certifired_img

Books and Documents

Muslims and Islamophobia

114 - COMMENTS

  • Mr Sultan Shahin made every fabulous effort to resolve the ongoing violent issues in the world to a great extent he could. I endorse that he interpreted Islam in its true form. There are some worth mentioning points in the article we need to remember as follows:

    “Any number of modern Quran exegetes have studied the holy scripture and found that there is nothing in it that stops Muslims from co-existing peacefully with other non-Muslim communities either as a minority themselves or in a Muslim-majority country. But much of the present-day problem emanates from the Wahhabi doctrine of exclusivism that is promoted in Islamic societies around the world by a massive injection of Saudi petrodolla”

    “The hard reality is that – the concerning Aayats on close interaction and intimacy (Mawalat) in Qur’an neither addresses the entire Muslim community nor the entire non-Muslim community. In reality, the Muslims and the non-Muslims who are addressed here are particular groups who have some discord among themselves or are at war which is being fought with purely Islamic norms for safeguarding Kalma-e-Tauheed and not for the benefits and advantages of the community.”

    “Indeed Muslims everywhere must oppose the exclusivist-literalist interpretation of the Holy Quran that claims that all its verses are of universal application regardless of context”.

    The writer concludes his statement by a Hadith “All of mankind is from Adam and Eve (Hawwa), an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; a white has no superiority over a black nor does a black have any superiority over a white, EXCEPT BY PIETY AND GOOD DEEDS.  Do not therefore do injustice to yourselves.  Remember one day you will meet Allah and answer for your deeds. So beware: do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.”

    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 6/9/2013 12:33:29 AM



  • regarding the tile of this article i think one cannot, in most cases,  speak about DELIBERATE misinterpretation of the Qur'an. The traditional interpreters and their contemporary  followers are in fact a community of interpreters who share similar methodologies of interpretation and ethical outlooks . as such they are a product of their socio-historical and intellectual contexts.   By adis - 10/1/2012 9:29:13 AM



  • Rational, grammar can be learned, but it is more difficult to overcome peskiness. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/1/2012 2:57:45 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb. It is showing your immaturity. Grammar can be learned. Do you think you are error free? By rational - 10/1/2012 1:58:12 AM



  • Rational says, "I am not run of material. .....I don't to go down than you.

    You certainly have run out of grammar! And your arguments are becoming childish.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/30/2012 1:59:13 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb. I am not run of material. I find you not worth discussing any important issue. What I wanted to know I have now.
    I don't to go down than you.
    By rational - 9/30/2012 10:14:50 AM



  • Rational, it is you who seem to have run out of material. You seem to have no idea how repetitious and inane your comments are. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/30/2012 2:44:12 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb, "Is there more (hal-mim-mazeed)." By rational - 9/30/2012 1:04:48 AM



  • Rational says, "Your comments are like of a typical Muslims."
    Lame response of one who has no good reply! You are like a snake who is running out of venom! By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/30/2012 12:06:34 AM



  • Moderate put more pressure on the international sane community accusing  them of islamophobia and let go the fundamentalist with a written protest. By satwa gunam - 9/29/2012 9:21:56 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb. Your comments are like of a typical Muslims.
    By rational - 9/29/2012 8:14:11 PM



  • Rational says, " Your masters don't listen to Moderate Muslims(slaves). They may allow(remote possibility) under the international pressure."
    Such a stupid comment! Moderate Muslims are not the slaves of any Saudi masters. And when moderate Muslims speak, that adds to international pressure. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/29/2012 1:21:45 PM



  • @Ghulam, In spite of the so called moral policing the homicide is very high in muslim states.  Where it is low are the places were nothing gets reported. By satwa gunam - 9/29/2012 5:44:01 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb. your cry like a sound to a deaf ear. Your masters don't listen to Moderate Muslims(slaves). They may allow(remote possibility) under the international pressure. Who listen to slaves(miskeen), they may hear in future the voice of their rafiques(white race). By rational - 9/29/2012 5:34:29 AM



  • Satwa, your figures show that the homicide rates in some Muslim countries are lower than it is in India. So whatever point you are trying to make is not made. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/29/2012 1:32:36 AM



  • Rational says, "All Muslims are aware that non-Muslims can't be allowed in Mecca and Medina."
    Being aware is different from being opposed to, as most liberal and progressive Muslims are.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/29/2012 1:28:53 AM



  • @rational, It is simple in the islamic majority country that they islam is equal to their local culture and non islam has to survive on the mercy of islamic mulla
    In the countries where muslims are minority, the government has to prove its secular credentials to tom, dick and harry mulla who will spew venom in public place.
    Once this rules are well understood you can participate in any islamic site for conversation.
    By satwa gunam - 9/28/2012 10:45:18 PM



  • @Ghulam Mohiyuddin, Please see the homicide rate of oic countries and you can compare the same with that of India [3.4% ], where the so called moral policing is high and not like in the state of kafirs  ; Intentional homicide, count and rate per 100,000 population (1995 - 2011) :

    Name 2008
     ComoroS 12.19 
        Djibouti    3.39
      Somalia      1.55 
      Uganda   36.29  
     Cameroon       19.72  
      Chad       15.83
     Gabon       13.79 
      Egypt          1.01 
    Libyan Arab  Jamahiriya 2.86 
     Jamahiriya     2.86  
      Morocco       1.36 
    SudaN 24.21 
       Tunisia      1.14
     Benin        15.10  
     Burkina Faso   17.96
      Cote d'Ivoire 56.89
    Gambia        10.76  
    Guinea       22.51 
     Guinea-Bissau  20.22 
      Mali          8.00  
    Mauritania      14.72  
    Niger      30.82
     Nigeria        12.23
     Senegal        8.71
     Sierra Leone   14.91
     Togo        10.85 
      Guyana        21.02
       Suriname     8.35 
     Kazakhstan     10.73
     Kyrgyzstan     8.01
    Tajikistan      1.76
     Uzbekistan     3.10 
      Indonesia     8.07 
     Bangladesh     2.82  
      Maldives      1.63  
    Pakistan        7.20  
    Azerbaijan      2.15
    Bahrain         0.57  
     Kuwait          2.24  
    Lebanon          6.05  
     Iraq        20.04
        Oman        0.68 
    Qatar          0.93
       Syrian Arab Republic   02.69 
     Turkey          03.27 
      Yemen          03.86  
     Albania        2.92
     Albania        2.92

    By satwa gunam - 9/28/2012 10:42:17 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb. Muslims are under pressing situations, therefore there may be some voices from the Muslims. Otherwise All Muslims are aware that non-Muslims can't be allowed in Mecca and Medina.
    By rational - 9/28/2012 9:14:57 PM



  • Satwa says, " look at the practices of islamic world in a dispassionate manner."
    So what do you think this site is doing?  And how do you think you are helping by incessantly repeating the mantra of "Muslims are bad, Muslims are bad, Muslims are bad". Do you know that rape and gang rape are growing exponentially in India? Police records in India reveal that a woman is raped every 34 minutes, molested every 26 minutes, kidnapped every 43 minutes, and killed every 93 minutes. What are you doing about it?
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/28/2012 2:19:19 PM



  • @Ghulam Mohiyuddin, Leave the past on which the current generation does not have any control.   Offspring of the moghul empire lives in pathetic condition in delhi.
    But look at the practices of islamic world in a dispassionate manner. it is for the goodness of moderate muslim that they are in minority as they live peacefull rather than in pieces.
    By satwa gunam - 9/28/2012 12:56:32 PM



  • Rational says, "No Muslim can ask Saudi Arabia to allow other religious sites in that land." This is false. Hundreds of Muslims have in fact asked Saudi Arabia to grant full freedom of worship and equality to all the people living in Saudi Arabia through various channels and media. Saudis will of course resists such attempts, but they cannot resist for ever. Slow baby steps can be seen in inclusion of women in officialdom and programs to re-educate maulvis. External pressure does work even if the process is very slow, and external pressure must continue to be applied. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/28/2012 12:55:48 PM



  • Dear Dharama_raj ji, You should not ask such hard questions. No Muslim can ask Saudi Arabia to allow other religious sites in that land. They have ready made valid(as per Islam) answer for it. By rational - 9/28/2012 12:16:40 PM



  • Dharma Raj, nobody has criticized Saudi Arabia and Pakistan more than I have, but by  bringing them up to support the evil Savarkarian notions of "alien religions and Indic religions", you just proved that Sanghis basically want to make India exactly like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. You want to take India backwards!

    Sure Muslim invaders did horrible things, but you guys trying to hide your own evil deeds by blaming everything on Muslim conquerors are just trying to perpetrate a cheap deception. 

