Books and Documents

Debating Islam (15 Oct 2012 NewAgeIslam.Com)

Use and Misuse of Freedom of Expression on This Islamic Website (New Age Islam) and Need for a Clear Agenda


By Muhammad Yunus, New Age Islam

Co-author (Jointly with Ashfaque Ullah Syed), Essential Message of Islam, Amana Publications, USA, 2009

The universal notion of ‘Freedom of speech’ empowers the oppressed to speak against the oppressor, the subject against the King, the holder of one set of doctrine (sect, religion, politics etc.) to question or criticize its opponents and so forth. The objective is to open up human mind to new thoughts, allow it to explore fresh ideas, scan new horizons and rise to new heights. But if the freedom of speech is used in a calculated way to insult other’s deities and ii) demonize a group of people, a website that has the rubric of Islam attached to it, must not entertain it as the Qur’an, which is the highest authority on all matters in Islam does not permit either of the above attitudes (6:108, 49:11).

Besides, if used to malign other’s faith or mock a rival group of people, it can open a floodgate of unhealthy discussions that will conduce to ill will among people, spawn evil and render this website into a vicious gossip forum. Let us take a few examples fresh in mind to illustrate this point, without meaning any offence to anybody.

Case-1: As article under the title, ‘To hell with you ‘O Mullahs’ brazenly derides the entire Mullah community by quoting the following parody from an Urdu poet:

“O Mullah: Your belly is like a steamship,

Your neck resembles that of a rhinoceros.

O Mullah:

Your robes and beard reek of scents and perfume,

But your body smells like an animal shed.

O Mullah:

You indulge in deceit and trickery,

Now stop eulogizing your amazing ways.

O Mullah:

We are of course not worthy of your path,

Go ahead excommunicate us from your community.

O Mullah:

You piously carry the Koran on your shoulders,

But your heart is full of animal dung.

O Mullah:

We do not need your heavenly Houries (virgins),

For us our homeland is the most wondrous paradise.

At a moment in history, when Muslims in the West are probably not too far from being classified as civilizational inferior, and word is in the air to expel the immigrant Muslims and nuke Muslim lands, and elsewhere, to the East, the Muslims are being branded as brutal conquerors and civilaztionally inferior; and internally their sectarian division is accentuating and growing increasingly violent, achievements in lawful pursuits is abysmally low, suffering and deprivation is widespread, and human rights violations (oppressing women, discriminating against minorities, forced conversions etc.) are raising alarm in the global community – the author found the parody quite odd and a clear indication of the intellectual mortification of those whom the society regards as intellectual elite. As the parody, if quoted on Western anti-Islamic website, would justify their demonization of the entire Muslim community, the author, as a peace loving human being called upon the author of the article to ask the Editor to withdraw it, but it is still there.

The author responded by adding a fourth verse (shown in bold) to a famous stanza by Percy B. Shelly:-

“We look here and after - We pine for what is not.

Our sincerest laughter - With some pain is fraught

Our sweetest songs are those - That tell of saddest thought

"Our favourite themes are those - That poison our religious thoughts."

There comes a commentator in defence of the parody and writes: 

Allah taala Quran-e-kareem men logon ko beast, suar, bandar, gadha, andha, behra goonga, bata hai.

Agar aap dhaki chipi zabaan mein kah rahe hain to koi hairaani ki baat nahi hai. Yeh mujhe pahle hi andesha tha

The commentator killed two birds with one stone: lampooning the mullah and ridiculing the Qur’an. As a Muslim - a witness to truth (2:143) and bidder to what is good and forbidder of the evil, the author prepared a counter-parody. However, he did not send it (except for the opening verse, quoted below) as the Qur’an also commands returning evil with good.

“hanste ho mullaon pe par tamiz nahi karsakte biwiyon, maaon aur baitiyon may,

Peete ho sharaab subah talak aur bhool jate ho kis se kiya rishta hai”

 [This is adapted from Sahir Ludhyanwi’s popular poetic imagery – yahan peer bhi aa chukey hain jawan bhi – tan o mand bête bhi .....]

