Books and Documents

Radical Islamism and Jihad (17 Sep 2014 NewAgeIslam.Com)


  • Masha Allah ...it felt great to hear about ua idealogy and work u r doing fo spreading Islan....But brother we can do d same under the name Islam ....by writing New age Islam there vl be conflicts among ignorant youth ....As Allah s.w.t has mentioned the name Islam in Quran not New age or old age ....u r doing great work broda ...bt ol i want to say is this name new age islam will create biddah in sociey...hope u undastnd wt um trying to say ...wasalaam
    By Andrabi Syed Shuja - 11/25/2014 12:51:22 PM

  • Under the proposed law anyone who owns a dog will be fined up to $500. What happens next to the dogs is unclear. If passed, the police and military take away the dogs. However this is already occuring. Police are taking them. Many Iranians contacted international animal rights on facebook to say its happening now, even before the law has passed. In the past Iranian animal lovers have said the ideas are preposterous and is not part of Islam criminal codes. As more and more young, educated, upwardly mobile young Iranians start owning dogs (i.e. appearing just like the wild Western people) the old religious leaders do not like it. By stopping people having dogs, they will take back some of their control. Iranians hate it when stray dogs are culled. They don't like harsh officials or the way they operate. Iran is part of UN. What about UN Millenium Development Goals of education, fairness, good governance. Singapore children have Animal Awareness now as part of MDGs.
    By Predone del Deserto - 11/10/2014 1:56:33 PM

  • So you mean to say our prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught us the orthodox version of Islam which is now outdated and has grown old......... So we need to create a new version which suits to our wishes and choices and most of all suits the non-Muslim populace.........
    U r clearly ignorant ,misguided and misled by ur own desires.......

    By Syed Tuffail - 11/1/2014 8:45:49 AM

  • Tufail Saheb, it may help somewhat to go on the About Us column in the website. Or better still let me quote the material here:

    We are a group of Muslims, mostly South Asian, and some based in the Middle East, Europe, North America and Australia, concerned at the present state of affairs in which the very word Muslim has become synonymous with terrorism, backwardness and ignorance. Islam had come to the world to fight the Jahiliya and we Muslims being regarded all over the world today as the representatives of that same Jahiliya is something we find completely unacceptable. For as much as at least the last five hundred years religious thought in Islam has been largely stagnant, even though original, what is called orthodox Islam suggested ways in which to accept and internalise change.

    Is there something we can do about it? Perhaps, not much! It is too gigantic a task for us to undertake with our meagre resources. But do we have the option to do nothing, just ‘stand and stare’? We don’t think so. There is a large body of Muslims all over the world that we know feels more or less the same way as we do. The internet gives us a facility: we can try and bring many such people together either on one platform or at least link many of the individual platforms of like-minded people that already exist.

    By establishing and running this website we aim at the following:

    1. Encourage serous rethinking about all Islamic postulates, point by point, in the light of our requirements today in the 21st century. Ijtihad is something we have ignored for centuries; obscurantist sections of our society have sought to keep us mired in hoary tradition and mere rituals. The task before us is, literally, to create a New Age Islam.

    2. Keep the world Muslim community informed of all that is going on in the Muslim world so that they can take informed decisions. Not every body can keep track of all the events that impact us deeply as a community or monitor the world media day after day. We will endeavour to keep the community informed of the challenges facing us in different parts of the world and how our co-religionists are coping with them and if there is something we can contribute by way of advice.

    3. Encourage a debate with our educated youth which seems to be going astray and becoming a prey to misguided ideologies and participating in activities that is endangering the lives of other Muslims and the work entrusted to us, that of spreading enlightenment. We simply cannot allow our own children to fall prey to these forces of darkness and Jahiliya, who are endangering the community for their own petty gains and for furthering their own political and other objectives.

    4. Above all, to keep reminding ourselves of the rich spiritual traditions of tolerance and pluralism and multi-culturalism that we have inherited. It is indeed strange for any one who has inherited the following thoughts and traditions to be considered a bigot. Let me remind us of some of these right here.

    All mankind is from Adam and Eve (Hawwa), an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white - EXCEPT BY PIETY AND GOOD ACTION…Do not therefore do injustice to yourselves. Remember one day you will meet Allah and answer your deeds. So beware: do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.

    The Last Sermon Of The Prophet (PBUH)

    Kaabe mein butkade mein hai yeksan teri zia
    Mein imtiaze dairo haram mein phansa raha

    (The divine light equally illuminates the Kaaba and the house of idols (temple), but woe to me that I remained obsessed with the differences and distinctions between the two)

    -------Allama Iqbal

    "I died as a mineral and became a plant,
    I died as plant and rose to animal,
    I died as animal and I was man.
    Why should I fear?
    When was I less by dying?

    Yet Once more I shall die as Man,
    To soar with angels blest;
    But even from angelhood I must pass on.
    After that, soaring higher than angels,
    What you cannot imagine I shall be that."

    -----Hazrat Jalaluddin Rumi

    Another great mystic Mansur al-Hallaj, famous for his formulation, Anal Haq (I am The Truth: Aham Brahmo Asmi) wrote:

    “Like the herbage I have sprung up many a time On the banks of flowing rivers. For a hundred thousand years I have lived and worked In every sort of body."

    ------Mansur al-Hallaj

    And Read Rumi again:

    There's a strange frenzy in my head, Of birds flying, Each particle circulating on its own! Is the one I love everywhere? (The Essential Rumi, p. 4)

    Lo, I am with you always means when you look for God, God is in the look of your eyes, in the thought of looking, nearer to you than yourself, or things that have happened to you. There's no need to go outside. Be melting snow. Wash yourself of yourself. (The Essential Rumi, p. 13)

    What do we mean by saying that God is not in heaven? We do not mean that He is not in heaven, but that heaven cannot encompass Him. He encompasses heaven. He has an ineffable connection with heaven just as He has an ineffable connection with you. Everything is in His omnipotent hands; everything is a manifestation of Him and subject to His control. So, He is not outside the heavens and the universe but is not totally inside them either, that is, they do not encompass Him but He encompasses them totally. Someone asked where God was before the earth, skies, and Divine Throne existed. We said that the question was invalid from the outset because God is by definition that which has no place.
    (Signs of the Unseen: The Discourses of Jalaluddin Rumi, p. 221)

    -----Hazrat Jalaluddin Rumi

    Having inherited such grand thoughts and such broadmindedness, such concern for pluralism and equality of mankind, all its races and nationalities, Justice for all, concern for rights of not only all humans but also animals and plants, it seems strange today for a Muslim to be equated with the likes of Osama bin laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri who do not mind destroying the image of Islam as a religion of peace and submission to God and killing even Muslims, not to speak of other innocent human beings for the sake of furthering their own political ambitions and satisfying their own urges for vengeance against the authorities that may have hurt them some time in the past in some way. In today’s world where misunderstandings about Islam abound, we just have to try and bring the focus back on the essential concepts in Islamic thought – peace, contempt for aggression, submission to God and acceptance of all situations as having come from God, prayer, mercy, forgiveness as a cure for all spiritual and physical ills, reason, the spirit of inquiry, social justice and individual responsibility.

    By Sultan Shahin - 11/1/2014 8:41:39 AM

  •  What on earth is 'New Age Islam'...... The author is probably on drugs....

    By Syed Tuffail - 11/1/2014 8:34:30 AM

  •  Some Muslims are moderate and some are radical, but plez don't confuse it with Islam. Islam is the only true religion on the face of earth. It is a challenge.

    By Mir Moiz Iqbal - 11/1/2014 8:31:46 AM

  • Moiz Saheb you clearly need more information about the goings on. I can only suggest you visit and spend some time on NewAgeIslam.com 

    By Sultan Shahin - 11/1/2014 8:28:40 AM

  • Islam is Islam, there is no moderate Islam and radical Islam.
    By Mir Moiz Iqbal - 11/1/2014 8:24:41 AM

  • As Napoleon Bonaparte said  "The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people." it is well fitted quotation for today`s plight situation of Islam and Muslims. the moderate Muslims particularly Islamic Scholars must strictly condemn and oppose the extremists radical groups in any forms they might, as it has been their legacy to overtly fight anti-Islamic elements over centuries. Ironically, we know that millions of words have been written in opposition of jihadist Ideology but went in smoke. in my opinion, unless the countries which are said to have been patronizing these forces from within stop helping them, they can not be wiped out from the earth. As for the ideology to be changed, so our almost all work...articles, moderate thoughts on internet, speeches based on Islamic pluralism, verbal or written condemnations of today`s jihad,seminars on Islamic doctrines of coexistence and peacefulness, and regular opposition from  Newageislam does not actually reach the ground level where the youth are brainwashed and trained as Jannati Jihadis and deployed to kill citizens indiscriminately. It is sure that neither a specific group of Muslims nor a country can take the bulls by the horns rather a global initiative both ideologically and militerally must be taken to uphold global peace.
    By faheem Qadri - 9/26/2014 3:14:32 AM

  • Rational says, " i just asked about its ideology." . . .

    I have answered that umpteen times. If you still fail to understand, it means you do not want to understand.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/23/2014 1:22:43 PM

  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/23/2014 3:04:16 AM

    I never questioned the work done by CAIR, i just asked about its ideology. you said some of them are ultra conservative and some are liberals.
    you said they didn't check the records because they lacked in resources. But they left you unchecked when they had resources. your answer is "they didn't me because i didn't apply for the post"

    if some of them are ultra conservatives, believe in Hadith and Sunna as conservatives, how come CAIR allowed them to be members when it is under strict surveillance. Is CAIR careless or attract the elites irrespective of their background to put pressure on its critics?.
    i didn't sling any mud, it is you who accused me for. i said what is available as information on the internet. I didn't visit anti CAIR site. it is available on other sites too.

    better you say Good Bye because you are not answering anything. you are just slinging the mud on me just because i questioned you as a member of CAIR.
    I too don't wish to carry any more conversation with you.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/23/2014 3:34:12 AM

  • Rationa asks, "why they didn't check your record?" . . .

    I did not apply to be an officer of CAIR. If you want to keep on asking such childish questions, I shall not reply. I have answered all your questions and shown you how your attempt to smear CAIR with the MB brush is unworthy and groundless. Good bye!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/23/2014 3:04:16 AM

  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/23/2014 1:23:12 AM
    "stop fooling yourself.". just a matter of perspective.
    we think you are doing the same.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/23/2014 2:06:07 AM

  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/23/2014 1:23:12 AM
    why they didn't check your record? were they small at that time? or you were their his highness so they exempted from the security check?
    stop mindless defense.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/23/2014 2:01:21 AM

  • Rational says, "even if Royer did crime in his private, was he fit for the post of communication officer of the CAIR?" . . .

    Fourteen years ago CAIR was a very small organization with few resources and no experience, I assume. I was not a member then.

    You said, "don't you fall in the category of moderates or you are extreme moderate?"

