certifired_img

Books and Documents

The War Within Islam (19 Jul 2014 NewAgeIslam.Com)




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   134


  • You all are sick. .
    This is for doom. .
    Ask your kids to study science rather than foolish debates like above. 
    No uneducated fool has ever established any Kingdom ever in history and no one shall in future.  Yes they can plunder , loot or destabilise kingdoms but can not ever create any Kingdom. ..
    So you fools don't make more fools. .


    By boby - 8/21/2014 8:39:27 AM



  • Deoband must stop inviting foreign maulanas who exacerbate Shia-Sunni divisions.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/11/2014 12:41:22 PM



  • http://chagataikhan.blogspot.in/2009/03/allama-niyaz-fatehpuri-and-his-faith-32.html

    "I have denounced Islam. I believe this is incumbent upon people. If Allah is God in the heavens, I am God on earth (statement of Hussain bin Mansoor Hallaj, Khateeb Baghdadi vol.8, Ibne Athir 11:140). Men of knowledge see Shias as swines (Mohiuddin Ibn-Arabi, Futuhat Makkia 2:8)."
    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/11/2014 7:58:59 AM



  • Mr Shahin says:

    "Shia leadership in India has been behaving in a very mature fashion for the last several years".

    Yes, I agree they are. They have refused to be misled twice by NAI's false propaganda.

    The other reason perhaps is because they are well aware of Salman Nadvi's consistent record of standing for communal and sectarian harmony. Listen to his videos and there is no mistaking that he genuinely stands for unity and for communal and sectarian harmony.

    I have done my research only lately, but why is that from day one, I have been pointing out to:
    1. Your total neglect of the object of the letter to Baghdadi while making too much of the pleasantries that precede any appeal. The letter is clearly appealing against killing of Shias and non-Muslims and destruction of shrines which you deliberately ignored.
    2. The fact that the primary purpose of the Global army in Saudi Arabia is for the protection of the holy mosques and to replace the US army and the mention of Iranians/shias is in the context of warding off known specific threats to the holy mosque based on historical incidents and not based on any sectarian hate.

    You have also ignored his clarification that appeared the very next day and subsequent unequivocal denunciation of the ISIS and its leader.

    So why cannot NAI behave in a mature fashion like the Shias?

    As for the fatwa of apostasy, who on this website have denounced the fatwas of Raza Ahmad Khan Barelvi? On the other hand it was supported on the grounds that Raza Khan's fatwas are on "Quranic basis".

    The Azmate Sahaba meetings have not produced a single unsavory incident till date.

    The Madhe Sahaba in Lucknow is however a Barelvi innovation confined to only Lucknow where Shia's are in large numbers, and coincides with Chehhulum and meant specifically to cause them annoyance, which produces friction every year,  and some incidents, has resulted in rioting in the past resulting in a ban etc. against which you have not a word to say! why dont you demand its abolition since it is not celebrated anywhere else? 


    By Observer - 8/11/2014 4:25:57 AM



  • By the way, Naseer Saheb Observer, Shia leadership in India has been behaving in a very mature fashion for the last several years. Sunni ulema too have tried to maintain sectarian peace all this while. But situation has changed since Imam-e-Haram Sheikh Abdur Rehman Al-Sudais arrived in Deoband on March 25, 2011, on the invitation of  Maulana Arshad Madni for an Azmat-e-Sahaba conference in Delhi. These conferences, acompletely unnecessary and only designed to annoy the Shias, were then held all over the country including Shia stronghold Lucknow in a grand style. Then another Imam-e-Haram Sheikh Dr Khalid Bin Ali al Ghamidi visited India on the invitation of now-famous Maulana Salman Nadvi on 11 May 2012. He refused to lead prayers in a Shia mosque despite express invitation as Shias too venerate imams of Kaaba Sharif. Now Maulana Salman Nadvi has offered a five-lakh Muslim army from India to the Saudis "to face threats from Shias" and  also written to the new "Khalifa" of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, offering his support and suggestions.

    I am certain that Shias are worried, many of them are even prepared to go to Iraq and fight the so-called Islamic State and its Khalifa. If they are not making a big deal of it, that is thier wisdom and maturity. But it is for us Sunnis to nip the evil in the bud unless we are ourselves preparing for an all-out sectarian war following Saudi directives. Saudi Arabia is the only major Western and Israeli ally that has kept its silence on the Islamic State of "Khalifa" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, others being Saudi allies of the GCC who have been actively supporting it. Indian Muslims too are silent and ambivalent about the Islamic state. So far only 18 of us are known to have gone over to the Islamic State. While one Maulana here has offered his support and suggestion to the khalifa openly.  


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/11/2014 3:25:36 AM



  • Naseer Saheb Observer, You may see what you wish, but what I have written is testified by daily news headlines. We are not dealing here with a hypothetical issue or theory of Salafism-Wahhabism. We are dealing with facts on the ground. People are dying. Women and children are being made slaves in the 7th century style. Muslim women are being raped under a new order of nikah-e-jihad or whatever this lunacy is called. Start reading newspapers, watching television news. But to begin with read the following. Maybe you will reflect on the Deobandi religion and introspect on your own behaviour:

    The War Within Islam (03 Dec 2012 NewAgeIslam.Com)

    Silent On Suicide Bombings, Deoband Declares Shias Kafirs and Ahmad Raza Khan Bareillvi Gumrah (Deviant)

     By S. Arshad, New Age Islam

    December 3,  2012

    On November 24, 2012, Darul Uloom Deoband reiterated its fatwa declaring Shias kafir and Murtad (infidels and apostates) in response to a query from a Muslim in Pakistan. The person had put the question:

    “If someone claims that he is a Shia but does not specify any Shia denomination, for example, if one of my friends who is obviously a Sunni but jokingly says he is a Shia, will he become kafir because of his assertion though some of the Shia denominations are Muslims.”

    Darul Uloom Darul Ifta replies:

    “If your friend is a Sunni he will not become a Shia if he says so jokingly but if on inquiry his beliefs are proved to be like those of the Shias, he will be judged as such. The Shias found in India and Pakistan are asna ashri (twelvers) and therefore undoubtedly Kafirs and Murtads (non-believers and apostates) because their beliefs are against the ordainments of the Quran.

    In reply to an earlier query in April, 2011, the Darul Ifta says that all Shias are not Kafirs. The query was:

    “Are all the Shias non-Muslims?”

    The reply was:

    “All the Shias are not kafir. Only those Shias are kafir who believe in the following:

    ·         That Hazrat Gebriel (the angle) mistakenly put revelation to Prophet   Muhammad

    ·         (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) instead of Hazrat Ali.

    ·         Who believe that Hazrat Ali (Razi Allahu anhu) was a god

    ·         Who blame Hazrat Ayshah (Razi Allahu anha) of adultery

    ·         Who believe corruption in the Holy Quran

    ·         And who deny the companionship (Suhbat) of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique (Razi Allahu      

    ·         Anhu) (Fatawa Shami, 4/135)

    But the Shias who believe only that Hazrat Ali was better (Afzal) than other companions and do not have other Shiite beliefs then they will not be considered as kafir.”

    Since serious rifts exist between the Sunnis and the Shias in Pakistan and other Muslim countries, our muftis are providing the sectarian militants a religious basis and justification for bloodshed and violence in the name of Islam. The Darul Ifta does not only declare them kafir but Murtad (apostate) and according to some Hadiths, apostates are to be killed though the Quran does not prescribe death for apostates. The Sunni radical outfits use these Hadiths to justify the killings of Murtads. Can the attack on the school buses carrying Shia children be justified or conducting suicide attacks on the Shia procession in Pakistan, Iraq and other Muslim countries be justified? The answer is a firm ‘no’. But this is exactly what happens the whole year and particularly during the Ashura every year in these countries. And these religious perverts use such fatwas to justify their killings.

    In one of the two Fatwas, Darul Uloom accepts that some Shia groups are not kafir, how can then one identify a Shia who is a kafir and the one who is not. The killers do not carry an identification parade to distinguish between a Shia Muslim and a Shia kafir/Murtad before killing him. They will just use the fatwa to kill them. Shouldn’t our muftis and ulema abstain from giving such fatwas to avoid schism and bloodshed among Muslims? The Quran does not even allow killing or persecution of the peace-loving non-Muslims even if their beliefs are in opposition to the Quran’s. How can the different beliefs of a sect of the Shias be a basis of their being wajibul quatl (deserving to be killed)?

    Surprisingly, to a query on suicide bombings, the mufti of the Darul Ifta had refused to give his fatwa, though the entire Islamic world has declared suicide bombings haram and unjustifiable in the light of the Quran and the Sunnah. A person from Pakistan had asked the following question in May 23, 2007:

    “I want to ask a question on jihad. How justified is conducting suicide attacks against the non-Muslim army?”

    Instead of giving a firm reply declaring it Haram on the basis of Qur'anic verses and Hadiths, the mufti of the Darul Ifta parried the question saying, “Please consult the ulema of your country on this issue”. This should be seen as a very irresponsible behaviour on the part of the Darul Ifta since it did not remove the misconception of a Pakistani youth about suicide bombing. It should be mentioned here that last year the eminent Islamic scholar Professor Tahirul Quadri and other Islamic scholars of the Muslim world had declared suicide bombings and suicide attacks on anyone, be it Muslims, Shias, Ahmadis or Hindus etc Haram and un-Islamic. Did the mufti have an opposite view on the issue which it did not want to give for the fear of criticism from the Hindu majority in India? It is an irony that the Deoband readily comes up with a fatwa of Kufr and irtidad (apostasy) against the Shias but eschews the most important question of suicide attacks which is anti-Islam according to the majority of the scholars of Islam.

    Again to a query on the religious head of the Bareillvi sect, Ahmad Raza Khan Bareillvi, the Darul Uloom says that though the fatwa of kufr is not issued against Ahmad Raza Khan with conviction as a precaution for various reasons but he is a deviant person (gumrah) and so he is only excluded from Ahle-sunnah wal jama’at as he disagrees on some of the basic principles.  Though his disagreement on such issues does not qualify him for a fatwa of kufr but it renders him deviant (gumrah) and excluded from ahle-sunnah wal jama’at. (Fatwa issued on 31 July 2012)

    The question is: Is exclusion from ahl-e-Sunnah wal Jama’at synonymous with being declared kafir? If not why is the fatwa of exclusion from ahl-e-Sunnah wal jam ‘at issued against him in the first place? The fatwa itself says that Ahmad Raza Khan disagrees on some basic religious issues but this disagreement does not tantamount to Kufr but in the view of Deoband School of jurisprudence, his views on certain issues of the Quran are deviance. So if someone differs on certain points or issues of the other, he should be a deviant and excluded from the fold of Islam. This is the intolerant approach our Deobandi ulema have and this intolerance has been promoting hatred and acrimony among the Muslims.  

    URL:  http://www.newageislam.com/the-war-within-islam/s.-arshad,-new-age-islam/silent-on-suicide-bombings,-deoband-declares-shias-kafirs-and-ahmad-raza-khan-bareillvi-gumrah-(deviant)/d/9525


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/11/2014 2:52:32 AM



  • By Sultan Shahin - 8/10/2014 8:45:57 AM

    Reconcile what you say in your last post with what you say below in which you are accusing me in particular (against all evidence to the contrary), Nadvi (against evidence to the contrary), Deobandis (against evidence to the contrary) and all non-Barelvi sunnis since you have included all Deobandis also:

     

    As for his non-sectarianism, I have told you again and again that all Wahhabis including you and him and Saudis and Deobandis and Hafiz Saeed and Osama bin Laden claim to be "non-sectarian," meaning no other sect has a right to exist. Wahhabism wants to - and is implementing this wish -  kill all those who do not believe in their sectarian ideas. Perfect non-sectarianism!

     

    I do not see a reformist in you but a rabid Barelvi who hates all non-Barelvis and will stop at nothing to malign them. You have seen the video. See it once again. Nadvi is speaking on communal and sectarian harmony. Is he saying that all sects must disappear? He is clearly saying that while one may identify with a sect, one must eschew all sectarianism meaning the tafreeq and inteshar of sectarianism, the building of walls, discrimination, hate, ill-will, lies and slander to malign other sects, mischief mongering etc.

     

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=isqwAUn5dwY

     

    If you do not treat  the terrorists as outside the pale of Islam and every sect, you are behaving like an Islamophobe and do not have any solution as your goal. Your intention is to use the opportunity to indulge in your sectarianism. So halt your sectarian rants and attack the problem and not sects.

    Salman Nadvi is from Lucknow which has the highest Shia population in India and fire brand leaders like Jawad Kalbe. I have not seen any report of any  Shia leader from Lucknow denounce Salman Nadvi for his letters. Only a solitary Shia leader from Mumbai appears to have denounced him. Does this not imply that the Shias of Lucknow do not look upon Nadvi as a sectarian sunni against the shias and they do not interpret his letters the same way as you do?



    By Observer - 8/11/2014 12:36:40 AM



  • dear hats off! - 8/10/2014 12:29:29 PM
     i am not a seasoned person so these mistakes i do. the day may come when i will be immune to such attacks.
    let them say what they want.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/11/2014 12:22:49 AM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/10/2014 2:44:32 PM
    please do continue. i am sorry for previous two comments.
    keep calling them destructive.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/11/2014 12:17:19 AM



  • Mr. Rational, this is an open forum. Anyone can comment on your posts and call them destructive if one thinks so. You of course have the privilege, if you want to use it, to explain why they are not destructive.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/10/2014 2:44:32 PM



  • dearest mr rational,
    the english have a saying. 'everything is fair in love and in war'.

    i think we are all in the midst of a perpetual war without winners. winning or losing will probably starve the war industry of profits and the only way they can prevent an industrial collapse is by way of un-winnable perpetual wars.

    provoking is the oldest trick of religious dialogue. if you disagree you are a kahrijite, munafiq, terrific, mushrik, or dunkirk - if you agree you are momeen or baleen or scalene. by the rules of religious discourse, anyone who disagrees is eminently suitable for annihilation and perpetual damnation.

    need we say more!

    frankly speaking, i get worried when i see you getting worried. never ever lose your sense of humor!

    with the best regards

    By hats off! - 8/10/2014 12:29:29 PM



  • dear hats off
    i must have not reacted in a way i have done.
    thank you for reminding me and sorry for repeating.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/10/2014 12:00:56 PM



  • dear mr rational,
    why should you react in anger if one of your critics thinks you are destructive!

    until you destroy your old building you cannot construct anything new in its place!

    there are circumstances where destructors are as important as constructors. many times they operate in tandem.

    regards

    By hats off! - 8/10/2014 11:33:25 AM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb- 8/8/2014 12:44:29 PM
    i think i need not to tell you. Let it be destructive.

    do you fear Islam will be demolished by me? why are you panic? why you are upset with two apostates?
    who are you to ask me? i am posting my comments, you yours. what is your problem?

    If i am destructive to discourses going on here, let Mr sultan Shahin take the action. I am not asking you anything so please be quite.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/10/2014 9:56:59 AM



  • Naseer Saheb Observer, Muslims are being lynched in large numbers in different parts of the world, particularly Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Nigeria, Sudan, Mali, etc. by terrorists who have been indoctrinated into Salafi-Wahhabi ideology. It gives me no pleasure to identify them with their sectarian philosophy. Obviously it may create the wrong impression that all people who think they belong to this sect are part of terrorist groups. This would be an absurd proposition.  There are millions who think they are Salafi-Wahhabi. But I cannot help it if the fact staring us in our face is that all these Islamist terrorists have been brainwashed into this extremely sectarian ideology which does not think any other sect or religion has the right to exist. They are actually killing Sufi-minded people visiting shrines, Shias, Ahmadis and all others who are not Wahhabi-Salafis.

    You should join New Age Islam in denouncing this ideology and confronting their misuse of Islam. They quote Quran and Hadees which all Muslims including you consider our scriptures. It is imperative for all of us Muslims to confront them ideologically. This is the only way in which we scribes can contribute in this war on terrorism that humanity must wage. We can't go and fight them. We can't disarm them as you suggest. And killing them, as America and Pakistan and Iraq and Syria have been doing is not helping. More and more Muslims, now even from India, are joining them.

    They call themselves Salafi-Wahhabi. They have been indoctrinated into this ideology. I call them Salafi-Wahhabi, along with the rest of the world. You want me to call them Muslim. I can't do that. I can and do call them Salafi-Wahhabi Muslim. But not just Muslim. Islam, for me, is not a terrorist ideology. All Muslims are not terrorists. I cannot involve all of Islam and the entire Muslim community into terrorism. This may be your preference. It's not mine.

    I do not want to involve all of Muslims into terrorism. But do I want to involve all Salafi-Wahhabis into terrorism. Certainly not. It would be absurd to think so. But it is particularly incumbent on Salafi-Wahhabis to come out and denounce Ibn-e-Taimiyya, Abdul Wahhab and their followers' extremist thoughts. Like other Muslims they too should disassociate themselves with the ideology of extremism, supremacism, xenophobia, gender injustice and so on.




    By Sultan Shahin - 8/10/2014 8:45:57 AM



  • Mr Shahin,

    I do not support Salman Nadvi  and am firmly against any Indian citizen taking interest in politics outside of India. I am for appropriate action if he has violated any law of the land and for necessary legislation to prevent such missives being addressed to `heads' of state in the future. 

     

    At the same time, I am speaking out against your consistent record in trying to create sectarian strife with your lies, distortions and sensationalism which I have brought out in detail.

    I am also against character assassination using lies and hold that on par with any other form of extremism.You have the gall to accuse every non-Barelvi sunni of wanting to achieve sectarian harmony by eliminating people of every other sect!

    The  ease with which you level  the most serious accusations against every non-Barelvi sunni makes me  shudder to think how many people you would have got lynched with accusations of blasphemy if you were in Pakistan!  



    By Observer - 8/10/2014 2:29:20 AM



  • What is a lie, Naseer Saheb Observer? I am telling you this, hoping that I prove wrong: you by supporting and defending Maulana Salman Nadvi and other Muslim intellectuals by keeping mum over the issue, are creating a very dangerous situation for Muslims in India. May God protect us.
    By Sultan Shahin - 8/10/2014 1:41:47 AM



  • Mr Shahin,

    Unlike you, I never say anything without evidence. You wouldn't have reacted the way you have, if I had not hit the bulls eye, with evidence.

    You can keep firing wildly without a shred of evidence. Anybody can see that these are lies and "by a lie, a man....annihilates his dignity as a man" 


    By Observer - 8/10/2014 1:18:55 AM



  • Naseer Saheb Observer, you are back to your Barailvi-bashing. There is not a single article on the website praising Barailvis, though there are hundreds of comments, including my own, decrying their extremist thoughts. I do revere Sufis and you may find a few articles lauding their character, services to humanity and teachings. There is no shortage of people visiting Sufi shrines yet. But even Sufi-shrine visiting Muslims, who should be and used to be more inclusivist, are developing a Wahhabi exclusivist, extremist mindset. That is the worry.

