precise scrutiny and analysis, is what certainly gives me the edge vis-a-vis traditional scholarship. What is possible today in half a day, would have taken a lifetime of study earlier.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/12/2016 1:36:14 AM

  • Hats Off, Whether you hate other religions too or not is not material. What is jarring is for you to come to a site where Muslims aggregate and unload your anti-Muslim hatred in the most offensive manner. Muslims do love the Quran and the Prophet and your unbridled hate war is designed to either offend them or to dent their love for their religion. You should either moderate your language or post your comments in an atheist or apostatic website.

    Your pseudo-scholarly observations on what the world would have been like if Islam or religions had never been born is pure hokum. History unfolds as it unfolds and there are no ifs and buts about it. People should of course seek to better their belief systems but going about trying to shake up the faiths of others and to show off how smart one is do not cut the mustard.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/12/2016 1:28:39 AM

  • it seems to me that mr ghulam mohiyuddin's love and defense of islam informs his opinion on my "hate" for islam.

    it is understandable in light of the fact he has not had much opportunity to know what opinions (not that they are so important) i hold on the other major religions - namely christianity and hinduism.

    perhaps another website on new age hinduism or new age christianity is the only way he can understand my views regarding them.

    for his information, my views on hinduism very closely parallel those of one mr kancha iliah. other sources are from history texts on ancient india. the manudharma shastra has also contributed to my opinions on hinduism.

    but most of all my opinion on hinduism is based on the dalit experience of hinduism in contemporary india. i need not say what those dalit experiences are.

    my opinions on christianity are based largely on the basis of two books - one by bartelome de las casas on the spanish conquest of the americas and another by howard zinn on the history of north america.

    i hope this provide some degree of closure for him.

    By hats off! - 12/11/2016 10:19:15 PM

  • Dear hats off!

    I am 70+ and have lived among Muslims of diverse background. I swear by Allah, I never heard that “that qayyamat will not come until the last of the jews is killed?’. I have read the Qur’an, the four major compilations of hadith and the Sira back to back – never found such a statement.,

    If you talk about anti-Semitism, one of the most renowned and respected scholars of Islamic history/ comparative religion of this era, Karen Armstrong says this:

    “Anti-Semitism is a Christian vice. Hatred of the Jews became marked in the Muslim world after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. It is significant that Muslims were compelled to import anti-Jewish myths from Europe and translate into Arabic such virulently anti-Semitic texts as the Protocols of the elders of Zion, because they had no such tradition of their own. Because of this new hostility towards the Jewish people, some Muslims now quote the passages in the Qur’an that refer to Muhammad’s struggle with the three rebellious Jewish tribes to justify their prejudice. By taking these verses out of context, they have distorted both the message of the Qur’an and the attitude of the Prophet, who himself felt no such hatred of Judaism.”  [Karen Armstrong, Islam, A short history, New York, 2002, p. 21/22., quoted in Essential Message of Islam p.125/126].

    I am afraid, you did not write thoughtfully - which you must in this era when the Muslims in particular are having a very hard time, and there is an urgent need for a rapport between the Muslims and the Jews/others

    Even if you were not a Muslim, you should never make a statement that sows the seed of hatred - even if you hear one.

    Anyway, I have no doubt you must have heard what you wrote in your circle - but you should not generalize nor it.

    By muhammad yunus - 12/11/2016 9:57:50 PM

  • dear mr muhammad yunus
    i am sorry about the nearly 'artcle' length comment i am posting. i hope i will not exhaust your patience. also this might "derail" the discussion as you have warned me many times in the past.

    if i understood you correctly, you have posed two sets of questions. one of them historical and the other epistemological.

    historical: if i understood you correctly, you believe that (a) but for islam the dark ages would have continued, (b) but for islam greek knowledge would have been lost, (c) but for islam the roman empire would have spread to afghanistan (d) but for islam mongols would have ravaged india (e) the european dark ages would have continued (f) jews would have no refuge (g) christians and mongols would have been eliminated

    (a) as this is a widely held opinion, i will not question it. but this is only an opinion that is widely held. but opinions are different from "infallible" facts.