    Please don't make a fool of yourself with such stupid questions.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/23/2014 1:23:12 AM

  • Rational,

    No matter what anybody says or said, the beauty of a structural solution is that it accomplishes its purpose inspite of the opinions of people.

    The rulers took their responsibility to protect the minorities seriously.

    As explained it also prevented forcible conversions and on the contrary made conversions undesirable.

    One must be completely blind to see this simple fact.

    By Observer - 9/23/2014 1:19:41 AM

  • Rational asks, "the questions are very simple. what ideology CAIR believe in?" . . .

    For the fifth time, it is not a religious group and has no ideology like the MB ideology. It believes in Islam but not in Political Isalm. How many times do I have to repeat this? It is a civil rights advocacy group serving American Muslims. It believes in what the American Constitution promises, namely freedom of worship, freedom of religion, equal protection of the laws and the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    You also said, " it would have been better if they were rendering the legal services to everyone who comes under injustice."

    In the U.S. there are Jewish advocacy groups, Hindu advocacy groups and Muslim advocacy groups. There is also ACLU which serves everyone. There are also groups supporting Blacks, American Indians, Irish, Italians and others. That is the American way.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/23/2014 1:16:23 AM

  • Ghulam m do you understand simple questions?
    even if Royer did crime in his private, was he fit for the post of communication officer of the CAIR?

    why the CAIR should not check the history of the people who are applying for its membership?
    what if the ultra conservative member becomes the propeller/driver of the CAIR?
    sometime police verification is carried out to check the past record of the person who is going to be member or is going to hold some key position in the institution.  If the CAIR is operating as the tongue among the teeth why it should not check the past record of the person who wants a position in the CAIR.
    you have run off in arguments and busy in spraying slurs in order to to keep yourself clean.
    you are indeed wasting your time in slinging mud us.
    why they didn't check your record of past before issuing membership to you if the CAIR operates under strict surveillance. what if some member interested in OBL becomes the threat to CAIR's mission?
    i thought you were a man with difference but Alas! that has not touched you. your good words are mere good words.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/23/2014 12:16:19 AM

  • By Mamoon - 9/22/2014 11:52:07 PM

  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/22/2014 1:43:37 PM
    don't you fall in the category of moderates or you are extreme moderate?
    Wahdiduddin khan's mission is peaceful conversion of kuffars to one only true religion Islam. he might have considered other conversions if he lived in the time of ghazis.
    he has changed his garb according to present situatioi. he tells Muslims to be example not because being good is requirement of every one but to seek the opportunity to coinvert. 

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/22/2014 11:51:47 PM

  • “Vande Matram” and Muslims, According To Mr. Sawami Shankra Chariya


    By Mamoon - 9/22/2014 11:51:24 PM

  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/22/2014 1:29:41 PM
    the questions are very simple. what ideology CAIR believe in? Is the ideology of MB is tolerant one? we are happy if they render legal services. it would have been better if they were rendering the legal services to everyone who comes under injustice of any kind. Generally Muslims welfare activities remain confined to Muslims. their approach is not broad.
    since you are uncomfortable with CAIR's ideology, you will keep rolling and will continue to slur those who don't agree with you.
    why ideology important in others case but not in the case of CAIR or any other outfit of MB?

    if you think we lack in comprehension or adament to refute you just stop.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/22/2014 11:45:22 PM

  • The following picture is called the picture of "Lift Jihad". But the problem is that despite the presence of Sangh in India, such an incident is still growing.  

    By Mamoon - 9/22/2014 11:41:31 PM

  • it is not a question of religious blindness. it is the indoctrinated supremacism. it is the belief that mine is the best and the biggest. to accept that there are unacceptable teachings in islam will poke a hole in their paper boat. so denial it must and denial it will be.

    this is a game children play. except that generally they grow over it, but in this case education simply enables you with spurious logic, word play and pseudo science to support all kinds of religious excesses, religious discrimination, monopoly over faith and of course unilateral moratorium on prophethood.

    this is the reason buddhists migrating to europe never demand the banning of meat, while in each and everyplace the muslims migrate, they resort to blackmail, false accusations, street demonstrations and lobbying to get pork banned from school lunches.

    and they claim islam is peaceful and wants peaceful coexistense. never mind asking for bacon in saudi arabia.

    i think muslims are more peaceful than what their scriptures ordain.

    By hats off! - 9/22/2014 10:48:10 PM

  • observer
    we don't expect you will ever accept that jiziah was extorted for unbelief because you are equally blind as extremists are.
    The Quran , the Hadith, the Ulema of all schools reached to only one conclusion that is jiziah was for unbelief. either you convert or pay tax to save your life and live in submission.
    i had been regular reader of articles, books and Al-risala of whaduddin khan saheb. His mission is peaceful Dawa means peaceful conversion to only valid true religion Islam. other religions have lost their credibility due to corruption in their books.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/22/2014 8:58:45 PM

  • Suhail says, "Apart from Royer who began serving a 20-year prison sentence, ten other young men, ages 23 to 35, known as the "Virginia jihad group," were indicted on forty-one counts of "conspiracy to train for and participate in a violent jihad overseas.....IANA websites promoted the views of two Saudi preachers...."

    You are slinging all the mud that you can find at CAIR with the unspoken slogan, "Enemies of Islam Unite!" CAIR has nothing to do with IANA. CAIR was neither indicted nor convicted in any of the cases you mentioned. CAIR's membership, as I said before, ranges from the most liberal to the most conservative.  A handful may even be supporters of Osama. When I became a member 6 or 7 years ago, they did not run any background check on me. The fact that I reject Hadiths and Sunnah does not mean CAIR rejects Hadiths and Sunnah. They just fight any unjust treatment of American Muslims, using the American legal system. A subversive Muslim organization cannot possible function openly in the post-9/11 America. But I know that I am just wasting my time telling all this to you guys!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/22/2014 2:00:08 PM

  • Hats Off says, "the very fact that a mr wahiduddin khan declares that islam is about converting kuffars, you know that moderates are lame and are being led by the blind. and they are declaring that their religion is the best!" . . .

    Is Maulana Wahiduddin Khan speaking for all moderates?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/22/2014 1:43:37 PM

  • Hats Off says, "these moderates are not only naive they are also knaves!" . . .

    Sorry to see you run out of arguments so soon! You had to fall back on name-calling! I am not surprised.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/22/2014 1:39:12 PM

  • Rational asks, "As A Muslim Group  CAIR believe in which ideology? . . .

    It seems you do not understand what I have repeated several times. CAIR is not about ideology but about protecting American Muslims from discrimination, prejudice and defamation of their faith. It is about civil rights, not about ideology.

    You also asked, "CAIR's mission statement clearly mentions that it represent correct version of Islam? which Islam? Is not that MB's?"

    It is not MB unless they clearly say so. You jump to conclusions based on your own prejudices. Representing correct version of Islam means correcting the slurs on Islam perpetrated by Islamophobes.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/22/2014 1:29:41 PM

  • Rational says, ""Royer, CAIR's former civil rights coordinator, in 2004 began serving a 20-year prison sentence for aiding al-Qaida and the Taliban against American troops in Afghanistan and recruiting for Lashkar e-Taiba, the jihadist group responsible for the 2008." . . .

    Very old story! You forget to mention that he committed his crime in 2001 in his private capacity. CAIR was neither indicted nor convicted. I was wondering why a professional smearer like you had not mentioned Royer so far!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/22/2014 1:18:14 PM

  • By rational mohammed yunus Sb - 9/22/2014 3:58:37 AM

    "The Royer, CAIR's former civil rights coordinator, in 2004 began serving a 20-year prison sentence for aiding al-Qaida and the Taliban against American troops in Afghanistan and recruiting for Lashkar e-Taiba, the jihadist group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai jihad massacres."

    Dear Rational,

    I also find some additional information about the dubious activities of CAIR and I would like  to share it with you.

    Apart from Royer who began serving a 20-year prison sentence, ten other young men, ages 23 to 35, known as the "Virginia jihad group," were indicted on forty-one counts of "conspiracy to train for and participate in a violent jihad overseas." The defendants, nine of them U.S. citizens, were accused of association with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a radical Islamic group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. Department of State in 2001. They were also accused of meeting covertly in private homes and at the Islamic Center in Falls Church to prepare themselves for battle by listening to lectures and watching videotapes. According to Matthew Epstein of the Investigative Project, Royer helped recruit the others to the jihad effort while he was working for CAIR. The group trained at firing ranges in Virginia and Pennsylvania; in addition, it practiced "small-unit military tactics" at a paintball war-games facility in Virginia, earning it the moniker, the "paintball jihadis." Eventually members of the group traveled to Pakistan.

    Five of the men indicted, including CAIR's Royer, were found to have had in their possession, according to the indictment, "AK-47-style rifles, telescopic lenses, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and tracer rounds, documents on undertaking jihad and martyrdom, [and] a copy of the terrorist handbook containing instructions on how to manufacture and use explosives and chemicals as weapons."

    After four of the eleven defendants pleaded guilty, the remaining seven, including Royer, were accused in a new, 32-count indictment of yet more serious charges: conspiring to help Al-Qaeda and the Taliban battle American troops in Afghanistan. Royer admitted in his grand jury testimony that he had already waged jihad in Bosnia under a commander acting on orders from Osama bin Laden. Prosecutors also presented evidence that his father, Ramon Royer, had rented a room in his St. Louis-area home in 2000 to Ziyad Khaleel, the student who purchased the satellite phone used by Al-Qaeda in planning the two U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa in August 1998. Royer eventually pleaded guilty to lesser firearms-related charges, and the former CAIR staffer was sentenced to twenty years in prison.

    Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR's Texas chapter, has a long history of funding terrorism. First, he was convicted in July 2004, with his four brothers, of having illegally shipped computers from their Dallas-area business, InfoCom Corporation, to two designated state-sponsors of terrorism, Libya and Syria. Second, he and two brothers were convicted in April 2005 of knowingly doing business with Mousa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas leader, whom the U.S. State Department had in 1995 declared a "specially designated terrorist." Elashi was convicted of all twenty-one counts with which he was charged, including conspiracy, money laundering, and dealing in the property of a designated terrorist.  Third, he was charged in July 2004 with providing more than $12.4 million to Hamas while he was running the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, America's largest Islamic charity. When the U.S. government shuttered Holy Land Foundation in late 2001, CAIR characterized this move as "unjust" and "disturbing."

    Bassem Khafagi, an Egyptian native and CAIR's onetime community relations director, pleaded guilty in September 2003 to lying on his visa application and passing bad checks for substantial amounts in early 2001, for which he was deported. CAIR claimed Khafagi was hired only after he had committed his crimes and that the organization was unaware of his wrongdoing. But that is unconvincing, for a cursory background check reveals that Khafagi was a founding member and president of the Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA), an organization under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for terrorism-related activities. CAIR surely knew that IANA under Khafagi was in the business of, as prosecutors stated in Idaho court papers, disseminating "radical Islamic ideology, the purpose of which was indoctrination, recruitment of members, and the instigation of acts of violence and terrorism."