    For you apparently, though you have not accepted it despite numerous questions, the whole world that is decrying growing Salafi-Wahhabi influence among Muslims under the onslaught of Petrodollar Islam, is Barailvi. I asked you specifically if the British parliamentarians who came out recently with a report pointing to growing Wahhabi incursion in the Muslim society, are also Barailvis.

    I am persisting in my questions despite your obtuseness because I can't understand how an intelligent Muslim, a consistent reader of Quran with understanding, someone who has also studied Kant, can be a follower and such a staunch defender of Osama bin Laden's ideology?

    Like the entire knowledgeable world population, I cannot help noticing that all the Islamist terrorists in all parts of the world come from Salafi-Wahhabi ideological training, indeed brainwashing. Wahhabi extremists alone have worked out an entire theology of violence against all non-Wahhabi Muslims and the rest of humanity. They have worked out seemingly convincing arguments to all questions that a potential suicide bomber may ask. They know how these people can be duped into believing that what they are about to do is for the sake of glory of Islam and that Islam wants domination over the entire planet, not just a portion of earth, as Maulana Maududi put it. They are actually killing too. This is not a theology lying dormant in books.

    Former "terrorists" and potential suicide bombers, who had a change of mind, just before they took the final step, have come out and given detailed testimonies of how the brainwashing into the  Wahhabi ideology is imparted, how they are also taught taqaiyya - all Wahhabis present Islam as a peaceful religion before the world and even quote peaceful Meccan verses but privately to their trainees they say that these verses have been abrogated by later seemingly militant, intolerant Madinan verses. And I have already explained to you the meaning of Wahhabi non-sectarianism, kill members of all other sects, establish your own sect, hence the very question of sectarianism will become irrelevant.

    So maybe Maulana Salman Nadvi is talking about peace and non-sectarianism in this youtube video you have unearthed in your valiant effort to defend the indefensible. But we should go for what he is actually planning to do. He wants to create and offer a five-lakh strong Muslim Army in India for the global Islamic Army he proposes. That is the crux and that is what should concern us all. He has said this in his written statement that is still on his Facebook page.

     More importantly, you can see that he has the support of intellectuals like you and almost the entire Muslim community. Barailvis who opposed this in an interview to New Age Islam are also not doing anything about it, nor are they using their own platforms to oppose this. Nadva, Deoband, Urdu Press, Muslim leaders, all seem to be supporting his venture, by at least remaining silence. This silence is criminal. Muslim community and the country will have to pay heavily for it. Evil has to be nipped in the bud. Instead you are going to such great lengths to defend this crime.


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/10/2014 12:47:29 AM



  • Mr Shahin,

    You talk about reform. Whom are you going to reform? The Barelvis according to you are peaceful and the non-Barelvi sunnis you describe below:

    You say:

    As for his non-sectarianism, I have told you again and again that all Wahhabis including you and him and Saudis and Deobandis and Hafiz Saeed and Osama bin Laden claim to be "non-sectarian," meaning no other sect has a right to exist. Wahhabism wants to - and is implementing this wish -  kill all those who do not believe in their sectarian ideas. Perfect non-sectarianism!

     

    I do not see a reformist in you but a rabid Barelvi who hates all non-Barelvis and will stop at nothing to malign them. You have seen the video. See it once again. Nadvi is speaking on communal and sectarian harmony. Is he saying that all sects must disappear? He is clearly saying that while one may identify with a sect, one must eschew all sectarianism meaning the tafreeq and inteshar of sectarianism, the building of walls, discrimination, hate, ill-will, lies and slander to malign other sects, mischief mongering etc.

     

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=isqwAUn5dwY

     

    You talk about growing Wahabism. For you, people leaving shrine worship is a sign of growing wahabism! First get out of your Barelvi mind-set and agenda. Clearly define and identify the problem, enlist the support of Muslims and only then can we reform. I don’t see many Barelvis also on the website except your employees. The Barelvis  are also repelled by your sectarianism I suppose.

    Unless you eschew sectarianism and ban sectarian terminology, NAI will remain a website for Barelvi propaganda and stand for nothing except as an enemy of all non-Barelvi sunnis.

     


    By Observer - 8/9/2014 10:56:00 PM



  • Naseer Saheb Observer, You persist with your mischievous allegations. When I have published the original documents as well as its translations (that you do not dispute), where is the question of misrepresentation and misinterpretation.

    You talk about solutions like disarm the Taliban, now you say legislate "prevent any citizen of India from indulging in any politics outside of India." Yes, ok, you can make a suggestion to the government. Maybe it will consider banning foreign travel for Muslims. But why should the solution be something that someone else has to do. Why can't we do something ourselves. Why can't you go to the source of all this: misrepresentation of Islam by scholars like Ibn-e-Taimiyya, Abdul Wahhab, Maulana Maududi, Syed Qutub, and the like as well as the present-day propagators of their ideology like Zakir Naik and a host of others.

    It is this that is taking our youth away from us and into the hands of Islamo-fascists. It is this extremist ideology being taught in practically all Islamic schools and madrasas, including in so-called Sufi-Barailvi madrasas, that could have been expected to be more thoughtful, that is the source of this mayhem in the world.

    Why shouldn't we do something ourselves, instead of expecting America to disarm the Taliban and the Indian government to ban foreign travel for Muslims. And what if this projected five-lakh army does not go to Saudi Arabia and stays here to fight battles that it considers to be in the service of Islam.

    I just don't understand how can people like you not be concerned at what is going on in our society.

    An army of Muslim suicide bombers is available in the world wherever you need them. Persuading someone to commit suicide should be the most difficult job in the world. Persuading a Muslim to commit suicide should be even more difficult.

    Every Muslim knows how strictly suicide is banned in Islam; with how much disgust the Prophet (saw) looked at suicide of even a companion who was a ghazi and would have died a martyr if he could bear the pain of his wounds for some more time. The prophet did not even go to his funeral prayers and indeed reportedly said he was destined for Hell, just because he had committed suicide unable to bear the pain of his wounds in a battle, fighting alongside the Prophet himself. Such is the situation of suicide in Islam and yet you have today tens of thousands of young Muslims willing to commit suicide to be able to kill other Muslims.

    Doesn't this state of affairs concern you at all? How long will you keep blaming others and finding solutions in something that has to be done by someone else?  


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/9/2014 4:32:16 PM



  • Mr Shahin,

    Where is the room for further discussion after I gave a point by point response and we had closed the discussion?

    NAI to my mind, should behave as a magazine and not as a yellow rag indulging in sensationalism. It should have interviewed Nadvi and then published an analysis rather than a speculative and mischievous piece as a misunderstood piece can create sectarian strife or communal mischief. That it has not interviewed Nadvi to date although it interviewed half a dozen Barelvi ulema to get them to issue statements against Nadvi shows the sectarian motives. While Nadvi is attacking Salafism and sectarianism, you and almost every Barelvi ulema has called him Salafi/Wahabi. The instance of a single Maulana has been used by your special correspondent to malign all Deobandis. You have also ignored his clarification which appeared in an Urdu paper the day following his letter to Baghdadi inspite of my request. Although the article above was published a few days later, it also omits the clarification. The clarifications are also found on his FB page. You have published 4 NAI articles on the subject and 3  articles by others who have written based on your own articles or 7 in all.

    Need I say more?

    I have tried to channel this episode in a meaningful fashion to pursue developing a code of conduct backed by necessary legislation to prevent any citizen of India from indulging in any politics outside of India. You have however ignored it altogether. Mr Shahin let us focus on solutions and making things better.


    By Observer - 8/9/2014 2:05:31 PM



  • Naseer Saheb Observer, You have clearly run out of arguments but in true mullah fashion will continue to say that ducks have one leg. Ok, we leave it at that.

    But I must repeat that your charge of misinterpretation and wrong headline is mischievous and  self serving. As a lawyer of Salman Nadvi you have the right to protect his interests but not at the cost of others.

    Top journalists and human rights watchers from India and Pakistan accept New Age Islam's reporting as factual. They are concerned about the march of fanaticism in the South Asian sub-continent. But, of course, that is not your concern.

    I don't recall hearing one word from you about the dangers of growing Wahhabi extremism in India. Please focus on the real issues and threats to the country. An influential Muslim from a reputed seminary offering to provide a five-lakh Indian Muslim army to Saudi Arabia and then writing to so-called Khalifa of Muslims based in Iraq-Syria is a serious threat to the integrity of the country. This is the real threat and this is what should concern Muslims. Maulana Nadvi is not denying that he uploaded these statements on his facebook page and is not withdrawing these statements. Had he wanted he could have withdrawn these posts. He hasn't done so. There is no room for his spokesmen to argue that he did not mean what he says there.

    New Age Islam has simply reported what was said in the post. And posted the originals and translations of the posts as well.

    Where is the room for misinterpretation?


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/9/2014 1:28:37 PM



  • Mr Shahin,

    As usual, you are indulging in irrelevant and mischievous trash. We have gone over this and have given you point by point response. I have clearly explained that the title of the article contains two lies and is meant to mislead and create mischief. My understanding based on NAI's translation is also given. I find it strange that while you connect two apparently unconnected letters, you will not consider his speech on communal and sectarian harmony since that is inconvenient to you. 

    Since the latest is totally irrelevant to the subject and wholly mischievous, I am treating it as complete trash and ignoring it.


    By Observer - 8/9/2014 12:21:44 PM



  • Naseer Saheb Observer, headlines cannot put the entire document being reported in it. They have to be short, crisp and bring out the essence of the thousand or two thousand word statement. The situation is so very clear that no one including Maulana Salman Nadvi disputes the interpretation. You are not suggesting that you have only read the headline or readers and journalists who have reacted have only read the headline.

    You have not responded the questions posed here. No response left.

    For instance: Where is the  room for misinterpretation?

    Which sentence of Maulana Nadvi is so ambiguous that it requires interpretation?

    Have you found any mistake or misinterpretation in translation?

    Why do have problems with it when Maulana Nadvi has not withdrawn his statement and is not denying it?

    What about his non-sectarianism that you keep harping on.

    Do you agree with the Wahhabi view of non-sectarianism? Eliminate all other sects. This is no longer just a theory or lying dormant in books, as it was for centuries. It is now being put into practice. Muslims of non-Wahhabi sects are dying everyday.

    Please read the following which you have clearly not read.

    As for his non-sectarianism, I have told you again and again that all Wahhabis including you and him and Saudis and Deobandis and Hafiz Saeed and Osama bin Laden claim to be "non-sectarian," meaning no other sect has a right to exist. Wahhabism wants to - and is implementing this wish -  kill all those who do not believe in their sectarian ideas. Perfect non-sectarianism!

    Formation of sects is a natural process, especially in text-based ideologies. Texts are bound to be interpreted differently. God has different minds and perspectives to different people. You can argue about these interpretations but you have to accept other people's right to have different ideas and understanding of the same text you believe in.

    You cannot kill people to all other sects and say I am being non-sectarian. Wahhabi non-sectarianism is killing all others and the victory and existence of just one sect. This is the non-sectarianism you keep praising  in yourself and other Wahhabis. I am sure you will say I am lying and am a liar and so on. [Any one who engages with you has to be prepared to face abuse.] 

    You see, people do not come out with their extremist ideas quite up front; you have to read between the lines. You will never say that you are a Wahhabi. No Wahhabi does. But after all there are Wahhabis in the world and they are involved in killing. Maulana Salman Nadvi in fact quotes Mohammad ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab. Wahhab's books are available. Ibn-e-Taimiyya's books are available. Maulana Maududi and Syed Qutub's books are available. And so are their followers. Their ideas are not hidden.

    It is not New Age Islam which is misinterpreting Salman Nadvi. It's you who are trying to. So far unsuccessfully. There is no need to interpret a sentence which says five lakh Muslim youth from India are being offered. (He uses the word sub-continent, but, of course, he has no influence in influence in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

    Read again what Syed Salman Hussaini Nadvi says in his written statement:

    "As for the issue of Qadiyanis particularly Safvids and those who abuse the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet - meaning Shias), we should not be afraid of them and we do not need to go to the US or Israel to ward off threats from them. Just recruit the Ahl-e-Sunnah youth from the Indian sub-continent and form a powerful Muslim army of the Islamic world. After that there will be no need of the so-called army of the sick youth of the Gulf States. If you are sincere towards the True faith, true path, Sunnah and for the protection of the true path of Islam, then simply make an appeal, a call. Five lakh brave youth from the Indian sub-continent will be provided."

    Where is the room for misinterpretation.  Why should top journalists and writers not believe what they see. in New Age Islam?

    As for the issue of Islam and co-existence with other religions, Maulana Salman Nadvi explains his Wahhabi ideology that you apparently support:

    Maulana Nadvi says: "Since the land of Kaabah is the beating heart of the entire Muslim community and is the centre of the Islamic world, the holy Prophet (pbuh) had said about it, 'Drive out the Christians and the Jews' (from Arabia) and had decided that this land is a sacred land for the entire Muslim Ummah and so there is no room here for the Christians and the Jews in the same way there is no room for Muslims in Vatican.

    "Therefore this is the responsibility of the government of the Aal-e-Saud (to drive out the Christians and the Jews from Arabia and establish such a nation which will have no non-Muslims)."

    He also says: "Military training among the Muslim youth should be stressed. Every effort should be made to save them from Freedom and social ills."


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/9/2014 11:56:17 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    Since you are repeating your arguments, the following from my earlier posts should be a sufficient response.

     One does not have to go beyond what is published by NAI above, to discover that the title of this article makes things look far worse than they are:

    The title says:

    1. 'Recruit Sunnis for a Powerful Global Islamic Army to Fight Shias ; 

    2. Five Lakh Brave Indian Youth Will Be Provided'

     NAI has however translated the letter in Arabic as follows:

    “… simply make an appeal, a call. Five lakh brave youth from the Indian sub-continent will be provided”.

    Youth from the Indian sub-continent has changed to Indian youth! To me, the use of the word appeal means that Nadvi is not offering to provide anyone but suggesting that the King should appeal for volunteers.  

    The entire charter of demands is a scathing attack on the Saudi dynasty. It says that they should implement Islamic democracy and not be dynastic. The King should not suppress political dissension, he is only a caretaker of the holy places and should be salaried, the King is not the owner of the wealth which should be justly distributed. The ulema/clerics for the holy places should be globally sourced. He should get rid of the security now provided by Christian or Zionist army  and  raise an army globally sourced for the protection of the holy places. Nowhere does he say that the army is for fighting the shias in Iraq or elsewhere which is a complete distortion. All that he says is that the army will protect the holy places from any Shia threat and for this, we do not need to go to the US or Israel to ward off threats from them. To ward of the threat is different from “to fight”. This is apparently a reference to the yearly protests and demonstrations during Haj by the Iranians against the US and Israel culminating in rioting in 1987 in which 400 died, There is a history behind this and other troubles relating to destruction of places revered by Shias in Mecca. The Saudi government has used French commandos before to flush out political dissenters who had occupied the holy mosque and apparently, the Saudi justification for keeping the “US Christian and Zionist army” is to ward off such threats.

    <Ironically, although the Barelvi/Sufis are attacking Salman Nadvi, he is making demand/appeals  for accommodation of other sects. 

    Nadvi is attacking the Saudi Dynasty for its sectarianism and clearly arguing for greater tolerance of other sects. In point 11 in his charter of demands he says “It is the responsibility of the Saudi government to maintain good relations with all the Ahle-e-Sunnat wal Jamaat groups, organisations and movements on the basis of equality, love and co-operation. They should not make any one sect or ideology the official sect or ideology. The practices that are a bid’ah (innovation) and corruption according to a majority of ulema should be abolished and should implement the opinion of the majority of ulema on religious and ideological issues.”

    AAlso point 20 talks about:

    They should instruct all the embassies of the government to bring the Muslim Ummah together with relation to The Holy Mosques. Avoid sectarian differences, mischief, strife and hatred.

    One has to just do a search and listen to his speeches on youtube. He has been a vocal and passionate critic of the Saudi dynasty and of Salafism, the tafreeq (discrimination) that the Salafis practice and of sectarianism.

    I do agree however, that the Maulana should desist from getting involved in politics outside of the country, and he should be suitably warned or action taken against him if he has broken any laws of the country. A code of conduct for citizens should be published backed by necessary legislation to prevent recurrence of such incidents. Such incidents can be positively channeled to strengthen the legislative and administrative framework rather than to pursue sectarian interests with a vengeance  vilifying all non-barelvis on account of the folly of one, which is also appears to be more on account of his naivete rather than any evil intention.

    By Observer - 8/2/2014 8:58:11 AM

     

    To my knowledge, this is the second time that NAI has made a very determined bid, to create sectarian strife between the Shias and the non Barelvi Sunnis, relying on outright lies, distortions, fabrications and sensationalism.

    The first time was in January 2013, when it came out with a sensational article titled: ”Indian Taliban' behind the anti-Shia operation in Lucknow: Saudi and Deobandi efforts start bearing fruit”

    The article was speculative and mischievous, and turned out to be entirely false, and the trouble maker was actually a Barelvi politician. NAI was unrepentant and did not retract nor publish an apology.

    This time, NAI first published Salman Nadvi’s open letter to Baghdadi, highlighting the pleasantries that preceded the main object of the letter, which was to ask for restraint and non-targeting of Shias, non-Muslims, especially children, women and old men, non-aggression, avoiding sacrilege of symbols of veneration of other sects, religions etc. NAI focused only on the pleasantries, and later explained that the pleasantries are the ‘operative part’ and the main object of the letter irrelevant! Not surprisingly, it did not publish Nadvi’s clarification the next day, which is consistent with the letter, and which addresses the `misgivings’ that the letter may have raised.

    A few days later, it published Nadvi’s open letter to the Saudi Dynasty, which is actually a scathing attack on the dynasty, and on the sectarianism that they practice, on the lack of democracy, suppression of political dissent, appropriation of the wealth of the country by the dynasty etc. Muslims all over the world feel that they have a moral claim on the two holiest places in Islam, as belonging to all Muslims, since Islam decrees performance of Haj as an obligation for all those who can afford. The King is only a caretaker, and although he takes such a title, only his writ runs, trampling on the wishes, customs and practices of other sects. Nadvi therefore also argued that the clerics for the holy mosques should be sourced globally and the army for the protection of the holy places be also sourced globally to replace the US army. To most Muslims, their holiest places being guarded by the US army is an affront, and merely a ruse by the dynasty, to keep the army for its own protection. That the real purpose behind keeping the US army is for the protection of the dynasty and not for the protection of the holy places, is not lost on anyone. Nadvi’s suggestion for a globally sourced army for the protection of the holy places is therefore an attack on the unpopular and un-Islamic Saudi dynasty. Nadvi is also clearly attempting to bring all Haj and umrah related issues under global Muslim control and supervision to avoid the sectarianism that the Saudis practice today, preventing the people from showing their veneration to the symbols of Islam in their own non-salafi manner. Nadvi attacks Salafi sectarianism in the context of Haj and Umrah in two of his points.