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/28/2012 11:59:01 AM



  • @Ghulam Mohiyuddinji, Ok.Religions are global.Then, why saudi arabia is refusing to bulit other relgion sites in her country..Pakistain really welcome propgation of other relgions?. will Iran allow any Hindu temple to build?
    did buddists ever wag war in china ?. No Sir.Did ever destroy or demolish any relgious sites in china.. No Sir.
    I am asking that why you are unnessary blaming  hindus for destorying buddihsts sites. If you get any proper information from any authorised buddists sites. If you even not ready to accept Dr.Ambedkar who is even virulent critic of Hindusiam.
    what is your mind set that you want to justify cruel Islamic invansion in Indian sub-continent. Even Ganhi and Nehru said about Islamic invansions. They,they are also repeat the same sanghi propaganda according to your belief.
    By Dharama_raj - 9/28/2012 5:15:17 AM



  • @Ghulam Mohiyuddin, I donot waste my energy with somebody who is not interested in the matter. I mentioned it as your reference of buddhism and the inference that hinduism destroyed the novel idea of buddha.  I just want to mentioned that if you want you can refer that part of hinduims which has similar practice much before the advent of buddha
    By satwa gunam - 9/28/2012 5:07:21 AM



  • Satwa, I did not criticize Hinduism. If you believe in polytheism and transmigration of souls, that is your privilege. But if you suggest that your beliefs are better than someone else's beliefs, then you are going against Hinduism itself, which says, "Sarva dharma samabhava". By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/28/2012 2:17:38 AM



  • @Ghulam Mohiyuddin, I think you must read more about hinduism. There is a school of thought called sankya yoga where there is mentioning of god. It is somewhat similar to that of buddhims or suniya vadam.
    Krishna who taught that the souls are immortal and the journey will soul will continue did not recommend the exit of arjuna from battle field as that is requirement of the world to support the good. If it is required to fight the bad.
    My personal belief is whether they are Muslim or Hindus, the journey of the soul will continue till it carries the identification of ego "I".  But that does not mean, i have to accept whatever is told across in the physical plane and not express your view of right and wrong.
    yes there are more matured than me, who just donot participate in the sense, it does not matter to them.  Probably in the journey of the soul, i have not reached that maturity. By satwa gunam - 9/27/2012 11:20:46 PM



  • Satwa, your speaking up for the "diversity of divinity" is neither here nor there. To attack either monotheism or polytheism is to attack the fundamentals of religions of others and is wholly unnecessary. Such a discussion does not lead to any fruitful leads. It is best for you to understand divinity as you do, and let us understand divinity as we do. Let us respect even atheists and let them follow their beliefs (or nonbeliefs). By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/27/2012 1:14:08 PM



  • Dharama Raj, you are regurgitating standard sanghi propaganda. If you do not like what the Dalit-Buddhist sites publish, you attribute it to Christian missionaries! You repeat the obnoxious Savarkarian argument of Indic religions versus "alien religions". Religions are universal not geography bound. Are the Buddhists in Tibet, China and Japan following an "alien religion"? Instead of swallowing such Hindutva sophistries you should think how hateful they are. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/27/2012 12:57:04 PM



  • It's shocking to find that there are less than 300 likes on your page (on Facebook). The articles on your website show balanced views, and promote peace. I hope more and more Muslims will come to practice the version of Islam you promote on your website. Please keep up with the good work! By Ain Shn (on Facebook) - 9/27/2012 12:28:32 PM



  • Allah is allowing the muslim to suffer as these great follower have arrogated themself to called the divinity as mad for having diversity.   These so called follower destroy the diversity of the divinity in the name of the divinity is the right reason for them suffering.

    By satwa gunam - 9/27/2012 10:21:34 AM



  • Is it not interesting that people were/are/will be deliberately misinterpreting the Islamic sources. What is wrong with these sources? Why God is not stopping people. If He is testing people then why there is a cry? Is it not as per the plan of God?
    Allah will not bless all people with guidance whether you pray or not. Allah is not bothered by suffering of people. Does He come to help when someone is looted/killed/raped? By rational - 9/27/2012 5:48:08 AM



  • Some readers of this website are also indulged in deliberate misinterpretation of selected portions of Islamic scriptures, particularly Hadees, Sirra, or biography of the prophet (saw) which are obsolete, unacceptable, unwise and irrelevant in the presnt day context simply for the sake of irritating the liberal and frank readers. That's why, the discussion goes out of bound of its topic and context and another story in spinned altogether. Even such ill-minded critics are also most welcome and the moderates have to tolarate their irritating statements with patience till they are blessed with the true wisdom by Allah Kareem. By ريحان نظامي - 9/27/2012 3:49:40 AM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin, My question  here  you why not refer  authorised buddisht web sites instead of neo-buddhist sites.
    Even, you didn't believe the words of Dailt champion Dr.Ambedkar.
    There  are numerious differences  between Dr.Ambedkar and them.Dr.Ambedkar himself sanskrit scholar and read lot of books then come to judagement.He never accept Aryan invansion theory and support Sanskirt is national language .
    But,they simply coping and
    statements of chirstian misionaries.They are also  hater of sanskrit language just like christain missionaries and supporter of Aryan invansion .They are totally opposite to the Ambedkar's point of view.
    Here,let me clear one point. Hindu,buddhists,jain and sikhs worshipping common Hindu deities. Buddha(Gauthama) himself born as hindu and brought up Hindu.
    He also worshipping same hindu deities. But ,salvation(mukthi) this is the major difference between these sects.Buddhists said salvation  not come  by worshipping Gods. Jains not accept superioty of GOD unlike Hindusiam accept superioty of GOD. But, all sects accepts
    karma theory, birth cycle and fate. Main objective  of these sects to get rid of from birth cycle. 
    That's why these religons called as Dharamic religions .But,abrahmic religons(Jews,christian and Islam) is totally align relgion to Indian sub-contient. By argument(dargam only) ,Dharamic relgions  doing intellectual debate.But, we knew how these abrahmic religions done to non-abrahmic religions. By Dharama_raj - 9/27/2012 3:17:39 AM



  • Mr Sultan Shahin says: "Deliberate misinterpretation of selected portions of Islamic scriptures...... ..has grown manifold" He has very rightly used the word, 'deliberate'. It has now become a fashion in the intellectual scholarly world to curse all that is 'good and followed by the common man' for his social upliftment. It is not only religion, the most followed, Islam or Christianity, but the government of the days that are deliberately criticised to be called 'an intellectual'.
    New Age Islam is a site which is meant to make common man aware of his/her position in religion and the right way of living a life. This website had comments which demanded followings but now the commentators here leave the main topic of concern and start publicising their 'thoughts'. Let us be accurate and to the point. Dear commentators, please stop religious hatred and religion bashing.
    There is One God. Call him with whatever name you wish. All have to die and be responsible for our acts here. Do you all not agree! Do you not believe in the being of Heaven and Hell? Do you not think, you will be punished for your misdeeds? Do you not know what 'good deeds' are? Is there any difference in the teachings of any religion on earth? If no, what are we fighting for? By Arman Neyazi - 9/27/2012 1:35:03 AM



  • Dharama Raj, the concepts of Buddha Maitreya or the 23rd Buddha do not give us liberty to come up with wild speculations about either Buddha or Buddhism. All that Buddha probably meant was that people with good insights were born before and will be born again. It is just further evidence of his humility.
    Dismissing Dalit-Buddhist websites as being stooges of Christian missionaries does not solve anything. These websites name not just one or two Hindu kings but dozens of them who destroyed stupas, killed Buddhists and forced conversions. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/26/2012 1:26:48 PM



  • Dear Ashok Sharma,

    Rest assured I am working on to the best of my capacity. But as you will know human mind loves jokes, slanders and trivialities. One obscure fellow spends a couple of hours to make a slanderous film about the Prophet Muhammad, half the Muslim population would like to see it. I post and article on the Nobel Persona of the Prophet drawn on the Qur’an, around the same time, barely few people posted a comment. I was so ashamed that I had to call my sister Suraiya Sultana to read and post a comment. Jokes, slanders and trivialities cater to the lower instincts and have similar appeal as amorous accounts. The Qur’anic message challenges human conscience and people like to keep out of it. May I request you to read that article and post a comment:

    The Noble persona of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as mirrored in the Qur’an

    http://newageislam.com/islamic-personalities/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/the-noble-persona-of-prophet-muhammad-(pbuh)-as-mirrored-in-the-qur’an/d/8657

      By muhammad yunus (1) - 9/26/2012 11:26:18 AM



  • Thank you Mr. Muhammad Yunus(1). I support your views. These need to be publicised. By Ashok Sharma - 9/26/2012 10:09:21 AM



  • @ rational, Pls read the sankya yoga probably you will see lot of similarity between buddhism  in that.  By satwa gunam - 9/26/2012 8:42:55 AM



