Join the discussion on Islam, Hindutva, Dr Zakir Naik, Godhra
Dear All,
I am “creating” this post to collate several comments that were exchanged between readers in response to the post referring to Dr Zakir Naik’s video.
The reason for moving the comments to this post are
- the comments did not refer to the specific video but addressed more general and broader issues (as you will see below)
- I think the discussion that is evolving has value in itself and touches upon several things in relation to Islam, Hindutva, Dr Zakir Naik, Godhra etc
- The original video was not about Dr. Zakir Naik’s comments which have been referred to by Mohammed Ali (below). It was to do with his remarks on a different subject - unfortunately it is no longer available on youtube
I will be responding to Mohammed’s comments in a day or two but please feel free to join the discussion. A few important points: please stick to civil language; please refrain from personal insults; please avoid dismissive arguments; and of course, no abuse or vulgarity allowed…
Thanks for joining the discussion…and hopefully, this will help us get closer to the truth. Satyameva Jayate!
.
********** BEGINNING OF COMMENTS **********
From Mohammed Ali
Dr. Zakir Naik says:
Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. anti-social elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people.”
Faith Freedom.org says:
Dr. Naik claims that the anti-social elements that need to be terrorized by Muslims are the criminals, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. But isn’t it the job of the police to go after the criminals? The police’s job is trained and is paid to enforce the law. Those whom he catches are not criminals until proven as such in the court of law. He must catch the suspect using minimum force and use force only if necessary. He must respect the human rights of the suspects. As long as the suspect is not convicted in a court of law, he remains innocent.
Who gave the authorization to Muslims to take the place of the police, the court, the executioner and terrorize people whom they accuse of crime? Don’t we have a penal system to deal with these matters? Should citizens take the law in their own hands? This is in itself against the law. What this doctor is ostensibly proposing here is anarchy. We have a whole structure set in place to deal with criminals. Under what law average citizens can assume the role of the entire legal system? This is insanity!
_____________________________________________
Here’s my point of view:
Every human being, Muslim or non-Muslim should be a “terrorist for the antisocial elements of society”.
(Anybody disagreeing with the above statement can stop reading right now, as your mind is not mature enough to understand the topic).
Now that we have agreed to the above statement, lets see what faithfreedom.org has to say.
According to faithfreedom.org, “But isn’t it the job of the police to go after the criminals?”
So according to faithfreedom.org, if a man is walking on the road, and he sees a woman being gang-raped by a feral pack of goons, he should just walk away, call the police and then wait till the police comes while this woman is being stripped of her dignity.
EVERY HUMAN BEING SHOULD STAND BY THE SIDE AND WATCH WOMEN GET RAPED, MEN GET STABBED ETC. BECAUSE IF YOU DO INTERFERE YOU WILL BECOME A “TERRORIST FOR ANTI-SOCIAL ELEMENTS.”
Mr. Khurmi opposes what Dr. Naik says and agrees with faithfreedom.org
So IF Mr. Khurmi sees his sister (all Indians are my brothers and sisters, remember?) getting raped by 5 people, he will not interfere, rather, he will call the police and wait for them to come. If the police comes, well and good. But if it doesn’t come, he will still stand around and watch his sister get raped, because if he gets into a fight with the rapists and terrorizes them, he will become a “TERRORIST FOR ANTI-SOCIAL ELEMENTS”. And NO, Mr. Khurmi strongly opposes that, don’t you Mr. Khurmi?
______________________________________________
P.S.: Harebrained people like you who do not have any idea of Islam, haven’t read a single verse of the Quran like to make profound criticisms of the religion. Seriously man, how low on self-respect and dignity do you have to be make statement against Islam because of what few idiotic people calling themselves Muslims are doing?
When Hindus, killed 845 Muslims and displaced 100,000 in Gujarat, I dont remember myself saying, “Hinduism is bad”. I said, “The Govt. is corrupt.” But people like you would’ve seen the Godhra carnage and said, “Islam is such a depraved religion.”
First learn about the religion, then pass ur wise-ass comments.
you can get in touch with me if you want to at: pseudo_ku@yahoo.com
Yours truly,
an Indian
.
*****************************************
From Rick
To Mohmmad Ali
Why dont you argue at faithfreedon.org with Ali Sina? He is actually well versed in Kuran and ex-muslim. He knows everything about Islam. Actually he is inviting people to prove him wrong. We want people like you to argue with him and to prove your point not with people who dont know Kuran.
All the Best.
*****************************************
From Rick
Mohmmad Ali
I mean its no use to convince your point to those who doesnot know anything about Islam. Please go to that site and prove him wrong.
.
*****************************************
From B Shantanu
Mohammed,
First of all, I am not sure if you even saw the video that I had linked in my post – Unfortunately, it is no longer available on the site that I had linked (I will try and find another link).
Secondly, I am not sure about Dr Zakir Naik’s definition of a terrorist;
According to you, he says: “A terrorist is a person who causes terror” – That is not entirely true (it is too simplistic). According to most definitions, a terrorist is a person who uses violence or threats of violence for political purposes or as a political weapon.
So, a policeman is not a terrorist.
And why should a Muslim be a terrorist for anyone? If any person is so keen to help maintain law and order, should he/she not join the police or the army?
And should he/she not become a law-abiding citizen first and foremost?
A “terrorist” is NOT “a person who causes terror among the common people” – a terrorist is someone who takes innocent lives, who is ready to kill innocents for furthering his cause and ideology.
As the faithfreedom..org site says, “We have a whole structure set in place to deal with criminals. Under what law average citizens can assume the role of the entire legal system?”
Think about it instead of dismissing it out of hand. And instead of calling others immature, think first whether you understand the concepts of law, state, “power” and crime – I do not mean understand in the dictionary sense of the word but understand within the political context that these terms are used.
I will not get into an argument about the example you give – except to say that it rests upon a false premise: viz. it is OK to do nothing if you see a wrong being committed. It is not OK to just watch when a wrong is being committed – in fact, it is the “Dharma” of every righteous person to do his/her best to prevent a wrong being committed.
Above all, there can be no argument against the legal use of power and force residing solely with the state as opposed to individuals (which you seem to propose).
As for being a wise-ass (if that is directed towards me), I am very careful about the comments I make and if I have made a comment without justification, I will be the first to apologise for it.
We are not trying to be wise-asses - just trying to understand what is happening around us.
Thanks for joining the debate.
.
*****************************************
From Panam
With due respect to everyone, but i have to write when innocents are killed all over the world because of some fanatic guys, and nobody is ready to take responsibilities but starts finding faults of Hindus.
Honestly speaking, water in the stomach of muslims will not even rattle when something happens with Hindus, but if single muslim is arrested they will make hue and cry.
Why Hindus have been driven from Kashmir? Why today Kashmiri Hindus are Refugees in their own country?
What happened to boggy of train in Dahod? who made fire on the boggy? pictures of burnt boggy speak for itself. Is there any justification for terror spread by bin-laden in the world.
Who is bad in UK, US, Russia, Afghanistan and many more countries where innocents are killed daily. Why Muslims are acting like Modi in the world?
They just have one example to sting on Modi. It is hyped by NGO’s., without looking into the matter who burnt boggy and killed innocents Hindus init. What about the innocent hindus of Kashmir? Why they are not Indian?
Many mother have lost their sons and husbands.
Hindus are expected to be deaf and dumb. Not to write , not to speak, not to comment. Its too much
Why all these attack on England, according to you may be it is because of only Modi and Modi did?
What about 7/11, mumbai stock exchange, Lord ganeshas temple, swaminarayan temple. Why this is not enough?
Why in Islam Apostasy means death? Aren’t they human?
Before pointing towards anyone one must retrospect and should improve their own community members.
Shantanu-I speak truth, I dont care about anyone’s feeling when it is time to attack terrorism in the world.
.
*****************************************
From Mohammed Ali
Dear Panam,
My post was addressed to Mr. Shantanu as both of us were having a exchange of views. Osama bin Laden is a covert cowardly man who sends innocents into a war by misinterpreting the Quran who’s benefits he reaps… If anyone called Osama bin Laden a hero, I would feel sorry for the person and would debate with him until I convinced him that Osama is a shame, a blot on the face of Islam.
