certifired_img

Books and Documents

Spiritual Meditations (21 Apr 2010 NewAgeIslam.Com)




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   294


  • Hindus believe that the universe is manifestation of God. Muslims clearly make distinction between Creator and Creation.

    By Priyanka - 12/12/2014 12:39:36 AM



  • Hindus believe that the universe is manifestation of God. Muslims clearly make distinction between Creator and Creation.

    By Priyanka - 12/12/2014 12:37:49 AM



  • Thank you Mr. Sultan Shahin for speaking truth.
    You are right to say''there is only universal consciousness, the universe is a manifestation of that: and we are all spirit beings.''



    By Priyanka - 10/30/2014 7:20:15 AM



  • WHO CONTROLS THE “NEW AGE ISLAM” FORUM?

     

    please feel free to ignore entire post, if it is uncalled for, presumptive or patronizing

     

    Mr. S. Jeelani or Secular Logic or Pseudo Rational or Khalid Suhail


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/19/2014 2:09:08 AM



  •  YES INDEED, WE COULD ALL TRY AVOIDING “THE GANG OF FOUR.”  

     

    dear mr khalid suhail, mr rational and mr secularlogic,

    i think the thread temperature is slowly rising, if you have noticed.

    its just a matter of time before the republican american forum bouncer leaps right into the melee.

    we could all try avoiding that. this is not a matter of cowardice or fear or loathing or whatever. just a little suggestion.

    please feel free to ignore entire post, if it is uncalled for, presumptive or patronizing.

    By hats off! - 2/12/2014 7:14:54 AM


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/19/2014 2:06:16 AM



  • You spoke my heart. May Almighty Allah bless you, Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb.

     

    Honestly speaking, I am mentally exhausted. I will write a personal note to Sultan Shahin Saheb and post it within a couple of days. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to insult any religion.

     

    Naseer Ahmed Saheb should steer far away. I am glad that Muhammad Yunus Saheb is busy with his scholarly work. There is after all a limit to all such insanity.

     

    Name and town, if you wish to opine should be the rule of the forum. If Sultan Saheb does not screen any commentator’s identity, then more such “Enemies Of Islam” will come on board and disrupt the debates.

     


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/19/2014 1:40:56 AM



  • Aren’t all Islamophobes unstable and continuously contradict themselves?


    Aren't all Aurangzebs crazy bigots with an obsessive compulsion to convince themselves that they have won every argument?

     

    Secular Logic asks “What was the reason to make the comment to rational that I have copy pasted below? What was the ocassion, the thread, the provocation? None”.

     

    My response:  Rational not only said that the debate is not over but also mentioned what he would prove. My response was simply that what he can prove is what is already admitted. What was already admitted was detailed so that Rational would not go about trying to prove what was admitted. Now he has done exactly that!

     

    There was a part that was admitted, and there was a part that was hotly debated, and left unconcluded. That part was your claim that Jizya was a benevolent tax that non Muslims loved to pay. Rational said he would disprove that, and left it at that. You were the one who declared the debate was over and there was nothing left to prove. 


    SL says: I have seen what rational said. He merely mentioned that the Jizya debate was not over yet. He did not restart the debate.

     

    My response: Yes it is you SL who tried to restart the debate which you admit as quoted below:

     

    SL says: I am not taking up cudgels on anybody's behalf. I am presenting my own viewpoint.


    I can present my viewpoint any time I like. Before the debate, during the debate, or after Aurangzeb has declared the debate closed and announced his conclusions. Since his conclusions are open to question, presenting my viewpoint at a time contiguous to when he is presenting his erroneous conclusion is consistent with a desire to not restart the debate, but to set right the record on the unconcluded issues. 

     

    Secular Logic contradicts himself: “Rest assured, I have no wish to debate with you.

     

    SL once again contradicts himself:  “You declare the debate is over. I dont think so”.  


    I dont think the debate is over. It is not over because you have only bulldozed the opposition, not convinced it. At the same time, I have no wish to debate with a pigeon like you. Mr Lodhia has helpfully pointed out the futility of such an exercise.  Both are consistent statements. 

     

     

    SL says: “You declared that it was over, you had won it, and made the astonishing claim that Jizya was a benevolent levy on non-muslims”.

     

    My response: The claim that Jiziya protected the minorities and their faith was made in the debate and defended through an exchange of more than 100 posts. What was SL doing then? Is he not trying to restart a debate that has ended?


    1. The debate has not ended. It has been adjourned. 2. If the claim is made again, it is consistent to challenge the claim again.

     

    SL says: “I would have taken you up on it even if you were talking to the air”.

     

    My response: He didn’t take it up when I was debating with three other people. Nothing new has now been said that wasn’t said earlier.


    That is no reason why I can't speak of it now. You were telling lies about Jizya, and I challenged your lies about Jizya. I will do so when you say Jizya was benevolent and protective of non-muslims. Though I may not do so every time, especially if other partiee are already engaging with you on the subject. I reserve that freedom. My non participation earlier does not preclude me from airing my views when you present your weird conclusions subsequent to the adjournment of the debate. 

     

    SL says: “I had said "you and your minion" . Your minion called me Sanghi”.

    SL contradicts himself: “you labelled me "Sanghi" is what he said


    The original statement said "you and your minion" were calling me Sanghi... etc etc.  I should have de-hyphenated the two name calling entities. By grouping your names on one side and grouping the names you called us on the other side, I made the same error that you and your aides make when you lump all four active critics of islam together. So let me split that sentence for you. You called us "islamaphobes" as a group ( besides assigning other special adjectives to us individually) ; GM, your minion, called us Sanghi. The result of this splitting is still that you and your minion took the lead in calling people names, and by your own argument, those who call people names are losers of an argument. Anything else? 

     


    By secularlogic - 2/19/2014 1:11:40 AM



  • Muslims in this forum should not waste their time responding to hatemongers like Rational, Hats Off, Suhail and Secular Logic who want to engage us in antiquated subjects that should not interest us. We need to discuss issues that the articles in New Age Islam, so wisely chosen every day by Sultan Shahin sb. and his staff, focus on.

    It is sad to see the Comments section taken over by the enemies of Islam. Debates with them are useless. By debating with them we become complicit with them in their nefarious plot to frustrate the purpose of this site.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/19/2014 1:11:21 AM



  • Now you are talking my language, Naseer Ahmed Saheb. As an American I do not put up with “Intellectual Dishonesty. Enough is enough.

     

    Sultan Shahin Saheb will have to figure out what to do? You and I cannot do anything. Long back when I first started to post, I forewarned Sultan Saheb that it will get worse. It sure did, Naseer Saheb.

     

    Sadly, I will also gradually withdraw. I will make comments every now and then. This “New Age Islam” forum has been dominated by “The Gang Of Four” for far too long now. No one will learn anything from all such debates where the other side are nothing but downright bigots.  


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/19/2014 12:55:28 AM



  • It is truly amazing that Rational, a product of the Madrasa, and Suhail a self-proclaimed Arabic scholar who studied every important work of Islamic literature for 8 years in Arabic should both resort to the most rabid anti-Islamic sources to malign Islam. This is proof, that their study of original Islamic literature does not provide them with the necessary ammunition to malign Islam. 

     I have already established that these sites distort the meanings of even verses from the Quran, by changing words and stripping them of their context to spread misinformation about Islam. What they can do with secondary literature is anybody's guess, since this is not easily verifiable as the works are not as widely disseminated nor do people possess copies of these works from which they can verify the authenticity of what is quoted.

     Suhail and Rational stand totally discredited as deliberate users of falsehood on a regular basis to malign Islam. What they write carries no credibility and must be ignored. Let us not waste further time on them.


    By Observer - 2/19/2014 12:45:39 AM



  • Pseudo Rational,

     

    You wrote as follows:

     

    why should you wonder Jamat e Islami have highly educated people as their warriors.

     

    May I ask, “Who was your Mullah at the Tablighi Jamaat?” He sure got you brainwashed pretty bad, or should I say, beyond repair.

     

    Pseudo ever heard this song of late great Mohammed Rafi (May Almighty Allah rest his soul in peace)?   

     

    Batakte Dekhe Hai Laakhon Mullah
    Karoron Pandit Hazaaron Saiaane
    Jo Khoob Sochha Samajh Mein Aaya
    Khuda Ki Baatein Khuda Hin Jaane

    Aake Duniya Mein Bashar
    Kaam Karna Hai Jo Kar
    Saaf Niyat Hai Agar
    Phir Na Anjaam Se Darr
    Jaane Padti Hai Kidar
    Uski Rehmat Ki Nazar
    Ye To Allah Ko Khabar
    Ye To Maula Ko Khabar
     

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq1cNO3R-UI

     

    Believe it or not, I am currently fighting with another nut case who happens to be a businessman (33), and also, a long bearded “Namazee” in the country of Pakistan. Not sure if he joined “Tableegh,movement while he was young, but from the way he operates his business, one should count the fingers before shaking the hands. The point I am making is that, those who at one time or the other were under the spell of misguided Mullahs will likely to crack up big time.

     

    Hell, you did, and I know for sure the other clown sitting in Pakistan will now have to answer a whole lot of questions about the false declaration of funds from Dubai. All such immoral acts have nothing to do with Islam, but upon one Muslim’s own choice to know how to differentiate between right and wrong in their worldly affairs.

     

    Simply look at you. You don’t give damn about anything. You think that you are right all the time. What is more interesting is that, you are admired by a few brilliant commentators who continually feel sorry for you. Instead of advising you to move on and change the name of “Mohammed, they remain busy to exploit your mind so that you can continue to hate everything about Islam. Disgusting, isn’t it?


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/19/2014 12:31:27 AM



  • Aren’t all Islamophobes unstable and continuously contradict themselves?

     Secular Logic asks “What was the reason to make the comment to rational that I have copy pasted below? What was the ocassion, the thread, the provocation? None”.

     My response:  Rational not only said that the debate is not over but also mentioned what he would prove. My response was simply that what he can prove is what is already admitted. What was already admitted was detailed so that Rational would not go about trying to prove what was admitted. Now he has done exactly that!

     SL says: I have seen what rational said. He merely mentioned that the Jizya debate was not over yet. He did not restart the debate.

     My response: Yes it is you SL who tried to restart the debate which you admit as quoted below:

     SL says: I am not taking up cudgels on anybody's behalf. I am presenting my own viewpoint.

     Secular Logic contradicts himself: “Rest assured, I have no wish to debate with you.

     SL once again contradicts himself:  “You declare the debate is over. I dont think so”.  

      SL says: “You declared that it was over, you had won it, and made the astonishing claim that Jizya was a benevolent levy on non-muslims”.

     My response: The claim that Jiziya protected the minorities and their faith was made in the debate and defended through an exchange of more than 100 posts. What was SL doing then? Is he not trying to restart a debate that has ended?

     SL says: “I would have taken you up on it even if you were talking to the air”.

     My response: He didn’t take it up when I was debating with three other people. Nothing new has now been said that wasn’t said earlier.

     SL says: “I had said "you and your minion" . Your minion called me Sanghi”.

    SL contradicts himself: “you labelled me "Sanghi" is what he said.


    By Observer - 2/19/2014 12:12:24 AM



  • To: Sultan Shahin, The Editor & Respected Readers of the “New Age Islam” forum.

     

    Can any one of you ask “Secular Logic” to be please kind enough to let us know which Muslim laws based on our Holy Quran benefited humanity?

     

    “What these Quran based Muslim laws did was nothing short of crimes against humanity.”

     

    If the man and his chumps call themselves brilliant, then let them speak out of sincerity and not hatred. Let’s see how moral and pious they are? We shall soon find out what sort of intelligence they possess? Then they might just be dumb enough to think that no one is reading what Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia is writing as they have collectively decided not to respond to my posts anyway. Not surprising, folks!      

     

    Very truly yours,  

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia 

     


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/18/2014 11:32:58 PM



  • To: All Respected Readers on the “New Age Islam” forum.

     

    How many of you carefully read the content of Point No. 5 by Mr. S. Jeelani?

     

    “5) the next part (in red) you point out that earlier empires did the same. i never denied that they did. every conquering army needs money and the best way to get it is to tax the vanquished. there is nothing about this knowledge which relates to my assertion that jizya is primarily to encourage the reluctant to convert, especially since "humiliation" is a very strong negative incentive. psychologists have opined that learning is faster and more persistent when acquired through "negative" reinforcement (electric shock versus food pellets, in cases of mice learning to negotiate mazes). the next part about sections of the vanquished populations exempted from jizya do not add to the debate, because this was never in contest. if women and children were exempt from jiya, i can easily argue that it made sense as the woman generally follows her man, traditionally as well as doctrinally. all taxes have some exemptions. even zakat (i think).


    so does this part of your response answer my question? no, as this does not relate to my questions at all.”

     

    Why does these handful of geniuses do some comparison between the Roman tax system versus the Islamic tax system? The only way to squash their hatred for Islam and Quranic verses will be to compare the two systems of taxes. Trust me, they will never be satisfied with any answers given by Muhammad Yunus Saheb or Naseer Ahmed Saheb. They will mock and force all of us to bow down to their argument. Mind you that they do raise good points, but it all gets washed out with hatred of Islam.

     

    Let’s face it, if God governs in the affairs of men, then according to Muslims there has to be some wisdom in what was revealed about “Jizya” in our Holy Quran. Why do we have to go in circles to satisfy the ego of “The Gang Of Four” who will have nothing to say at the end, but “No, as this does not relate to my questions at all.” What a sheer waste of our valuable time?

     

    Finally, there is more to life than to continue to read the “Copy & Paste” artists who are hell-bent in smearing everything about Islam.  

     

    Very respectfully yours,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/18/2014 11:16:31 PM



  • I Am American


    Quote Of Benjamin Franklin That God Governs The Affairs Of Men


    I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

     

    Hats Off to Benjamin Franklin May God rest his soul in peace.


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/18/2014 10:56:31 PM



  • ROMAN GOVERNMENT AND TAX COLLECTION IN PALESTINE.


    Rome was the fourth world power to get possession of Palestine and to make the Jews vassals. The latter, while retaining the characteristics of their nationality and laying a greater emphasis than ever on the externals of their religion, had not been an independent nation for any great length of time since the beginning of the Babylonian captivity. Even the reign of the Maccabees proved to be only a last desperate attempt to return to the ancient power and glory. Disrupted by a civil war between the Asmonean Sadducees and the Pharisees, the nation was not in a position to present a united front against an enemy from without. The Roman general Pompey, who was just then conducting a campaign in Syria, gladly availed himself of the opportunity to interfere. The hatred of the opposing parties made a peaceful settlement of their differences impossible, and so Pompey finally took the city on the 23d of Sivan, a fast-day, in the year 63 B. C. Although he entered the Temple, and even visited the Holy of Holies, he did not interfere with the worship of the Jews, being content with having made them tributary to the power of Rome.


    At the beginning of the Christian era the Idumean Herod was king of Judea, which included practically the entire country as it had been in the time of David. After his death, Archelaus became ruler of Idumea, Judea, and Samaria, under the title of ethnarch. In the year 6 A. D., he was banished to Vienne, in the province of Gaul, and his dominions were annexed to the province of Syria. Thus it was that the southern part of Palestine was ruled by governors, among whom were Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Festus. These were under the supervision of the Roman legate for Syria, and they made Caesarea their capital, visiting Jerusalem only occasionally. Herod Antipas became tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. Philip received Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulanitis, Panias, and Iturea, and resided at Scythopolis, later at Caesarea Philippi. At his death his territories were included in the province of Syria, and in 37 given to Agrippa.


    The Romans, in the case of Judea, followed the same policy which they had employed toward their other provinces and tributary countries. They made it a point not to interfere with the religion of a people nor to hinder any religious usages, so long as they did not conflict with the glory of Rome. But the laws of Rome had to be enforced, and Roman garrisons were stationed in the principal cities, that of Jerusalem occupying the tower of Antonia, adjacent to the Temple. The adjustment of religious differences was in the hands of the ecclesiastical authorities, but punishments of a civil and criminal nature were in the hands of the government, including the sentence of death pronounced upon the basis of a religious transgression. The presence of Roman soldiers was always deeply resented by the Jews, and especially by the Pharisees, as an unjustified encroachment upon ancient liberties.


    The greatest difficulty, the chief point of contention, between the Jews and the Roman government lay in the question of taxes. The members of the Jewish Church, both in Palestine and in the Diaspora, John 7, 35, felt the obligation of maintaining their elaborate form of worship as a heavy burden. The voluntary contributions, the oblations and offerings, did not afford sufficient revenue for the upkeep of the Temple and for the payment of the many priests and Levites, and so assessments had to be levied upon every member of the Church. The annual Temple-tax imposed upon all those that were numbered was, at the time of Jesus, half a shekel, or a double drachma, about 60 cents, Matt. 17, 24. 27.


    The collection of taxes for the Roman government was in the hands of the equestrian order. The members of this order, in turn, sold the privilege to prominent men in the provinces, who, after figuring a good profit, turned the matter over to the tax-gatherers proper, all of whom were just as anxious to turn a penny to their own account. The result was a system of robbery which left nothing to be desired for thoroughness.   Unjust valuation, extortion, blackmail, was the order of the day, and the people had to suffer. The Talmud distinguishes two classes of publicans, the tax-gatherer in general and the custom-house official.  The former collected the regular dues, which consisted of ground-, income-, and poll-tax. Here was opportunity for unjust exactions, since the ground-tax amounted to ten and even up to twenty, the income-tax to one per cent. But the cruelty of the system became especially apparent in the case of the custom-house official, for there was tax and duty upon all imports and exports, on all that was bought and sold, bridge-money, road-money, harbor-dues, town-dues, etc. A merchant's journey was rendered anything but pleasant when he had to expect to unload all his pack-animals, open every bale and package, and have his private letters opened.


    At the time of Jesus a decree of Caesar had changed the system of tax-gathering somewhat by having the taxes levied by publicans in Judea and paid directly to the government. But this change did little to ease the burden of the people, and only made the publicans more unpopular, as being the direct officials of the heathen power. And it mattered little whether the publican was "great," like Zacchaeus, Luke 19, 2, and employed substitutes, or "small," and stood at the receipt of custom himself, Matt. 9, 9. The publicans, though for the most part members of the Jewish nation and Church, were disqualified from being judges and witnesses, and were quite generally treated as social outcasts, on a level with the open sinners. 86)


    http://www.kretzmannproject.org/MAT/roman%20government.htm


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/18/2014 10:48:39 PM



  • THE MONETARY SYSTEM, TAXATION, AND PUBLICANS IN THE TIME OF CHRIST

     

    Alan D. CampbellNorth Texas University

     

    Abstract: The Jews used bars and rings of gold and silver as money prior to using coins. Syrian, Roman, and Jewish coins were used during the time of Christ. The Roman Government imposed a tremendous tax burden upon its subjects. The peo-ple of Israel also had to pay a tax to the temple. Publicans, or tax collectors, were well known for their corruption. Thus, the Jews had utter contempt for pub¬licans. Christ paid his share of taxes and taught that it was right to do so even under the corrupt system of the Romans.

     

    Introduction

     

    What type of monetary system was used in Palestine in the time of Christ? How did taxes affect the lives of people living in Palestine during that time? How did the Romans collect taxes? What type of person was the average publican? What were the relationships among the Roman Government, the publicans, and the Jews? What was the attitude of Jesus Christ toward taxes and publicans? These questions concern a major part of the economic condition of Palestine during the time of Christ which this paper will address.

     

    The Monetary System

     

    Prior to the system of coins, bars and rings of gold and silver were used as media of exchange by the Jews. The values of these bars and rings were determined by a system of weights of which the standard was the shekel, which was equal to 224 troy grains. In Palestine gold coins were rarely used — values were based upon silver. The coins mentioned in the four gospels are Syrian, Roman, and Jewish [Muirhead, 1907, p. 48].

     

    The Syrian coins were the stater, another name for which was argurion, the didrachmon, and the drachme. The stater corre-sponded to the Jewish shekel, and it was the largest silver coin used in Palestine. The didrachmon was equivalent to a half shekel, the amount of the temple tax. The drachme was half a didrachmon [Muirhead, 1907, p. 48].

     

    Roman coins consisted of the denarius or denarion, the assarion and the kodrantes. The denarius is translated as a penny in the Bible. It was the customary wage paid to a worker in the field or vineyard for a day’s work. Also, it was the coin used to pay Roman taxes. The denarius was silver, but the assarion and kodrantes were bronze. The assarion was called a farthing. The kodrantes repre¬sents about a half farthing [Muirhead, 1907, p. 48].

     

    The Jewish coin was the lepton, which is translated as mite in Mark 12:42. It was worth half a kodrantes. The widow, whom Christ commended for her giving attitude, contributed two lepta into the temple treasury. It was unlawful to give Roman coins to the temple. To change Roman coins into Jewish coins one had to apply to the kollubistai — money changers.

     

    The references of the New Testament fairly illustrate the two facts: (1) that in New Testament times little use was made of native Jewish coins; and, (2) that of the Graeco-Syrian and Roman coins in use, a distinct preference was given on religious and patriotic grounds to the Graeco-Syrian [Muirhead, 1907, p. 48].

     

    Taxation


    One of the main responsibilities of the Roman provincial governor was to oversee the collection of taxes.

     

    Taxes proper were of two kinds. There was the tax on landed property and the poll tax — tributum soli or agri and tributum capitis … As Judaea was (after 6 A.D.) an imperial province, its taxes were paid not into the aerarium, or treasury of the Senate but into the fiscus or imperial treasury [Muirhead, 1907, p. 44].


    Of the population of Palestine, only Judaea and Samaria paid taxes directly into the Imperial treasury.

     

    Herod Antipas and his brother Phillip, who governed the rest of Palestine (except Abilene), probably continued to pay to the emperor the kind of tribute their father had paid even in the days of the Republic of Mark Antony, but the taxes within their dominions were (in theory) neither levied nor controlled by the Roman Government [Muirhead, 1907, pp. 44-45].

     

    The Romans exacted from the Palestinians (to the same extent as from the natives of other countries subject to Rome) a water-tax, a city-tax, a tax on such necessities of life as meat and salt, a road-tax and a house tax [Klausner, 1929, p. 188]. Frontier taxes were especially difficult. At every stopping place some tax was levied. The result was that sometimes the price of a good exceeded one hundred times its original cost. Despite the tremendous tax burden, a portion of the Jews became wealthy through trade. Ship¬ping was one of their chief concerns.

     

    Not only were men of Israel subject to tax by the Romans, but there was also the temple tax to pay. Special officers, called Gazophulakes in the Greek, were appointed over the temple treasury. It was their duty “to collect the half-shekel, or tax levied upon the male heads of Israel for the upkeep of the temple, which the officer at Capernaum asked of Jesus. In Nehemiah’s time the tax was one-third of a shekel” [Muirhead, 1907, p. 82].

     

    Apparently prior to the Exile the kings provided the public sacrifices at their own expense. “The half-shekel tax differed from the tithes in being distinctively a tax for the temple and not for the priests” [Muirhead, 1907, p. 82].

     

    Publicans

     

    There appear to have been two classes of publicans. There were the chief publicans as well as the ordinary publicans. The ordinary publicans were the lowest class of servants employed in collecting revenue for the Roman Government. The Jews despised the publi¬cans because it was through them that they were subject to the Roman emperor. The paying of tribute was viewed as a recognition of the emperor’s sovereignty. “They were noted for their im¬position, rapine and extortion, to which they were tempted to oppress the people with illegal taxes that they might more quickly enrich themselves” [Tenney, 1967, p. 598].

     

    Publicans had no responsibility over the real property tax or the poll tax. It was their task to collect the customs or taxes levied upon export-import goods. The Roman Government gave the right to collect these taxes to private contractors. Thus, it is not strictly accurate to speak of the publicans as being Roman officials. This was practiced in Judaea and throughout the Roman Empire.

     

    “The Ptolemies, the Seleucidae, and later the Romans, all adopted the very cruel but efficient method of ‘farming out the taxes,’ each officer extorting more than his share from those under him, and thus adding to the Jewish hatred of the publicans . . .” [Tenney, 1967, p. 828].


    The rights granted to the publicans by the Romans were very difficult to define in detail. This was a weakness of the system which led to, the unpopularity of publicans throughout Palestine. In Galilee, those publicans possessing Roman citizenship were totally exempt from the taxes imposed by the provincial publicans.

     

    The phrase “publicans and sinners” (Luke XV 1; cp. Matt. XXI 31) is fair evidence not only of the extreme unpopu-larity of the customsmen as a class, but also of the fact that the associations of their office were such as to make honesty extremely difficult, though not impossible (Matt. XXI 31; cp. Luke III 12f.), to those who held it [Muirhead, 1907, p. 46].

     

    The Roman tax system with its self-interested publicans re-pressed trade. It also avoided fraud for the state. “It was a favorite device of the tax-gatherers moreover, to advance money to those unable to pay, thus converting the tax into a private debt, upon which an usurious interest was exacted” [Hausrath, 1878, p. 188],

     

    The Jews had such utter contempt for the publicans that money known to have come from them was not accepted at the synagogue or temple. It is apparent that few publicans would have had a chance to hear Christ’s synagogue discourses. “They would prob¬ably not have been admitted even if they had sought entrance . . .” [Bruce, 1896, p. 111].

     

    Jesus Christ chose Matthew, a tax collector, to be his disciple. His talent for keeping records would prove to be of great value. “The only word that Matthew has about himself is that he was a Publican. . . His business as a tax collector accustomed him to keeping records” [Halley, 1965, p. 413]. Perhaps Matthew even knew shorthand because shorthand was well known in the ancient Hellenistic world.

     

    After Matthew’s call to discipleship many publicans ate with the disciples and Jesus in his house. There were a number of them that followed Jesus [Mark 2:15]. Matthew was an ordinary publican and dealt only with the government of Herod. The only other publi¬can mentioned by name as a follower of Christ was Zacchaeus. He was a chief Judean publican who most likely dealt directly with the Roman government.

     

    Christ did not condone the publicans’ corruption. However, Christ did not exclude himself from publicans and sinners, but rather he

     

    Campbell: The Monetary System, Taxation, and Publicans 135
    freely socialized with them. Christ paid his share of taxes [Matthew 17:24-27] and taught that it was right to do so even under the harsh system of the Romans [Matthew 22:17-22].

     

    REFERENCES

     

    Bruce, Alexander B., With Open Face. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1896. Halley, Henry H., Halley’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
    House, 1965. Hausrath, A., A History of the New Testament Times: The Time of Jesus. Vol. 1,
    Edinburgh: Williams and Nargate, 1878. Holy Bible, (KJV). Klausner, Joseph, trans., by Herbert Danby, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times and
    Teaching. London:. George Allen & Unwin, LTD., 1929. Muirhead, Lewis A., The Times of Christ. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907. Tenney, Merrill C., ed., The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids:
    Zondervan Publishing House, 1967.

    accountingin.com/accounting-historians-journal/volume-13-number-2/the-monetary-system-taxation-and-publicans-in-the-time-of-christ/ 


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/18/2014 10:45:22 PM



  • To: Sultan Shahin, The Editor – New Age Islam forum

     

    Here is what an unknown commentator whose first name is secular and last name is logic wrote as follows:

     

    “You want the matter to end? You admit that the system was horrendeous and indefensible - not your wishy washy "antiquated". That will put a full stop on the issue.” 

     

    Now can you please be kind to act as a “Moderator” so that there will be an end to the debate over “Jizya.No matter how many arguments one makes, it will never ever satisfy the person whose very intention was clearly spelled out in black and white in the following words:

     

    I am not a friend of Islam. To put it in minimum words, I dont like Islam. But the selfish gene in me wants it to reform, because that will create a better world for my bloodline in the future centuries. I have a prescription for doing that, but given the current trenchant attitude of muslims towards reforms and the tendency of people like yourself to justify everything so that one is likely to feel, if everything is so perfect, why reform at all - i have a dim view of any improvements in my lifetime, at least.”

     

    By secularlogic  - 2/11/2014 8:51:37 PM

     

    Sultan Saheb, why don’t you ask the unknown commentator about his prescription of how to reform Islam? I sure would like to hear about it, knowing that he is a staunch supporter of ex-Tablighi who spits out nothing but hatred on your forum. All because he is another one of the copy and paste artists like the rest who picks only those sentences to terrorize the minds of Muslims with and leaving all the rest out. Then again, wasn’t this fella made a nasty joke by impersonating himself as Mrs. S. Jeelani and called it a wild joke? So much for dreaming about reforming Islam, when one has to hard time reforming the sick mind of his own.

     

    Finally, my question to you is, “Who is running your forum?” You or “The Gang Of Four. I am sure this humble Muslim along with many of my fellow Muslims who are reading will soon be questioning your personal integrity. More important of all, you need to be kind enough to tell all of us as to what are we learning from this debate with those who have nothing but hatred for Islam.

     

    Very sincerely yours,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia  

     


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/18/2014 10:03:02 PM



  • Observer
    i have found how shallow is your understanding. the debate is over with my last comment on this topic.
    i will focus on slavery. Role of the Quran, Sunna of the prophet examples from his followers. who were enslaving and who were freeing the slaves. who were throat deep in slavery? who resisted the abolitionist efforts? who are still continuing it and why?
    i have to pin the balloon of the Islamic claim on slavery.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/18/2014 9:50:39 PM



  • Aurangzeb, your last comment to me is infantile. But since I am feeling indulgent, I will answer it.

    I am not taking up cudgels on anybody's behalf. I am presenting my own viewpoint. Your comment to rational was a trigger. Not the fact that you were addressing rational, but the content of your comment. I would have taken you up on it even if you were talking to the air.

    I have seen what rational said. He merely mentioned that the Jizya debate was not over yet. He did not restart the debate. You declared that it was over, you had won it, and made the astonishing claim that Jizya was a benevolent levy on non-Muslims.

    I am not foisting a viewpoint. I believe you are the one who does so. You declare the debate is over. I don't think so.  I said, read Aurangzeb's arguments, read other literature from wiki, and make up your own minds on the issue.

    "selective download"; I was already feeling guilty about copy-pasting so much. You wanted me to download the entire page? Sure, people can go to the page and look it up themselves. I have not stopped anyone. In fact, even you can go there and edit the page to your liking.

    I had said "you and your minion" . Your minion called me Sanghi. Which is OK, I don't mind. Darn sight better than being an Islamic apologist. You did call me and other people the other names, much before I bestowed Aurangzeb's crown on you. So if name calling is a sign of losing a debate, you have lost it maybe a year ago. 

    Anything else?

    By secularlogic - 2/18/2014 9:50:06 PM



  • Mr Ghulam,

    You use "antiquated" and "old age islams" as euphemisms. In doing so, you seek to sweep the black history of Islam under the carpet of modernity. What these Quran based Muslim laws did was nothing short of  crimes against humanity. 

    It is pointless to revisit them if their supporters and proponents and defenders have disappeared, and if there is some semblance of accepting that a large section of the world population was wronged because of Islamic thought, whether rightly or wrongly interpreted is immaterial. Is this happening? No. Here your Aurangzeb is claiming that Jizya was a benevolent tax that actually helped protect conquered non-muslims! When someone is making these claims, should other people keep quiet like you?

    The material from wikipedia informs us that not only was taxation discriminatory on basis of religion in Islamic states, it was also double of what Muslims had to pay as Zakat. It was to be paid in a humiliating manner, and some scholars suggest that the regular humiliation was intended to encourage the non-muslim to convert to Islam. The penalty for not paying jizya was that the family and lands would become the property of the muslim government officials, and the women of the non-muslim would be used as housemaids and sex slaves. How can we allow this person to get away with a statement that Jizya was benevolent? 

    You want the matter to end? You admit that the system was horrendeous and indefensible - not your wishy washy "antiquated". That will put a full stop on the issue. 