  • Dear Ashok Sharma, To explain the presence of ‘fighting verses’ in the Qur’an, I have to say a word on the 23 year long history of the Prophetic mission. The first 12 years (610-622) was based in Mecca, where the Prophet was rejected, his followers were tyrannized and persecuted and finally forced to migrate to Medina (622). There were hardly a hundred converts. His mission saw an about turn in this Medina. His popularity and fame increased day by day and social networking gained converts. Before long, the Prophet was appointed the civil head of the mixed Medinite community that included the polytheists, Jews, Christians, and the Muslim umma. This was very alarming to the Prophet’s Meccan foes. They saw the writing on the wall: Unless Muhammad and his followers were annihilated they could grow too powerful to resist. It was in the backdrop of this threat and actual full scale attacks that the Qur’an prescribed fighting. Many Muslims who were common citizens not trained in warfare, however, detested it (2:216
    The instruction to fight and kill the ‘polytheists’ thus came down in the context of defending against attacks. It was as if the Muslims in Medina were in a battlefield and their commander, the Qur’an which decided all matters for them, gives them a go ahead to fight and kill the enemy, bearing down on them before it kills them: “Fight in God’s way those who fought against you, but do not exceed limits. Surely God does not love those who exceed limits (2:190).”
    Practically all Qur’anic verses enjoining fighting and killing are complemented by reconciliatory verses or spell out the rationale behind this instruction – to defend against an attack or persecution: “And fight them until there is no more persecution, and the religion (din) of God is established - but if they desist, let there be no hostility except with the oppressors” (2:193).
    The Qur’an fully clarifies itself in a passage dating from the late Medinite period that asks the Muslims to be just and virtuous to those who did not fight against them over religion, nor expelled them from their homelands (60:8), and reminds them that their enemies could eventually turn their friends (60:7), thus predicting the eventual friendship of the Medinite Muslim community with their Meccan foes. The revelation also clarifies that it forbade the Muslims to befriend only those who fought against them over religion, and expelled them from their homelands and helped (others) in their expulsion (60:9). In yet another passage (5:27-30) dating from the closing phase of the revelation, the Qur’an illustrates a model of non-violence in an episode involving the two sons of Adam (not named as such) that concludes with the rejoinder:
    “For that reason We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever kills any person - unless it be (in punishment for) murder or causing corruption on earth - it shall be, as if he had killed all humanity, and whoso saves a life, it shall be, as if he had saved the life of all humanity…” (5:32).
    However puzzling or apologetic it may sound to a casual reader, the Qur’an has an existential dimension. In addition to offering guidance and illustrations, – it also touches on the key events of the Prophetic mission. Therefore, all those verses that relate to fighting the pagans were specific to the era, addressed to the growing Muslim community under attack. They do not constitute universal commandments of the Qur’an but were historically necessary to guide the Muslims of the era in defending themselves.
    As far as its guidance to humanity is concerned, it commands humanity to probe its verses (38:29, 47:24) with a positive state of mind (56:79) focusing only on clear verses (ayatum muhkamat) – such as those free from any ambiguity or confusion (mutashabihat) (3:7) and seek the best meaning in it (39:18, 39:55). It declares:
    “He is the One who has revealed to you (O Muhammad,) the Book which contains (some) clear verses that (form) the essence of this Book, while others are allegorical. As for those with perversity in their hearts, follow that which is allegorical seeking confusion and seeking an interpretation. No one knows its interpretation, except God.
    Hope this explains the presence of the so called ‘fighting verses’ in the Qur’an. I think I had explained this earlier – but I do appreciate your question and am delighted to prepare this comment for you. By muhammad yunus (1) - 9/26/2012 8:39:26 AM



  • dear yoginder sikandji. This is the most beautiful principal of Buddhism. For rationally thinking and freedom lovers in beliefs it is the most favorable doctrine. By rational - 9/26/2012 2:50:21 AM



  • “God had sent Islam to the world as a blessing; it is we Muslims who have turned it into an object of fear.” However there are enough grounds for this fear. The following Surahs have to be reinterpreted :
    (Surah 3/56): ‘As to those who disbelieve, I will punish them with a severe torment in this world and in the Hereafter, and they will have no helpers’.
    (9/112) “The Believers fight in Allah’s cause; they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”
    (8:39) “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”
    (8/65)  “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding.”
    (8/12)  “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle. (So strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes)” By Ashok Sharma - 9/26/2012 1:09:53 AM



  • @ghulam Mohiyuddin, I did not try to correct buddhist text books.we read buddha is founder of Budhhists in history. you ask any buddhist bikhsus(holy person), they said Gauthma Buddha generally referred Buddha  is 23rd buddha and they are expecting arrival of mitraiyai buddha. By dharama_raj@rediffmail.com - 9/26/2012 12:59:27 AM



  • @Ghulam Mohiyuddin ji, Dalit-Buddhist websites are paid agent of Christian missionaries. Please only refer authorised Buddhist web sites. Dalai Lama is respectable leader of Buddhists. He never said about anything Hinduism destroyed Buddhists religious sturctures, forced conversions.
    You cannot get any substantial evidence regarding forced conversions, demolition of Buddhist structures by Hindu kings due to religion motives except one or two incidences. whereas regarding demolition of Hindu, Buddhist and Jain religious structures, ,forced conversion, killing, looting by Islamic invaders and Mughal kings clearly regarded in various Arabian, Persian, English and French records even in local Indian languages. Even Islamic invaders eagerly wrote how they killed kafirs (non-Muslims)and demolished their religious structures.
    Ambedkar who himself champion of Dalit- Buddhists said downfall of Buddhism is mainly due to Islamic invasion.
    For eg, before Islamic invasion, Afghanistan and Bengal is full of Buddhists. After Islamic invasions, entire Buddhist population gone from both areas. Mohammed bin Bhakitayar demolished and destroyed Nalanda University in year 1193.In this event, all Buddhist Bhikkhus escaped from India. By dharama_raj@rediffmail.com - 9/26/2012 12:33:50 AM



  • @ Ghulam Mohiyuddin, It is more the concept of dravidian vs. aryans. It is all done by the vested interested for their convenience.
    There could have been some king who would have destroyed buddhist  temples in some pocket of india as nobody ruled india completely even by the all accepted history books, so how can king of small place india remove buddhism out of india.   After ashoka, i think it is only under augangazeb the whole country was ruled by one emperor. 
    "His Brahmin teacher, Mahadev Ambedkar, who was fond of him, changed his surname from 'Ambavadekar' to his own surname 'Ambedkar' in school records"
    "He is regarded as a Bodhisattva by some Indian Buddhists, though he never claimed himself to be a Bodhisattva.[5"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar By satwa gunam - 9/25/2012 9:08:08 PM



  • one wonderful thing about the Buddha is that he does not require you to  believe in him, nor does he threaten you with hell-fire if you dont. By yoginder sikand - 9/25/2012 8:56:21 PM



  • Dharma Raj says, "Contrary to belief, Buddha commonly refered Gauthma buddha is not founder of Buddhisam."

    We should accept Buddhist history as told by Buddhists. When people of one faith go correcting the narrations of another faith it just creates unnecessary controversy.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/25/2012 12:03:47 PM



  • Satwa, it is the Dalit-Buddhist websites that depict history of destruction of Buddhism by Hindu kings. Hindutvawadi historians are notorious for whitewashing history and will always blame Muslim conquerors for all the ills in India. We won't be able to get any futher with this by rehashing well worn arguments, but I take note of your position on this subject.  By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/25/2012 11:52:39 AM



  • Ratata, all scriptures and belief systems, whether they dropped from heaven or not, can be accused of being "gup". They are matters of faith. While I do not go questioning the fundamental faiths of any religion, I do question the need to add new self-serving theses e.g. that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu or that Prophet Muhammad's arrival was predicted by scriptures of other religions. There is no need for either expropriation or embellishment. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/25/2012 11:42:10 AM



  • Mr Satwa Gunam: Thanks for information. You are right in your assessment, Lord Krishna was not behind the downfall of Duryodhana. He was suffering of human weaknessess such as avarice and false pride and he had devilish intentions so he wished to capture the whole Hastinapur and not to consider even five palms of land for Pandavas which was proposed to him. Ultimately, the good prevailed over the evil and an example was set upon for the world.

    By Raihan Nezami - 9/25/2012 10:59:09 AM



  • @ Dharama_raj
    Belief of hinduism is that the dharma start deterioting with the movement of yuga from krita, treta, dwapara and kali.  Krishna's incarnation is due to the request of mother earth that the sinner have increased.
    Krishna used duryodhana, jarashanda and kalyavana to bring all the sinner to gave and destroy them.
    Gurushetra war only took 18 askshauhinis that is approximately 39 lakhs soldiers

    Akshauhinis
    (1,530,900 soldiers)

    11 Akshauhinis
    (2,405,700 soldiers)

     

     But if you look the fight which happened between krishna and jarasandha it was more 18 akshauhinis.

     

    War between the good and bad will never end and that is the philosophy of hinduism.  Pandavas represent the righteousness and it is the duty of righteousness to bring togather all like minded forces by compromise or by winning over.