The author, as a human being could also stoop to the lowest of the low and add more unsavoury lines to his above poetic gambit, however crude it may be. But before he could proceed further, there was a series of comments from the same fellow and the author was reminded of the adage – ‘speech is silver but silence gold.’  

 Case-2: A possibly well meaning non-Muslim commentator wanted to know how the Pope can allow building of a mosque when the Qur’anic verse 5:51 asking Muslims not to befriend the Christians and Jews is not expunged. A genuine question asked in a goodly manner. The same fellow (Case 1) bearing a Muslim name readily confirms, in blatant lie that the verse 5:51 represented the essence of the Qur’anic message. This gives a highly negative impression of the Qur’an and Islamic faith to the non-Muslims, many of whom are already hostile to the Muslims. The author explained this in an article: ‘The Qur’an’s regard for the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) and the believing humanity– a living testimony.’

 Case-3: Very recently a learned and well meaning commentator writes an erudite comment citing examples of the demolition of Hindu sites (Kashi, Madura) and building of mosques in their place – unquestionably a blatantly anti-Qur’anic act as the Qur’an clearly and unambiguously declares that God’s light is lit in all places of pure worship (24:36) and His name is proclaimed in monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques (22:40). He muses why no Muslim objected to it and attributes it to their fear of the fanatic king.

However, directed at the Muslim readers, and posted under the above noted article (in bold), it purported to seek a comment from the Muslim commentators. So this author, acting as the ‘defence’ lawyer cites the recent examples of Muslims dictators (Saddam Husain, Tikka Khan) attacking and destroying Muslim lands (Iran, Kuwait) brutally killing and poisoning their own people (the Kurds) and unleashing a reign of terror (the then East Pakistan). Attention was also drawn to the bloodiest massacre in Delhi (1739) in which some 20,000-30,000 men, women and children were killed by Muslim soldiers in a pace of six to seven hours. This author had to explain to the learned questioner, what he already knew for sure, that the military actions of monarchs, tyrants and leaders of the world were/ are dictated by their ego/ passion for glory and fame, commercial, political interest etc. and not any religious consideration. Therefore, how can present day Muslims answer for all the brutalities of Muslim attackers and tyrants? Can anybody with one hundredth as much intelligence as the learned commentator ask any American today why they dropped Atom Bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Can any sensible person ask a German today why Hitter killed millions of Jews?  

Other typical cases:

Cases-A: Time and again learned communally oriented scholars conflate Islam with Talibanism and other terror outfits (Boko Haram, for example) and stereotype Islam and Muslims with the worst aspects of their theology and with the most hideous crimes committed by Muslim criminals. This is nothing but an attempt at collective demonization as in the era of tribalism – the entire tribe was held responsible for the crime committed by any of its members. But history has left that era behind by almost a millennium. It is simply absurd and vicious provocation to apply this principle selectively at the Muslims today. 

A Muslim who is not mindful of Qur’anic commandment to honouring other’s religions can respond exactly in the same tone as there is no dearth of rotting skeletons and bloodstained episodes in the theological cupboards/ historical annals of all religions. Very recently a ‘defending commentator’ has matched evil with evil and has turned this website into a battlefield between a small team of commentators representing Hindu and Muslim faiths/ communities.

Cases-B: The fellow (Case 1 and 2 above) with a Muslim name and scholarship goes on appropriating into Islam all the weakest ahadith that the Muslims are barred from quoting: he falsely, determinedly, unfailingly and authoritatively projects them as the true representation of Islamic faith. Scores of comprehensive comments were posted to explain to him that weak accounts can be found in all religions as they evolved in an era when what we today call myth, fable, bizarre and grotesque fired the imagination of common people and filled them with awe and admiration for their leaders/ saints and gods/ God; and that even the Muslim compilers of these accounts have warned the posterity of their apocryphal nature and that they are retained in the compilations - not for quoting but on purely technical grounds.

Summing Up: The Christians and Jews today never discuss about the pogroms, religious wars and the great wars that lasted for more than a millennium stretching through to this very era (middle of the last century) and entailing immensely more brutalities, deaths and destruction than the far limited (in historical time frame) Hindu-Muslim interaction in this subcontinent – that too during an era three to six hundred years away. Can’t our so called intellectuals take lesson from them or are they paid agents of the enemies of Islam, Muslims and India?