    By secularlogic - 2/18/2014 9:36:12 PM



  • hats off! - 2/18/2014 7:36:42 PM
    this observer turned clown egoist was asking always a closure of the debate. let him seek a place where he  can hide his face. he has got a place in apostasy and islamophobe arguments.

    i have put well woven comment covering the Quran, Ahadith and Sunna of followers of the Islam.
    i have a pile of evidences from Islamic sources i will keep posting wherever there will be a need.
    let him beat his own trumpet and let his minions dance in joy.
    a brainwashed can detonate himself but a learned jehadi produces so many brainwashed jehadis.
    why should you wonder Jamat e Islami have highly educated people as their warriors.
     

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/18/2014 9:33:45 PM



  • DID ANYONE EVER WATCH HOW THE FAMOUS AMERICAN COWBOY GOT UPSET?

     

    MAN: Adios, Amigo.

    MAN 2: We don't like to see bad boys like you in town.

    MAN 3: Go get your mule. You let him get away from you?

    JOE: You see, that's what I want to talk to you about. He's feeling real bad.

    MAN 3: Huh?

    JOE: My mule. You see, he got all riled up when you men fired those shots at his feet.

    MAN 2: Hey, are you making some kind of joke?

    JOE: No. See, I understand you men were just playin' around. But the mule, he just doesn't get it. Of course, if you were to all apologize.

    JOE: I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. See, my mule don't like people laughing. He gets the crazy idea you're laughing at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it . . .

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ_7br_3y54

     

    Moral of the movie scene is: Do not push hard and make a mockery of good people.  


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/18/2014 9:05:01 PM



  • To: All Respected Readers on the “New Age Islam” forum.

     

    Ladies & Gentlemen,

     

    As-Salaam Alay-Kum,

     

    Hoo! Haa! Mr. S. Jeelani merely hinted to his loyal comrade, the misguided ex-Tablighi to search for “playing chess with a pigeon.” Oh well, does Mr. Jeelani knows what is the meaning of “Internet Trolls”? It is as follows:

     

    “In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]

     

    Copy and paste from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

     

    http://penguinpetes.com/gallery/MyWalls/pigeon_chess.png

     

    Candidly speaking, I remain baffled as to why Sultan Shahin, the Editor does not step in to moderate the debate? Bear in mind that, it is “The Gang Of Four” that has set the rules of the debate and not the Editor of the “New Age Islam” forum. Undoubtedly, there is no honest referee to intervene, hence, we all have to put up with all such “Hula Gula.

     

    Last but not the least, notice how these brilliant commentators hide their own identities and think in their own sweet minds that they are an authority on the subject matter Islam? What kind of pigeons are these people? Pour in crap and then strut around like morons! Better yet, this reminded of a quote by David Oglivy, a famous British advertising executive who once remarked as follows:

     

    Our business is infested with idiots who try to impress by using pretentious jargon.    

     

    Very respectively yours,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia   


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/18/2014 8:38:20 PM



  • THE MUSLIM MIND by Charis Waddy – Page No. 94 - The Spread Of Islam

     

    Asked about the means by which Islam was spread, Dr. Ali Issa Othman replied:

     

    The spread of Islam was military. There is a tendency to apologise for this and we should not. It is one of the injunctions of the Quran that you must fight for the spreading of Islam. After the fighting was over – not just in theory but historically – the conquered people were not vanquished in the usual sense of the word. They became equal with the conquerors, if they accepted the ideal of Islam, or if they were already “People of the Book” like the Christians and the Jews, who were not supposed to become Muslims. For several centuries the conquered Christians remained Christians. Then for one reason or another – whether convenience or not – most of them gradually became Muslims. But they were not compelled to do so.

     

    Fighting for God (jihad) has a wider meaning in Islam. It may be militant, or it may be evangelical, in the Christian sense. The militant is not excluded. This is because, according to the Quran, communities have always resisted a prophet’s offer of guidance from God. In each case tradition was much stronger than an open mind to a new idea. So you find resistance – the traditional answer being: “We found our fathers worshipping in this way, and we shall continue.”

     

    Jihad may be a matter of persuasion. It may also be preparation, producing conditions in which people will be receptive. Historically, military means were used to do this. It was part of being an early Muslim, to join in the military arrangements of the Muslims. Why you fight is important. It is quite clear that they did not go out to acquire wealth, land, riches, though these were a by-product. Their purpose was to fight in the path of God.

     

    Why is it that we in this part of the world are now so staunchly proud to be Arabs and Muslims, when originally we were not from Arabia and were conquered people? In other empires people were never willing to identify themselves with their conquerors. They rebelled. This is the key to the whole question. The treatment was different, and the relationship. The Arab did not fight in order to become master. He fought for a certain set of principles. Whether you approve or not of what he did is another matter, but you can try to understand it.

     

    Dr. Ali Issa Othman


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/18/2014 8:04:32 PM



  • dear mr rational
    you are in court where the prosecutor is defense is judge is jury and also executioner.

    you are probably wasting your time in this "debate". i say this because, i think where mere self-certification is enough to win a debate, it is not worth taking part there.

    also kindly do a google search for the phrase "playing chess with a pigeon".

    regards.

    By hats off! - 2/18/2014 7:36:42 PM



  • Secular Logic, Rational and Suhail again want  a  futile discussion of topics that are best described as "Old Age Islam". Getting engaged in such a discussion would be a mistake.



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/18/2014 2:45:01 PM



  • Observer says,
    Rational's sources are: "Wiki Islam, M A Khan's Islamic Jehad, Jehad Watch etc. All of them are rabid anti Islamic sites. Rational, a product of madrasa, can produce evidence from reliable Islamic sources but he knows that he will not find anything that suits his purpose of maligning Islam."
    As demanded by Mr Observer from Rational, I suggest a book on the subject of jihad and jizyah by professor Khursheed Ahmad Fariq, which is considered an authority on Hadith, Quran and the Islamic History . The name of the book is, "Hazrat Umar  Kay Sarkari Khutoot" which is available on the internet.  
    Link: "Hazrat Uma Kay Sarkari Khutoot By Dr Khursheed Ahmad Fariq" .
    The Milli Gazette, an Indian Muslims' leading English Newspaper published in Delhi by Dr Zafarul Islam, son of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan wrote on his death, 
    "The renowned Arabic teacher, scholar, writer and former head of the Department of Arabic, Delhi University, Prof. Dr Khurshid Ahmad Fariq departed from us for good on 6 November. He was the compiler of many prestigious books and a winner of Indian Republic’s Presidential award. His death has left the entire educational world in mourning. His death leaves a vacuum which will never be filled."
     On page 63 and 64 under the title, "Maha'z-e- Sham wa Jazeerah"( Sham and Jazeerah front), Dr Khursheed Ahmad Fariq writes, " 12 hijri ke haj se wapas aakar muharram 13 mein Abu Bakr siddiq ne Sha'm par hamle ki tayyari shuru kardi. us waqt tak sare jazeera-e- Arab mein RIDDAH baghawaten kuchli ja chuki theen aur mulk ke goshe gashe mein madine ka tasallut qa'iem ho chuka tha. Arab as sare nau(again) zaka't aur parsi , I'sa'i' aur yahudi jizyah ki muqrrarh raqmein ada karne lage the. Abu bakr Siddiq ki yeh pahli muhim thi jise unhon ne do baras ki anthak koshish se p'ya-e-takmeel tak pahncha diya tha (accompolished). Ab woh doosri muhim ki taraf mutawajjeh huwe aur woh yeh thi, paros ke do khush-haal mulkon, Iraq aur Sham ki fateh (conquest). Madani Quran mein baar baar jihad ki talqeen ki gai hai". After narating main jihadi verses Dr faiq writes, "In aayaat ka mudda'(demand) yeh hai ki ghair muslimon (un-believers) ko zabardasti musalman banaya jaaye, aur agar woh iske liye tayyar na hon to unse jizyah wasool kiya jaye aur agar woh yeh bhi qubul na karen to unse jang ki jaye aur unhen shikast dekar unke mulk aur eqtesadi wasaael (economic resources) par qabza kar liya jaye."
     New Age Islam has till now published 3 parts of another very important book of Dr Fariq, Islamic Economy During Khilafat-e-Rasheda (Part 8) خلافت راشدہ کا اقتصادی جائزہ حصہ 8 which is available in the section, "Books and Documents", just bellow the "Archives "on the left side of the opening page of Naw Age Islam. Readers are advised to read this book also.
    His other compilations are:
    1. Official Letters of Abu Bakr – Nadwatul Musannifeen, Delhi (Urdu)
    2. Official Letters of Umar Farooq – Nadwatul Musannifeen, Delhi (Urdu)
    3. Official Letters of Usman Ghani – Nadwatul Musannifeen, Delhi (Urdu)
    4. Economic Analysis of Orthodox Caliphate – Nadwatul Musannifeen, Delhi (Urdu)
    5. Ancient India in Arabic Literature – Nadwatul Musannifeen, Delhi (Urdu)
    6. Islamic World in the Tenth Century AD – Nadwatul Musannifeen, Delhi (Urdu)
    7. New Light on Indian History - from an Arabic manuscript – Nadwatul Musannifeen, Delhi (Urdu)
    8. Letters of Umar bin Khattab – Nadwatul Musannifeen, Delhi (Arabic) 
    9. A statesman of the First Century – Nadwatul Musannifeen, Delhi (Urdu)
    10. History of Ridda – Nadwatul Musannifeen, Delhi (Urdu)
    11. History of Al-Ridda – Institute of Islamic Studies, Hamdard (Arabic)
    12. Munammaq – Darul Ma’arif, Hyderabad
    13. Ziad Ibn Abih – Delhi University
    14. History of Arabic Literature (Part 1) – Institute of Islamic Studies, Hamdard, Delhi (English)
    15. History of Arabic Literature (Part II) – Institute of Islamic Studies, Hamdard, Delhi (English)
    16. History of Islam (published at personal expense)
    17. Ja’ize (reviews) (18 Volumes) (published at personal expense) 

     ...

    By Khalid Suhail - 2/18/2014 1:54:09 PM



  • Rational,
    I know that your apostasy is because of the Tablighi Jamaat and I have described it in an earlier post how this may have happened. They took you up the hype curve and when the trough of disillusionment followed, you cracked up and turned apostate.
    The relevant post is reproduced below:
    The Jamaatis  show individual variations in their approach and the criticism applies to individual Jamatis and not to the Jamaat. Some oversell the concept and pretend that "it is the call of God that must be obeyed".  Only a Prophet can say it is the call of God and not a Jamaati. An individual may therefore answer the call of God and leave his pregnant wife to "the care of God" which is a reason you mention for disliking the Jamaat. Fair enough, but still this takes away nothing from the entirely peaceful nature of the Jamaat.
    Because of such wide variations in approach a young person may go through the hype curve.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle
    They may take you to the peak of unrealistic expectations (after all you are doing the work of prophets), the practical reality may take you to the trough of disillusionment and if you have a strong and stable temperament to withstand the disillusionment, you will then rise above the slope of enlightenment and reach a plateau of peace.
    The trough of disillusionment can however shatter a person and my guess is this is what may have happened to Rational.
    Again, not every one is taken through this roller coaster ride but those who experience it, may either come out stronger for the experience or go under.
    11/29/2013 3:50:38 AMObserver

    If you wish, I can do a complete job  analysing you.

    By Observer - 2/18/2014 12:23:02 PM



  • To: All Respective Readers of “The New Age Islam” forum.

     

    Lo & Behold! Pseudo Rational finally confessed which I feared all along, that is:

     

    my apostasy is the result of your tabilghi jamat.

     

    For long the man remained “A Thoughtless Devotee, who is now extremely busy picking up bits and pieces of literature in order to convince all of us that he is right and everyone is wrong. Should we continue to learn more about his personal vendetta against Islam? Haven’t we had enough of his onslaught against our religion and our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)? Imagine, how many of such Pseudo belong to Tableeghi Jamaat? Countless millions.  

     

    Very respectfully yours,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/18/2014 11:50:47 AM



  • Observer.

    why Islam attracts so many enemies?
    why Islam needs so many shouting mouths to say Islam is the religion of peace?
    why every verse of the Quran falls into controversy?
    why you have to explain every verse if anybody can understand it easily?
    why your prophet needs anti-blasphemy laws?


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/18/2014 11:38:45 AM



  • Observer
     anybody can know it because i gave a reference to secular logic. where from it is copied is not important. what does it have is important.
    i will keep posting from Muslim sources too.
    even fool can know my back ground becuase in my comments i have shared a lot. my apostasy is the result of your tabilghi jamat. your stupidity is on increase. apostates show the real face which is covered by lies of like you.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/18/2014 11:29:16 AM



  • Rational's sources are:

    Wiki Islam, M A Khan's Islamic Jehad, Jehad Watch etc

    All of them are rabid anti Islamic sites.

    Rational, a product of madrasa, can produce evidence from reliable Islamic sources but he knows that he will not find anything that suits his purpose of maligning Islam.

    How these hostile apostates debase themselves even after I showed how even verses from the Quran are distorted on these sites and cannot be relied upon! 


    By Observer - 2/18/2014 11:14:27 AM



  • Secular Logic says: “My "friends" don't need me at all. They are vastly superior to me in knowledge, debating skills and perseverance”.

     Why is Secular Logic taking up cudgels on their behalf then?

     Secular Logic asks “What was the reason to make the comment to rational that I have copy pasted below? What was the ocassion, the thread, the provocation? None”.

     Secular Logic must be blind if he cannot see that my post that he has copy pasted is a response.

      Secular Logic says “Rest assured, I have no wish to debate with you.

     A person who says “blah! Blah! Blah! Period!” is announcing to all that he has a closed mind on the subject and is interested only in foisting his view point after the debate is over.

     Secular Logic says: “My wikied information was for other readers to help them arrive at their own conclusions, after reading your firman on the subject”.

     Why would Readers go by his selective download when they can read  the complete entry in Wikipedia and from other sources or go by the debate already concluded?

     Secular Logic says: “you labelled me "Sanghi"

     I have never called any person a Sanghi. 


    By Observer - 2/18/2014 10:47:02 AM



  • Rational,

    Can you not see that you are quoting scholars from the 12th century onwards? 

    Now re read what I said:

    You have lost the debate on Jiziya and there is no way you could have won it. It is difficult for falsehood to prevail against truth. All that you can prove which is already admitted is that communal Mullahs from the 12th century tried to convert it into an instrument for heaping humiliation on the minorities or using it as an instrument for conversions but failed because the ruler continued to protect them as protecting the Jiziya stream of revenue was important to him and his administrators. The mullahs only succeeded in making the minorities resentful about jiziyah when earlier, they saw value in it and paid willingly. The fact therefore is  that in later centuries, Jiziya came to be resented, although it continued to play an effective role in protecting the minorities and their faith.
     

    By Observer - 2/18/2014 10:32:40 AM



  • Rafiq lodhia
    they thought this republican monk*** doesn't deserve any reply. i alone enough for you.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/18/2014 10:20:15 AM



  • dear secularlogic
    Only a jahil can decalre he has won the debate without getting any acknowledgment from other debaters.

    i suggest you a book on this topic "islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery" by MA khan.
    this book is freely downloadable has got many good reviews. you will not need any other book on this topic. i need not any lesson on this topic from anybody.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/18/2014 10:13:00 AM



  • dear secularlogic
    i am well aware about how Muslims make commotion when they loose the debate. Observer is no different. He showed his colour when he said Jiziah was mercy.
    who can win the blind followers?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/18/2014 9:53:50 AM



  • Observer

    …one must go on Jihad at least once a year… One may use a catapult against them when

    they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire on

    them and/or drown them.

    -- Imam al-Ghazzali, the second greatest scholar of Islam after Muhammad

    In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of

    the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by

    persuasion or by force.

    -- Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah, New York, p. 473

    Let me agree with you “Jiziah is not the article of faith” but read above quotes of towering figures of Islam. You stand nowhere before them.

    Then what is it? Let us start from the Quran:

    verse 9:29: ‘Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day, nor hold that

    forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth

    [Islam], (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews & Christians], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

    Anybody can see what is willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

    It is a command of Allah. Is there any hint, it is time specific? Have the ahle kitab statrted believinng in the Quiran asking them to believe?  Since they have not, it makes it universal not article of faith but command to fight.

    Lets us see how it was applied. This is most important.

    the Prophet wrote to Ayla tribe (October 630) Believe or else pay tribute [Jizyah]… Ye know the tribute. If ye desire security by sea and by land, obey Allah and his apostle... But if ye oppose and displease them, I will accept nothing from you until I have fought against you and taken captive your little ones and slain the elder; for I am the apostle of Allah in truth...

    Source: Muir, p. 402

    Now sunnah of the Prophet (valid because it varifies the quran)

    “It has been narrated by ‘Omar b. al-Khattab that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘I will

    expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim”

    Here is what second Caliph Omar al-Khattab wrote to the Iranian Sovereign, Yazdgerd III, demanding his submission or face destruction:

    To the Shah of the Fars, I do not foresee a good future for you and your nation save your

    acceptance of my terms and your submission to me. There was a time when your country ruled

    half the world, but see how now your sun has set. On all fronts your armies have been defeated

    and your nation is condemned to extinction. I point out to you the path whereby you might

    escape this fate. Namely, that you begin worshipping the one god, the unique deity, the only god

    who created all that is. I bring you his message. Order your nation to cease the false worship of

    fire and to join us, that they may join the truth.

    Worship Allah the creator of the world. Worship Allah and accept Islam as the path of salvation.

    End now your polytheistic ways and become Muslims that you may accept Allah-u-Akbar as

    your savior. This is the only way of securing your own survival and the peace of your Persians.

    You will do this if you know what is good for you and for your Persians. Submission is your

    only option.

    It is practiced by Muslims from the early days to this day. Is it a lie?

    How was it applied:

    The great Islamic commentator al-Zamakhshari (d. 1144)

    interprets the Quranic verse 9:29 on jizyah payment as thus:203

    ‘The jizyah shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. (The dhimmi) shall come

    in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax-collector sits. The

    collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him and say: ‘Pay the jizyah!’ and when

    he pays it, he shall be slapped on the nape of his neck.’

     

    The famous sixteenth-century Egyptian Sufi scholar ash-Sharani describes the ritual of jizyah payment in his

    The dhimmi, Christian or Jew, goes on a fixed day in person to the emir appointed to receive the

    poll-tax (jizyah). He sits on a high throne. The dhimmi appears before him, offering the toll-tax

    on his open palm. The emir takes it so that his hand is on top and the dhimmi’s below. Then the

    emir gives him a blow on the neck, and who stands, before the emir drives him roughly away…

    The public is admitted to see this show.’

    When Sultan Alauddin Khilji sought advice from learned scholar Qazi Mughisuddin regarding the collection of kharaj (land-tax), the Qazi prescribed a similar protocol, adding that ‘should the collector choose to spit into his mouth, he opens it. The purpose of this extreme humility on his part and the collector’s spitting into his mouth, is to show the extreme subservience incumbent on this class, the glory of Islam and the orthodox faith, and the degradation of the false religion (Hinduism)

    Similarly, Persian scholar Mulla Ahmad wrote

    to remind liberal and tolerant Sultan Zainul Abedin of Kashmir (1417–67) that ‘the main object of levying the jizyah on them is their humiliation… God established jizyah for their dishonor. The object is their humiliation and (the establishment of) the prestige and dignity of the Muslims.

     

    The spread of Islam was military. There is a tendency to apologize for this and we should

    not. It is one of the injunctions of the Quran that you must fight for spreading of Islam.

    -- Dr Ali Issa Othman, Islamic scholar, Palestinian sociologist and advisor to the United

    Nations Relief and Works Agency on education, The Muslim Mind, p. 94

     

    Examples are overwhelming to proove it was submission with humulitation.  Muslims were ruthless for non-Muslims.

    Muslims practiced it because:

    1.        It is a command of Allah for a good cause. Good cause is spread of Islam which according to Muslims is only Truth. Who can deny it? Peacful Dawa is a dception and to be practiced when weak.

    2.        To generate revenue to run Islamic state, lure the people into faith and some time bribe them, purchase of weapons.

    3.        Increase the Muslim poulation to change the demography.

    4.        Capture of natural resources of the country.

    5.        Radicallization of converts. Once converted people become the enemies if their own culture and religion. History is full of examples when converts became the jealot jehadi fighters.

    6.        Unlimited supply of sex slaves to satisfy the sexual hunger of the faithful. People were enslaved, castrated and kept under inhuman conditions.

    Slavery including sexual slavery, Jiziah, captives with submission is the hallmark of islam.

     

    Muslims were not inolved in social upliftment of the public.

    Time changed. Slavery became unlawful under international pressure created by non-Muslims(ville creatures) , but those who are capable engaged in slavery molded to present time. Purchase, marriages for short time following divorce is practiced by wealthy Muslims. 

     

    If  somebody declare “Accept Hinduism/Chrisatianity or pay the tax to save your religion in the manner Muslims used to extort”  How many Muslims will believe it is the mercy to Muslims because it gives them the chance to save the lives? When Muslims demand ban, killing, and demand implemntation of Sharia(which is important for Devbandis and Sufis equally) even as minority, one can imagine what will happen when they achieve majority. Majority Muslim countries are example what will happen to non-Muslims.

    Observer you can keep defending your faith, it is your right in democratic society.  In Islamic society one has to pay the discriminatory tax to save their religions and lives. They can’t speak against injustice because it is not injustice in the eyes of Muslims save few deviants influenced by non-Muslims.

    The commands of the Quran, Sunnah of the prophet, Suunah of his rightly guided Caliphs and Muslim kings, Ulema makes the complete picture that shows without doubt Islam was not mercy to mankind no matter how you wash and poilsh it.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/18/2014 9:50:01 AM



  • My "friends" don't need me at all. They are vastly superior to me in knowledge, debating skills and perseverence. Nor am I restarting or entering the debate. The conclusions you have drawn from that debate and are presenting to the world again and again long after the debate is over (pls recall that you are the one who is trumpeting your own version of that debate repeatedly, whether there is reason to or not. What was the reason to make the comment to rational that I have copy pasted below? What was the ocassion, the thread, the provocation? None. You are the one who mentions it, and you and the great general GM accuse me of restarting the debate? Rest assured, I have no wish to debate with you. My wikied information was for other readers to help them arrive at their own conclusions, after reading your firman on the subject.

    You can gloat in your delusions, but others deserve to know  what was the reality.

    By secularlogic - 2/18/2014 5:10:49 AM



  • Don't you agree Secular Logic that only a loser will argue after the debate is over? What were you doing when your friends needed you most?


    By Observer - 2/18/2014 5:00:07 AM



  • In which case, you and your minion have lost it long ago when you labelled me "Sanghi", labelled Rational "apostate" and labelled Hats off and all of us "enemy of Islam". Not to forget labelling people as well as inanimate websites "islamophobic". If that is not namecalling, what is?

    In any case, Aurangzeb is an honorific. I am acknowledging your regal and authoritative mien, your proclivity to be advocate, jury and judge in true monarchial style, your absolute belief in your own ideas, your utter faith that Islam can never be wrong. Your stylised contempt for adversaries, your exquisite use of words that can momentarily confuse (auranzeb was a poet with a felicity for words, I believe)The whole virtual persona brings to mind none other than the great Aurangzeb. You should feel honoured. I have lost no debate. Jizya was a horrible extortionary, discriminatory tax meant to humiliate the non-believer, and anybody who says it was a benign invention to protect non-muslims has to be out of his mind. 

    By secularlogic - 2/18/2014 4:48:51 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    You have lost this simple exchange too by name calling which is never a substitute for a good argument. Poor loser!

    By Observer - 2/18/2014 4:38:57 AM



  • Aurangzeb,

    To declare oneself the victor of an argument is easy. The test of victory is in whether other people have bought your theory.

    I havn't, Rational hasn't, Hats off hasn't, and even your minion hasn't. he continues to say it is antiquated and rebukes me for mentioning it. He has no guts to take you on, though.

    Sometimes, a person may stop arguing out of sheer fatigue. This most often happens when one argues with a person who is not quite sane. That is why I am at pains to keep a distance from you. Until you become unbearable.


    By secularlogic - 2/18/2014 4:23:32 AM



  • Aurangzeb, sanity is your weak point
    By secularlogic - 2/18/2014 4:18:03 AM



  • Rational,

    You have lost the debate on Jiziya and there is no way you could have won it. It is difficult for falsehood to prevail against truth. All that you can prove which is already admitted is that communal Mullahs from the 12th century tried to convert it into an instrument for heaping humiliation on the minorities or using it as an instrument for conversions but failed because the ruler continued to protect them as protecting the Jiziya stream of revenue was important to him and his administrators. The mullahs only succeeded in making the minorities resentful about jiziyah when earlier, they saw value in it and paid willingly. The fact therefore is  that in later centuries, Jiziya came to be resented, although it continued to play an effective role in protecting the minorities and their faith.
     
    If you wish to know what brought on the wholesale copy paste, it is this comment by aurangzeb that I have again copy pasted above.
     
    Not only does he,with a wave of his regal hand, dismiss all the proof and argument that other people have presented, he also insists his version of events, motives, willing and unwilling sumission are historically correct. He also then morphs into the judge of the outcome of a lengthy debate and goes into trumpeting mode. It is enough to get the goat of the most determined non-participating member of the audience. People are likely to believe him. And god forbid, if fifty years hence people of this faith do over-run the universe, we may well have fiscal authorities contemplating a reintroduction of this benevolent tax on the few that remain outside the faith. That is the scary part of people like aurangzeb who defend the indefensible.

    By secularlogic - 2/18/2014 4:15:31 AM



  • Secular Logic,  

    Backing off in haste after a debate with over 300 comments in which the other side retired? What were you doing when as you say the debate was going on and on? Why were you hiding then if you had anything to say? Were you scared that you would again tie yourself with illogical arguments and not be able to extricate yourself like last time? I guess your memory of your previous experience put the fear in you.

     Did I declare victory or was defeat conceded? What does “the debate over jizia is not over” by Rational mean if he thought that he had won it? Logic is however Secular Logic’s weak point. 


    By Observer - 2/18/2014 4:09:44 AM



  • calling Jizya antiquated (rightly so) and backing off in haste and mewing like a submissive cat on being rebuked by Aurangzeb is an act of sheer cowardice.

    In any case, I have apologised and explained my reasons for doing something I do only under extreme circumstances. The record on Jizya had to be set right.

    I did not notice mr Ghulam Mohiyuddin telling aurangzeb to shut up when he was going on and on and on with his defense of Jizya as being the best thing to happen to non Muslims in protection of their religion.

    It was extortion money that Muslims extracted from non-Muslims. It is stupid to bear a grudge for that 200 years hence, but it is equally stupid to try and deny its nature and intent.

    I hope you have read the copy pasted material carefully. Or were you so happy I was back and at last there was an enemy of Islam to confront after two days that you just leapt at me in fierce joy?


    By secularlogic - 2/18/2014 3:53:01 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    The debate is over and all that had to be said on the subject already said and discussed. You didn't dare to join it then  and are now just downloading stuff that is already discussed including Akber and Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb has been criticised for what he did and also Razi etc for their narrow views.

    The early history of Islam, the views of historians on the subject etc have been discussed. Wikipedia has also been cited.

    Now you can carry on the debate with yourself or read the approximately 300 comments on the subject to get the full picture. I am sure, you considered that the debate was well represented by Suhail, Hats Off and Rational and therefore kept out. 


    By Observer - 2/18/2014 2:46:30 AM



  • Copypasting whole pages on a passe topic like Jaziya by a sanghi pracharak is sheer  effrontery.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/18/2014 2:20:11 AM



  • Jizya was extortion money. Period. Pay, or convert, or die. These were the only three options. No amount of justification works to whitewash it, and the argument that jizya protected non-muslims is the same as saying extortionists like Dawood protect the person who is made to pay at gunpoint.

    Sorry for flooding the pages of NAI with wikipedia copy pasted stuff. It was necessary in order to counter the lies being spread by a unique debator who, being a debating party as well as the judge of the outcome, invariably always declares that he has won a debate.

    People may read the details provided by wiki and judge for themselves. Of course, there is always the possibility that wiki has been taken over by islamophobes.

    By secularlogic - 2/18/2014 2:08:46 AM



  • Mughal Empire[edit]

    The Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb performing salat prayer, introduced the jizya through the Fatawa-e-Alamgiri.

    In India, Islamic rulers imposed jizya starting in the 11th century. It was abolished by Akbar. However, Aurangzeb, the sixth prominent Mughal Emperor, levied jizya on his mostly Hindu subjects in 1679.[109] Reasons for this are cited to be financial stringency and personal inclination on the part of the emperor, and a petition by the ulema. His subjects were taxed in accordance with the property they owned. Government servants were exempt, as were the blind, the paralysed, and the indigent. Its introduction encountered much opposition, which was, however, overborne.[98] Certain historians are of the view that the tax was aimed at forcibly converting Hindus to Islam.[110]


    By secularlogic - 2/18/2014 2:03:39 AM



  • Punishment for failure to pay taxes[edit]

    According to Abu Yusuf, jurist of Harun al-Rashid, those who didn't pay jizya should be imprisoned not to be let out of custody until payment.[74] Though it was an annual tax, non-Muslims were allowed to pay it in monthly installments.[12] If someone had agreed to pay jizya, leaving Muslim territory for non-Muslim land was, in theory, punishable by enslavement if they were ever captured. This punishment did not apply if the person had suffered injustices from Muslims.[75]

    In practice, non-payment of jizya tax, or the associated Kharaj tax, by any non-Muslim subject in a Muslim state was punished by his family's arrest and enslavement.[76][77][78] The women and girls of an enslaved family would become property of a Muslim master and serve as houseworkers and female sex slaves (raqiq or baghiya).[79][80] A non-Muslim could avoid arrest or stop paying the jizya tax any time by converting to Islam as it was a punishment for not accepting Islam, and he was constantly reminded of this.[81] In some regions of Islamic rule, the Sultans faced rebellion and the non-Muslim masses refused to convert to Islam or pay jizya.[82] Militant opposition erupted to Islamic punishment for refusal to pay discriminatory jizya taxes, such as in India, Spain and Morocco.[58][83][84] In some cases, this led to its periodic abolishment such as the 1704 AD suspension of jizya in Deccan region of India by Aurangzeb.[85]

    Use of jizya tax[edit]

    Jizya was used to build mosques, buy freedom for Muslim prisoners of war in non-Muslim states, fund Islamic charities meant to help Muslims, fund enlargement of armies, and pay for the wars of expansion.[86][87][88] Non-Muslims and slaves owned by Muslims had no right to expenditures or grants from any collected jizya and other taxes.[89] Jizya and associated taxes also ended up in "private" treasuries.[4]


    By secularlogic - 2/18/2014 2:01:17 AM



  • Application[edit]

    As Muslim army commanders expanded their empire and attacked countries in Asia, Africa and southern Europe, they would offer three conditions to their enemies: convert to Islam, or pay jizyah (tax) every year, or face war to death. Those who refused war and refused to convert were deemed to have agreed to pay jizya.[46][47]

    Source of jizya tax[edit]

    In early periods of Islam, jizya was applied to every free adult male non-Muslim. Slaves, women, children, the old, the sick,[2] monks, hermits and the poor,[3] were all exempt from the tax, unless any of them was independent and wealthy. However, these exemptions were no longer observed during later periods in Muslim history, and discarded entirely by the Shāfi‘ī School of Law, which prevailed in Egypt, also in theory.[48]

    Though jizya was mandated initially for People of the Book, that is other monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Sabians), under the Maliki school of Fiqh jizya was extended to all non-Muslims.[49] Thus some Muslim rulers collected jizya from Hindus and Sikhs under their rule.[50]

    Jizya tax had to be paid by each non-Muslim male in person, by presenting himself, arriving on foot not horseback, by hand, in order to confirm that he lowers himself to being a subjected one, accepts humiliation of having been conquered, willingly pays in gratitude for his life being spared in lieu of the taxes.[51][52]

    Rate of jizya tax[edit]

    Yusuf claims there was no amount permanently fixed for the tax, though the payment usually depended on wealth: the Kitab al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf sets the amounts at 48 dirhams for the richest (e.g. moneychangers), 24 for those of moderate wealth, and 12 for craftsmen and manual laborers.[12][53]

    Other scholars[54][55][56] claim the tax rates and amounts were fixed and strictly implemented. The rate of jizya and Kharaj tax, head tax and land tax respectively, exceeded 20% for all non-Muslims, and payable by new moon. In the western Islamic states, for dhimmis who were Christians and Jews of Egypt and Morocco, these taxes were often graded into three levels with minimum rate being 20% of all estimated assets and any sales.[57] The highest rates ranged from 33% to 80% of all annual farm produce on land inside the Islamic empire.[58] In the eastern Islamic states, for dhimmis who were Hindus and Jains, the tax structure were similar, with non-Muslims paying jizya and Kharaj tax rate at least twice the zakat tax rate paid by Muslims. The discriminatory and high tax rates led to mass civil protests of 1679 in India, these protests were crushed by Aurangzeb.[50][59]

    In return for the tax, those who paid the jizya were permitted to keep their religion, practice it in private without offending Muslims, but were not allowed to build new Churches, Synagogues or Temples.[60][61] They were considered to be under the protection of the Muslim state, subject to their meeting certain conditions.[57][62]

    Associated taxes with jizya[edit]

    Along with jizya as head tax (sometimes called neck tax), non-Muslims were also required to pay Kharaj as land tax. This was levied on anyone who worked on land or owned property on land. Both jizya and kharaj were not payable by Muslims or if the non-Muslim converted to Islam.[57][63][64]

    Other taxes payable, by or from the property of non-Muslim subjects, along with jizya were fai, ghanima and ushur. Fai (sometimes spelled fay) was non-Muslim property seized by a Muslim official; the non-Muslim was sometimes allowed to reclaim the seized property by paying 100% of assessed value of the seized property.[65][66] Ghanima was the 20% tax paid by the Muslim army commander on the booty and plunder collected from non-Muslims by force (anwatan) after a war or after the commander launched a raid against non-Muslim trade posts, temples, or caravans. The commander and his Muslim soldiers were entitled to keep 80% of the booty.[67][68] Ushur (sometimes spelled ushr) was customs tax payable when people entered or exited the borders of an Islamic state. Non-Muslims paid twice the rate than Muslims on assessed value of property in possession of the transiting person. This was in addition to the jizya.[69][70]

    Jizya and other associated taxes were payable by sedentary non-Muslim populations. Sadaqa was a tax levied on nomadic people, instead of jizya.[71][72] There is some controversy is sadaqa was mandatory or voluntary.[73]


    By secularlogic - 2/18/2014 1:59:41 AM



  • Islamic Law[edit]

    Many scholars believe jizya is sanctioned by the Qur'an, the primary source of Islamic law, based on the following verse:

    Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden 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 jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

    Qur'an[Quran 9:29]

    Since the verse does not define what jizya means, hadith texts that are needed to provide the definition. Not all scholar agree on the exact definition, most notably the Quranist scholars as they generally avoid hadith-inspired interpretation of the Qur'an.