     


    By satwa gunam - 9/25/2012 10:01:07 AM



  • @Satwa gunum, do you really think only Mahabharatha war is in Mahabharatha nothing else more.
    Ok. come to point. You said about Rajasuya yagnam.How Rajasuya yagnam performed .The first qualification for performing Rajasuya is that go to overall globe and defeat or compromise the kings to accept his soverignty.
    While pandavas went over all globe, manytimes they had to engage in war. Not only Rajasuya,Aswamedha yagnam also performed like that. Then Bhisma  and karna also engaged many wars. By Dharama_raj - 9/25/2012 4:51:02 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddinji, No buddhist (authorised) not neo-buddhists leaders acccept buddha is avatar of Vishnu.
    Buddist religion is sperate entity and it very old religion. We  get references about buddhists in Ramayana compiled by Valmiki. Lord Rama talked about one buddha  pkkishu (pious person) in kiskinda kandam of Ramayana.
    Contrary to belief,Buddha commonly refered Gauthma buddha is not founder of Buddhisam.
    Even jain  religion is very old reglion like Buddhisam.Nami nath is relation of Lord Krishna. By Dharma_raj - 9/25/2012 4:42:00 AM



  • @  Ghulam Mohiyuddin, Hinduism destoryed buddhism is something which i will not buy. Buddhism last its charm of non violence the bhakti cult which came up in a big manner.   Buddhism is similar to the gnana yoga or contemplation which can be practiced by few and not the emotional flock of  population.
    Further traditional scriptures of hinduism does not call buddha as an avatar of hinduism. By satwa gunam - 9/25/2012 4:26:08 AM



  • @ Raihan Nezami, One common thread of hindu mythology is as under :
    Any body can become powerful by his own effort but sustenance of the same depends on his character.
    Further there is no such things as permanent angels or demon as per the creation of divinity.  God become demons and demons by their good karmas become god and it is cyclical and nothing is permanent.   Objective of the human soul is to beyond the angels and demons to merge with the divinity without individual identification like the river merging into the sea and loosing its identity.
    Coming back to the question whether krishna was pushing for the destruction of duryodhana, no it is his action which deserved that. 
    He came as the messenger giving the lost opportunity for the duryodhana to decide for peace.
    Duryodhana thought that having bhisma on his side is enough to finish the krishna as krishna previous avatat parasuram was defeated by bhisma on the 23r days war
    Krishna used lot of tricks to the save the good / pandavas in the war and it was fair. By satwa gunam - 9/25/2012 4:23:49 AM



  • mr mohiyuddin, all scriptures that claim to have dropped from heaven are so much gup! By Ratatatata - 9/25/2012 4:08:48 AM



  • Yes, Mr Satwa, you are right, Pandavas followed the path of non-violence and peace before being forced into battle and destruction as I had watched it in B.R.Chopra's serial Mahabharat except two episodes. But I have a doubt, will you clear, was it not the divine conspiracy of lord Krishna to make Kawravas froce upon the battle upon Pandavas and get to their destruction in an attempt to finish the evil power. By Raihan Nezami - 9/24/2012 10:25:54 PM



  • @ dharama_raj, I think you must read mahabharat more carefully.  Why did yudhistira / dharma putra play gambling ?
    Once the rajasuya gets over, dharamputra seeking reassurance of the prosperity of his dynasty.  vyasa to the contrary  tells that he will be reason for the destruction of the guru dynasty. 
    He takes a vow that he will agree with any person in his clan so that there would be argument which could lead to the fight.
    Towards the end, he asked duryodhana to give him five villages for five brother as settlement. Fight happens only after duryodhana mentions that he will not give a pinpoint land to pandavas.
    Fight of the pandavas was when they had pushed to the corner inspite of them following ahimsha.  Please read well before making some passing remarks.
    If you want details of the chapter also, i can provide you. By satwa gunam - 9/24/2012 8:26:19 PM



  • Satwa, why not let Buddhism flourish as a separate entity. I do not know any Buddhist leader accepting the thesis that Gautama was an avatar of Vishnu. So why this one-sided attempt at sanatanization? By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/24/2012 2:41:49 PM



  • Muslims must stop saying that the religious texts of others are corrupted. The Quran must have had a purpose in saying that at a particular time and in a particular place, but we now are in no way qualified to detect "errors" in the holy books of others. We deprive ourselves of treasure troves of wisdom by not reading the Gospel According to Matthew or the Gita. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/24/2012 2:18:57 PM



  • Ratata says, "don't some muslims use somewhat the same type of ruse when they claim that mohammed was allegedly predicted in the buddhist and hindu scriptures."
    If you put the claim of Buddha being an avatar of Vishnu at that same 'gup-sup' level then I have no problem with it. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/24/2012 2:07:22 PM



  • @satwa Gunum, I thought you read Mahabharata of someone else rather compiled by Vayasa Mahamuni. war and fight between warrior clanes is the core theme of epic.
    Anyway,you come to my point ie non-violence is one part of our Dharama not main dharama suggested by Jain,buddha and chirstainity. Sammam(convinence),pedam(to try to segregate people who rebels),Dhanam(to give material and convince people) and finally Dhadanam(violence). By dharama_raj - 9/24/2012 11:57:12 AM



  • Dear Mohd yunusji(2), The same question asked by me in several times against Islam apologists. If others books(hindu,buddha,christian and Jews) are corrupted,then why zahir Nayak like people eagerly want to show  evidence for Mohmmed.
    If these books revealed by GOD,why not He Himself  protects these books from manual corruption like Qur-on.
    Since muslims hurt our feeling by saying our books are corrupted , then we go for rampage and killing people  like what happened after "Innoncence of Muslims" film shown. Did they accept it?  By Dharama_raj - 9/24/2012 11:46:46 AM



  • @ Ghulam Mohiyuddin, HInduism during the revival by shankara did not expropriate buddhism but the ahimsa of buddhism. He emphasised the ahimsa part of the hindusm which was hijacked by the ritualistic brahmins. By satwa gunam - 9/24/2012 11:36:41 AM



  • @ Dharama_raj Mahabharat is the complete depiction of the non violence.  When the non-violence is not respected then the last chance is violence. It is like amputation after the medicine donot work. So there is no question of complete non violence like that of christianity or buddhism in Hinduism.  Sama, bedha, dhana and dhanda.  Convince, confuse, corrupt and annihilate By satwa gunam - 9/24/2012 10:29:51 AM



  • Dear Ratatatata, Muslims forget that other scripture are corrupt (corrupt according to Muslims). Same corrupt text they use for their benefit (to prove Mohammed the prophet) , otherwise they find countless errors in them.
    Do you  wonder ever why Allah promised to protect the Quran only? Were other books not the words of God? Is it surprising if Jews, Christians and Hindus or others corrupted their books?
    Were not people smarter than God? God was watching His words were getting corrupted. Did He not know that people will corrupt his words? If He knew Why didn't He  stop them?
    Perhaps this is a system devised by smart people to delude and control the masses. By mohd yunus - 9/24/2012 10:13:22 AM



  • ghulam mohiyuddin saheb. don't some muslims use somewhat the same type of ruse when they claim that mohammed was allegedly predicted in the buddhist and hindu scriptures, and arguing on this fanciful basis that buddhists and hindus should, therefore, convert to islam? By Ratatatata - 9/24/2012 4:13:20 AM



  • Why this eagerness to show Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu? Is it a Hindu ruse to expropriate Buddhism? By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/24/2012 1:33:58 AM



  • follow your inner voice...no need for an external authority--ratatatatat is so correct....why bother about who exactly the ninth avatar is, blah blah blah By yoginder sikand - 9/24/2012 12:49:31 AM



  • @Satwa gunum, Non-violence is major doctirne of chirstainity, Buddha and Jain religion.
    In Hinduisam , non-violence is praised. But, due to practically unfeasiable it is only said to Brahmins or those leading spritual life. Householders or those leading other professions it is not possible to adapt non-violence.
    Balrama is not avatar of Vishnu.He is avatar of Adisesha. Also parasuram is not avatar of vishnu.only the power of vishnu given to him by Bramha for annihalating adharmis(unrightneess people) halied from warrior clane. By Dharama_raj - 9/24/2012 12:09:03 AM



  • @ Dharama_raj, As per written scriptures, ninth avatar of vishnu is balaram and not buddha.   I would say the greatness of hinduism is the adaptability and it took the best of buddhism and put it in its own belief and so the requirement of buddhism was not there for the people in india. By satwa gunam - 9/23/2012 9:04:46 PM



  • @Ratatatataji, Mr.Satwa gunum misunderstand that Gauthma buddha is avatar of Vishnu. Buddha never ever said that He is  avatar of God or his followers speaking  like that. Buddha is avatar of Vishnu but it is not Gauthama buddha.You knew there are 24 Buddhas incarnated in world. Buddha avatar of vishnu is one of them.
    Buddha(Gauthma Buddha)  preached non-violence.In any avatar, Vishnu never preach non-violence but He only advocates war against Adharama(unrightness). By Dharama_raj - 9/23/2012 11:28:52 AM