    (b) that the arab philosophers translated greek texts is a fact. but to argue that but for them it would not have occurred is speculation or opinion. opinion is different from fact. who knows? if islamic philosophers did not do it someone else might have done it. this is as certain as one can be about historical matters.

    (c) why is the spread of islamic empire to afghanistan preferable to the spread of the roman empire? there are any number of buddhists and hindus who hold that the the spread of islamic civilization led to untold miseries for the inhabitants of the subcontinent. a famous proponent of this opinion is mr. will durant. can we consider their opinions?

    (d) that mongols invaded and ravaged cities is a historical fact. but is it also not a fact that the afghan and central asian and turkish muslims raided and ravaged cities in the subcontinent? why did islam civilize the mongols but could not civilize the afghans and turks? coming to the present day has islam civilized the saudi arabians, or the pakistanis? these are two countries that discriminate against non-muslims by fiat and as government policy. they claim it is based on islamic principles.

    (e) aboout the dark ages can i point out one counter opinion (there are others).  historian henri pirenne has argued the opposite. he thinks the dark ages started after the islamic blockade of the mediterranean. i may or may not necessarily subscribe to this opinion, but i bring this in just to emphasize that historical "facts" and opinions of historians are different things. that islam helped end the dark ages is an opinion - however widely held. it is not "fact". by the way henri pirenne lived in the early nineteen hundreds. i cannot say if he was an islamophobe.

    (f) when did the jews get their homeland? they did only after the balfour declaration - centuries years after the advent of islam. even granting that jews found refuge in various islamic empires, can you assert that they lived a life of equality? they lived as dhimmies under terms and conditions. in my opinion a more relevant issue is why are there no non-muslims in the hejaz - the birthplace of islam? if there were flourishing non-muslim communities in the hejaz, it would have been the irrefutable evidence of your assertions. except for india and perhaps malaysia, why is it that countries conquered by islam became almost 90% muslim? people have argued that it was because islam was superior to the local faith traditions. but that again is a matter of opinion that needs to be qualified.

    (g) historically many peoples and nations have been eliminated by various conquests. vedic hymns attest to 'puram-bhettas' and puram-dharas' meaning a sacker of cities and sackers of forts respectively. other hymns attest to the destruction of dasyus. in afghanistan buddhists were eliminated by the islamic empire. there are historians who believe that the european gypsies of the present day derive from the peoples of the north-western part of the indian subcontinent displaced by the spread of islamic empire. so in my opinion all conquering empires indulge in more or less the same behaviour. while you may be convinced of the exceptionality of islamic conquests, i do not share the same opinion. mr nehru thinks that while the english conquest of india gave it many desirable things, islamic conquests did not produce any thing of such significance as the english conquests. to me all military conquests be it hindu, muslim or christian or even communist-atheistic are all brutal.

    epistemological: at the outset let me tell you what is "certain" according to my understanding. except for the fact that one is alive and that one is going to die, there are no other certainities. knowledge has neither a beginning or an end. certainty cannot be guaranteed in any field of knowledge including epistemology. certainties of the past are constantly being displaced by other "certainties".

    the ancient greek, hindu and buddhist philosophers have proposed theories of knowledge similar to those you enumerated. they have enumerated even more kinds of knowledge - not certainties. kindly refer to the stanford encypedia of philosophy for details - it is freely accessible over the internet.

    but if you want to know if there was a single book which contained these, my answer is that the spread of civilizations nearly always result in the destruction of native records and documentation systems. so it will be difficult to say with any surety. but it appears that theories of knowledge are as ancient as mankind itself. writings and books came much later and helped to record the gist of the past enquiries. nothing has been said now that has not been said in the past - as far as philosophical enqiries are considered. technology and science is another matter though.

    epistemological theories remain theories with little "infallible" facts or even "certainties". philosophy is a search for knowledge - not a search for certainties. by definition, it is never "certain" and the search never ends. scriptures on the other hand are proposed as finalities or ultimate truths.