    Hadith sources[edit]

    Jizya is mentioned a number of times in the hadith. Common themes across multiple hadith (and often multiple collections of hadith) include Muhammad ordering his military commanders to fight non-Muslims who aggressed against the Muslims, until they accepted Islam or paid the jizya, Muhammad and a number of caliphs imposing jizya on non-Muslim residents of Islamic lands, and the eventual abolition of jizya by Jesus' Second Coming.[14]

    Sahih Bukhari[edit]

    • Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 23, Number 475 states 'Umar's concern for the well-being of dhimmis on his deathbed (after he was stabbed by a dhimmi). 'Umar commanded his would-be successor to "abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis (protectees) of Allah and His Apostle, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax (overburden) them beyond their capabilities".[15][16]
    • Volume 2, Book 24, Number 559 states that the King of Aila wrote to Muhammad that his people agreed to pay the jizya tax in return for being allowed to stay in their place.[17]
    • Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425 states that Jesus will abolish the jizya, as does Volume 4, Book 55, Number 657.[18][19]
    • Volume 4, Book 53, Number 384 states that Umar did not take the jizya from the "Magian infidels" (Zoroastrians) until he heard testimony that Muhammad had taken the jizya from the Magians of Hajar.[20]
    • Volume 4, Book 53, Number 385 states that Muhammad collected jizya from the people of Bahrain, as do Volume 5, Book 59, Number 351 and Volume 8, Book 76, Number 433.[21][22][23]
    • Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386 states that Muhammad commanded Al-Mughira and his army to fight non-Muslims until they worshiped Allah alone or gave jizya.[24]
    • Volume 4, Book 53, Number 404 has Muhammad stating that one day Allah will make the dhimmis "so daring that they will refuse to pay the jizya they will be supposed to pay".[25]
    • Volume 9, Book 83, Number 49 reports that Muhammad said: "Whoever killed a Mu'ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling)",[26]

    Sahih Muslim[edit]

    • Sahih Muslim Book 1, Numbers 287 and 289 state that the "son of Mary" will "descend as a just judge" and, among other things, abolish the jizya.[27][28]
    • Book 19, Number 4294 states that Muhammad commanded his military leaders to demand jizya from non-Muslims if they refused to accept Islam, and to fight them if they refused to pay.[29]
    • Book 32, Number 6328 states that Hisham b. Hakim b. Hizam passed by Syrian farmers who had been detained for jizya and made to stand in the sun, and Number 6330 states that he came by some Nabateans who had been detained "in connection with the dues of jizya". In both cases his response was to quote Muhammad as saying "Allah would torment those persons who torment people in the world." [30][31]
    • Book 42, Number 7065 states that that Muhammad collected jizya from the people of Bahrain.[32]

    Sunan Abu-Dawud[edit]

    • Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 19, Number 2955 has Umar ibn al-Khattab stating that he provided protection for non-Muslims by levying jizya on them, and neither took one-fifth from it, nor took it as booty.[33]
    • Book 19, Number 3031 states that Muhammad captured Ukaydir, the Christian prince of Dumah, and spared his life and made peace with him on the condition that he paid jizya.[34]
    • Book 37, Number 4310 states that Jesus will come again, and at that time will (among other things) abolish jizya, as Allah will "perish all religions except Islam".[35]

    Al-Muwatta[edit]

    • Al-Muwatta of Malik Book 17, Number 17.24.42 states that Muhammad collected jizya from the "Magians" (Zoroastrians) of Bahrain, Umar ibn al-Khattab from Magians of Persia, and Uthman ibn Affan from the Berbers.[36]
    • Book 17, Number 17.24.44 states that Umar ibn al-Khattab imposed a jizya tax of four dinars on those living where gold was the currency, and forty dirhams on those living where silver was the currency. As well, they had to "provide for the Muslims and receive them as guests for three days".[37]
    • Book 17, Number 17.24.45 states that Umar ibn al-Khattab took a camel branded as jizya (not zakat) and ordered for it to be slaughtered, the meat placed on platters with fruits and delicacies, and distributed to the wives of Muhammad. He then had the remainder prepared and invited the Muhajirun and the Ansar to eat it. Malik stated regarding this "I do not think that livestock should be taken from people who pay the jizya except as jizya." [38]
    • Book 17, Number 17.24.46 states that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz relieved those who converted to Islam from paying jizya. It also gives the sunnah on those who must pay jizya, principally non-Muslim males who have reached puberty, rather than zakat, as zakat is for the purpose of purifying Muslims, whereas jizya is for the purpose of humbling non-Muslims. It also outlines the additional tithe or 'ushr travelling traders must pay, and the rationale for that.[39]

    By secularlogic - 2/18/2014 1:58:01 AM



  • Rationale[edit]

    There were two main legal rationales for jizya: the Communalist and Universalist. The former believed that jizya was a fee in exchange for the dhimma (permission to practice one's faith, enjoy communal autonomy, and to be entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression[5]). The latter, however, assumed that such rights were every person's birthright (Muslim or non-Muslim), and the imposition of jizya on non-Muslims similar to the imposition of Zakat on Muslims.[12] For a comparison between them; refer to this section.

    And al-Razi says in his interpretation of the quranic verse(9:29) in which the jizya was enacted:

    The intention of taking the jizya is not to approve the disbelief of non-Muslims in Islam, but rather to spare their lives and to give them some time; in hope that during it; they might stop to reflect on the virtues of Islam and its compelling arguments, and consequently converting from disbelief to belief. That's why it's important to pay the jizya with humiliation and servility, because naturally, any sensible person can not stand humiliation and servility. So if the disbeliever is given some time watching the pride of Islam and hearing evidences of its authenticity, and see the humiliation of the disbelief, then apparently this might carry him to convert to Islam, and that's the main rationale behind the enactment of the jizya.[13]

    Many Muslim rulers saw jizya as a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of the authority of the Islamic state.[4]


    By secularlogic - 2/18/2014 1:57:02 AM



  • Sowing dissensions is a trick used by vamps mostly. 

    He tried starting another debate asking me to comment on a number of verses he quoted on the subject of intercession. He wanted to attack the Barelvis. When I avoided commenting, he threatened to call me names!

    Did he say he was a lamb? He relentlessly attacked another commentator for his views on the nature of the universe with another two of his pack. The hyenas and the wolves attack in packs. A flock of even a thousand goats or lambs never attack anything. So isn't he a wolf or hyena now bleating like a lamb? And what has made this wolf to bleat like a lamb?!

    By Observer - 2/18/2014 12:04:34 AM



  • Rational,

    You said , "your common sense crumbled the moment you were hit by observer."

    If sowing dissension among others is the only trick left with you, you may as well  retire. Such tricks are used by villains in movies.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/17/2014 11:52:40 PM



  • Rational,

    You have lost the debate on Jiziya and there is no way you could have won it. It is difficult for falsehood to prevail against truth. All that you can prove which is already admitted is that communal Mullahs from the 12th century tried to convert it into an instrument for heaping humiliation on the minorities or using it as an instrument for conversions but failed because the ruler continued to protect them as protecting the Jiziya stream of revenue was important to him and his administrators. The mullahs only succeeded in making the minorities resentful about jiziyah when earlier, they saw value in it and paid willingly. The fact therefore is  that in later centuries, Jiziya came to be resented, although it continued to play an effective role in protecting the minorities and their faith.


    By Observer - 2/17/2014 11:42:40 PM



  • Good Morning Pseudo Rational,

     

    Your buddies have not been able to give me any answers as of yet. I asked them “What Is Insaaniyat?” Do you have any idea? Courageous folks don’t run away.

     

    Arey Bato Ke Hum Badshaah
    Baatein Karein Mahaan

    Yehi Humara Dharam Karam
    Ab Yehi Humari Shan

    Baatein Karein Mahaan

    Arey Kaam Ke Naam Pe
    Kaam Ke Naam Pe
    Bhai Dabba Gul Bhai Dabba Gul


    Fir Kaise Ho Kalyaan

    Yehi Toh Mara Gaya Hindustan
    Yehi Toh Mara Gaya Hindustan

     

    By the way tell your friends that “Cowboys work is never done. We don’t retire.  We wither away.” Yes, with all the jibber jabber that somehow does not make any sense at all, it will be crazy on my part to hang on to read your weird comments. Life is way too short, Pseudo.    

     

    Have a pleasant day and try to stand in front of the mirror and ask yourself who you are? Guess what, your good name is still “Mohammed” isn’t it? Aren’t you proud that you still continue to hang on to your name? Deep down inside you simply cannot stop being a “Muslim.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia    


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/17/2014 10:23:08 PM



  • Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/17/2014 12:38:50 AM
    it may be wrong for few but true for you.
    only you deserve:
    tum to kahte they naa aaoge kabhi,
    thook kar chaatna tum se koi seekhe.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/17/2014 9:41:21 PM



  • mr ghulam m. yes i think i am on the ground. if you can't see, it is your problem not mine.
    your common sense crumbled the moment you were hit by observer. you recoiled and you saw fsad in my comments.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/17/2014 9:33:37 PM



  • Observer - 2/17/2014 3:33:43 AM
    you keep searching lies in my comments. i don't lick back my spittle. remember when you were routed by one Mr Sadaf. then you came with a new name.
    some instances came momentarily i thought i should leave, but i didn't. i am not a blind follower, nor i make a party. i can write to expose shortcoming in Sultan Saheb's and your articles and comments.
    the debate over jizia is not over. i have piles of Islamic example to refute your claim jizia was a mercy for dhimmi.
    i strongly condemn this view. if you think i am useful idiot, you are wrong. i revere nothing hence no defense i am rendering to holy books. if you think you can drive me away by creating such commotion, forget it. these moments came in past and will continue to come. i am committed to say wrong is wrong whether it is in the Quran, Veda or Bible. 
    i think no icon no matter how gigantic is he, is above criticism. if you call it insult it is your right to say. why reform don't take place? because some beliefs, books, and  people have become the obstacles. i will write when this commotion will come to end and you will come out of your stupid laughter. 

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/17/2014 9:25:43 PM



  • WHO WILL RESPOND TO A COMMENTATOR WHO WROTE THAT “ISLAM IS THE

    PROBLEM”?

     

    Only cowards and low life scum commit violent acts like this, anonymously, in the dark of night, like sneak thieves.


    If Halal meat is simply the act of cutting the animal's throat, with a single stroke so it dies fast, then I don't have a problem with that. Animals and people don't die easy, the will to live is strong. I know. I hunt. But that certainly doesn't stop me from killing and eating animals, it just forces me to shoot true. Anyone who complains about this and eats meat is

    a hypocrite!

     

    Having said that, I understand why someone might attack Muslims! When you consider the fact that they are trying to impose Sharia law, practice taqiyya and understand that the agenda of all believers in Islam, is to want a world-wide Caliphate and if you won't bow down and join their group, they'll lop your head off and also the fact that none of them, or at least most of them don't speak out against the atrocities already committed in the name of their so-called religion and are being committed, causes me to lump them all in it together.

    Looking at the reality of how far this agenda has already advanced in Europe and other western and non-western countries, and what has been happening right here in Canada, these actions as deplorable as they are, are not surprising!

     

    To hell with political correctness, diversity, inclusion, tolerance and all the rest of those weasel words, we need to do something about the Islam problem in Canada, now!

     

    Christianity is not the problem.

    Buddhism is not the problem.

    Judaism is not the problem.

    The 4200 or so other world religions are not the problem, probably.

    Islam is the problem!


    Quebec halal meat shop vandalized, shot at 

    sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/02/20140214-143021.html  


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/17/2014 8:18:41 PM



  • Rational, - -

    You say, "whenever Muslims loose ground ...."

    Are you sure it is not you who has lost ground? In fact you have been shown to be a whiner and a distorter.

    You say, "so many wolfs chasing a sheep." - -

    Since when have you become a sheep? Apostates on an Islamic site are more like snakes.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/17/2014 1:43:40 PM



  • Another lie Rational! I have made clear my preference for going it alone even to you when I knew that in the debate, you were more aligned to my view point. I thanked you for showing restraint and keeping out of it. When you are in the right and have no doubts in your capability to represent the truth, you don't need numbers on your side even when facing several people. Others when they jump in, only provide escape to the party under pressure. The last time also, the two of you had been reduced to blubbering nonsense when relief came to you through a digression. This time also, you will escape because of the relief that the digression provides you. 

    As far as ganging up is concerned, we are witness to which five gang up, support and  encourage each other


    By Observer - 2/17/2014 3:33:43 AM



  • so many wolfs chasing a sheep. perfect example of Islamic gundagardi. why because some of them got exposed.
    jab dalayal pad jate hain kamzor
    aasman ko cheekhon par utha lete hain


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/17/2014 3:03:38 AM



  • whenever Muslims loose ground they make such commotion. what else they can do? this is worldwide phenomenon. this is why they need so many mouths to shout Islam is religion of peace. 

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/17/2014 2:58:34 AM



  • Lodhia Sb,

    People like Rational are useful. They provide proof that it is not possible to malign Islam except through falsehood. So let them be.

    Allah opens the heart of some to Islam and closes that of some. By engaging with such people, we gain insight into the laws of 'hidayat'. We can observe  what kind of moral choices these people make under normal circumstances and when under pressure. What we have seen is that apart from  relying on falsehood to achieve their objectives, Rational also seeks discord, instigates people against one another, starts controversies and carries on personal vendetta. His targeting of one commentator for his views on the nature of the universe was nothing but personal vendetta of the lowest kind.   

    They can do no harm either to the website or Islam or to anyone of us personally. So relax and  go easy on them. Allow them to entangle themselves in their own webs of deception. Just watch them struggle from the sidelines.



    By Observer - 2/17/2014 2:24:25 AM



  • Mr. S. Jeelani, Secular Logic, Khalid Suhail & Pseudo Rational,

     

    WHAT IS INSAANIYAT?

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bOe9RBHROI

     

    We the “Moderate Muslims” are all ears. Forget about the “Ruthless Terrorists,we are more so interested in how will all four of you answer the question.  

     

    Everyone got scared of Clint Eastwood. Now listen to Nana Patekar and tell us about what to do with the fundamentalists on both sides, that is, the Jihadists as well as Hindutvas.

     

    Try not to pin down everything against Islam. If all religions are at fault, then shed some light on other religions that also helped trigger communal violence in India. Be honest, please!   

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/17/2014 2:16:00 AM



  • Naseer Ahmed Saheb,

     

    I wholeheartedly agree that Pseudo is now losing ground. You must think whether the man has enough intelligence to read what you are trying to convey to him! I seriously doubt it. In fact, I sensed it a long time back.

     

    Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb,

     

    You said it right, but I would say like this, “hey are  fanatic Muslims just as you are a roaring Bigot.”

     

    My fellow “Moderate Muslims, do not be surprised if the real Godfather “Secular Logic” bounce back in action, let alone Mr. S. Jeelani.  

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/17/2014 12:59:53 AM



  • Rational,

    You say, "some are confused what to reform. some says Islam needs no reform. some says Islam has to be reformed."

    Why is that a problem? Moderates spurn extremism, intolerance, violence and coercion, but they may have different opinions on several other issues.

    You say, "how you are different than those who forced Penguin to withdraw the book on Alternative History of Hindus?"

    Those who ask for book bans are not moderate Muslims. They are  fanatic Muslims just as you are a fanatic apostate.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/17/2014 12:45:38 AM



  • Since the weak minded Rational is incapable of understanding anything and is also a motivated distorter of the truth let me summarize the discussion on Jiziya.

    Jiziya is not an article of faith in Islam - guaranteeing the protection of minorities and their freedom to practice their religion is. That is what the term dhimmi means. Islam achieved this through the institution of Jiziya which made protection of the minorities the top priority of the ruler. The historians have recorded that the ruler showed no enthusiasm for conversions and this is explained by his concern for protecting the Jiziya stream of revenue which carried no restrictions on how the money could be utilized whereas zakat had conditions.  All minorities flourished in Islamic countries whereas they disappeared in every other non-Islamic country or survived in small numbers despite severe persecution. Historians have also recorded that Jews migrated in large numbers from Christian countries into Islamic countries.

    Jiziya was abolished not only by Akber but also by the Ottoman Empire once a stage was reached when people got integrated and showed allegiance to their state and also rendered military service. Even earlier, a Christian tribe offered to pay zakat and render military service and this was accepted. When war conditions returned (WWI), the Jews were prepared to pay heavy taxes to escape conscription. Jiziya was therefore earlier willingly paid as exemption from military service was considered a very valuable exemption besides the gurantee of protection that was provided which was faithfully implemented.

    The position today in Islamic countries is that while Jiziya was abolished and social and political structures changed during the colonial period, the protection of minorities has become a serious issue in the post-colonial period. Irrespective of whether there is Jiziya or not, protection of minorities is an article of faith in Islam. However, what is moral is not being practiced without the structural support that Jiziya provided earlier. This puts in relief, the role played by Jiziya earlier in ensuring the protection of the minorities.

    The demand of political Islam to return to a system based on Shariat and introducing zakat and Jiziya is not based on moral considerations. They are motivated by the 12th century communal Mullah’s view of Jiziya as a tool for heaping humiliation on the minorities.

     

    The above is merely a summary of what I have already said. It is easy for anyone to see that those who have been arguing on the opposite side have no concern for the minorities but are only motivated by their hate for Islam and desire to malign Islam. Rational is now engaged in a personal attack having failed on the ideological debate.

    “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it.” Voltaire



    By Observer - 2/17/2014 12:44:09 AM



  • To: Sultan Shahin, Editor –  New Age Islam

     

    Nothing to shout about, however, I thought to pass along a one-liner from your commentator as follows:

     

    aql ke mare yeh kiya karne lage

     

    That’s quite a gem the man brings along every single day. What he is basically saying is that, we the “Moderate Muslims” are all “Stupid. Isn’t it?

     

    How about pondering and reflecting upon these commandments of “Editorial Integrity”?  

      

    Thou shalt do the right thing. Cover your beat and report the news without fear or favor. This means being fair, honest, open, and careful to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest. Nobody likes or trusts a liar or a faker.

     

    Thou shalt set a good example. Ultimately, editorial integrity is people, not policies. The best magazines don’t just talk about integrity; they live it. This means you.

     

    Thou shalt edit from the heart. Editors know integrity when they see it. They also know a bad or biased or incomplete story that has a private agenda. When in doubt, the golden rule applies: edit for others as you would have them edit for you.

     

    Sultan Saheb, you are the best judge to figure out what goes on the “New Age Islam” forum? One of these days there is bound to many unhappy readers. You can count me as one, as I am now beginning to feel that the “Freedom of Speech” is being taken full advantage of by few brilliant commentators who are nothing but bigots, period.

     

    Very truly yours,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia     


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/17/2014 12:38:50 AM



  • To: Sultan Shahin, Editor –  New Age Islam

     

    Nothing to shout about, however, I thought to pass along a one-liner from your commentator as follows:

     

    aql ke mare yeh kiya karne lage

     

    That’s quite a gem the man brings along every single day. What he is basically saying is that, we the “Moderate Muslims” are all “Stupid. Isn’t it?

     

    How about pondering and reflecting upon these commandments of “Editorial Integrity”?  

      

    Thou shalt do the right thing. Cover your beat and report the news without fear or favor. This means being fair, honest, open, and careful to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest. Nobody likes or trusts a liar or a faker.

    Thou shalt set a good example. Ultimately, editorial integrity is people, not policies. The best magazines don’t just talk about integrity; they live it. This means you.

    Thou shalt edit from the heart. Editors know integrity when they see it. They also know a bad or biased or incomplete story that has a private agenda. When in doubt, the golden rule applies: edit for others as you would have them edit for you.

    Sultan Saheb, you are the best judge to figure out what goes on the “New Age Islam” forum? One of these days there is bound to many unhappy readers. You can count me as one, as I am now beginning to feel that the “Freedom of Speech” is being taken full advantage of by few brilliant commentators who are nothing but bigots, period.

     

    Very truly yours,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia     


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/17/2014 12:36:44 AM



  • Hello! NewAgeIslam moderates (only those are busy in generating commotion)
    how you are different than those who forced Penguin to withdraw the book on Alternative History of Hindus?
    the difference is they made it on real ground you all on virtual ground. had been that book on Islamic History Muslims would have done similar thing plus some murder or injury to writer or publisher or book suppliers. it has happend in the past and can happen in future.
    can anybody forget Rajpal, Shradhanand Salman, Tasleema etc what Muslims did and want to do?
    apne chehre dekh kar khass log
    Aiynee ko hi bura kahne lage
    kaisa yeh shor hai kaisa yeh maatam
    aql ke mare yeh kiya karne lage

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/17/2014 12:18:09 AM



  • dear hats off
    enjoy how learned men (One learned man is harder on the devil than a thousand ignorant worshippers) including from abroad are jumping dancing screeching for ban.
    this is exactly what happen when some event happens in the world which is considered an insult by Muslims. 
    these learned men are not different than those who run riots and demand the ban on books.
    mr lodhia is foaming at mouth because Rational is not banned. Gundagardi hai srasar.
    they are exposed what belief they have in their hearts. for some Mushrikeens are nejus, for some jizia was a rahmat. for some keeping captives was perfectly Islamic. it was to save the women.
    sharm ayegi bhi kaise, buri baat ko nek samajh rahe hain.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/17/2014 12:00:13 AM



  • [Deleted as offensive]
    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/16/2014 11:43:58 PM



  • To:  Sultan Shahin, Editor of the “New Age Islam” forum.

     

    Do you recall your own verdict as follows:

     

    Rational Saheb is not being banned. He is welcome to mine his favourite Islamophobic websites and bring some more gems. I must add that I am not just being facetious.

     

    Islamophobes too sometimes make some points that, I believe, we Muslims must ponder over. 

     

    Great! Let the man run the show as he has been duly authorized to do so. My question to you is, “What sort of gems is he bringing on, Sultan Saheb?”

     

    Your guess is as good as mine!

     

    Very sincerely yours,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/16/2014 10:04:20 PM



  • Good Morning Naseer Ahmed Saheb,

    How would you like to wake up in the morning to read the following comments:

    sharm tumko magar nahi aati
    baukhla gaye hain.

    Remember, your wrote, “This is the  democratic way of dealing with those who malign. I do not advocate their being banned  nor the way Mr Lodhia tried to deal with the menace.”

    Well, I am not sure why would you consider the rebuttals from a few brilliant commentators as “Menace”? Simply ignore them and do not answer. Isn’t that what Mr. S. Jeelani has advised his colleagues? Of course, if you want to feel good about yourself then you can continue to answer Pseudo Rational. No one can stop you, but bear in mind that many readers on the “New Age Forum” are also reading your comments as well.

    By the way, you must have noticed that I continue to refer the man as “Pseudo” even though his die-hard followers get fired by his comments. Obviously, to the brilliant minds who are furiously engaged in the debate there must be something about his comments that delights them all day long. This goes to show all of the readers that someone surely needs to get their heads checked up with the mental doctors in whatever country they are dwelling in.

    Have a pleasant day. Heads Up & Smile.

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/16/2014 9:53:02 PM



  • great! what a commotion created by Moderates who are destined to reform the Islam! some are confused what to reform. some says Islam needs no reform. some says Islam has to be reformed.
    lo kar lo baat abhi tak yehi pata nahi ki kiya refotm karna hai.
    kal nahi hans paye the aaj hansne kaa mauqa hai. sabke kapde utar gaye
    jhoom jhoom kar nacho aaj gao khushi ke geet ho gaao khushi ke geet.
    obsever ne bhi aapa kho diya. yeeh bhi nahi jaanta ki maine akbar sarhindi ka zikr kyon kiya. are bhai agar jizia mercy thaa to akbar ne ghalat kiya sarhindi ne sahi kiya.
    agar jizia zyulm thaa to akbar ne sahi kiya aur sarhindi ne ghalat.
    obersver jab aapke nazdeek jizia rahmat hai to akbar ki tarafdaari jhoot srasar jhoot. jaise aap wiase aapke article.
    sharm tumko magar nahi aati
    baukhla gaye hain.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/16/2014 9:31:27 PM



  • “One learned man is harder on the devil than a thousand ignorant worshippers," was the humble advice given by Prophet of Islam to his sincere companions. Islamic Ummah is in dire need of learned scholars with a wisdom of a brilliant educationist of India, Dr. Zakir Husain and the faith of a tolerant humanitarian, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (May Almighty Allah rest their souls in peace). Out of my deep respect and sheer love for these two “Kindred Souls” or better yet, “Earth Angels, I have attached a photograph which will uplift all of you to rejoice and be proud of the fact that Islamic civilization, after all, did produce decent and honorable men of “Faith and Reason.

     

     

    Once again, never ever forget, “QAD A'FLAHA MAN TAZZAKA, as the need of the hour is to speedily purify our hearts and minds to enable us to march forward to free Islam from those Ulemas who have imprisoned our freedom of thoughts. “Appeal to Me; I shall respond to you, commanded Almighty Allah in Surah 40 - The Believer ( Chapter 40: Verse 60 ).

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia – November 13, 2004


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/16/2014 9:19:47 PM



  • Good Morning Sultan Shahin Saheb,

     

    One of the “New Age Islam” most admired and revered commentators claimed that the spirit of Islam is to curse the unbelievers. It will be much appreciated if you can personally spare your precious time to answer this particular gentleman with all due respect.

     

    Sultan Shahin saheb.


    those words speak for the mind of Allah. He is much bothered about who reject him, who associate the partners to him, and who mocks the prophet. it is also a spirit of Islam to curse the unbelievers. i don't know how you will translate  "shar rul baryyiah". what is its soft version?
    you are free to cover them under literalism.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/15/2014 8:52:58 AM

     

    One more thing you need to be mindful of is that his first name is “Mohammed” even though he hates everything about Islam. Then again, you are acutely aware that this brilliant commentator has full moral support from three of his admirers. Hence, be careful so as not to annoy of offend those who continuously think that the “Moderate Muslims” are nothing but a bunch of hoodlums.

     

    By the way, I am sure that many of the readers on your forum will be much eager to read your response, and to his response, which I believe will most likely be closely guided by his loyal comrades.  

     

    Kind personal regards,  

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia  


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/16/2014 8:46:10 PM



  • Good Morning Mr. S. Jeelani,

    Forget Ciint Eastwood. How about listening to another one of my hero? Nana Patekar.   

    Ek Machar Aadmi Ko Hijda Bana Deta Hai!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt5hXjaLIjI

    Can you or your chumps try to pinpoint how many times I used the word Apostate, Wahhabi, Barelvi or Deobandi in any of my writings?

    Oh, you bet your sweet life, I know you have intentionally and deliberately avoid answering any of my posts as you find it totally irrelevant. That’s quite alright. What I know is one thing, that is, you would rather keep a respectable distance from the “Truth” too.

    Why not have two eggs “Sunny Side Up” this morning so that you and your three friends can at least be able to pour some good thoughts on the “New Age Islam” forum for change. You should know well that it is not nice to continue to be on the offensive without respecting your fellow human opinions. May I humbly ask, “Where is your Admiyat?”

    Very respectfully yours,

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia          


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/16/2014 8:17:38 PM



  • To: Ghulam Mohiyuddin & All Respective Readers on the “New Age Islam” forum.

     

    You bet the thread temperature will continue to rise, but none of us can do anything about it. There is such a thing as “Editorial Integrity, but somehow it has been totally controlled by “The Gang Of Four.

     

    dear mr khalid suhail, mr rational and mr secular logic,

    i think the thread temperature is slowly rising, if you have noticed.

    its just a matter of time before the republican american forum bouncer leaps right into the melee.

    we could all try avoiding that. this is not a matter of cowardice or fear or loathing or whatever. just a little suggestion.

    please feel free to ignore entire post
    , if it is uncalled for, presumptive or patronizing.

    By hats off! - 2/12/2014 7:14:54 AM

    Though, I am not sure who is the real “Godfather, however, time will tell  us. Till then let them call their shots any which way they can. This time around, this American is closely reading and monitoring their activities.

    a: persists by asking how can god say such cruel, unscientific, irrational things

    MM: You bloody apostate! You lunatic! You pest! You sanghi! You chandal chaukadi!

    a: I am not mad. Nor am I your enemy. I am only full of doubts. And I wish this world to be a better place.

    MM: That is a lie. You have done nothing but block moderate debate. *soliticiously, and gratuitously offer quack psychiatric counselling to a and ask him to get head checked by expert. Spit at people who protest that a is perfectly normal*

    a sticks on, b goes into apalled silence, c doesn't care and walks in and out as he pleases, d cant take it anymore and goes away for some time.

    MMs: Yaaaay! we have won! we have declared a to be mad hence irrelevant, b to be enemy of islam hence irrelevant, c to be a plagiarist of islamophobic sites hence irrelevant, and d to have hemmed and hawed and pleaded for mercy, and run away in fright! Allahuakbar!