    NAI linked these two unrelated letters in a diabolic manner, and made out as if the global army will be sourced from India alone, and the Maulana would personally provide the youth (while NAI’s own translation of the letter says that an adequate response from the subcontinent can be expected if an appeal is made). The intended purpose of the global army also changed inexplicably in NAI’s version from the protection of the holy places to fighting the Shias in Iraq!!! This is preposterous going by NAI’s own translation of the letter which is in Arabic. The date of the letter to the Saudi King is also not known. For all we know, it may be earlier than the creation of the ISIS itself! NAI took advantage of Nadvi saying that the global army can be utilized wherever required to make its own inference that it will be employed in Iraq!

    The two letters are definitely undesirable, as I think that Muslims in India should not get involved in politics outside of India, except through legitimate official channels, but they are not what NAI is trying to make them out to be, which is nothing but mischief mongering, as the intention clearly is to create sectarian strife between the Shias and the non-Barelvi sunnis. NAI appears to have succeeded partially after Minhaj-ul-Quran, another Barelvi organization, issued statements based on the reports appearing in NAI, which then got picked up by the national Newspapers which had till then ignored the report.

    If the Salafi/Wahabis are the problem, then NAI with its clear sectarian bias can have no influence over them. Moreover, positive Islamic values are best spread without any sectarian flavor and apply to all and therefore, any reference to any sect should be discouraged. NAI is therefore not playing a positive reformist role, but a divisive one, and a mischievous one at that.

    I am afraid that the following verse applies to NAI:

     (49:6) O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done.

    And it indulges in slandering and therefore the following also applies:

    (33:58) And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly, bear (on themselves) a calumny and a glaring sin.

    By Observer - 8/5/2014 5:32:28 AM

     


    By Observer - 8/9/2014 11:33:50 AM



  • Naseer Saheb Observer, I am using this thread for my response to your criticism of Mr. I A Rehman, the head of Pakistan's Human Rights Commission and journalist Hasan Suroor, as this is where the original statements of Maulana Salman Nadvi are printed and can be checked instantly. You say that these gentlemen are "under the complete influence of NAI's interpretations disregarding the text of the letters which have been published by NAI."

    We have published Maulana Nadvi's statement which was a written one. We translated it and you have not been able to find any mistake in the translation. It's not as if Maulana Nadvi made a speech and it was reported where there could be room for misreporting. He has come up with a written statement that is available in New Age Islam and we are debating that. Why should somebody watch YouTube to know his views? It is right here on this page.

    As for his non-sectarianism, I have told you again and again that all Wahhabis including you and him and Saudis and Deobandis and Hafiz Saeed and Osama bin Laden claim to be "non-sectarian," meaning no other sect has a right to exist. Wahhabism wants to - and is implementing this wish -  kill all those who do not believe in their sectarian ideas. Perfect non-sectarianism!

    Formation of sects is a natural process, especially in text-based ideologies. Texts are bound to be interpreted differently. God has different minds and perspectives to different people. You can argue about these interpretations but you have to accept other people's right to have different ideas and understanding of the same text you believe in.

    You cannot kill people to all other sects and say I am being non-sectarian. Wahhabi non-sectarianism is killing all others and the victory and existence of just one sect. This is the non-sectarianism you keep praising  in yourself and other Wahhabis. I am sure you will say I am lying and am a liar and so on. [Any one who engages with you has to be prepared to face abuse.] 

    You see, people do not come out with their extremist ideas quite up front; you have to read between the lines. You will never say that you are a Wahhabi. No Wahhabi does. But after all there are Wahhabis in the world and they are involved in killing. Maulana Salman Nadvi in fact quotes Mohammad ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab. Wahhab's books are available. Ibn-e-Taimiyya's books are available. Maulana Maududi and Syed Qutub's books are available. And so are their followers. Their ideas are not hidden.

    It is not New Age Islam which is misinterpreting Salman Nadvi. It's you who are trying to. So far unsuccessfully. There is no need to interpret a sentence which says five lakh Muslim youth from India are being offered. (He uses the word sub-continent, but, of course, he has no influence in influence in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

    Read again what Syed Salman Hussaini Nadvi says in his written statement:

    "As for the issue of Qadiyanis particularly Safvids and those who abuse the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet - meaning Shias), we should not be afraid of them and we do not need to go to the US or Israel to ward off threats from them. Just recruit the Ahl-e-Sunnah youth from the Indian sub-continent and form a powerful Muslim army of the Islamic world. After that there will be no need of the so-called army of the sick youth of the Gulf States. If you are sincere towards the True faith, true path, Sunnah and for the protection of the true path of Islam, then simply make an appeal, a call. Five lakh brave youth from the Indian sub-continent will be provided."

    Where is the room for misinterpretation.  Why should top journalists and writers not believe what they see. in New Age Islam?

    As for the issue of Islam and co-existence with other religions, Maulana Salman Nadvi explains his Wahhabi ideology that you apparently support:

    Maulana Nadvi says: "Since the land of Kaabah is the beating heart of the entire Muslim community and is the centre of the Islamic world, the holy Prophet (pbuh) had said about it, 'Drive out the Christians and the Jews' (from Arabia) and had decided that this land is a sacred land for the entire Muslim Ummah and so there is no room here for the Christians and the Jews in the same way there is no room for Muslims in Vatican.

    "Therefore this is the responsibility of the government of the Aal-e-Saud (to drive out the Christians and the Jews from Arabia and establish such a nation which will have no non-Muslims)."

    He also says: "Military training among the Muslim youth should be stressed. Every effort should be made to save them from Freedom and social ills."

    Where is the  room for misinterpretation?


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/9/2014 11:20:38 AM



  • Hats Off says to Rational, "you have a very valuable ornament called doubt." . . .


    How can you call unbridled hostility "doubt". Destructiveness is not doubt. And then he says that I do not even know what his objective is! Well Mr. Rational, tell us your objective in plain words so that even I can understand.  


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/8/2014 12:44:29 PM



  • dear mr rational,
    you have a very valuable ornament called doubt.

    the muslims generally never are known to possess this trait. they are sure. they never doubt!

    so you know that cent percent certitude is largely bluster and a little like religious faith - untenable.

    god loves the doubter, while his fan clubs hate him to the core! by the way, to repeat, - the strength of a person is known by the enemies he makes.

    regards.

    By hats off! - 8/8/2014 11:34:50 AM



  • Meaning of war or Jihad in Islam

    War before Islam and other that Islam are

    (SC, UN, NATO based organized Crimes).

    To plunder the natural resources of innocent, peaceful, unconscious and defenseless civilizations, by creating false stories 9/11, Iraq nukes.

     To occupy or steal and Grab land by Fraud and Force (Israel).

    (SC, UN, NATO based organized crimes).

     By use of sophisticated advanced weaponry, Arial bombing, merciless killing, prosecution, rape, spread mischief, burning destruction of  soldiers and civilians, property, Farms and cultivation, to make them defenceless.

    Those who has advanced weapon power and media represents themselves as Law, even after invading and plundering in hunt of natural resources and others who are without weapon and Media power, the innocent, the suffers, are named Terrorist and their defense against invasion as Terrorism?

    But Islam changed it completely. Now war or jihad is fighting, defending, protection against Social, Political and religious aggression.


    Raise status of poor to the equal state of dominating and ruling minority.

    To spread peace by establishing equality among all and give them social, economic and political security.


    To terminate corrupted, Fraud, Deceivingly dominated Political or False Religious regimes. (Communisms, Socialism and Capitalism) 


    To stop mans from worshipping objects and guide him towards Worshipping of One Real and True God.

    To defend humanity against Atheist and man reasoned laws and created Laws (Democracy)

    To Show the humans the true and real purpose of life and responsibilities. 


    Lastly, A Question to all...

    Please show a single action or law made by Global Organization like Security Council SC or United Nations UN or North Atlantic Treaty Originations NATO.....that benefited Islam or Muslims ?

    Why UN and NATO decisions are Forced on Muslims Nations?


    Why the Muslims and Muslims Nations has to comply to the standards laid by Non-Islamic Global Organization as Christians and Jews......when Islam is a complete system on its own
    Islam defines rules and responsibilities on Personal and individual level and defines standards and rights on Global level.

    When Global organizations are organized, programmed, dominated and maintained by Disbelievers, Associators  and Atheists...how could they understand and respect Islamic values ? 

    Muslim Nations those join or value them have become toys and pets at their hands....

    When they declare any nation Terrorists they are Globally accepted as terrorist, and all Muslim countries are bound to follow them.
    Where as the biggest Terrorist is America and Israel itself Using UN and NATO for their goals.

    When they programmed and declare any state as legal and set Its boundaries all Muslim nations are bound to accept it as legal. (Israel)

    When they declare Veil as suppressions of women is accepted globally ?

    And there are many more issues as Banking Paper currency, Dollar as international currency.


    The Game of America and Europe Using Israel.

    You are not Muslim until you follow Islam Extremely.
    Moderate Muslim or Moderate Islam is a living joke, that you take and practice what you like and leave what you don't like.

    Have you ever asked Quran what it says about this view ?

    If you analyze the history 100 years back Muslims was a very peace loving community.

    For almost 1000 years they have given up fighting after establishment of Jazirathul Arab, it was after world war II when industrial development and weapon modernization corrupted the westerners of being establishing their supremacy all over the world, they invaded and conquered many nations with the aim of plundering their natural recourses and broke up the single Othman Caliphate into small pieces and created boundaries.

    While Muslims thoughts remained form grave to heavens and home to office.

    Their natural resources was plundered and looted or blackmailed by clever westerns, for almost 100 years.
    Muslims was totally ignored form New World Order, formed by handful of Christians and Jews nations.

    And it took Muslims 100 years to understand the game played on them and how they are blackmailed and their natural resources plundered.

    Westerns offered opportunities for few (Royal families) and using them plundered millions of ignorant Muslims families, and their Natural Recourses (Oil, Gas).

    Just think, who is most benefited from Muslim natural resources ?

    Major development and weapon modernization program of America and Europe (NATO or UN) is Muslim natural resource dependent.
    They develop and progress from Muslim money and target Muslims, using Israel ?

    Have a look at Indonesians, Bangladesh, Burma, Pakistan and Indian Muslims ?

    Now they wake up and recognized their importance in world organizations, and how they have been cheated.

    Now they want to removes the boundaries and barriers formed by westerners.

    I can present every of my statement with Quranic ayah.
    which talks about universal brotherhood and destruction of boundaries.

    So let's join the main stream, and stand together to materialize the command of Allah, "Quran".

    JOIN ISIS


    By Akheel - 8/8/2014 10:19:15 AM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb
    Islam or any other religion is not something i can demolish even if i want to do so. then why are you scared?
    Do you want a cocoon for moderates/reformers? Will it make them strong? If i can be a determined person why moderates can't be. they have Allah on their side. they have 1.2 billion Muslims on their side? what do i have on my side, nothing? Still you don't tolerate one single person?
    you didn't answer what is tolerance? what kind of tolerance moderates practice? what is the difference between you who demands my ban and who demands ban on anything against Islam.
    you are even not sure what my objective is. it may be may not be what you think.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/8/2014 2:49:04 AM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb - 8/8/2014 1:05:18 AM
    please do continue your work in your way and let me do mine. it is up to you to waste energy on my comments or focus your energy on what you like to do. i have no intention to stop you. i just point out where the problem is.
    If you are really a positive thinking person you can find something in my comments. if not please ignore. you are just wasting your energy.
    at least i am sure i am not on the side of wrong doers. at the same time i am sure you too not. had i been i would have not been wasting my energy and receiving your extreme disdain. our methodology is different. may be i am wrong. the day i will feel i am wrong i will stop by myself not by your demand of ban on me.
    i don't discard your ideas as useless. your Sufis need them more. Sufis are not above errors.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/8/2014 1:38:42 AM



  • Rational, we can spend our lifetimes either finding faults or trying to ameliorate them. As Robert Kennedy said, "Some men see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say why not?"
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/8/2014 1:05:18 AM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb- 8/7/2014 1:29:35 PM
    Distilled water is tasteless. Nobody likes drinking distilled water. Similarly they are not satisfied with your distilled Quranic message unless it is adulterated by supremacy over others. That is why Muslims invented so many Bidats. Islam thrives on Supremacy. THAT IS WHY THEY NEED DAWA WORK.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/7/2014 10:37:23 PM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb
    how long you will pamper the beliefs under the cover of respecting the beliefs? to Muslim believers anything against their beliefs is insult. they take the shelter behind it while insulting others beliefs.
    To devbandis questioning their beliefs is insult. similarly questioning the beliefs of the Brailvis/Sufis is insult to their beliefs.
    the prophet started this process and Meccans took it as insult. It seems questioning others belief is not insult but questioning their own belief is.
    Questioning the Quran and actions of the prophet are insult to Muslims. disagreeing with their cherished beliefs are insult.
    unless you question the very beliefs there is no reform going to happen.
    how did reform came to Christianity and Hinduism? Did not their beliefs were questiond? Didn't some of them take it as assault and insult to their religions? It will happen with Muslims too. Biggest hurdles are those who oppose the criticism and call it insult.
    You and Mr mohammed Yunus  are one of them. your nitpicking is also of no use. Believers ignore or take it into one ear and blow out from others.

    Unless belivers are not subjected to harshest criticsm they are not going to ponder. of course some of them will go mad and some will start to think.
    you have no rights to question the beliefs of some and pamper the others.
      

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/7/2014 10:27:41 PM



  • Rational, as I have said many times before, nothing much is going to change in our life times, but the voices of change must continue and hopefully grow. They have to be voices of moderation, reasonableness and wisdom. More important than a verse here or a phrase there in the Quran is the distillate of the message that we take out of it, namely only that is Islamic which promotes peace, justice, egalitarianism, righteousness, rationality and compassion. The rest is mullahism.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/7/2014 1:29:35 PM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb - 8/7/2014 3:44:05 AM
    there is no reform going to happen. it is just a noise created by people like you. your comrades will never accept the Quran is a creation. and when they will not accept the verses will be free of any context, applicable in all time and all places.
    you have read the article of Sufi Huda saheb. Sufis will not accept. you can ask mr ghulam ghaus.
    Forget about the Devbandis.
    Muslim Brotherhood is the creation of a Sufism inclined scholar. so Sufism is also not the solution.
    you will say my comment is Mullahish. but the biggest mullahs are your friends.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/7/2014 11:50:21 AM



  • dear non muslim - 8/7/2014 5:34:55 AM
    Allah takes the responsibility of protection of the Quran and believers in this verse run riots if some person dishonour the Quran in any form. Perhaps they have doubt about Allah's promise and his power.
    It is just one example of  difference in kathni and karni.
    Muslims are most insecure people on this planet. therefore harshest reaction comes from them if something contrary to their beliefs come into picture.
    Now i don't bother what they think about me.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/7/2014 11:27:37 AM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb- 8/7/2014 3:44:05 AM Let it be what you think. keep posting your comments on my comments. you call others nitpickers but you are the worst nitpicker on this site BTW how many blocks you find in your ways of moderation on this site? Ghulam saheb when you can't tolerate few persons how can you handle many? you are insecure about your ways to moderation? more insecure a person harshest is his reaction. Since you and mohammed yunus saheb are insecure persons, harshest reaction i see from you. you people are paper lions nothing more.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/7/2014 10:32:02 AM



  • @Rational

    Crying islamophobia, enemies of islam is a direct result of the doubts in the minds of extremists.

    This is what is the definition of fanaticism. overcompensation for doubts.

    Most people of any religion who do not tolerate have more doubts about their religion, scripture and prophets and gods  more than the others do.

    Because one who honestly looks for logic evidence will have no hesitation in accepting the flaws in his own religion, gods or scripture or priests or gurus or whatever.

    By non muslim - 8/7/2014 5:34:55 AM



  • Rational, if the criticism is designed to demolish it is bound to be in conflict with the efforts of those trying to bring moderation and rationality to the discourse. But that of course will be of no concern to you.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/7/2014 3:44:05 AM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb- 8/7/2014 1:56:49 AM
    thanks for identifying the killer instinct in me. i can enjoy the moment you are taking my name with world famous critics.
    if you take offense in my quotations from the authentic sources of Islam, it is your problem not mine. you have to get mature enough to handle the criticism/insult of the religions.
    Please grow up as a tolerant person. 
    what do you think what is tolerance? can you define it? I have read debates between Muslims and critics and i know how badly Muslims reacts. Ears of Muslims only wants praises of the Allah. His prophet and religion Islam. the moment they hear criticism, they start crying Islamophopbia, enemies of Islam.
    well you may be an exception out of 1.2 billion Muslims. However i doubt it, seeing your reaction and demanding may ban.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/7/2014 2:51:57 AM



  • Rational says, " i have my rights to say what i think even if you call it hate war." . . .


    You have your rights. Just a reminder that well known critics of religion like Dawson and Hitchens write inoffensively and without the killer instinct.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/7/2014 1:56:49 AM



  • Ramesh says, "The entire problem of islamic world today is that quran is practised literally." . . .


    The reality is different. Muslim countries have differing Sharia laws. Penalties such as amputation are seldom carried out. Secular parties have had considerable input in the forging of Tunisian and Turkish constitutions. Pakistan and Sudan have draconian blasphemy laws, but the Quran prescribes no punishment for blasphemy.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/7/2014 1:46:35 AM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb- 8/6/2014 2:11:28 PM
    you have your right to say what you think about me. i have my rights to say what i think even if you call it hate war.
    i don't need any certification from you or any other person. It is my way to ask the questions. to you your way and to me mine.
    feel free to comment on my comments if you think you should.
    After all, all Muslims call the criticism hate/insult.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/7/2014 1:15:11 AM



  • Rational,
      You say that "what moderates say will be kufr to pious muslims.". Most of the moderates are moderates because they are in the land of non muslims. They are not moderates true to their heart. Once islam increases its strength, pious muslims will take charge and deliver blows to non muslims. Most  moderates are playing  soft cops till islam gains strength.But there are exceptions like Mr Shamin whom I believe to be true moderate. However such exceptions have insignificant effect on the muslim unmah. Neither they can give significant nor permanent results. 

    By ramesh - 8/7/2014 12:02:22 AM



  •  I think that Salman Nadvi issue has been decided now.
    By ahmad - 8/7/2014 12:01:35 AM



  • Dear GM saab,
     thank you for the clarification on old and new testaments. I will dwell further on the subject for clarification.
     You have refered that manusmriti , old testamnt and quran are not followed in letter today.  I disagree. The entire problem of islamic world today is that quran is practised literally.The same thing often mentioned in the various articles  of NAI. Regarding manusmriti ,for hindus it is created and same thrown into dustbins. Can you give similar treatment to quran? Impossible as you cannot even agree to few defects concerning non muslims  in the quran.
     

    By ramesh - 8/6/2014 11:43:48 PM



  • Rational says, "even if the verses were revealed under certain historical perspective, there is no indication they will not be used in future." . . .