  • Dear  Ratatatata A valid point. First enemy Brahminism of Budhism then Islam. In fact religions especially God based were enemies of each other. You can see all god believing religions unite together to oppose Science but otherwise are enemies of each other. All believing people boast that all scientific truths are already present in their holy books. One fails to understand why they didn't discover before scientists discovered and invented. By mohd yunus - 9/23/2012 7:24:03 AM



  • Dear Dharama_raj ji I am scholar of nothing but admirer of Mr Ali sina, Mr MA Khan. I am a regular visitor of www.faithfreedom.org, www.Islam-watch.org and www.mukto-mona.com, other scientific and secular sites. Sometime I visit Islamic sites also.
    I visit Hindu sites as well as Buddhist and christian sites. Reading has been my passion writing not.
    By mohd yunus - 9/23/2012 7:05:30 AM



  • Dear Mohd.Yunus(2),
    I understand you are great Islam scholar and also very informative on all  subjects.So, you can start new web site like great Ali sina 's  main.faithfreedom.org and put challenge against Islamic scholars and Islam apologists.
    By Dharama_raj - 9/23/2012 4:19:48 AM



  • Dear Nezami saheb. I agree with you. I am not a Mufti. I have very much energy and with age it is increasing until your jealous Allah decides otherwise.
    I am fine with my wisdom may be feeble but I have not given up to use it.
    Millions of Muslim don't read the Quran, another millions read but don't understand. What is surprising in it? I stated truth only. What is your problem? Do you want to say every Muslim read and understand the Quran?  Where are you living? My talks are not sensible to you but some find it fine. I don't mind it may be subjective.
    Mujhe to lagta hai is dushman-e-iman ke bagair tumhara dil nahi lagta.
    Love to you my friend
    By mohd yunus - 9/23/2012 3:39:50 AM



  • Pharaoh could not believe in the God of Moses the prophet because God has made an enemy from jins and ins for every prophet.
    If we ponder over the system of Allah sending prophets to guide mankind it is evident some people will be enemies of the prophets.
    “Thus we made for every messenger an enemy - Satans from among men and jinn, some of them inspiring others with seductive talk (in order to) deceive (them), and had your Lord pleased, they would not have done it. Therefore, leave them and what they forge” (6:112)
    Is it  not a kind of predestination? Nimrod, Haman, Kans were bound to be enemies of God. Were not they? How could those go against the plan of God?
    Even after understanding the noble Quran people don't accept  Islam. Why? Even miracles did not made people to believe in the God. Why?
    Now noble commentators may laugh on my questions and may say I am repeating again and again By mohd yunus - 9/23/2012 2:21:36 AM



  • Doing good is inherently right and should require no further support. Ghulam Mohiyuddin
    My comment Excellent indeed. By mohd yunus - 9/23/2012 1:43:35 AM



  • @Ratattataji, This is not brahamical revivialisam.This is called devotional movment started from south India in which all communites participated.. Also, buddishm preached non-violence practically not feasiable .Lord krishna encourges Arjun for legal battle. Furthermore, buddhisam there is no devotion but indian mind set  always like that  praise the God and devotion.
    Hinduiam is not brahminism because important personalities Lord kirshna and Lord Rama are not brahmins. By dharama_raj - 9/23/2012 1:07:55 AM



  • MY2: You are not authorised to deliver (Fatwa) verdict like a Mullah, " Perhaps very few lucky people like Md yunus(1) sahib and Naseer Ahmed sahib etc can understand divine speech." Allah Kareem says, "Qur'an is easier to understand for the whole Ummat including You if you try to.

    Your another objectionable statement, "For being a Muslim no understanding of the Quran is required. Recite the Kalima willingly or unwillingly and be a Muslim. Then follow some Mullah. Practice some rituals and the end comes". I am surprised at your wit and tiresome bothering mind that nevers tires. Have some wisdom to talk sensible.

    By Raihan Nezami - 9/23/2012 1:07:16 AM



  • satva jee, brahmins 'adopted' the Buddha as the supposed ninth avatar of vishnu principally to destroy buddhism in india.....if they were so sincere about believing him to be an avatar, how come while they have so many temples of ram, krishna and other avatars of vishnu you won't ever find them worshipping or revering the Buddha in their temples? By Ratatatata - 9/23/2012 12:41:22 AM



  • Dear Mohd Yunus. You are going round and round in your argument - saying the same ting again and again. Had you read the few articles I proposed to you on the fundamental aspects of the Qur'anic message, you would not have said: "Perhaps very few lucky people like Md yunus(1) sahib and Naseer Ahmed sahib etc can understand divine speech." Kindly read at least their concluding remarks and raise your questiona under the article. My latest open letter to Pakistani Muslim women awaits comments from some Muslim ladies. Can you get some ladies in your circle to read it and post her comment. You remind me of Altaf Hussain Hali's paralleling the Muslim intelligentsia with the Oxen of Oil Mills – standing at one place even after going round and round for a hundred years. Wake up please. You may not be as brilliant as you think and the same goes for me of course - saying the same thing again and again.   By muhammad yunus (1) - 9/22/2012 10:02:18 PM



  • @ Ratatatata
    Hinduism never gets into the rat race. However it provides for the intellectual debate called tharka. In fact  one of the argument which shankara had was with mandal mishra and they both decided to have mandal mishra wife as the judge as they could not find somebody who is better learned in the crowd.  It talks about the intellectual honesty and trust.
     
    In fact hinduism went ahead and took buddha as one of the manifestation of vishnu.  The words of christ "from others is all fear" was well understood and practiced by hindus hence there were never others vs. me

    By satwa gunam - 9/22/2012 9:33:32 PM



  • Naseer Sb. quotes from the Quran: " if proof was provided then, doing good will lose all moral value."

    Do such arguments strengthen or weaken the case for theism? Theism is a matter of faith and is not enhanced by logic. Doing good is inherently right and should require no further support.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/22/2012 2:52:31 PM



  • dharma raj ji, the fact brahminical revivalists, in part, were responsible for the decline of Buddhism in india doesnt not mean that brahminism is superior to Buddhism..... By Ratatatata - 9/22/2012 12:56:09 PM



  • Everybody Moderate or traditionalist is playing with the noble Quran. Everybody claims that his interpretation is valid only and rest are Gumrah. Allah is also playing with people.
    Muslims are giving and taking lives for unexplainable holy text. Givers and takers of life both are wrong and right simultaneously.  It can be possible with God's speech only. Either God is not a good teacher or people are imbecile. Perhaps very few lucky people like Md yunus(1) sahib and Naseer Ahmed sahib etc can understand divine speech.
    For being a Muslim no understanding of the Quran is required. Recite the Kalima willingly or unwillingly and be a Muslim. Then follow some Mullah. Practice some rituals and the end comes. In this way millions of Muslims are living their life.

    Better if I keep myself away from such ambiguous divine speech. At least for me it is not a divine speech.
    By mohd yunus - 9/22/2012 12:13:09 PM



  • @Ratatataa,
    budda doctorine called suniya vadam .It defeated soundly by Adi Sankara , Ramanuja and Madwa ,three great teachers (Gurus) of Hinduisam.
    Hindusam, Islam and christainity accept superity of GOD and all live-being created by GOD. Time,date only applicable to human being. So, you have to map according to your mode of Time. Because GOD is no begining ,no ending.
    By Dharama_raj - 9/22/2012 11:26:55 AM