    Therefore, folks, before starting an argument with a MM, ask him to choose the weapons - oops - the source text that should be used as reference point. That might cut this tortuous business by half, but you still have no hope of making him accept even a single blemish in his religion of peace.

    Rational, take care, ya? Let me do something sentimental before I leave. *Hugs*

    By secular logic - 2/13/2014 1:41:29 AM

    My question to all the readers is, “What have we learned from these so-called educated and brilliant  commentators up until this day?” No patronizing, please! More importantly, can anyone list as to how many good comments were given by them to the “Moderate Muslims’” viewpoints? We all know that they specialty is to tear apart everything like vultures, nevertheless, as readers it is my earnest request that we should all shed some light on our respective observations so as to enable Sultan Shahin, the Editor of the “New Age Islam” forum to know our feelings. This is not a matter of cowardice or fear or loathing or whatever. Just a little honest to goodness “Truth. 

    Finally, what are we trying to prove to these fine gentlemen who have shown nothing but a relentless hatred towards Islam and our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him).

    Very sincerely yours,

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/16/2014 8:00:46 PM



  • Rational says "a muslim shows his true colour sooner or later even if he covers himself with a cloak of goodness." This implies that no Muslim is good, all of us are brutal murderers. I don't think it is true, Mr Rational, had it been so, you would have been already dead!
    By Syed Manzoor Alam - 2/16/2014 7:54:48 PM



  • Rational is a vicious liar.He can go back and see that I have said Akber was right in abolishing Jiziya which lost its justification the moment he had Rajputs in his army and for the same reason Aurangzeb was wrong. The stuck up apostate knows only one emotion - blinding rage. Neither can he laugh with others nor on himself. He will quote hadiths to say why he can't joke or laugh. If ever someone was possessed by a Hadith, then this is the guy!

    Hats Off says to Rational
    "i agree with your response list. it has always been the case." 

    What loyalty! And isn't it blind since he is knowingly agreeing to his lies!?

    By Observer - 2/16/2014 7:50:21 PM



  • Hats Off says, "dear Mr rational, you stated your case and you made your points."

    You are supporting and encouraging Rational's empty-headed hate campaign in this forum. Your aim clearly is to smear Islam and to subvert this website. You should be ashamed of yourself.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/16/2014 2:41:08 PM



  • Rational,

    You ask, "have you heard of a Muslim demonstration to remove the cruelty against the slaves when Muslims were ruling?"

    What kind of a fool would ask such questions? We need to talk about what Muslims should be, rather than what Muslims were. The past can be used to condemn any people, including Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Christians, pagans and atheists. By asking such questions you show that you are crazed by your hatred and vengeance rather than motivated by any instinct to improve things.

    You said, "mr mohammed yunus and Ghulam took less time to get exposed."

    Your malicious endeavors to "expose" people are empty-headed and driven more by hatefulness than by insight.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/16/2014 2:33:45 PM



  • Rational, 

    You said, "what i have for you i am giving it to you."

    That is nonsense! Will you ever stop making childish comments?


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/16/2014 2:20:02 PM



  • To: All Respected Readers on the “New Age Islam” forum.

    Subject: “ADMIYAT”

    One of the most educated commentators whom we all know as “Secular Logic” on this forum once wrote as follows:

    Towards the real madman on the other hand, there is much indulence. He has so far not added anything to any debate as yet, but goes on posting copious, literally colourful comments full of hate, conspiracy theories, obsession with particular individuals and their identities.

    Well then, ponder over calligraphy of a colorful poem by one of the most respected poets of the East - Allama Iqbal by none other than Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia.

     

    May be someone can enlighten me about who should be sitting in the psychiatrist’s waiting room as pointed our “Secular Logic”?   

     

    Half the participants on this site should be sitting in the psychiatrist's waiting room :).

     

    By secularlogic - 2/12/2014 3:06:34 AM

     

    My fellow Muslims, are we all insane? Did we all lose our humanity? Why does “The Gang Of Four” on the “New Age Islam” forum only manages to paint an ugly picture of the “Moderate Muslims” and our great religion of Islam? Are they color blind or what? What is their sole mission?

     

    Finally, why does Sultan Shahin, the Editor simply cannot play the role of a true Moderator?   In any case, your astute comments on the subject matter “ADMIYAT” will be greatly appreciated.

     

    Very respectfully yours,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/16/2014 12:53:56 PM



  • To: Sultan Shahin – Editor& All Respected readers of the “New Age Islam” forum.

     

    SAME OLD STATUS QUO November 2013

     

    your anguish over my words i passed to you clearly indicate, you are indeed a toddler in humanity. you may write any length of articles/letters showing your respect for humanity, but remain stagnated as you had been earlier. innamal mushrikeena najasun
    ibtidaaye ishq hai rota hai kiya
    aage aage jaane man dekhiye hota hai kiya
    now you can go complaining for "jaaneman" some commentators may say "tujhe athkheliyaan soojhi hain, aur ham bezaar baithe hain"

    By rational mohammed yunus - 11/1/2013 1:02:50 AM


    Mr Lodhia

     

    "Kindly go through my letters as and when you find time to do so. At least this way, you will come to learn that there are sane Muslims in the world too."

    I agree, Yes some are sane. The question is whether you are among them or not in reality. keeping your belief in purity in mind you doesn't seem to be.
    i called you a toddler and provided the reason for that
    .

    By rational mohammed yunus - 11/1/2013 12:20:19 AM


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/16/2014 10:27:39 AM



  • To: Sultan Shahin – Editor & All Respected readers of the “New Age Islam” forum.

     

    A REFRESHING REMINDEROctober 2013

     

    Good Morning Hats Off - Namaste SirJi    

     

    First of all, “Hats Off” do you know how to start a message with a positive note? An educated man should brighten the day of a fellow human. That is not you, as you are back again to show your true color. Rattling what saber?

     

    Secondly, do you realize that destructive criticism is not good for the mind or the spirit? Do you believe in constructive criticism? Every single day you are trying to prove something and I have no earthly of what your mission is? It is obvious that you are in this forum to extract something to further demoralize the Muslims. Tell me if I am wrong? If Muslims do not criticize your religion (not sure if you are religious), then why is there is such an intense dislike for Islam? 

     

    Thirdly, I reckon my letter addressed to Sultan Shahin dated August 19, 2011 went over your head. Why should you even bother to catch the spirit of my message? Now that will be against your agenda, isn’t it? Any sane Muslim who tries hard to put some senses into his people is something that you and your friends do not want to see. There is a saying of theProphet of Islam: “Actions will be judged according to their intentions.” I have yet to figure out your ultimate intention as to why you are investing so much of your valuable time on this forum? Bhagwaan knows better, I guess!  

     

    Finally, to your very question, what did I achieved? I realize now that aside from the Muslims which you and your associates do not care for, even the educated ones like you can be as ignorant as the Mullahs too. How did you come to the conclusion that I made a fool out of myself? Well then if I did in your eyes, then what about you, SirJi? 

     

    Have a blessed day. Go to a religious place. Pray for Peace and Harmony.

     

    Very very respectfully yours - rafiq@thelodhiacenter.org

        

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 10/25/2013 8:59:02 PM

     

     

    dera mr lodhia, before you want to die an educated man i think you owe me and another person on this forum some kind of closure. you have not cared to reply to my response. you probably will not care to. if you did not bother to reply, this is entirely in keeping with your sterling character i might say. but i am a poor judge of men and their character unlike you.

    apart from rattling your saber here, i am wondering why you came here and what you achieved. apart from generating some embarrassment all round.and making a fool of yourself.

    be aware that you are living right now in alvin tofflers future. he on the other hand lives in your past. naturally you are shocked. this is as it should be. that is what mr alvin toffler said.

    regards.

    By hats off! - 10/25/2013 7:10:01 PM


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/16/2014 10:08:41 AM



  • People who can't even get a good joke can get nothing!

    Who believes in miracles? None of the three names mentioned. Miracles by definition are events that defy natural laws or God's word and are impossible as God doesn't change his word. The Quran therefore confirms that there cannot be miracles! So much for what these people understand! Saying anything to them, is like - let me think - pouring water over a duck!


    By Observer - 2/16/2014 9:53:35 AM



  • dear mr rational,
    you stated your case and you made your points. so i suggest you leave it there.

    the problem is that if you start with a doubt you will end up with certainty. if you start with a certainty you will end up with doubt. i forgot who said this, but that describes the arguments of people who believe. as they start with a certainty, they are sure to end up in doubt, but they do not own it up. that will take the shine off. so no one wants that.

    those who believe in miracles will never be comfortable with those that question them. unfortunately, however hard i try, i am simply unable to believe in any miracle. if of course i define everything i do not know about as a member in the class of miracles, then i can cite millions of miracles. but that definition does not satisfy me.

    only a system of competitive religious hyper-sensitivity protects religions and religious sentiments. any questions are dealt with through the standard operating procedure of denigrating, name calling, appeals and finally threats. it always works. every time.

    i agree with your response list. it has always been the case.
    regards.

    By hats off! - 2/16/2014 7:13:21 AM



  • dear hats off
    let the fool laugh with 7 notes.
    i rejuvenate myself by recalling the words of famous scientist Richard Dawkins about moderate Muslims like Ghulam M and Observer. somebody righly said sufis were front waves of Jehadis and now are moderates. i know mr observer from when he commented on Loh e mehfooz. Since he is more sophisticated than mr yunus and mr ghulam, he took more time to get exposed fully. a person who believe jizia was mercy for dhimmis can't be trusted. he is like mujaddid Alif thani who flushed off the work done by king Akabr. He forced king Jahangir to enforce the jizia which was abolished by the Akbar. Mujaddid might have argued like Mr observer in favor of jizia.
    these were the scholars who were getting paid for such services. no Muslim including sufis ever raised their voice for the benefit of  dhimmis. How could they? they were earning money by trading of slaves. they were enjoying male ghanimat which included slave women.
    have you heard of a Muslim demonstration to remove the cruelty against the slaves when Muslims were ruling? they were castrating the slaves to guard their hatrems. was their a single Sufi to speak against this inhuman practice. how could they?
    Stories of keramats were fabricated by the mureeds of sufis. they wore the clock of love but the mission was conversion. read Muslim websites including Sufi sites.
    one should not wonder if a moderate call the jizia mercy and has different meaning for willing submission. they have only one weapon "it is insult of the prophet" they know its potential. are these moderates less dangerous than jehadis.
    they used different tactics:
    1, they tried to convince politely.
    2. when failed they tried to use insult against the prophet.
    3. they offered psychological treatment to establish:
    a. rational is emotionally diosturbed so whatever he says is the talk of mentally disturbed.
    b.  they tried to be sympathetic
    mr mohammed yunus and Ghulam took less time to get exposed. Mr observer being like a Mujaddid took more time.
    there may be some genuine moderates. however they all converse and make a loud noise over insult quoted from their books. they have no guts to speak where it is needed.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/16/2014 6:40:43 AM



  • observer
    a muslim shows his true colour sooner or later even if he covers himself with a cloak of goodness. ranga hua siyar zyada din dhoka nahi de sakta. 


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/16/2014 4:14:28 AM



  • ghulam m. 
    what i have for you i am giving it to you.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/16/2014 3:53:17 AM



  • Rational,

    I thought a good joke like a good perfume has 3 notes but this one has 7 notes like music! I am still laughing!

    I understand your difficulty with language and therefore gave  a simple explanation of the joke to help you get it. Your response after the explanation and behaviour ever since is hilarious. 

    Rational, you cannot joke. You can only trade insults and your poetry is also mostly trading of insults.


    By Observer - 2/16/2014 3:27:53 AM



  • Rational,


    You say, "you see fasad in my questions but not in your pious literature."


    Why do you write comments that make you look like a perpetual whiner? Do you just have to keep writing comments even when you have nothing of substance to say/

     


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/16/2014 3:20:21 AM



  • observer
    i may not laugh on this joke bcose i didn't understnd. other jokes can be harmless but jokes on islam may kill like drawing cartoons took lives.
    serious muslims run for the lives of people even if they don't understand it. who is dangerous me or they?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/16/2014 2:19:59 AM



  • ghulam m. you see fasad in my questions but not in your pious literature. this is your problem you see everything through jaundiced eyes.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/16/2014 1:56:58 AM



  • the quran only promise perpetual orgy minus jokes. there is an erotic content but no mentioning of joke in the quran.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/16/2014 1:53:05 AM



  • dear hats off. who is serious about joking, laughing and dancing? as peronehadith report laughing ruins the grace of face. dancing is an act of immodesty. who can be more gloomy than muslims who worry about a improbable judgement day and see this world in contempt . 


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/16/2014 1:48:55 AM



  • now moderates are turning into fasadphobic. they are looking fasad in a joke because i could not understand it. fasad is in your beliefs not in my thinking. 
    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/16/2014 1:38:21 AM



  • Rational,


    You say, "i knew you meant some portions of the Quran be considered antiquated. Mr observer took it as whole Quran. He scolded you faintly, and you fell on your limbs."


    Again you are trying to create fasaad. Your question,  "As a Muslim don't you believe those who reject hz Mohammed as a prophet and believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ is not a Muslim?" was also a fasaadi question. Why pick up other people's inconsistencies and blow them up. Don't you have something more substantial to talk about? Expecting others to be 100% consistent is the oldest trick in the book!



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/16/2014 1:08:28 AM



  • Now Hats Off has become serious about a joke!

    A good joke like a good perfume has several notes. Typically the top note, the middle note and the base note which are the varying perceptions of scent as it evaporates.

    The joke is also on how we interpret or on the interpreters. Finally, it was a joke on the seriousness with which the group was debating interpretations.

    It is also funny when people don't get the joke and want to continue debating seriously with new topics!

    By Observer - 2/16/2014 12:48:31 AM



  • dear mr rational
    the post on the gay marriage and legalized marijuana was an excellent internet joke.

    native english speakers as well as those for whom english was first language in school and college can also understand it. but it is not a crime to be unable to understand a language specific joke. i am sure none of us (may be most of us) on this forum can understand a french joke. just because most of us would not have sufficient command over french to be able to understand it.

    can i say (at the risk of probably offending you, though my humble request is not to misunderstand me - i am your co-accused, rmemeber ;) that the jokes in english can become quite sophisticated. especially on account of the well developed brilliant, sophisticated slang expressions, the fine freedom of thought and an open culture where you can say the damnedest things without fear of getting beheaded or shot or hanged. especially where a sense of humor is taken as a desirable social skill and not as a sign of the "lumpen".

    the juxtaposition of stoned (to death) and stoned (on marijuana) is the crux of the joke.

    kindly drop it here.

    shall i put it like this? most of the shayari that you write is only with very great difficulty understood by me. i do not think it as my "weakness" except that i think of it as my "weakness" in with urdu. but there are some shayari in urdu that can never be "understood" by a native english speaker.

    do you know the one about the "jugnoo" and "bijli" in urdu? after it was "explained" to me, i could not stop laughing until i was hoarse!

    regards.

    By hats off! - 2/16/2014 12:02:40 AM



  • Now Rational, first people don't get a joke - it has to be explained! Then they cannot leave it at that. The discussion becomes serious! Now who is it who can't enjoy a good joke and laugh? Who is always serious? Who is itching for another argument?

    Try saying what you want to through a joke if possible. Not mockery, not sarcasm, not criticism, not a lament but a good hearted joke.


    By Observer - 2/15/2014 11:20:20 PM



  • Observer - 2/15/2014 12:04:47 PM
    you explained stoning and stoned. stoning i knew already noe stonned is clear. i could not understand are you in favor of legalization of gay marriage and marijuana or against it? 
    please don't use the style of the Quran. if i can't understand your this comment think about how i can understand the Quran:}

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/15/2014 8:45:14 PM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin
    i knew you meant some portions of the Quran be considered antiquated. Mr observer took it as whole Quran. He scolded you faintly, and you fell on your limbs.this is your meek protest. if you have read my comments i didn't say you are saying about the whole Quran.
    Fasadis are your believing brothers not me.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/15/2014 8:32:45 PM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin
    i knew you meant some portions of the Quran be considered antiquated. Mr observer took it as whole Quran. He scolded you faintly, and you fell on your limbs.this is your meek protest. if you have read my comments i didn't say you are saying about the whole Quran.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/15/2014 8:30:58 PM



  • Rational,


    You said, "there is no divine book".


    You seem to say that with divine authority! More important issue however may be how to read the Book so that it can be most uplifting and least harmful to individuals and societies.


    You said, "As a Muslim don't you believe those who reject hz Mohammed as a prophet and believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ is not a Muslim?


    Why do you want to create fasaad? A Muslim should respect what a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu believes. Nobody has the monopoly on truth, not even an atheist.




    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/15/2014 2:15:40 PM



  • Modern interpretations is a joke with a play on the two meanings of stoned.

    Stoning, is a form of capital punishment whereby a group throws stones at a person until death ensues. 

    Stoned
    A state of mind which occurs after smoking enough marijuana to the point where the user stares blankly into whatever catches his/her attention


    By Observer - 2/15/2014 12:04:47 PM



  • "The Quran however cannot be wished away and will continue to be discussed by the detractors as well as the believers."
    whether someone like it or not above statement is truth.
    even if we are called detractors, we are making the Quran a hot topic to be discussed and to be analyzed. in one way it is beneficial for Muslims. what mr observer and mr mohammed yunus will do if nobody criticize/malign the Quran? those who get disturbed by such debates should leave the site if possible the world:}
    a book which is not talked is a dead book fit for the racks. Muslims should be grateful to its detractors.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/15/2014 9:50:14 AM



  • Observer
    Modern interpretations!

    i could not understand your comment regarding this news. Would you please elaborate it?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/15/2014 9:28:44 AM



  • Observer
    As a Muslim don't you believe those who reject hz Mohammed as a prophet and believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ(trinity or any other form of shirk) is not a Muslim?
    Is not the Quran clear on who says the jesus is son of god? Don't you believe hz Mohammed is a final prophet?
    How can you say yahood o nasara and sabiyeen will be accepted as belivers?. Before arrival of hz Mohammed it was ok. do you think present Jews and Christians are Muslims. How do you say Meccan verses are universal and Medinian verses time specific? How many Muslims believe even if jews and christians or any other believer in one God and rejector of hz mohammed as a prophet can have the mercy of Allah.
    Either you or mr mohammed yunus is misguiding. if mr mohammed yunus is wrong he is going to misguide many Muslims.
    you have not answered why Shirk is zulmun azeem? why Allah is that much bothered he is committed to cuse and send Mushriks to hell for ever?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/15/2014 9:23:06 AM



  • "in that case God  is imaprtial" must be read "in that case God  is partial"
    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/15/2014 9:04:00 AM



  • Sultan Shahin saheb.
    those words speak for the mind of Allah. He is much bothered about who reject him, who associate the partners to him, and who mocks the prophet. it is also a spirit of Islam to curse the unbelievers. i don't know how you will translate  "shar rul baryyiah". what is its soft version?
    you are free to cover them under literalism.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/15/2014 8:52:58 AM



  • Observer
    you are cleverly evading the real question. you are dancing at periphery. i know there are millions of hafizs. majority of hafizs know nothing about the single verse of the Quran.
    was it id difficult for God to make the early books easy to memorize? why Allah made the text easy for a little advanced people and difficult for backward people. on time scale yahood o nasara were primitive compared to the people the Quran was sent for. memorization would have been good for those yahood o nasara, Hindus(ancient). Zoroastrians etc. it means Allah is res[ponsible for corruption of previous words. He made no effort to protect his words. When he learned that Jews and Nasara have corrupted previous words he declared that he will protect his final word.
    reality is there is no divine book in the world. divinity was attached by its founders to make it authoritative for people.

    you say source is very important. Let me agree with you for the moment. millions of Muslims follow shia doctrine from shia sources. Millions of Muslims follow wahabi sources. Millions of Muslims follow brailvi sources. who is reading by their own selves? do all people klnow Arabic. Do tall people know English. when every source is called Source of gumrahi it means every Muslim is gumrah.
    you yourself is very critical to Sufism. i don't want to repeat words about Sufis. Ghulam M and sultan Shahin saheb says sufism is the real Islam.
    you made sweeping generalization that everybody or anybody can read and understand. it is far from the truth. it is not going to happen. neither it has happened. your defense of the Quran is clear proof the Quran is not for everybody. it is for belly  filled and regurgation loving scholars like you and mr mohammed yunus. if the Quran was easy for everybody no body would have heard of ibn e katheer, hanifa, hanbal, wahab, raza khan etc.
    millions of Muslims are following wahabi, Qutub and Maudoodi and according to Sultan shain and Ghulam M Sahibaan they are the cause of terrorism. millions of Muslims follow Sufism you criticize them and sultan and ghulam sahebaan declare they are real Muslims.

    there is no divine book. these are made divine by their founders to make them authoritative.
    Muslims are biggest twisters of the text.
    Because first the Quran was/is not easy and second is subjected to distortion we see so many sects calling each other Gumrah. Islam is more political less spiritual.
    Visit any believer's site you will find same arguments to defend their cherished beliefs.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/15/2014 8:42:36 AM



  • dear hats off
    Sometime Allah forgot. later he made corrections. He learned from yahood o nasara than he decided to protect his word.  First the message was for Arabs later he declared it universal.
    He says: he sent the message in the language of the people addressed. later he changed his mind. now the Quran is for everyone even if the translation is not at par.
    there is no divine book. every so called divine book is a jumled book.
    every believer gives same arguments.
    every believer call other gumrah within religions, sects and sub-sects.
    every believer says it is easy to understand, but follow some Imam/guru/pope. exceptions are rare.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/15/2014 8:41:55 AM



  • Observer,


    I did not call the Quran an antiquated text. I said Jizya laws are antiquated. I admire the fact that you make such valiant efforts to defend our texts. But Muslims over the past few decades must have spent millions of man hours defending or explicating this or that verse and yet the attacks continue. Are we going to spend all our time defending and explaining? Would it not be better to say that some parts of the Quran have only time-bound or place-bound importance,  there are some parts that are difficult for today's scholars to understand, and that we read the Quran for its eternal and universal messages? If people still want to criticize, let them. We can't win all arguments.



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/15/2014 3:40:11 AM



  • Ghulam Mohyiddin Sb,

    I agree with you. The fact however is that there are detractors who are constantly trying to prove that the religion is fundamentally flawed who need to be answered. Honest dissenters without a motive will easily reach a stage where they may accept what you say or close the discussion saying that they understand what you have said  but still have their misgivings.

    Motivated detractors however jump from one topic to another without closing out on the previous subject of discussion on which they have run out of arguments. We have to find an effective way of dealing with them. If you think that you can handle them, then I will leave them to you.

    Suhail has claimed that he is  an Islamic scholar who has studied every important work for 8 years. Yet, he relies on sources that are openly hostile to Islam. The argument of Suhail, Rational, Hats Off and SL has been that the source does not matter. The discussion here was to show how the source matters and  and even the translation of a verse from the Quran, is unreliable and  a scholar makes the mistake of using it without realizing the manner in which the meaning was sought to be changed. I doubt however, that these people are unaware of the fact that these sources are highly unreliable. The discussion was necessary to prevent such irresponsible use of doubtful sources and to discredit the person who resorts to such sources all the time. This is the  democratic way of dealing with those who malign. I do not advocate their being banned  nor the way Mr Lodhia tried to deal with the menace.

    What perhaps you need to understand is that you are not used as a wedge by these people. They were rubbing their hands in glee when you described the  Quran as a 7th century antiquated text. For those who are bent upon destroying Islam, that is precisely what they wish every Muslim to say. Without the Quran, there is no Islam.

    Honestly, if the view of modernist Muslim is that the Quran is an antiquated book and that they have moved away from it, and that NAI is a forum for such modernists, then I do not have a problem dissociating.


    By Observer - 2/15/2014 2:59:15 AM



  • Observer,


    I agree with you that the Quran should not be thrown away or wished away. It should be read to emphasize and re-emphasize those fundamental principles which make us better individuals and better societies and not to have endless debates on issues that may have been important once but are not important now.



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/15/2014 1:30:07 AM



  • Modern interpretations!

    For those who haven't heard: New Zealand just passed two laws - Gay Marriage and Legalized Marijuana. The fact that gay marriage and marijuana were legalized on the same day makes perfect Biblical sense, because Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man lies with another man, they should be stoned."  
     
    Turns out we just hadn't interpreted it correctly before!

    By Observer - 2/15/2014 1:29:22 AM



  • The text of the Quran is preserved for anyone to read and understand. People can understand it very well from a faithful translation alone. Both understanding and remembering has been made easy which is why there are millions of hafizs. The Quran uses every word in the same way throughout the Book which makes it easy to understand the message. In that sense, it can very well be used as a book for learning Arabic of the prophet's times and one can learn the language as easily as a child learns its mother tongue. All that you need is a word by word translation to get started. Yusuf Ali's translation is one of the best but very soon, you will be able to detect his errors also, although they are not serious errors.

    God knows what men will do. The Quran therefore says that people who fail to carry forward the message will be replaced by a people who will serve His cause. It is easy for God to raise a completely new set of people. The Arabs got sidelined by the Mongols, the Berbers and the Turks before. Maybe it is now time for the Caucasians to take over the leadership.

    The tomes written as tafsir can simply be ignored and is not required to correctly understand the Quran.

    Hats Off, there are verses in the Quran which are very clear as to the universal nature of the message.

    Rational, you can gloat over the fact that people tie themselves in knots trying to understand a straightforward book or take responsibility for yourself and try to understand it as best as you can, without bothering about others. I have always found it a book that is easy to understand. It takes some time getting used to it.



    By Observer - 2/15/2014 1:11:53 AM



  • dear mr rational
    if my memory does not fail me, there is a verse in the koran which says that the word was sent down for the benefit of the inhabitants of the hejaz, who did not have their own prophet until that point of time.

    if that verse were to be taken into account, the present argument would efface itself, without your loosing it or winning it.

    regards.

    By hats off! - 2/15/2014 12:16:58 AM



  • obsrver
    in that case God  is imaprtial and subjected to whims of specific period. learning from human beings. updating himself. he didn't know people.will distort his meassage. later he decided to protect his words in text form only and the message was left to scholars. any person can twist the word and make the people gumrah. so called mainstream muslims are fighting overwords and meaning of a foreign language. why it should be a message to non-arabic people. if people.find it difficult.to extract right meaning in their own languge how they canbe sure about arabic text. quran may be for arabic people but it is not a guidebook to remaining people.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/14/2014 11:45:06 PM



  • In the debate it is clear that the problem is with isolating  six words out of thirty in a verse, to strip the identified 6 words of their context, which is the problem and not taking the entire verse literally. Those who do not read and understand the Quran think that literalism is the problem but one can take  the entire verse in its literal sense and not find any problem. Quran is not a book of poetry to be interpreted in imaginative ways. If it is a Book that makes everything clear, it can be so only by being taken literally. The problem arises only when people ignore the verses that limit the applicability of certain verses by providing the context.  Where people are addressed in the manner 'O ye people' or 'O ye believers' the verse has universal application and should be understood and followed in its literal sense. You will  also not find such verses being debated. There are of course those who deliberately distort the message by treating verses they don't like as abrogated!

    It is possible that neither Rational nor the others are deliberate distorters of the message but simply that they have misunderstood the message because that is the way it was taught to them. These discussions may help them to see the Quran in the right way. Right now, they think that we are merely interpreting the Quran in a fanciful way and are mere apologists.

    It is not without reason that the Quran was revealed to an 'ummi' prophet and to a people to whom no message was revealed previously which the Quran mentions. Umi is interpreted as unlettered which may be incorrect and umi may simply mean a gentile prophet who was unaware of the previous scriptures. This condition appears to have been an important criteria for the message to be understood correctly. People of the scriptures simply carried too much baggage of  'knowledge' and would have interpreted everything in the light of their beliefs and their previous scriptures.

    That is exactly the problem with many scholars who came several centuries later, several of whom may have been converts from Judaism,  Christianity and Zoroastrianism and many of them familiar with Greek mythology and philosophy and in addition, by this time, the hadiths had been compiled. The Tafsirs are therefore problematic as they read either more into the text or something that is not there. The simplicity of the message is lost in the sophistry. Sophistry perhaps is a strong word but a tendency to interpret too narrowly can be seen which may be on account of some 'hadiths' besides the other influences.

    Madrasa educated have similarly been brainwashed into understanding it in a particular way.
    One must artificially create the umi state, and rely on a simple reading of the Quran to understand it correctly.

    The other issue maybe what the Quran itself mentions that it is a trust that man was foolish to undertake which the mountains etc refused. For some people, it may be too great a burden to carry.

    Maybe I have got it wrong, but Shaheen and GM saheban appear to be saying that we should throw away the baby with the bath water. The Quran however cannot be wished away and will continue to be discussed by the detractors as well as the believers.


    By Observer - 2/14/2014 8:05:48 PM



  • I agree with Sultan Shahin sb. that in this New Age we should be invoking the spirit of Islam more and more instead of being weighed down by words and phrases of a foreign language as it was spoken 1500 years ago.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/14/2014 2:52:46 PM



  • Literalism and too much hair-splitting on the meaning of words and phrases of a foreign language as it was spoken 1500 years ago is indeed a scourge. We cannot behave as if we Muslims have done nothing, thought nothing, created nothing, in the last one and a half millennium. It is this literalism that is creating among us Jihadis and suicide bombers who think they are serving the cause of Islam more than any other Muslims. What we need in the New Age is to follow the spirit of Islam as understood by mainstream Muslims throughout the ages.

     

    Mainstream Muslims have been moderate, peaceful people, coexisting with other communities wherever they had an opportunity. In their lust for power and new territory, our rulers have created wars and strife many a time. The people have suffered as a result but they have by and large maintained peace in their dealings with other people.

     

    Those who want power for themselves, however, will not let us exist in peace in pluralistic societies. In the God and religion, however, they will keep using this verse of the Qur'an or that to promote strife. We have no option to fall back on Quran ourselves to answer them and refute their insinuations and statements promoting exclusivism and hate for others, promoting justifications for maximalist positions. 


    While we may succeed in refuting their statements defaming Islam, in this process the spirit of Islam is lost, the spirit that we should be invoking more and more in the New Age. Surprisingly even some seemingly educated Muslims fall in this literalist trap. Let us try and remember that we are no longer a tiny community living in a seventh century Arabian desert. Many of us live in modern metropolises around the world in a very very different environment from seventh century Arabia. If we do have this understanding, it should reflect in our statements.


    By Sultan Shahin - 2/14/2014 2:20:02 PM



  • Observer,

    Quran is not just for scholars. It is a Book for the masses. My war is with the literalists. Literalism seems to create as many mullahs as apostates! In my view parsing is less helpful than attunement.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/14/2014 1:26:12 PM



  • Ghulam Mohyiddin,

    What does the Quran mean to you? Have you ever read it? Do you know that it is book meant to be read regularly and understood? And if you think otherwise, then you are only a cultural Muslim? Stop offending others with your funny views on an Islamic website.


    By Observer - 2/14/2014 12:57:31 PM



  • It is sad to see modern-day Muslims wasting their time arguing over some ambiguous verses in a website for the NewAge! If one has formed an intelligent concept of the nature of the godhead one would have no doubt that God's bounty is for those who are righteous irrespective of their beliefs. Hair-splitting over the meaning of a word or a phrase is for the wretched literalists!



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/14/2014 12:33:29 PM



  • Rational,

    That is a different topic. Read from verse 1 and you will understand that these verses also cover only the people to whom clear evidence was provided by the Prophet (pbuh) and disbelieved. It does not cover those who never came into contact with the Prophet. The others will be judged based upon what kind of evidence was presented to them which they rejected. A tribal to whom no message was ever communicated but who otherwise lead a 'good' life will not be judged the same way as you or I would nor a poor person the same way as a rich one. The witness against each person will be his own self. The heart that recognized the truth but rejected out of pride, haughtiness, fear etc. will be among the disbelievers. If you made your efforts to seek the truth and made no effort to shield yourself from it and yet your own heart (or brains if you prefer) fail to provide witness against you, then you may be safe, if otherwise you were morally a conscientious person. As I said, this is a separate topic and I will not discuss this further except in an article.