    Neither the Old Testament, nor Manusmriti nor the Quran is followed to the letter today. You would not admit that for the Quran because your war is not a rational war. It is a hate war. You have more Wahhabi tendencies than you realize. 


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/6/2014 2:11:28 PM



  • Ramesh says, "old testament also has similar verses as in quran. But christians have replaced the same with new testament." . . . 

    This is a very common mistake. The New Testament is not a replacement or amendment of the Old Testament. The two testaments together form the Christian Bible.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/6/2014 2:04:06 PM



  • dear ramesh - 8/6/2014 11:11:08 AM
    good point.
    but in the eye of Allah Christians are corrupters of holy words.
    another thing the Quran is preserved in Loh e mehfooz on the seventh heaven in the custody of Allah. Muslims take the pride in the preservation of Allah's words. they swear by it.
    what moderates are trying to do may be  tantamount to kufr to pious Muslims.
    what if Allah wishes ahgainst the wishes of moderates?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/6/2014 11:41:40 AM



  • Observer
    Why Allah takes oath in the name of fig and , zaitoon tree and the non-livings like Sun, Moon and stars? Are these objects nobler than the Allah?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/6/2014 11:26:22 AM



  • even if the verses were revealed under certain historical perspective, there is no indication they will not be used in future. where it says the verses will not be applicable in future. If the Quran is a guidance in future too, it is guiding Muslims to keep the non-muslims away from the sacred place. Don't Muslims believe, the Quran in uncreated hence its verses (commands) are of universal nature.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/6/2014 11:19:23 AM



  • Dear GM Saab,
         old testament also has similar verses as in quran. But christians have replaced the same with new testament. This  they could do easily because christ himself did not deliver bible.  But similar action with regards to quran is not possible as every verse is deemed to be revelation of god and delivered by prophet himself.

    By ramesh - 8/6/2014 11:11:08 AM



  • To know more about polytheism and how Islam deal with it please follow the link:


    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/6/2014 11:07:35 AM



  • Dear observer, 
       reference to polytheist as unclean in the quran ,you are able to take in historical perspective.It is because of your goodness but the meaning of the verse has no indication of its historical perspective.
     Regarding idolators as lowest of creatures ,I had given reference during my first interaction with NAI some two years ago. Again i will find out the verse no ,but may take some time. 

    By ramesh - 8/6/2014 10:52:30 AM



  • "The Fig refers to Buddhism (Fig tree under which Buddha received enlightenment), the Olive to the Mount of Olive or Christianity, Mount of Sinai to Judaism and the city of security to Mecca or Islam."
    A far fetched description of the verses.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/6/2014 9:50:40 AM



  • Dear Ramesh,

    Can you give me the reference of the verse which says that idol worshiper is lowest of the creatures?

    As far as being clean/unclean is concerned, it has nothing to do with religion. I take the verse in its historical context as referring to a specific set of people with practices inside the Kaba that were considered unclean.

    Specifically, if you ask me whether non-Muslims should be allowed inside the grand mosque, my answer is yes. It will be good if they are allowed.


    By Observer - 8/6/2014 9:28:19 AM



  • Dear Observer,
     You are diverting. I only refered to verses calling polythiests as unclean and idolators as lowest of creatures.  People like Lodhia support these verses. Pl say whether you believe these verses . Your answer shall be yes or no. If you support these verses you support extremism. I believe all the moderates are supporters of extremism for they cannot denounce such absurd verses. Such verses only give oxygen for extremism.So far moderates were comfirtable as extremism which they support took heavy toll of non muslims only . Now as extremism starts taking toll of muslims as well ,hue and cry by moderates. But to change the course islam has taken now, moderates shall be unequivocal in denouncing such verses as inhuman. 

    By ramesh - 8/6/2014 7:23:49 AM



  • Dear Ramesh and SL,

    I have checked up. The word beast has not been used for polytheists etc. It is used in the following verse and in a similar way elsewhere:

    (8:20) O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak). (21) Nor be like those who say, "We hear," but listen not: (22) For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are the deaf and the dumb,- those who understand not. (23) If Allah had found in them any good. He would indeed have made them listen: (As it is), if He had made them listen, they would but have turned back and declined (Faith).

    Those who do not listen, or not pay heed after having listened, are those in whom there is not much good. They are like beasts. They could be Muslims as well as the verse 21 is warning them. 


    By Observer - 8/6/2014 5:12:49 AM



  • Dear Ramesh and Secular Logic, Let us look at the exact verses:
    (1) By the Fig and the Olive,
    (2) And the Mount of Sinai,
    (3) And this City of security,-
    (4) We have indeed created man in the best of moulds,
    (5) Then do We abase him (to be) the lowest of the low,-
    (6) Except such as believe and do righteous deeds: For they shall have a reward unfailing.
    (7) Then what can, after this, contradict thee, as to the judgment (to come)?
    (8) Is not Allah the wisest of judges?

    The Fig refers to Buddhism (Fig tree under which Buddha received enlightenment), the Olive to the Mount of Olive or Christianity, Mount of Sinai to Judaism and the city of security to Mecca or Islam.

    Belief here is therefore broad based and not confined to Muslims alone. 

    So how do I as a Muslim know who is/isn't  a believer? Only God knows. And how do I know whether I will die in a state of belief or disbelief? Muslims can call themselves Muslims and be disbelievers all their lives. Such Muslims are called hypocrites. The real test of belief is whether a person lives by standards of morality that he does not compromise under pressure or how easily he succumbs under pressure and compromises. By this standard, many non-Muslims are better believers than those who call themselves Muslims.

    Righteous deeds and righteousness is the ultimate test and not a simple declaration of belief and there is no requirement also that such declaration should be as a Muslim only. If it is taken as a Muslim only. then a very broad definition of Muslim will have to be reckoned which includes Agnostic also who otherwise live moral lives. 


    By Observer - 8/6/2014 4:43:57 AM



  • Mr Observer,

    I am afraid I have no wish to read the article you mention.

    I dont need to read a lengthy and painfully contorted argument in support of these obscene comments about idolators and polytheists.

    The very fact that you say God can say whatever he pleases /"thinks" about idolators puts me off. 

    Because first, I believe there is no God. Since non existence is as difficult to prove as existence, that matter will for ever remain sub judice. Second, if there were a God, he would be an embodiment of perfection. He would understand the need for idol worship, just as he would understand the reasons why idol worship is eschewed. He would be equally benevolent towards all his creations, and not single one out as a special pet and the rest as step-children, to be called dirty and unclean and pigs and donkeys. That is not God. Unless one is willing to admit that this assumed God can also sometimes say horrible things, and we must learn to ignore him at such times.

    To say God exists as a perfect entity and then to absolve him of the sin of the islamic classification of human beings can only be done by an individual who in his religious passion has lost all desire to see reason.

    You do actually believe this thing that God has purportedly said, but the current social thinking does not allow you to admit it. 



    By secularlogic - 8/6/2014 4:37:18 AM



  • Secular Logic, I have covered this in some detail in a brief article:
    http://newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/by-naseer-ahmed,-new-age-islam/islam-and-kant’s-principle-of-morality/d/8219


    By Observer - 8/6/2014 4:05:51 AM



  • Observer says:
    The Quran is the speech of God and not of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). God has every right to say what God wishes to say about what God thinks about those who associate partners with God, idol worship etc.
    Is this his belief or a statement of fact? 
    If it is his belief, there is nothing to say. I can believe the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle, and he can believe God spoke the Quran. 
    If however, this is a statement of fact, I would require proof. Mr Mohammad's declaration to that effect does not suffice. Too much vested interest, no witnesses, no evidence. All hearsay, actually.
    Its a crazy world where one fifth of the world's population lives its life on the basis of this hearsay, and makes plans to exterminate them/persecute them/convert even more people to their particular blind faith. 
    "God can say whatever he wants" is a shocking statement. If anybody is accountable for what he says, and bears immense and final responsibility for what he/she/it says, it is GOD. He cannot be forgiven for saying the things he said about idolators. If a human said it, he could be jailed for bigotry and sparking communal tensions. 
    Mr Observer, see it for what it is. It does not behove you to support the insupportible. 

    By secularlogic - 8/6/2014 3:45:52 AM



  • Dear Ramesh
    i though you will visit the link and have reference.
    I am not against the reforms.  i have nothing to do with extremism.
    Do i believe that polytheists are impure? I don't. Does mr ghulam ghaus and mr lodhia belive in it? yes. then who is prone to extremism?
    Do i believe non-believers will be roasted in  the hell fire for eternity? i don't. But Muslims, yes. why, Because the Quran and Hadith says so. these scripture are authentic and Muslims are needed to follow.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/6/2014 3:27:39 AM



  • Sultan Shaeb. if i point out something wrong in Brailvism does it mean i am a Devbandi/wahabi.
    i have mentioned what i objected. you can point out the evils of elders of Devband like Nanotwi, Rasheed Gangohi, Ashraf Ali Thanvi. i have no problem in it. you just start.
    you are not touching the real thing. that is the problem, because it leads to the Quran and sunnah.

    I admit Ashraf Ali Thanvi has talked much rubbish in his Bahishti Zever. Does this statement makes me Brailvi?
    Devbandis helped to simplify the marraige? Does this admiration of them make me Devbandi?
    I am not against your beliefs, but i want to know if they are in the Quran?
    Now you may conclude that since i have left the Islam why i am talking about the Quran? Even if I have left the Islam I have rights to talk about the Quran like you and others.
    Again you have deviated from the main theme. I know it, you will not focus on it. I want to bring the right theme under discussion. the real root of devil.
    I don't get disturbed if you call Mr Ali, Mr Mohammed, Mr Abubakr or Mr Umar. I know Muslims don't like Mr as salutation to their elders.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/6/2014 3:26:49 AM



  • Ramesh, such verses exist in the Jewish Torah or the Christian Old Testament also. Since they cannot be deleted or denounced, they can only be sidelined and ignored. Christians and Jews have done it, and Muslim should also start doing it.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/6/2014 3:26:48 AM



  • Mr Shahin,

    What has what the Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, the Al Qaeda doing got to do with the subject under discussion?

    As far as Nadvi is concerned, you have his clear words in which he is saying to Baghdadi not to kill Shias, Non Muslims etc, not to be an aggressor as far as other countries are concerned, not to sacrilege symbols of veneration etc.  Why do you disregard his very clear words and make inferences of other sentences which are not warranted? You are behaving exactly like the terrorists do who ignore  explicit verses of the Quran and take their own meaning out of other verses ignoring the context of those verses, the limits and the exemptions contained very much in the Quran itself, within the verse  or the preceding and succeeding verses.

    I have pointed out the discrepancy between your inferences and NAI's own translation. I have not gone beyond what is contained in your own article to tell you that the title of the article contains two lies. These are deliberate lies meant to mislead and create sectarian strife.

    You have never lost an opportunity to sensationalize and demonize non-barelvi sunnis and I have provided readers proof from the past also.

    Let us get a few things clear and out of the way once for all. Terrorists are not ordinary people. They have gone through a process supported, funded and sponsored by powerful governments. If the Barelvi/Sufis were kept out of it, it was not because they kept themselves away for  ideological reasons, but because of the Saudi/Salafi  sectarianism and the fact that the Saudi govt provided 50% funding (the remaining funding coming from the US). The Sufis/Barelvis are if anything, more extreme in their sectarianism and the proof is that even Salman Nadvi is above sectarianism whereas all his Barelvi/Sufi critics have shown their sectarian bias by calling him Salafi/Wahabi.

     If you wish to do a point by point comparison between the Barelvis and Deobandis, I am game. Any day the Deobandis stand head and shoulders above the Barelvis in every way including the fact that their credentials as nationalists is beyond doubt and the Barelvis have a lot to be ashamed of.  

    Therefore, any attempt by you to use sectarian terminology to defame and malign other sects, will be met with strong rejoinders.

     Terrorists are not muslims/salafis/deobandis. Call them Taliban, Al Qaeda, IM, or just terrorists. Call them Wahabis  if you wish as long as you do not call any sect Wahabi.


    By Observer - 8/6/2014 3:13:25 AM



  • Naseer Saheb Observer, Thanks for a detailed reply. I will leave the readers to judge the merit of your replies to my questions.

    I will simply question the accusation of distortion and promoting sectarian strife. The original text of the material is given, including the translation. Any problem in reading the text you can go to Maulana Salman Nadvi's official Facebook page. If you find any discrepancy in translation, please send me your translation, highlighting sections where you disagree. I will consult my translator and get it corrected, if need be.  However, Maulana Nadvi himself doesn't seem to have any problem with the translation.

    As for promoting sectarian strife, if defending Shias' right to life amounts to creating strife, then so be it. Shias are being asked by Salafi-Wahhabi Jihadis to either convert to Islam or pay Jizya or be killed, after which their wives will be made Wahhabi concubines and children will be slaves. This is not just a threat. This is already being practiced in Pakistan, Iraq and some other parts of the world. The Khalifa and Ameereul Mominen Abu-Bakr Baghdadi to whom your hero Maulana Salman Nadvi owes allegiance now, despite his Indian citizenship,  is practicing this in Iraq and Syria. Your co-religionists in Pakistan are practicing this for a much longer time. They give advertisements in major newspapers which go like the following that I once mentioned in my UN HRC speech.

    English translation of the letter of Taliban published in The News

     

    An open letter on behalf of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan to the non-Muslims (Shia sect)

     

    To

    Masjid Imambara Jafaria Colony, in particular.

     

    All the Kafirs (Shias) living in the state of Pakistan are hereby informed that majority of the people living on this land are Muslims and the followers of Islam. The non-Muslims (Shias) are in the minority and all the sects of Islam follow the true Deen (religion) except the Kafirs, that is the Shias, who are causing severe damage to and maligning Islam in the name of Islam. Therefore, the Tehreek invites all the Kafirs (Shias) to accept Islam and warns them that if the Kafirs (Shias) want to live in peace in this region, they should follow one of these three conditions:

    i)       Accept Islam

    ii)      Pay Jizya

    iii)     Or migrate

    Failing to obey any of the three above-mentioned conditions, the properties and Imambaras of Shias will be seized and the women of the Kafirs (Shias) will be held in mutah (temporary marriage). The children will be enslaved and will either be converted to Islam or used as bonded labours (slaves). If the Kafirs (Shias) do not obey this proposal of the Tehreek, the killing of the Kafirs (Shias) will be lawful for the Tehreek and the Shias will themselves be responsible for all the loss.

    From: Muslim Khan, Commander Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan

    (Translated from Urdu by New Age Islam Edit Desk)

    If contesting this threat and actual execution of these plans by your ideological brothers in Pakistan and Iraq and Syria is fanning strife, then I accept the charge. I will continue to fight this ideologically. I know that Salafi Muslims practiced this. This is what our first Caliph Hazrat Abu Bakr told those Arab Muslims, actually the majority of Arab Muslims, who had left Islam following  the demise of the Prophet.  But I don't think Islam today allows this kind of conduct. If even Sufi-minded people or/and Barailvis think that this is a valid conduct for Muslims today, I will fight them. This is not our religion. So far only Wahhabi-Salafi-ahle-Hadeesi-Deobandis or Pakistan and Iraq and Syria are doing this. So I am fighting them ideologically.  Maulana Salman Nadvi supports this and wants to prepare an army of five lakh Indian Muslims to support this primarily Saudi venture of dividing the Muslims.

    Yes, of course, not only Maulana Salman Nadvi, indeed all Salafi-Wahhabis claim to be strictly non-sectarian. But for them this means that all other Muslims should be killed and their wives and children made slaves. Indeed they prescribe this for all non-Muslims too. No one has a right to exist. I cannot understand how an intelligent person like that can fall in their trap of being non-sectarian They are the worst kind of sectarians. Sufi-Barailwis too are sectarian. They are even takfiris. But they are not on a killing spree. Their sectarian ideology also does not say that no other sectarian interpretation of Islamic scriptures  has the right to exist.

    Why I call terrorists Wahhabi-Salafi rather than just Muslim. Of course, like all Wahhabi-Salafi-ahle-Hadeesi-Deobandis, they are Muslims. In fact I keep telling Muslims that you cannot wash your hands off them by saying that they are not Muslim.  Anyone who says he believes in God and prophethood of Mohammad is a Muslim. But if you call these terrorists simply Muslim, you are blaming all of Islam and the entire Muslim community for terrorism. They are doing what they are doing because they have been indoctrinated into-Salafism-Wahhabism. Hatred for the non-Wahhabi, intolerance, xenophobia, have been instilled into their minds through repeated exposure to out of context Qur'anic verses and concocted  ahadees.  They have been told that peaceful verses of early Meccan Quran have been abrogated by later war-mongering verses. And so on.

    This is not Islam. You can't blame all of Islam and all Muslims for their depredations. Hence the need for  using sectarian terminology. These marauders have to be identified with their sectarian ideology into which they have been thoroughly brainwashed in their madrasas. After all, there is a reason why American chose Saudi-Wahhabi monarchy to fight the war against Soviet Union, why Deobandi and not Barailvi madrasas were chosen for the indoctrination of Jihadis. As more and more Muslims develop Wahhabi-Salafi mindset,  it will be possible for me to drop this sectarian identification of terrorists and their ideology. The way things are going, this may happen soon. But at the moment I do not think that it is right to describe these terrorists just as Muslims.


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/6/2014 2:36:46 AM



  • Dear Observer, 
    To believe that idolators are lowest of creatures and to have such an idolator a bosom friend , calls for tremendous acting skills.  If such a person were to enter acting, it will SRK(shah ruck khan) a run for his money.


    By ramesh - 8/6/2014 2:27:25 AM



  • Dear GM saab,
        You have mentioned that ancient verses shall not be rubbed against the faces of muslims.But the existence of such verses and practises amoung muslims is a reality. I suggest you shall accept that such verses are absurd and wrong on the part of quran to have such verses. I hope in the coming days ,some moderate muslims will muster courage to accept the absurdities of such verses.
        You have further mentioned that since quran was compiled 20 years after the death of Prophet it has to be read with discretion. Is it not tantamount to accepting that quran may have inconsistencies and erroneous things?
      You have referred some verses regarding  shudras reading vedas.  Such verses were not taken as god's revelation and were just man made . Hence were easily discarded. Will you consider quran in a similar way as man made and not god's revelation ?

    By ramesh - 8/6/2014 2:17:55 AM



  • Dear Ramesh,

    There is absolutely no conflict between my behaviour and beliefs.

    The Quran is the speech of God and not of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). God has every right to say what God wishes to say about what God thinks about those who associate partners with God, idol worship etc.

    As far as the conduct of Muslims towards non-Muslims is concerned, there are  absolutely no constraints, as long as the non-Muslim is not an enemy of Islam. They can be my bosom friend, I  can spend from my obligatory charity amount  on them or whatever. Islam does not permit a Muslim to even consider a non-Muslim inferior to him in anyway. I can quote verses to support what I have said but will do so in an article.