Terrorism is not a simplistic idea where one man tells another to go blow up a place and the other man tacitly complies. There are several other aspects involved which I will not explain to you. Read Noam Chomsky or Arundhati Roy. And more importantly, as far as apostasy is concerned, you should read the Quran and you’ll know better. the following are two lines in the Quran
La iqra fi ad din - There shall be no compulsion in religion
Lakum dinakum walayeddin - your religion for you and mine for me
What some people do is visit anti-islam sites where things like this… Apostasy,Polygamy etc are typed out in bold. You miss the point entirely. I’m sure you haven’t made an attempt to read the Quran. And since you have read the opinion of Islam-blasphemers (Bin Laden, faithfeedom etc are among them), I would like to know what you felt when you read about apostasy in a pro-islam site?
Please tell me the name of the pro-islam site you visited to clarify and compare with what the anti-islam site has written. Also, it would be very helpful if you told me why you found the pro-islam site so unconvincing that you chose to side with the anti-islam site on apostasy.
If you havent done what I have pointed out in the previous paragraph, then I think a little introspection is required Panam.
*****************************************
From Mohammed Ali
one more thing Panam…
To justify the killing of innocent defenseless Muslims by Modi saying that Bin Laden did it somehwere else and why people are not questioning that, is not the way an argument is pursued.
In my previous post, I condemned Bin Laden and called him un-Islamic. I haven’t called him a HERO
.
*****************************************
From Mohammed Ali
As the faithfreedom..org site says, “We have a whole structure set in place to deal with criminals. Under what law average citizens can assume the role of the entire legal system?”
There is not a single point in Zakir’s passage that hints about Muslims (or) average citizens assuming the position of the entire legal system . The faithfreedom guy just made it up and you are seconding his point. In simple words, what Zakir merely said was Muslims should strike terror in the minds of anti-social elements like thieves, dacoits and rapists.
In the broader political context, if he wanted to tell them to become real “poltical terrorists” i.e. indulging in some kind of reprobate act where the loss of hundreds of lives takes place (which terrorists are doing today), he wouldn’t have said to terrorise anti-social elements. He just means thieves, dacoits and rapists. And as I said in my previous post, a rapist should get scared of an ordinary citizen, so should a dacoit and a thief.
What Zakir said is as clear as water. By saying stuff like he wants muslims to replace the justice system etc is just putting words in his mouth.
The post was directed to a Mr. Khurmi who says things like,
‘Yusuf Khan’ had to change his name to ‘Daleep Kumar’ ! Now a days it has become EXACTLY opposite ! Today a Daleep Kumar had change his name to ‘A. R. Rahman’ to get a foothold in the industry ! This is because now the things move according to wishes of his excellency Mian Dawood Ibrahim and his other bhai-log from the wonderful world of Islamic terror. No wonder today to become a hero you have to be a Khan.
That is the rhetoric he exudes. So I had to use an extreme example.
Just for my information, are there any posts on your blog condemning the Hindu-led state sponsored riots by the Ugly Indian (Modi) in which pregnant muslim women had their wombs slit and their unborn infants thrown into the fire? And are there any questions asked whether the fault is with the people or the religion of Hinduism itself. Whether Hindutva taught them (since they were chanting the name of Ram when they did these despicable acts) to do what I have cited in bold? Please point me to such posts on your site… It would make interesting reading.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you said that Muslims deserved what they got. This is another comment i found on your site which is meant to promote debate and disussion:
”H.E. Mr Modi-ji is the iconic hero of Indian citizens. He needs our appreciation for countering jihadi violence though feebly during post-Godhra days! Kudos and sabaash to him!”
clap!clap!clap!
Wah.. Kya baat hai
P.S.: Now please dont give me a reply saying that you did not say the above and its just another person’s opinion.
P.P.S: you haven’t even stepped close to the periphery of questioning hero worship of a Mr. Modi, so i’ll assume you agree with the statement.
your truly,
pseudo_ku@yahoo.com
(If i haven’t met ur standards of use of language etc. do notify me).
.
*****************************************
From Mohammed Ali
And MR. Shantanu I wrote the post for which Panam replied in order to further our discussion on the Zakir issue.
Whenever you reply to my post, I ask of you a favour. Please copy and paste parts of my post and then reply to each one in particular, and I shall do the same, in the larger interest of meaningful mutually beneficial discussion…
yours truly
pseudo_ku@yahoo.com
.
PLEASE CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION THROUGH COMMENTS BELOW
All,
I believe I have moved all the relevant comments here but if I have missed something or accidentally deleted one of your comments, please let me know ( - I deleted one of my own)
Thanks.
Comment by B Shantanu | July 8, 2007
Tell that Mohammed Ali Jiahdis about the gang rape of Kashmiri Pandit women in front of their children. Were were they at that time ? I guess cheering their Muslim brothers.
You can never take the hate, and the perpetuallly faulting the infidels fault from an Islamist.
This Jihadst is a reflection of that hateful mindset incomatibele with most civilized behaviour.
Comment by Ajay Raina | July 8, 2007
Mr. Shantanu,
Speaking very objectively, you have taken a fair number of reasonable steps to promote discussion…
So far, apart from you, no one has really responded to what I have said. Comments from Panam and Mr. Ajay Raina aren’t related to what we are discussing here.
In spite of Panam’s response having very little to do with what we were discussing, I dignified Panam’s post with a calculated response without offending anyone.
Now, being labelled a Jihadi is no problem. Simply translated, a Jihadi is a person who ’strives’. The word ‘Holy War’ isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Quran.
But I do think name-calling is going to help. So as a responsible moderator, you should warn people like Mr. Raina not to indulge in name-calling as it is not in the interest of a mature discussion.
Dear Mr. Raina,
Please read what I have written. I have condemned Osama Bin Laden in the strictest words. I wrote in my previous post,
If anyone called Osama bin Laden a hero, I would feel sorry for the person and would debate with him until I convinced him that Osama is a shame, a blot on the face of Islam
I’ll go a step further. If that person is not convinced and keeps praising Bin Laden, I will walk away and shall never talk to him again
What happened in Kashmir makes my heart bleed. I do not support such acts. They should be punished for what they did. According to Islamic Law, they should be stoned to death.
But all this does not take away what happened in Gujarat. If I said, leave what happened in Gujarat, but stone what happened in Kashmir, I would be a hypocrite. Which I am not.
Please read the posts carefully and respond.
yours truly
pseudo_ku@yahoo.com
Comment by Mohammed Ali | July 9, 2007
Dear Shantanu,
you have stated
The original video was not about Dr. Zakir Naik’s comments which have been referred to by Mohammed Ali (below). It was to do with his remarks on a different subject - unfortunately it is no longer available on youtube
Everyone should know that the reason I’m defending the points said by Zakir Naik even though The original video was not about Dr. Zakir Naik’s comments is because I found the following posted by a Mr. Jagmohan Singh Khurmi on the same forum where Zakir Naik’s “no longer available on youtube” video was posted.
Mr. Khurmi had written thus-
Here the great faithful let us know why it is right to kill us infidels : http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina51022.htm
…by the way, there is another chapter in faithfreedom.org ( I am yet to find the exact link there) which shows the transcript of two muslim chatters referring to a terrorist training camp in ( or near ) Mumbai, connected with Zakir Naik !
I think the people ought to know why I am writing about a topic that wasn’t even mentioned in the initial post.
Comment by Mohammed Ali | July 9, 2007
To Mr. Mohammed Ali,
Mr Ali,
You have just selected a tolerant verse from Quran, pls let me have the surah number.
There are many , irepeat intolerant verses which forms the source of inspiration for muslims to involve in terrorism.
The verses you have mentioned is only for believer ie. Mulsims.
The below quranic verse proves that.
“Mohammed is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. ~ Victory; Sura 48:29.
80 million Hindus killed due to Islamic Jihad in India.
Jihad destroyed all of Buddhism along the silk route. About 10 million Buddhists died.
“Kill those who believe in many gods” Sura al-Tawba 9:5
“The unbelievers are your sworn enemies.” ~ Sura 4:101.
4:56 Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.
4:102 - Lo! Allah prepareth for the disbelievers shameful punishment.
4:144 O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you ?
“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal harshly with them.” ~ Repentance; Sura 9:123.
“Take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then if they turn away seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take no friend nor helper from among them” ~ Sura 4:89.
[2.257] Allah is the Guardian of those who believe. He brings them out from darkness into the light. As for those who disbelieve, their guides are idols, they bring them out from the light into darkness. They are the companions of the Fire and shall live in it for ever.
“We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. They serve other gods for whom no sanction is revealed. Hell shall be their home.” ~ The Imrans; Sura 3:150.
“When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its load.” ~ Women; Sura 4:47 To “smite a neck” means to decapitate).
“Mohammed is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. ~ Victory; Sura 48:29.