    You can, for all practical purposes, treat the Meccan verses as valid for all times. The Madinian verses are clearly limited by their context which is provided in the verse itself or by the preceding or succeeding verses and you do not need to refer to any other source except relying on a simple reading of the Quran.

    The scholars tend to interpret narrowly, since in their own eyes, they may simply be playing safe. They confuse their narrowness for 'taqwa' or being extra careful. 



    By Observer - 2/14/2014 11:06:27 AM



  • For Brailvis
    AL BAYYINAH (THE CLEAR PROOF)
     
    [Bayyinah 98:6] Indeed all disbelievers, the People of the Book(s) and the polytheists, are in the fire of hell – they will remain in it for ever; it is they who are the worst among the creation.

    [Bayyinah 98:7] Indeed those who accepted faith and did good deeds – it is they who are the best among the creation.

    Source:http://www.alahazrat.net/alquran/Quran/098/098_001_008.html



    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/14/2014 9:38:25 AM



  • Observer
    Surat Al-Bayinnah eliminates any ambiguity. it nullifies the Meccan verses in which Allah may accept the yahood, nasara and Sabiyeen because they beilive in one God and hereafter. mr mohammed yunus makes Islam inclusive using Meccan verses and forget the Medinian verses. it is also a distortion of the message of Allah.

    from all these verses it is clear the Quran uses extremely insulting words for non-Muslims. your claim that islamophobic sites are distorting the message is baseless in most situations.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/14/2014 9:18:19 AM



  • observer
    in inverted comas the translation is from rabid islamophobe  site (rabid to make you happy).
    would you still say islamophobic sites distort the message? is there any difference?
    what is the implication of application of this verse? Christians majority is polytheist as per the Quran.

    98:6

    "Those who reject (Truth) among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will abide in hell-fire, they are the worst of creatures. (Sura 98:6) "

    Sahih International
    Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.
    Muhsin Khan
    Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Quran and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.
    Pickthall
    Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
    Yusuf Ali
    Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
    Shakir
    Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men.
    Dr. Ghali
    Surely (the ones) who have disbelieved among the population of the Book (Or: family of the Book; i.e., the Jews and Christians) and the associators (Those who associate others with Allah) will be in the Fire of Hell, eternally (abiding) therein; those are they who are the most evil beings (Literally: Initiated creatures).

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/14/2014 9:03:57 AM



  • Observer - 2/14/2014 6:32:06 AM
    you are making your case weaker. yes distortion is distortion. you may be one of them. mr yunus may be one one of them. why it can't be you? After all everybody is saying that others are following distorted message of the Quran.
    who was distorting ma malakat aimanukum? you or mr yunus? as an Arabic illiterate i am subjected to probability of following wrong. what if Allah doesn't accept other than Islam? what if Allah can accept? the Quran has both kind of verses.
    everything is jumbled in the Quran? anybody is free to play with words.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/14/2014 7:27:32 AM



  • rational mohammed yunus 
    but what do u say as to who distort the message of quran,,,,,,,,,if possible say unlike sunni, shias, ahmadis, etcetra 

    By Ravi Kumar - 2/14/2014 6:39:42 AM



  • @ rational mohammed yunus\
    they are not muslims who distort the message of quran. this is a fatwa issued by me. do u agree?

    By Ravi Kumar - 2/14/2014 6:36:19 AM



  • Suhail,

    It is not just changing of a single word but the import and meaning of the entire verse. If Suhail is an Islamic scholar as he claims to be, he should know the difference between a message which has universal application and a message which is specific to the context. Whenever the message is of universal application, the people are addressed - for example 'O you who believe' or 'O ye people' or 'O ye people of the Book' etc. Neither of the two verses have universal application 

     

    48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves.

     

    From the previous verses we also know that Muhammad (pbuh) was trying to perform haj with his people but was stopped from doing so and the description is about the people who were accompanying him. 48:25 “They are the ones who disbelieved and obstructed you from al-Masjid al-Haram while the offering was prevented from reaching its place of sacrifice”. The verse is referring to a specific set of believers and disbelievers at a specific point in time.

     

    Contrast this with how Suhail has quoted it:

    48:29) "Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another". 

    Those who follow him include all followers for all times!

     

    (4:101) When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.

     

    Here also, the Prophet alone is addressed and 4:102 further amplifies that the party may be split into two and half of them stand guard while the other half are praying lest they be attacked in a single rush by the enemy.

    Here again the Prophet alone is addressed and the verse applies to his people in those times.

     

    Contrast this with how Suhail has quoted it:

    4:101) "The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy".

    He creates the impression that it applies to all people for all times!

    Suhail is trying to create mischief and instead of sticking to the two verses under discussion, and admitting that he made a mistake, he has digressed in many directions to further malign Islam and proved himself to be an inveterate enemy of Islam who relies on lies and deliberate distortions and does not deserve a response anymore.

     Rational, by defending Suhail, is in the same company, and the fantastic excuse he gives is that there are other people who fall in the same category! A distortion is a distortion and a lie becomes a deliberate lie when it is defended instead of admitting that it was a mistake.


    By Observer - 2/14/2014 6:32:06 AM



  • Observer
    your case against distortion is very weak. If Muslims can distort the message of the Quran in wholesale, few other can do it. nobody knows what is the real message of the Quran.
    Wahabis say Sufis have distorted and Sufis say Whabi has distorted. Similarly Shias and sunnis, sunnis and Ahmadis and so on....
    so please don't get tempted for personal attacks like all Muslims.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/14/2014 6:19:39 AM



  • By Observer - 2/14/2014 12:14:49 AM
    Rational,
    "Accept first, that Suhail, the self proclaimed scholar of Arabic,  who has studied Islamic literature for 8 years, is a wifull and deliberate distorter of the message of the Quran, sourcing his material from rabid anti Islamic sites which deliberately distort the message by changing words and truncating verses to strip them of the context."
    My response:-
    As I have said earlier, there is no significant difference between the meanings of inveterate, avowed, sworn professed, ardent etc. Observer is trying to make a mountain out of a mole in order yo get a scape route.
    Can anybody tell me what big differences the following words have made in the meaning and spirit of the message of the Quran? Interestingly, different scholars have used different words for the same Arabic word 'mubi'n'. If they can use the words like avowed, sworn, professed, ardent for the enemies of Islam, then why not a synonym like inveterate? 
    Now see the meanings of these words in Hindi/ Enlish and decide yourself if they make any fundamental difference. 
    INVETERATE -  अभ्यस्त, पक्का. Interestingly the meaning of inveterate in the most circulated and authetic English Arabic dictionary ALMAURID is given as 'mu'taraf bihi' , meaning Acknowledged.
     AVOWED enemy - Acknowledged enemy
    PROFESSED -  घोषित 
    SWORN ENEMY -  जानी दुश्मन .
    The word inveterate has been used by the Quran exegete N J Dawood
    N J Dawood - "It is no offence for you to shorten your prayers when travelling the road if you fear that the unbelievers may attack you. The unbelievers are your inveterate foe".
    Rashad Jhalifa has used the word ' ardent' for the same Arabic word ' mubi'n' in the verse 4:101.
    Rashad Khalifa - "When you travel, during war, you commit no error by shortening your Contact Prayers (Salat), if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you. Surely, the disbelievers are your ardent enemies.
    The following are some attributes of Satan as stated by God almighty in Quran:
     Satan is the human's ardent enemy:
     [Quran 2:208] O you who believe, you shall embrace total submission; do not follow the steps of Satan, for he is your most ardent enemy. ( here ardent has been used for the same Arabic word MUBI'N in verse 4:101).
     [Quran 6:142] Some livestock supply you with transportation, as well as bedding materials. Eat from God's provisions to you, and do not follow the steps of Satan; he is your most ardent enemy.
    Muhammed Fethullah Gülen (born 27 April 1941) is a Turkish preacher, former imam, writer, and Islamic opinion leader uses the same word ' inveterate ' in his article on the mission of hz Muhammad when he said, "Abu Lahab was one of the uncles of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. He was one of the most inveterate enemies of early Islam. Link :-Why does the Qur'an Mention a Person Such As Abu Lahab Who ...by Muhammed Fethullah Gülen. 
    Dear Observer, you can not befool the people all the time


    By Khalid Suhail - 2/14/2014 4:44:57 AM



  • Observer - 2/14/2014 12:14:49 AM
    naaraz kyon ho rahe ho. i am not like you. you are not like me. everybody is not writing articles.
    you have not answered "were the verses quoted on interceding power of the prophet are true or not. your answer can be a partial truth. somebody might have tempered with the verses and worst synonyms used. i don't think it is a digression. all verses quoted by me are to show that the Quran :1. uses derogatory words for non-Muslims
    2. historical perspective is not always true with commands and generalized staements of the Quran. if you want to run taking the digression as an excuse, you can do it.
    as you have said "let suhail speak" i am doing the same.
    since i also don't accept the verses are always tempered with, i supported suhail. i am not speaking for suhail. if some other commentators can speak for others i too can do it.



    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/14/2014 12:57:58 AM



  • Rational,

    Accept first, that Suhail, the self proclaimed scholar of Arabic,  who has studied Islamic literature for 8 years, is a wifull and deliberate distorter of the message of the Quran, sourcing his material from rabid anti Islamic sites which deliberately distort the message by changing words and truncating verses to strip them of the context.

    All your questions have been answered many times before. They can be answered once again if you agree to write an article with all your arguments against Islam. I will rebut by an article. That would not allow you scope to escape through digressions. What you are doing now is only digressing.



    By Observer - 2/14/2014 12:14:49 AM



  • observer saheb
    Following verse has been discussed earlier with Ghulam Ghauss and Rafiq lodhia sahiban.
    9:28

    Sahih International
    O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.
    Muhsin Khan
    O you who believe (in Allah's Oneness and in His Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Verily, the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, and in the Message of Muhammad SAW) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah) after this year, and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you if He will, out of His Bounty. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.
    Pickthall
    O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.
    Yusuf Ali
    O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
    Shakir
    O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
    Dr. Ghali
    O you who have believed, surely the associators (Those who associate others with Allah) are only an impurity; so they should not come near the Inviolable Mosque after this season (Literally: after this duration = (this year) of theirs. And if you fear want, then Allah will eventually enrich you of His Grace, in case He (so) decides; surely Allah is Ever-Knowing, Ever-Wise..
    with proper context theses verses clearly said "after this year". is there any indication that Non-Muslims can be allowed in Mecca now. those who seems to oppose the entry of non-Muslims are right and those due to political correctness suggesting otherwise are wrong. 
    this verse is not specific to the period and the people of that time. it is valid today because the non-Muslims are unclean(division in physical and spiritual is a different subject to discuss).
    it is what the Quran has said not me. 

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 9:59:00 PM



  • Alternative and equally valid basic theme of the Quran is wholesale villification of enemies here and in hereafter (Mushriks, Munafiqs and Kafirs) and promise of unending unimaginable pleasure for the Muslims.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 9:00:43 PM



  • Engaging an enemy.......book it is written.
    a voice in the wilderness.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 8:55:23 PM



  • observer
    "I am very sympathetic with the Shia view point while strongly disagreeing with their 'Tabarrah'."
    Don't they have rights to express their anguish if they believe hz Abu bakr, hz Umar and hz Usman grab the power unjustly. Observer saheb Islamic history is very problematic. they might have learned Tabaarah from the Quran. when Mushrikeen mekka rejected the hz Mohammed, hz mohammed invited them to Mubahila.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 8:52:05 PM



  • dear hats off. lies and distortions are reseved for Muslims specially moderates.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 8:41:42 PM



  • Observer
    could not Allah use an appropriate word to address only Meccan unbelievers. or he was short in vocabulary. the verses clearly use generalization. Was not he aware that future generations will quote it against His word? it appears initially the Quran was for Arabs. Later Allah changed His mind.
    If Allah sent the books to every people in their tongue why there is digression in the case of Islam? How the Quran can be a book of guide to English, French, Indians and Chinese etc. One of the arguments of Muslims is "The Quran cant be translated into other languages with desirable fidelity"

    nobody has answered why allah didn't protect his previous words. why sudden change of mind for the Quran.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 8:37:44 PM



  • dear hats off
    you must not expect any good word from Allah, His book, His prophet,  and followers of Islam including moderates if you are in opposite camp.
    i knew what for Ghulam M was mentioning Richard Dawkins. Views of Richard Dawkins. worth to consider on moderate Muslims in his book "The God Delusion".

    Islam has only insults, threats unending humiliation of unbelivers.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 8:16:55 PM



  • observer
    why this aasociating partners to allah is zulmun azeem? has allah changed his mind over shirk? why allah bothered at all whether a man not worship him or worship many? is not he samad? 
    it is not wewho are dividing the mankind into friends and enemies. it is the quran who issue threats and comitted to curse the unbelievrs.
    your defense on the basis ofhistorical circumtances is worthless. it is not w

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 7:51:30 PM



  • Engaging an enemy of Islam such as Suhail in a futile discussion only gives him a chance to fill these pages with his vitriol. The issues being discussed with him are not of relevance to Islam's New Age struggles. Let us not waste our time on antiquated Hadiths or fatwas. Let us not defend anything that is not consistent with the basic Quranic principles of justice, righteousness, egalitarianism, reasonableness and compassion, irrespective of in which book it is written.



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/13/2014 1:59:44 PM



  • Hats Off says to Rational, "did you read what mr ghulam mohiyuddin thinks of you? he thinks you are richard dawkins."

    I did not say that. Please do not lie or distort.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/13/2014 1:45:21 PM



  • Rational says, "this  lunatic in the garb of moderate(ghulam m)?"

    All I had asked you was, "Is it worthwhile for you to sacrifice your peace of mind in order to indulge your compulsion to express yourself?" Does that make me a lunatic? By the way I never called you a lunatic. I just said that because of the anger, bitterness and drivenness in your outpourings, you should consider counselling. I did not ask you to seek counselling. I just asked you to consider it. If Hats Off and Secular Logic are making a big song and dance about this suggestion, it is because they are looking for cheap ammunition!


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/13/2014 1:41:37 PM



  • Reposting for your benefit Suhail. 

    • The following is what Suhail has quoted from an Islamophobic site. He is unable to say who the translator is and this version is carried exclusively by several Islamophobic sites. Notice that is a truncated verse:

      48:29) "Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another". 

      To get the complete context of the verse and the specific unbelievers of the Prophets's times who are referred to, read the following verses which are self explanatory and require no interpretation:


      48:22 And if those [Makkans] who disbelieve had fought you, they would have turned their backs [in flight]. Then they would not find a protector or a helper.
      48:24 And it is He who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them within [the area of] Makkah after He caused you to overcome them. And ever is Allah aware of what you do.
      48:25 They are the ones who disbelieved and obstructed you from al-Masjid al-Haram while the offering was prevented from reaching its place of sacrifice. And if not for believing men and believing women whom you did not know - that you might trample them and there would befall you because of them dishonor without [your] knowledge - [you would have been permitted to enter Makkah]. [This was so] that Allah might admit to His mercy whom He willed. If they had been apart [from them], We would have punished those who disbelieved among them with painful punishment
      48:27 Certainly has Allah showed to His Messenger the vision in truth. You will surely enter al-Masjid al-Haram, if Allah wills, in safety
      48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating [in prayer], seeking bounty from Allah and [His] pleasure. Their mark is on their faces from the trace of prostration. That is their description in the Torah. And their description in the Gospel is as a plant which produces its offshoots and strengthens them so they grow firm and stand upon their stalks, delighting the sowers - so that Allah may enrage by them the disbelievers. Allah has promised those who believe and do righteous deeds among them forgiveness and a great reward.

      Suhail is not a layman who can be easily misled. He is a self proclaimed scholar of Arabic who has studied the Quran and all major Islamic literature. So isn't this a case of deliberate distortion of the truth to malign Islam which shows his true character? 
      By Observer - 2/12/2014 7:14:30 PM

    By Observer - 2/13/2014 10:11:30 AM



  • Mr Observer is consistently focussing on verse 4:101, but conveniently ignoring the verse 48:29, "And those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, merciful among themselves", As I said earlier, this verse does not need any context for explaining that it  has universal application and the application for all the times as is evident from the statement of Ibn Kathir which says, "This is the description of the believers; harsh with the disbelievers, merciful and kind to the believers, angry without smiling before the disbelievers, smiling and beaming with pleasure before his believing brother". 
    He says that unbelievers referred to here are the Meccans who stopped the Muslims from performing worship at Kaba, broke treaty and attacked the Mulsims, therefore they deserved the wrath of Allah. But after studying  the Quran and hadith, I have come to he conclusion that the reason of Allah's enmity and hatred towards the un-believers was not factors Mr Observer mentioned but it was their 'SHIRK'. Here is the proof.
      "The Religion before God is Islam.”S. 3:19
    "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good). S. 3:85
    Quran again makes it more clear by declaring:
    "Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than God; S. 5:3
    Quran ays: “ Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with him, but he forgiveth anything else. Quran” 4:48
    Again Quran says, “O ye,who believ, truly the pagans are unclean, so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque.” 9:28.
    In the light of the above, the picture becomes crystal clear that social evils and the above mentioned factors had nothing to do with Allah's  hatred. Rather it was their shirk (joining partners with Allah), which invoked the wrath of Allah.
    According to Ibne Abbas Verses 2:62 and 5:69  mentioned in the Qur'an were canceled by the Verse 3:85... (i.e. after the coming of Prophet Muhammad... on the earth, no other religion except Islam, will be accepted from anyone." (Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Interpretation of the Meaning of The Noble Quran In the English Language, A Summarized Version of Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Bukhari.
    The fact that Quran considers associating partners with God as the highest form of evil becomes more clear from the following verse:
    “It is not (proper) for the Prophet and those who believe to ask Allah's forgiveness for the polytheists( Mushrikin), even though they be of kin, after it has become clear to them that they are the dwellers of the Fire” (because they died in a state of disbelief). S. 9:113.  Here, The verse addresses both the Prophet and all the Muslims and therefore does have universal application and for all times. 
    Imam Ahmad recorded that Ibn Al-Musayyib said that his father Al-Musayyib said,
    When Abu Talib was dying, the Prophet went to him and found Abu Jahl and Abdullah bin Abi Umayyah present.
    The Prophet said,
    O uncle! Say, `La ilaha illa-llah,' a word concerning which I will plea for you with Allah, the Exalted and Most Honored.
    Abu Jahl and Abdullah bin Abi Umayyah said, `O Abu Talib! Would you leave the religion of Abdul-Muttalib!'
    Abu Talib said, `Rather, I will remain on the religion of Abdul-Muttalib.'
    The Prophet said,
    I will invoke Allah for forgiveness for you, as long as I am not prohibited from doing so.
    Then the abve verse was revealed.
    Abū Ṭālib was the uncle of prophet  prophet Muḥammadal. After the death of hz Muḥammad's mother Āminah bint Wahb, hz Muḥammad as a child was taken into the care of his grandfather, 'Abd al-Muṭṭalib. When Muḥammad reached eight years of age, 'Abd al-Muṭṭalib died, and Muḥammad was transferred to the care of his uncle Abū Ṭālib. After prophet Muḥammad began preaching the message of Islam, members of the other Qurayshite clans increasingly came to feel threatened by Muḥammad. In attempts to quiet him, they would lean on Abū Ṭālib to silence his nephew or control him. Despite these pressures, Abū Ṭālib maintained his support of Muḥammad, defending him from the other leaders of the Quraysh until Abū Ṭālib's death, around 619.
     The Quran states:
    Quran 93:6, "Did He not find you an orphan and give you shelter.
    As stated above, Allah calls the protection of Abu Talib as His own protection. In the entire Quran there is not one mention of any act of a Mushrik that Allah has called His own. It leaves no room for any doubt that the enmity is based on their Shirk and not on any local factor.
    These quranic verses have greatly contributed in shaping the muslim mindset and their  behaviour towards the un-believers all over the world in general and in the Indian sub-continent in particular.
     If someone feels uneasy with these verses, he should not manupulate the meanings and the contexts of the Quranic verses by reinterpriting/ misinterpriting them. They should be straightforward and say good bye to all the Quranic teachings which are against the humanity and the universally accepted ethical principals.

    By Khalid Suhail - 2/13/2014 10:03:29 AM



  • dear hats off! - 2/13/2014 3:54:19 AM
    i will not allow them to pull me into gloom. they are weeping, crying and shouting "how can anybody say some good words for "Rational".

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 4:43:48 AM



  • Observer - 2/13/2014 3:44:51 AM
    i have said enough to my satisfaction on this topic. i am not going to peal the hair. the Quran uses derogatory words for who don't believe in it, because according to the Quran, the verses of the Quran are Ayah(nishaani) rejecting is kufr. kafirs are worst beast.
    which verse says it is not applicable to other kafirs(non-meccans)? the verses those shows some compassion are Makki. Madani verses are full of hatred.

     


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 4:30:17 AM



  • dear hats off! - 2/13/2014 3:54:19 AM
    Mr Ghulam M will frown upon your this comment because this forum is to chat on Islamic issues not gossip. i have many jokes. we crack into laughter at tea time where all jokes and poetry is shared.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 4:03:01 AM



  • dear mr rational,
    did you read what mr ghulam mohiyuddin thinks of you? he thinks you are richard dawkins.
    so cheer up! ma,n you are fine company! so let me compliment you on your conferred nom de plume!

    regards

    ps: mr rational, read some very irreverant jokes (there are any number of them all over the net. try the the ones that go "once a rabbi and a priest and some one else walk into a etc., etc.,...". many of them are guaranteed to have you in stitches. laugh your head off man! you need to laugh, especially after that long tiring back and forth.
    nothing like a belly full of rollicking laughter to recharge your ion pumps and ventilate the dead space.
    do it man! you deserve it. don't be so gloomy! laugh, like your life depended upon it.

    By hats off! - 2/13/2014 3:54:19 AM



  • Rational, no I don't. I used to think he is sensible. I have revised my opinion since. I just checked in to see if you have recieved my 'bye'.

    I must leave for sometime now, because there is only so much viciousness one can take without feeling physically ill. I admire your fortitude in taking on this tribe on a daily basis. May the gods, whoever and whereever they are, look after you.

    Best regards

    SL


    By secularlogic - 2/13/2014 3:48:45 AM



  • Dear Rational,

    Let us not miss the point. The identity of the translator of  the verse is unknown. The same translation appears on several Islamophobic sites but not on any of the Islamic sites. The word used is the strongest synonym of words used by other translators. The verse is quoted partially to strip it of its context since the context makes clear that the unbelievers referred to are the Meccans who stopped the Muslims from performing worship at Kaba, broke treaty and attacked the Mulsims. The verse also addresses the Prophet and not all Muslims and therefore does not have universal application or application for all times. It is completely irrelevant as far as relations between Mulsims and non-Mulsims are concerned today. However, the way it appears on Islamophobic sites and the way it is used by Suhail, is to create an impression that the Muslims are advised to deal ruthlessly with all non Muslims always. Neither you nor Suhail have to rely on any source to come to the same conclusion as I  or Yunus Sb have. If there are scholars who interpret differently, then the two of you should be decrying those scholars and not Islam or the Quran. It is not without reason that Yunus Sb has categorized the entire lot as internal enemies of Islam or as hypocrites. I however stop short of condemning in general, but have no hesitation in condemning specific instances when I encounter them.

    The point is very much what is your Islam? You are only responsible for yourself and not for others. Unlike the Sufis, I  don't have a Pir or Murshad and neither do I subscribe to the views of any imam 100%. I take what I like from any source and reject what I don't like. As a matter of fact, I am very sympathetic with the Shia view point while strongly disagreeing with their 'Tabarrah'.


    By Observer - 2/13/2014 3:44:51 AM



  • Observer - 2/13/2014 1:38:48 AM
    who is distorting the message of God? apostates or your brothers in religion? even according to some you have distorted the verses of the Quran? have you got the certificate from the God you have understood him correctly? your jehadi brothers do believe they only have correct message. your Sufi are also saying they have the correct understanding of the message of God.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 3:44:48 AM



  • dear secular logic - 2/13/2014 1:41:29 AM
    do you see any difference between jehadi lunatics and this  lunatic in the garb of moderate(ghulam m)? what can a ghulam (not all ghulams) do?  you just can imagine what help he could have rendered to his patients.
    let him bray. he has the rights to bray.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 3:37:21 AM



  • Rational says, "the apostates who remain silent may appear peaceful but who those want to express themselves, Muslims will not let live them in peace."


    Is it worthwhile for you to sacrifice your peace of mind in order to indulge your compulsion to express yourself?



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/13/2014 2:44:16 AM



  • observer
    i know that you know the purpose of the verses i quoted.
    don't you belong to a group. have you not been praised from your group. if people praise me what is your problem. if you want to say they are using me for their purpose. it may be true and untrue. anybody may want this including you.
    just recall when Sadaf (sorry to Editor for mentioning him when he is not in sight), i was in your group. i am also with mr Sultan Shahin on his mission minus sectarianism. i was with you on sectarian issue and still i am.
    you said Islamophobics sites uses wrong translations, interpretations etc. Since i myself quote from there, i think your comment is for me as well as mr suhail. I think it is partial truth. if you point out untruth, why should i have any objection? you dragged Suhail to make your point. you could point out the mistake in the quotes quoted by me from those sites.
    here i feel strongly you are not fair on using strong or derogatory words by the Quran. you can launch your assault against the islamphobic sites. i find no problem in it. it will be good. why don't you post your comments or participate in the debates on those sites? who is holding your hand? why don't you attack on the source? why you don't uproot the root? why your nipping the buds.
    i am fully satisfied that you spoke less truth when you said islamophobe sites play with verses. those are public forums. you can exposed them with your intelligence and right information.
    saying i must speak for myself only may be a method managers use to solve their problems. divide the enemies to break their strength.
    what i am and what for, you may not know. your entire guess about me may be entirely incorrect. i just don't  want to demystify it. for it i am paying a heavy price in the form of unsolicited offer of professional psychological help. it is devlish in my opinion. don't you see despite all what i collect from disturbed minds i stay here undisturbed.
    i say one thing only for myself that i don't know what is islam. i see it is yours, it is Ghulam 's, it is Sultan's, it is yunus's and so on .........what is God's. you will say you must study with open mind. this open mindedness is different for a Muslims and a scientist. the Quran doesn't guide those who doubt in it?  i doubt. Finish.
    you say my departure from Islam is not peaceful. the apostates who remain silent may appear peaceful but who those want to express themselves, Muslims will not let live them in peace.
    regarding my identity you all are clueless just guessing and guessing.
    now come to main point. why Ashidda can't be taken as extreme if the Allah is speaking for enemy. why it should be compared with the discipline of father towards his children?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 2:22:17 AM



  • Hats Off says, "i do not think that vocal dissenters of religion with strong views are in need of professional psychiatric help.."

    No! Richard Dawkins is in no need of psychiatric help. Richard Dawkins does not haunt religious websites arguing and whining endlessly with believers and making a nuisance of himself. He knows where to speak and when to speak.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/13/2014 2:12:50 AM



  • Hats Off, thanks for the heads up :) I guess it is time to take off to cooler climes.

    For anyone planning to undertake the perilous task of arguing with a Muslim moderate, a word of advice: DON'T

    It goes like this:

    a: presents a view

    Muslim moderate: prove it

    a: takes references from somewhere, copy pastes

    MM: that is from an islamophobic site

    a: tries to get quotes from a place that MM approves of

    MM: The translation is wrong/ arabic is a difficult language so misinterpreted/the worst synonym has been used.

    a: insists he has taken from commonly approved sources

    MM: Quran is the word of God. You cannot challenge it. If God has said so, it must be so.

    a: persists by asking how can god say such cruel, unscientific, irrational things

    MM: You bloody apostate! You lunatic! You pest! You sanghi! You chandal chaukadi!

    a: I am not mad. Nor am I your enemy. I am only full of doubts. And I wish this world to be a better place.

    MM: That is a lie. You have done nothing but block moderate debate. *soliticiously, and gratuitously offer quack psychiatric counselling to a and ask him to get head checked by expert. Spit at people who protest that a is perfectly normal*

    a sticks on, b goes into apalled silence, c doesn't care and walks in and out as he pleases, d cant take it anymore and goes away for some time.

    MMs: Yaaaay! we have won! we have declared a to be mad hence irrelevant, b to be enemy of islam hence irrelevant, c to be a plagiarist of islamophobic sites hence irrelevant, and d to have hemmed and hawed and pleaded for mercy, and run away in fright! Allahuakbar!

    Therefore, folks, before starting an argument with a MM, ask him to choose the weapons - oops - the source text that should be used as reference point. That might cut this tortuous business by half, but you still have no hope of making him accept even a single blemish in his religion of peace.

    Rational, take care, ya? Let me do something sentimental before I leave. *Hugs*


    By secular logic - 2/13/2014 1:41:29 AM



    • Hats Off asks: "i do not think that vocal dissenters of religion with strong views are in need of professional psychiatric help.
    • or are they?"
    • In general no and certainly not if they display ethical behaviour and do not resort to lies, distortions or other behaviours symptomatic of  strong  repressed feelings or of open vendetta.

    By Observer - 2/13/2014 1:38:48 AM



  • Rational,

    You are praised within your own group as a person with intelligence and insight but I wonder what is your intention in the post on which you are repeatedly seeking my response.

    You post translations of a few verses and without checking up for correctness, I can say that prima facie they appear to be correct. What does that prove? You have not even provided the reference of the site from where you have picked these up!

    Islam can be maligned in several ways. Using a stronger synonym than warranted is just one method. The more common method is to quote a partial verse cropping out the part that provides the context or ignoring the previous or succeeding verses that provide the context.

    If somebody is accused of lying, the defense cannot be citing a few instances when the accused spoke the truth on a different subject or in a different context.  At best, that is what your post amounts to!

    What I have provided is a specific instance of Suhail, who is hailed by your group as a scholar, of using verses with a translation that is questionable and exclusively used by Islamophobic sites and the name of the translator is unknown and where the verse is also truncated to camouflage the fact that it applies to specific people who displayed specific behaviour and characteristics. You have no defense for this but are only interested in digressing.

    I know that you are not wilfully digressing and you sincerely think that you have come up with a great defence. I know you quite well and therefore thanked you before for showing admirable restraint and not jumping in while I was debating with someone else because although I knew that your stand on the subject was more aligned to my stand, yet I feared your very random comments which result in the debate losing its focus and the other person escaping by taking advantage of the digression.






    By Observer - 2/13/2014 1:15:13 AM



  • i do not think that vocal dissenters of religion with strong views are in need of professional psychiatric help.

    or are they?

    By hats off! - 2/13/2014 12:52:00 AM



  • observer
    you have not commented on the verses having theme of interceding i found on islamophobic site. why don't you point out where is the tempering?
    i have seen you before leaving some other questions and than saying no question is left unanswered. you have not told who among the muslims started their journey in doubt and they embraced Islam. leave the prophets outside.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 12:44:22 AM



  • Hats Off says, "i just wanted to break up the amateur "psychiatrists" bunch ganging up on a perfectly normal individual with insight."

    If he had insight he would have known when to stop being a pest. If you had insight you would have known how destructive your gang of three apostates and one Sanghi is to one of the very few moderate websites. I say let both moderate Islam and apostasy flourish, bit it can't be done on the same website.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/13/2014 12:42:44 AM



  • Rational,

    Why should I answer for others? I will only answer for myself and since I hold the Quran to be the word of God, I take pains to see that it is understood as closely as possible to its true meaning. I have absolutely no interest in presenting it in a manner different from my own understanding of its true meaning. I don't care for what is considered as politically correct in today's world either and you know that.