    By Observer - 8/6/2014 2:07:50 AM



  • Dear rational,
       thank you for the reference given to the verse regarding prohibition of non muslims in the kaaba. But you have not given verse no,chapter no. The verse is clearly universal in nature applicable to all times. I have no objection if non muslims are prohibited entry into kaaba. Muslims have their right to allow/disallow  entry to their shrine. But calling names like polythiests are unclean,idolators are lowest of creatures through quran and acting like having respect for non muslims is sheer duplicacy. Believing in the revelation of such verses and having respect for the non muslims cannot go together.In an  another thread, Observer has given a long list of his good practices towards fellow hindu friends.It should have been  a very painful exercise for him  to believe in the verses and behave as mentioned in his post. Hence moderates are constrained to be duplicate ( believe every verse to be revelation and have respect for non muslims). Neither wahabis nor ex muslims have such a constraint.So far none of the moderates in NAI  have regretted this verse in the quran.
     For a non muslim like me different sects have no meaning as all the sects have single agenda of conversion either by force or by lure.  For eg it was a  ahmadia mullah who influenced Jinnah to go for two nation theory so as to create kuffar free pakistan.Jinnah made an ahmedia as his first education minister of pakistan.  It is a different matter that  later on these ahmedias were themselves annihilated.But in the annihilation of non muslims, all sects are together.
     I dont accept Sultan saab's charge that you are wahabi. An exmuslim cannot be wahabi. Labelling you as wahabi makes it easier to attack you as otherwiswe difficult to defeat in arguments.
       Mr Shamin saab within his constraints as a moderate is trying hard to bring moderation in the islamic community, risking his life.For this I have high regard for him. If his attempt fails ,I apprehend that all uneducated muslims will become wahabis and educated will join Ali Sina brigade unable to digest and defend inconsistencies in the quran/hadith.

    By ramesh - 8/6/2014 1:37:20 AM



  • Rational, instead of rubbing ancient verses in the faces of Muslims why don't you heed what the modern Muslims actually believe. For modern Muslims any differential treatment of Muslims and non-Muslims either in Mecca or any other place is unacceptable. Throwing scriptural passages at each other is an ugly game. Hindu scriptures say, "If a Sudra who reviled a twice-born man or assaulted him with blows should lose the limb with which he offended; that if he listened to a recitation of the Veda, his ears should be stopped with molten lac or tin; that if he recited the Veda, his tongue should be cut out; and if he remembered Vedic texts, his body should be split in twain." But it would be foolish to criticize today's Hinduism on that basis. It took Hinduism a lot of time to discard undesirable practices. Muslims are just starting the process but the forces arrayed against reformers are formidable. By the way you should remember that the Quran was compiled about 20 years after the Prophet's death by people who had no expertise in compiling or editing. Hence it has to be read with due discretion. Your digging the dirt to besmirch Islam is sick because you have left Islam already and making a clean break would be the decent thing for you to do. I, and most modern Muslims, believe that Muslims who are dissatisfied with Islam have a perfect right to leave Islam. Making a clean break is much better than lingering behind and becoming a pathological hate spewer.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/6/2014 1:08:22 AM



  • Why do you then Mohd Yunus Saheb Rational jump to the defence of Wahhabi-Salafis the moment their name is mentioned in regard to terrorism?

    Sufis-minded Muslims all over the world are living peacefully. They are victims of terrorism and yet do not protest. They are not even trying to refute allegations levelled against them and their view of peaceful, inclusive Islam by Salafi-Wahhabis like you. I criticise them for this silence which gives the impression that they also support violence. I cannot be sure, but it seems that even though a large number of people still visit shrines and can be technically called Sufi-minded, their mind-set is now radicalised under the massive onslaught of Petrodollar Islam. If you listen to Dr Zakir Nayak all day and approve of what he and the likes of him say on television, then it does not matter even if you visit Sufi shrines and participate in the inclusiveness found there, you have developed an extremist Wahhabi mind-set.

    As for your claim that you don't believe in religion and God, etc, you remind me of my friends in JNU. I had many Marxist friends, several of whom were from Shia community. All of them claimed to be atheists like you and debate against the concept of divinity and God all day. One day a Sunni Marxist mentioned Prophet (saw) as Mr Mohammad. I was horrified, but my Shia friends had no problem. However, when the same person also started giving the example of Hazrat Ali (ra) and started calling him Mr Ali, they all pounced on him. The would not allow any disrespect to Shia icons or traditions, otherwise they were perfect atheists. So they were perfect atheistic Shias in the tradition of atheistic Hindus.

    But in Hinduism, atheism is a glorified tradition. Hinduism is a continuing quest for understanding the universe, for answering the perennial questions before humanity. Our great Hindi ancestors (whom sadly we Muslims do not revere any more) have left no stone unturned to find these answers. Atheism is one of the possible answers, so Hindu rishis, munis, philosophers, saints,  have explored that too.  So there is absolutely no problem for a Hindu being an atheist and remaining a Hindu.

    However, that is not the case with Islam. At the very least you have to believe in God and prophethood of Mohammad (saw) to be a Muslim. So an atheistic Muslim is a joke. An atheistic Wahhabi-Salafi Muslim is a more hilarious joke. And you are one of its examples. You may claim to be an ex-Muslim but are you also an ex-Wahabi? Why would an ex-Muslim defend Wahhabi-Salafi violence and make fun of Sufi-minded people who want to live in peace. Nobody is free from shortcomings. But someone exclusively finds fault with Sufism, sees nothing wrong in Salafism-Wahhabism-Deobandism, the ideology of those who have declared a war against humanity, what would you think of him?


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/6/2014 1:02:55 AM



  • Mr Shahin,

    A point by point response is given below. These questions have been answered many times before. Please make a good note of the response and do not repeat these questions.

    If that is the case Naseer Saheb Observer, then why are you defending and trying to explain away everything that Maulana Salman Nadvi says in his letters to Saudi government and the so-called Khalifa?

    Mr Shahin, you should answer why you have distorted everything he said and made things look worse than they are? In particular, why are you trying to create sectarian strife? I will always speak out whenever you try to create sectarian strife with your lies and distortions. It is amazing that you should call the Maulana Salafi/Wahabi when his charter of demands is arguing forcefully against the sectarianism of the Saudi government and for not giving any sect place of pride and for treating all sunnis on an equal footing. How did you get other Barelvi ulema also to condemn him as a Wahabi, if not by deliberate misrepresentation? The charter of demands does not even mention Iraq. How did you jump to the conclusion that an army is being raised to fight the Shias in Iraq when the focus is on replacing the US army for the protection of the holy places? Is the US army going to fight the Shias in Iraq otherwise? Don’t you think that the Saudis are paranoid about a threat to the holy places from Shias after the riots of 1987 resulting in 400 deaths, and before that when political demonstrations and activity by the Irani pilgrims was a feature every Haj? Also the Grand Mosque had to be flushed of political dissidents who had occupied it and French commandos were employed. So Nadvis reference to ward off the threat from Shias can only mean the threat to the holy places and nothing else. Also, your article does not give the date of the charter of demands. To me this looks like an old charter predating creation of the ISIS.

    You have not yet replied to the following questions:

    You do not like use of terms like Wahhabi-Salafi. So what term do you suggest the world should use to describe these marauders who call themselves Salafi and quote Abdul Wahhab and Ibn-e-Taimityya's interpretation of Quran in their defence?

    They quote the Quran also in their defence. So why don’t you just call them Muslims like the Islamophobes? You can see that there is no difference between an Islamophobe and a Sectarian like you.

    You call them extremists/terrorists or name the Organization such as Al Qaeda, Taliban or whatever.

    Much of the mischief in our world today, particularly in Muslim world is caused by Salafi-Wahhabis, many of whom are products of Deobandi madrasas.

    You call madarsas in Pakistan Deobandi madarsa? Are you not mischief mongering again? Is it not a fact that either existing madarsas were transformed or entirely new madarsas set up for producing `jehadists’? Are you aware of the training methods that an army anywhere in the World uses and how they prepare their soldiers psychologically to hate the enemy or likely enemy so that it becomes easy for them to kill when there is war? Do you call products of such madarsas normal people?`Is it also not a fact that specialists in producing “jehadists” were used from Palestine?

    Salafi-Wahhabi terrorists are killing Shias everywhere. Are they or are they not? Have I fabricated these news stories.

    Yes, it is a lie. The terrorists are killing belonging to terrorist organizations which you can identify and condemn.

    Did Maulana Salman Nadvi say or not that he will provide a five-lakh Muslim Army from the subcontinent (meaning India) to the global Islamist Army to face the threat posed by Shias?

    Very clearly Nadvi is talking about replacing the US army and for guarding the holy places. Is it a fact or not, based on incidents in the past, that the Saudi dynasty is paranoid of the threat to the holy places being captured for political purposes by groups such as Iranians etc? So why should it mean anything else except threat to the holy places? Can you not see the deference between warding off a threat and fighting?

    You answer what did the Maulana actually say. Why don’t you interview him or ask a question on his FB page? I am only pointing out the discrepancy between what you say and NAI’s translation of the Arabic letter. If you make available to me the Arabic letter in text form, then I can use online dictionaries and translate it myself, and then I will be able to say what he actually said. From the translation that NAI has done, it only appears that he said something to the effect ‘make an appeal and five lac will respond from the subcontinent’. In any case, he is talking of an army globally sourced , and there is no way anyone can even surmise, that he could have meant that such an army would comprise only Indians, or even have Indians in large numbers. It is unbelievable that any sane person could arrive at such a conclusion.   

    Did Maulana Salman Nadvi not ask the Saudis to cleanse Saudi Arabia from Jews and Christians and other mushriks as this is what Quran and Hadees demand?

    Nadvi has given his reasons for getting rid of the "Christian or Zionist army". Get those reasons checked up by the Barelvi ulema if you think that the Barelvis have a different view point on the subject. In any case, Nadvi will forward arguments that cannot be refuted by the Saudi government since they have followed such a policy officially, and the presence of the US army flies in the face of their own policy.

    Should Muslims of India have opposed this support for sectarian and religious terrorism coming from a Muslim scholar belonging to a major Islamic institution. Neither has that institution distanced itself from this statement nor have other Muslims. One can only speculate that Indian Muslims are silently supporting this Salafi-Wahhabi terrorism and are also prepared to join a Saudi Army, suggested by Maulana Salman Nadvi. After all, several mosques in different parts of the country organised ghaibana namaz-e-Janaza for Osama bin Laden and the community silently supported it.

    You and the Barelvi ulema who denounce Nadvi as a Wahabi/Salafi are without doubt sectarians. Nadvi is not a sectarian. Nadvi is a vocal critic of sectarianism in general and Salafism in particular.

    The mosque where I offer my Friday prayers is a Barelvi mosque. The imam in his Friday Khutba, referred to OBL with great reverence (RA). So what can be done? After the prayers, we took him aside and chided him. But was he convinced? I doubt it. We do what we can. But who made OBL and the Afghan Muajhideen heroes? Did not the entire world hail them as such after they defeated the Russians? Make no mistake about it, apart from the “jehad”  in Afghanistan producing half a million militarily trained and mentally tuned to kill “jehadists”, their victory in Afghanistan gave radicalism and “jehadism” a new life and attraction. The only way to end the menace is:

    Rehabilitate

    Imprison

    Kill

    These are not mutually exclusive options. For obvious reasons, with about half a million extremists on the loose, a majority of them will have to be rehabilitated. Can there be a better option than Saudi Arabia, which funded them and indoctrinated them, should be asked to rehabilitate them? To me it appears, that Saudi Arabia should screen them, and those who can be retrained for army discipline should be retrained and  absorbed in their army. They would then come under a command/control structure and can be kept away in barracks away from the civilians and will cease to be a threat.

     While the community is possibly silently supporting Maulana Salman Nadvi and the Jihadi monsters, you and Mohd Yunus Rational are actively defending them, using all the skill at your disposal.

    I am speaking out against your lies and distortions and deliberate attempt to create sectarian strife. Yours is 100% a sectarian attack and nothing more. You have quoted Barelvi ulema who expressed views that you wanted them to express and suppressed their views which you did not like! You have said yourself “Naseer Saheb Observer, most Deobandis and probably most Barailwis are quite happy with the idea of five lakh Indian Muslims being recruited in the global Muslim Army that Maulana Nadvi suggests for coming to the rescue of Muslims internationally wherever required”.

     

    AAlso “This apparently is true not only for individuals like Maulana Nadwi but also for most Madrasas that are now associated with the petro-dollar-funded Wahhabi-Deobandi seminaries.” How did you jump to such a conclusion without making an attempt to interview any scholar from the Deobandi School and elicit his views!

    Rational only said that what you were quoting as the Maulana’s reason for asking the Saudi government to get rid of the ‘Christian Zionist’ army are reasons that Barelvis will also support.

    I have openly opposed any Muslim getting involved in any politics outside of the country and asked for a code of conduct backed by legislation and effective implementation.

    The moment some one mentions the word Wahhabism-Salafism, you will jump at this person's throat. But you never come out in defence of Wahhabism-Salafism. You don't have any defence. You just call me a Barailvi and think that will stop all questions.

    You are wrong. We don’t support/defend anything. We oppose your sectarianism and sectarian terminology. We oppose all forms of extremism which includes sectarianism.

    That is why I asked you to read this report. Are the members of European Parliament who prepared this report Barailvi sectarian? Is the whole world under Jihadi attack Barailvi sectarian? Are the editors, reporters, columnists and writers of all newspapers in the world Barailvi sectarian? Are all TV channels in the world Barailvi sectarian?

    European Parliament Identifies Wahhabi and Salafi Roots of Global Terrorism

    Journalists are as a tribe lazy people and lazy in their use of terminology. They pick up the terminology used by the Muslims themselves. So, if the whole world is using Salfism/Wahabism to denote extremism, it is because of the Muslims themselves. The Egyptians including the Muslim Brotherhood uses it although they are not Barelvi either. Sectarianism is not confined to any particular sect.


    By Observer - 8/6/2014 12:36:07 AM



  • secularlogic
    My study of religions, history and science led me to this conclusion. there are many commonalities among all religions.
    For Muslims that statement is tantamount to kufr.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/6/2014 12:33:58 AM



  • Mr Sultan Shahin
    Are your companions deaf and dumb in the terminology of the holy speech? there is a deafening silence from your companions. what are they afraid off. perhaps very difficult to support you against their beliefs.
    Is not the Kaaba beating heart for them?
    Don't they believe Mushrikeen are impure as per the Quran?
    Where is the indication, the verse was applicable only on that specific time?
    How come if the verse is contextual, it is practiced in holy land and there is no voice against from any scholar of Islam except some self declared.
    If Sufis get hold on the holy land (farthest possibility) will they allow non-Muslims against the command of the Quran  and wish of the prophet?

    why don't you open a new thread in which your companions can speak about "Innamal mushrikeena nejasun...." Problem lies niether with wahabi nor with brailvi. it is in the Quran and Hadith.



    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/6/2014 12:28:20 AM



  • Dear Ramesh
    Here is the answer to your question.

    Pickthall

    Ali Unal

    Amatul Rahman Omar

    English Literal

    grace/favour , if He willed/wanted, that God (is) knowledgeable, wise/judicious.

    Nowhere the Quran says or indicate this command is contextual ie not applicable at other time.
    the language makes it universal in application.
    all Muslims who are talking otherwise are distorting the facts.
    Muslims have practiced it because it had consent of all Muslim scholars irrespective of the sects. 
    in all translations "this year" is the key point.
    i urge you to derive your own conclusion as a non-Muslim.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/6/2014 12:06:02 AM



  • I don't believe in divinity of any kind. all religions are man made under various socio-political environments. 
    _ Rational
    So simple, yet this simplest and most obvious truth is so difficult for people to see...How have you been, Rational? :)

    By secularlogic - 8/6/2014 12:05:31 AM



  • Mr Ramesh
    Mr Sultan Shahin becomes rabid when someone want to discuss the real beliefs of his companions some of which you have come across in the debates like "impure hearts of polytheists" 
    the actual problem lies in the beliefs of Muslims irrespective of sects. Every Muslim including Sufis believe in perfection and supremacy of Islam and corruption in other religions.
    Muslims glorify the prophetic era out of proportion near to ideal and wants to bring back.
    Now some Muslims
    specially moderates under changed situations are pushed to speak lies .
     People on the site goes berserk because it is very difficult to digest the truth and defend their beliefs.

    I have asked some questions to Mr Sultan Shahin. Instead of replying he is huffing and coughing but not coming to the point.
    In general i am not fond of religions rather i am critic to religious beliefs and resultant practices.
    i don't think believing in "polytheists are unclean", and allowing them to Kaaba can go hand in hand.
    this belief and ban on non-Muslims is ingrained in the psyche of Muslims.
    if you study my comments and comments of Moderate Sufis, you will find harshest reaction has come from Sufis not from the Wahabi (according to mr sultan Mr Observer is a wahabi, which i think not).
    Mr shahin wants to lable me as Wahabi. In my life i have not come across a Wahabi who can criticize the prophet based on Ahadith.
    In fact Mr Sultan Shahin is not able to defend his companions on Hadith matter and hence goes mad when beliefs of his companions are questioned.
    Personally i am not a believer either like Mr Sultan, his team and or mr observer.
    I don't believe in divinity of any kind. all religions are man made under various socio-political environments.



    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/5/2014 11:18:40 PM



  • If that is the case Naseer Saheb Observer, then why are you defending and trying to explain away everything that Maulana Salman Nadvi says in his letters to Saudi government and the so-called Khalifa?

    You have not yet replied to the following questions:

    You do not like use of terms like Wahhabi-Salafi. So what term do you suggest the world should use to describe these marauders who call themselves Salafi and quote Abdul Wahhab and Ibn-e-Taimityya's interpretation of Quran in their defence?

    Much of the mischief in our world today, particularly in Muslim world is caused by Salafi-Wahhabis, many of whom are products of Deobandi madrasas.

    Salafi-Wahhabi terrorists are killing Shias everywhere. Are they or are they not? Have I fabricated these news stories.

    Did Maulana Salman Nadvi say or not that he will provide a five-lakh Muslim Army from the subcontinent (meaning India) to the global Islamist Army to face the threat posed by Shias?

    Did Maulana Salman Nadvi not ask the Saudis to cleanse Saudi Arabia from Jews and Christians and other mushriks as this is what Quran and Hadees demand?

    Should Muslims of India have opposed this support for sectarian and religious terrorism coming from a Muslim scholar belonging to a major Islamic institution. Neither has that institution distanced itself from this statement nor have other Muslims. One can only speculate that Indian Muslims are silently supporting this Salafi-Wahhabi terrorism and are also prepared to join a Saudi Army, suggested by Maulana Salman Nadvi. After all, several mosques in different parts of the country organised ghaibana namaz-e-Janaza for Osama bin Laden and the community silently supported it.

    While the community is possibly silently supporting Maulana Salman Nadvi and the Jihadi monsters, you and Mohd Yunus Rational are actively defending them, using all the skill at your disposal.

    The moment some one mentions the word Wahhabism-Salafism, you will jump at this person's throat. But you never come out in defence of Wahhabism-Salafism. You don't have any defence. You just call me a Barailvi and think that will stop all questions.