    For example, IANA websites promoted the views of two Saudi preachers, Salman al-Awdah and Safar al-Hawali, well-known in Islamist circles for having been spiritual advisors to Osama bin Laden. Under Khafagi's leadership, Matthew Epstein has testified, IANA hosted a conference at which a senior Al-Qaeda recruiter, Abdel rehman al-Dosari, was a speaker. IANA disseminated publications advocating suicide attacks against the United States, according to federal investigators.

    Also, Khafagi was co-owner of a Sir Speedy printing franchise until 1998 with Rafil Dhafir, who was a former vice president of IANA and a Syracuse-area oncologist convicted in February 2005 of illegally sending money to Iraq during the Saddam Hussein regime as well as defrauding donors by using contributions to his "Help the Needy" charitable fund to avoid taxes and to purchase personal assets for himself. Dhafir was sentenced to twenty-two years in prison.

    Rabih Haddad, a CAIR fundraiser, was arrested in December 2001 on terrorism-related charges and deported from the United States due to his subsequent work as executive director of the Global Relief Foundation, a charity he cofounded which was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department in October 2002 for financing Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

    Siraj Wahhaj, a CAIR advisory board member, was named in 1995 by U.S. attorney Mary Jo White as a possible unindicted coconspirator in the plot to blow up New York City landmarks led by the blind sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman. In defense of having Wahhaj on its advisory board, CAIR described him as "one of the most respected Muslim leaders in America." In October 2004, he spoke at a CAIR dinner.

    Although, CAIR presents itself as an advocate for Muslims' civil rights and the spokesman for American Muslims, but there is another side to CAIR that has alarmed many people. The Department of Homeland Security refuses to deal with it. Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat, New York) describes it as an organization "which we know has ties to terrorism." Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) observes that CAIR is "unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect." Steven Pomerantz, the FBI's former chief of counterterrorism, notes that "CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups." The family of John P. O'Neill, Sr., the former FBI counterterrorism chief who perished at the World Trade Center, named CAIR in a lawsuit as having "been part of the criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism", responsible for the September 11 atrocities. Counterterrorism expert Steven Emerson calls it "a radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas."

    Of particular note are the American Muslims who reject CAIR's claim to speak on their behalf. The late Seifeldin Ashmawy, publisher of the New Jersey-based Voice of Peace, called CAIR the champion of "extremists whose views do not represent Islam." Jamal Hasan of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance explains that CAIR's goal is to spread "Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook." Kamal Nawash, head of Free Muslims Against Terrorism, finds that CAIR and similar groups condemn terrorism on the surface while endorsing an ideology that helps foster extremism, adding that "almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states." Tashbih Sayyed of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance calls CAIR "the most accomplished fifth column" in the United States.  And Stephen Schwartz of the Center on Islamic Pluralism writes that "CAIR should be considered a foreign-based subversive organization, comparable in the Islamist field to the Soviet-controlled Communist Party, USA."

    CAIR, for its part, dismisses all criticism, blaming negative comments on "Muslim bashers" who "can never point to something CAIR has done in its 10-year history that is objectionable." Actually, there is much about the organization's history that is objectionable—and it is readily apparent to anyone who bothers to look.

    Perhaps the most obvious problem with CAIR is the fact that at least five of its employees and board members have been arrested, convicted, deported, or otherwise linked to terrorism-related charges and activities as mentioned above.

    I hope I may be able to shortly share some more valuable information on CAIR's activities.



    By Khalid Suhail - 9/22/2014 12:42:25 PM

  • I go by the outcomes. If I look for a reason as to why there was such a huge difference between the way the minorities were treated in Islamic countries when they were persecuted elsewhere, the major difference I find is that an Islamic ruler was under a covenant with God to protect the minorities as long as they paid the Jiziya. I do not see this as a tax for unbelief since the old, the disabled, the monks, the women, the poor and the women were exempted. We even have the example of Hazrat Umar paying pension to an old Jew from the collections and Khalid Bin Walid returning the Jiziya when he was not in a position to provide the protection. It was clearly therfore a tax collected for protection and not for unbelief.

    There is no point going over the same arguments all over again. You can read them in the earlier thread at your leisure.

    Hats Off is attributing to Maulana Wahiduddin what he could never have said. It is the same old trick of misleading through ones own lies and distortions. Why can't he quote his exact words? Obviously, then he will have nothing to say.

    By Observer - 9/22/2014 11:27:53 AM

  • the very fact that a mr wahiduddin khan declares that islam is about converting kuffars, you know that moderates are lame and are being led by the blind. and they are declaring that their religion is the best!

    they are offering the ultimate apology. i will do whatever i want in the name of my religion, but you should never ever blame my religion, even though i say that to me my religion is the only thing of value and that i always act only according to it.

    and by the way, income tax, sales tax, professional tax and service taxes are never ever payed "with willing submission and feeling subdued". and any one who does not pay is not beheaded a la ialsmic laws.

    By hats off! - 9/22/2014 11:08:21 AM

  • Observer - 9/22/2014 10:15:12 AM
    if some non-Muslims favor you, you quote them otherwise that is a propaganda against Islam.
    we are taxed as Hindus are taxed not less not more. if either taxpayer Hindu or Muslim, or any citizen treated equally. they are punished equally.
    have been taxed differently because you are a Muslim? had been a Hindu exempted from the tax because he is a Hindu?
    you yourself twisting the simple things.
    this willing submission is entirely different from the Quranic submission and humilation for not paying jiziah.. even BJP is not extorting tax from you because you are a Muslim.
    what will you say if you are asked to pay because of your religion?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/22/2014 10:38:13 AM

  • Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

    Examples from Early Muslims:

    "I call you to God and to Islam. If you respond to the call, then you are Muslims: You obtain the benefits they enjoy and take up the responsibilities they bear. If you refuse, then you must pay the jizyah. If you refuse the jizyah, I will bring against you tribes of people who are more eager for death than you are for life. We will then fight you until God decides between us and you." (Al Tabari, Volume XI)
    Khalid bin Al-Waheed (Muslim General, 632AD)
    Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted. (Al Tabari, Volume XII)
    Umar ibn al-Khattab during the conquest of al-Basrah (636 CE)

    "I will bring against you tribes of people who are more eager for death than you are for life.
    has been quoted recently by ISIS. Some Muslims are pretending as it is unknown to Islam

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/22/2014 10:27:04 AM

  • Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
    Qur'an 9:29
    so it can't be like the tax on Muslims and Ziziya on non-Musims. former is religious duty in exchange Muslims will be blessed and later is humiliation even if paid otherwise death. 

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/22/2014 10:18:05 AM

  • Rational,

    Are you not paying your taxes with willing submission?

    Were the Muslims not taxed? Were those who refused to pay not fought against?

    You can twist and distort facts as much as you wish. The non Muslim historians were not fools. 

    By Observer - 9/22/2014 10:15:12 AM

  • either pay jizia or be ready to die.
    So early Muslims allowed them to live in exchange of life. what a mercy! other were killing for not being subdued and rahmat ul lilaimeen and holy companions were extorting the tax. had they killed them it would also have been a mercy.
    first this was a tool to get rich
    second it was a tool to conversion.
    holy solution!

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/22/2014 10:05:18 AM

  • Rational,

    Stop being a knave and bring in Auarangzeb into the discussion. I have said the conquest of India itself was non Islamic. Besides, Aurangzeb had more Hindus in his army than Muslims and even otherwise his soldiers were salaried and not free volunteers. On all counts Jiziya by him was unconscionable. Besides, more than Aurangzeb, his religious/spiritual teacher must be given credit for it, who was none other than the grandson of Ahmad Sirhindi.  

    Not only Mr Yunus but I have also said that Jiziya was turned into an instrument of humiliation in the 12th Century by the Mullahs but it was not so in the early period. 

    Jiziya created a contract between the state and the non-Muslim of a guarantee of protection without the obligation of rendering military service and this was a covenant of protection that the ruler is liable to render faithfully and is fully accountable to God for it. 

    It was a structural solution to a problem that worked very well and Islamic countries were the only countries in which the religious minorities enjoyed both protection and a measure of equality with the Muslim population and rose to become even Ministers.

    Heinrich Graetz, the leading 19th century Jewish historian says at the beginning of the story of the Jews of Arab lands in his influential "History of the Jews":

    Wearied with contemplating the miserable plight of the Jews in their ancient home and in the countries of Europe, and fatigued by the constant sight of fanatical oppression in Christendom, the eyes of the observer rest with gladness upon their situation in the Arabian peninsula. Here the sons of Judah were free to raise their heads, and did not need to look about them with fear and humiliation, lest the ecclesiastical wrath be discharged upon them, or the secular power overcome them. Here they were not shut out of the paths of honor, nor excluded from the privileges of the state, but, untrammelled, were allowed to develop their powers in the midst of a free, simple and talented people, to show their manly courage, to compete the gifts of fame, and with practised hands to measure swords with their antagonists.

    Rudolf Kayser on the biography of Spanish Hebrew poet Judah Halevi writes:
    It is like a historical miracle that in the same era of history which produced these orgies of persecution (the crusades), the people of Israel in southern Europe (Spain) enjoyed a golden age, the like of which they had not known since the days of the bible. 

    Andre Chouraqui, a North African Jewish intellectual and historian, writing about the Jews of his ancestral homeland, describes the Almohad persecution in the twelfth century as being of a "passing nature." He attributes most pogroms against the Jews in the later Middle Ages to "lust and envy, rather than outbursts of hate," further, 
    There was never anytime in the Moslem Maghreb a philosophy and tradition of anti semitism such as existed in Europe from the Middle Ages to modern times ....during most periods of history, the jews of North Africa were happier than those in most parts of Europe, where they were the objects of unrelenting hate; such extreme sentiments did not exist in the Maghreb. The scorn that the adherents of different faiths expressed for each other could not obliterate the strong bonds of a common source of inspiration and a way of life intimately shared.

    Carl J Friedrich in his "Anti-semitism: Challenge to Christian culture," writes: An interesting contrast between the religious intolerance of the Western Christian culture and the relative tolerance of the  Mohammedan culture of the Muslims occurred: when, following the brutal persecution of the jews in Spain, many went to the Levant, the tolerant treatment given by the Ottoman Muslims to these persecuted Jews, as well as Christians, elicited the curiosity of political writers. In his political satires the post Machiavellian Boccalini has Bodin punished for commending the tolerance of the Turks.

    As recently as 1978, the compilers of an annotated historical catalog of anti semitic  outbursts relegate the discussion of Islam to a brief discussion at the end of the book.

    Arab anti semitism was originally fashioned in the 19th century by Christian Arabs using classical Christian anti semiotic stereotypes. It grew on intensity, and became generalized in the Arab world, wit the intensification of the Arab-Jewish / Arab Israeli conflict.

