So you mean to say our prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught us the orthodox version of Islam which is now outdated and has grown old.........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.......
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.
What on earth is 'New Age Islam'...... The author is probably on drugs....
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
Moiz Saheb you clearly need more information about the
goings on. I can only suggest you visit and spend some time on NewAgeIslam.com
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.
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!
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.
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.
“Vande Matram” and Muslims, According To
Mr. Sawami Shankra Chariya
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!
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?
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.
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.
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 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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 . 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.
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 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
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
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?
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 - 9/20/2014 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.
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).
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!
Hats Off says, "could we call them the views of extremist moderates? or moderate extremists?" . .
We can certainly call your comment extremely inane.
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?
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?
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?
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
Missionary: He is the word of God. What does your Quran states about him?
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)
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
I have made a mistake in my previous comment and it should be 'The book of Hadith forbids Muslims to accuse innocent people.
The following is the extract from above message:
------ Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, Majmua
Al-RasaelWal-Masael Al-Najdiah 4/291
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.
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
The book of Hadith encourages peace or no war for those
pagans that have treaty with them.
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!
'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
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.
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?
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.
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
The book of Hadith does not promote enmity and hatred in
action and speech against non-Muslims.
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).
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:
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
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.
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.
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.