    That is why I asked you to read this report. Are the members of European Parliament who prepared this report Barailvi sectarian? Is the whole world under Jihadi attack Barailvi sectarian? Are the editors, reporters, columnists and writers of all newspapers in the world Barailvi sectarian? Are all TV channels in the world Barailvi sectarian?

    European Parliament Identifies Wahhabi and Salafi Roots of Global Terrorism



    By Sultan Shahin - 8/5/2014 1:16:30 PM



  • Mr Shahin,
    You lie and slander. I am against Nadvi writing any letters. I am only exposing your lies and mischief mongering in trying to create sectarian strife by deliberately distorting the message. I am for a mature response to prevent recurrence of such ill advised missives being sent. 
    I repeat my earlier post:
    The need for a mature response to the dangers of Muslims in India getting involved in politics outside of India cannot be overemphasized. We find a few broken windows with missives to "heads of state" and people volunteering for fighting wars for interests that have nothing to do with us as Indians. If the broken windows are not fixed immediately, it will lead to greater disorder and indiscipline.
    Knee jerk reactions and overreactions can only make matters worse. We need a clearly articulated code of conduct with necessary legislation and effective implementation thereafter.

    Salman Nadvi must also realize that his letter has created misgivings among the Shias who have reacted. He should address those misgivings in a direct and forthright way and also build enough capital of good will with other sects so that such reactions and misgivings become a thing of the past. 

    For a good coverage of the theory of   'Broken Windows', read:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/politics/crime/windows.htm

    I do agree however, that the Maulana should desist from getting involved in politics outside of the country, and he should be suitably warned or action taken against him if he has broken any laws of the country. A code of conduct for citizens should be published backed by necessary legislation to prevent recurrence of such incidents. Such incidents can be positively channeled to strengthen the legislative and administrative framework rather than to pursue sectarian interests with a vengeance  vilifying all non-barelvis on account of the folly of one, which also appears to be more on account of his naivete rather than any evil intention.

    By Observer - 8/3/2014 2:14:10 AM


    By Observer - 8/5/2014 8:14:29 AM



  • Dear Ramesh, you are barking up the wrong tree. Along with Naseer Ahmad Observer, Rational is a supporter and defender of Wahhabi-Salafi terrorism. Don't you see how fiercely they are defending Maulana Salman Nadvi and trying to prove that I am opposing terrorism and Maulana Salman Nadvi's offer of five lakh Indian Muslims for the global Islamic Army to be run by Saudis that he proposes only because I am a fanatic Sufi-Barailwi.

    In order to know what you want you only need to read this portion of Maulana Salman Nadvi's letter to the Saudi government. Of course, it will be better if you read the whole thing, but this is the operative part:

    "This was the time when for the first time Aal-e-Saud (Saud Family) supported the reform movement of Muhammad bin Wahhab and brought about a political revolution and strengthened his power in the land of Kaabah by entering into a number of agreements and treaties with the government of Britain. After the second World War, America replaced Britain and the Saudi government had political and economic treaties resulting in the discovery of oil reservoirs, bringing about a new and golden age of economic prosperity in which wealth flowed like water.

    " Since the land of Kaabah is the beating heart of the entire Muslim community and is the centre of the Islamic world, the holy Prophet (pbuh) had said about it, “Drive out the Christians and the Jews from Arabia) and had decided that this land is a sacred land for the entire Muslim Ummah and so there is no room here for the Christians and the Jews in the same way there is no room for Muslims in Vatican.

    "Therefore this was the responsibility of the government of the Aal-e-Saud.

    " If they are the representatives of the Islamic world and want to get recognition in that capacity and expect all the Muslims of the world to look upon them in that capacity and they want that Muslims should not run any false propaganda about them, they should care for the Islamic and religious status of the Arabian peninsula and consider Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Emirates and Kuwait a part of Arabian Peninsula and should demonstrate unity with them by lifting visa restrictions  as was the Islamic system 1300 years ago rather than showing sub-ordination to Pro-Jewish UNO and be under treaty obligations with Britain and America. They should have implemented the Shariah in all the departments of life. That is,

    8.    A powerful army was needed for the Two Holy Mosques that would be constituted of brave youth from across the Islamic world who would be ready to sacrifice their lives to protect the two Holy Mosques. If it were so, there would be no need to take help of any Christian or Zionist army. Only the Muslim army would defend the land and would render the services for the security of the entire Islamic world and wherever there would be atrocities on the members of the community, the Islamic world army would stand by them.

    12. Efforts should be made to form a confederation of jihadi organistions active across the Islamic world. Dialogues should be arranged among them under the patronage of ulema. Differences should be removed from among them. They should be made aware of the true Islamic way with sincere efforts. They should not be called enemies, terrorists and opponents and should not be antagonised. False allegations should not be levelled against the youth for having relations with them and they should not be sent behind bars on the reports of various departments. Shariah based rights and human rights should be kept in mind.

    "As for the issue of Qadiyanis particularly Safvids and those who abuse the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet - meaning Shias), we should not be afraid of them and we do not need to go to the US or Israel to ward off threats from them. Just recruit the Ahl-e-Sunnah youth from the Indian sub-continent and form a powerful Muslim army of the Islamic world. After that there will be no need of the so-called army of the sick youth of the Gulf States. If you are sincere towards the True faith, true path, Sunnah and for the protection of the true path of Islam, then simply make an appeal, a call. Five lakh brave youth from the Indian sub-continent will be provided."

    ---

    Some other points in the charter of demands explaining the Wahhabi vision of this Nadvi Maulana:

    1.    The political system should be Islamic and based on Shura system and should not be dynastic.

    2.    The economic system should be completely free from interest and based on pure Islamic principles.

    3.    The education system should work on Islamic principles through which pious generations could be produced. Scientists and experts in Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Engineering and Electronic should be prepared who could defeat Europeans and could prove Islam’s superiority in the modern world.

    4.    The Judicial system should work on Islamic law on the lines of Hujjah wa Ahkam al Adliiyyah and Fatawa Alamgiriah and fulfil the requirements of justice in its light and should mould the modern judicial system into Islamic form.


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/5/2014 7:10:29 AM



  • I never talk about Barailvis; they are not relevant to our discussion. They are not killing any one. You and Rational keep bringing them up as in your view all those who oppose Jihadism are Barailvis. Why do you call me Barailvi? Do I write qaseedahs (paeans of praise) of Barailwis? There is probably no article on Barailvism on the site. You call me Barailwi, despite my condemnation of extremist thoughts in Barailwism. Obviously because all those who oppose Islamist terrorism are, for you, Barailwi whereas Barailwis themselves are silent on terrorism. They are victims, the Sufi shrines they visit are being bombed, but they are still silent, maybe because they too are silent supporters of Islamist terrorism. I condemn all extremism, anywhere including in Sufism or Barailvism. But I know this will not stop you and Rational bringing in Barailvism in the discourse. You have no defence of Wahhabi terrorism, so you keep taking us away from the subject to ills of Barailvism and Sufism. I have no problem with discussing the sickness in the minds of Barailvis or Sufis. I have even offered to post articles on the subject written by you.

    You do not like use of terms like Wahhabi-Salafi. So what term do you suggest the world should use to describe these marauders who call themselves Salafi and quote Abdul Wahhab and Ibn-e-Taimityya's interpretation of Quran in their defence?

    Much of the mischief in our world today, particularly in Muslim world is caused by Salafi-Wahhabis, many of whom are products of Deobandi madrasas.

    Salafi-Wahhabi terrorists are killing Shias everywhere. Are they or are they not? Have I fabricated these news news stories.

    Did Maulana Salman Nadvi say or not that he will provide a five-lakh Muslim Army from the subcontinent (meaning India) to the global Islamist Army to face the threat posed by Shias?

    Did Maulana Salman Nadvi not ask the Saudis to cleanse Saudi Arabia from Jews and Christians and other mushriks as this is what Quran and Hadees demand?

    Should Muslims of India have opposed this support for sectarian and religious terrorism coming from a Muslim scholar belonging to a major Islamic institution. Neither has that institution distanced itself from this statement nor have other Muslims. One can only speculate that Indian Muslims are silently supporting this Salafi-Wahhabi terrorism and are also prepared to join a Saudi Army, suggested by Maulana Salman Nadvi. After all, several mosques in different parts of the country organised ghaibana namaz-e-Janaza for Osama bin Laden and the community silently supported it.

    While the community is possibly silently supporting Maulana Salman Nadvi and the Jihadi monsters, you and Mohd Yunus Rational are actively defending them, using all the skill at your disposal.

    The moment some one mentions the word Wahhabism-Salafism, you will jump at this person's throat. But you never come out in defence of Wahhabism-Salafism. You don't have any defence. You just call me a Barailvi and think that will stop all questions.

    That is why I asked you to read this report. Are the members of European Parliament who prepared this report Barailvi sectarian? Is the whole world under Jihadi attack Barailvi sectarian? Are the editors, reporters, columnists and writers of all newspapers in the world Barailvi sectarian? Are all TV channels in the world Barailvi sectarian?

    European Parliament Identifies Wahhabi and Salafi Roots of Global Terrorism


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/5/2014 6:12:15 AM



  • Mr Shahin is trying to digress into silly discussions of Barelvi vs Salafi to escape answering the deliberate lies which begin with the title of the article itself which contains two lies as brought out in my comment By Observer - 8/2/2014 8:58:11 AM.

    To my knowledge, this is the second time that NAI has made a very determined bid, to create sectarian strife between the Shias and the non Barelvi Sunnis, relying on outright lies, distortions, fabrications and sensationalism.

    The first time was in January 2013, when it came out with a sensational article titled: ”Indian Taliban' behind the anti-Shia operation in Lucknow: Saudi and Deobandi efforts start bearing fruit”

    The article was speculative and mischievous, and turned out to be entirely false, and the trouble maker was actually a Barelvi politician. NAI was unrepentant and did not retract nor publish an apology.

    This time, NAI first published Salman Nadvi’s open letter to Baghdadi, highlighting the pleasantries that preceded the main object of the letter, which was to ask for restraint and non-targeting of Shias, non-Muslims, especially children, women and old men, non-aggression, avoiding sacrilege of symbols of veneration of other sects, religions etc. NAI focused only on the pleasantries, and later explained that the pleasantries are the ‘operative part’ and the main object of the letter irrelevant! Not surprisingly, it did not publish Nadvi’s clarification the next day, which is consistent with the letter, and which addresses the `misgivings’ that the letter may have raised.

    A few days later, it published Nadvi’s open letter to the Saudi Dynasty, which is actually a scathing attack on the dynasty, and on the sectarianism that they practice, on the lack of democracy, suppression of political dissent, appropriation of the wealth of the country by the dynasty etc. Muslims all over the world feel that they have a moral claim on the two holiest places in Islam, as belonging to all Muslims, since Islam decrees performance of Haj as an obligation for all those who can afford. The King is only a caretaker, and although he takes such a title, only his writ runs, trampling on the wishes, customs and practices of other sects. Nadvi therefore also argued that the clerics for the holy mosques should be sourced globally and the army for the protection of the holy places be also sourced globally to replace the US army. To most Muslims, their holiest places being guarded by the US army is an affront, and merely a ruse by the dynasty, to keep the army for its own protection. That the real purpose behind keeping the US army is for the protection of the dynasty and not for the protection of the holy places, is not lost on anyone. Nadvi’s suggestion for a globally sourced army for the protection of the holy places is therefore an attack on the unpopular and un-Islamic Saudi dynasty. Nadvi is also clearly attempting to bring all Haj and umrah related issues under global Muslim control and supervision to avoid the sectarianism that the Saudis practice today, preventing the people from showing their veneration to the symbols of Islam in their own non-salafi manner. Nadvi attacks Salafi sectarianism in the context of Haj and Umrah in two of his points.

    NAI linked these two unrelated letters in a diabolic manner, and made out as if the global army will be sourced from India alone, and the Maulana would personally provide the youth (while NAI’s own translation of the letter says that an adequate response from the subcontinent can be expected if an appeal is made). The intended purpose of the global army also changed inexplicably in NAI’s version from the protection of the holy places to fighting the Shias in Iraq!!! This is preposterous going by NAI’s own translation of the letter which is in Arabic. The date of the letter to the Saudi King is also not known. For all we know, it may be earlier than the creation of the ISIS itself! NAI took advantage of Nadvi saying that the global army can be utilized wherever required to make its own inference that it will be employed in Iraq!

    The two letters are definitely undesirable, as I think that Muslims in India should not get involved in politics outside of India, except through legitimate official channels, but they are not what NAI is trying to make them out to be, which is nothing but mischief mongering, as the intention clearly is to create sectarian strife between the Shias and the non-Barelvi sunnis. NAI appears to have succeeded partially after Minhaj-ul-Quran, another Barelvi organization, issued statements based on the reports appearing in NAI, which then got picked up by the national Newspapers which had till then ignored the report.

    If the Salafi/Wahabis are the problem, then NAI with its clear sectarian bias can have no influence over them. Moreover, positive Islamic values are best spread without any sectarian flavor and apply to all and therefore, any reference to any sect should be discouraged. NAI is therefore not playing a positive reformist role, but a divisive one, and a mischievous one at that.

    I am afraid that the following verse applies to NAI:

     (49:6) O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done.

    And it indulges in slandering and therefore the following also applies:

    (33:58) And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly, bear (on themselves) a calumny and a glaring sin.


    By Observer - 8/5/2014 5:32:28 AM



  • Naseer Ahmad Observer and Mohd Yunus Rational,

    Please focus on the Salafi-Wahhabi killers and their ideology, their particular theology that allows them to kill, abduct, rape with impunity. Part of this theology may be shared by other Muslims like Barailvis in South Asia or some other groups in other parts of the world, but as long as they do not declare a war on us, the citizens of the world, particularly Muslims, we have no reason to confront them right now. By refuting Wahhabi-Salafi ideology, we are also refuting the parts of Barailvi and other Muslim ideologies where they agree with the Wahhabis, though they are not out to enforce that now.

    All this talk of Barailvism is merely taking us away from the imperatives of our ideological war against Jihadism.

    This may suit defenders of Salfism-Wahabism-Deobandism like you and Rational Mohammad Yunus. But it militates against the urgent need of humanity to fight Jihadism and its sources in theology.

    Did you read this report. Are the members of European Parliament who prepared this report Barailvi sectarian? Is the whole world under Jihadi attack Barailvi sectarian? Are the editors, reporters, columnists and writers of all newspapers in the world Barailvi sectarian? Are all TV channels in the world Barailvi sectarian?

    European Parliament Identifies Wahhabi and Salafi Roots of Global Terrorism


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/5/2014 5:27:42 AM



  • So, Naseer Saheb, how would you describe the Saudi-Wahhabi monarchy. How would you describe the ideology of Deoband and Nadva. The term Islam, has, of course, lost all meaning. If you say I am just a Muslim, as I do, Muslims think that you are out of Islam. Deoband, Nadva, Jamaat-e-Islami, Saudi establishment, Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Nour party of Egypt, Taliban, al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, Sipah-e-Sihaba, Boko Haram, Jemaah Islamiyah of Indonesia, Parti Islam Se-Malaysia, and the rest, follow Mohammad Ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab's ideology, despite differences among themselves. They describe themselves as Salafi, but common Muslims and non-Muslims call them in simpler terms, Wahhabi, as follower of Abdul Wahhab, though Salafi itself has become a widely known term since the al-Nour Party got 25 per cent vorte in the first free elections in Egypt.

    So how would you describe them, if not Wahhabi or Salafi, which they themselves use to describe themselves?

    Or do you want to describe them as just Muslims, so all of Islam and all Muslims are considered terrorist and extremist? I know this is your and Rational Mohd Yunus's goal and it is very clear. After all, if both Wahhabis and non-Wahhabis are believers in extremist ideologies, then what remains of Muslims in the sub-continent: all of us are believers in an extremist, terrorist interpretation of Islam.  


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/5/2014 5:06:17 AM



  • Dear Rational,
     can you give reference to the quran and hadith commanding non muslims to be driven out of the holy land?

    By ramesh - 8/5/2014 1:54:28 AM



  • Mr Shahin says: “Naseer Saheb thinks that all those who oppose Salafism-Wahhabism are Barailvis”.

    I have said that Salman Nadvi is a vocal critic of Salafism. Did I say that he is a Barelvi?

    What I said is that for a Barelvi, all non-Barelvi sunnis are Wahabi/Salafi which is a fact. Sultan Shahin and every Barelvi ulema that NAI has interviewed has called Nadvi a Salafi/Wahabi including the Minhaj-ul-Quran which is another Barelvi organization which has joined NAI in attacking Nadvi. This is ironical since Nadvi is arguing for accommodation of all shades of the Ahle Sunnat wa Jamat which includes the Barelvis and against Salafism. The only explanation that I can think of, is that the statements of the Barelvi ulema have been taken by misrepresenting what Nadvi is saying through the letter. Sultan Shahin is in any case, on record calling all non Barelvi sunnis including the Deobandis, Wahabi.

    There is no silence on my part. Journalists are as a tribe lazy people and lazy in their use of terminology. They pick up the terminology used by the Muslims themselves. So, if the whole world is using Salfism/Wahabism to denote extremism, it is because of the Muslims themselves. The Egyptians including the Muslim Brotherhood uses it although they are not Barelvi either. Sectarianism is not confined to any particular sect.

    The danger of sectarian terminology is that we lose the distinction between the people and the political groups indulging in sectarianism and therefore we become political as well, and our attack is no longer confined or limited to the problem, but we become part of the problem and make it bigger and more intractable. This could be deliberate and appears to be so in the case for Mr Shahin and therefore he will not eschew sectarian terminology come what may.


    By Observer - 8/5/2014 1:38:09 AM



  •  rational mohammed yunus, no matter how many Barailvis hold whatever extremist thoughts, they have not declared a war on humanity. As I said before Barailvis are not running militias, killing people, mostly Muslims and some non-Muslims, abducting Muslim girl students, attacking Muslims girls who want to go to school, stoning people to death, demolishing Islamic heritage buildings, destroying Sufi shrines, killing visitors to these shrines, organising armies of Muslim suicide bombers all over the world,  killing Muslim minorities like Shias, and so on. All this is being done by Salafi-Wahhabi terrorists all over the world. Barailvis are an Indian-subcontinent specific peaceful community. Yes, they too have extremist views on specific issues. We need to tackle them too. That should be part of a Muslim reformist agenda. But we must win the war against Salafi-Wahhabi theology first. Islamist terrorists are a threat to humanity. Barailvis are also a threat to Muslims and Islam, but a lesser threat, not an urgent threat right now in the face of this war against Wahhabi terror that we have to win first.  

    I wish you would focus on the most urgent threat. People are dying every day. Please focus on the killers and their ideology, their particular theology that allows them to do what they are doing.  