    An Islamophobe would appear to however, rather much prefer that the minorities were persecuted than  Islam providing a great structural solution that even ensured that there were no forced conversions, since maximizing the jiziya stream of revenue was in the interest of the ruler. Increasing the Zakat stream of revenue through  conversions at the cost of the Jiziya stream was disadvantageous to the ruler and so we find the historians telling us that the rulers discouraged conversions!

    By Observer - 9/22/2014 8:06:40 AM

  • my country right or wrong! or my religion right or wrong.

    bare naked supremacist word jehadis are so busy condemning the beheading jehadis!

    well it takes one to find one.

    these moderates are not only naive they are also knaves!

    By hats off! - 9/22/2014 5:36:24 AM

  • Observer
    "In historical perspective, the institutionalization of jizya was a boon to both Islam and the non-Muslims."

    in totality mohammed yunus has tried to convince that jiziah was not such a thing that it should be criticized. it was norm of that period.
    but the prophet violated the norms of his period.  if the norm was in his favor he kept otherwise broke.
    jiziah was making Muslims and him rich so he imposed it.

    people were treating daughter in laws as their own daughters. it was the norm of that period but the prophet uprooted it. because he was interested in hz zainab.
    historical context has been invented by moderates to silent the critics.

    Aurangzeb imposed it again what it make it boon to no-Muslims.
    jiziah was to humiliate who didn't surrender to Islam and it was extorted as prescribed in the sharia.
    since Muslims are under heavy criticism for what they did when were in power, whole army of moderates has stood to defend Muslim ruling period by fabricating lies.
    almost every religion save some have dark pasts. but why only Muslims are under serious attack? 
    how it is different from 'ziziah was mercy'. and do you disagree with this comment of mohammed yunus? with his stand on jiziah?
    what is your own view?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/22/2014 5:01:55 AM

  • Mr Ghulam M.
    if you can recall my question was about ideology of the CAIR which is rooted in MB. you tried to defend CAIR taking the present dissociation. It is you who said i am spraying the slur on CAIR. what slur was that?

    As A Muslim Group  CAIR believe in which ideology? If you can hold some Muslims responsible for crimes because of Wahabi ideology why not CAIR's ideology should be questioned.
    Do you want to suggest CAIR as a Muslim group  belongs to to none? MB have always supported the Wahabi ideology. two have close relations.
    How do you say Nihad Awad doesn't believe.

    CAIR's mission statement clearly mentions that it represent correct version of Islam? which Islam? Is not that MB's How is that different than wahabis.
    you are showing full symptoms of MB by saying my prejudice is pathological.
    This is how CAIR silence their critics.
    My focus was on on CAIR's ideology. you satanically led it to slinging of CAIR.
    You suppose by one declaration whole CAIR cut his connections from HAMAS or MB. None of its member  has nothing to do with MB's ideology.

    if your defense is composed of lies and hostility towards who question the CAIR, i have nothing more to say. perhaps none can win against the Member of CAIR which you are.
    Again why CAIR is maligned? just because it renders legal services to Muslims? Just because it believes in Islam?
    would you extend it to other countries too? are Muslims under questions because they believe in Islam?

    If CAIR is under strict subservience, it is perfectly right. if other agencies can go bad they can and they have questionable history.
    at last again what Islam they follow? If their ideas are Hasan al banna, Syed qutub and Shaikh Yaseen how come they have denounced thier teachings.  
    i am trying to know more about CAIR's founders.
    and i never believe that the maligners of CAIR are innocents.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/22/2014 4:41:23 AM

  • You said CAIR might have such connection before 1993.
    , CAIR's former civil rights coordinator, in 2004 began serving a 20-year prison sentence for aiding al-Qaida and the Taliban against American troops in Afghanistan and recruiting for Lashkar e-Taiba, the jihadist group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai jihad massacres."

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/22/2014 3:58:37 AM

  • Observer sb., I think it is more than extreme prejudice. It is pathological hostility.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/22/2014 2:36:30 AM

  • Rational says, "stupid defense". . .

    What is there for me to defend? You are just slinging mud. I am still waiting for you to come up with a reasonable argument.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/22/2014 2:32:27 AM

  • Rational,

    Quote me in full if you want to bring me into focus. 

    Mr Yunus said it very well: Do not be naive or a knave and attribute words to others which they never said.

    By Observer - 9/22/2014 2:28:39 AM

  • Observer
    topics discussed in details should not be brought out again and again:
    you object to it because it puts you under question.
    do those topics belong to trash-bins?

    you yourself have repeated some issues.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/22/2014 1:40:29 AM

  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/22/2014 1:00:24 AM
    stupid defense.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/22/2014 1:30:47 AM

  • GM Sb,

    It is a problem with people with extreme prejudice that they cannot take the good and leave what is bad.

    If I quote Churchill on a subject in which he has shown great insight, people will ask me then to accept everything else he said! Or think that I am his admirer! We all know that he was both anti Islam as well as anti Indian.

    By Observer - 9/22/2014 1:20:43 AM

  • Rational says,  "How can CAIR denounce the violence if its roots are in the MB" . . .

    The founders in 1993 may have had  MB connections, but that has nothing to do with present reality. CAIR is now an American civil rights advocacy group working on behalf of American Muslims. For you to persist with your McCarthyite smearing on very flimsy evidence does no credit to you.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/22/2014 1:14:25 AM

  • Rational says, "silence is a yes to "jizia is mercy". . .

    No it isn't. Stupid remark! . .

    He says, "CAIR whose root is in MB ...."

    You make assertions without showing the slightest bit of evidence to show how CAIR's work today is influenced by MB. Is civil rights advocacy a part of MB agenda? CAIR has supported Sikh causes in Wisconsin and California and it supported Jewish students in their dispute with school authorities in Colorado. Are these MB issues? Smearing and defaming others seems to come very easily to you.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/22/2014 1:00:24 AM

  • Yunus Sb's comment that I quoted in my previous comment, is addressed to Hats Off.
    By Observer - 9/22/2014 12:42:41 AM

  • Once a topic has been discussed in great detail, people should avoid bringing it up outside the context in which it was discussed. Else, In the words of Mr Muhammad Yunus,  they should quote the exact words because  if they are either naive or a knave, they only complicate matters by misrepresenting what was actually said. 

    I quote below Yunus Sb's comment which I fully endorse  who joined the discussion at my request.
    • 1.2.            The broader notion of Jizyah 

      The Qur’an refers to the term jizyah only in the foregoing verse (9:29). It uses the root JZY across its text with the connotation of a reward for good deeds, or a just recompense for something good or evil.3 As recorded in the traditions, jizyah was used as an exemption tax, which all able bodied non-Muslims were required to pay for their exemption from military services.

      The critics charge Islam of discriminating against the vanquished people by mandating the jizyah. They however fail to realise the normative character and historical significance of jizyah. Even before the advent of Islam, small states, weak kingdoms or vanquished people were required to pay a royalty or tax to their mighty neighbour to defending them against external aggression. Thus, all small Christian kingdoms beyond the borders of the Roman Empire paid a defence levy to the Roman Emperor. When these kingdoms merged with Islam, they paid the defence levy (jizyah) to the Muslim Caliph based on their physically fit adult population.Accordingly, women, under age and old men, sick or crippled men, and monks and priests were exempt from this tax. Those non-Muslims who volunteered military services were also exempt.4 This apart, jizyah also served as a balancing tax - as a partial substitute for the Zakat that Muslims were required to pay towards public funds. Thus, in effect, jizyah was a combination of welfare levy, and exemption tax.

      Through the medieval ages, the Western scholarship has ignored this social and political equation and presentedjizyah as somewhat of a punitive tax on a vanquished community. However, historical facts dating from early decades of Islam demonstrate that the vanquished communities were indeed happy to pay the jizyah, as it gave them such protection and security, as they had never seen before.5 The concept of jizyah was, however, abused with the forging of a document in the fifth century of Islam, and many vanquished Christians communities were subjected to whole range of restrictions and humiliations.6 But that is history, the course of which is set by political ambitions, clash of interest, and power equations. This summary focuses at the Qur’anic notion of jizyahas illustrated by the Qur’an and applied in the early decades of Islam, and therefore historical developments and distortions are excluded. 

      1.3.            The historical necessity of the notion of Jizya and its lack of relevance today.

      In historical perspective, the institutionalization of jizya was a boon to both Islam and the non-Muslims. But for the sole verse on jizya (9:29), the conquering Muslim army might have plundered, brutalized and enslaved the vanquished people in its early sweep and before long found it impossible to sustain its occupation of its expanding empire that included all the major neighbouring nations – Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Persia within thirty years of the Prophet’s death. Imposition of jizya as an alternative to war - an unavoidable reality of human history, also ensured security of life and property and full civil rights to the vanquished people [5]. This consolidated Islam’s position in world history, for this new revolutionary religion that, among a plethora of other reforms, made every one from the king to the beggar equally accountable to law and turned gender equation upside down had no place in human history. It would have died prematurely without political support and the initial Caliphacy (632-661 CE). 

      Fast forward to this era, with the emergence of multi-religious / secular states and separation of religion and politics and common taxation for all confessional groups in most countries of the world, jizya has lost its historical relevance. Today, the religious minorities in a predominantly Muslim country is subject to the national military service policy (whether by way of conscription or voluntary enrollment) and are thus intrinsically exempt from any additional taxation by way of jizya, as much as Muslim minorities do not bear any additional taxation in a predominantly non-Muslim/ secular country.

      This is for you my friend – for I am really busy otherwise and cannot give much time to NAI.

      Kindly quote me carefully for the naïve/ knave me ascribe your exact words to me and one who is too naïve or knave can only complicate matters as you know.

      By muhammad yunus - 2/9/2014 7:09:11 AM

    By Observer - 9/22/2014 12:37:55 AM

  • ghulam m
    what do you say if RSS, VHP or Bajrangdal or any similar group organize help camps for poor, blinds and orphans of Hindu community?
    CAIR is doing services to Muslims doesn't mean she has become free of its ideology.
    if RSS can supply Hinduttawa to these outfits why MB can't do the same.
    why Hinduttwa is bad, extreme but ideology of MB which is behind CAIR is peaceful.
    if you shout thousand slogans of peace, it is not going to help because it is deception since you belong to MB in anyway.
    one of the plans is to shut the mouth of critics of Islam with the help of media, academia  creating noise of islomphobia. this is the mission of the CAIR and yours as a member. Doing service to any gropu is commendable but the mission behind it is condemnable and needs harsh steps.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/22/2014 12:03:51 AM

  • Ghualm M
    whatever i have said about CAIR and its root MB can be verified. there is no
    "The Brotherhood's founder, Hassan al-Banna, stated that the group's goal was to assert Islam's manifest destiny and create an empire governed by Islamic religious law and unified in an autocratic caliphate. He claimed "It is in the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet."