The terrorists are just following the above verses.
Comment by Nandagopal | July 9, 2007
@ Mohammed: Thanks for your clarifications in comments # 3 and 4 above.
Let me respond to the your last but one comment extracted on the post beginning with: “Just for my information, are there any posts on your blog condemning the Hindu-led state sponsored riots by the Ugly Indian (Modi)…”
This is a topical blog. The simple reason that there is not a single post on the blog condemning the riots in Godhra is that the blog did not exist in 2002.
That said, thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify my views. I sincerely mean it. In fact, I probably will end up writing a post on Godhra.
In the meantime, here is my position on Godhra, Mr Modi etc.
1. There can never be any justification for taking the lives of innocent people (and lets not forget that it was not just Muslims who were killed in the riots and several thousand Hindus had to flee their homes as well – I am not justifying anything just mentioning this fact in the interest of completeness)
2. If the people who did this, did it in the name of Shri Ram or Hinduism, they are not only ignorant of the fundamentals of Hinduism, they are also insulting its great traditions and principles
3. I will not even attempt to get into the argument of whether Hindutva taught them to do this (can I point out that unlike the Quran – which has verses that can be interepreted as commands to go and kill the infidels, Hindu/Vedic texts do not have any sunch injunctions)
4. As for comments on my site, I have repeatedly said that I am for freedom of expression – which is why I let comments stand even if I do not always agree with them – If you do not agree with this principle of freedom of thought/expression, that is another matter
5. As for the “hero-worship” of Mr Modi, it is subject – which I am sure you will agree – deserves a separate post in itself
Hope that clarifies somewhat.
In the interest of a full debate, can you also please clarify your position on
· The principle of banning Rsuhdie’s books and Danish cartoons while allowing Shri Husain’s exhibition of paintings containing “offensive images” of certain Hindu deities?
· The terrorist acts that are committed in the name of “Allah” – the latest example being the man who tried to ram a car into Glasgow Airport?
· The quotes and remarks in Quran that are interpreted as justification for such acts?
Can you also comment on Tanveer Ahmed’s article which I posted yesterday: Islam’s “uncomfortable truths”? http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/07/08/islams-uncomfortable-truths/
And finally, you may find this debate interesting: http://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/05/29/can-islam-reform-itself/
And I still need to find the link to the Zakir Naik video that was originally linked to on my blog – which is something that I am sure you will find interesting (it had something to with conversion, not definition of terrorism or terrorist training camps).
P.S. As for comments on what faithfreedom.org says and does not say, don’t you think its better to argue about that on faithfreedom’s site rather than here?
***************
@ Ajay: Please be careful with your words. As I requested at the beginning of this post:
please stick to civil language; please refrain from personal insults; please avoid dismissive arguments; and of course, no abuse or vulgarity allowed…
***************
@ Nandagopal: Thank you for your comment and quotes. Mohammed: I look forward to your response to these as well.
***************
Thanks everyone for contributing to the debate.
Comment by B Shantanu | July 9, 2007
***** Comment deleted by Moderator *****
Ali: This comment has crossed the line that I mentioned above and unfortunately I have to delete it.
I welcome open discussion and am generally very very tolerant of views/opinions that are expressed here but I dont want to have words which are abusive or vulgar or otherwise ill-considered.
Please do join the discussion but be mindful of your language.
Thanks.
Comment by Ali | July 9, 2007
When Hindus are dragged anywhere, we will be present everywhere. Whether it is discussion between Shantanu and You, who cares.
Actually Mohmed Ali should debate with Ali Sina. Why is he wasting his time here to preach Kuran?
He need to correct Ali Sina at Faith freedom site if he has good faith in his own religion. You cannot make wrong into right without giving good debate with Ali Sina. We all have faith in Ali Sina. If he says Ok we all we say Ok. After all he is running website and declared reward to those who makes him wrong in intrepretion of Kuran.
Comment by panam | July 9, 2007
Dear Mr. Shantanu,
As for comments on my site, I have repeatedly said that I am for freedom of expression – which is why I let comments stand even if I do not always agree with them – If you do not agree with this principle of freedom of thought/expression, that is another matter
I’m all for freedom of speech my friend. But correct me if am wrong, but you when I used snide remarks to point out certain discrepancies in your post on “Allah Ki Den”, you were the first one to correct me on that issue (I have not made any such remarks since then). I had been directing my posts to some commentators but you found it fit to reply. I have no qualms whatsoever.
But, I did not find any of your ‘corrective’ statements following comments glorifying a mass-murderer like Mr. Modi (ostensibly, whether Modi is a mass-murderer or not is open for discussion it seems!! Interesting). Or downright ridiculous comments regarding Yusuf Khan becoming Dilip Kumar, and AR Rahman’s conversion having something to do with Dawood??? Rahman converted much before he joined Bollywood, where things move according to wishes of his excellency Mian Dawood Ibrahim and his other bhai-log from the wonderful world of Islamic terror according to Mr. Khurmi (the evidence that evrything moves according to Dawoods wishes? No, not necessary. This is freedom of speech). No such corrections applied when someone calls Dr. Zakir Naik a Cartoon. I do note that you deleted Ali’s comment.
If you want me to go and debate on faithfreedom.org about what is written there, then you should not allow posts on ur site which point to ff.org as a point of reference. So telling me to debate at ff.org although you endorse the link to that site with a “Thanks, I will have a look” from ur very own blog, is improper. If I point out some random article from ff.org and blame you for it, then u can say that I should go to ff.org and debate. But I’m only debating what was posted on your site.
Both you and Rick have told me to go and debate there. I have just stated why I’m debating here and not there. I hope this won’t come up again.
I had asked of you a favour which you have denied me. These are the disadvantages of written debate. Especially so, since I’m responding to more than one person, and what is directed to one person in one context, is being replied by another. But we have no other option but to comtinue.
I has asked you to respond by quoting parts of my post and then providing ur rebuttal immediately. Had you done that, we would’ve closed the Zakir debate regarding what he said on Terrorism. Please do that first, so we can conclude the Zakir debate. Let us not introduce new topics without coming to solid conclusions on the old ones. I am guilty in this regard for introducing the whole Gujarat, Modi, Hindutva angle into the debate, for which you have provided ur response by saying that whether Modi was guilty or not is up for discussion and that Muslims were not the only people who suffered.
Note: Lets wrap up the Zakir debate first.
I perfectly understand that replying in the pattern I have suggested, will take time. And we all ahve other responsibilities. I am in no hurry here. Please take as log as you want to reply and allow me the same liberties when it comes to my turn to reply.
yours truly
pseudo_ku@yahoo.com
Comment by Mohammed Ali | July 9, 2007
One person threatened Ali Sina of legal battle. Ali Sina asked that person to come with preparation because What Ali Sina is telling is 100 % truth and and has proof. No body till now proved him wrong.
Comment by panam | July 9, 2007
Those who really cares for their religion must go to FFI.org to prove Ali Sina wrong.
According to me this blog site is not at all doing harm to muslims faith compared to what FFI.org. is doing. So why fight over here?. First correct your own brothers( ex-muslims). Its always good to talk to them who knows Kuran not with those who doesnot know anything about Kuran.
Comment by Indian | July 9, 2007
What measure have been taken in your community that 7/11 like case will not happen again, before you complain about Modi and all?
Yes, we have already seen hue and cry for saving Afzal Guru. What about Hindu Kashmiris Refugees? why are they not Indian and your brothers?
You are just condemning Bin-laden but what have you done for Kashmiris? You are agressive when Islam is debated why ther is no pain in your heart about Kashmir Issues?
As a muslim you and your community can do many things to eradicate Jihadis from India, the same way for Afzal they did.
Comment by Indian | July 9, 2007
We are not justifying the deeds of Modi ( may be he has Not done anything, still for your satisfaction).
with bin laden.
Than, how do you justify the deeds of 7/11/, stock exchange, swaminarayan temple, Dahod train boggy attack and many more terrorists attack On India and its innocents people? Why are you not uttering single words on it? What was wrong in uttering “Vande Matram” when you are in the country, like India which is 100 % better than Pakistan.
Please dont be advocate of Islam, be the advocate of people first.
Comment by Panam | July 9, 2007
Dear Panam,
I responded to your post last time even though it was absolutely irrelevant to the discussion that is going on in this forum.
And judging by your response, I’m telling you that I will not be replying to any of your posts in future and waste my time if u continue in this fashion.