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/5/2014 1:25:45 AM



  • Naseer Saheb Observer: who said Salman Nadvi is a Barailvi? I said in your view all those who point to the dangers of Wahhabism-Salafism and their war on humanity are Barailwis. This includes practically the whole world, members of European Parliament, American congress, journalists of the entire world media. Apparently you accept that, at least you don't object to this proposition. So it's Wahhabi-Salafi-Deobandi terrorists versus the rest of the world (which in your view is Barailvi). So to defend Salafi terrorism, all you need to do is to point out the extremism in the thoughts of some Barailvi ulema and your job is done. If Wahhabis are killing Barailvi extremists from all over the world, their women and children, what is the harm, you seem to be saying. How can any one possibly defend Wahhabi terrorism by pointing out the extremism in the thoughts of some Barailvi ulema, even some like Sarhindi, whom many consider Sufi, but who was an extremist, opposed to co-existence with other religions, in the same way as are Wahhabis. Barailvis visit Sufi shrines and pray along with members of all other religions. All are welcome at a Sufi shrine. Of course, some Barailvi ulema express extremist thoughts like Wahhabis. They too have to be fought and their thoughts refuted. But at the moment we are in the middle of a war with Wahhabi-Salafi terrorists produced by Deobandi madrasas. So we have to tackle them first. If this prioritisation makes me a Barailvi, in the eyes of Rational Mohd Yunus and you, then so be it. At least I am with the world, which, as you imply is all Barailvi, and engaged in a battle with the enemies of civilisation.

    Please read the last comment again. You could not comprehend very simply written sentences:

    Both defenders of Salafism-Wahhabism, Naseer Ahmer (Observer) and rational mohammad younus want me to discover the extremism of Barailvism. But the extremism of Barailvism does not justify the Wahhabi-Salafi war on humanity. The world today is facing a war being waged by Wahhabi-Salafi-Deobandi terrorists.

    Naseer Saheb thinks that all those who oppose Salafism-Wahhabism are Barailvis. He apparently agrees with me ( through his silence) that in his view members of European Parliament, American Congress, the entire media of the world, is Barailvi. And so when the world criticises Wahhabism-Salafism we should tell the world: see what your Barailvi ideology says, read this, this is also extremist." You two apparently seem to think that this will solve the problem.

    Barailvis are not running militias, killing people, mostly Muslims and some non-Muslims, abducting Muslim girl students, attacking Muslims girls who want to go to school, stoning people to death, demolishing Islamic heritage buildings, destroying Sufi shrines, killing visitors to these shrines, organising armies of Muslim suicide bombers all over the world,  killing Muslim minorities like Shias, and so on. All this is being done by Salafi-Wahhabi terrorists all over the world. Barailvis are an Indian-subcontinent specific peaceful community. Yes, they too have extremist views on specific issues. We need to tackle them too. That should be part of a Muslim reformist agenda. But we must win the war against Salafi-Wahhabi theology first. Islamist terrorists are a threat to humanity. Barailvis are also a threat to Muslims and Islam, but a lesser threat, not an urgent threat right now in the face of this war against Wahhabi terror that we have to win first.  

    By the way, in case you actually do not know, members of European Parliament, American Congress and the world media are not Barailvi.

    If you two want to defend Wahhabi terrorism, you should come up front and defend this theology of violence and intolerance, xenophobia and gender injustice. That Barailvism too has faults is no defence.


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/5/2014 12:58:39 AM



  • Mr Shahin,

    No, I don't think Salman Nadvi who is a staunch critic of Salafism and sectarianism is a Barelvi. 

    The Barelvi's like yourself and the ulema whom you interviewed, however, without exception, severely criticse Salman Nadvi as a Salafi/Wahabi, when he is actually arguing against the sectarianism of the Salafis and for greater accommodation of all Ahle sunnat wa Jamat sects which includes the Barelvis.

    The militia are the Taliban, the Al Qaeda etc and not the Salafis, Wahabis etc. But for a sectarian like you, it is an opportunity to pour your sectarian venom. For the Islamophobes they are all Muslims and for you they are all Salafi/Wahabi. There is no difference in the mind set. As it concerns selective reading and distortions, you are like the terrorists who similarly distort the clear message of the Quran. You are at the same level as the Islamophobes and the terrorists.

    By Observer - 8/4/2014 11:35:47 PM



  • Sultan Shahin saheb - 8/4/2014 3:05:21 PM
    Please don't deviate from the questions i have asked.
    Since you are sectarian blind, i will confine my question to the Quran and Hadith and the prophet, which is the source of all kind of intolerance and following violence.

    it is strange that your team is silent. Perhaps it is very difficult test of their Iman.
    you and your team can tell why there were no christain and jews and other non-Muslims before the Aale Saud took the control of holy lands. Didn't Muslim follow the quran and hadith to expel the non-Muslims from pure land. Don't your comerades justify their ban into Kaaba on the basis of spiritual impurity(limited to few) and physical impurity(majority of Muslims) of their hearts just because they are polytheists.

    Can mr ghulam ghaus go against the command of the Quran and hadith in the matter of ban of non-Musl;ims. Doesn't he think these verses and hadith are of above the context? why all scholars of Islam save misguided like you misunderstand these verses and Ahadith?


    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/4/2014 10:56:42 PM



  • Both defenders of Salafism-Wahhabism, Naseer Ahmer (Observer) and rational mohammad younus want me to discover the extremism of Barailvism. But the extremism of Barailvism does not justify the Wahhabi-Salafi war on humanity. The world today is facing a war being waged by Wahhabi-Salafi-Deobandi terrorists.

    Naseer Saheb thinks that all those who oppose Salafism-Wahhabism are Barailvis. He apparently agrees with me ( through his silence) that in his view members of European Parliament, American Congress, the entire media of the world, is Barailvi. And so when the world criticises Wahhabism-Salafism we should tell the world: see what your Barailvi ideology says, read this, this is also extremist." You two apparently seem to think that this will solve the problem.

    Barailvis are not running militias, killing people, mostly Muslims and some non-Muslims, abducting Muslim girl students, attacking Muslims girls who want to go to school, stoning people to death, demolishing Islamic heritage buildings, destroying Sufi shrines, killing visitors to these shrines, organising armies of Muslim suicide bombers all over the world,  killing Muslim minorities like Shias, and so on. All this is being done by Salafi-Wahhabi terrorists all over the world. Barailvis are an Indian-subcontinent specific peaceful community. Yes, they too have extremist views on specific issues. We need to tackle them too. That should be part of a Muslim reformist agenda. But we must win the war against Salafi-Wahhabi theology first. Islamist terrorists are a threat to humanity. Barailvis are also a threat to Muslims and Islam, but a lesser threat, not an urgent threat right now in the face of this war against Wahhabi terror that we have to win first.  

    By the way, in case you actually do not know, members of European Parliament, American Congress and the world media are not Barailvi.

    If you two want to defend Wahhabi terrorism, you should come up front and defend this theology of violence and intolerance, xenophobia and gender injustice. That Barailvism too has faults is no defence.


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/4/2014 3:05:21 PM



  • Sultan Shahin saheb
    please go through this article on a Brailvi site
    http://www.nooremadinah.net/Documents/VariousIslamicTopics/37%29ToStudyInterpretQURANonyourOwn/ToStudyInterpretQURANonyourOwn.asp

    i am afraid to say according to this article you fit perfectly in the misguided category.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/4/2014 6:08:11 AM



  • Mr Shahin,
    Ask the Barelvi ulema to comment on the  part where you are quoting the Maulana. Will you get a different view point? I doubt it. Also about the US army guarding the holiest places in Islam, I am sure,even the Barelvi ulema will consider that as unacceptable and as an affront to all Muslims. There are many points on which your views will not agree with the views of the Barelvi ulema either, but you will never treat them as your enemy. For example, what do you think of the televised conversions of Hindus by Ilyas Quadri. the leader of Dawat-e-Islam?  You have never criticised Ilyas Quadri for it, although I pointed it out several times to you.
    Why does NAI's own translation of the Arabic letter read as "youth from the Indian Sub Continent", while you keep saying "Indian Muslims"? The Islamophobes play the same dirty trick when they quote the Quran. They do not mention the translator, change the key words, truncate a verse to strip it of its context and malign Islam. What is the difference between you and them? Why is being honest, truthful and accurate so difficult for you?
    He can certainly be your ally in fighting the Sectarianism of the Wahabis/Salafis but you consider all  non-Barelvis as enemy. Clearly, Nadvi is  not an enemy of the Barelvis, Shias or non-Muslims  but the Barelvis are his enemies.

    By Observer - 8/4/2014 5:47:14 AM



  • Sultan Shahin saheb- 8/4/2014 4:50:04 AM
    How many Brailvis/Sufis believe that Jews and, Christians and other non-Muslim should remain in so called holy land?
    How many Brailvis/Sufis believe the Kaaba is not a beating heart for Muslims?
    Why there is no comment of mr ghulam ghaus and ghulam rasool saheban in this thread?
    Kaaba is free from non-Muslims because Muslims followed the commandments of the Quran and Hadith to drive them out from the holy land.
    the prophet might have been tolerant to non-Muslims in Meccan period, later he expelled them and ordered his followers to do that. and the result is before you.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/4/2014 5:46:21 AM



  • Naseer Saheb Observer,

    I cannot consider an ally any one who is offering a 5-lakh Indian Muslim army to Saudis. I have no such plans. Maulana Salman Nadvi is your ally, not mine.

    And what about Maulana Salman Nadvi's following comment. You apparently agree with him and consider him an ally in the project of driving out non-Muslims from the Arab world:

    The Maulana says: 

    "Since the land of Kaabah is the beating heart of the entire Muslim community and is the centre of the Islamic world, the holy Prophet (pbuh) had said about it, “Drive out the Christians and the Jews from Arabia) and had decided that this land is a sacred land for the entire Muslim Ummah and so there is no room here for the Christians and the Jews in the same way there is no room for Muslims in Vatican.

    "Therefore this was the responsibility of the government of the Aal-e-Saud." 


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/4/2014 4:50:04 AM



  • Yes Mr Shahin, every evil is denounced and anyone who indulges in these, will meet just ends both in this world and the hereafter individually, as well as, as a community/nation/sect if it is practiced as a group.
    The relevant point however, is that Salman Nadvi is a very vocal and passionate critic of both the Saudi dynasty as well as of Salafism and Sectarianism and does not support any of the evils. He is a very vocal and passionate supporter of doing away with all tafreeq (discrimination) on sectarian and religious grounds. He is against the killing of Shias, people of other religions, sacrilege of all holy places, including Sufi shrines etc. etc. I am amazed that you consider him not as an ally, but as an enemy who must be hounded.
    I also agree that he and every other Indian must keep out of politics outside of India, and this incident should make us develop a legal and administrative framework which prevents recurrence. It is a serious matter and our energies must be channeled in the right direction.
    I reproduce my earlier post on this aspect.
    • The need for a mature response to the dangers of Muslims in India getting involved in politics outside of India cannot be overemphasized. We find a few broken windows with missives to "heads of state" and people volunteering for fighting wars for interests that have nothing to do with us as Indians. If the broken windows are not fixed immediately, it will lead to greater disorder and indiscipline.
      Knee jerk reactions and overreactions can only make matters worse. We need a clearly articulated code of conduct with necessary legislation and effective implementation thereafter.
      Salman Nadvi must also realize that his letter has created misgivings among the Shias who have reacted. He should address those misgivings in a direct and forthright way and also build enough capital of good will with other sects so that such reactions and misgivings become a thing of the past. 
      For a good coverage of the theory of   'Broken Windows', read:
      http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/politics/crime/windows.htm
      By Observer - 8/3/2014 2:14:10 AM

    By Observer - 8/4/2014 3:00:49 AM



  • ·        Naseer Saheb Observer, does the Qur'an have anything to say about Salafi-Wahhabis who have developed a well-worked out theology of violence, terrorism, cold-blooded killings of religious and social minorities, supremacism, intolerance, xenophobia, gender injustice, child marriage, Islamic-court-directed pedophilia and other social ills. It's not that this theology is lying dormant in books. It's being implemented, and Muslims are dying every day.

    Maybe if you read Quran closely you will find some denunciation of these evils there.


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/4/2014 2:09:45 AM



  • Naseer Saheb Observer, You are focussed on Maulana Salman Nadvi's anger with Saudis, but do not want to discuss why he is angry with them. Unlike his lawyers, defenders, supporters, Maulana Nadvi does not try to hide the "why."  He is angry because Saudis have not cleansed the Arab land of Jews and Christians as per Qur'anic dictates. He says instead of taking help from America and Israel take help from global Muslim community. He will alone provide a five-lakh Indian Muslim Army. This is the operative part of his letter. You will not even touch it. You have no defence. I wonder if you are planning to become a brigadier or a general in this army, hence the defence.

    I will remind you below of what I said before. You will see clearly why the Maulana is unhappy with the Saudi government. The same reason why Osama bin Laden was unhappy with the government of Saudi Arabia. They both want the land of the pure Wahhabi Muslims cleansed of any non-Wahhabis as per the Wahhabi theology. In their view all non-Wahhabis in the world should be eliminated, liquidated, killed. No non-Wahhabi interpretation of Islam has a right to exist. The killing is going on. But Saudis, the hypocrites that they are, themselves make friends with Jews and Christians and make use of other non-Wahhabis and non-Muslims to keep their country going. They behave pragmatically but want other Muslim countries and communities to implement the dictates of Wahhabi theology as taught in Saudi schools, colleges and madrasas. This is why Osama bin Laden was against them and this is why Maulana Salman Nadvi is opposing them. Osama in response created al-Qaeda, Maulana Nadvi has in response joined ISIS, formerly al-Qaeda of Iraq.

     

    This should worry every Muslim in India. But not to speak of Salafi-Wahhabis, even Sufi-Barailwis are not showing any traces of worry. No concern has been expressed in the Urdu media or from any other platform. No politician, no social activist, no journalist, no so-called moderate Muslim is concerned. Some like you, of course, are prepared to go to any length to defend the Maulana. This is a much bigger cause of worry. When we contacted some Sufi-Barailwi ulema and asked them, they denounced it but even they are not doing anything on their own. Extremism has become such a part of Indian Muslim mind-set that some Muslims say ghaibana namaz-e-Janaza for Osama bin Laden in different parts of the country, praying for him and blessing him, and the rest of the community stays silent.

    Please read the following again:

    Naseer Saheb Observer says: "The entire charter of demands (of Maulana Salman Nadvi) is a scathing attack on the Saudi dynasty."

     Maybe so. But why is Maulana Salman Nadvi angry with the aal-Saud? Of course, Naseer Saheb gives some reasons that, he thinks, will portray the man in a positive light. 

    But let us read this portion again and you will know the reason.

    The Maulana says: 

    "Since the land of Kaabah is the beating heart of the entire Muslim community and is the centre of the Islamic world, the holy Prophet (pbuh) had said about it, “Drive out the Christians and the Jews from Arabia) and had decided that this land is a sacred land for the entire Muslim Ummah and so there is no room here for the Christians and the Jews in the same way there is no room for Muslims in Vatican.

    "Therefore this was the responsibility of the government of the Aal-e-Saud." 


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/4/2014 1:58:45 AM



  • After quoting me, Mr Shahin asks:

    “No further comment is required, but may one ask what is the difference between "fighting Shias" and warding off the threat from Shias with the help of a global Islamic Army?

    He ignores the rest of my para which provides the answer as follows:

    To ward of the threat is different from “to fight”. This is apparently a reference to the yearly protests and demonstrations during Haj by the Iranians against the US and Israel culminating in rioting in 1987 in which 400 died, There is a history behind this and other troubles relating to destruction of places revered by Shias in Mecca. The Saudi government has used French commandos before to flush out political dissenters who had occupied the holy mosque and apparently, the Saudi justification for keeping the “US Christian and Zionist army” is to ward off such threats.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Mecca_incident

     The charter of demands to the Saudi dynasty makes no reference to Iraq whatsoever. Mr Shahin’s farfetched inferences are in the title of the article. The title of the article contains two clear distortions of what was said as per NAI’s own translation of the document in Arabic. The title is meant to deliberately mislead the reader.

    Mr Shahin’s theory covers only why Nadvi does not like the presence of the US army for the protection of the holy places and not why Nadvi is such a vocal critic of the Saudi dynasty. He can interview Barelvi ulema also who, I am sure, will also say that it is unacceptable that the two holiest places of Islam are protected by a non-Mulsim army and is an insult to the Muslims. Mr Shahin’s theory falls flat.

    Can Mr Shahin explain why Nadvi is such a passionate critic of Salafism and sectarianism? He can listen to his speeches on youtube attacking Salafism and sectarianism. Clearly, Nadvi is neither a Salafi/Wahabi or their supporter or sympathizer but a very vocal critic. But for Mr Shahin the Barelvi, all non-Barelvis are Wahabis/Salafis!!!

    Mr Shahin, if you have some shame left, and even an iota of good faith, then ponder on the following verses from the Quran and make amends:

    (33:58) And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly, bear (on themselves) a calumny and a glaring sin.

    (49:6) O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done.


    By Observer - 8/4/2014 1:37:11 AM



  • Corrected. Jb Sultan Shahin, please leave Mr Observer alone. It is no use. Just say, lana aamaluna wa lakum aamalukum, salamun alaikum.
    By ahmad - 8/4/2014 12:47:15 AM



  • Jb Sultan Shahin, please leave Mr Observer alone. It is no use. Just say, lana aamaluna wa lana aamalukum, salamun alaikum.
    By ahmad - 8/4/2014 12:44:43 AM



  • Let me quote to you Maulana Salman Nadvi's exact words, though in translation from Arabic. (A picture of the original letter in Arabic has been given above.) 
    Syed Salman Hussaini Nadvi says: "as for the issue of Qadiyanis particularly Safvids and those who abuse the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet - meaning Shias), we should not be afraid of them and we do not need to go to the US or Israel to ward off threats from them. Just recruit the Ahl-e-Sunnah youth from the Indian sub-continent and form a powerful Muslim army of the Islamic world. After that there will be no need of the so-called army of the sick youth of the Gulf States. If you are sincere towards the True faith, True path, Sunnah and for the protection of the true path of Islam, then simply make an appeal, a call. Five lakh brave youth from the Indian sub-continent will be provided."

    There is no confusion here. All the confusion is being created by his lawyers and defenders. Nadvi has very honestly put forward his worldview. His embarrassed supporters, however, are going to great lengths to create confusion and distortion.

    By Sultan Shahin - 8/3/2014 1:10:49 PM



  • Anyone interested in observing the lengths to which Maulana Salman Nadvi's lawyers would go to defend him and accuse his critics of distortion should read the following from Naseer Ahmed Observer's comment between the lines:
    " He should get rid of the security now provided by Christian or Zionist army  and  raise an army globally sourced for the protection of the holy places. Nowhere does he say that the army is for fighting the shias in Iraq or elsewhere which is a complete distortion. All that he says is that the army will protect the holy places from any Shia threat and for this, we do not need to go to the US or Israel to ward off threats from them. To ward of the threat is different from “to fight”."