    By hats off! - 12/11/2016 9:17:22 PM

  • Hats Off's war of hate against Islam seems to know no bounds. His theory is that everything other than Islam is beautiful! He has been so wrapped up in this hate war that he has no inkling what the rest of the world is like!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/11/2016 1:34:00 PM

  • who is it that is filled with hate for all that is good in this world?

    its those that have contempt for the dunya and reverence and fond hope of the aakhirat.

    idol worship is good. worshiping nature is good. polytheism is good. atheism is good.

    agnosticism is better.

    who is it that hate all these "good" things? the kuffar? the momeen? the agnostic?

    why would islam focus on the aakhirat instead of dunya unless aakhirat was vastly superior to the here and now dunya (according to its self certification)?

    which is good? the here and now dunya or the aakhirat?

    can anyone deny that a whole lot of muslims believe that qayyamat will not come until the last of the jews is killed? is qayyamat not a foundational principle of islam? whats the point in lip service to the jews when (most of) the momeen believe that qayyamat will not come until the last jew is killed?

    islam has nothing to do with this abhorrence? really?

    islam trivializes the here and now, while extolling the hereafter.

    so who is it that hates all that is good in this world?

    no one who loves the aakhirat can ever claim love for what is noble and good in this here and now.

    try again.

    By hats off! - 12/11/2016 8:14:56 AM

  • dear mr muhammad yunus

    i will first answer the question you asked and in the subsequent comment address the other matters raised by you.

    by kuffar IIT i denoted modern science and technology institutions that are founded upon completely denying scriptural infallibility and divine revelation.

    in a connoted  or in a rather snide way i was referring to another gentleman (with whom i spar frequently) who claimed that islamic knowledge as propounded by the classical islamic scholars was deficient because they were not equipped with modern knowledge of engineering and information sciences and management studies.

    but that due to his expertise of information technology and engineering knowledge as well as management studies his understanding of the koran is the only correct one.

    this is what i meant by kuffar iit - though in a rather snide way. i believe i have the freedom to do this in the light of his frequent accusations of islamophobia against me and my enmity towards islam.

    i beg your pardon if i caused you to think it was directed at you. no. it was directed at this other gentleman i referred to. we (i mean this other gentleman and i) often trade barbs and insults, but its all in a days work.

    i make no claims of either being intelligent or infallible. far from it.

    it is my firm belief that everyone (prophets included) are just like other persons and just as fallible.

    if i appear to give an impression of being intelligent, it is completely the responsibility of those that perceive its appearance.

    or it is more likely that such an impression is partly due to the way i write in english, which has as often been held against me as it has been held in favor of me. no matter.

    if anything, it is the believers of "divine" revelation that have often claimed infallibility - either the infallibility of their understanding of it or the revelation itself. i strongly contest such claims every time they are made.

    i believe that any claim of infallibility of scriptures (be it the zend avesta, the vedas, the torah, the bible or the koran) is a form of scriptural supremacism, which directly leads to religious supremacism.

    the only infallibility i claim is in the knowledge that i am alive as of now and i am going to die sometime, i claim no other infallibility of no other knowledge.

    might i remind you that you have claimed to have been able to understand and know what the koran means to tell you by your long years spent in its study. so did the medieval scholars. what's the difference? the medieval scholars dedicated their entire lives to koranic studies. you might have given about a couple of decades.

    can i also ask you if you think your understanding of the koran is the correct one? or rephrasing it can you claim infallible knowledge of what the koran is trying to say?

    you have come close to claiming it by often decrying the "petrified" medieval islamic scholarship as well as "modern radical" scholarship. not only that - you often use the terms "duly authenticated". by whom? the al azhar faculty? or mr khaled abou al fadl? are they infallible?

    are you aware of what la azhar says about apostates of islam? or about wife beating? or about non-muslims? i am sure you are.

    i hope i have been able to answer your questions, but i cannot be sure if the answers will indeed satisfy you.

    i am composing the response to the rest of your comment regarding certainty at three levels and other issues you raised. i will post it as soon as i am done putting my thoughts in order.