    How can CAIR denounce the violence if its roots are in the MB whose mission is clear to all. your defence of CAIR is indeed the defense of MB.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/21/2014 11:30:11 PM

  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/21/2014 12:36:40 PM
    when did i say the comment you are attaching to me?
    being a member of CAIR whose root is in MB the Hambli most rigid school of though you will never accept the term "islamophobia' is created by MB. it is you who keep creating confusion because it serves to your deceptions. shame on you and your association to extreme ideology of MB.
    shame on your deception under the name of moderation.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/21/2014 9:07:14 PM

  • silence is a yes to "jizia is mercy"

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/21/2014 8:38:52 PM

  • Suhail sb., people may try to create controversies about the word 'Islamophobia' but, as I said, the word itself is quite clear. Fear of Sharia or fear of Wahhabism is converted into a fear of Islam and a hate campaign is then mounted against Islam. Your semantic pedantry does not interest me. Your longstanding pseudo-scholarly efforts to discredit the Prophet reveal your true motivation. 
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/21/2014 12:55:23 PM

  • Rational says, "they are very well integrated in marseilles, in malmo, in tower hamlets in dearborn, lakemba and many other places. that is how we hear of australian police foiling beheading plans." . We were talking of moderates, not jihadists. It is sad that you do not know the difference. Or are you deliberately trying to confuse the issue.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/21/2014 12:36:40 PM

  • By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/21/2014 3:19:39 AM

    “According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Islamophobia means "Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims." The definition is precise and lucid, and that is the way it is understood everywhere."

    But according to Wikipedia, Islamophobia is a term for prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of Muslims or of ethnic groups perceived to be Muslim. While the term is widely recognized and used, both the term and the underlying concept have been criticized.

    Some scholars have defined it as a type of racism, but this has been contested. Some commentators charge that the concept of "Islamophobia" has been used to dismiss any criticism of Islam, including its radical variants, by equating it with prejudice and racism.

    Studies focusing on the experience of Islamophobia among Muslims have shown that the experience of religious discrimination is associated with lower national identification and higher religious identification.

    An increase of Islamophobia in Russia follows the growing influence of the strongly conservative sect of Wahhabism, according to Nikolai Sintsov of the National Anti-Terrorist Committee. Various translations of the Qur’an have been banned by the Russian government for promoting extremism and Muslim supremacy. Anti-Muslim rhetoric is on the rise in Georgia. In Greece, Islamophobia accompanies anti-immigrant sentiment, as immigrants are now 15% of the country's population and 90% of the EU’s illegal entries are through Greece. In France Islamophobia is tied, in part, to the nation's long-standing tradition of secularism. In Burma the 969 Movement has been accused of events such as the 2012 Rakhine State riots.

    Jocelyne Cesari, in her study of discrimination against Muslims in Europe, finds that anti-Islamic sentiment is almost impossible to separate from other drivers of discrimination. Because Muslims are mainly from immigrant backgrounds and the largest group of immigrants (in the UK, France, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands) xenophobia overlaps with Islamophobia. This differs from the American situation where Hispanic immigrants dominate. Classism is another overlapping factor in some nations. Muslims have lower income and poorer education in France, Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands while Muslims in the US have higher income and education than the general population. In the UK, Islam is seen as a threat to secularism in response to the calls by some Muslims for blasphemy laws. In the Netherlands, Islam is seen as a socially conservative force that threatens gender equality and the acceptance of homosexuality.

    Roger Kimball argues that the word “Islamophobia” is inherently a prohibition or fear of criticizing of radical Islam. The author Sam Harris, while denouncing bigotry, racism, and prejudice against Muslims or Arabs, rejects the term, Islamophobia, as an invented psychological disorder, and states criticizing those Islamic beliefs and practices he believes pose a threat to civil society is not a form of bigotry or racism. Harris himself says that Islam is in urgent need of reformation by Muslims as its doctrines as they stand are antiquated and, if armed with modern technology, uniquely dangerous to civilization.

    By Khalid Suhail - 9/21/2014 9:02:29 AM

  • they are very well integrated in marseilles, in malmo, in tower hamlets in dearborn, lakemba and many other places. that is how we hear of australian police foiling beheading plans, that is how the rigbys are ritually slaughtered. that is why oxford educated children of wealthy nigerians suddely wet their pants on board aircraft and wreck the underwear bomb they are wearing.

    that is precisely why uk, europe, america and australia are lietrally shivering in their pants on account of new converts and old ones who are flocking to syria and libya and afghanistan and pakistan. they are just waiting for them to bring back the peace from syria.

    that is how well integrated rapper johns become beheading johns. so the laithwaites start misinterpreting the koran within one week of saying the shahada. and that is why pork is banned allover uniformly all over thousands of schools across uk, usa and europe on religious blackmailing by muslims. mr lutfur rehman takes the fine art of cash for votes scheme from bangladesh to london. so bangladesh sends extradition requests for 1971 bangladesh genocide perpetrators to the uk and usa.

    the harder you shut your eyes the more twinkling light you will visualize.

    By hats off! - 9/21/2014 4:39:46 AM

  • Hats Off .... Your comment about "bacon enjoying, casually dressing, binge drinking, fun filled countries" is most inappropriate and mischievous. Moderate Muslims exist in India, Pakistan, the Middle East as well as the West. Many of them are very good writers and you can read their articles in Dawn, Daily Times, NAI, the Hindu, the Huffington Post, the Guardian and the New York Times. They do not support excluding non-Muslims from holy sites nor do they support introducing Sharia laws in their Western host countries. Most of them living in the West are well integrated in Western societies. Why do you write such dishonest and ignorant comments? 

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/21/2014 3:35:24 AM

  • Suhail sb....  According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Islamophobia means "Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims." The definition is precise and lucid, and that is the way it is understood everywhere. Islamophobes, being cantankerous and argumentative, will do their best to create controversies about the definition.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/21/2014 3:19:39 AM

  • dear mr khalid suhail and mr rational,

    among the so called, self-styled moderates, the most insufferable are the ones who beg for entrance into kuffar bacon enjoying, casually dressing, binge drinking, fun filled countries and then start sermonizing from there.

    why is the holy site of muslims forbidden for kuffars while no such restrictions apply in the holy cities of any other religions?

    as if there is one single islamic or muslim majority country that is practicing any virtue which they shamelessly accuse their hosts of not having.

    why haven't buddists migrating to uk or america called for banning meat all together from school lunches? why do hindu women do not do lawfare after insisting that they will swim in their sarees? why digambar jains migrating to the us do not demand a right to go around without clothes? why does the oh so tolerant multi-pulti cultural indonesia has issues with church building, shias and ahmediyas?

    no other religious community abuses the host country by demanding that they adopt the style and culture of immigrants. have hindus tried getting beef banned from school lunches? are they demanding that they shoot sky rockets and fire crackers on diwali in the middle of busy streets? which community brazenly occupies whole sidewalks in aggressive sham prayers designed to terrify and intimidate?

    the very fact that these mildly moderate are safe with the kuffar has much lesson for them, but alas they are not blind but have their eye lids closely shut. they can hear but have plugged their ears.

    ignorance is bliss, but feigning ignorance is strategy, i suppose.


    By hats off! - 9/21/2014 3:09:58 AM

  • By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/20/2014 to Hats Off,

    "In one paragraph you praise frankness, but in another paragraph you object to my using words such as Islamophobes and apostates! Those words have precise meanings and I have never used them inappropriately. Why do you not want me to call a spade a spade?"

    Muslim politics of "Islamophobia"

    The term “Islamophobia” was invented and promoted in the early 1990s by the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a front group of the Muslim Brotherhood. Former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman Muhammad -- who was with that organization when the word was formally created, and who has since rejected IIIT's ideology -- now reveals the original intent behind the concept of Islamophobia: “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” In short, in its very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them.

    By Khalid Suhail - 9/21/2014 2:17:32 AM

  • Rational sb. says, "Similarly moderates are confusing because they are confused. Jehadis are successful because they are certain." . .

    Anything that is nuanced, non-dogmatic or allows for the possibility of doubt seems to confuse you. You are more comfortable with the absolute surety of the jehadis (and the apostates).

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/21/2014 2:14:31 AM

  • Rational sb. says, "Whatever i have said can be verified." . . .

    You have been slinging mud at CAIR without citing a shred of evidence. This is a disgraceful activity.

    You said, " 'jizia is mercy' may be an opinion to you."

    I have not said anything on the subject. Please stop lying.

    You also said, "you must be extreme moderate because you demand ban while the sultan saheb has rejected your extremism."

    Calling it "extremism" is your silly invention.  Moderate sites like The Times of India, Outlook and The New York times do ban trolls and spammers besides screening comments prior to publication. You continue arguing even when you have nothing left to say!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/21/2014 2:06:28 AM

  • Hats Off says, "could we call them the views of extremist moderates? or moderate extremists?" . .

    We can certainly call your comment extremely inane.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/21/2014 1:49:48 AM

  • Dear Sultan Shahin
    i hope you will give a thought to comment of Confused - 9/20/2014 2:03:50 PM.
    bulk of the Quranic and Hadith verses favors jehadi verses.
    abrogation is in the Quran though moderates like mohammed yunus will continue to deny abrogation.
    peaceful preaching attracted  but few. rest of Islam is based on the verses those abrogated the peaceful.
    none can deny the presence of peaceful verses.
    if i can highjack your site why peaceful Islam could not be highjacked by who saw their political ambition comeing true.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/20/2014 10:14:58 PM

  • Mr Sultan shahin and his site if liberal than you must be extreme moderate because you demand ban while the sultan saheb has rejected your extremism.
    why your extremism is not condemnable. extreme is extreme. why are you special.
    you are a guest as others are to this site.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/20/2014 10:02:45 PM

  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/20/2014 1:10:49 PM
    i am not lending any ear to your typical rant.

    i ashamed off i engaged with you. 'jizia is mercy' may be an opinion to you, to us it is not.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/20/2014 9:39:23 PM

  • rational mohammed yunus - 9/20/2014 8:52:08 PM
    this comment belongs to another thread

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/20/2014 9:20:17 PM

  • 'confusion' is synonym of Islam. moderates confused and jehadis certain.
    moderates have no logical ground to refute jehadi ideology.
    Quran and Hadith has solved nothing rather they have entangled the matters. Similarly moderates are confusing because they are confused. Jehadis are successful because they are certain.
    the Quran and hadith support jehad with sword, not jehad with nafs. if jehad bin nafs has one verse and one hadith in support, jehad has bulk of verses in the Quran and Hadith in clear words.
    Moderates are liars because there job is not to reach the truth and find solution but to defense the war ideology/war prophet by any crook and twist.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/20/2014 9:18:31 PM

  • Ghulam Mohiyudin
    noboy is maligning CAIR. Whatever i have said can be verified.
    they are MBs whose ideology is extreme. keep your maturity to yourself. matures like you are the worst twisters.
    what you are saying is typical  moderate ranting. you are maligning, 'you are attacking', 'you are smearing', 'you are insulting' are the arrows you shoot your adversaries with.
    this is the best defense you can mustered. CAIR is paak saaf just because   you hold membership of it.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/20/2014 8:52:08 PM

  • "the examples you give of moderate views are not typical moderate views"

    could we call them the views of extremist moderates? or moderate extremists?

