Books and Documents

From the Desk of Editor


  • What is a Minority ? Hindooism is evil ! Muslims who co-opt and cohabit with Hindoos become Quasi Hindoos and Dubious Muslimsdindooohindoo.page.tl/Rama-and-Krishna-as-Imams--f-.htm
    Like the Indian Muslims who say that Rama was an Imam
    By CHE - 2/16/2019 9:59:04 AM

  • A Muslim cannot live with a Non-Abrahamite
    It dooms the faith of the Muslim
    Like the Indian Muslims who say that Rama is an Imam
    By chou - 2/16/2019 8:48:37 AM

  • A Muslim cannot live with a Non-Abrahamite!
    It dooms the faith of the Muslim
    Like the Indian Muslims who say that Rama is an Imam
    By chou - 2/16/2019 8:47:41 AM

  • I see nothing that is exceptionable in the points that Hats Off has made and questions raised by him.

    Uncompromising monotheism and uncompromising polytheism are never comfortable with each other and the Prophet's public preaching did offend some people who felt threatened by the new religion and its egalitarianism. They did approach the Prophet for a compromise agreeing to worship Allah if he accepted that a couple of their deities were accepted as smaller gods with the power of intercession with Allah. This was rejected. There was therefore certainly conflict but it is important to keep in mind the following points:

    1. The Quran categorically prevents the Prophet and the Muslims from reviling other religions.

    2. It advises the Prophet and the Muslims to take the stand with those who reject Islam "To you be your religion and to me mine"

    3. It does not believe in compulsion in religion because "(2:256) ".... Truth stands out clear from Error...."

    4. There is a standing order in the Quran to accept peace whenever peace is offered.

    5. After the first battle of Badr, there is the offer that if they gave up persecution of the Muslims all past acts of persecution would be forgiven and the Muslims would return in peace and preach in peace.

    6. The Pagan leaders knew that if the Prophet was allowed to preach unhindered and in peace, all would accept Islam which is why they fought to the bitter end and lost everything.

    7. Those who had never fought or fought but without violating any treaty had the right to practice their religion and become jizya paying citizens. The Prophet did not wrong anyone.

    There is considerable hypocrisy among the latter/present day Muslims as well as intolerance. Islamic theology has been dominated by bigots and distorted through concocted ahadith.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/18/2018 5:44:48 AM

  • For Hats Off only those vignettes of history count that make Islam look bad, because they are the only ones that support his venomous agenda!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/17/2018 12:28:47 PM

  • @Anynymous
    That Muslim should tell him that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. Yes there are some so-called Muslims who misuse Islam for their terrorism activities such as suicide attacks, bombing, killing innocent civilians etc. All these activities, they do in the name of Islam but if we study Islam, Quran and Hadith properly in proper context, we will definitely find that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.
    By Urooj Fatma - 11/17/2018 8:01:24 AM

  • The last war aka Ghazwa of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) took place in the 8th year of Hijra. This war is known in Islamic term as Ghazwa-e Tabuk. By Urooj Fatma - 11/17/2018 7:48:07 AM

  • By Anonymous - 11/17/2018 7:46:05 AM

  • A Muslim asks, "I’m Muslim, what should I do if someone says Islam is the religion of terrorism? By Anonymous - 11/17/2018 7:44:43 AM

  • @Urooj Fatma By Anonymous - 11/17/2018 7:40:14 AM

  • @Anonymous
    Surah Baqarah is the longest Surah. The Ayat 282 of Surah Baqarah (2:282) is the longest ayat of the Quran. This ayat is known as Ayat al-Mudainah (آية المداينة the verse of debiting, lending and borrowing etc). Muslims scholars discuss rules of debiting money in the light of this ayat.
    By Urooj Fatma - 11/17/2018 7:32:16 AM

  • Yes Terrorism has no religion. The fact of the matter is that when books of religions are misused for terrorism, some people say terrorism is the result of religions. However, if we study religions properly in proper context, we find that religions have nothing to do with terrorism.