With this I propose that the website adopts the following agenda instead of drifting without any direction:

To promote critical thinking (Ijtihad) in Islam

To enlighten the Muslim community regarding the social, moral, ethical and pluralistic dimensions of Qur’anic message.

To provide religious basis to the Indian Muslims to reform their society in accordance with the needs of the times – such as active participation in universal education, all art forms and national development projects    

To bring the Muslims closer to the core scripture of their faith – the Qur’an and to relegate theological knowledge to the specialist in order to meet the skill and educational demand of the present day world.  

To combat all communal, disruptive and militant, fanatic and demonizing elements

To promote inter-faith relations

To build a united and cohesive India and work towards an eventual cordial and harmonious relation with Pakistan.

The website also must guard against imposters and agents of enemies who can barge into it with Hindu and Muslims names in order to foil any healthy debate, block any reform in Islam, create inter-faith hostility and strengthen the hands of extremists, terrorists and fundamentalists – some of these are obviously on the payroll of the enemies of Islam and India but as traitors and mercenaries, they can be of any religion and assume any name.

This writer in his school days had memorized at least one thousand lines of Urdu poetry and read a few thousand lines more. Many poets – mostly Muslims, said things about God, Islamic prayer, mullah and preachers that may sound offensive as in the parody on the Mulla quoted above. But he has not read one single line demonizing any aspect of Hindu religion. Interestingly the Arabic word ‘sanam’ for ‘idol’ has been appropriated in Persian and Urdu in a romantic manner with the connotation of a ‘true beloved: ‘ae mere balam, ae mere sanam’ for example. Unfortunately financial pressure, passion for publicity and fame and the scope of free publication at the Internet has given birth to a boundless market for two virtually FOC commodities – hatred and pornography. One can post one’s photograph without wearing any cloth or without the cloak of taqwa (moral uprightness) as the Qur’an puts it (7:26) and earn popularity and livelihood. These are the parasites that gnaw at the base of this progressive website and need to be closely watched and if necessary weeded out.

The author does not claim to be perfect but those readers who have read his articles cannot take him to be a fool or anything but a lover of humanity. Therefore what he says merits at least some consideration.       

Oct. 14, 2012

Muhammad Yunus, a Chemical Engineering graduate from Indian Institute of Technology, and a retired corporate executive has been engaged in an in-depth study of the Qur’an since early 90’s, focusing on its core message. He has co-authored the referred exegetic work, which received the approval of al-Azhar al-Sharif, Cairo in 2002, and following restructuring and refinement was endorsed and authenticated by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl of UCLA, and published by Amana Publications, Maryland, USA, 2009.

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/use-and-misuse-of-freedom-of-expression-on-this-islamic-website-(new-age-islam)-and-need-for-a-clear-agenda/d/8997



  • Dear Md Younus Saheb: Jahan tak Azhar-e-khyal ki azadi ka sawal hai, is mamle men ek had zarur moayyan honi chahiye, kyonki agar aap kisi ke jazbat ko qasdan majruh kar rahe hain to yeh aap ki galti hai, sachchai kadvi hoti hai lekin iska yeh matlab nahi ki aap puri qaum ko zalil kare, lekin usi bat ko aap izzat wa ihtaram ke sath bhi kah sakte hain. Har author aur commentator ko tasneefi imandari ka pura khyal rakhna chahiye.
    By Chalis Chor - 1/15/2013 10:55:44 PM

  • @Hats Off. I have responded to afasiddiqi. I get a feeling that may people, even from amongst the learned are driven by their egos or pre-conceived notions. Since you appear to be a sharp reader and hit the bottom lines of my ijtihad-works (insights into the eternal message of the Qur'an), and since you have asked me to comment, all I can say in one word that as long as the Islamic scholarship clings to is closed medieval view that all that had to be learnt is already there and there is no ned for any fresh insight into any matter - the status quo will not change. But those who want to maintain the status quo must understand that we are not living in the medieval ages and that one cannot fool all the people all he time and that God's dominion cannot be restricted to Muslim block and that as Muslims we are asked to respect all the the scriptures and prophets and make no distinction between them. Unfortunately the remoteness of the Muslims, even scholarly among them does not eneble to   the world is not going to
    By muhammad yunus (1) - 10/22/2012 10:38:06 AM

  • Dear afasiddiqi!
    No one is taking about any alteration whatsoever in the Qur'an. Kindly read the articles closley before charging the author of attempting to make any reform. By the way, my articles are all supported by my joint publication which is duly approved by al-Azhar al-Sharif and authenticated by Khaled Abou El Fadl, Prof. of Law, UCLA. May I know your credentials please? 