I don’t think you understand the meaing of the words debate, discussion etc. Well here it is. The Moderator puts up a topic and then people discuss it. One person gives his point of view and the other person gives his point of view. Others who join in do the same thing either agreeing to disagreeing with each other in the process and giving definite reasons for their aggreement/disagreement.
I spent my time responding to your trivial query and posed certain questions. I thought that you are a perfectly reasonable person and will reply to what I have said, but you did not. Instead, you unleash another tirade of impertinence.
I request you to understand that it takes time to read, time to think of a response and then time to put the thought into relevant words that best express one’s view. I request you to realise that.
And finally, here is my response to your comments:
“Actually Mohmed Ali should debate with Ali Sina. Why is he wasting his time here to preach Kuran?”
Tell Shantanu to tell me that. If he supports what you say, then I shall leave right away. If he doesn’t then you should take some introspection pills.
“We all have faith in Ali Sina. If he says Ok we all we say Ok “
Myself and Shantanu have been debating precisely what ur superstar and role-model, Mr. Ali Sina said.
I told you last time,
Please tell me the name of the pro-islam site you visited to clarify and compare with what the anti-islam site has written. Also, it would be very helpful if you told me why you found the pro-islam site so unconvincing that you chose to side with the anti-islam site on apostasy.
You clearly haven’t done that either because you have decided to believe everything some guy with a false name says. You really need to take some more introspection pills.
If he says Ok we all we say Ok
Well, Panam, who is this ‘we’ you are referring to. is it anyone from this forum? If it is, then who is it? And if it isn’t, then what are you even talking about?
If he says Ok we all we say Ok
You may have taken all your God-given cognitive ability and your capacity to reason, packed it in a box and thrown it into the sea so that you can believe wat Sina says without question. Unfortunately, I can’t do that. I like to put my abilities to use instead of throwing them to waste and tacitly agreeing to what some guy is saying.
If you have any reasoning capacity left, reply to my post directly. The results of this test will be published for everyone to see. You’ve screwed up twice. Give the third attempt ur best shot.
I know I must be an idiot to type out such a long post filled with reason to you. I must be an eternal optimist.
yours truly,
pseudo_ku@yahoo.com
Comment by Mohammed Ali | July 9, 2007
Sorry I didnot wnated to hurt. But you must understand our frustration as a victims.
I responded because you said somwhere Indian first and than muslim. Your comment where not relating to Zakir, but you dragged to modi and Hindutva and Hindus. You also preached innocency of Islam somewhere. You must know that we dont agree with that. “We” stands for victims of terrorist attack( innocents Kashmiris). Why haven’t you stretched yourself towards all these victims, just only Zakir?
For screwing up matter and inrospect pill, who is requiring I dont want to comment on it. You are not a Badshah to screw up anyone. When you are discussing and debating, think about all aspects than you can conclude more clearly and precisely. If you dont want to respond dont respond, leave my comments other to retrospect and understand your views on it.
Comment by Panam | July 9, 2007
Dear Nandagopal,
I am not an expert on the Quran. I am only learning about its many facets. So in order to reply to many quotes you have mentioned, all of which have been quoted selectively, I would have to a lot of reading etc. As of now, I cannot answer all your queries. So what I did do, was investigate one of your quotes.
“Kill those who believe in many gods” Sura al-Tawba 9:5
I have just responded to Shantanu and Panam.
I will give you the thorough explanation and my interpretation based on the context in some time.
Till then, I will leave you with with the complete surah that u asked for, which ends with the words that I quoted, Lakum dinakum walayeddin - your religion for you and mine for me
Surah 109 Verses 1-6
1. O ye that reject faith! (Those who reject Islam)
2. I worship not
which ye worship!
3. Nor will ye worship
That which I worship.
4. And I will not worship
That which ye have been
Wont to worship.
5. Nor will ye worship
That which I worship.
6. To you be your Way
And to me mine.
———end of Surah 109——–
____________________________________________
In the mean time what is your opinion on the following verses of the Holy Gita:
“If however, you do not fight this religious war, then you will certainly incur sin, for neglecting your duties, and thus lose your reputation as a fighter”. [Bhagavad Gita 2:33]
“Considering your specific duty as a Kshatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles, so there is no need for hesitation.” [Bhagavad Gita 2:33]
Can you explain the above calls to fight and kill in the name of religion and how ‘not fighting the religious war’ leads to incurring of Sin?
Please explain these quotes independently, without referring to the context or situation in which they were said.
__________________________________________
Mr. Nandagopal, I have been receiving utter nonsense from Panam, Indian in the name of what my friend Shantanu calls freedom of speech. It might not be nonsense in general but with respect to the current discussion, it is. I have responded to this gibberish with proper explanations, but I still get
Phrases like “Why is he wasting his time here to preach Kuran?”
“You are just condemning Bin-laden but what have you done for Kashmiris?”
I would like to know if you are really interested in what the Quran says, or do you share the above views as well. Because, for every well-thought out opinion, there seem to 3-4 unjustified, off-the-hook comments that are ruining the sanctity of this debate. I would like you to openly disagree with the above said statement, answer them if necessary, as proof that you do not share the same levels of reasoning as Panam and Indian.
If you endorse the above (I have quoted just two phrases. you can read their posts for more), then its pointless continuing this discussion here, as Religion (Hinduism, Islam etc), needs a lot of attention, reception and perspective to be understood. Such characteristics are clearly evaded by Panam, Indian.
I hope you do not exude the same mentality.
your truly,
pseudo_ku@yahoo.com
Comment by Mohammed Ali | July 9, 2007
Correction on 2nd quote!
Verse 2:31, not 2:33
“Considering your specific duty as a Kshatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles, so there is no need for hesitation.” [Bhagavad Gita 2:31]
Comment by Mohammed Ali | July 9, 2007
Dear Panam,
You do not have to be sorry about anything. I was not trying to extract an apology from you.
Read the post to Shantanu. I have said “I am guilty in this regard for introducing the whole Gujarat, Modi, Hindutva angle into the debate, for which you have provided ur response”
You also preached innocency of Islam somewhere
I still am. What i am trying to say is that Islam, i.e. the Quran does not tell its followers to kill innnocents anywhere. These people who kill innocents in the name of religion are not Muslims and all Muslims do not agree with them.
When the Mumbai blasts happened, do you think the bomber checked the two bogeys for any Muslims before he set the bomb to explode?? No he dint. They dont belong to any religion. Even Muslims died in the Bombay Blasts.
So many people (our brothers and sisters) have died in suicide attacks on Kashmir by terorists. Are you hinting that the victims of the suicide attacks are all Hindus? No they are not. A sizeable number of people dying in Kashmir everyday are Muslims.
Islam does not tell Muslims to kill people from other religions. That is what I am trying to explain to you by quoting from the Quran. But you are telling me not to preach the Quran. Only a person who knows the full Quran can preach. I am just learning.
I condemn what happened in Kashmir, I condemn Bin-Laden, I do not support any of them.
But at the same time, I will not fall shy of condemning the Ugly Indian who also has his share of atrocities. The difference between me and you at this point is that I condemn both Islamic and Hindu Fundamentalists, but you refuse to…
If you were offended by anything I might have said in my previous posts, allow me to say “I am sorry.” We can start a fresh.
yours truly
pseudo_ku@yahoo.com
Comment by Mohammed Ali | July 9, 2007
I dont understand the views of Mohamed Ali. I feel he and his views are bias as they are concerned to Zakir Niak and Islam. I also find he is ignorant about Quran and many things happening around the world. He wants us to listen to one side story without arguing.
Anti social elements are very different than political and religious terrorism.
But by the pretext of opposing antisocial element one cannot attack Humanity.
I have seen the video of “Zakir Niak”. To me he sounds narrow and very very orthodox as he connects everything to religion and his religion as super duper. He is not ready to accept anyother religion as best as his own. He sounds cheap in describing his religion the best. This idea is most anti social as it kills whole nation and large number of people reather than one single incidence of rape and robbery.
I still remember in my village we had robbery at night. And we all knew robbers are somewhere around the town and they may strike anytime in future again.
Villagers got together, Hindu+ muslim, to grab that robbers. So this is something can be said as controlling anti social elements. That doesnot mean we should start attacking temples, trains and innocents.
I dont see Zakir niak views as what Mohamed Ali is describing. It may be what M. Ali’s views not Zakir Niak’s or other Jihadi’s
This is my view, If anyone agrees or not is not my debate.
Comment by Indian | July 9, 2007
My humble question to Mohamed Ali.
You said we should become police for anti social element. That shows we should take law in our (people)hands.