    In today’s context, some handful “muslims”, misuse Islam for their terrorist activities, but if we study Islam, Quran and Hadith in proper context, we do not find anything to support the arguments of terrorists. Therefore we must say terrorism has no religion.
    By Urooj Fatma - 11/17/2018 7:31:12 AM

  • What is the thing, the longest Ayat, mentioned in the Quran? By Anonymous - 11/17/2018 5:59:45 AM

  • Has terrorism no religion?  By Anonymous - 11/17/2018 5:56:03 AM

  • historical precedence is established and is a matter of common agreement. all existing literature asserts that fact it was the prophet who started out asking the community to give up their ancestral religion.

    just imagine what will happen to anyone in an islamic country did that. what happened to the bahais? is there not a pattern here? what is happening to ghulam mirza's followers?

    the jews of the hejaz had every right to protect their religion by whatever it takes. after all today islam is doing exactly that. no proselytizing by other religions is allowed in any muslim community. why?

    but they demand that dawah be allowed everywhere. and all the four schools of islamic jurisprudence agree that restriction of dawah is a valid cause for calling for jihad. how tolerant is that?

    why is that so?

    can islam or muslims put up with anyone who will urge them to give up their ancestral religion? if the answer is no - why should others?

    that this denigration of previous religion persisted for so many years is proof that the prophet was not tolerant of the then existing religion because he was anxious to be accepted as a prophet - which the jews did not.

    tolerance is a two way street. it cannot be that any community put up with intolerance and denigration perpetually and then get blamed in return when they act.

    it is also a principle of law that the first one to start a conflict should bear the cost of reparations.
    By hats off! - 11/17/2018 4:29:58 AM

  • Yes hats off, there is no answer to what came first, the chicken or the egg?

    But, one might argue that, if tolerance is of universal goodness – as the immediate following article Only Tolerance Can Ensure the Survival of Humankind suggests – then thirteen years was not enough.

    However we agree, I hope, to disagree on historical events as seen by you and I!

    By Rashid Samnakay - 11/17/2018 2:39:02 AM

  • how exactly did the prophetic era start out?

    who was it that first raised questions about the pre-existing religion of the hejazis?

    the hejazis or the prophet?

    it was only 13 years (correct me if i am wrong about the number) or so after this constant denigration that the hejazis retaliate.

    13 years is quite a long time for putting up with any thing.
    By hats off! - 11/17/2018 12:05:50 AM

  • The issue of tolerance/intolerance and power-play in Makkah and Madinah must be analysed in terms the times of constant harassment, torment, economic sanctions and eventually exercise of military Power by the non-Muslim parties, particularly Jews in the conflict in the area of reference.

    The basic rule of law however – no compulsion – remained enforced during the Messenger's time as is proven, say in Egypt and Abyssinia with Christians.

    The later day Muslim on Muslim people's battles and conquest of lands was no different to today's and ancient battles of hegemony of nations with POWER. I believe that is the nature of mankind and Apostles tried to change it without achieving permanent success!

    By Rashid Samnakay - 11/16/2018 5:20:20 PM

  • Hats Off's waggish and rote barbs seem to have the sole purpose of being offensive.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/16/2018 12:55:05 PM

  • Exclusivism, intolerance, legalism and punitiveness are more conspicuous in the latter part of Medina revelations. This is in contrast with what today's progressive Muslims consider to be the true spirit of Islam i.e. respect for the religions of others, no coercion in religion, peaceful co-existence and rejection of violence, hatred and extremism.

    In order to derive correct concepts and principles  based on the true spirit of Islam it is essential for contemporary men to take a central role rather than depending excessively on a literalistic adherence to precedents and texts.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/16/2018 12:49:43 PM

  • any religion that touts itself as the final perfect religion will have to tolerate hatred from all those religions it hates, denigrates and blasphemes as redundant or false.

    monotheism is in no way superior to polytheism, dung worship or even ear wax worship.

    in fact on many counts monotheism is the worst form worship.
    By hats off! - 11/16/2018 7:17:06 AM

  • Blasphemy laws are deeply rooted in Islam and among all sects of Muslims. 
    Shias, Sunnis, Barelvis, Deobandis, and Salafis all are united in their support of blasphemy laws. 
    In India there is no blasphemy law but the constitution still protects religious holiness.
    Pakistan has blasphemy law and it is their matter how it deals with it.
    That Muslims in India do not take the law in hand and go for reporting to Police if any such blasphemous activity takes place. 
    By Usman Sakhi - 11/16/2018 5:37:20 AM

  • La Ikrah Fiddin does not allow anyone to go and speak ill against any Prophet.

    By Ghulam Hussain - 11/16/2018 5:21:14 AM