    By muhammad yunus (1) - 10/21/2012 8:36:16 PM

  • has mr muhammad yunus (1) read the comments of mr afaqsiddiqi? it might be a good idea for him to read it.
    it gives a hint of what lies ahead in the method prescribed by mr yunus (1). mr afaqsiddiqi's opinion that 'we are simply exposing our vulnerability to reason' has to be understood clearly. mr afaqsiddiqi categorically rejects any kind of explanation, reasoning, analysis or interpretation of the koran since it is the 'last word of Allah'. his comparison of the koran to the constitutions of nation states in the obverse clearly posits koran beyond any revision or reform. (i understand that mr yunus (1) does not suggest the reform of the koran).
    a true muslim according mr afaqsiddiqi has no choice at all. he simply HAS to follow each and every word. this position is waht mr yunus (1) will be arguing against.
    mr afaqsiddiqi's stand invalidates any effort at interpretation or re-interpretation and so i think it calls for a response from mr yunus (1).
    By hats off! - 10/21/2012 3:24:43 AM

  • After reading so many comments, explanations and apologetic compositions every day on this website I am sure it's neither helping Muslims nor Islam in any way.


    We are simply exposing our vulnerability to reason. It is idiotic to believe that Islam which is the last word of Allah and his messenger is in need of reform and revision by those who do not hold the authority to do so by any means. Quran is not the constitution of India or Pakistan which can be changed at the will of majority of the parliamentarians. For the last fourteen hundred years nobody has made such a devilish attempt.


    Now we see the faithful exhortations of Muhammad Yunus and the like to confine ones concern only to Ayats which are called the Muhkkamats and abstain from touching the Mutashabihats. Isn’t it a travesty of faith in the words of Allah? In Islam there is no possibility for a believer to be selective under any circumstances he has to accept every word of it as it is. The idea of Mr Yunus to decontextualise the Quran is absolutely absurd and untenable. If he wants to do so he must write new version as a newly, duly contemporary edition of this very old Quran which could sustain the assaults of its faithless critics.
    By afaqsiddiqi - 10/20/2012 2:12:49 PM

  • Why such selective condemnation of just one religion?

    The Bible was used to justify the Crusades, the Inquisition and burn heretics. It has been misused to persecute Jews, support Hitler and fuel the Holocaust. In American history, the Bible was used to promote the genocide of millions of native people, promote and justify racial slavery, and more recently to fight integration, sustain racism and deny millions their basic human rights.

    If such a religion, as well as a religion which permitted burning of  widows and practice of untouchability, can rehabilitate themselves and become fonts of wisdom, why is Islam held to some archaic scriptural passages?

    Instead of quoting this or that ayat, the meaning we derive from the whole Book is influenced by what we, the modern Muslims, value. The Quran itself asks us to take the best meaning from it. Thus we say that Islam teaches respect for the religions of others, that it values all human beings as equal, and that it values above all good deeds and upright behavior.

    There is hatred in many religious texts. There is even more hatred in apostasy and Islamophobia. Comparing Talibanism with the teachings of Vivekanand or Rev. Sloane Coffin is like playing with loaded dice. It is fundamentally dishonest and malicious.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/20/2012 1:09:04 PM