    No further comment is required, but may one ask what is the difference between "fighting Shias" and warding off the threat from Shias with the help of a global Islamic Army?

    By Sultan Shahin - 8/3/2014 1:00:11 PM



  • Naseer Saheb Observer says: "The entire charter of demands (of Maulana Salman Nadvi) is a scathing attack on the Saudi dynasty."

     

    Maybe so. But why is Maulana Salman Nadvi angry with the aal-Saud? Of course, Naseer Saheb gives some reasons that, he thinks, will portray the man in a positive light. 

    But let us read this portion again and you will know the reason.

    The Maulana says: 

     

    "Since the land of Kaabah is the beating heart of the entire Muslim community and is the centre of the Islamic world, the holy Prophet (pbuh) had said about it, “Drive out the Christians and the Jews from Arabia) and had decided that this land is a sacred land for the entire Muslim Ummah and so there is no room here for the Christians and the Jews in the same way there is no room for Muslims in Vatican.

     

    "Therefore this was the responsibility of the government of the Aal-e-Saud." 

    You can see here clearly why the Maulana is unhappy with the Saudi government. The same reason why Osama bin Laden was unhappy with the government of Saudi Arabia.

     

    "Therefore this was the responsibility of the government of the Aal-e-Saud." (to Drive out the Christians and the Jews from Arabia) which they have not done; indeed they are allies of America, Israel, the West, whose governments are run by Christians and Jews and also they use the services of Christians and Jews to run their industries.  

     

    This is the real reason why this Maulana is unhappy with the Saud dynasty. They are not Salafi-Wahhabi enough. They do no shun the non-Muslim world as completely as they should be doing. This is the advice Maulana Salman Nadvi's grandfather, the erudite author and chief of Nadwatul-Ulema had also given to the Saudis. Saudis are, of course, a practical people. They have to rule the country and fill their personal bank accounts with the country's wealth.

     

    All these banks are controlled by the West. Saudi rulers don't want to meet the fate of Saddam Hussain and Gaddafi. So their Wahhabism and extremism is for export to the Muslim world. In their own country while they teach children to be radical Islamists (cannot help it, due to the contract with Muhammad Ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab and his followers), they also fear them and hold conferences on Islam as a religion of peace for the adults. They have to walk on the razor's edge. They must be propagators and exporters of Wahhabism and also maintain good relations with the Jews and Christians of the West. Maulana Nadwi wants them to behave like Boko Haram and Taliban. Saudis are far too clever to do that. Talibanism and Boko Haramism is for export, not for domestic consumption in Saudi Arabia. This is precisely why Osama bin Laden was angry with the aal-e-Saud. I do not see any difference between Salman Nadvi's frustration with Saudis and that of Osama bin Laden. No wonder he has now practically accepted  citizenship of the so-called Islamic Khilafat of Iraq and Sham. Like Osama bin Laden he too has lost hope that Saudi Arabia will ever be a true Wahhabi State in which there will be no role whatsoever for non-Wahhabi Muslims and, of course, non-Muslims.


    By Sultan Shahin - 8/3/2014 12:46:11 PM



  • Dear Ahmad,
     I think for you idolatory in ancient place of worship is acceptable . And you have not answered Rationals rejoinder to you. You shall have the honesty to accept the contradictions in the quran /prophet.

    By ramesh - 8/3/2014 12:00:53 PM



  • The need for a mature response to the dangers of Muslims in India getting involved in politics outside of India cannot be overemphasized. We find a few broken windows with missives to "heads of state" and people volunteering for fighting wars for interests that have nothing to do with us as Indians. If the broken windows are not fixed immediately, it will lead to greater disorder and indiscipline.

    Knee jerk reactions and overreactions can only make matters worse. We need a clearly articulated code of conduct with necessary legislation and effective implementation thereafter.

    Salman Nadvi must also realize that his letter has created misgivings among the Shias who have reacted. He should address those misgivings in a direct and forthright way and also build enough capital of good will with other sects so that such reactions and misgivings become a thing of the past. 

    For a good coverage of the theory of   'Broken Windows', read:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/politics/crime/windows.htm

    By Observer - 8/3/2014 2:14:10 AM



  • One does not have to go beyond what is published by NAI above, to discover that the title of this article makes things look far worse than they are:

    The title says:

    1. 'Recruit Sunnis for a Powerful Global Islamic Army to Fight Shias ; 

    2. Five Lakh Brave Indian Youth Will Be Provided'

     NAI has however translated the letter in Arabic as follows:

    “… simply make an appeal, a call. Five lakh brave youth from the Indian sub-continent will be provided”.

    Youth from the Indian sub-continent has changed to Indian youth! To me, the use of the word appeal means that Nadvi is not offering to provide anyone but suggesting that the King should appeal for volunteers.  

    The entire charter of demands is a scathing attack on the Saudi dynasty. It says that they should implement Islamic democracy and not be dynastic. The King should not suppress political dissension, he is only a caretaker of the holy places and should be salaried, the King is not the owner of the wealth which should be justly distributed. The ulema/clerics for the holy places should be globally sourced. He should get rid of the security now provided by Christian or Zionist army  and  raise an army globally sourced for the protection of the holy places. Nowhere does he say that the army is for fighting the shias in Iraq or elsewhere which is a complete distortion. All that he says is that the army will protect the holy places from any Shia threat and for this, we do not need to go to the US or Israel to ward off threats from them. To ward of the threat is different from “to fight”. This is apparently a reference to the yearly protests and demonstrations during Haj by the Iranians against the US and Israel culminating in rioting in 1987 in which 400 died, There is a history behind this and other troubles relating to destruction of places revered by Shias in Mecca. The Saudi government has used French commandos before to flush out political dissenters who had occupied the holy mosque and apparently, the Saudi justification for keeping the “US Christian and Zionist army” is to ward off such threats.

    <Ironically, although the Barelvi/Sufis are attacking Salman Nadvi, he is making demand/appeals  for accommodation of other sects. 

    Nadvi is attacking the Saudi Dynasty for its sectarianism and clearly arguing for greater tolerance of other sects. In point 11 in his charter of demands he says “It is the responsibility of the Saudi government to maintain good relations with all the Ahle-e-Sunnat wal Jamaat groups, organisations and movements on the basis of equality, love and co-operation. They should not make any one sect or ideology the official sect or ideology. The practices that are a bid’ah (innovation) and corruption according to a majority of ulema should be abolished and should implement the opinion of the majority of ulema on religious and ideological issues.”

    AAlso point 20 talks about:

    They should instruct all the embassies of the government to bring the Muslim Ummah together with relation to The Holy Mosques. Avoid sectarian differences, mischief, strife and hatred.

    One has to just do a search and listen to his speeches on youtube. He has been a vocal and passionate critic of the Saudi dynasty and of Salafism, the tafreeq (discrimination) that the Salafis practice and of sectarianism.

    I do agree however, that the Maulana should desist from getting involved in politics outside of the country, and he should be suitably warned or action taken against him if he has broken any laws of the country. A code of conduct for citizens should be published backed by necessary legislation to prevent recurrence of such incidents. Such incidents can be positively channeled to strengthen the legislative and administrative framework rather than to pursue sectarian interests with a vengeance  vilifying all non-barelvis on account of the folly of one, which is also appears to be more on account of his naivete rather than any evil intention.


    By Observer - 8/2/2014 8:58:11 AM






  • By siraj - 7/25/2014 12:43:34 AM



  • This Nadvi is no different from that other more famous Nadvi, also known as Ali Miyan, who sent letters to Arab rulers asking them to not allow any non-Muslim to build any religious structure in the 'Holy Land'. Of course, he at the same time, shed tears over Ayodhya. 
    By C M Naim - 7/24/2014 2:30:06 PM



  • This timely disquieting disclosure by New Age Islam about the first member of Al-Baghadadi's Islamic Khilafat in India is quite startling for moderate peace-loving Indian Muslim and non-Muslim citizens, and extremely radical Salafi /Wahabi Jihadists. How can this pro-terrorist extremist claim that: “All have accepted whatever role you are playing and have accepted you as Ameerul Momineen.” If he is not representative of mainstream Sufi/Sunni Muslims in India?


    By Misbahul Huda - 7/24/2014 4:22:56 AM



  • The statement of Sulaiman Nadvi is a crime more punishable than blasphemy.Is their any law in our land to catch him and hang him?
    By afaqsiddiqi - 7/22/2014 9:15:19 PM



  • mr ahmed
    "Omphalos in various colours and shapes are considered at divine stone of spiritual significance."
    Can you give some spiritual attributes of Omphalos? How then Islam is different from others? what if Hindus think same for Shivelingam? how come it is butparasti.
    Kissing kaba and attributes of the kaba in the Islamic books is also butparsti.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/22/2014 3:44:44 AM



  • kissing a holy stone is not worshipping all the stones of the world. The concept of Omphalos exists in ancient religions and communities. And the Black Stone is believed to be one of them. The Omphalos is believed to be at the centre of the world or the spiritual centre of the world. Such Omphalos are kept in Christian Church and Jewiish synagogues in Jerusalem. It means that such a stone, Omphalos in various colours and shapes are considered at divine stone of spiritual significance. Since Kaabah is also an ancient place of worship, one Omphalos also existed there.
    By ahmad - 7/22/2014 1:17:06 AM



  • I can only pity at the author.  But he can offer, is there any takers.  I think he must visit these countries to see what is the level of recognition for indian muslim in the arab world.  If anybody wants to go, india must give only a one way ticket as we donot want the fundamentalism to come back. 

    Further he must read the six day wars of 1967 where israel wiped out the whole of gcc arab nation airforce in six days and captured land of them.  Today the destructive power has moved from the hand of numeric strength of amry to science.  Further most of these countries sell their oil to buy arms from the so called kafirs only.

    By satwagunam - 7/21/2014 10:31:57 PM



  • Prophet by kissing the black stone became idol worshiper and impose idol worshiping in kaaba on all muslims and yet release a verse saying idolators are the lowest of creatures.  What a confusion!
    By ramesh - 7/21/2014 12:09:13 PM



  • mr baghdadi is on record saying he will demolish the black stone because muslims kiss it and thus indulge in idol worship.

    and for this reason, he can never gain enough traction in the ummah to make the wheels move. he can merely make them spin.

    By hats off! - 7/21/2014 10:03:51 AM



  • Sunni Muslims Must Reject ISIS "Caliphate"

    At the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan this year, coinciding with the end of the Western month of June, a new caliphate, or Islamic religious and political order, was proclaimed on the borderland of Iraq and Syria. As described by international media, the news was included in a "declaration of war" released as an online audio statement by Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani, a representative of the purported "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" or ISIS (also known as ISIL, or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, based on differing English translations of "Sham," the Arabic name for Greater Syria, which long included all the lands on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean). ISIS is now to be deemed simply "the Islamic State."

    Within days, the man who calls himself Abu Bakr Al-Husayni Al-Qurayshi Al-Baghdadi issued a declaration as head of the purported "Islamic State," titled pompously, "A Message to the Mujahidin and the Muslim Ummah."

    http://www.islamicpluralism.org/2393/sunni-muslims-must-reject-isis-caliphate

    By mubashir - 7/21/2014 8:19:10 AM



  • I think Mr. Nadvi's scheme of recruiting 500,000 youths and sending them off to fight, is an attempt to extract some money from Saud.
    It is highly doubtful that Ibn Saud will accept Baghdadi as Caliph. After all, as guardian of the holiest places of Islam, he would naturally expect to be granted the leadership of all  Muslims.
    Why should he accept Baghdadi as Caliph and hence his overlord?

    By Asif Merchant - 7/21/2014 8:00:14 AM



  • I think non muslim will hold Modi resposible for muslims killing themselves in arabia.
    By ramesh - 7/21/2014 5:28:53 AM



  • Its ok. You dont have to post that silly comment twice. 

    The device of analogy is totally lost on you. What the Caliph analogy meant was that to enact laws to deal with this unprecedented development - people asking for visas to fight battles on foreign soil - the government will have to take a measured response. This is something that happened in the last two weeks - the discovery of the four boys already gone, the new visa applications by Shia men, this particular letter by Nadawi or whoever this man is. You cannot expect the government to enact laws that will stay in the constitution for ever, in response to  something that is still limited in magnitude and which might just fizzle out in a few days. 

    You are just using this as a stick to beat a government you detest. In my opinion, their actions in getting the trapped Indians out, maintaining silence on the Israel conflict, and a wait and watch approach to Indians participating in foreign wars is entirely laudable. 

    By secularlogic - 7/21/2014 3:56:44 AM



  • "Modi is not some Caliph to dream of a law one night and announce it on the microphone the next day at friday prayers."

    Don't read someone else's comments and respond to me.

    Otherwise I don't know where you pick such nonsense from and attribute it to me, that I never said.

    As a government, it their responsibility to reassure the nation that strict action will be taken against those who fight others' wars.

    Also they should enact laws and enacting the laws take time.  But for you nobody is an idiot to believe that a law is enacted in a day. I never said anything about a day. Read my comment a 1000 times and reply back where I have mentioned about one day?

    You are the one who assumed what I never said and countered it. Must be a new psychological syndrome.

    So far this government has failed in pretty much everything. But that's not the topic here.

    However, related to the topic, its inaction in instilling confidence among the people is downright lethargic.

    By non muslim - 7/21/2014 3:43:49 AM



  • "Modi is not some Caliph to dream of a law one night and announce it on the microphone the next day at friday prayers."

    I read someone else's comments and respond to me.

    Otherwise I don't know where you pick such nonsense from and attribute it to me, that I never said.

    As a government, it their responsibility to reassure the nation that strict action will be taken against those who fight others' wars.

    Also they should enact laws and enacting the laws take time.  But for you nobody is an idiot to believe that a law is enacted in a day. I never said anything about a day. Read my comment a 100 times.

    You are the first person who assumed that and condemned that. Such foolishness.

    This government is dumber than the previous government in every aspect so far. However, related to the topic, its inaction is downright lethargic.

    By non muslim - 7/21/2014 3:36:49 AM



  • there is nothing like contextual/historical interpretation of the Quran and Hadith.
    the real face keep springing up time to time.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/21/2014 3:10:44 AM



  • Ramesh, 

    Is there a permanent solution for a live volcano? One can only hope for longer phases of dormancy.

    By secularlogic - 7/20/2014 11:37:38 PM



  • By proposing to raise an army of 500,000 Muslim youth from the Indian subcontinent to serve the so-called Ummah centered in Saudi Arabia, Maulana Salman Hussaini Nadvi has violated several Indian laws and should be put in prison, although perhaps a better place for him would be a mental hospital. He needs to be cured of a severe affliction which he calls Islam but which the Quran calls 'fasad'.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/20/2014 1:00:47 PM



  • Dear SL,
     You have mentioned many steps to be undertaken to prevent radicalization of indian muslims. But all these steps seems to be temporary solutions  like dousing a volcano for a while. suggest some permanent solutions to the problem.  

    By ramesh - 7/20/2014 11:53:40 AM



  • One need not be a blind follower of BJP to see the ridiculousness of your expectation. Modi is not some Caliph to dream of a law one night and announce it on the microphone the next day at friday prayers.

    The Muslim question is a delicate one, more so for a government that has to walk on eggshells when it comes to even passing a remark about minorities. 

    What inaction are you talking about? You expect them to send peace keeping forces to Iraq? They got a large number of Indians out of there safely, do they not deserve credit for that? God knows how much ransom they had to pay. 

    This is a new phenomenon that has taken the entire world aback. Even UK, with an estimated 300-500 citizens in this jihadist force, has not been able to come up with an adequate response. In france, all they have done upto now is in a different context- they have banned pro-palestine demonstrations, after allowing one that led to much violence. You can see that the whole world is bewildered. yet you want the BJP to take immeditate, knee jerk measures for a problem that has been brewing for over a decade and has now come to a boil. Suppose tomorrow they say that the three-four fellows who have gone to Iraq are no longer citizens of India. What do you think Muslims will say about this action against 'misguided children"? I was already shocked when the father of one of these boys went to Rajnath seeking 'justice"! If only someone could tell me what 'injustice" has been done upon them. It is the parents who should spend some time in jail for failing to prevent their kids from getting radicalised. 

    You have a prescription for how this issue is to be solved? I bet you don't. I do. Stop all foreign fund flows to Islamic NGOs. Let the government fund the legitimate ones. Literature from abroad should be examined and censored before allowing it to be distributed in India. All Madrassas must come under government supervision, and ruthless censorship of what is being preached there. All radical interpretors of Islam to be punished with immediate deportation. Dont allow foreign preachers to come in without vetting their ideology and history. Enforce uniform civil code - no special ways of life for any community. Declare all support of Jihad, Wahabbism, ISIS, Al Quaeda as treason and try people accordingly. No demonstrations for anything except things that happen in India. No global Ummah business. Revoke citizenship of anybody going abroad for religious war. 

    That MIGHT help curb the menace, might being the operative word. Would you care to tell me which government will have the guts to do all this? Would you, if you were heading the government? No. There are just too many muslims in India who dont know what is good for them and what is bad. We will have nationwide riots. 

    So while it is very easy for us to sit at the keyboard and blame the current government for the state of affairs, it requires honesty and a fair mind to see that it is not their fault. the fault lies elsewhere. 

    By secularlogic - 7/20/2014 5:00:51 AM



  • People confuse their ignorance with mystery.

    You maybe a blind follower of BJP, I am not.

    I never linked ISIS to BJP. I linked its inaction in the last few weeks towards a lot of bad things that have happened, mainly w.r.t the topic - Shias requesting to fight in Iraq, Sunni clerics supporting ISIS.

    The last point you have made is pure speculation. I can't do anything but to say don't assume.

    By non muslim - 7/20/2014 4:27:43 AM



  • How Mr Non Muslim makes the logical leap from the first eight points of his comment to the ninth one is a complete mystery to me.

    In what respect is the new one month old government responsible for ISIS,or this crazy letter writing fellow, or Saudi radicalisation, or our engineering students signing up for Jihad? 

    If the government takes the immediate actions that need to be taken, this same gentleman will be howling "anti-minority" government! You can't win against muslims, that much is true. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Everything that they do wrong is the responsibility of someone else. 

    By secularlogic - 7/20/2014 3:44:52 AM



  • This is how Islam is maligned.

    The so called Ulema simply cannot do away with the violence that literally exists in Quran and Hadees.

    I understand it now perfectly.

    Tomorrow, when the right opportunity arrives this power hungry Hyenas of Ulema will definitely want to unleash violence on non Muslims of India also, armed with nothing short of Hadees and Quran.

    Such people are in minority. But they have the capacity to mobilize a large number of Muslims.

    They should be squished as seedlings.

    Government must enact laws that will strip off the citizenship of anyone who pledges allegiance to another country.

    It's one thing to support another country in peace efforts, humanitarian efforts, trade, education and it's another thing to support a terrorist group that has already included India in their caliphate map.

    This new government seems to be worse than the previous government. Nothing good has come since it came into power.

    God save this country.

    By non muslim - 7/19/2014 11:06:47 PM