    By hats off! - 9/20/2014 6:04:47 PM

  • Dear Sultan Shahin,

    Your article addresses the image of Islam presented by Moderate Muslims, who claim that Islam is peaceful, vs. the image presented by radical Jihadists, who demonstrate by their actions that their brand of Islam is violent and intends to subjugate the world.  I have been trying to understand the reasons for this dichotomy.  Far from being a Muslim scholar, I have reached an elementary if flawed understanding by reading articles such as yours, which is more than can be expected of most Westerners.

    As I see it, the Quran contains both peaceful and warlike verses.  Distinguishing which ones are “right” is difficult.  Various interpretations rely on centuries of erudite and conflicting scholarly work, so one is left confused.  Those with Modern Western ideals would hope that the peaceful and tolerant interpretation would be correct.  The principle of abrogation seems to favor the more recent warlike verses revealed in the Medina period of The Prophet’s life, but the principle of abrogation is debatable as well. One has no way to determine absolutely which interpretation is correct.  It seems to be a matter of predilection of the readers or the school of thought of their madrassas.

    When I came to your section stating that the critical factor in the interpretation is whether one knows that the Quran was created (revealed by Allah piecemeal, allowing interpretation of verses in context) or uncreated (existing a priori and copied by Allah, allowing no interpretation), it set me back a notch.  How can one know that, even if “created” seems more logical?  Is anything about faith logical?  In the end, I think that Moderate Muslims must rely on the argument that being allowed to provide peaceful interpretations makes common sense.  The Jihadists think that they know the answer (uncreated), so they are certain that their violent beliefs are preordained.

    I come away from this with a feeling that Islam has a problem both of internal understanding and of public relations that cannot be reconciled using only the tenets of the religion. Persuading world leaders, especially the Saudis, to row in the same direction, a direction that would allow for peace and tolerance, would be helpful.  It might also help if the Moderates would speak out resoundingly about this and put this issue on the table rather than complaining that Islam is misunderstood.  Obviously, Islam is misunderstood by almost everyone because it is confusing, and Muslims cannot agree.

    By Confused - 9/20/2014 2:03:50 PM

  • Hats Off, the examples you give of moderate views are not typical moderate views.

    Moderates do not have any precise definition of themselves unlike jihadis or apostates. Moderates shun extremist positions, violence, coercion, intolerance, obscurantism, exclusivism and supremacist attitudes. They tend to be progressive, liberal, secular, reformist and modernist.

    Non-dogmatic and inclusive positions may appear to be dishonest to simplistic minds.

    In one paragraph you praise frankness, but in another paragraph you object to my using words such as Islamophobes and apostates! Those words have precise meanings and I have never used them inappropriately. Why do you not want me to call a spade a spade?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/20/2014 1:37:13 PM

  • Rational sb., making dumb generalizations like "jihadis are honest and moderates are not," is not a mature way to have a discussion. . .

    By the way banning trolls from websites is the norm. If this website had a mission of promoting moderate Islam then what you have done to the 'Comments' section is nothing less than a hijacking! I have always maintained that you have a right to express your opinion but that you should do it on an appropriate anti-Islam website. However since the mission of this website seems to be flexible your being here is probably appropriate.

    Why is it difficult for you to understand that moderates are equally averse to jihadis and apostates? I have been critical of NAI for publishing Talibani literature in great detail too. Freedom of the press for me means that websites and newspapers expressing diverse viewpoints have an equal right to exist as long as they are not seditious. Neither you nor I have the right to demand that our views be published in any website of our choosing. Which part of this don't you understand?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/20/2014 1:10:49 PM

  • dear mr rational

    i said i would rather deal with jihadists is because, i was told by a moderate on this forum that paying jizya is an honor to the kuffar. and that sex with women war captives is quite ok. and another moderate tells me that the word kill as is given in the hadith/koran/fiqh/whatever does not mean kill the people as much as it means kill the idolatry. this man has such sever handicaps in grammar, syntax, synonyms, antonyms and the very semantics, somehow he is able to conclude that to kill is not to kill the person. may he live in interesting times!

    the only thing another prominent moderate can do is keep ranting "islamophobe", apostate, despicable, and other interesting word-power entries that it ceases to be amusing and starts sounding minatory.

    overall, frankness is only present with the extremists. ambiguity and prevarication is only available with the apologists pretending to be moderate. they imagine that fooling themselves is the best solution and that fooling others is a noble enterprise. and they recommend that everyone starts digging their heads deeper in sand so as to be able to see better.


    By hats off! - 9/20/2014 11:25:58 AM

  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/20/2014 2:45:22 AM
    you very often talk about literalism.  why don't you take the sentence of hats off in that sense.
    he means i think that jehadis are honest while moderates are not. So meeting with honest enemies is less risky than a dishonest moderate.
    to me moderates may not kill but they do similar things. for example you demanded my ban. mr yunus called me internal witness against the Islam. he had planned my death if i was not behind the screen of internet. he issued threat. Sadaf issued threat. for what crime? quotations from authentic sources of Islam.
    who runs to ban the Tasleema and salman? whop joins hand with Mullahs in these matters? where moderates hide when Mullahs inflict crimes on innocent people?
    why should we trust moderates?
    moderates are moderates till their cherished beliefs are not challenged. i need not to search examples somewhere else. you are one of them. you chased me like dog. for what crime?
    how many discourses i have spoiled? How many discourages have been spolied by hats off, khalid suhail and afaqsiddiqui.
    what we learn by the debates between sultan and observer?
    I pity you Mr Ghulam M. your actions doesn't match with words i often was swayed with.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/20/2014 4:15:51 AM

  • Rational sb., jehadis will kill moderates just as they will kill apostates. Do you by the way agree with Hats Off when he says, " i would prefer to deal with a jihadist or islamist." If so, why? 
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/20/2014 2:45:22 AM

  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/20/2014 1:20:00 AM
    moderates can be threat to apostates but not to jehadis.
    it is very simple. you have tried to silent  us like jehadis silent with a difference. they send the person to other world, you let us live to show your moderation. but the aim is same.
    if you know Urdu it is for you. i change 'chor chor mausere bhai' to 'moderates jehadis mausere bhai'

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/20/2014 1:40:13 AM

  • Hats Off says, " i would prefer to deal with a jihadist or islamist." . . .

    Moderates are seen as a threat both by jihadists and apostates, hence such ridiculous arguments to discredit moderates! Do you have anything substantive to find fault with moderates or are you just going to continue your hit-and-run antics?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/20/2014 1:20:00 AM

  • I agree with the observation of  Hatsoff regarding the Moderates. They are playing the role of a midwife between the Jihadist and the laity. They basically lack the guts of the jihadist for committing any kind of aggression and on the other hand have no pain for the victims of the jihadist violence.
    The jihadist have no philosophy but the moderates have like a sunshade that protects theirsoft skin.
    By afaqsiddiqi - 9/20/2014 1:06:17 AM

  • Afaqsiddiqi - 9/19/2014 1:05:39 PM
    i fully agree.
    you must have heard dua -e-Qunoot e nazila.
    it is curse only curse on non-Muslims.
    Muslis hardly mention other groups in their duas.

    if under compulsory situations they mention, it remains ambiguous.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/19/2014 11:33:42 PM

  • in a comparison, i would prefer to deal with a jihadist or islamist.

    why? for he wears his heart on his sleeve. and the biggest plus point he has is his frankness. he does not prevaricate, lie bare facedly, or try to honey coat the killing verses, or the wife beating verses. he says it as it is. he is not bothered with being politically correct.

    not so the moderates. the moderate is one who tries his best to hide his religious embarrassment by smooth use of selective contextualization.

    with the moderates, you can never tell from their honey coated words what they actually have in their heart or mind or whatever is earlier. like our moderate who says that word kill in the hadith/koran/whatever means not to kill the person but kill the idolatry. and probably that the golden calf is actually made of titanium.

    this is the hallmark of a moderate. he blindly sees liberty in submission, he sees freedom in fear, he sees kindness in killing and is past master of double speak. in fact unless you speak double, there is no moderation anywhere in sight of the ummah.

    not so the jehadis. at least they say upfront that they want to either convert you, kill you are make you pay jizya. not so the moderates. they will explain that paying jizya is an honor, having sex with war captives is legal, that war is peace, and that there were no forced conversions in the entire history of islam.

    how does one deal with a determined double speaker?

    By hats off! - 9/19/2014 9:27:21 PM

  • Dear rational Yunus sahib,
    It is not only the question of the divinity of the Quran but the divinityof the prophet of Islam too.The nonSalafis believe in a camouflaged divity of the Prophet.
    TahirulQadri in one of his sermons on the ARY channel very dauntlessly declares to his followers that Allah never does anything which displeases Muhammad.This can be seen and heard on the YouTube.What kind of a Muslim is he?Now he is determined to creat a new Pakistan with the support of his morons.
    These fools are worst than the salafis.Tahirul Qadri has said once in his interview with a reporter of the Urdu Jung that Allah told his father that he will give him a son who will serve his Deen par ex cel lance.Then when he reached the age of 12 the Prophet came to him in a dream and asked him to rise and serve Islam.since the he is serving theDeen of Allah. Do you think he is different from Osama bin Laden or Khalifah Abu Bakr of the IS? All such men have their own share of divinity whether you believe or I believe it or not.The mindless ,the
    fools  and the calibans are in majority and shall remain in majority to frustrate any wellwisher Of mankind .All the so called great leaders of Islam have stood only as the well wishers of Muslims and only Muslim. They have never ever prayed for a moment for mankind as if the mankind is the creation of Allah's enemy or adversary.And Allah himself condemns mankind if it does not accept his words i.e. The Quran .
    Every Ramadan the believers in their prayers in the Kaba Pray only for  the Muslims of the world. Pray for the Muslims of the Palestine and of Kasmir.ءWho ever is out of the fold of Islam is doomed to sufferings that is what Islam public ally declares and every Muslim repeats after his daily prayers" fan Surna alal qua mil kafireen."all mankind except the Muslims is the community if infidels, the dire and stubborn enemies of Islam.
    The moderates can not deny this teaching of the Quran.
    There is no other way but to rewrite or re-edit the Word of Allah to prove that you are a moderate Muslim--neither a Wahhabi nor a Deobandi. Who has the courage to do so? Let yes wait and see.
    By IAfaqsiddiqi - 9/19/2014 1:05:39 PM

  • Initially the prophet had high hopes that at least Jews and Christians will accept him the prophet because they used to talk of coming some Mesiha. Prophets hopes ended when both groups rejected his prophet-hood. this opened a new chapter in Islamic history which is continuing to this date and it will remain as it is.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/19/2014 3:24:52 AM

  • dear Khalid Suhail - 9/19/2014 3:04:12 AM
    very well.
    i too have read over the divinity of the Jesus. Muslims go perplexed when the Christians use the Quran's terminology.
    How can Muslims deny the divinity of jesus who is a word of God and the Quran also a word of God.
    Christians have strong arguments and in response Muslims recite the Surah Maryam but that favors Christian except the refutation of divinity of the jesus.
    these moderates call themselves Mutazilas of present time and jehadis are kharjits of early Islam as per moderates.
    Muslims have no authority to question the faith of Christians because faith is faith. if they can believe in one God they can believe in crucifixion of jesus. Muslims have no right to say they are misguided but they will continue to say because the Quran says so.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/19/2014 3:18:29 AM

  • Sultan Shahee Saheb,

    “The tragedy is that even Sufi scholars today, products of the madrasa system, use age-old arguments to prove the Salafi-Wahhabi thesis that Quran is uncreated, divine like God, eternal, and so all its verses, including the contextual and militant, are universal in nature”.