  • Mr Muhammad Yunus-1 says:
    “If the freedom of speech is used in a calculated way to insult other’s deities and demonize a group of people, a website that has the rubric of Islam attached to it, must not entertain it as the Qur’an, which is the highest authority on all matters in Islam does not permit either of the above attitudes (6:108, 49:11).....”
    My response
    6:108 which says: Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance.
    Revelational circumstances:
    6:108 , Said ibn ‘Abbas, according to the report of al-Walibi: “They (the idolaters) said: ‘O Muhammad, either you stop reviling our idols or we will revile your Lord’. And so Allah warned against reviling their idols lest they wrongfully revile Allah through ignorance”. Qatadah said: “The Muslims used to revile the idols of the unbelievers and the latter used to react against them. Allah therefore, warned the Muslims against being the cause which drives ignorant unbelievers, who have no knowledge of Allah, to revile Allah as a result of reviling their idols”
    And 49:11 says: O ye who believe, let not some men among you laugh at others, it may be that they (latter) are better than the (former), nor let some women laugh at others. It may be that the latter are better than the former, nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by offensive nicknames.
    49:11, This verse (till “asa an yakoonoo khairam mihum”) was revealed about Thabit ibn Qays ibn Shimas. The latter was hard of hearing and when he came to see the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, the Companions made room for him in order for him to sit next to the Prophet so that he could hear him. He came one day when people were already seated and started stepping over people, saying: “Make room! Make room!” One man said to him: “You have found a place, so sit down!” Thabit sat down but he was angry. He tried to tease the man. He said: “Who are you?” The man said: “So-and-so”. Thabit exclaimed: “What, the son of so-and-so”, and he mentioned his mother about whom they used to taunt him in the pre-Islamic period. The man lowered his head out of embarrassment. Then, Allah revealed this verse. (… not let women (deride) women who may be better than they are) [49:11]. This was revealed about two of the wives of the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, who derided Umm Salamah. What happened is that the latter tied her loins with a white dress and spread its extremity behind her such that she dragged it behind her. ‘A’ishah said to Hafsah: “Look at what she is dragging behind her! It looks like a dog’s tongue”. This was their derision of her. Anas said: “This was revealed about the wives of the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, who made fun of Umm Salamah because she was short. ‘
    Now it must have been very clear to our readers that there is no universal message in these Quranic verses. They only deal with Muslims’ misbehaviour among themselves. Nothing else.
    Such selective presentations by Muslim apologists are usually introduced to prove that Islam shows total respect to people of other religions. Yet, these apologists commonly produce them out of context and totally ignore other, far more prevalent verses that do preach hatred, death, and doom. They also ignore the history of Islam and its relegation of non-believers to third-class status, with taxes and discrimination rooted in the Quran and traditions of Muhammad.
    More importantly, they neglect to mention that their selected verses come from an earlier time period and are abrogated by later ones.
    Take the most popular example, Quran (2:62) - "Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." The Muslim apologists would say, Well, if this isn't universal tolerance for other faiths, then what is?
    But unfortunately this is also from the earliest Medinan Sura (the same one that famously speaks of "no compulsion in religion"). It was "revealed" just after Muhammad and his 100 followers were expelled from Mecca and desperately needed to make alliances with the people around them in their new home town of Medina. Most of their neighbours were not Muslims, and if Muhammad and his tiny group were to have informed the people around them of their religious inferiority and ultimate doom, then they would not have had the opportunity to gain power. By contrast, the 9th and 5th Suras are among the most intolerant of the Quran, and they are also considered the final revelations. The same seems to hold true for Sura 3, which is an exercise in ambivalence. Verse 151 condemns Christians to Hell for believing in the Trinity, while verses 113-116 say that there are among the People of the Book who believe in Allah and the Last Day and are in "the ranks of the righteous. In order to stay on the safe side, however, Muhammad warns in verse 118 against taking "for intimate friends from among others than your own people." It also helps to remember that this Sura was an early Median verse, like Sura 2, but it follows the Battle of Badr, and occurs at a time when Muslims were gaining strength in the community and could afford to be a bit more arrogant.
    Taken as a whole, no other religion on earth has the mandate that Islam does to dominate those outside the faith politically and culturally. Non-Muslims are to be subjugated and forced to pay money to Muslims, according to the Quran's 9th sura and various Hadith.
    One of the more common tricks that today's Muslims disingenuously play on the truly naive is to pretend that that Muhammad commanded his followers to love and not to hate. This is a partial truth. There are Hadith that tell Muslims not to hate and not to do harm in word or deed (Muslim (1:65)) but the context and exact wording makes it very clear that this applies within the Muslim community to a believer's relations with fellow Muslims. These are not commands that govern a Muslim's obligation to the general community.
    There is no place in the Quran where Muhammad commands Muslims to love people of other religions. By contrast there are at least three dozen verses that tell Muslims to fight against non-Muslims and about 500 that speak of their place in Hell. They are from each period in Muhammad's life, scattered across 87 of the Quran's 114 chapters.
    To put this in perspective, nearly one out of twelve verses in the Quran says that Allah hates non-Muslims to the extent that he will torment them for eternity in horrible ways. The Suras that make reference to this comprise about 95% of the Quran's total volume. If Allah creates infidels merely to fuel the fires of Hell, then there is little reason for Muslims to believe that such lives are of any worth in this world either. Take for example:
    Quran( 8:55 ) Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve
    Quran (9:30) - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah... Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
    Quran (4:52) - Those (Christians) are they whom Allah hath cursed...
    Quran (4:47) - O you (Jews) who have been given the Book! Believe that which We have revealed, verifying what you have, before We alter faces then turn them on their backs, or curse them as We cursed the violators of the Sabbath, and the command of Allah shall be executed.
    Muhammad spoke the Qur’anic verse below in reference to Jews:
    5:60 Say: Shall I tell you who will receive a worse reward from God? Those whom God has cursed and with whom He has been angry, transforming them into apes and swine, and those who serve the devil. Worse is the plight of these and they have strayed farther from the right path.
    009.030 YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth
    Look at the ugliness in this verse. 1) We hear Muhammad asking Allah to curse, fight, and destroy the Christians and Jews. 2) We hear Muhammad call the Christians and Jews deluded, perverse, and turned away.
    Does that sound like respect and honour to you?