Than for Afzal Guru what should we do? Should we leave him in the hand of law or we should take law in our hand and should give punishment. For what are we waiting for?
You said somewhere ugly Indian atrocities(may be your point is towards Govt), that is because may be you are not meted out with islamic atrocities. One should have its taste than only one can find out how cool Indians and India is. Have you ever seen in saudis one cannot eat in front of muslim who is fasting. They have their own rule and regulation as per Islamic. And you are here in India with all freedom.
Comment by Indian | July 9, 2007
To Mohammed:
Zakir Naik has issues, dude! He has a major inferiority complex (religiously speaking) and hence every debate he engages in comparing religions, he tries to show other religions down and say how islam is better than all. Moreover, he (like mohammedans the world over) suffers from a terrible problem: he has delusions of paranoia and persecution. Those, in case you did not know, in an individual are indicative of schizophrenia. Maybe religions also do get “sick”! Zakir Naik feels muslims are needlessly (yeah, right!) blamed for violence everywhere. Further, you are trying to argue with a bunch of people here about how your quran is a peaceful book and how islam advocates tolerance. Just watch a few videos (links posted below) about islamic intolerance and barbarism all over the world and read a few currents events (I challenge you: take any region in the world, and any one week period, any time in the last, say, 50 years) and you will have a list of islamic terrorism and atrocities, a list big enough to fill a few thesis. Be it Palestine, Kashmir, Far East, Middle East, North Americas, UK, Denmark, France…you name it buddy! What do you have to say about forced conversions? Were it not for forced conversions, most of India would have been Hindu and Buddhist, you including, Mr Smarty-pants! And don’t even deny death for apostasy, you islamics have a funny way of selectively quoting verses to try to show other about your “tolerance”! What do you have to say to the islamist doctors involved in the terror plot in UK? And what about the stupid riots over the cartoons in the Danish newspapers?
A few examples from the “book of peace”:
60:4 We can pray for guidance for the idolators, not forgiveness, since God’s law is that idolatry is the only unforgivable offense (4:48 & 116).
Hadith # 284 The Muslim, volume one, says that any Jew or Christian, who heard of Muhammad but did not convert to Islam, and died in disbelief, would rot in hell! Thus Islam withdraws from all Jews and Christians the right to believe in their faiths, and pratice them as such.
Jews and Christians, who spurn Islam, have been lumped together with the idolators such as the Hindus, and classified as ‘the worst of creatures’. Therefore the Koran commands: “O believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book before you, and the unbelievers, who take your religion in mockery and as a sport…” (V: The Table: 60)
“Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, imprison them, besiege them, ambush them” (Sura 9:5); and, “Make war on unbelievers” (Sura 9:29). “When you come upon unbelievers, massacre them, tighten the bands of the captives that you will have taken. Then you will set them free, or you will release them for a ransom” (Sura 8:57).
“To Allah, there are no animals viler than those who do not believe and remain unbelievers” (Sura 8:57). That is why it is necessary to Islamize them by force and by humiliation. And those who resist Islam and its founder must be chastised.
“Here is the fate of those who fight Allah and his messenger: you will put them to death or you will make them suffer the torture of the cross; you will cut their hands and their feet alternately. They will be driven from the country” (Sura 5:37).
“Do not display cowardice, and do not call the infidels to peace when you are superior to them” (Sura 47:22).
Want more evidence? Here are a few links…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kc4dTfC2dE&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlqyDAThrpA&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRH9dbMMjLQ&mode=related&search=
(***WARNING FOR THIS LAST VIDEO*** Please be advised that the images in this video are NOT EASY TO WATCH. They are NOT suitable for children or people with heart conditions.)
http://www.iran-e-azad.org/stoning/video.html
Comment by Solomon | July 10, 2007
And before you say it, I know, there are still more Hindus in India than muslims. You may argue that this means muslims were not trying to force-convert Hindus to islam by the sword and that islam is a peaceful religion (trying real hard not to laugh here!!!).
But that is for two reasons: there were a few very brave Hindu kings who fought against the barbaric islamic rulers and saved Hinduism. And secondly, islamic rulers could not afford to forcibly convert all non-muslims to islam. If they would have done so, who would have paid the jizziah that was filling their treasuries? How would they have survived in Bharat?
Comment by Solomon | July 10, 2007
I would not respect any person who has no respect for women. And Zakir Naik probably tops the list. He is a true misogynist and chauvinist. So, after reading his really insulting and degrading comments on women, I would not read about or comment on anything else he says. I would not dignify his statments by commenting on it. This is what Zakir Naik has to say about women:
Zakir Naik on Polygamy
“If every woman got married to only one man, there would be over thirty million females in U.S.A, four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine million females in Russia who would not find a husband. Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to marry a married man or to become public property.”
Comment by Solomon | July 10, 2007
Dear Mr. Ali,
The shloka you have mentioned is
sva-dharmam api caveksya
na vikampitum arhasi
dharmyad dhi yuddhac chreyo ‘nyat
ksatriyasya na vidyate
Here lord Krishna speaks about swadharma (there is no exact translation for dharma in english, it can be best understood in indian languages, at best swadharma means his personal duty) of kshathriya.
I think you should be aware of 4 varnas in the Indian society guna (nature)karma(occupation) vibhagashaha i.e according to nature and occupation.
I repeat once again for your clarification these varnas are by guna (innate nature) and karma (occupation) not by janma i.e birth.
They are brahmana. Kshathriya, Vaishya, Shudra. Each of these varnas have their prescribed dharma or duties. There is a seperate shloka describing the duties of these varnas in the 18th chapter.
Here Lord Krishna is speaking about dharma of kshathriya i.e warrior clan.
Lord krishna is not asking to fight against non believer.
For your kind infromation not every one is supposed to act as a kshathriya. A brahmana, vaishya, Shudra is not supposed to do what a kshathriya does and vice versa.
In gita 3:35, Lord Krishna says it is better to do one’s prescribed duties (swadharma), even though it is faulty than doing other’s duties.
It is very clear that Lord krishna is speaking about the prescribed duty of a Kshathriya, that is fighting agains the unrighteous.
The prescribed duties of other varnas are different.
In gita there is no reference of believers and non beleivers.
There is clear cut distinction in the kind of duties performed by different varna’s and there is no confusion as to what duties (dharma) a particular varna is supposed to do.
Mr. Ali as an Indian you are supposed to know these along with Quran. Gita , Ramayan and Mahabharath is as much your’s as mine
Where as in the sura’s i mentioned from Quran in my earlier post.
Quran outrightly asks all the believers to kill non beleivers.
I presume it is these verses that guides /misguides the ordinay muslim to commit terrorism or intolerance on the non beleivers.
My opinion is it is ideology in the Quran that makes a person intolerant and kill others. Where as in Hindutva the pricliple of paap (sin) and Punya and karma cycle which prevents a hindu not to be a terrorist.
In hindutva there is no concept of beleiver and non beleiver at all. You incur sin if you hurt/kill anybody irrespective of you are beleiver or non beleiver.
Hindutva consider all the people living in Hindustan as Hindu irrespective of the mode of worship you follow.
Ramayan, Mahabharath, Gita or any dharma shasthras refer to whole of humanity chara char (moving and non moving) there is no concept of beleiver and non believer.
Comment by Nandagopal | July 10, 2007
Hindu scripture don’t refer to religion anywhere, cos there were no religions.
“If however, you do not fight this religious war, then you will certainly incur sin, for neglecting your duties, and thus lose your reputation as a fighter”. [Bhagavad Gita 2:33]
–Wrong translation. Its not religious war, its the war for ‘righteous principles’. Exact word in sanskrit is ‘Dharma’, it can’t be translated as ‘religion’. So, the fight is not for religion. The fight is against those who are not righteous.
“Considering your specific duty as a Kshatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles, so there is no need for hesitation.” [Bhagavad Gita 2:33]
–Wrong translation again. And the above duty belongs to the ‘Government/Rulers’, in those days ‘Kshatriyas’. Again, the fight is not about religion, its about ‘righteousness or rules’. It means, a ‘Kshtriya or Government or Ruler’ should not feel sorry for attacking a rival country or Ruler who creates problem for our people.
Your reply quoting Gita is a desperate attempt, I don’t think Dr.Kalam would love it so much if it were a mere religious scripture. I genuinely welcome and looking forward for your response to the Kuran quotes.N
Comment by Nanda | July 10, 2007
All: Thanks for your comments and enriching the discussion by sharing your thoughts.
