CONTROLS THE “NEW AGE ISLAM” FORUM?
feel free to ignore entire post, if it is uncalled for, presumptive or
Jeelani or Secular Logic or Pseudo Rational or Khalid Suhail
INDEED, WE COULD ALL TRY AVOIDING “THE GANG OF FOUR.”
mr khalid suhail, mr rational and mr secularlogic,
think the thread temperature is slowly rising, if you have noticed.
just a matter of time before the republican american forum bouncer leaps right
into the melee.
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
hats off! -
2/12/2014 7:14:54 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
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.
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?
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.
you are talking my language, Naseer Ahmed Saheb. As an American I do not put up
Dishonesty.” Enough is enough.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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,
Aren’t all Islamophobes unstable and continuously contradict
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
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.
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
“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
To: All Respected Readers on the “New Age Islam” forum.
many of you carefully read the content of Point No. 5 by Mr. S. Jeelani?
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
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
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.
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
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.
MONETARY SYSTEM, TAXATION, AND PUBLICANS IN THE TIME OF CHRIST
Campbell – North 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.
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
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.
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
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].
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,
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].
There appear to have been two classes
of publicans. There were the chief publicans as well as the ordinary publicans.
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
[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.
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
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
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.
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
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 . . .
Moral of the movie scene is:
Do not push hard and make
a mockery of good people.
To: All Respected Readers on the “New Age Islam” forum.
Ladies & Gentlemen,
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, by posting inflammatory, extraneous,
or off-topic messages in an online community
(such as a forum, chat room, or
blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking
readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal
on-topic discussion. ”
and paste from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
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
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:
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.
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
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.
To: All Respective Readers of “The New Age Islam” forum.
Lo & Behold! Pseudo Rational finally
confessed which I feared all along,
my apostasy is
the result of your tabilghi jamat.
For long the man
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
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
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
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
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
Secular Logic says: “you labelled me
I have never called any person a Sanghi.
‘…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
al-Ghazzali, the second greatest scholar of Islam after Muhammad
‘In the Muslim
community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the
mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by
persuasion or by
-- 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
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
[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
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
Source: Muir, p. 402
Now sunnah of the Prophet (valid because it varifies the
“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
of my terms and your submission to me. There was a time when your country ruled
world, but see how now your sun has set. On all fronts your armies have been
nation is condemned to extinction. I point out to you the path whereby you might
fate. Namely, that you begin worshipping the one god, the unique deity, the
all that is. I bring you his message. Order your nation to cease the false
fire and to
join us, that they may join the truth.
Allah the creator of the world. Worship Allah and accept Islam as the path of
your polytheistic ways and become Muslims that you may accept Allah-u-Akbar as
savior. This is the only way of securing your own survival and the peace of
You will do
this if you know what is good for you and for your Persians. Submission is your
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
‘The jizyah shall
be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. (The dhimmi)
walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax-collector sits.
shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him and say: ‘Pay the jizyah!’
he pays it,
he shall be slapped on the nape of his neck.’
sixteenth-century Egyptian Sufi scholar
ash-Sharani describes the ritual of jizyah payment in his
Christian or Jew, goes on a fixed day in person to the emir appointed to
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.
him a blow on the neck, and who stands, before the emir drives him roughly away…
The public is admitted to see
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)
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
are overwhelming to proove it was submission with humulitation. Muslims were ruthless for non-Muslims.
practiced it because:
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.
To generate revenue to run Islamic state, lure the
people into faith and some time bribe them, purchase of weapons.
Increase the Muslim poulation to change the
Capture of natural resources of the country.
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.
Unlimited supply of sex slaves to satisfy the
sexual hunger of the faithful. People were enslaved, castrated and kept under
Slavery including sexual slavery, Jiziah, captives
with submission is the hallmark of islam.
Muslims were not inolved in social upliftment of
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Copypasting whole pages on a passe topic like Jaziya by a sanghi pracharak is sheer effrontery.
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. 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. Certain
historians are of the view that the tax was aimed at forcibly converting Hindus
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. Though it was an
annual tax, non-Muslims were allowed to pay it in monthly installments. 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.
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. 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). 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. In some regions of
Islamic rule, the Sultans faced rebellion and the non-Muslim masses refused to
convert to Islam or pay jizya. Militant
opposition erupted to Islamic punishment for refusal to pay discriminatory jizya
taxes, such as in India, Spain and Morocco. In some cases,
this led to its periodic abolishment such as the 1704 AD suspension of jizya in
Deccan region of India by Aurangzeb.
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. Non-Muslims and
slaves owned by Muslims had no right to expenditures or grants from any
collected jizya and other taxes. Jizya and
associated taxes also ended up in "private" treasuries.
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
In early periods of Islam, jizya was applied to every free adult male
non-Muslim. Slaves, women, children, the old, the sick,
monks, hermits and the poor, 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.