    By Hamzah - 10/20/2012 8:02:54 AM

  • Rational says, "Aap aur aapke saathi seriously kuch bhi kah len. Bahut khoob!  You think those questions are assaults I don't."

    Please write in English. Your questions are as much irrelevancies as assaults. If you want to attack mullahism, that is fine with us, but don't you think it would be more meaningful to do so on a mullah site than on a moderate Muslim site?

    You said, " "Suppression of voice" is the quality of Islamic society."

    Let us promote free speech instead of  carrying on a mindless war on Islam.

    You said, "You and Mr Yunus will produce one more interpretation of the holy Quran."

    Quran itself asks us to find the best meaning. You may want to find the worst meaning. You will find a lot of friends on apostate websites.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/18/2012 3:00:58 PM

  • Dear Rehan Nezami saheb. Thanks for below quote. "The birds of same feather flock together" One more thank due on me. Thanks for "OMG" movie you suggested in one comment. I enjoyed it a lot.
    By rational - 10/18/2012 10:08:48 AM

  • Janab Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb, Aap aur aapke saathi seriously kuch bhi kah len. Bahut khoob!  You think those questions are assaults I don't.
    By rational - 10/18/2012 9:24:30 AM

  • @sadaf, Nezami and GM saheban. aisi baaten main roz sunta hoon.
    "Suppression of voice" is the quality of Islamic society. No proof is required, it is prevalent in the Muslim society everywhere.
    "Beta is sawal pe achchhe achchhe kafiron ka kufr dol jata hai. Brahmastra hai yeh. Kufrnashak-imaanupjaao Brahmastra.. Nishana theek nahi laga kafir pe, to atheist to bana hi deta hai unko."
    Oh ! my father sadaf na aapki wajah se main kafir na musalman bana. Aap deeng bahut marte ho. main jo bhi pesh karta hoon aap ki kitaabon se pesh karta hoon aur karta rahunga.
    You and Mr Yunus will produce one more interpretation of the holy Quran. There are many others already available and are causes of division in the Muslims. After 1400 years you will tell the true meaning of the Quran.
    Allah aapke iradon ko kamyab kare abhi tak to nahi kya hai. Ek baat guarantee ki hai suraj pachchim se nikal kar purab men doob sakta hai lekin musalman ek nahi ho sakte. Ek doosre ki gardan kat te rahenge aur doosre logon ke liye museebat bane rahenge.
    By rational - 10/18/2012 9:07:32 AM