    So kindly take up with others for their views.

    By Observer - 2/13/2014 12:39:54 AM



  • dear hats off
    i don't need any advise or help of these lunatics because of their defense of their religion. because i have not surrendered myself to their attacks they are using such techniques. i am well aware how Muslims behave in such matters. it is not going to help them. this is my power nobody can snatch from me.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 12:38:35 AM



  • observer
    i am not stopping anyone including suhail. the quran uses most degrading words for mushrikeens and kafirs. if the quran only addresses the meccan mushrikeens and kafirs how come non-muslims are not allowed in the mecca.
    your brothers have given reason they are unclean/impure at heart. it was the prophet who started hate/insult against non-Muslims. and made arrangements so the vilification of non-Muslims continue after his death.
     

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 12:30:53 AM



  • Quote them one again Rational if you really want me to respond. If I have ignored it so far, it was to avoid being harsh to you.
    By Observer - 2/13/2014 12:28:28 AM



  • Dear Rational,

    The Quran is the word of God and what God says does not require to be defended but only presented in the correct light so that people do not distort the message.

    Those who are trying to distort the message are being drowned and it is they who are trying to rescue each other by holding out straws.

    By Observer - 2/13/2014 12:24:57 AM



  • observer
    pay some attention to verses i quoted. it is you in order to save the Quran digressing.



    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 12:22:43 AM



  • observer
    now your are clinging to straws. keep doing it. the Quarn uses extremely derogative words for kafirs/non-Muslims.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/13/2014 12:16:48 AM



  • Rational's behaviour will be considered perfectly normal by his own (sub)group. That goes without saying and we have two endorsements as proof. The endorsements are also  proof of group behaviour and characteristics.

    Otherwise, Rational is an "extraordinary or a most unexpected apostate" considering his background and education in a madrasa. There have to be reasons or causes for every extraordinary occurrence. If Rational had found another religion or peace as an atheist or agnostic, it would have shown strength. He is however not at peace because he has found nothing but is at war with his former religion. This is certainly a sign of maladjustment.

    I provided a list of causes for people turning apostate from a survey. From what we know of Rational, the precise cause can be easily identified.


    By Observer - 2/12/2014 11:24:32 PM



  • i just wanted to break up the amateur "psychiatrists" bunch ganging up on a perfectly normal individual with insight.

    while none of the "psychiatrists" seem to have any insight at all into their own condition.

    lack of insight is a key factor, which of course amateur "psychiatrists" are not expected to understand. especially when they seemed determined to "give a dog a name and hang him".

    dsm is as good a book as any, it is not written by god or has it fallen down from the sky to claim infallibility. it never does. that is why there are versions. that is why there are revisions. it is not cast in stone. it is not the ten commandments.

    there you have it.

    as for the "sub-group", theory i addressed the post to these individuals because, the way the debate was shaping up, i wanted them to realize that mr lodhia (who by the way is absolutely in no need of therapy at all?) could barge in anytime.

    i warned them. if that is evidence for subgroup formation, it appears that your evidential criteria are rather flimsy and whimsical. and probably unreliable.

    By hats off! - 2/12/2014 8:18:27 PM



  • The following is what Suhail has quoted from an Islamophobic site. He is unable to say who the translator is and this version is carried exclusively by several Islamophobic sites. Notice that is a truncated verse:

    48:29) "Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another". 

    To get the complete context of the verse and the specific unbelievers of the Prophets's times who are referred to, read the following verses which are self explanatory and require no interpretation:


    48:22 And if those [Makkans] who disbelieve had fought you, they would have turned their backs [in flight]. Then they would not find a protector or a helper.
    48:24 And it is He who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them within [the area of] Makkah after He caused you to overcome them. And ever is Allah aware of what you do.
    48:25 They are the ones who disbelieved and obstructed you from al-Masjid al-Haram while the offering was prevented from reaching its place of sacrifice. And if not for believing men and believing women whom you did not know - that you might trample them and there would befall you because of them dishonor without [your] knowledge - [you would have been permitted to enter Makkah]. [This was so] that Allah might admit to His mercy whom He willed. If they had been apart [from them], We would have punished those who disbelieved among them with painful punishment
    48:27 Certainly has Allah showed to His Messenger the vision in truth. You will surely enter al-Masjid al-Haram, if Allah wills, in safety
    48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating [in prayer], seeking bounty from Allah and [His] pleasure. Their mark is on their faces from the trace of prostration. That is their description in the Torah. And their description in the Gospel is as a plant which produces its offshoots and strengthens them so they grow firm and stand upon their stalks, delighting the sowers - so that Allah may enrage by them the disbelievers. Allah has promised those who believe and do righteous deeds among them forgiveness and a great reward.

    Suhail is not a layman who can be easily misled. He is a self proclaimed scholar of Arabic who has studied the Quran and all major Islamic literature. So isn't this a case of deliberate distortion of the truth to malign Islam which shows his true character? 

    By Observer - 2/12/2014 7:14:30 PM



  • Hats Off addresses his comment to, "dear mr khalid suhail, mr rational and mr secularlogic".


    Are you now the leader of this subgroup? As a therapist, do you know the implications of subgroup formation?



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/12/2014 2:16:27 PM



  • Hats Off,


    You claim to be a professional person but your characterization of DSM is not only amateurish, it is downright silly. How come?



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/12/2014 2:09:40 PM



  • As for Rational's digression to save Suhail, read 8-56 along with 8-55 to know the context and the meaning.


    Sahih International
    8-55 Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe -8:56 The ones with whom you made a treaty but then they break their pledge every time, and they do not fear Allah .

    The people referred to are those of the Prophet's times who not only disbelieved in the message but broke their treaty with the prophet every time they made a treaty. 



    By Observer - 2/12/2014 11:04:03 AM



  • The following is what Suhail has quoted from an Islamophobic site. He is unable to say who the translator is and this version is carried exclusively by several Islamophobic sites:

    4:101) "The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy".


    Now to understand the meaning and context of the verse, read the following complete verse 101 and 102 which are self explanatory. Translation by Sahih international.

    4:101 And when you travel throughout the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer, [especially] if you fear that those who disbelieve may disrupt [or attack] you. Indeed, the disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy. 102 And when you are among them and lead them in prayer, let a group of them stand [in prayer] with you and let them carry their arms. And when they have prostrated, let them be [in position] behind you and have the other group come forward which has not [yet] prayed and let them pray with you, taking precaution and carrying their arms. Those who disbelieve wish that you would neglect your weapons and your baggage so they could come down upon you in one [single] attack. But there is no blame upon you, if you are troubled by rain or are ill, for putting down your arms, but take precaution. Indeed, Allah has prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment.

    Clearly, the context of the verse are the specific times prevailing then and may become applicable under similar circumstances but not for normal times or all times. 

    By Observet - 2/12/2014 10:56:44 AM



  • Now I am quoting from a reliable Islamic source. Ibn Kathir says,
    And those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, merciful among themselves. 48:29.
    just as He, the Exalted and Most Honored, said in another Ayah,
    "Allah will bring a people whom He will love and they will love Him; humble towards the believers, stern towards the disbelievers. (5:54)"
    This is the description of the believers; harsh with the disbelievers, merciful and kind to the believers, angry without smiling before the disbelievers, smiling and beaming with pleasure before his believing brother". 
    Therefore, the above verses don't need any context. they show that, "the description of the believers; i.e. to be harsh with the disbelievers, merciful and kind to the believers, angry without smiling before the disbelievers, smiling and beaming with pleasure before his believing brother" Is a permanent Quranic injection. 
    Allah further says in 98:6, "Verily, those who disbelieve from among the People of the Scripture and idolatars, will abide in the fire of Hell.
    They are the worst of creatures.
    Verily, those who believe and do righteous good deeds, they are the best of creatures.
    Their reward with their Lord is Eternal Gardens, underneath which rivers flow.
    Ibn Kathir explains,
    "Allah informs of what will happen to the wicked disbelievers among the People of the Scripture and the idolatars who oppose the Allah's divinely revealed Books and the Prophets whom He sent.
    He says,
    that they will be in the fire of Hell on the Day of Judgement and they will abide therein forever.
    This means that they will remain in it and they will have no way out of it and they will not cease being in it.
    He further explains the verse, "They are the worst of creatures"
    meaning, they are the worst creation that Allah has fashioned and created.
    And about the verse, "They are the best of creatures" ( believers), Ibn Kathir says,
    "Abu Hurayrah and a group of the scholars have used this Ayah as a proof that the believers have a status among the creatures that is better than the angels. This is because Allah says,  (They are the best of creatures).
    What all this proves is that Allah and his messenger consider the un-believers permanent enemies who don't deserve any mercy, neither in this world nor in the hereafter.
     

    By Khalid Suhail - 2/12/2014 10:36:31 AM



  • dear mr rational,
    if you want to play the game of casual psychiatry, the best book is what is known as DSM. or the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental diseases or something like that. it comes in various versions, just like windows software. kindly do a google search, it will clarify.

    it is full of jargon, but it can give you a tremendous sense of superficial knowledge. its worth reading, if you are ever going to try your hand at amateur psychiatry or dinner table psychology. this book is a must for all potential psychiatric case studies and their psychiatrists. in addition, its a wonderful pastime for its practitioners, but quite useless to its subjects.

    regards.

    By hats off! - 2/12/2014 10:21:59 AM



  • Rational,

    Will you let Suhail answer? 

    By Observer - 2/12/2014 10:18:08 AM



  • Rational says, "you want to establish rational is sick at mind so his comments."


    I cannot establish anything just from comments. Your behavior on this website raises some concerns. You may have obsessive symptoms or you may have just consciously decided to be a persistent pest on this moderate Islamic website just because the editor here allows you to do so whereas other Islamic websites did not. In any case I wish you the best of health.



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/12/2014 10:06:05 AM



  • mr ghulam m
    although i have stopped responding to your devlish comments still to keep the record right i must say your offer is loaded with evil intentions. you want to establish rational is sick at mind so his comments. i am doing all y duties very well. i enjoy reapect in my office and many people consult me on various matters. they even share what they don't want to share with others. i need not any advise or treatment because i rarely visit the doctors. at present iam as good as young boys.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/12/2014 9:09:28 AM



  • mr observer. my quotation of these verse is not any digression. you said worst synonym was used. i have just quoted to show you what kinds of words the quran uses for kafirs. these words are in line with the words you are protesting against. the comments you are posting are not going to help you. i don't want to use harsh words for you. please post your comments i am repearing third time. are the verses i quoted from worst islamophobic site tempered or not. later verses on the theme kafirs are worst beast not from the islamophobic site. if you think some enemy has created that site to malign Islam than you are also lover of conspiracy.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/12/2014 8:57:15 AM



  • dear hats off. few month back i downloaded animal farm and read it. it is wonderful novel.
    right now i have downloaded the grand design by stephen and leonard. a very enlightening book. it is opening new windows in my mind. 

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/12/2014 8:41:28 AM



  • Khalid Suhail,

    I did say that the worst possible synonym was used. So there is no point in saying that a synonym was used. You didn't tell us whose translation was it anyway and why only the Islamophobic sites carry this translation?

    And why was 4:101 cropped to remove the context? And doesn't 4:102 add further context to show that the verses cover a period of hostility when a sudden attack could be expected while they were praying? 

    By Observer - 2/12/2014 8:04:48 AM



  • dear mr khalid suhail, mr rational and mr secularlogic,

    i think the thread temperature is slowly rising, if you have noticed.

    its just a matter of time before the republican american forum bouncer leaps right into the melee.

    we could all try avoiding that. this is not a matter of cowardice or fear or loathing or whatever. just a little suggestion.

    please feel free to ignore entire post, if it is uncalled for, presumptive or patronizing.

    By hats off! - 2/12/2014 7:14:54 AM



  • Observer says,

    Dear Rational,

    "Khalid Suhail in his comment under the article:

    http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/pallavi-aiyar/lessons-from-indonesia%E2%80%99s-hindu-legacy/d/13981

     has quoted the following:

     (4:101) "The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy".

     (48:29) "Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another". 

    "Just copy paste each verse (actually it is only a part) in Google search and the results will be from Islamophobic sites alone, which is proof enough that genuine Islamic sites do not have these words in their translations".

    "And Khalid Suhail tells us that he is an Arabic scholar who carefully whets the material before posting it!"

    "You should check only the verses that speak about non-Muslims as these are more likely to have been doctored". 

    First, let us see how different Islamic exegetes have translated this verse 4:101. 

    Maulana Wahiduddin Khan: When you [believers] are travelling in the land, you will not be blamed for shortening your prayers, if you fear the disbelievers may harm you. They are your avowed enemies.

    Al-Muntakhab: And if you journey into a foreign land, be it in the cause of Allah or for any other purpose, you incur no guilt if you should shorten your prayer. the infidels are indeed your avowed enemy.

    Abdel Haleem: When you (believers) are travelling in the land, you will not be blamed for shortening your prayers, if you fear the disbelievers may harm you: they are your sworn enemies.

    Abdul Majid Daryabadi: And when ye are journeying in the earth there shall be no fault in you that ye shorten the prayer if ye fear that those who disbelieve shall molest you, verily the infidels are ever unto you an avowed enemy.

    Dr. Munir Munshey: You incur no sin, if you shorten ´the salat´ while traveling through the land, for fear of an attack by the unbelievers. Indeed, the unbelievers are your professed enemies.

    N J Dawood:  It is no offence for you to shorten your prayers when travelling the road if you fear that the unbelievers may attack you. The unbelievers are your inveterate foe.

    Sayyid Qutb: When you go forth on earth, you will incur no sin by shortening your prayers, if you have reason to fear that the unbelievers may cause you affliction. Truly, the unbelievers are your sworn enemies.

    Meaning of inveterate:

    having a particular habit, activity, or interest that is long-established and unlikely to change.

    synonyms:       ingrained, deep-seated, deep-rooted, deep-set, entrenched, established.

    I do not see any major difference between the words: inveterate foes, and avowed enemies, sworn enemies and professed enemies, as the Quran tells us again and again that the unbelievers’s heart is not going to change and their enmity is long established.

    Now take the other verse (48:29) "Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another".

    Abdel Haleem: Muhammad is the Messenger of God. Those who follow him are harsh towards the disbelievers and compassionate towards each other.(harsh – compassionate)

     

    Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi:      Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. And those who are with him are stern against the infidels and merciful among themselves. (severe – merciful )

    Ahmed Ali:      Muhammad is the Prophet of God; and those who are with him are severe with infidels but compationate among themselves. (severe – compassionate)

    Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani: Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are hard on the disbelievers, but compassionate among themselves.

    Shabbir Ahmed:          Muhammad is Allah's Messenger. And those who are with him are stern towards the rejecters, but full of compassion towards one anothe.

    Dr. Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri: Muhammad (blessings and peace be upon him) is the Messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard and tough against the disbelievers but kind-hearted and merciful amongst themselves. (are hard and tough - kind-hearted and merciful)

    Meaning of ruthless:

    "having or showing no pity or compassion for others".

    synonyms:       merciless, pitiless, cruel, hard, cold-blooded, harsh, severe, unmerciful, unsympathetic, uncharitable, lacking compassion.

    Please take the words, "compassionate towards each other", merciful among themselves and kind-hearted and compare them with their opposite words, the meaning of harsh, stern, severe, hard, and hard and tough ( for the Arabic word Ashidda' With its sigular shadi'd), becomes quite clear.

    Since Observer has dragged me meaningless debate, I had to reply. Otherwise, neighther I have time nor any interest left in this debate.


    By Khalid Suhail - 2/12/2014 5:48:11 AM



  • It is the rest of you who are baying for his blood who do.

    I hope this part of my opinion has also been noted. See if you can get wholesale counselling rates :)

    By secularlogic - 2/12/2014 4:33:21 AM



  • Secular Logic says, "Rational needs no counselling."


    Your opinion is noted. Bye for now!



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/12/2014 4:06:29 AM



  • Rational needs no counselling. It is the rest of you who are baying for his blood who do.
    By secularlogic - 2/12/2014 4:00:11 AM



  • Secular Logic says, " do at least half of us not qualify.'

    Depends upon persistence and severity. Rational may or may not decide to seek counselling. You do not have to make a football out of it. Rational himself has not taken that attitude.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/12/2014 3:40:42 AM



  • Whether I am cheering the apostates or not is immaterial. I am cheering you, too, in case you have not noticed.

    By the parameters you have set, do at least half of us not qualify? :)

    By secularlogic - 2/12/2014 3:28:13 AM



  • Secular Logic says, "Ah at last a diagnostic tool for identifying mental disorders."


    This from a guy who is here just to cheer on the apostates!!!

     


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/12/2014 3:17:20 AM



  • Persistent and severe obsessionalism mixed with paranoid symptoms.

    Ah at last a diagnostic tool for identifying mental disorders. 


    Now let me think of all the people on this site who fit this category.

     Do people 
    - who shout "enemy of Islam" at regular intervals,
    - who suffer from verbosity so severe that it is impossible to understand what they are saying, 
    -those who chant "my prophet greatest, my religion greatest, my invaders greatest" qualify?
    -How about the conspiracy theorists and CBI sleuths who specialise obsessively in uncovering 'hidden identities' and those who think these damn enemy of islam janasanghis are getting paid for commenting here?

    Half the participants on this site should be sitting in the psychiatrist's waiting room :).

    By secularlogic - 2/12/2014 3:06:34 AM



  • Rational,

    The discussion was about verses that are distorted and I have produced the proof of verses distorted by changing a word and cropping the context to communicate a different meaning.

    As usual, you digress into meaningless directions.

    By Observer - 2/12/2014 2:19:18 AM



  • Sultan Shahin, Observer Ghulam Ghaus and Ghulam Rasool, Misbahul Hoda Sahibaan and Varsha Sharma Sahiba
    here is a link worth visiting.
    http://iloveimamrabbani.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/verse-855-who-are-the-disbelievers-and-what-does-the-quran-call-them/

    Sultan saheb please don't start saying Rabbani was not a Sufi. Ahle Suunat wal Jamat Brailvi section revere his as Mujaddid and Sufi.

    The conclusion that we learn from this verse and its exegesis:

    Anyone who has heard about our Master Rasulullah ﷺ and yet does not accept our Master Muhammad Rasulullah ﷺ as Allah’s last and final prophet & messenger and the Quran as Allah’s Divine Revelation, he is indeed lower than bovine and swine, according to the Muslim tradition. This is incontestably proven from the Quran.


    you can criticize Devbandi school. i have no problem. it gives me extra strength.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/12/2014 2:12:36 AM



  • observer. saying somebody has quoted from islamophobe site is merely a tool for Muslims to discredit the proof.period.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/12/2014 2:02:41 AM



  • Observer - 2/11/2014 11:25:35 PM
    very weak argument indeed! actually there is no reply. leave khalid suhail for the moment. please comment on other verses i have quoted. what is wrong with those verse?
    take the other verses into account enemies of Islam according to the Quran are beast

    8:55
    Sahih International
    Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe -
    Muhsin Khan
    Verily, The worst of moving (living) creatures before Allah are those who disbelieve, - so they shall not believe.
    Pickthall
    Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe.
    Yusuf Ali
    For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.
    Shakir
    Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.
    Dr. Ghali
    Surely the evilest of beasts in the Meeting with Allah are the ones who have disbelieved, so they would not believe.
    this is not from islamophobe sites.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/12/2014 1:59:33 AM



  • Hats Off says to Rational, "it is truly orwellian to see you diagnosed to be suffering from mental illness serious enough to warrant psychiatric attention."


    Persistent and severe obsessionalism mixed with paranoid symptoms. Psychotherapy can be helpful but is not a 'must'. Nothing Orwellian about it.



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/12/2014 1:31:02 AM



  • Rational,

    A parent deals firmly with indiscipline. You show firmness when showing leniency results in being taken advantage of. A tyrant crushes opposition ruthlessly. There is a world of difference. 

    Permission is given to shorten the prayer when travelling in an environment of open hostility. This would hold good even today - for example if there are riots when people indulge in open violence.

    The verse quoted by Suhail is without the context of performing salat while traveling and simply says that "the unbelievers are your inveterate enemies" . Whereas the actual verse is situational, in this form,  it describes  a permanent state of enmity or something in the very nature of unbelievers. There is a world of difference.

    The other important point to note is that  these versions are found only on the Islamophobic sites without the name of the translator.

    That is why, when I see that someone has quoted from such sites, I do not respond beyond saying that the person's choice of source, describes the person.

    By Observer - 2/11/2014 11:25:35 PM



  • dear mr rational,
    i think you missed my last post addressed to you.

    i have read orwell's 1984 and am familiar with its idiom. also you might know about another of his masterpieces - animal farm. i will try to see the 1984 movie.

    just to repeat, i requested you to kindly click the you-tube video clip URLs posted on this forum by the republican gentleman from united states whose role model is george (f(r)iend of iraq) bush.

    it is not very important to click them, but it is very insightful and educative if you take the trouble to.

    it is truly orwellian to see you diagnosed to be suffering from mental illness serious enough to warrant psychiatric attention, while this sterling republican gentleman with a possible obsession with large-bore small arms (that use hollow-head, short-rim projectiles), and who posts clips from blood soaked hollywood movies, is certified fit.

    its a sign of the times, if only we could read the signs properly.

    so kindly click on the you tube video links on this thread and others on the slavery thread this man from republican US has posted. it might give you insights into certain common american processes. these insights are very educative and valuable.

    but maybe it is the fact that i might be whipping up paranoia as a result of self-loathing brought on by defective fathering, ;))
    regards.

    ps:
    honest man: one who has not been convicted, yet ;)
    sane man: one who has not met a shrink, yet ;))
    healthy man: one who has not met a doctor, yet ;)))

    By hats off! - 2/11/2014 11:06:58 AM



  • dear observer
    in another example i don't see any reason to say 'ruthless' is not a proper word. let us take the example. ruthless means showing no mercy.
    in the verse 'ashiddao' is used against the 'ruhma' why ruthless cant be used.
    'ashidda' and 'ruhma' seems to be opposite words. at least i know where from the sila rahmi is derived.
    it is not making a big difference. Muslim translators try to use milder terms to reduce the severity for obvious reasons. even modifiers are used to change the meaning for example dhraba(lightly) in Yusuf Ali tranlation.on wife beating verse.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/11/2014 8:32:19 AM



  • dear observer
    how much inveterate in place of open evident change the meaning.
    4:101
    Sahih International
    And when you travel throughout the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer, [especially] if you fear that those who disbelieve may disrupt [or attack] you. Indeed, the disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy.
    Muhsin Khan
    And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies.
    Pickthall
    And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
    Yusuf Ali
    When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.
    Shakir
    And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open enemy.
    Dr. Ghali
    And when you strike in the earth, (i.e., journey in the earth) then there is no fault in you that you shorten the prayer in case you fear that the ones who have disbelieved may make an attempt on you; (Literally) surely the disbelievers have been for you an evident enemy.
    inveterate having a particular habit, activity, or interest that is long-established and unlikely to change: an inveterate gambler 1.1(of a feeling or habit) long-established and unlikely to change: his inveterate hostility to what he considered to be the ‘reactionary’ powers
    is open enemy  inferior than inveterate enemy.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/11/2014 7:43:49 AM



  • dear secularlogic - 2/11/2014 4:46:46 AM
    copy to hats off
    have you ever watched the movie "1984", if not please watch. how can a man be forced by torture to say two and two can make , five, four or three. i will post some dialogues but to understand them watching movie is a requirement. it is based on a novel 1984 written by Georg  Orwell on totalitarian ideologies. 


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/11/2014 7:03:22 AM



  • dear observer. thanks for the post regarding here after. seeing yourpassion in debates on jizia and malakat aimanukum ijust doubted. it was a harmless inquery.
    i will check what you have provided and how does it makes difference. please check the verses i have quoted and let me now if the verses tempered with or not?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/11/2014 6:38:01 AM



  • Rational,

    You owe me nothing. It is painful for me to see an intelligent man like you being victimised and being called psychologically disturbed.

    If a person is told a thousand times that he is insane, even he starts believing it is so. We have seen this trick in countless Hindi movies :) I thought one small voice that believes in you might help you retain your faith in yourself.

    Take a deep breath and stay calm :)

    By secularlogic - 2/11/2014 4:46:46 AM



  • Rational says while quoting me:

    "I do not know how it is in the hereafter" honestly i doubt in your this 
    statement. 

    About this world, I know people who do not have a single reason to be unhappy, and yet they have made their lives a hell for themselves and others because of their inability to trust others and their extremely negative thinking. The bigger curse is not that others do not trust you but it is your inability to trust others. This inability to trust others, make people go mad in their later years, when they have to depend more and more on others. You cannot distrust  people you depend upon especially when there is no valid reason for such distrust and be happy. Such people become abusive and curse day and night those who are supporting them in their old age. You will find several old people who fall in this category. Such people  have lead the lives of tight-fisted misers and dominated their women folk whether widowed mother or wife or daughters and their abusive behaviour continues long after their mother and wife have departed. 

    So where is God in all this? It is what people have made of their own lives when God has given them everything to be happy such as wealth, caring relatives, freedom to do what they please, privacy, servants who attend on them 24 hours etc. Yet, they live in a hell of their own making!

    No one has seen the hereafter. Who can say whether the story of Adam is a historical record or an allegory? Who can say whether Satan exists or it is only a model of human behaviour where evil internal promptings have been personified in Satan because it is easier to fight an external enemy rather than one's own nature?

    If the universe was created in 6 days and a day could be 10000 years or 50000 years by our reckoning or some other number, and if time started only with the big bang, then what does eternity mean? (The Quran does contain the notion of time being relative!) 

    It does not really matter whether we take these things literally or treat them as allegories. The moral lesson remains the same.

    So, the fact is, I have not seen the hereafter and so I do not know the exact meaning of many things that the Quran describes.

    By Observer - 2/11/2014 4:07:57 AM



  • Dear Rational,  Khalid Suhail in his comment under the article:

    http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/pallavi-aiyar/lessons-from-indonesia’s-hindu-legacy/d/13981

    has quoted the following:

     (4:101) "The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy". 

     (48:29) "Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another".  

     Just copy paste each verse (actually it is only a part) in Google search and the results will be from Islamophobic sites alone, which is proof enough that genuine Islamic sites do not have these words in their translations.

    And Khalid Suhail tells us that he is an Arabic scholar who carefully whets the material before posting it!

    You should check only the verses that speak about non-Muslims as these are more likely to have been doctored.


    By Observer - 2/11/2014 3:36:58 AM



  • dear observer. let me help you a bit. i have picked these translations following which an enemy is making his case. please just check if the translation have been tempered or not. i will check too.

    O children of Israel, call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations. And be on your guard against a day when NO SOUL shall avail ANOTHER in the least neither shall any compensation be accepted from it, nor shall intercession profit it, nor shall they be helped. (2:122-123)

    O you who believe! Spend out of what We have given you before the day comes in which there is no bargaining, neither any friendship nor intercession… (2:254)

    [W]hoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides Allah, any protector or helper. (4:123)

    And warn with it those who fear that they shall be gathered to their Lord – there is no guardian for them, nor any intercessor besides Him – that they may guard (against evil). (6:51)

    Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement, and are deceived by the life of this world. But proclaim (to them) this (truth): that every soul delivers itself to ruin by its own acts: it will find for itself no protector or intercessor except Allah: if it offered every ransom, (or reparation), none will be accepted: such is (the end of) those who deliver themselves to ruin by their own acts… (6:70)

    Allah it is Who created the heavens and the earth, and that which is between them, in six Days. Then He mounted the Throne. Ye have not, beside Him, a protecting friend or mediator. Will ye not then remember? (32:4) [3]


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/11/2014 3:21:16 AM



  • observer
    "I do not know how it is in the hereafter" honestly i doubt in your this statement. 


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/11/2014 3:14:03 AM



  • Observer - 2/11/2014 2:27:49 AM
    i will check. many times i have found exact translations.
    please quote some examples. i will also check it. you must be aware of www.answering-islam.org. give some examples from this site. i request you two pick some random verses from those sites than we will verify it. please don't be selective. i leave it to your honesty.
    language play an important role. 
    in Urdu "Saala" is neutral and offensive. in english bother-in-law neutral. a name Kaalu can be offensive in Urdu but sometime we call mera kaalu.

    hatred can be enjoyed. do you know? don't you know people enjoy back-biting including pious Muslims. a hateful person doesn't enjoy music. he doesn't enjoy reading. he don't enjoy science. he doesn't enjoy photography. he doesn't enjoy homeopathy or medical science. he can't write poetry on love. some moments come when i feel anger. but i manage it. moments of happiness too come. otherwise how could i stay so long here where everybody has something to say about me. if i remove this quality there will be no "Rational" on this site.
    for me mr khalid suhail is like any other commentator. he may be a real guy. he may be in some disguise. who knows. i have posted harsher comments than him. he had been cool. whether i say something about him or not if he is determined he will continue.
    mr mohammed yunus has put mr hats off in hypocrite category. 
    it is true we are responsible for our thoughts, but we don't leave in isolation. we are in someway get attracted and repelled. what is wrong if i find you or mr hats off closer to me. and see the contrast. you are in the camp of Islam i and hats off in opposite.
    i don't believe Islam and politics are different. anything possible. 

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/11/2014 3:10:49 AM



  • observer
    'It is perfectly rational behaviour to both agree and disagree with others on different issues."
    it is fine, no objection to this much. when you can quote an islamophobe for your advantage, i have the same right. my ways of learning are different. i learn a lot from opposite camps. do you agree? both way it is fine. but if you don't agree it says something else. then you don't believe in the golden rule you quoted.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/11/2014 2:34:55 AM



  • Dear Rational,

    I do not know how it is in the hereafter, but in this world, we make our own heaven or hell through our thinking. I am sure you are not a happy person. Hatred and such intense negative feelings can never make you happy and is a reflection of an internal turmoil. It makes little difference to me what you write but in your own interest, I think you should make the best of your life and enjoy every moment of it. Believe me, when I say this, that I do not bear any ill feeling towards you simply because I love myself too much to ruin my own peace of mind. 

    About the secondary sources that you keep talking about, you are taking the versions of these secondary sources from Islamophobic sites. I can prove from what Khalid Suhail has been writing, that even some verses from the Quran that he downloaded from these sites have offensive words not used by any of the well known translators. It would appear that these sites  substitute the word used by a reputed translator with  an  offensive synonym. If they can do this with verses from the Quran, I can imagine what they may be doing with other works.  

    Moreover, a person is responsible for only his views. After someone has stated his view or understanding on any subject with reason and citing sources, you can argue with him on his understanding if you hold a different view. It is a pointless exercise to argue when you have no view of your own but are trying to prove that the "correct Islamic view" is different or the view held by your local imam is different. What are you trying to achieve through such arguments? If your  concern is  about what Muslims truly believe, then carry out surveys and publish your results giving the complete range of responses with statistics as in a Gallup Poll. There is no other way of telling in a convincing way what Muslims truly believe. Even then, I am still responsible only for my views and you cannot crucify me for what others may believe.


    By Observer - 2/11/2014 2:27:49 AM



  • dear secularlogic - 2/10/2014 10:32:22 PM
    i owe thanks to you for your support. you are one in this trio mr lodhia has constructed in his conspiracy loving mind. 
    let the people like ghulam m disagree we are salt and pepper on this site. imagine boring heavy scholarly debates. i must thank mr Sultan Shahin despite extreme pressure he is standing to his words.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/11/2014 2:17:49 AM



  • Observer - 2/11/2014 1:43:05 AM
    i don't want to dig your comments for the words you used for me posted in Jizia debate. however you had been fairer with me even in extreme points. your conduct was fairer than mr mohammed yunus and mr Ghulam M. i don't count mr Lodhia anywhere.

    i thank both you and mr Sultan Shahin. Mr Sultan Shahin minus sectarianism is a gentle person i like very much and in difficult situations i approach him. 