    It is not merely a salfi- wahabi thesis. It goes back to the earliest period of  Isam.

    The created-ness of the Qur'an was especially a response by the Mutazilites to charges by the Christians that making the Qur'an eternal meant that it was co-existent with God. This meant that the Qur'an was similar to the person of Jesus Christ. If the word of God is eternal and Jesus is the word of God, then Jesus is also eternal. A fictional exchange (below) between an Arab Muslim and a Christian Missionary captures it very  well:

    Arab Muslim: What is your belief regarding Jesus Christ?

        Christian Missionary: He is the word of God. What does your Quran states about him?

        Arab Muslim: (hesitates for a moment and after thinking a lot recites a part of this verse)… “Christ Jesus the son of Mary was a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him…” (al-Quran 4: 171)

        Christian Missionary: What is the word of Allah, and what is ‘spirit’ and are these created or not created?

    If all these are un-created, we now have not one, but three eternally co-existent 'ideas': Allah, the Qur'an, and Jesus. From a strict perspective of monotheism, this is totally unacceptable. There can be only one thing that is eternally existent and that is Allah; all else is contingent on the existence of Allah. Therefore Mutazilites insisted on created-ness of the Quran

    On the other hand, those who asserted the eternity of the Qur'an believed that denying its eternity meant denying the divinity of the revelation and thus its eternal validity. If the Qur'an was a created revelation, this meant that it was contingent upon the cultural matrix it emerged into, and if that cultural matrix disappeared, it would lose its validity. They thus saw the doctrine of Qur'an's created-ness as undermining the foundation for a sound 'Aqeedah' among the believers and eroding the authority of the Revelation that had elevated Islam to the forefront of world civilization in such a short time. If you deny Quran's divinity then you are not only a heretic, you are an atheist.

    The "uncreated-ness-group" believed that those who believed in the Qur'an as a created document were denying the special quality of the revelation and instead relying on human reason.

    Yes, they definitely relied on human reason as we all should do and I believe even if created-ness of the Quran leads to denial of its divinity,   one can live a perfect moral and righteous life. One can even continue to be a cultural muslim (if he wishes) while doing so. After all, Islam is entirely based on Arab culture.


    By Khalid Suhail - 9/19/2014 3:04:12 AM

  • The following is the extract from the message above:
    Imagine the impact of the following verse on a literalist Salafi-Wahhabi radical. Incidentally this is one of the verses used for terrorist indoctrination in which Allah commands:
    §        “Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger Muhammad, (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians, etc.), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”[6] --- (Holy Qur’an Chapter 9, Verse 29.
    My comment:
    Do jihadists read Quran verse below that Muslims should not fight with non-Muslims if they withdraw from they but fight them not?
    (  سورة النساء  , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #90)-Yusuf Ali Translation:
    Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).
    As the phrase, if they withdraw from you but fight you not, is mentioned above with the phrase, Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them), it implies that Quran forbids Muslims to fight if there is peace treaty between Muslims and non-Muslims.  Jihadists should have ignored this verse.
    Do jihadists know that Quran grants freedom of the obligation to obey Muslim laws if there is peace treaty between them?
    (  سورة التوبة  , At-Taubah, Chapter #9, Verse #1)-Moshin Kahn Translation:
    Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty.
    Allah’s obligation could be non-Muslims have to believe in Allah; have to follow Muslim laws and etc.  The phrase, Freedom from (all) obligation, implies non-Muslims have been granted special right of freedom from all the obligations from Allah since the phrase, to those of the…pagans..with whom you made a treaty, is mentioned above.  Thus, whenever a treaty is made between Muslims and non-Muslims, non-Muslims should have the freedom not to exercise the obligation that has been set up by Allah.  Or in other words, laws in Muslim countries would not be binding in non-Muslim countries if peace treaty is there.
    The same is mentioned in Picktal translation for Quran 9:1:
    Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.
    Shakir translation for Quran 9:1:
    (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
    The phrase, immunity, has been defined in the dictionary as exemption from obligation, service, duty, or liability of taxation, jurisdiction, etc.  As the word, immunity, is mentioned here with the phrase, those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, it implies that non-Muslims have special exemption from the obligation that has been laid down by Muslims.
    Yusuf Ali Translation for Quran 9:1:
    A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-
    AS the word, immunity from Allah and His Messenger, is mentioned above with the phrase, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances, it implies that the laws in Quran 9:29 and other laws could not be in binding to non-Muslims whenever there is contracted mutual alliances.  As the laws in Quran 9:29 and other Muslim laws are not in binding to non-Muslims whenever there is contracted mutual alliances, how could jihadists use this law to attack non-Muslims when there is peace treaty between non-Muslims and Muslims?
    The book of Hadith demands Muslims to fulfil the terms in the peace treaty.  Or in other words, they must not fight if there is treaty.
    (  سورة التوبة  , At-Taubah, Chapter #9, Verse #4)-Moshin Khan translation:
    Except those of the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfil their treaty to them for the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al-Mattaqun (the pious - See V.2:2).
    The phrase, So fulfil their treaty to them for the end of their term, implies that Muslims must follow the terms in the treaty not to fight until the end of the term.
    By zuma - 9/18/2014 9:33:03 PM

  • I have made a mistake in my previous comment and it should be 'The book of Hadith forbids Muslims to accuse innocent people.

    By zuma - 9/18/2014 8:31:31 PM

  • The following is the extract from above message:

     ------ Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, Majmua Al-RasaelWal-Masael Al-Najdiah 4/291

    “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State.

    "Islam requires the earth — not just a portion, but the whole planet.... because the entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme [of Islam] ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad'. .... The objective of the Islamic ‘jihad’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule.”

    ----- Abul A'la Maududi in Jihad fil Islam

     My comment:

     The book of Hadith encourages peace or no war for those pagans that have treaty with them.

     (Book #63, Hadith #210)-Sahih Bukhari:

    Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The pagans were of two kinds as regards their relationship to the prophet and the Believers. Some of them were those with whom the prophet was at war and used to fight against, and they used to fight him; the others were those with whom the prophet made a treaty, and neither did the prophet fight them, nor did they fight him. If a lady from the first group of pagans emigrated towards the Muslims, her hand would not be asked in marriage unless she got the menses and then became clean. When she became clean, it would be lawful for her to get married, and if her husband emigrated too before she got married, then she would be returned to him. If any slave or female slave emigrated from them to the Muslims, then they would be considered free persons (not slaves) and they would have the same rights as given to other emigrants. The narrator then mentioned about the pagans involved with the Muslims in a treaty, the same as occurs in Mujahid's narration. If a male slave or a female slave emigrated from such pagans as had made a treaty with the Muslims, they would not be returned, but their prices would be paid (to the pagans). Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: Qariba, the daughter of Abi Umaiyya, was the wife of 'Umar bin Al-Khattab. 'Umar divorced her and then Mu'awiyya bin Abi Sufyan married her. Similarly, Um Al-Hakam, the daughter of Abi Sufyan was the wife of 'Iyad bin Ghanm Al-Fihri. He divorced her and then 'Abdullah bin 'Uthman Al-Thaqafi married her.

     As the phrase, the other were those with whom the prophet made a treaty, is mentioned above with the phrase, neither did the prophet fight them nor did they fight him, it implies the book of Hadith forbids war if there is peace treaty between Muslims and non-Muslims.  As there is peace treaty between Muslims and non-Muslims, do you think Islam would wish to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam?  For instance, if Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, the phrase, the others were those whom the prophet made a treaty and neither did the prophet fight them, should not be mentioned in the book of Hadith above.  Why is it so?  Simple!  The prophet should fight with these pagans to turn their systems upside to get rid of their ideology and programme if the book of Hadith supports that teaching.  However, the Prophet did not do it since the phrase, neither did the prophet fight them, is mentioned above.

     The book of Hadith forbids Muslims not to accuse innocent people.  Do you think it would support jihadists to accuse the laws that have been set up by non-Muslim innocent that kills nobody?  Could they accuse non-Muslim government that the Muslim laws are better than them?  No, it certainly not!

     (Book #2, Hadith #17)-Sahih Bukhari:

    Narrated 'Ubada bin As-Samit: who took part in the battle of Badr and was a Naqib (a person heading a group of six persons), on the night of Al-'Aqaba pledge: Allah's Apostle said while a group of his companions were around him, "swear allegiance to me for: 1. Not to join anything in worship along with Allah. 2. Not to steal. 3. Not to commit illegal sexual intercourse. 4. Not to kill your children. 5. Not to accuse an innocent person (to spread such an accusation among people). 6. Not to be disobedient (when ordered) to do good deed." The Prophet added: "Whoever among you fulfills his pledge will be rewarded by Allah. And whoever indulges in any one of them (except the ascription of partners to Allah) and gets the punishment in this world, that punishment will be an expiation for that sin. And if one indulges in any of them, and Allah conceals his sin, it is up to Him to forgive or punish him (in the Hereafter)." 'Ubada bin As-Samit added: "So we swore allegiance for these." (points to Allah's Apostle)

     As the word, swear, is mentioned above with the phrase, Allah Apostle said while a group of his companions were around him, it implies that all the rules as mentioned here are for all the Muslims to follow.

     As the phrase, Not to accuse an innocent person (to spread such an accusation among people), is mentioned above, do you think Muslims could accuse non-Muslim innocent that Muslim laws are better than non-Muslim laws so as to turn their government upside down?  Do you think Muslims could condemn non-Muslim laws with accusation just because non-Muslim laws contradict Muslim laws? 

     As the phrase, Not to steal, is mentioned here, do you think Islam encourages Muslims to conquer non-Muslim countries to steal their laws and to destroy them?  Certainly!  The book of Hadith forbids the evil doing from jihadists.