  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin sb: You have rightly reminded us, "Our concern here is about women's rights, protection of minorities, promotion of education, promotion of respect for other religions etc. We have talked of re-interpretation, re-contextualization or de-emphasis of some passages in the Quran". But it is so sad, we have not discussed these important issues since we are trapped in the CHAKRAVYUVA  knit by the blasphemes and having being involved in non-sense talks which are not going to yield a reward to satisfy them unless Allah Kareem wills so..
    By Raihan Nezami - 10/18/2012 4:07:45 AM

  • Rational quotes, " "Become apes—despised and disgraced!" (Maududi)"

    Let people like Ziauddin Sardar or Muhammad Yunus sb find the best meaning that they can from a book that was compiled long before the science of compilation existed. You have left Islam so it should not be a concern of yours. Our concern here is about women's rights, protection of minorities, promotion of education, promotion of respect for other religions etc. We have talked of re-interpretation, re-contextualization or de-emphasis of some passages in the Quran, but your vicious assaults are more typical of apostate sites.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/17/2012 3:26:32 PM

  • Rational says to Nezami Sb, "Are bhai aap jaise padhe likhon ke beech men ek jahil bhi chahiye.
    khush hoon ke mera husn-e-talab kaam to ayaa
    Khaali hi sahi meri taraf jam to aaya.

    Khush hoon ki mera zauq-e-bad kaam to Aaya
    Lo gum hua mera dost mere paas to ayaa.
    Mohabbat se na sahi gusse men hi sahi
    uske labon men is na cheez ka naam to aaya.
    Aap logon ko to sabr ke badle men hooren mil jayengi zara socho to sahi mujhe kya milega aapki galiyan sunkar."

    Rational seems to love drawing attention to himself and is trying to have fun at the expense of this site's seriousness of purpose. I speak as a commentator. I am not presuming to be the editor.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/17/2012 2:41:21 PM

  • Have you forgotten Mr. Boiqraat that 'to err is human'. Now tell me, who said that the Imams were not human and thus were not infallible. Even Prophets were human, and they made mistakes. But perhaps you presumed that these great men, were superhuman, the way those Jahil Mullahs believe and who then present these honoured men that way, only to appear as fools in front of rationals.

    Remember: It is only the God, who doesn't commit mistakes. Corollary of which is tthat the one who doesn't commit mistakes is known as God, rest everyone else does. Therefore I do not wonder at your question which gives out an impression of surprise that these great men could have done mistakes. My answer is: Yes. Why not? Were they not human?

    In a similar way, perhaps my mistake would be that I hope you will see the spirit of Islam eventually, and your mistake would be to assume that I would abandon my belief in Islam one day.

    I have my plea. Why cannot I believe what I believe in? When a monkey can tear apart its chest and an LCD Screen appears from inside and people can believe in such rubbish, why cannot I believe that this is rubbish and irrational. And if all these stories are not to be taken literally, then how come that all that which shouldn't be taken literally is taken literally when the case is about Islam? Beta is sawal pe achchhe achchhe kafiron ka kufr dol jata hai. Brahmastra hai yeh. Kufrnashak-imaanupjaao Brahmastra.. Nishana theek nahi laga kafir pe, to atheist to bana hi deta hai unko.

    And by the way, don't you think, you know more about Islam than anyone else? Tum kya nahi ho is ghalatfahmi mein mubtala? Sadma bas is baat ka hai tumko ki jaaney kin kattarpanthion se wasta pad gaya hai. Par beta, try as much as you can. Try karne mein harj nahi hai but do whatever, you cannot wipe out our love for these great men and the Prophets.

    And somehwre inside your heart you must be feeling happy ke aaj bhi kuchh Muslaman hain zinda jo saaf saaf baat karte hain. I say just stop thinking in terms of blasphemy and apostatsy, and then see, saley har apostate baithe bithaye Muslaman nazar aaney lagenge.

    By sadaf - 10/17/2012 1:55:17 PM

Compose Your Comments here:
Email (Not to be published)
Fill the text
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.