@ Mohammed: I have not forgotten to respond to your comment (at #9). However I am a little tied up at work and there are a few other priority posts that are pending which I need to put up here.
Rest assured, I will respond to your comment(s) - and everyone else’s - in a few days - hopefully by the weekend.
Of course there is no deadline (or limit!) on comments - so continue to share your thoughts.
Jai Hind, Jai Bharat.
Comment by B Shantanu | July 10, 2007
Dear Solomon,
Why don’t you read the posts first before replying. I do not care what Zakir Naik has said otherwise. I am not a part of Zakir Naik’s entourage. I’m not a Zakir Naik apologist. We are discussing what he said with regards to ‘Every muslim should be a terrorist.’ and not what he said throughout his life.
Applying that same rationale I do not question everything the ff.org guy said, as everything what he said is not on this site.
And as far as Zakir Naik’s argument on Polygamy are concerned, you have quoted one sentence out of his entire speech. I do support the concept of polygamy as it is quoted in the Quran, but whether polygamy should be allowed or not is a whole other discussion.
Further, you are trying to argue with a bunch of people here about how your quran is a peaceful book and how islam advocates tolerance. Just watch a few videos (links posted below) about islamic intolerance and barbarism all over the world and read a few currents events
This mentality is regressive to this discussion. George Bush is a catholic. Would it be alright if I said that Christianity is what is leading him into battle? Christianity is what led him into attacking Iraq for no reason whatsoever and causing the death of over 200,000 Iraqis? Christianity is what made him enter iraq to remove Saddam and find WMDs and christianity is what is making him stay in spite of removing Saddam and not finding WMDs?
Because of UN sanctions imposed by America 500,000 iraqi
children died between 1991 - 1996. And asked about this USA’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, “Its worth it.”
You are probably one of the multitude of sad souls out there who have prostrated before the Popular Media and have not read voices of dissent like Noam Chomsky, Arundhati Roy etc. let me rephrase - Deliberately ignored voices of dissent like Noam Chomsky, Arundhati Roy because they cause you to look in your own backyard.
take any region in the world, and any one week period, any time in the last, say, 50 years) and you will have a list of islamic terrorism and atrocities, a list big enough to fill a few thesis. Be it Palestine, Kashmir, Far East, Middle East, North Americas, UK, Denmark, France…you name it buddy!
Palestine - When ur beloved America (beloved, since North America is on ur list of victims)- rejects the result of a democratic election because the people the palestinians elected weren’t pro-Israel, -and at the same time claims to “bring democracy to the Middle-east”, contortionists like you do not sit up and take notice.
When America gives rise to a bunch of retards who call themselves the Taliban by supplying them with weapons, and virtually creating the likes of Bin Laden, you dont’ take notice. Probably because you are not interested in investigating.
What do you have to say to the islamist doctors involved in the terror plot in UK?
What do I have to say about the Glasgow plot? What are you? Blind? Or did you do what you do best? Read whatever suits ur opinion and ignore the rest?
Where were you looking when I categorically condemned the likes of Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda in one of my posts? Looking downwards, Mr. withouty-pants?
The reson I am bringing America in the muddle is that there has been a rise in Islamic Terrorism since America stepped into the middle-east and Palestine. And till today, its only fuelling the flames.
And secondly, islamic rulers could not afford to forcibly convert all non-muslims to islam. If they would have done so, who would have paid the jizziah that was filling their treasuries? How would they have survived in Bharat?
Islamic rulers ruled India for centuries. If ALL were involved in forcible conversions over a period of more than 500 years, I’m sure there wouldve been more Muslims in India than there are today. Another tid-bit of information Your Ignorance, Akbar married Jodha Bai. I’m sure, she was Muslim rite?
How come there aren’t any records of nationwide uprising against Muslim leaders like there were against the British. Yeah, because they all suppressed?? If they could suppress an entire population, why could they convert half of them?
As for verses of the Quran, which ur sly mind is unable to comprehend, I shall explain one verse now. And please answer the follwing questions.
Tell me about your exposure to the verses of the Quran since you deem it fit to comment on the verses..
How much of the verses have you read directly from t Quran?
Which author’s translation of the Arabic version do you refer?
After reading Ali Sina or whoever, which version of the Quran did you use to verify the authenticity of whoever’s claims?
Any person u kno who understands Arabic who can explain things to you in better perspective?
Also,
Please tell me the name of the pro-islam site you visited to clarify and compare with what the anti-islam site has written about the verses you’ve mentioned. Also, it would be very helpful if you told me why you found the pro-islam site so unconvincing that you chose to side with the anti-islam site on the verses.
(You can answer the above question. Or do what you do best, ignore it and simply toss ur coin which has HEADS on both sides so that you never have to face the other side of the coin).
Comment by Mohammed Ali | July 10, 2007
Well said Solomon.
Comment by Indian | July 10, 2007
He is arguing with us on Quran and Zakir Niak and in reply to our post he will say I am not the part of Zakir Niak, and stick to Zakir Niak.
Visit http://www.iapostate.wordpress.com. He is indian who left Islam ansd he says any wise person will do this.
Comment by Indian | July 10, 2007
Mohammed,
I was going to write a more thoughtful response to the various comments but I am compelled to jump in as there is a risk that I am being mis-represented.
Let me make some things clear:
1. I did respond to your quote mentioning Dr Zakir Naik’s definition of a terrorist (see my comment just below Ricks in the post above). But I am surprised that you keep going back to it since I have neither quoted it nor mentioned it on my blog (and do bear in mind that I have neither seen the video where he has mentioned this nor the transcript where he may have said it).
In any case, I have entertained this discussion about the definition of a terrorist “according to Dr Zakir Naik” long enough but I really must call a stop to this. Dr Naik is neither a political scientist nor an expert on terrorism. He may have his own definition of terrorist and terrorism but that is completely different from what most people around the world understand it to be. And I am not going to let myself be dragged into that discussion beyond this point. As far as I am concerned, “Dr Zakir Naik’s definition of a terrorist” is a closed topic.
2. Re. faithfreedom.org. Mohammed, let me get this right: just because there is a link to faithfreedom.org on my site and a reader referred to it in his comment, you are debating what it says here?
As far as I remember, I have not referred to any of faithfreedom’s content in my posts. The only reference to the site was via a link in a comment by a reader…and yes, I know it also appears on my list of websites - but since when did, “Thanks, I will have a look” become an endorsement? Mohammed, you cannot be serious!
So, let me be clear: unless I have personally said or referred to faithfreedom in any of my posts, I am not going to allow that discussion on this blog - it just does not make sense and this blog is NOT about faithfreedom.org .
From this point on, if you have something to say about faithfreedom, please say it on the faithfreedom.org website - unless I have specifically extracted or excerpted some content from the site in one of my posts (and I should also remind you that bloggers are not responsible for comments - that would just kill the whole spirit of blogosphere - so please dont quote a comment by a reader to justify a discussion of faithfreedom here).
I hope you understand and I dont need to remind you that putting a link does not mean necessarily mean endorsement of a site.
Finally, I find your insinuations somewhat annoying. E.g.: “ostensibly, whether Modi is a mass-murderer or not is open for discussion it seems!! Interesting” - although I will respond to it in due course.
I like your perseverance and eagerness to engage in discussion but let us pick up a serious subject (e.g. one of the posts I had mentioned in my comment # 6) and I would be very happy to have that discussion with you.
That said, in the spirit of free speech, I will not stop you from commenting but I will reserve my right to respond.
Thanks for joining the discussion.
Comment by B Shantanu | July 10, 2007
Faithfreedom is a great site and it is nothing wrong to have such link. It has helped many to come out of the clutches of terrorism. I dont think we should have permission from all these mullhas and mohameds, on what to refer and what to not. Mullhas wants all imposition on us when it is time for them they will notr accept it. See the case of” Vande Matram”. Faith freedom site is authentic and has also declared reward for those who can debate and prove Mr. Ali Sina wrong. But till now nobody wants to engage in debate there as they will come out bad face out of it. All muslism are scared of their reputation so they avoid locking horn at Faithfreedom and shows all that strength on people who doesnot know anything about Quran as they can be fooled easily.
In this debate too. Mohamed has escaped many issues by just explaining-Stick to Zakir Niak. He avoided many questions on pretext of stick to Zakir Niak.
Shantanu you can take what ever action regarding my this comment. But I will not leave single chance to lash out on those who are responsible for many carnages and still thinks we are great.