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. Thus some Muslim
rulers collected jizya from Hindus
and Sikhs under their rule.
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
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.
Other scholars 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. The highest
rates ranged from 33% to 80% of all annual farm produce on land inside the
Islamic empire. 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.
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. They were
considered to be under the protection of the Muslim state, subject to their
meeting certain conditions.
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.
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. 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. 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.
Jizya and other associated taxes were payable by sedentary non-Muslim
populations. Sadaqa was a tax levied on nomadic people, instead of
jizya. There is some
controversy is sadaqa was mandatory or voluntary.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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). 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. For a
comparison between them; refer to
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
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
Many Muslim rulers saw jizya as a material proof of the non-Muslims'
acceptance of the authority of the Islamic state.
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.
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
Baatein Karein Mahaan
Ab Yehi Humari Shan
Arey Kaam Ke
Kaam Ke Naam Pe
Bhai Dabba Gul Bhai Dabba Gul
Fir Kaise Ho Kalyaan
Yehi Toh Mara
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
WHO WILL RESPOND TO A COMMENTATOR WHO WROTE THAT “ISLAM IS THE
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
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,
Islam is the problem!
halal meat shop vandalized, shot at
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.
S. Jeelani, Secular Logic, Khalid Suhail & Pseudo Rational,
WHAT IS INSAANIYAT?
Muslims” are all ears. Forget
about the “Ruthless
Terrorists,” we are more so interested in how will all
four of you answer the question.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Since the weak minded Rational is incapable of understanding
anything and is also a motivated distorter of the truth let me summarize the discussion
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 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
To: Sultan Shahin,
Editor – New Age Islam
to shout about, however, I thought to pass along a one-liner from your commentator
aql ke mare yeh kiya
quite a gem the man brings along every single day. What he is basically saying
is that, we the “Moderate
Muslims” are all “Stupid.”
about pondering and reflecting upon these commandments of “Editorial Integrity”?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
To: Sultan Shahin, Editor of the “New Age Islam”
Do you recall your own verdict as follows:
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.
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!
Naseer Ahmed Saheb,
you like to wake up in the morning to read the following comments:
sharm tumko magar nahi
baukhla gaye hain.
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.
“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
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
you are free to cover them under literalism.
By rational mohammed yunus -
2/15/2014 8:52:58 AM
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
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.
Good Morning Mr. S. Jeelani,
Forget Ciint Eastwood. How about listening to another one of my hero? Nana
Machar Aadmi Ko Hijda Bana Deta Hai!
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?”
Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia
Mohiyuddin & All Respective Readers on the “New Age Islam” forum.
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
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
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
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!
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
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).
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.
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.
You said, "what i have for you i am giving it to you."
That is nonsense! Will you ever stop making childish comments?
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.
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
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
Muslims” and our great religion of Islam? Are they color blind or
what? What is their sole mission?
why does Sultan Shahin, the Editor simply cannot play the role of a true
any case, your astute comments on the subject matter “ADMIYAT” will be greatly appreciated.
To: Sultan Shahin –
Editor& All Respected readers of the “New Age Islam” forum.
SAME OLD STATUS QUO – November 2013
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
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
To: Sultan Shahin – Editor
& All Respected readers of the “New Age Islam” forum.
A REFRESHING REMINDER – October 2013
Morning Hats Off - Namaste SirJi
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
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
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!
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?
a blessed day. Go to a religious place. Pray for Peace and Harmony.
very respectfully yours - email@example.com
By Mohammed Rafiq
Lodhia - 10/25/2013
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
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.
By hats off! -
10/25/2013 7:10:01 PM
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/
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
this with how Suhail has quoted it:
"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the
unbelievers but merciful to one another".
who follow him include all followers for all times!
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.
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.
again the Prophet alone is addressed and the verse applies to his people in
"The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy".
creates the impression that it applies to all people for all times!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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*
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.
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?
You claim to be a professional person but your characterization of DSM is not only amateurish, it is downright silly. How come?
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.
"Khalid Suhail in his comment under the
"The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy".
"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
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
Meaning of inveterate:
having a particular habit, activity, or interest
that is long-established and unlikely to change.
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 )
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.
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".
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
Secular Logic says, "Rational needs no counselling."
Your opinion is noted. Bye for now!
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.
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!!!
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.
has quoted the following:
(4:101) "The unbelievers are your inveterate
(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.
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) 
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
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
""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
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.
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.
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”?
Think hard and be on a high alert. This website
got few bugs that must be dealt with in an appropriate manner.
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
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
By rational mohammed
yunus - 2/10/2014 3:00:53 AM
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
think all arguments and debates all through the history of academic
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.
there will be no Islamophobia, no Taliban and no salami movement. Then the
brainless Muslim will be nonexistent.
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.
"(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.
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.
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."
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!’
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.”
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?
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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:
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.”
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.
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.
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.