  • Does God exist? The Quran draws attention to the ayats or the signs of God and not to a proof of God and is quite emphatic that if proof was provided then, doing good will lose all moral value and there is no further purpose to life. The truth is made manifest before life is taken away and when the truth becomes manifest, repentance is not accepted. Pharaoh cried out that he believed in the God of Moses before he drowned but belief can be a belief only as long as the truth is uncertain otherwise it is certainty and doing the right thing when what is right is made absolutely clear, has little merit.
    Surah 10:90 - 92. We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam)."
    91. (It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)!
    92. "This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!".
    Surah 4:18. Of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, until death faces one of them, and he says, "Now have I repented indeed;" nor of those who die rejecting Faith: for them have We prepared a punishment most grievous.
    So if you are looking for absolute proof and certainty, then you will have to wait till your death. The Quran makes it very clear that such certainty is not possible before death.
    Not just Israr Ahmed, but every Muslim knows that he is required to believe in “The Unseen”.
    Wales - A speech by HRH The Prince of Wales titled Islam and the Environment, Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford
    http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speechesandarticles/a_speech_
    by_hrh_the_prince_of_wales_titled_islam_and_the_env_252516346.html
    "Four hundred years of relying on trying and testing the facts scientifically has established the view that spirituality and religious faith are outdated expressions of superstitious belief. .. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God so, therefore, Q.E.D, God does not exist. It is a very reasonable, rational argument, and I presume it can be applied to “thought” too. After all, no brain scanner has ever managed to photograph a thought, nor a piece of love, and it never will. So, Q.E.D., that must mean “thought” and “love” do not exist either! Clearly there is a point beyond which empiricism cannot make complete sense of the world. But we do have other kinds of “language,” as Islam well knows, and they are much better at dealing with the realm of the soul and matters of meaning. ..Take the difference this made in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries, as an example, during the so-called “Golden Age of Islam.” It was a period which gave rise to a spectacular flowering of scientific advancement, but all of it was underpinned by an age-old philosophical understanding of reality and grounded in a profound spirituality, which included a deep reverence for the Natural world."
    Kant's Philosophy of Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/#3.
    3.4 The immortality of the soul or on the near impossibility of true morality without the concept of God and an afterlife.
    In response to this predicament, Kant affirms a principle that, with respect to choice and action, such practical use of our reason cannot require of us what is impossible. To the extent that we view these requirements of reason from the sensible perspective of spatio-temporal causality, they will seem impossible of fulfilment. When, however, we view them from the intelligible perspective within which we frame the exercise of freedom, their fulfilment can legitimately be “postulated” in terms of the immortality of the soul and of the existence of God. Thus, with respect to the requirement that we attain the complete moral perfection of a holy will, Kant holds that we are justified in affirming that we will have an unending and enduring existence after death, outside the framework of spatio-temporal causality, in which to continue the task of seeking moral perfection. He holds a similar view with respect to the requirement that the highest good be the object of our willing. Even though our moral actions do not seem to have the efficacy required in a spatio-temporal framework to produce the happiness proportioned to virtue that is a necessary component of the highest good, we are justified in affirming that there is a supreme cause of nature — i.e., God — that will bring this about, not merely for ourselves, but for all moral agents. By Naseer Ahmed - 9/22/2012 2:45:04 AM



  • dear mohammed yunus
    maybe i made a mistake...perhaps there is nothing as ruh...iski koi aqli saboot nahee hai

    By Ratatatata - 9/21/2012 9:00:38 PM



  • Dear Ratatatata. Your logic is very strong indeed
    par zara sochiay to to sahi - ruh aur aql ki aakhi bunyad kiya hai.



    By muhammad yunus (1) - 9/21/2012 7:28:56 PM



  • It is interesting that a literalistic approach is preferred both by fundamentalists and by apostates! It serves their diametrically opposite puposes. For the easygoing non-dogmatic folks understanding Islam with their liberal mindsets poses no problem at all. If one espouses Islam and liberalism, one's mind will naturally reconcile the two. This may be beyond the comprehension of those with rigid minds. Some of them prefer wallowing in controversies to resolving issues. For them it is all a game. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/21/2012 2:31:38 PM



  • If God created the world, why is it that not a single scripture that claims to be from him tells us when exactly [date, time] this 'happened'?

    if god created the world, then why is it that no scripture that claims to be from him tells us why suddenly, after being quite content with no world existing, god developed a desire [he is said to be above desire] to create the world and have people bowing before him like slaves?

    all these beliefs are just very childish.....this is why the Buddha's teachings are most sensible...there's no concept of a creator god in these teachings.....and there is no silly dogma that you have to believe in otherwise you will go to hell!

    ruh aur aql ki azadi sabse afzal azadi, jise naklee mazhab ne chheen liya hai By Ratatatata - 9/21/2012 11:56:52 AM



  • Dear N Ahmad: Sometimes asking questions lands you in trouble. But a truth-seeker, like Socrates, raises questions. He was sentenced to death by drinking hemlock-liquid. I 'pray' that you do not suffer the same fate.

    While watching one of the TV talk shows, I was shocked to hear Dr (moulvi) Israr Ahmad--a Pakistani religious scholar-- saying that there is no evidence for existence of God.
    By Hasan Abbash - 9/21/2012 11:37:12 AM



  • Janab N. Ahmad Sahab. Say something new please. It is a very and totally unproductive and irresolvable debate. Here is the rendition of the Surah Ikhlas that declares that there is no common boundary between humans and God.
    “There is One God (ahad) – the Eternal, the Absolute and the Unparalleled (Samad). He is neither begotten, nor does He beget and nothing is comparable to Him.”(Sura 112). 
    So to believe in him or not to believe is your choice. Why raise a question that almost every human being confronts at one or the other stage of life and then gives up as a faithful or faithless. And moreover who cares whether you believe in him or do not believe. And who cares if you think all those who believe in him are fools. Please try to add some value to others through your involvement rather than saying the same old thing.
       
    By muhammad yunus (1) - 9/21/2012 8:59:27 AM



  • Almighty God, please offer proof of Your existence so that people like N Ahmad may convert to Islam.  By Hasan Abbas - 9/21/2012 5:55:39 AM



  • Dear N Ahmad. I charge you for stealing my words.
    In whole known history only once Allah sent the Ababeel to protect the Kaaba (An Idol shrouded in the mystery).
    Allah is the most helpless entity in the whole universe who swears in the name of living and non-living creatures.
    He along with malaika sends salutations to Mohammed the prophet (His slave). Guess who is bigger????
    Kee mohammed se wafa toone to ham tere hain, yeh jahan kya cheez loh-o-qlam tere hain By mohd yunus - 9/21/2012 5:28:13 AM



  • There is a rumour on earth  that God exists ! He is so helpless that he is dependent on men (prophets/awatars) to give his introduction! Alas! He could not save his house "Kaaba Sharif" being bombarded several times even by Muslims! what a beautiful fantasy of "Jannat" where houirs will welcome in their arms to all those who regularly pray as reward. Rightly Ghalib has said " Mujhe Maloom hai jannat ki hakikat lekin, dil ko bahalane ko Ghalib ye khyal achha hai!" By N Ahmad - 9/21/2012 2:44:32 AM



  • 1.       Dear Ratatatata,

    Your rational doubts on the existence of God based on the examples you cited are absolutely correct.

    Without trading superfluous remarks that could be misunderstood let me pick at the thread of the debate, why believe in God at all and what kind of God is He – if at all He exists who will condemn all non-believers, polytheists, animists and other category of non-believers in God into hell.

     For a long time in my life, the same question haunted me. I looked at it in a broader historical timeframe. Here is a piece of my reflection preserved in my file on the sufferings of the jungle man:

    “The early jungle man had his own trail of agonies. Lightening struck him; floods, cyclone and volcanoes (depending upon where he lived) uprooted and destroyed him. Wild beasts chased him, attacked him, tore him apart - at times in the very presence of his kins; or carried him off. His only weapons were stone and stick. He used these to protect his fragile body from the wild beasts, as well as to hunt his prey. He wore no shoes, was barely clothed (in leaves or hides), and had to endure agony of all kinds of injury, illness, and deadly diseases, leaving their healing to time. As well as Nature, the early man had another greater and more treacherous foe: his fellow-man. He was chased and hunted by rival tribes, or captured by them as slaves. His women were defiled and children tortured and killed before his very eyes. He was pushed over the cliff, or tied up in the forest for the wild beast to eat, and was even eaten up by his cannibalistic counterparts. His agony was thus compounded and he must have lived in a state of perpetual terror and uncertainty.”

    Question that once haunted me and remains unanswered: Why did God leave them to suffer for millenniums?

    You can raises rather thousands of questions to rationally demonstrate that there is no God. If you just reflect on man’s tyranny upon man – be it in a run of the mill robbery, murder or rape or communal riots, pogroms, genocides, holocaust,  plundering and invasions of history, high tech missile attacks, use of chemical weapons and carpet bombing of modern times and so forth, you do wonder why people – helpless men, women and children are torn apart, buried alive under debris of bombed buildings or burnt alive by phosphorous flames - killed and maimed in the most agonizing circumstances, with God as a silent witness. If you think of the calamities of Nature – earthquakes, Tsunami, cyclones and the misery of their victims – with God, the creator of these catastrophes doing nothing. You feel something is amiss – inexplicable about the very notion of God. 

    If you reflect of the plight and misery of the poor people in your neighbourhood – no money to take a dying child to a doctor or to marry off a growing daughter (if you only understood what i mean) and of the vanquished communities of the world – all killed or enslaved in historical perspective, of the ‘les miserables in the medieval ages, of the gladiators killing each other before the gaze of godless spectators (Greek rational elite) you wonder what the hell God was doing.

    Imagine the plight of the slaves and the kidnapped girls dumped on the Kothas to be visited by sons, fathers and grandfathers; of women folk in all major civilizations through to the Middle Ages. God simply watched.

    Based on the above and similar examples, I have no basis to believe in God and I had been Godless for a long time.