Comment by Indian | July 10, 2007
@ Shantanu
I requested you to take your time and respond to my comments by quoting me because text debate is by default prone to misunderstanding, dropping of points, misrepresentations etc. And I do know that it takes time to respond and i mentioned that as well. It would’ve been better if you responded by quoting me instead of a general essay with a quote here and one there. Anyway, you say you’ve closed that discussion.
If I had a opinionated site on, say global warming, and some user gave me a link to a site encouraging pollution and I acknowledged it and left it on the site, it means I would like people to read that and come to their own conclusion.
After reading my acknowledgement, anyone would assume that I have read the pollution article.
>>If I stay silent and do not give my point of view, others visiting the site would assume that I read it (since I said I’ll check out the site) and would look forward to what I had to say.
>>On seeing no response, they would assume that I either agree or disagree. My silence could be interpreted as a ‘yes I agree’ or ‘No, I disagree’ (there can be no neutral position as mine is a heavily opinionated blog).
If the interpretation is ‘yes, i agree’, then people would ask me why I agree.
If i told them their’s is the wrong interpretation and that I actually ‘disagree’, well and good.
>>But if I say that their interpretation is correct and ‘I agree’ with what is on that site, people are going to ask me how I can put it up on a site where I’m preaching Global Warming?
At that point, I have to step forward and clarify.If I say, ” it is another user’s comment. I just said I will have a look and never did,” the question asked will be, “How were we supposed to know.”
@ Indian
He is arguing with us on Quran and Zakir Niak and in reply to our post he will say I am not the part of Zakir Niak, and stick to Zakir Niak.
The only reason I’n bringing Quran in the middle is because people are asking me about it. I did not bring it in to start preaching.
Comment by Mohammed Ali | July 10, 2007
to Solomon,
I would request you to get up from your prostration before the Popular Media, and read the following passage from Arundhati Roy’s, “Ordinary person’s guide to Empire” -
Pg. 52
If people in the US want a real answer to the question - “Why do they* hate us?” (A real answer, as opposed to ones in the Idiot’s Guide to Anti-Americanism, that is: ‘Because they’re jealous of us’, ‘Because they’re losers’, ‘Because we’re good and they’re evil’), I’d say, read Chomsky. Read about US military interventions in Indochina, Latin America (Cuba, Colombia, Nicaragua etc), Iraq, Bosnia, the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. If ordinary people in the US read Chomsky, perhaps their questions would be framed a little differently. Perhaps it would be: ‘Why don’t they hate us more than they do?’ or ‘Isn’t it surprising September 11 didn’t happen earlier?’
*terrorists
I’m not saying anything here. Arundhati Roy is. Maybe you already have a well-constructed opinion of her as an ‘anti-development’ or ‘pseudo-secular’ person. But its pointless commenting on her if you havent read her work.
I haven’t read the Gita so I do not comment on it.
Go read Noam Chomsky… read one essay of his and you”ll know the truth. You’ll why terrorism exists in so many pockets of the world. Go read about our brothers and sisters killed by mass-murderers like the Ugly Indian. Read about why Naxalism started, why Maoists are walking about with guns today.
Read about the actions of the Indian govt. against its own people.
Read about the millions with no home because the Ugly Indian and two other CMs wanted to build useless dams in order to make money and most most importantly
read about how non-violent protests, fasts unto death by the Narmada Bachao Andolan go by without a single visit by the Indian Govt.
If someone told me to go and bomb a place tomorrow I won’t because I have all the facilities.
but if i was in Iraq, and my entire family, friends and people I knwo for as long as i can remember were killed in a bomb blast, I would be forced to give things a second thought.
Religion would have nothing to do with it.
and you’ve provided me with links that show barbarism. I can provide you the same as well.. but i dont wanna waste time. If u really want links of western atrocity against Muslims, ask. Here are three..
http://www.robert-fisk.com/1_147151_1_6.jpg
http://www.robert-fisk.com/bloodied_child_2.jpg
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraq200b.jpg
And you like to delve into history, don’t you?
What if i start asking you questions about the large scale massacre of Protestants by Catholics and vice versa?
And why is it that Dalits are fighting for reservation even today, why isn’t there a single Dalit in mainstream politics. In mainstream business? Was it because of a something called the ‘caste system’? did I hear something called ‘untouchability’? did I hear ‘achoot’ or did someone just sneeze?
Please don’t answer the above questions (I’m asking these questions without even looking up any source. a little research and I can come up with thousand more). I am not interested. History is full of mistakes. Our ancestors have failed us. We shouldn’t do the same.
If you have any probity, you will not respond to this post without reading Arundhati or Chomsky. but that will be difficult because you’ll have to break the chains of submission holding you down.
After reading Arundhati or Chomsky, go watch that video of that sad character from Indonesia…
In the meantime answer these questions
Tell me about your exposure to the verses of the Quran since you deem it fit to comment on the verses..
How much of the verses have you read directly from t Quran?
Which author’s translation of the Arabic version do you refer?
After reading Ali Sina or whoever, which version of the Quran did you use to verify the authenticity of whoever’s claims?
Any person u kno who understands Arabic who can explain things to you in better perspective?
hava a good day
Comment by Mohammed Ali | July 10, 2007
***** COMMENT DELETED BY MODERATOR *****
energy, I have been forced to delete this comment as this crosses the line I had set for this debate.
Please do join the discussion but be mindful of your language.
Thanks.
Comment by energy | July 10, 2007
To Mohammed Ali
Boy, you really got defensive there, Mohammed Ali! Relax dude, take a deep breath and a chill pill. And yes, I will try to answer most of your questions. However, I may be digressing from the topic at hand and hence want to apologize in advance to the readers and the moderator! And sorry for the long post…I will try to divide it into two parts.
Part I
Just to get nasty things out the way first, you call me “sly”. Is it because you really had no answers to most things I said, like the violent history of islam, the intolerance, bigotry, the “sword” verses in the quran? Anyway, don’t worry, no hard feelings! Just a suggestion though: Instead of calling other people’s posts nonsense and instead of using ad hominem arguments, try to prove what they are saying wrong. Making statements like yours is common practice for those who cannot defend the indefensible.
You say: “Why don’t you read the posts first before replying. I do not care what Zakir Naik has said otherwise. I am not a part of Zakir Naik’s entourage. I’m not a Zakir Naik apologist.”
Of course, I did read your post and the more I read it, the more firmly I believe that you are exactly what you claim you are not: a Zakir Naik-apologist. You are trying to justify his words and extrapolating about what he may have meant. Coming to Zakir Naik’s comments though, according to a dictionary, terrorism is defined as “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.” Terrorism is often used to describe the above when it kills innocent civilians, and the terrorist knows that this will happen. For example, the attack on Akshardham, the attack on the Indian Parliament, the Mumbai blasts last July, what is happening in Kashmir everyday, the 19 terrorists who flew into the WTC, the London train bombings, the suicide bombings in Palestine… So, if Zakir Naik say he wants muslims to be terrorists, we ought to be very worried! This guy is fomenting trouble, inciting violence! Watch him folks…he is trouble.
Then, you venture into US foreign policy and say: “George Bush is a catholic. Would it be alright if I said that Christianity is what is leading him into battle? Christianity is what led him into attacking Iraq for no reason whatsoever and causing the death of over 200,000 Iraqis?”
Of course not, what US is doing has nothing to do with Christianity as a religion. GWB just happens to be a Chrsitian. US may harbor geo-political ambitions, about which people could disagree. But nowhere in the New Testament do you find any quote supporting a religious war. So yes, the president may be a Christian, but his war is not a religious war (in contrast to the so-called “jihads” islamists are ready to launch at the drop of a hat). In stark contrast, Islamic radicals quote the quran to justify their violent actions.
Moreover, you quote Albright, you point out UN sanctions (some of which I do not agree with either), but the sad part is that you use that to justify islamofascist terrorism. What the West is doing is limited to the last maybe 50 years. What you are doing is to use that to justify the last 1400+ years of islamic intolerance, violence, fundamentalism and terrorism (though this word may have been coined recently). Your logic is: they are something bad for 50 years, so why is it bad if we did something worse and keep doing it for 1400 years?
You talk about reading Arundhati Roy and Noam Chomsky. By the way, I hear it is fashionable to read these authors in India!!! Coming back to your point, no, I have not read Arundhati Roy. However, I am a great fan of Chomsky (not just to be fashionable)…I have heard him give a few talks and have read quite a few of his books, “Hegemony or Survival” and “Failed States” to quote a few recent ones. I do like his style, though some of his anarchist views I do not necessarily agree with. Though, reading your views on Chomsky, I have a suspicion you never touched Chomsky’s book by a ten-foot pole. You have copy-pasted material from one of Chomsky essay-discussion forums!! Just my thoughts…I could be very wrong! And Chomsky points out some the mistakes of the US government. He is not using that as an explanation for terrorism. If you say that, you are conveniently using that taking it out of context to suit your purpose. Nothing can really justify violence and intolerance from islamists, can it?