    By hats off! - 12/11/2016 6:28:04 AM

  • There is a lot to be said for the IIT's. It is the education at IIT to which I owe considerably.

    There is a lot to be said for western scholarship in general which is far superior to scholarship anywhere else. It is the western scholar who is more likely to pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge alone and show lack of bias and greater objectivity.

    There is a lot to be said for the Jews who have excelled in every field. Some of my favourite authors are Jewish.

    The Kafir is neither the IIT nor western scholarship nor the Jews nor the Hindus who invented zero but those who are filled with hate for all that is good and noble in this world.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/11/2016 3:25:14 AM

  • Dear hats off!

    While browsing through comments, I saw your remark: “or unless you are trained by the kuffar IIT, you cannot understand the koran.”

    What did you mean by ‘kuffar IIT’

    You know you are intelligent but you cannot think to be infallible and if you thought so, you are not intelligent.

    Let me ask you some simple question:

    1.     Is it not likely that had Islam not come at the fag end of what the world historian call the dark age, the darkness may have lingered on for centuries, the Greco-Roman intellectual heritage would have been lost for ever, the Eastern Roman Empire would have extended across to Iran and Afghanistan, Mongols would have remained Mongols and ravaged the towns and cities of India, Europe would have languished in its crude and barbaric ways of the dark ages unaware of the advancements of the Islamic civilization, the Jews would have had no refuge from the endless cycle of pogroms and all the minorities in all the countries that cam under the twin super-powers – the Christians and the Mongols would have been largely eliminated.

    Has it ever occurred to you that there are three levels of certainty (yaqin) – the surety by way of knowledge, by way of observation and of a prima faci nature cogito ergo sum)? The only book that told me about this is the Qur’an which has specific terms for these: ilm al yaqin, ayn al yaqin and haq al yaqin? Do you know of any philosopher pre-dating Islam expounding these terms?
    By muhammad yunus - 12/10/2016 10:23:52 PM

  • Neither Deobandis nor Tablighis deserve our support. What they fight about should not be important to us. The only thing that we care about is that Muslims think for themselves, be inclusive and tolerant of differing views. If some people want to pray at Markaz Nizamuddin, that is alright with us. If others consider praying at Markaz Nizamuddin to be shirk, that is alright with us too. What is important to us is  freedom; freedom of belief, freedom to worship, freedom of speech, freedom to dissent.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/10/2016 1:32:25 PM

  • why is it that the koran which self-declares itself as sure (2:2), explaining clearly everything (16:89), guidance for the world (3:96) manages - each and every time (without failing even once) lead to dissent, takfir, disagreement and debate? what guidance? what clarity? what surety?

    what went wrong? is god playing a game - as the hindus say "bhagawan ki leela"? if he is, he is surely not raheem.

    is not the proof of fourteen centuries of strife sufficient? or do we need another fourteen centuries of brutality before we understand such a clear book of guidance?

    it appears that those that read the book and claim to understand it are almost always quarreling, while those that don't read the book and do not know its "meaning" are able to live in relative peace.

    the advice of maulana wahiduddin to a commentator (long since silenced by the moderate muslims) not to question is prophetic as well as paralyzing.

    questioning is lethal to faith. while blind belief without doubting is the preferred mode of "understanding" the koran.

    or unless you are trained by the kuffar IIT, you cannot understand the koran.

    By hats off! - 12/10/2016 9:06:49 AM