    All said, I believe in God, because I know with certainty that there is a divine hand behind the movement of my fingers on the key board of my laptop and behind the intricate working of the laptop and behind all that is most puzzling, most mysterious and most beautiful within and around us, and because of my personal journey into my scripture. You may have right not to believe in God, and you can also ridicule me for believing in God but my core scripture (not theological discourses) tell me not to ridicule you if you do not believe in God and not to take any offence of what you think of me. Moreover, contrary to your view and that of the Mullas, my scripture tells me that God alone will judge among all humanity – including all categories of non-believers on the Day of judgement and the Muslims (followers of the Prophet Muhammad) will be treated at a par with humanity. These are not my views. I have established these on the basis of the Qur’an and posted Ijtihad works (fresh insights).

    You cannot judge the true message of Islam by what 100% Mullas say in the 21st century as much as you could not judge the true message of Christianity or Hinduism by what 100% of their priests advocated in the 17th or 18th century of our calendar.

    I hope I have not offended your feelings in any way and if so I apologize beforehand. They say ‘doodh ka jala maththa phuk phuk kar pita hai.’ I am writing to you purely academically, to make you my friend and not my enemy but if it boomerangs, my effort is wasted.

    May I request to read and comment on my following articles:

    The Hindus are not ‘the mushrikin’ mentioned in the Qur’an

    http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamDialogue_1.aspx?ArticleID=5655

    http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamUrduSection_1.aspx?ArticleID=5725 By muhammad yunus (1) - 9/19/2012 10:54:10 PM



  • sorry, mohammed yunus saheb, my earlier comment was incomplete...the last sentence should read 'don't remain stuck in the same old groove....let reason, not dogma, love, not hate, universalism, not parochialism, sense, not myth, guide us' By Ratatatata - 9/18/2012 11:12:57 PM



  • mohammad yunus saheb
    why should one believe in any god at all? have you seen him? felt him? known him? heard him? it is all speculation--unless you have actually known, through your experience, god or godliness or whatever, i cannot accept what you say.....stop repeating like a parrot whatever you've been taught by the mullahs.

    your eccentric interpretation of islam may not be acceptable to most mutaqqi muslimeen, who are convinced that all non-muslims, including all non-monotheistic non-muslims, are gumrah and jahannami. 

    if the god you believe in does exist, and if only monotheism is acceptable to him as you suggest [parroting what the other muslims say], why does he cause billions of people to be born [in the past and now, too] into non-monotheistic, atheistic, agnostic, polytheistic families, where they grow up, for no fault of their own, to think that what their families believe is right......would this so-called god, who is seems just to be a paranoid dictator, consign millions of good-meaning Buddhists, Hindus and communists to hell just because they didnt believe in  him?
    how funny! come on yaar, aql istemaal kar....dont remain
    By Ratatatata - 9/18/2012 8:50:33 PM



  • Dear Ratatatata, "the Qur’an describes Islam’, as the universal faith that was enjoined on earlier prophets, who were all true Muslims (2:131-133), and conveyed the same essential message."

    "The Qur’an sets good deeds as the common criteria for divine approval for all humanity (2:62, 4:124, 5:69, 64:9, and 65:11)."

    "The Qur’an, however, complements the notion of good deeds with moral uprightness (taqwa)."

    "In the Qur’anic worldview, a good Muslim is a believer in God - regardless of religion, race, cast, creed or affiliation with a spiritual fraternity, who is active in good deeds, is conscious of his social, moral and ethical responsibilities and preserves against all that is gross, immoral and unjust. Since God alone can judge human’s faith (Iman), deeds (‘aml) and moral uprightness (taqwa), a non-Muslim in the divisive human language can be a better Muslim in divine record than a Muslim (follower of Prophet Muhammad). Hence the Muslims have absolutely no basis to call the non-Muslims as kafirs (denier of truth), individually or collectively."

    In a word, the Qur'an uses the word Islam in a generic sense that is inclusive of all monotheistic faiths. The above quotations are from my following researched article, you may read if you like.

    The broader notion of din al-Islam is inclusive of all monotheistic faiths.

    http://newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/by-muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/the-broader-notion-of-din-al-islam-is-inclusive-of-all-monotheistic-faiths/d/8054'

    By muhammad yunus (1) - 9/18/2012 12:11:33 AM



  • i completely agree with maihihun. the quran says that islam is the only deen acceptable to god and that no other religion will be acceptabed by him....now, the vast majority of the mullahs and their followers take this to mean what it really seems to mean--and that is the root of their fiercesome intolerance......

    any people who think that their religion or ideology is the only true one are bound to become intolerant. witness communists, and christians, too, at one time.......
    By Ratatatata - 9/17/2012 8:39:48 PM



  • Sadaf. You say: “I do not think that the Islam phobia is the real thing.”

    This is what one of the top Islamic scholar and jurist and Prof.of Law, Shaykh Khaled El Fadl writes about it:

    “This, however, is one of the reasons that Islamophobia and Islam-hating is emblematic of the foundational failures of the modern age—policies that target or profile Muslims as a group, or that speak of the dangers of a Muslim cultural invasion of Europe, or that legitimate the denouncement and deprecation of the Islamic faith, very much like the institution and logic of Apartheid, undermine the fundamental structure of legitimacy in the modern age.  In this regard, there are many reasons to be very concerned. 

    Policies that are founded on the presumed inherent dangers of Islamic theology or law; or policy makers who effectively legitimate religious bigotry by seeking the “expert” counsel of professional Islam-haters do nothing less than undermine the very logic that provides structure and authoritativeness to order of this age.  I emphasize that the problem is not the existence of discrete and surreptitious religious bigotry—the problem is the fact that this religious bigotry is rationalized, and legitimated; it is cleansed of all sense of shame or fault and then stated as a normative value: the truth that needs to be uncovered.  Here, the evidence on the ground, so-to-speak, is shocking, deeply troubling and overwhelming. For example, since 2002, thousands of books published in the United States and Europe spewed sheer hateful venom against Islamic theology, law, and history.  More troubling is the fact that many of these pseudo-intellectualized displays of bigotry became massive bestsellers in Western countries.  The writers of these hate-filled tracts were endowed with star status in the West as they consistently appeared as authoritative voices on everything Muslim in the media and were integrated into positions of authority by being given various institutional roles either as advisors to governments, members of government, or references for specialized agencies within government. Part of the very widespread phenomenon of religious bigotry was the opportunistic and parasitical celebration and promotion of so-called native informants—people who fit the Muslim ethnic and cultural profile, claimed either that they are Muslim or used to be Muslim, and above all were willing to perform the dramatic role of the archetypal Muslim who gazes in the mirror only to discover his/her hideous ugliness (contrasted of course to the beauty of the non-Muslim other), and then overcome by tragic destiny, he/she plunges in cathartic self-flagellation (or more precisely, Islam flagellation), which comes to the entirely predictable realization that all the ugliness in the mirror after all is Islam’s fault.  Of course, for the bigoted, but paying, reader’s ecstatic enjoyment, the native-informant climactically confesses Islam’s sins and bombastically declares, lest it be damned, Islam and of course Muslims too, must repent!  The classic and also the most indulgently obnoxious examples of this pornographically-oriented exploitation of non-religiosity, or perhaps anti-religiosity, are the money-raking books of Hirshi Ali and Irshad Manji.          

    What fuels the Islam-hating industry in the West is that many sincerely believe that they are reacting rationally to a cultural, political, and militaristic threat.  But it is important to remember that every social movement that has demonized a feared and hated other has constructed its hate-narrative as an unpleasant but necessary defensive response to a perceived threat—whether real or imagined. The very nature of bigotry and prejudice is that they are paranoid reconstructions of reality—they grossly exaggerate a kernel of truth into an enormous lie.  So, for instance, bigots do not imagine that Muslim terrorists exist but they imagine that terrorism is the prevailing reality of Islam. 

    What is especially troubling about Islam-hating is that it is a powerful indication that the West, which led the world into modernity, has been unable to overcome its own historically rooted religious prejudices and bigotry.  Islam-hating and Islamophobia are among the few remaining sanitized and legitimate social pathologies in the West not because bigotry against Islam and Muslims is practiced or tolerated, but because it is affirmatively honored and even glorified as part of the analytical discipline of national security and interest.” [Extracted from Dr.Fadl’s introduction to ‘The Essential Message of Islam, Amana Publications 2009].

    Do you know how many hundreds of billions of dollar and how many agencies and hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect staff are engaged in the States to ward off another 9/11.

    Have you realised how unlawfully (from both secular and religious perspective) have the Muslims reacted to a film demonizing the Prophet.

    You seem to be acting like the legendary ostrich that buries its head into the sand in the face of Islam.

    There is an SOS for you – an article on the petrifaction of Islam. Please read closely and comment.       