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/11/2014 2:13:17 AM



  • Dear Rational,

    It is perfectly rational behaviour to both agree and disagree with others on different issues. There is nothing wrong with my quoting Churchill who is an Islamophobe  and that  does not mean that I  agree with everything else Churchill has said.

    We have been on the same side against sectarianism but are on the opposite sides when you attack Muslims and Islam in general.


    By Observer - 2/11/2014 1:43:05 AM



  • dear Sultan Shahin
    debates between you and mr observer, between mr observer and mr mohammed yunus were lessons to me. now you have joined hands with mr observer to declare me emotionally/psychologically unfit for any participation. if i take it as offensive you call i t another symptom of psychological problem. Like Allah, minds of Muslims work in mysterious ways. 

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/11/2014 1:19:30 AM



  • dear Sultan Shahin - 2/10/2014 11:50:50 PM
    i have made myself very clear. you are just saying that my comments are filled with hatred because i am sick in mind. i have no words to express gratitude to you for your concern. i just can't believe a man who is so kind, tolerant, concerned about the people not restricting himself to Muslims can say these words.
    you are making me believe that my comments have no sense, no purpose, no more than hate just because they are coming from a perverted mind. i will not spend my energy to make you convinced who i am, for what i am. let it be what you and your moderates think about me and my comments. if your cause is harmed, if debates are ruined, if the site is hijacked, if there is only hate, if there is no probability of any good, the solution is simple. nobody is perfect including you. so don't pretend to be perfect. please use your editorial rights to protect your site from the damage i am doing to it. please respect the concern of your fellows. they are important for your mission. collect some more hands to clap in the praise of Islam and Muslims.
     
    regarding the extreme Muslims i must say they are victims of an ideology which tell them do and die for the love of Allah, his Quran, his prophet, his religion. it is just an alternative interpretation of the same sources. Islam can't wash its hands from having them. they have made Islam a topic to be discussed by its supporter and its enemies alike. in one way i am also the part of this campaign in opposite camp. it is the part of Islamic history no one can deny. 
    an alarm must be raised when someone claim that he loves the prophet more than anything in the world, he is likely to be a jehadi. he can kill anyone for his love for islam and hatred for the enemy. there are many examples in the Islamic history. just see the demonstrations what is done and said when some enemy of Islam is killed. do you recognize who is wahabi and who is Sufi/Barailvi in the demonstrations? to condemn extremists you are using your full means. it should be brought in front. i don't oppose it. at the same time from very beginning your team must be under the magnifying lens to locate the faults in their thinking, in their ways. why it should not be done? 

    you have a Hindu wife. do you believe she is impure/unclean at heart because of her beliefs? can you justify it? how do you reconcile with this belief and your common sense. don't your moderates believe in it because the Quran says? 
    i have no problem for you have a Hindu wife. my objection is why a Hindu can't have a Muslim wife. how many Muslims will allow their daughters be married with Hindus? 
    i have no problem if you pray in Jewish way or in Hindu ways but just ask your team. i don't know how many Muslims will do this and have done in past. Tell me one Sufi who prayed in Jewish way. Tell me one Sufi who prayed like Hindus pray. yes of course they invented some strange ways (to Islam) to attain the spirituality. 
    Sorry for bothering you with my scattered hateful thoughts. 

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/11/2014 1:05:34 AM



  • "your emotional state really has a lot to do with what you're thinking about and what you're paying attention to" - Daniel Kahneman

    Rational speaks against Islam and Muslims of every kind including the sectarians. Shahin Sb is however paying attention to only the part where he attacks sectarianism because that hurts him most. I do not think that Shahin Sb ever took up issue with Rational for his views until he started attacking the Barelvis on this site for their sectarianism. 



    By Observer - 2/11/2014 12:45:17 AM



  • Dear rational mohammed yunus, Why are you completely unconcerned for the violence raging in our midst? People are dying, brother. Moderates, Sufi, Barailwis are not killing. They are dying. Of course, moderates too have their faults, shortcomings, failure to stop triple talaq, halala and the like. Many of them may be liars, fraudsters, cheaters, even criminals. But they are not waging war against humanity. Why are you so totally, completely unconcerned with those who are. When we criticise these violent people and their talfiri ideology, you start pointing out our faults. Of course, we have faults. But why is that the issue with you in times of war?  These are peacetime issues. 

    Even in these times, we do keep talking about them and making efforts. You must have seen the report about my talk in Pune in which I talked about issues of reform in Muslim society. But when we are faced with such violence - 500 women suicide bombers, claim Taliban today, for instance - should we not focus on them. Or is this the time to spend whole days sorting out some moderate Muslim who thinks the earth revolves around the sun or seeking intercession is right. 

    Your obsession with the faults of peaceful moderates - and clearly there are many - to the exclusion of any concern for innocent people dying every day on account of a violent takfiri ideology for the last so many years is nothing sort of pathological. Hatred is a disease, my dear. Love for violence or indifference towards violence too is a disease. You have been smouldering in hate, to our knowledge, for several years, but maybe for decades.

    As it happens with most disturbed people, you are not willing to take help either. Normally no one should have objection to a psychiatric evaluation. It can only help. I have suggested to you to write out all your experiences of hurt from ashraf Muslims and madrasa teachers that you have faced in your life in one essays and see it possibly published. Maybe that will be cathartic and therapeutic too. 

    If you are not willing to try any of this maybe you would like to take a spiritual route. Try a Hasidic prayer which had helped me enormously. Go into deep meditation, learn from some Yogi fist how to alter your consciousness and reach alpha level of mind, then with great feeling and emotion say this prayer last thing in the night and first thing in the morning:

    "I forgive all those who may have hurt me physically, psychologically, financially or in any other way, knowingly or unknowingly, in this lifetime or in any previous lifetimes."

    If you don't believe in reincarnations, you can always change that to my lifetime and stop there. Repeat this thrice and then say the following in the same way and with the same deep sincere emotion:

    ""I seek forgiveness from all those whom I may have hurt physically, psychologically, financially or in any other way, knowingly or unknowingly, in this lifetime or in any previous lifetimes."

    In my case, I did not suffer from any mental disturbance but searing physical pain in my shoulders. When even these prayers did not work for a few days I made an innovation. I thought through my life's experiences and tried to recall experiences of hurt that I may have inflicted on people or been afflicted by, then brought those experiences of hurt to my mind at the time I was meditating and then did my prayers. Believe me it's 23 years now since that time and I haven't had any pain in my shoulders, except, of course, some after 18-hour flights or 21-hours sitting on the desk without a break.

    Note: I know this is gratuitous advice, particularly to a person, who doesn't think he has a problem. But believe me, such great hatred as you have of moderate Islam and moderate Muslims can make you go insane, if it hasn't already. Your return to sanity and normality will help us all. It would be wonderful to read you when you have forgiven every one for the hurts they have inflicted on you and sought forgiveness for the hurts you may have inflicted knowingly or unknowingly.


    By Sultan Shahin - 2/10/2014 11:50:50 PM



  • I express my full support for Rational's comment.

    Shame on people who are suggesting that he is out of his mind.

    Towards the real madman on the other hand, there is much indulgence. He has so far not added anything to any debate as yet, but goes on posting copious, literally colourful comments full of hate, conspiracy theories, obsession with particular individuals and their identities.

    Wonder if the criteria for declaring insanity are those who are Pro-islam - sane, pious, clever, learned, with deep understanding of the faith; critical of Islam - ignorant louts who dont understand the hidden meanings of the faith, mad, obsessed, venomous, hecklers who deserve to be kicked out but are tolerated because of the boundless generosity and patience of the editor - which, of course, he owes to his faith.


    By secularlogic - 2/10/2014 10:32:22 PM



  • dear Sultan Shahin saheb
    assalam alaikum
    i object the words venom and hate. i request you to be impartial. the proper title should be ' why i criticize Isalm" not why i hate moderate Islam. let me remind you what the president of Turkey said. he said Islam is Islam there is no moderate Islam.
    this is the only difference of perspective. jehadis call it love for allah you can say it is hate. you can say my comments are full of hate/venom and the comments of moderates are fight against hate. from my perspective it is different they are full of venom.  you can say it is negative. it is again your perspective not mine. my determination is to continue my defense. if some commentators continue to call me names i will continue to return them. if i quote from the authentic Islamic sources(authentic for majority of Muslims including your companions in your struggle) it should not be considered venom/hate. if it is hate i am not the source of it. you can defend it. i have repeatedly cleared my stand, but you people continue to target me. however  i will consider your suggestion.
    another tricky question you asked. why i don't oppose extreme Islam.
    if you divide the Islam in two categories. let me say my criticism includes extreme Islam.
    on this matter i am with mr observer. this question you must throw on him.

    offering your help to diagnose and treat appears as i am a sick person. i give you benefit of doubt. i thank you for your concern but reject the treatment whatever it is.
    if you(it is not you but if you fall in that category)fail to convince me it doesn't mean you start calling me names hypocrites. i need not to beat the drum for my honesty.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/10/2014 9:55:48 PM



  • To: Sultan Shahin – Editor & All Respected readers of the “New Age Islam” forum.

    Common sense should dictate to all of us that the response given by none other than Pseudo Rational is most likely written by someone else. I can pretty much guess who is behind the scene.

    Imagine why all of a sudden there is a drastic improvement in Englsh? When on the first place “A Mindless Hecker” do not know how to write English well.

    “May I suggest you put all your anger and hatred in one essay” requested Sultan Saheb. That will be only possible with a hidden hand. May be the combination of two different personalities disguised as one to extend a helping hand.

    “Who is kidding whom?” Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb was right on the mark when he stated, “Pests don’t leave unless they are kicked out.” Did anyone on this forum remember the commercial by Muhammad Ali about “D-Con Four Gone”?   

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXzRmX9eK7k

    Think hard and be on a high alert. This website got few bugs that must be dealt with in an appropriate manner.

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia   

     

    dear afaqsiddiqi - 6/11/2013 4:13:39 AM

    "If your religion is of your choice then it is your duty to defend it by all means"
    i have only one small concern . it is quite possible i may not leave religion Islam for some reasons. but i should have a freedom to do so. this freedom is not available at all. my choice to leave may cost my family and life. when i show this concern i am charged for islamophobia by our learned scholars. either they live in kuffar lands or are unaware of ground realities.
    if it is not so why there is a need of reform or site like this one. if they can't handle two voices (let us call it rude/insult etc) what can be hoped for? how they are going to fight against the people (who according to them have hijacked the Islam) even on ideas level.
    i had been here like enemy and as a traditionalist Muslim at the cost of demand of my banning from the site.
    i will appreciate your comment of any kind. i also request to comment on the debate went on malakat aimanukum and jizia if you have followed it.

    By rational mohammed yunus
    - 2/10/2014 3:25:26 AM

     

    Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/10/2014 1:46:42 AM
    we are not taking the advantage, it is he who doesn't want to paint himself as intolerant and impostor of ban. he might have developed the Patience you have not. long back he asked you to suggest how to deal with people like us. do you remember it or not? if not than you can suggest now.
    you are also forgetting to ignore. nobody is forcing you to reply. a fool is asking. why are you troubling yourself by replying to fool. if your interest is in exposing my foolishness, you have chosen a worthless aim. how it is going to help this site. so far your comments to me has brought no positive result. may i ask you how you are helping this site by posting your comments to me when you know i am the enemy of Islam?
    i sincerely request you to stop all this. your comments to me will add insult to injury. my impression about you is 'you despite a good liberal Muslim using common sense are not capable to handle the situation might be created by enemies of Islam whether they are internal or external'
    why are you so helpless? you say Islam has been hijacked by enemies and now this site? you can't eliminate enemies. it is beyond your capacity. how come two have hijacked this site. it is your fatal mentality. you need to harness yourself with better weapons. if you can't defeat  your imagined enemies two you are not fit for any reform or war against fundamentalists. you are weak and they are strong. think again and again instead of pouring your venom on us.
    i hope you will oblige me by considering my comment as positive. please spend your energy in posting your good comments. let the people free to take or refuse.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/10/2014 3:00:53 AM 


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/10/2014 12:41:27 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi, I did have some inkling of this phenomenon, but I am horrified to read your comment: "but on the other hand, we have  handed over almost all of our mosques and madrasas to Wahhabi/Salafi clergymen whose ideology is based upon intolerance."

    Is this really so? Is your conclusion simply based on anecdotal evidence and personal observation or has any study been conducted to find this out. Has this 'fact' come out in the media.


    By Sultan Shahin - 2/10/2014 10:22:20 AM



  • Dear rational mohammed yunus,  since you have expressed your determination to continue to spew venom against moderate Islam, - as I understand you do not oppose extremist Islam - may I suggest you put all your anger and hatred in one essay. You may call it: Why I hate moderate Islam?  I will consider posting it, no matter how long. If it is too long, as apparently you hate every aspect of moderate Islam and will have a lot to say, you can break it into a series of articles. My only condition is you base your essay on your personal experiences of living among Muslims and your personal studies of Islam, not on Islamophobic material that is already available to us on internet. Please consider this offer seriously. This might even prove therapeutic. 


    By Sultan Shahin - 2/10/2014 10:09:41 AM



  • @rational mohammed yunus - 2/10/2014 3:42:04 AM

    Rational says:

     "you are just justifying the killings and riots against the so called insult of your prophet."

     Can you clarify what is so-called insult of prophet?

    Blasphemy is just a blasphemy; it is not co-called or otherwise.



    By Misbahul Huda - 2/10/2014 9:09:20 AM



  • dear mr rational,
    i suggest you please click the spine-chilling you tube video links this man is posting.

    my only hope is he does not have one of those magnum four fives, clint eastwood packs (used to pack).

    regards

    By hats off! - 2/10/2014 8:39:01 AM



  • Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/10/2014 2:46:33 AM
    you are just justifying the killings and riots against the so called insult of your prophet.
    can you wipe out the Islamic books containing all shameful degrading accounts of the prophet? can you go to Madarsas where these books are taught? you are throwing only dust in the eyes of the people.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/10/2014 3:42:04 AM



  • Rational says, " i will not allow sit idle." - -


    I don't know what that means, but I suppose you want to continue your idiotic hate war against Islam.



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/10/2014 3:40:02 AM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/10/2014 3:18:45 AM
    then keep doing your foolish work. i will not allow sit idle.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/10/2014 3:27:26 AM



  • dear afaqsiddiqi - 6/11/2013 4:13:39 AM

    "If your religion is of your choice then it is your duty to defend it by all means"
    i have
    only one small concern . it is quite possible i may not leave religion Islam for some reasons. but i should have a freedom to do so. this freedom is not available at all. my choice to leave may cost my family and life. when i show this concern i am charged for islamophobia by our learned scholars. either they live in kuffar lands or are unaware of ground realities.
    if it is not so why there is a need of reform or site like this one. if they can't handle two voices (let us call it rude/insult etc) what can be hoped for? how they are going to fight against the people (who according to them have hijacked the Islam) even on ideas level.
    i had been here like enemy and as a traditionalist Muslim at the cost of demand of my banning from the site.
    i will appreciate your comment of any kind. i also request to comment on the debate went on malakat aimanukum and jizia if you have followed it.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/10/2014 3:25:26 AM



  • Rational asks, "why are you troubling yourself by replying to fool."

    People who care for this site have to speak up for its abuse by persistent hecklers.



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/10/2014 3:18:45 AM



  • I think with the acquisition of a virtual equivalent of a "village madman" this potboiler of a plot is now complete.:)

    This article was interesting. I have always wondered about inter-religious marriages. Now this is a very personal question, but I cannot help asking it.  How did a Mullah marry a Hindu woman? Did he convert her? Was it correct on his part to do so? Was the woman at liberty to practice her religion of birth in her marital home? Was she able to tell her children about Hinduism or was it taboo? I believe the subject of this article is also a part of an interfaith marriage. How do things work in their home? Do such children grow up appreciating the better aspects of the non-muslim faith at all? 

    I ask because interfaith marriages are growing in number these days. Politeness demands that I contain my curiosity and not ask the bride/groom about it face to face. So if the person who is the subject of this article finds my questions intrusive, I can understand if he refrains from answering them. 

    By secularlogic - 2/10/2014 3:09:18 AM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/10/2014 1:46:42 AM
    we are not taking the advantage, it is he who doesn't want to paint himself as intolerant and impostor of ban. he might have developed the Patience you have not. long back he asked you to suggest how to deal with people like us. do you remember it or not? if not than you can suggest now.
    you are also forgetting to ignore. nobody is forcing you to reply. a fool is asking. why are you troubling yourself by replying to fool. if your interest is in exposing my foolishness, you have chosen a worthless aim. how it is going to help this site. so far your comments to me has brought no positive result. may i ask you how you are helping this site by posting your comments to me when you know i am the enemy of Islam?
    i sincerely request you to stop all this. your comments to me will add insult to injury. my impression about you is 'you despite a good liberal Muslim using common sense are not capable to handle the situation might be created by enemies of Islam whether they are internal or external'
    why are you so helpless? you say Islam has been hijacked by enemies and now this site? you can't eliminate enemies. it is beyond your capacity. how come two have hijacked this site. it is your fatal mentality. you need to harness yourself with better weapons. if you can't defeat  your imagined enemies two you are not fit for any reform or war against fundamentalists. you are weak and they are strong. think again and again instead of pouring your venom on us.
    i hope you will oblige me by considering my comment as positive. please spend your energy in posting your good comments. let the people free to take or refuse.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/10/2014 3:00:53 AM



  • Dishonest folks will always do dishonest things. You all will assume another cute identity and come right back with a vendetta. Do you think that we the “Moderate Muslims” are stupid?   

     

    “Name & town if you wish to opine,” should be the only way moving forward. Sultan Shahin will have to adopt this policy sooner or later. All three of you will run away, or it is also likely that you will lie once again just for the heck of it. There goes to show what Mr. S. Jeelani calls the trick of “Morality. 

     

    Why don’t all three of you post your comments against Islam and our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) on another site. Then you should tell us where you have posted it. This way you will be happy and we will appreciate your input. Let us keep it “Clean” and not make it “Unclean” so to speak.

     

    Do you know that my favorite quote of Prophet Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) is, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. I firmly believe in this and will continue to do so till I die. A good Muslim respects all the Prophets of Allah. You on the other hand do not have any respect. Even the deadly Muslim terrorists will never insult the Prophet of Islam. Wake up! This is not to say that I endorse their evil activities, but merely pointing it out to you so that you can look up in the mirror and think about your own good name.      

     

    “Tyranny of the Minority” is not going to work when majority of the “Moderate Muslims” are going to appeal to the Editor/Moderator to rethink the course of the on-going debate. Surely, all three of supposedly pious people, therefore, I hope that the word “Morality” will come into play when respecting the wishes of the majority. Agreed!


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/10/2014 2:46:33 AM



  • Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/10/2014 2:09:36 AM
    if it is so let mr Sultan Shahin saheb do his work in a way he wants to do it. you are making unnecessary noise.
    let the Sultan Saheb say Rational and hats off need not to visit this site. but how you will stop others coming here? any suggestion to stop the destruction of this site?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/10/2014 2:27:11 AM



  • Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/10/2014 1:51:07 AM
    don't impress us with your high position and connections. 1.5 billions are not certainly terrorists but they have terrorists. therefore people have asked something like this.
    All Muslims are not terrorists but almost all terrorist are Muslim. who is responsible? me, hats off, secular logic!!
    and remember my name carries the word mohammed. if you take my name with respect, some of your sins may be pardoned in the court of Allah or at least the prophet will intercede for you. you have stopped calling my name.
    remember Sultan Ghazni was fond of the name of the prophet. he was very respectful to a slave just because he has the name mohammed. but see what he did? murder of many hindus and destruction of temples.
    grow up. by merely having name mohammed or Allah as the part of name has no grace.
    do you believe people having name mohammed must be respected just because their names. you must respect many talibans who carries the name mohammed and Allah in their names.
    hz mohammed as per Muslims has 99 Sifati names. do you want to make us believe the people with these names are pious Muslims. they can't commit theft, killing or rape. if it is so make every muslim mohammed and abdullah.
    we are just checking your depth of knowledge. unless you speak we can't never know.
    as an American as you are telling you must have compelling reasons to whitewash the Islamic history. more you wash they make it dirtier.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/10/2014 2:15:52 AM



  • Pseudo Rational,

     

    You are one classic case. There are two types of “Talibans” that comes out of Madrassas. One known as the “Terrorists, and the other as “Terrorizers. Both these group are being thoroughly brainwashed by the perverted Mullahs all day long.

     

    You are the terrorizer of minds. It is as simple as that. How can a man’s mind be so perverted with no shame, and yet, continue to retain a Muslim name and fiercely attack the religion he believes in? Beats me!

     

    Sultan Shahin can continue to let you spit out whatever you want. It will eventually hurt his personal reputation. Ultimately, you will be held responsible one of these days. The word to the wise is sufficient.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/10/2014 2:09:36 AM



  • Listen Up! You, Mr. S. Jeelani and the mysterious Secular Logic have long carried the dishonest debate with no merits. I can understand the heat is on from my side. Why not? It is time for someone other than those who are already debating to take a tough stand.

    Remember, I am an American and a Republican. I say, “Bring ‘Em On. If want to know more, then click on this YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKdbZWNqF00

    Terrorizing the minds of the “Moderate Muslims” will have to be dealt with. All three of you have nothing good to say about anything that is related to Islam. Do you think that all 1.5 billion Muslims are terrorists, thugs or what? Be honest, please!

    Go write a book about how bad Islam and Muslims are. Ah Hah! In that book also write about how bad is Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia. “Go ahead make my day.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoXDzsuqXFg

    This is not a threat, but a simple request to make our day by answering intelligently and stop playing cat and mouse game. No more of “One-Sided” argument all the time. This is not what forums are all about, Mr. S. Jeelani, Secular Logic (?) and You.  


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/10/2014 1:51:07 AM



  • Hats Off asks, "point out conflicts generated by "detractors of religion" anywhere in the world today."

    If you think Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists are Muslims, read the articles of Yunus sahib. They are the enemies of Islam. Just look at this forum. The three enemies of Islam here (Rational, Suhail and yourself) have worked havoc through endless distractions on a site supposed to be devoted to promotion of moderate and progressive Islamic thought. The three of you have been totally shameless in taking advantage of Shahin saheb's liberal policy on comments. On any other site you would have been kicked out long ago.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/10/2014 1:46:42 AM



  • Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/10/2014 1:06:15 AM
    you were leaving this site due to unbearable pain we have caused to you. before you turn into incurable take the action.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/10/2014 1:19:29 AM



  • Dear Mrs. Sharma,

     

    Guess what! The brilliant Mr. S. Jeelani is again highlighting all the evil deeds committed by a very small fraction of Muslims. What continues to baffle me is that he is totally incapable to pinpoint the good deeds of Muslims.

     

    Another deviation and another week will be lost. Mr. Jeelani do not have “IDEAS” on how to address the burning issues of the day. If you recollect, when he jotted down his own ideas, then he ran away and could not reply me back. Even though, he insisted that I should  reply to him. Don’t you think Mr. Jeelani operates on a “One-Way” lane? What sort of debate are we having here on the “New Age Islam” forum? Few commentators can go about abusing Islam and its founder and all we should do is to continue to read all the jibber jabber? Where is the level playing field?  

     

    Interestingly, the man is totally against religion. That’s fine and dandy. It’s high time for Mr. Sultan Shahin as a “Moderator” of this forum to at least demand from the commentators to answer the questions as well as rebuttals. That’s the way any intellectual forums should run.

     

    Respectfully yours,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia  


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/10/2014 1:06:15 AM



  • instead of just casually stating "But some detractors of religions follow different concepts, so, unfortunately enough, our world is full of chaos and contradictions", it would have been much more effective if the author(ess) of the comment could point out conflicts generated by "detractors of religion" anywhere in the world today. stalin is dead and gone, we can leave him out (i think)

    sunnis are killing sufis in pakistan. muslims are kidnapping hindus and christians in pakistan. sunnis and alawaites are killing each other in syria. sunnis and shias are killing each other in iraq. muslims are killing hindus in bangladesh. muslims  fire bombed one malaysian church that dared to use the word allah in its service. coptic churches are being desecrated by muslims in egypt. muslims are killing whole villages of christians in nigeria. christians are driving out muslims from the rural areas of central african republic. of course i need not say about closer home, in muzzaffarnagar.

    where are the "detractors of religion" in all these places?

    can ms varsha sharma kindly clarify?

    By hats off! - 2/10/2014 12:41:37 AM



  • Yes, Mr. Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi, it is indeed an excellent exposition of the universal truth by a spiritual stalwart Mr. Sultan Shahin Saheb. If only the same ideas are put into practice, we will be living in a beautiful and peaceful world completely free from turmoil and religious conflicts. But some detractors of religions follow different concepts, so, unfortunately enough, our world is full of chaos and contradictions. Hope you people would try your best to minimize this global conflict by your harmonious writings and other social activities.


    By Varsha Sharma - 2/10/2014 12:13:24 AM



  • "The Universe Is A Manifestation Of The One Universal Consciousness"

    Nice to read this moving profile of a spiritual stalwart once again. After an untiring and long journey of truth-sleeking, he arrived at a conclusion that is absolutely rational as well as spiritual.

    Truly speaking, the basic need at the moment and always is a unity of highest degree in the collective life which becomes an issue of proper spiritual relationships, of each to each, each to all and all to each, which is the true Islamic and Vedantic spirit of human life. We don’t need the unity in which thieves unite. Swami Vivekananda, a Hindu for that matter, gave a call for such a unity - Vedanta brain and Islam body. To quote again a great person of our time, "the world is a unity - it has always been and it is always so, even now it is so; it is not that it has not got the unity and the unity has to be brought in from outside and imposed on it. Only the world is not conscious of its unity. It has to be made conscious.”           
    So, we need to make the world at large conscious that: The Universe Is A Manifestation Of The One Universal Consciousness.
       

    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 2/9/2014 11:58:33 PM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin,
    If your religion is of your choice then it is your duty to defend it by all means. Every religion has innumerable interpretative groups which we call sects if they stand organised. I personally respect every difference of opinion if it has a reasonable ground.
    We live in a world of contraries but unfortunately most think that contraries are contradictories so they are unacceptable and worth destruction. Many arguments are  based  on this fallacious belief.And this leads all debates futile.

    By afaqsiddiqi - 6/11/2013 4:13:39 AM



  • I completely endorse the following remark by Mr. Sultan Shahin:
    "the way things are going, perhaps the larger non-Wahhabi Islamic community will need to come together, forgetting its own differences, to defend itself, its inclusive, peaceful ideology, its people, its mosques and its shrines."

    Indeed, it is a pressing need to bring all non-Wahabi Islamic sects together to fight  Kharjism, the  Wahabi ideology of killing, hate and intolerance. But I wonder how  we loudly claim to be countering jihadists and Islamist terrorists while we tolerate the ideology that breeds extremism, exclusivism and religious fanaticism in our societies. For instance, we are verbally fighting the extremists in our debates and conversations, but on the other hand, we have  handed over almost all of our mosques and madrasas to Wahabi/Salafi clergymen whose ideology is based upon intolerance.
    We can not restore our youth to the path of moderate Islam, unless peace-loving and tolerance- preaching Imams return to their mosques. With Salafis/Wahabis increasingly controlling our mosques and madrasas, it will be extremely difficult to save our new generations from falling prey to their exclusivist ideology.
    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 6/10/2013 3:00:21 AM



  • Dear afaqsiddiqi Saheb, I agree that all that Muslims have thought and done cannot be wiped out. There is no way we can go back to the prophet's time as Salafi-Wahhabis want us to. We cannot keep fighting battles of Badr and Ohad forever, as I have pointed out several times. The battles of today are battles of today.

    Formation of sects is a natural process. As human beings are endowed with brains that think differently, interpret the same idea differently, all religions, ideologies divide into sects. The problem with Wahhabis is that they not only think their version of Islam is the true Islam - every other sect thinks the same - but their version of Islam says that no other interpretation has the right to exist and must be destroyed by force, all adherent of non-Wahhabi Islam killed, their wives made concubines and their children slaves. It is this that is unacceptable and all non-Wahhabi sects have no option but to fight with them in a battle for survival.

    We at New Age Islam can only engage in a battle of ideas, but the way things are going, perhaps the larger non-Wahhabi Islamic community will need to come together, forgetting its own differences, to defend itself, its inclusive, peaceful ideology, its people, its mosques and its shrines. Political Islam will have to be defeated. The time for spiritual Islam to ignore conflicts and just focus on spiritual messages of peace is over. We have no option but to fight the idea that Islam stands for a totalitarian order and conquest of the world. We have no option but to defend our religion, our people, our mosques, our shrines, our inclusivist practices.


    By Sultan Shahin - 6/10/2013 2:08:05 AM



  • Dear afaqsiddiqi - 6/9/2013 9:24:08 PM.
    I agree with you.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/10/2013 1:03:37 AM



  • Dear muhammad yunus - 6/9/2013 6:12:10 AM
    You are free to think about me in any way. I may be a troll, may be a disruptive to your healthy talk.
    What do you want? Do you want us to leave the site or agree with you at any cost?
    You can just ignore me. I will not address any comment to you. Why do you respond even if I don't address to you? Is it a per-condition to agree with you or any in order to participate on this site?
    I expressed my self you yourself.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/9/2013 9:39:27 PM



  • Dear muhammad yunus - 6/9/2013 6:12:10 AM.

    I am confidant person who doesn't believe in the prophet-ship of Hz Mohammed is not a Muslim. I am not saying the believers in Hz Moses, and Jesus Christ or any other prophet was not a Muslim. This theory was developed because opponents of Hz Mohammed were saying that you have invented new Deen different from our ancestors. According to this theory every believer in respective prophet was a Muslim.
    The final prophet is the seal and that's why Ahamadis are not considered as Muslims by all Muslims.
    You have again and again reproduced your reasoning to make me convince with this theme but the quran and ahadith and Ijma are against it.
    Either there is a contradiction in the quran or your thesis is entirely wrong.
    Quran repeatedly ask people to belive in Allah and his prophet Hz Mohammed and to obey the both.
    I think you are not ready to understand my argument despite I have made it very clear.
    You can conduct a survey. Ask single question "Is a person Muslim if he doesn't believe in the prophet-ship and finality of prophet-ship of Hz Mohammed.
    Let the Jews, Christians and Hindus whate the are. There is no need to call them Muslims. They might have been but are not. Accepting it you can promote brotherhood I am with you. I take them as they are and have good relations with them. No twisting or reinterpretation is required.
    I am stating the fact not theory. Lets agree to disagree.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/9/2013 9:27:15 PM



  • Dear Shadaab sahib,

    I think all arguments and debates all through the history of  academic

    Islam, if there is such a one, is generated by intricate explanations and interpretations by scholars of Religion of Islam. If by my method all such explanations, annotations and interpretations are wiped out from the archives and bookshelves of libraries the Muslim community will become one like that of the time of the Prophet.

    Then there will be no Islamophobia, no Taliban and no salami movement. Then the brainless Muslim will be nonexistent.


    By afaqsiddiqi - 6/9/2013 9:24:08 PM



  • Dear Afaq Siddiqi, I agree with on your comment on "The brainless Muslims." But then how do you and rational mohd unus and the vanished Mr. Hamza, etc. go from there to develop your thesis of Islamophobia. Why do you hate Islam on grounds of brainlessness of some Muslims or even all Muslims. Maybe Muslim-phobia on grounds of Muslim brainlessness - after all Salafi Muslims, for example, are proud followers of Arab baddus (Bedoins) of 7th century - will have more takers. And, I suppose, there is no harm in being afraid of brainless people. You never know what they will do next. You cannot, for instance, beocme a Taliban or a Jihadi - and may I add an Islamophobe - unless you are brainless.