    By zuma - 9/18/2014 8:28:50 PM

  • The following is the extract from above message:

     Even if the Muslims abstain from Shirk (polytheism) and are Muwahhid (firm believers in oneness of God), their Faith cannot be perfect unless they have enmity and hatred in their action and speech against non-Muslims.

     My comment:

     The book of Hadith does not promote enmity and hatred in action and speech against non-Muslims.

     (Book #16, Hadith #116)Sahih Bukhari:

    Narrated 'Asim: I asked Anas bin Malik about the Qunut. Anas replied, "Definitely it was (recited)". I asked, "Before bowing or after it?" Anas replied, "Before bowing." I added, "So and so has told me that you had informed him that it had been after bowing." Anas said, "He told an untruth (i.e. "was mistaken," according to the Hijazi dialect). Allah's Apostle recited Qunut after bowing for a period of one month." Anas added, "The Prophet sent about seventy men (who knew the Quran by heart) towards the pagans (of Najd) who were less than they in number and there was a peace treaty between them and Allah's Apostles (but the Pagans broke the treaty and killed the seventy men). So Allah's Apostle recited Qunut for a period of one month asking Allah to punish them."

     As the phrase, peace treaty, is mentioned above with the phrase, The prophet sent about seventy men (who knew the Quran by heart) towards the pagans, it implies that the book of Hadith supports peace treaty between Muslims and non-Muslims.  The word, peace, as mentioned above implies peaceful agreement among them.  As there is peace, enmity and hatred should be absent among them.  How could there be enmity and hatred when there is peace?  Thus, the book of Hadith promotes peace between Muslims and non-Muslims.

     The book of Hadith does not encourage Muslims to abstain from Shirk (polytheism).

     (Book #36, Hadith #464)-Sahih Bukhari:

    Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet and Abu Bakr employed a (pagan) man from the tribe of Bani Ad-Dail and the tribe of Bani 'Abu bin 'Adi as a guide. He was an expert guide and he broke the oath contract which he had to abide by with the tribe of Al-'Asi bin Wail and he was on the religion of Quraish pagans. The Prophet and Abu Bakr had confidence in him and gave him their riding camels and told him to bring them to the Cave of Thaur after three days. So, he brought them their two riding camels after three days and both of them (The Prophet and Abu Bakr) set out accompanied by 'Amir bin Fuhaira and the Dili guide who guided them below Mecca along the road leading to the sea-shore.

     The phrase, The Prophet Abu Bakr employed a (pagan) man, as mentioned here implies the Prophet accepted the pagan.  If Muslims have to abstain from Shirk (polytheism), do you think the Prophet would recruit that pagan to be his worker?  If Muslims need to promote enmity and hatred in action and speech against non-Muslims, do you think the prophet would recruit that pagan to be his worker?  Certainly!  The prophet would turn them down in the employment as a result of his anger upon him being the pagan.  As the Prophet welcomed that pagan for his employment, it implies that the book of hadith does not promote enmity and hatred in action and speech against non-Muslims.  Besides, the event proves that the book of Hadith does not encourage Muslims to abstain from Shike (polytheism).

     The phrase, The Prophet and Abu Bakr had confidence in him and gave him their riding camels, as mentioned above implies the Prophet had good relationship with that pagan.  If Muslims have to promote enmity and hatred in action and speech against non-Muslims, do you think the Prophet would have confidence in him and gave him the riding camels?  If Muslims have to abstain from Shirk (polytheism), do you think the prophet would have confidence in him and gave him the riding camels?  The reaction of the Prophet to the pagan proves the fact that the book of Hadith does not encourage Muslims to abstain from Shirk (polytheism) and does not promote enmity and hatred in action against non-Muslims.

     The following is another event to prove the reverse of the thought as mentioned in the extracted sentence from the article above:

     (Book #34, Hadith #419)-Sahih Bukhari:

    Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Abu Bakr: We were with the Prophet when a tall pagan with long matted unkempt hair came driving his sheep. The Prophet asked him, "Are those sheep for sale or for gifts?" The pagan replied, "They are for sale." The Prophet bought one sheep from him.

     As the phrase, We were with the Prophet when a tall pagan…came, is mentioned above with the phrase, The Prophet bought one sheep from him, it implies that the Prophet did not have hatred in action and speech against him or else he would whack him off or accuse him or to snatch the sheep away without any courtesy.

    By zuma - 9/18/2014 7:39:55 PM

  • dear Sultan Shahin - 9/18/2014 2:34:14 AM
    though i don't want to question your faith still i make this comment.
    if there is something as will of God, it could have been otherwise. i don't know who bring the change god or people? when Muslims were peaceful as you tell us and God must have been pleased (if god is not above the human weaknesses) why He allowed it to happen which is unpleasant to him and his subjects. History of humankind under religions is not such that we can praise it endlessly and mindlessly.
    we can see few glimpses of light in the darkness of religions.

    i wish you best

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/18/2014 3:45:22 AM

  • Dear rational mohammed yunus, Your scepticism is most valuable and helpful. It is with help from you and other Muslims, both thinking and unthinking, that moderate Muslims will work out a theology. I cannot do much, but, God willing, I too will try to make my contribution. However, this moderate theology and this narrative of peace and cooperation has to evolve and it will Insha Allah. It is a process. The Jihadi narrative too has taken time to evolve and be so successful.  So will the narrative of peaceful Islam. 

    I wish instead of just carping and criticising and expressing scepticism - though that too is an important contribution - you were more positive and suggested ways how to go about it, how to evolve strategies and tactics, how to make the best use of the material we already have, etc. But, of course, one can only do things with God`s help.

    By Sultan Shahin - 9/18/2014 2:34:14 AM

  • "And their recompense shall be Paradise, and silken garments, because they were patient. Reclining on raised thrones, they will see there neither the excessive heat of the sun, nor the excessive bitter cold, (as in Paradise there is no sun and no moon). The shade will be close upon them, and bunches of fruit will hang low within their reach. Vessels of silver and cups of crystal will be passed around amongst them, crystal-clear, made of silver. They will determine the measure of them according to their wishes. They will be given a cup (of wine) mixed with Zanjabeel, and a fountain called Salsabeel. Around them will (serve) boys of perpetual youth. If you see them, you would think they are scattered pearls. When you look there (in Paradise) you will see a delight (that can not be imagined), and a Great Dominion. Their garments will be of fine green silk and gold embroidery. They will be adorned with bracelets of silver, and their Lord will give them a pure drink." [76:12-21]
    why Muslims listen to moderates who try to fool by saying "these verses are allegorical in nature"
    Apart from the Qur'anic descriptions of Paradise, the Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, would often describe Paradise to his companions. His descriptions were oftentimes so vivid and moving, that many-a-companion would hurriedly rush towards it. This was the case, as Anas narrated that the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu alayhe wasallam, and his companions proceeded towards Badr and arrived there before the disbelievers (of Makkah). When the disbelievers arrived, the Messenger of Allah said, "None of you should step forward ahead of me to do anything." Then the disbelievers advanced (towards us), and the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu alayhi wasallam, said, "Rise to enter Paradise whose width is equal to the Heavens and the Earth." Umayr Ibnul Humam al-Ansari asked, "O Messenger of Allah, is Paradise equal in width to the heavens and the earth?" He, sallallahu alayhe wasallam, said, "Yes." Umayr said, "Bak'hin! Bak'hin!" (An Arabic word denoting excitement and astonishment) The Messenger of Allah, sallallahu alayhe wasallam, asked him, "What made you say these words: Bak'hin, Bak'hin?" He said, "Messenger of Allah, nothing but the desire to be amongst its residents." He, sallallahu alayhe wasallam, said, "You are surely among its residents." He then took some dates form his bag and began to eat them. Then he said, "If I were to live until I had eaten all of the dates, indeed this life would be too long." Anas then said, "He threw away the remaining dates he had with him. He then fought (the disbelievers) until he was killed." (Muslim)
    here is the answer: seduction is present in sacred books.
    these verses are the slaps on the faces of who deny the physical pleasure in the paradise under the influence of other religions.
    well it is the faith of Muslim majority? on what ground moderates can say it is otherwise?
    Is it not seduction?
    who is seducing people?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/18/2014 1:26:00 AM

  • Dear Sultan Shahin
    first: you have not reached to an answer why salafism/wahabism or ant radicalism is attractive to Muslims even if we accept the interested group is minority? if you have not understood that much so far how can you plan a successful strategy.
    Second: you have not o far convinced your own team on the uncreated Quran. Members of your team will tell you why the Quran is not created. they will tell you that Imam Hanbal (most rigid but they will not accept because he is one of four pillars of Islam) tolerated the torture of the khalifa of that time in the matter of Quran's divinity. there are fistful Muslims like you (if you are still Muslim despite not believing in the divinity of the Quran). the divinity of the Quran is of vital importance to Muslims.
    Third: Importance of Hadith is engraved into the minds of Muslims including your team members. you have read how Mr Ghulam Ghaus defended it. you have seen how Mr Zuma has quoted Hadith for his purpose.

    Fourth: How can you Challenger the beliefs of others? on which ground? if you can believe there will be mystical joy and grief in the hereafter others can believe there will be physical joy and grief. Is it not possible for Allah to supply hooris with swelling breasts  and Ghilman decorated with pearls serving vine and other pleasures which are out of imaginations of the believers. Is not the Quran and Hadith full of live description of both places. do you suggest believers will receive skinny worn-out female partners to beilivers as reward who abstained them from worldly pleasures and were killed for the Islam? Is All-powerful in whose hands is everything a miser?
    Fith: Since the khilafat is idolized and every Muslim see to it as his hope for justice, compassion and exemplary conduct of khalifas (divinely inspired), will always attract Muslims. this is the reason there is no protest as it should be from the muslim organizations.
    Every Muslim leader or scholar sang the glory of khilafat that it is impossible for Muslims to avoid the sweet fruits of the khilafat. they will alwas fall to this trap.
    what moderates offer to Muslims? democracy? to many Muslims it is invention of non-Muslims. it is the system where heads are counted (iqbal).
    Modern humanist values: the prophetic era is only the example the world has seen in the history of humanity. such is he belief of Muslims. this modern society is full of immoral people engaged in wine, sex and other crimes. they warn their children against the dangers of the modern society where the laws are formulated by the people for people who are prone to err and lack foresight in the future. How can you replace the laws of God and his prophet who knew everything of the past, present and future, free from error and care taker of every soul.
    So what are you going to offer Muslims in place of Imams and khalifas promise them?

    you may say i have repeated what you have said. but i think you are clueless about the solution and perhaps every Muslim is.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 9/18/2014 12:44:17 AM

  • This is an important speech and must be widely read. Jihadism is a misreading of Islam and is very destructive to Islam. Unfortunately its rhetoric is very seductive. Adherents of  enlightened Islam have failed to articulate a clear and convincing message to counter the onslaught of a perverse ideology. It is time we seized the moment and effectively advanced  our creed of peace, pluralism and brotherhood.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/17/2014 1:23:40 PM