    By muhammad yunus (1) - 9/17/2012 7:20:37 PM



  • "I think this whole debate about 'genuine Islam' and 'distorted Islam' that liberals like you and radical Islamists both are engaged in is utterly meaningless and has no solution whatsoever. The only way out is to try to live life according to one's conscience, rather than being dictated to by this or that interpretation or misinterpretation of what are believed to be holy texts."

    To a great extent, this is the right solution. As for the response, "Solutions come out of debate and brainstorming....a solution, for moving forward towards peace and prosperity for all.", I really wonder that is it possible that these debates help in achieving the said objectives. I am being skeptical because I see that the conflicts are deliberate, and some people benefit from it, while majority of them enjoy the feeling of burning hatred because of their perversion.

    The point could be: then why I am here, when I know, no solution will emerge? Then I think, I am here for keeping an eye on the thinking process of people across the spectrum and be wise enough to not run into the violent ones, unarmed. That is the personal objective, while as a Muslim, the objective is to do research on the people's participation in such debates and the responses they have. This is not the only forum where I take a dip to test the water. My observations support the statement mentioned above, that is "that the conflicts are deliberate, and some people benefit from it, while majority of them enjoy the feeling of burning hatred because of their perversion".

    The whole thing has got nothing to do with Islam or Hinduism or Christianity or Atheism or any religion or any sectarian differences within the religion. Islam is the subject matter because of two reasons.  First one is that Muslims have a considerable presence and influence on the globe and second is that this website focuses on Muslims and Islam related issues.

    People arriving here have special interest in Islam and Muslims; some arrive here for gaining knowledge, some for imparting knowledge and again some for pure fun; Fun of mocking at other's point of view. While there must be some others beside me who are here to read minds and find trends.

    One more observation I would like to share which might be a dampener for pure fun lovers and a ray of hope for those who see bleak future the way the events around the world unfolds, is that common men and women have lot more things to do in their life than debate and these common men and women make the bulk of population while all the debaters and commentators are those rare germ cells who are fixated with thoughts on Muslims and Islam. As long as they are not coming out in real world and leading rallies, they pose no threat nor can they benefit others much. They are basically of no consequence. At best, they give people like me, some clue of their type and their percentage in population. Those who indulge with them are basically interacting with a specific kind which is not to be representative of the masses of Muslims or about what the masses think or as the case is, do not think. Their presence and occurrence is not more than the numbers and frequency of suicide bombers we come across or get to hear occasionally. They basically help balancing by their numbers the number of bombers who are also rarest of rare individuals. Rest of the masses are asses, belonging to every religion, where they live, in some way, together, in the world and then they die their natural death after sometime playing religion-religion and during which at times they quarrel and then they mix again. They do not find these debates interesting. They do not understand it; they in fact, in their wisdom find it futile and wastage of time.  It is only those who find such debates interesting live in a make belief world where there is a problem and then where that problem has got some solution.

    I do not think that the Islam phobia is the real thing. If people start reading fashion magazine or cricket news or watch business channel, there is no Islam there and then there is no Islam phobia even.  Muslims would be beaten just as others who were previously beaten and in future some another brand would be beaten after Muslims are gone. But then one mustn’t cry when I die. Can your cry bring back life to the dead? But if Muslims are not gone even when I am gone, why should one cry? Am I that important? Or do you think yourself more important than you really are? And is it pessimism for pro-Muslim? I do not think so. It is pessimism of pro-Muslims. In real, Muslims will survive if they deserve and would it be justice in Islamic sense that they survive, if they do not deserve? They will survive because of the balance of the world with its features. They will survive because of the presence of common men and women, the asses masses, and not because of their intellectuals or suicide bombers, known to others as Muslims and claiming to be the same.

    By sadaf - 9/17/2012 2:26:14 PM



  • Dear Mainhihun Saheb,

    You say: “You also do very well know that they ardently believe that Islamic reformists and liberals like yourself are DELIBERATELY misinterpreting Islam to bring it in line with liberal values.”

    Whatever “they” may believe, Mainhihun Saheb, what is it that you believe that is more important. Solutions come out of debate and brainstorming. Rather than meaningless debate and point scoring, I prefer brainstorming among people who really are looking for a solution, for moving forward towards peace and prosperity for all. To a certain extent, exactly what extent is difficult to know but the fact is undeniable, that to some extent, West’s liberal values are based on or inspired by their interaction with the Muslim world and Islamic values. Human Rights, for instance, is an Islamic value, so are plant rights, prisoner rights and so on. Earth rights, etc. have come to us from Jainism. But I think it was Muslims who introduced even Hindu philosophical and scientific and other thoughts to the West. However, as Islam was decades after the demise of the Prophet captured by its inveterate enemies who had accepted Islam under duress of circumstances, distortions started setting in early on.

    We have to use our rationality and imagination to see where Islam would have been had its growth not been impeded by these circumstances.

    In any case I would be more interested in your views rather than what you imagine “we” or “they” think about one another.

    And, yes, thanks for admiring my "courage". I really don't feel so very courageous, but many thanks. 

    By Sultan Shahin - 9/17/2012 11:19:35 AM



  • Your speech is a remedy and with the t ime. I fully agree with you.

    By Shaik Iqbal Ahamed - 9/16/2012 11:00:59 AM



  • Mainhihin Saheb, You are right! This argument over whose interpretation of Islam is right and whose is wrong is absolutely meaningless. Each side claims to know the mind of God! And that's completely absurd and stupid. How can mere mortals claim such a thing??????? There's a limit to their arrogance and this is certainly trying to defy that limit.
    Both the liberals and the fanatics are engaged in a meaningless exercise.
    Since we can never know what THE authentic Islam is [and Muslims have been squabbling over this since the very beginning], the only sensible option is to opt out of this debate altogether. So, just focus on living a decent honest life and forget about what the TRUE islam is. It is all bogus speculation. Religiousness, in the sense of being a good person, rather than religion should be what we should focus on. And for that you don't need to believe in anything but yourself and what you know through your experience.This principle applies not just to Muslims but to all other people too. By Ratatatata - 9/15/2012 12:45:48 PM



  • Dear mainhihun saheb. I endorse your observation fully. Problem of blaming is prevalent in whole Islamic world.
    In the history of 1400 years God never told who is right and who is wrong. He will not tell in future too, because perhaps he is non-existent, or doesn't what is happening in the world.
    I feel it will continue to happen no matter moderates like it or not.
    By mohd yunus - 9/15/2012 1:19:49 AM



  • Dear Sultan Saheb
    While I admire you for your courage in speaking out on many issues of vital import, I don't think I can agree fully with what you have argued here.
    You claim that the radical Islamists are DELIBERATELY MISINTERPRETING Islam in order to justify terrorism. 
    Sultan Bhai, this claim of yours is not at all valid. You know as well as I do that the Islamists are not DELIBERATELY misinterpreting Islam. You do know that they ardently believe that their terror-driven interpretation of Islam is the RIGHT interpretation. Further, you also do very well know that they ardently believe that Islamic reformists and liberals like yourself are DELIBERATELY misinterpreting Islam to bring it in line with liberal values.
    So, both sets of Islamic activists/thinkers---radicals and liberals--are accusing each other of DELIBERATELY misinterpreting Islam! Now, whose interpretation is correct and whose is distorted is something that NO ONE in the world can answer. Perhaps only God can--if He exists in the way many people imagine.
    That is why I think this whole debate about 'genuine Islam' and 'distorted Islam' that liberals like you and radical Islamists both are engaged in is utterly meaningless and has no solution whatsoever. The only way out is to try to live life according to one's conscience, rather than being dictated to by this or that interpretation or misinterpretation of what are believed to be holy texts.
    By mainhihun - 9/14/2012 10:06:07 PM



  • Fantastic speech by Mr Shahin. I don't know when will we understand that the war-related verses were only meant for those people and that time and they have no relevance whatsoever today? For the selfish needs some misuse these verses. Mr Shahin, speaking at the United Nations and clearing this point, is worthy of great praise. By Aiman Reyaz - 9/14/2012 8:54:11 PM



  • Dear Sultan Saheb. Excellent job. You may convince the leaders of the world but it is a very uphill task to change the mindset of the Muslims. It needs major/ revolutionary paradigm shift in religious thoughts. The menace of Islamophobia as you correctly noted is linked with the radicalization of Islam and that is very ominous. You will have my article on this theme before long.    
    By muhammad yunus (1) - 9/14/2012 1:26:44 PM



  • Very cogent and timely piece from Sultan Shahin sahib. It is shocking that in this day and age the tide of intolerance and ignorance is so strong. Those who have the pen write about it, but those who have the power and the pelf just ignore it, or even fuel it. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/14/2012 1:16:59 PM



  • Congrats to Janab Sultan Shahin Sb for an invaluable doctrine which strongly warns against growing Islamophobia around the world, and pleads for communal harmony among the various religions, it is bound to promote inter-dependence and co-existance by denouncing the exclusivist and extremist theory of Islam. By Raihan Nezami - 9/14/2012 11:57:52 AM