    By Shadaab - 6/9/2013 1:47:17 PM



  • Dear rational Unus,
    In my earliest post I have voiced similar thoughts and have commented on the common belief of almost all the Muslims supported by fabricated Ahadiths that even when Jesus Christ comes to this world he will be proud to be in the ummah of Prophet Muhammad and will follow the sharia which all the followers of Islam follow. The brainless muslims think that they are equal to Jesus Christ simply because they are the followers of Prophet Muhammad who is the cause of all creations.

    By afaqsiddiqi - 6/9/2013 10:08:50 AM



  • It is good that Dear Mr. Muhammad Yunus Sir has put his comment on who is a Muslim. Otherwise I was about to put mine. I fully endorse this view. For a general information, let me say that Maulana Wahiduddin Khan's views are also the same. 
    By sadaf - 6/9/2013 8:08:44 AM



  • Dear Rational Mohd Yunus;
    You state: "They are trying hard to reform an ideology which can't be reformed."

    If the operators of this website take your words as anything but your utter frustration, they should close down the website. Anyway, if Islam cannot be reformed, why are you wasting your valuable time on this website. Do you belong to the following category of commentators as captured in one of my articles referenced below?

    "(There are) 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." 

    I hope I am mistaken is placing you in the above category - but you know best and surely God knows best.

    Ref: 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


    By muhammad yunus - 6/9/2013 6:12:10 AM



  • Dear Rational Mohd Yunus

    You say: "Whoever is a believer in one God or multiple Gods but not a believer in Hz Mohammed is not a Muslim."

    The above statement contradicts the message of the Qur'an as expounded in my article referenced below which tables, among others, the following insights;

    "In the Qur’anic vocabulary, the din al-Islam or the moral law (religion in popular vocabulary) of Islam has a specific (exclusive) as well as universal (inclusive) connotation. In its specific sense, it is the religion of the followers of the Prophet Muhammad.

    In its generic sense, it is the universal din (moral law) that all the prophets who came before Muhammad (pbuh), whether or not mentioned in the Qur’an, preached to their followers. The Qur’an defines the essence of this common religion as follows:  

    “Indeed! Whoever commits (asslama) his whole being [lit., face] to God, and is compassionate (Muhsin) - will get his reward from his Lord. There will be no fear upon them nor shall they grieve.” (2:112).

    “And who can be better in faith* (din) than the one who orients (Asslama) his whole being to God, and does good deeds (ya‘mal min al sualihat), and follows the way of Abraham, the upright one, and God took Abraham as a friend” (4:125).*[In Qur’anic vocabulary, din is the embodiment of moral laws]

    “And who is finer in speech than the one who invites to God, does good deeds (‘amila sualihan) and says: ‘I am of those who orients himself to God (Muslimun)’” (41:33).

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

    “When his Lord said to him (Abraham), ‘Submit (aslim)’, he said, ‘I submit (aslamtu) to the Lord of the worlds’ (2:131). Abraham enjoined his sons to do so, as did Jacob: ‘O my sons, God has chosen the religion (din) for you; so you should not die unless you have oriented yourself to God (Muslimun)’ (2:132). Were you witnesses when death came to Jacob? He said to his sons, ‘What will you serve after I am gone?’ They said, ‘We will serve your God; the God of your fathers, Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac - the One God; and to Him we have truly oriented ourselves (Muslimun)’” (2:133).[See also verse, 3:52, 28:52/53]

    These verses employ different grammatical forms of the word Islam – Asslama, Muslim (pl. Muslimun) to define Islam as a universal religion that is based on two fundamental criteria – orienting oneself to the divine will and doing of good deeds. ..."

    "Conclusion: An introspective probe into the Qur’an as advocated by the Qur’an (38:29, 47:24) and tabled in this discourse, shows that in the Qur’anic worldview, a good muslim is a believer in God - regardless of religion, race, cast, creed or affiliation with a spiritual fraternity, who is active in good deeds, is conscious of his social, moral and ethical responsibilities and preserves against all that is gross, immoral and unjust. Since God alone can judge human’s faith (iman), deeds (‘aml) and moral uprightness (taqwa), a non-Muslim in the divisive human language can be a better Muslim in divine record than a Muslim (follower of Prophet Muhammad). Hence the Muslims have absolutely no basis to call the non-Muslims as kafirs (denier of truth), individually or collectively.

    ---------------------

    Reverting to my comment, you can readily verify the rendition of the verses from any standard translation of the Qur'an, and remove your misconceptions that are probably rooted in your sectarian/ traditional exclusivist interpretation of the Qur'an. 

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


    By muhammad yunus - 6/9/2013 6:02:06 AM



  • Dear Taqdeer.
    You too should not confront chicaneries of Islam like M/S Md Yunus and GM sahebaan.
    Mr Mohammed Yunus may be sometime soft in his approach but GM will chase you till your last breath.

    They are trying hard to reform an ideology which can't be reformed. This NAI platform may be conductive to their mission, but outside Muslims will oppose it with full force.
    It is their frustration that is expressed in their comments loaded with "calling worst names possible"
    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/8/2013 10:25:10 PM



  • "Allah sent 124000 prophets" and "they were following the Islam" and "hence were Muslims" is a theory invented by the prophet to convince Jews and Christians.
    Whoever is a believer in one God or multiple Gods but not a believer in Hz Mohammed is not a Muslim.
    It is very fundamental belief. All Muslims agree on it except a few deviated. Circumstances are such that they are forced to spread this lie. Allah has divided people into believers and non-believers.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/8/2013 10:03:49 PM



  • When beliefs are put under question, believers says belief is a belief. It can't be discussed intelligently.

    Jehadis believe they are holders of true Islam. Now it is their belief. They follow the verses of the Quran amar bil maaroof...... they are following the Hadith which says Muslims should use force if they have to eradicate the evil.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 6/8/2013 9:52:32 PM



  • Dear Taqdeer,

     You say:: Hence many staunch believers in the religion of Allah declare their religious obligation to please Allah by eliminating His enemies with all means at their disposal. and they are busy in doing so wherever and whenever it is possible."

     If you live in India, do you have any statistics on how many Muslim terrorists killed the Hindus over the last 20 years out of a total population of 200 Million Muslims. As a global citizen, do you have any statistics on how many Muslims have actually taken part in killing non-Muslims relative to their population.

     Leave the statistics aside - which will refute your sweeping remark, the following historical realities render your remark gross exaggeration or a cunning effort to malign the religion of Islam:

     1. The present day militant Jhadis are killing scores of times more Muslims in their terror/ jihadist attacks than the non-Muslims. Where does the Qur’an ask them to kill Muslims.

     2. If what you said was true, how did the minority communities survive and flourish under centuries of Islamic rule in Muslim lands from India to Spain. Where are the natives of those countries the Spaniards and European conquered in the early medieval ages.

     3. what might have happened if the ferocious Mongols, who left a behind a crimson sky whichever land they crossed, had not converted to Islam when the turned their attention to India.

     4. Why is there no reference to killing of Hindus by staunch Muslims in any Indian literature / poetry dating from pre-partition era. Do not cite the casualties of wars/ political actions because wars take their toll - just see how many civilians got killed in the recent invasions fresh in memory.

     5. Deep seated frustration and a feeling of enduring injustice or a compelling political need create terror outfits - LTTE fresh in memory. The same thing has happened in the Muslim world today. Do you have any idea, how many innocent Muslims - elderly, women and children included have borne the deadly brunt of  the recent allegedly just invasions of Muslim lands (Afghanistan, Iraq), the  war on terror by any country - non-Muslim (America, France, Britain) or Muslim (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria), Israel’s occupation of Muslim lands and allegedly defensive military operations, India’s counter-terror activities in Kashmir, repressive actions and marginalization in any Muslim minority country from China in the East to Spain in the West. The total no. of grievously affected Muslims including those suffering genetic mutation due to prolonged exposure to radioactive rich dust could run into tens of millions. Don't you think this is bound to generate a violent response under one or the other pretext.

     All said, you seem to fit into the following category as captured in one of my articles referenced below:

     "The website also must guard against imposters and agents of enemies who can barge into it with Hindu and Muslim 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."

     Ref: 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


    By muhammad yunus - 6/8/2013 7:04:24 AM



  • The defenders of Islam at least five times a day shout at their highest pitch that there is no compulsion in religion yet at the sme strain shout with more subjugating force that Allah accepts no religion except other than Islam and those who are not muslims they are none but the enemies of Islam. Hence many staunch believers in the religion of Allah declare their religious obligation to please Allah by eliminating His enemies with all means at their disposal. and they are busy in doing so wherever and whenever it is possible.
    The debates on websites is a luxury
    Provided by technology of the Devil.Let there be no rest for him as many many religious devotees are serving him and his cause.

    By Taqdeer - 6/8/2013 2:35:41 AM



  • Mind-blowing. is this man for real, indeed, as the author asks. Let me quote the intro from what I have read by now several times since I discovered it last month. Praveen Chopra uses few words but says a lot: 
    "Is this man for real, you wonder. He has the temerity to write that Muslims in India should have no qualms in claiming their Vedic heritage. Or that Muslims' prayers remain unheeded because they have forgotten how to pray effectively, to meditate that is. He calls the Babri mosque demolition an opportunity for Muslims to learn some lessons and to feel grateful to God for making it possible."

    By Ayesha - 6/5/2013 3:38:50 PM



  • The Quran clearly says in 2:256,”There shall be no compulsion in religion...”; in 18:29, “ Say, ’This is the truth from your Lord. Let him who will, believe in it, and him who will, deny it…’ ;and in 109:6 “To you is your religion, to me is mine.” Each person is free to believe as he or she wishes.

    If we have had more than a hundred thousand prophets then it is only logical to think and believe that Ram, Vishnu, Krishna, Buddha etc as prophets. And Allah says in the Quran in 2:285 that He does not make any distinctions between his messengers:

    “The Messenger believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and (so do) believers. They all believe in God and His angels, His scriptures, and His messengers. They say, ‘We do not differentiate between any of His messengers. We hear and obey. Grant us Your forgiveness, Lord, to You we shall all return!’

     
    By Aiman Reyaz -



  • SADAF - do not be so rude, I am certainly not on any journey to Islam; again, is this your Islamic dhimmitude way of speaking? Also, we all know that Mohammed stood by and watched the entire massacre of a Jewish tribe with regards to all the men over puberty and then the women and children were enslaved - so on the one hand your prophet talks about love, and then on the other he supports a massacre against Jews and enslaves people who were free.

    You can not mention the 1.24.000 prophets because they do not exist in either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.  Also, what would be the point of some prophets or apostles dying for the God of Abraham when they refused to deny God and were tortured to death? 

    If all prophets or prophets outside of the God of Abraham are allowed, despite following different gods or no god, then what is the point and how can you claim to follow the God of Abraham?

    Christianity does not make this false statement - either you follow the prophets of the God of Abraham or you follow all prophets outside of the God of Abraham?  Once you do this, however, you are no longer within the fold of the God of Abraham and now it is pick and mix time.  The Christian apostles died for the God of Abraham and not for the prophets of other faiths. Mohammed said no compulsion, then kill the apostate. He also speaks nicely about Jews and then refers to turning them into apes and swine.

    The Koran states Qur’an 2:61

    “And humiliation and wretchedness were stamped upon them and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allah’s revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression.”

    http://www.islam-watch.org/Bostom/Anti-semitism-in-the-Quran.htm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8mUflpVH30&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz0OJlWTCCI&feature=related

    The God of Abraham comes from Judaism and Christianity is the culmination according to Christians. Sikhs could easily state the same about Islam, that their prophets were the last. The Ahmadiyya can claim that their sacred prophet is the last; the Baha'is can claim the same, and on and on and on it goes. Yet when you face God then I know that Jesus never killed, He never enslaved, He never married a child, He never had sex with concubines, He never declared a Holy War against nobody, and He saved the prostitute from being stoned to death.

    What can you say about Mohammed?

    Again, you do not have 1.24.000 prophets and it is false to claim so because it would be impossible to have so many prophets and can you name a mere 10,000 or 5,000, of course not, therefore this is a fabrication. Also, non-Abrahamic prophets have nothing to do with the followers of Abraham.

    Maybe I am leading you to the faith of Christianity by showing you the hard facts about both Jesus and Mohammed? 


    By Lee Jay Walker -



  • Oops,... missed a word in the sentence...Even the much maligned and controversial Mughal monarch, ...(Aurangzeb).... issued a firman dated 10.3.1659 saying: “Our earnest attempts to uplift the people of all races and religions should be implemented with the utmost love and affection. Our Holy Laws do not allow the destruction and desecration of temples”.


    By sadaf -



  • Read Quran, dear Lee, and do it on our own. You will also come to know in due course that Prophet Muhammed Sallalaho Alahewasallam, was the last Prophet. This is what Muslims of all sects agree. Those who do not agree, then it becomes another matter of discussion. Now when Muslims say he was last of all then there must have been someone ahead of him too. To tell you, not just one, there were many actually. Many here mean not just a dozen or score, but thousands. However, names of only few have been mentioned in Quran. One of the name is of 'Jesus' Christ as Christians call him that way else for Muslim, he is Isa Aleheislam. It should be noted that the stature of Prophet Isa Aleheislam is such eminent because of being a Prophet that his name is uttered with respect and every time his name is mentioned, ‘Aleheislam’ is added to ‘send peace for him’.

    This makes a strong relation of Muslims with Jesus/Isa Aleheislam and a Muslim is forbidden to hurt and destroy even those who follow Jesus believing him to be even something else other than Prophet. If someone wants to verify for such instruction, it is clearly mentioned in Quran. Refer,  

    Those who believe, those who are Jews, and the Christians and Sabaeans, all who believe in God and the Last Day and act rightly, will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow. (Qur'an, 2:62)

     

    The following document by Umar Raziallah Anho  describes the approach of those who heeded to the call of Qur’an:

     

    “This is the security which 'Umar, the servant of God, the commander of the faithful, grants to the people of Ælia. He grants to all, whether sick or sound, security for their lives, their possessions, their churches and their crosses, and for all that concerns their religion. Their churches shall not be changed into dwelling places, nor destroyed, neither shall they nor their appurtenances be in any way diminished, nor the crosses of the inhabitants nor aught of their possessions, nor shall any constraint be put upon them in the matter of their faith, nor shall any one of them be harmed”.

    Similar status is granted to other Prophets and their followers.

    Even the much maligned and controversial Mughal monarch issued a firman dated 10.3.1659 saying: “Our earnest attempts to uplift the people of all races and religions should be implemented with the utmost love and affection. Our Holy Laws do not allow the destruction and desecration of temples”.

    Beyond the named Prophets, of course there are other Prophets who are not named in Quran, yet they were there nevertheless and command equal respect. A Muslim is obliged to respect them. The only thing is that nobody knows who they were. May be all such men who are held as God and avatars of God by many non Muslims including Rama, Budhha etc, were also Prophets or may be not all but only some of them were Prophets. It is also possible that none of these men were amongst those unnamed Prophets. Since it is not clearly mentioned, it is futile to speculate, but importance of respecting all such great men who might be Prophets cannot be spelled out more clearly than this.

    Of course some one like you, Mr. Lee in your present ignorance and in your journey towards Islam may jump again with some silly questions and blame for things out of context, but let me assure you that whatever goes in name of Islam, you and people like you are just getting it through hearsay and not by actual reading of the Holy Quran. If only you read it on your own and without prejudice you would come across :

     Say ye: “ We believe in Allah, and the Revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ismail, Issac, Jacob, and the Tribes and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to Prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them, and we submit to Allah. (Qur’an 2:136)

    Also, you will come across the following too besides so many else on this theme:

    And before this, was the Book of Moses, as a guide and a mercy and this book confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue, to admonish the unjust, and a glad tidings to those who do right. (Qur’an 46:12)

    As for Muslims who have no respect for the text of Holy Quran and hence are no more Muslim that way but for just namesake or those who speak and act illogically, even cruelly, showing no regards to such instructions of Quran and thereby fail in their duty to obey Allah’s command, will of course become the true spokesperson on behalf of Quran for Mr. Lee and Mr. Lee wood be all the more glad to produce such dubious witness and interpreters to prove his points believing 'what a great question' he is having and that Islam should collapse as an Ideology with his ‘brilliant’ questions. Dumbo. Absolutely absurd.   


    By sadaf -



  • Hello Manzurul, I certainly disagree, Abraham followed the One God and this was roughly 4,000 years ago. No, no; Islam is in error and can you mention all these prophets, of course not because the number is just picked up out of the sky - 1.24.000 exactly and nobody knows the names of them.

    Also, Manzurul and Sultan Shahin - if you have 1.24.000 prophets then why was protection only given to several faiths if this is true, for example the people of the Book - this contradicts everything and why did Mohammed destroy Arab Paganism because surely many of the 1.24.000 prophets will belong to Pagan faiths.

    A Muslim writer stated this "Also there were 1.24.000 prophets and the Quran mentions only 26. We may well assume that the others, who haven't been named, included women..." The New Testament is based on the God of Abraham and not prophets who belong to other faiths. Also, Abraham is demoted in Islam because you believe in prophets before him and who have nothing to do with the God of Abraham.

    Manzurul I could say the same to you, it would be nice if more Muslims converted to Christianity in Asia; however, you now have 30 million Christians in Indonesia and despite massive persecution in Pakistan, the Christian faith is growing. (Please note that I added this because of what Manzurul stated, not sure if he said it "tongue in cheek.") I really cannot believe that Muslims believe in prophets they cannot name and who have no connection with the God of Abraham. It begs the question; can anyone mention all the 1.24.000 prophets; of course not because this number does not exist in reality. Very dismayed by this because it is not based on any logic or based on the names of the prophets which are meant to be included.


    By Lee Jay Walker -



  • Mr. Walker, If you are truly representing Judeo-Christian tradition, then it comes to me as a surprise because I did not know that you people do not believe in the continuous chain of Prophets from time immemorial. I assure you that Mr. Shahin is not making up anything. In fact I had no need to refer to any authority before confirming that 1,40,000 prophets right from the days of Adam Alaihis Salam have brought the same message from the same Allah as a continuing process of the history of the religion of mankind. These concepts known to us since childhood are spoken of informally within family circles.

    I do not know if it is a fair reading on your part to say that ‘Sultan Shahin is implying that the followers of Abraham must also follow other prophets from other religions’. What he means is paying respect to them. Paying respect per se cannot be bad even without reference to Quran and Islam. So no need to go looking for a quote in ‘Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Koran’. More so,   these prophetic traditions (all three) taught human beings for the first time to take religion soberly, a bit rather meditatively, and away from the drum-beating ecstatic sacrificial dancing – leaving little scope for anger abuse and excitement, in matters religious. But I agree with you that Christians and Muslims (and perhaps Jews too) have been destructive too but it is nobody’s case that a human being however religious can be perfect.  Their actions are not condoned, whenever they have erred, including when they destroyed the Bamiyan Budha. I was personally extremely aggrieved at the incident. I have no words to describe my pain.

    In these pages I have stated before, that Islam should be understood in two senses. One, in a generic sense, which describes Islam as the Word of God since time immemorial, but then also in the brand sense as a ‘religious order’ established by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). How much of the brand contains the generic- my answer is hundred percent. Let me add something symbolically. It contains hundred and five percent. That five percent is the impurity which may be causing problems here and there. The challenge of future of Islam is to sift that five percent and get back to hundred percent grade, which is doctrinally possible with consensus, but which consensus is not easy to come by because of the needless enmity surrounding Islam. Now look if you are a White Englishman, Islam needs men like you of the energetic European races who can more effectively use the ideology of Islam to do what all of us together have not been able to do thus far: eradication of inequality and economic monopoly, cruelty and armed conflicts, misuse of authority, removal of insecurity as much as possible, social support to individual human beings looking for food, security and love, protection of environment, and in-fact all the dreams that men have dreamt for humanity since ages, but have not been able to achieve. Islam is not the monopoly of Asians or middle-easterns or those who are born with a Muslim name. Best wishes.


    By Manzurul Haque -



  • Hello Manzurul, Many holy places of other faiths have been destroyed by Christians and Muslims alike; we cannot deny this - I can point to the destruction of Buddhism and Hinduism by Muslims and I know that many Pagan holy places were destroyed by Christians and so forth.  (This applies to what Sultan Shahin stated)

    However, Manzurul, you appear to be very diplomatic and I am sure that Sultan Shahin is implying that the followers of Abraham must also follow other prophets from other religions - if so, this is false.

    Not once does the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Koran, state that we must follow the prophets of Buddhism, Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism.

    Not one quote exists in any of these holy books about Lord Ram, the Buddha, and so forth - therefore, I believe that Sultan Shahin is on "very rocky ground."

    Yes, people can respect the holy prophets of other religions outside of the Abrahamic faith; but they cannot pray to or claim that they belong to the Abrahamic faith - this is false.


    By Lee Jay Walker -



  • Sultan Shahin

    No, the religion of Abraham does not go back to the time of humanity, this is false.

    The followers of Abraham date back from the time of Abraham and not to when time began; this is false and no, the followers of Abraham do not borrow or take on board other religions outside the God of Abraham.

    Sultan Shahin then states something rather simplistic and false because he states the following:

    "That is why a Muslim may become inflamed with passion and turn violent and do things that he shouldn’t, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) is attacked, but you will never find him even threatening to burn The Bible or The Torah or Ramayana or Gita or any other holy book. These are messages of God that we have been ordered to venerate. Reverence for them is an essential part of our Imaan (Faith)."

    Muslims destroyed countless holy places of the Buddhists, Jains, and Hindus in India; the same happened in Afghanistan against the followers of Buddhism and Hinduism and we all remember the final destruction of major statues in Afghanistan under The Taliban.

    In modern day Bangladesh in the Chittagong Hill Tracts many Buddhist temples have been destroyed and Buddhist texts have been burnt; and similar fires have happened against Buddhist holy places in southern Thailand in recent years.

    Sultan Shahin is not telling the truth; in fact, if a Christian wants to read the New Testament openly in the lands of Mecca and Medina then you will be put in prison and the same applies to if you want to read holy Buddhist texts and so forth.

    So the religion of Islam in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, and other places like Somalia and the Maldives, bans the open sale of other religious texts and many ancient holy places have been destroyed by the followers of Islam.

    Indeed, a few years ago in Australia some young Muslim students burnt the Bible; therefore, do not claim that the followers of Islam share and love the texts of other faiths, it is simply not true!

    Hindu holy prophets belong to Hinduism; Buddhist holy prophets belong to Buddhism; Zoroastrian holy prophets belong to Zoroastrianism; and so forth.

    The destruction of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Zoroastrianism, all took part under Islamic rule and their holy books and places of worship were either destroyed or holy places were converted into Islamic mosques.

    Sultan Shahin you are opening "a can of worms" - I mean with respect, but you are making things up about following other prophets outside of the Abrahamic faith.

    If what you say is true, then tell me when Mohammed stated that you must follow and respect the prophets of Hinduism and Buddhism?

    In fact, it is clear that Mohammed will have known next to nothing about either faith but if you are true, then why did he not mention these faiths in the Koran?

    Mohammed will have known about Zoroastrianism, but where does Mohammed state that Zoroaster was a prophet?  When did Mohammed state that Lord Ram was a prophet?

    Clearly, Mohammed does not do this; more important, the prophets of Judaism do not mention this also nor do the apostles of Christianity.


    By Lee Jay Walker -



  • Lee Jay Walker would do well to ponder over the following, particularly the reference to "the Tribes": Do these sound like the descendants of Prophet Abraham or more likely Prophet Adam:

    Verse 136 of the Chapter Baqara. "Say ye: we believe In God, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord: we make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to God (in Islam)."

    Islam is clearly not just an Abrahamic religion. Its roots go much further than that, to the beginning of humanity itself. It is a reiteration and revalidation of all previous prophets, all 124, 000 of them, and the revelations of God that they brought to this planet. No Prophet was sent without revelations, says the Quran. A compilation of revelations is a Book. That is how practically all religious communities on earth constitute fellow  People of the Book for Muslims with whom they can have the most intimate relations. That is why a Muslim may become inflamed with passion and turn violent and do things that he shouldn’t, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) is attacked, but you will never find him even threatening to burn The Bible or The Torah or Ramayana or Gita or any other holy book. These are messages of God that we have been ordered to venerate. Reverence for them is an essential part of our Imaan (Faith).


    By Sultan Shahin -



  • Dear Manzurul Haque Saheb, I have not talked of synthesis or merger of Islam and Hinduism. But I do notice a spiritual symbiosis existing between the two deens. I explained this in some detail in an article carried by The Times of India in the 1990s. The article made this point in the title itself: “Islam and Hinduism - spiritual symbiosis.” by Sultan Shahin. This was expanded later in a series in Asia Times Online, a Hong Kong-based website:

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EL06Df05.html

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EL13Df03.html

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EL20Aa02.html

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EL25Aa02.html


    By Sultan Shahin -



  • Actually, these 124,000 prophets are between Hazrat Adam Alaihis Salam (PBUH) and Hazrat Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihe Wassallam (PBUH), and this is an article of faith for the Muslims, so there is nothing new. I suppose this is what Mr. Shahin also means. Prophet Abraham is more historical and is part of the chain. About Prophet Adam there can be many views, whether he was historical, or mythological or anthropological but in this context he certainly refers to the earliest times when man acquired religious consciousness. Also I am more satisfied with the view of Iranian Philosopher Ali Shariati, according to whom, “Adam represents the whole human species, the essence of human race, the man in his philosophical sense not in the biological sense”, and he has based his arguments on the texts of the holy Quran.  But of course people are free to understand Adam, in conformity with their imagination.

    About the intention of Mr. Shahin on Hinduizing Islam or Islamizing Hinduism he is the best one to answer. Personally I am not in the favour of merger.

     


    By Manzurul Haque -



  • Hello Manzurul and I hope you had a good Eid but please comment on this, thanks!

    Sultan Shahin stated this:  "the Quran is specific that you cannot be a good Muslim unless you respect the earlier prophets of whom there were 1,24,000."

    I stated "The earlier prophets will apply to the prophets of the God of Abraham, would they not?  Are you claiming that you have 1,24,000 prophets who are mentioned in the holy books which belong to the God of Abraham?"

     

    Manzurul, you are Muslim, I am Christian; but surely you must agree that the 1.24.000 prophets do not belong to the God of Abraham - therefore, is Sultan Shahin trying to Hinduize Islam or Islamize Hinduism and is it right to make things up like this?

     

    I also wish that other Muslims would comment but up to now, nothing but silence!


    By Lee Jay Walker -



  •  My greetings to all readers and commentators of this website, and to Mr. Walker too, on the auspicious occasion of Eid.

    I am trying to reply to one question to myself and the answer does not seem to be coming to me. I am also conscious that it is not easy for the answer to come, especially to a person like me. I also know nobody can help me in this.

    In response to references quoted by Janab Sultan Shahin sb I have to say, ‘If this is what Allah says, who am I to dispute?’ Digressing from topic I want to state, from my side - I will not mind every single human being going to heaven , but if Allah does not send me to heaven or rather he positively sends me to hell, again who am I dispute? Can I possibly dispute?

    Best wishes and greetings again.


    By Manzurul Haque -



  • Hello Sultan Shahin

    You state the following: ".....that which was revealed before thee, have the assurance of the Hereafter” (2.04).   Then you say that "the Quran is specific that you cannot be a good Muslim unless you respect the earlier prophets of whom there were 1,24,000."

    Now, even Muslims who may not like me in this place may show a little honesty and support what I state or mainly agree.

    The earlier prophets will apply to the prophets of the God of Abraham, would they not?  Are you claiming that you have 1,24,000 prophets who are mentioned in the holy books which belong to the God of Abraham?

    I think that you have no real faith in any one single religion by this statement - this is fine, but you can not just make up a religion to suit your needs and what "you deem to be true."

    Hindus are Hindus, Buddhists are Buddhists, Christians are Christians, Muslims are Muslims, and so forth (yes, you will have different sects but the core values will remain the same); yet when you cross the line and either try to usurp another religion or bring them into the fold, despite the prophets having clearly different ideas, then this is dilution and the message of your own faith collapses "on nothingness."

    I am Christian, and "free will" is important and you have the right to reject the Son of God because Jesus and the New Testament do not support killing apostates.

    In Islam "free will" is not allowed because apostates are killed and this negates "free will."  From an Islamic point of view they will deem this to be correct and proper because Mohammed states that apostates should be killed.

    Yet to mix the prophets of Abraham to prophets of other faiths who pray to thousands of different Gods or if the Buddha, who rejects the notion of God, then this is outside the boundaries of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

    Again, I support religious freedom and liberty and each person must decide for himself or herself to follow any faith they like or to reject religion - yet, what you are implying is outside the God of Abraham.

    Are you trying to Hinduize Islam or are you trying to Islamize Hinduism or is this just confusion and folly?

    Yes, you are Muslim because you claim you are Muslim and nobody can take this away from you - but think about what you have stated and does it add up with the God of Abraham or should you reach out to Hinduism and take a brave step?


    By Lee Jay Walker -



  • Mr. Manzurul Haque could not agree with the last paragraphs of my interview to Life Positive magazine in which the then editor of the magazine Mr. Praveen Chopra quoted me as saying: “So, the Quran is specific that you cannot be a good Muslim unless you respect the earlier prophets of whom there were 1, 24,000.” I found a couple of paragraphs in one of my own write ups published in The Observer, New Delhi that would probably explain the point further for his and other readers’ benefit:

     

     “Many of us, as Muslims suffer from an unwarranted superiority complex that keeps us from coming to terms with other religious communities. This would evaporate if only we were to go to our own religious teachings.  "If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed - all who are on earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind against their will, to believe! No soul can believe except by the Will of Allah", says the Holy Quran (10: 99-100). This message is repeated in several different contexts:  "To everyone have we given a law and a way.... And if God had pleased, He would have made you all [all mankind] one people [people of one religion].  But He hath done otherwise, that He might try you in that (religion).  (The Holy Quran, 5:48)

    “We cannot be Muslim unless we revere all previous prophets and all previous messages equally.  The Holy Quran tells us repeatedly: “Those who believe  in that which  is  revealed  unto  thee (Mohammed)  and  that which was revealed before  thee,  have the assurance of the Hereafter” (2.04). “None of Our revelations (even a single verse) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten” (2.10).  “We make no distinction between any of them (prophets)”. (2.13)

     

    “If we, as Muslims do not study, understand and practice these exhortations of our religion, we will be condemned to squander a large part of our national energy in inter-religious conflicts.”


    By Sultan Shahin -



  • My humble opinion is that within every one reside all the tools necessary to access a higher state of being.  if there is a physical heaven and hell in the afterlife (although I believe that proximity or distance from God is heaven or hell enough), the practice of Islam as a religion is the most basic key to enter heaven. 

     The practice of meditation and learning to love the divine and lose oneself within it is a higher means to reach heavenly bliss.  

    The Muslim prayer is a form of yoga, but for most of us it is a routine that we practice almost unconsciously, where we don't inhabit every moment of it, be it in the movement or the recitation. 

     The Quran speaks of prayer, which the Prophet practiced assiduously through the darkest hours of the night.  What types of prayers were these?  Physical? Mental?  Meditation?

     

    If there is one thing I have learned, it is that there is not a single truth, nor is there a single method to reach God.  After all there is only one God, and any practice that seeks to praise Him and foster closeness to the divine while raising human consciousness and prescribing love and harmony cannot be false.

    As i turn 40 and through almost 40 years of religious practice and spiritual wanderings, I tend to agree more with Sultan Shahin than not; ultimately whatever it is that matters the most is surely not whose way is right or wrong, if all these ways lead to God.


    By Po -



  • Sure Mr Shahin is not for real. Because if you go search for such persons particularly Muslims you may not find many.I dare say you will be able to count them on your fingers of one hand.


    By K.C.Sharma -



  •  Interesting I must say, and strange too! Of course I do not believe in the last paragraph and I dare say, I do so, without violating the holy Quran.


    By Manzurul Haque -