Then you say suicide bombing has nothing to do with islam. Really? What about the “houris”, the 72 virgins? What about killing the kafirs? To quote your “book of peace” and just one quote today:
9:29 Kill the unbelievers, unless they agree to pay the Jizyah in humiliation and subjugation.
What do you say to that? I know what your next “defense” will be! Please don’t start with the “out of context” argument because we all know that the quran wasn’t written down in chronological order. It was written down in verse length. And 9:29 is a special verse. It is the last verse to be revealed so it has the force of abrogation. It contradicts any previous verses (I hope, as a muslim, you know what abrogation of verses means?). So, according to 9:29, muslims are supposed to either convert all disbelievers to islam or kill them or force them to pay the Jizyah with submission. I know, I know, most muslims do not go out and apply 9:29 to their non-muslim neighbors. But neither can they theologically denounce terrorist muslims who would do that.
Cont’d in next post…
Comment by Solomon | July 10, 2007
To Mohammed Ali
Cont’d from previous post:
Part II
I would have to confess that I am not a scholar on islam, but I have done my share of reading. I have read Muhammad Asad’s translation of the Qur’an (I think it is highly regarded amongst muslims) and I have occasionally read from the website islamic-study.org. On the other hand, I also visit sites like ff.org and thereligionofpeace.com. I have also read “Infidel” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali (incidentally he is a former member of the Dutch Parliament) and “The Trouble with Islam” by Irshad Manji, and I am currently half-way through reading “Why I am not a muslim” by Ibn Warraq. You know, these authors recently gave a joint statement/declaration which is as follows: We recommend separation of religion from the state and the observance of universal human rights. We recommend governments of the world to reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; we further oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostasy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and hope that muslims all over the world eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women.
Now, most radical muslims would have serious issues with these “recommendations”. One of my good friends Omar, with whom I have had hours of discussion on religion, is by the way, an apostate. He converted to Christianity. Thankfully, he lives here in Australia, so he will be safe from your shariah law!!
A key issue most religious scholars have with islam is that it does not respect pluralism. It is a theocratic religion. Like any other autocratic regimes, a theocracy will use violence if necessary to suppress dissent. Islam has been and continues to be a violent religion. It was spread by the sword and it believes in aggressively converting or conquering “infidels”. This infidel mentality has landed muslims in their current predicament where the the rest of the world views them with suspicion. There is a negative image in the world regarding islam–no question about it. Otherwise, my dear friend, how would explain the fact that islam is in conflict with all major religions of the world: Judaism in the Middle East, Christianity in the Balkans, Chechnya, Nigeria, Sudan, the Philippines and Indonesia, and Europe; and Buddhism and Hinduism in South Asia and Taoism and Confucianism in Western China?
This starts with the infidel philosophy which the muslims have practiced for centuries. The philosophy is flawed. Islam is bent on the destruction of every worldview that does not accept and subjugate to the rule of islam. Unfortunately, and please correct me here if I am way off, this attitude flows directly from the words of the quran. Look at what is happening in England. Look at what happened after the Danish newspapers published cartoons of the prophet?
Finally, to end my long post, this is part of a very well-written piece by a good religion columnist in a recent editiorial here (Sorry to copy-paste, I normally do not resort to it but this says exactly what I think most people in the world today feel):
“Islamic fundamentalism is indeed a violent political force. It is supported by theologically conservative clerics, theocratic Islamist states, and terrorist groups that mould their fanatical brand of faith with a hunger for worldly power. Only a bigot or a fool would suggest that all muslims are fundamentalists. But it is also utterly disingenous to argue, as many muslims do, that there is no connection between political islamism and the retrograde religious beliefs held by huge numbers of muslims around the world. International terrorism and the repression of women are connected to fundamentalist islam.”
I am sorry if my post has offended anyone, that was not my aim. Hopefully I have answered most of Mohammed Ali’s queries. He particularly put them in “bold” typeface and twice, in case I missed them!
Peace all…cheers and God bless!
Sol
Comment by Solomon | July 10, 2007
By the way, has anyone read
Wisdom (Al-Hikmah): Qur’anic Mis-Interpreted Verses, by Faysal Burhan?
What do you think?
Comment by Solomon | July 11, 2007
On a more personal note, I loved Satanic Verses. I just adored Rushdie’s style. Or should I say, Sir Salman Rushdie’s style!
Comment by Solomon | July 11, 2007
@ Solomon: The debate was meant to be wide-ranging (as suggested by the title of the post)…so no need to apologise.
Thanks for taking a direct but polite tone and for your balanced views.
***
@ Mohammed: I realise you may be overwhelmed by the number of comments. Given that you are on your own responding to most of the questions, please pick and choose as you deem fit.
I have no problem with that. Of course you can also choose to ignore everything (and everyone) and just concentrate on what you want to say.
Thanks.
Comment by B Shantanu | July 11, 2007
To Solomon:
Just curious. If we just go behind say 50-100 years, when the world was not this much united, would you have still maintained that Islam is the only religion promoting terrorism?
If you go before the period of Mother Teresa and other ‘peace loving’ missionaries, would you still argue that Christianism was a peace loving and peace promoting religion?
I am excluding the past 50 years from this question, because its too big a debate to discuss about the new face of missionaries. Lets stick to colonial and pre-colonial era. But just taking the number of ‘killings’, just the head count..who do you think wins? and what will be ranking?
Comment by Nanda | July 11, 2007
In an article ‘7/11: Why didn’t PM lose sleep?‘ in Indian Express dt. Jul 9, ‘07, Tavleen Singh mentions “Indian Islam”:
“…This has to stop if we are to revive Indian Islam and there was once such a religion. It was a religion that had imbibed from India the right to ask questions and even, dare it be said, question the very existence of God and heaven. It gave us poets like Mir and Ghalib, who expressed these questions in some of the most beautiful poetry ever written. Ghalib warned against lifting the veil from the Ka’aba, in case there, too, we found only this same heathen god, and Mir wrote in one of his most famous poems of sitting in a temple, putting a tilak on his forehead and giving up Islam altogether.”
Does anyone has the reference to the poem by Mir Ghalib that Tavleen Singh is talking about?
Source: http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=89247
Comment by B Shantanu | July 11, 2007
zakir naiukl is a show man and a gud terrorist but the question is before critizing a religion it should be cleared what makes that guy to behave like this? no hindu comes to screen by saying that we have to capture world coz my scripture says to kill all non-hindus . even when some cases liek gujarat we see majority of hindus opposed that act as demonic but when it comes to islam we see muslim enjoy that .coz there si only one religion which teach his followers to kill non -muslim specially christians and jews and what we see all over the worl is the result of this .so what zakir naik said is true every muslim must be a terrorist.even allah strickly said that those who dont participate in jihad will have no love for that slave.there are many verses which force muslims to take weapon,but still there are many good muslims (actually they are gud coz they are name sake muslim). everything is danger may be if it be hindutva or jihad everything desire blood .
Comment by george | July 11, 2007
To George
When did you find that Hindutva desires blood? You are just tainting our culture.
Ok. Now let me tell you. One day evengelist people came to my door step and started preaching me about all good things , I agreed and respected them, as what they were saying was true to my conscious too.
Now, in minute later, they started talking about violence. They used the words that only christians believes in Non-violence. I said What? No, we-Hindus, too believe init. They were like as if I am kidding. I have to reply them and said- non-violence in Hindutva extends to vegeterinism. How many slaughter house you have in your country to provide food in your dish? They got stuck. Than they started telling me that but you kill each other. I said when britishere were in India they used Gun on us(innocents) and Gandhiji told us not to lift weapons. Lets see how brutal they can be. And they proved themselves brutal and many bloodshed followed. You must reaad atleast about “jalian wala Baag” incident. We got freedom that is considered to be one of the best non- violent freedom. You need to keep your record and history check.
than they argued- but not all hindus are Vegans, I said ya, that is because of invaders who looted our wealth and culture.
I came to know little about Canada, there to they were all fighting and droping blood of each other numbers of yeras ago. French-britishers and many have locked their horn.
Common now dont preach us the same what we used to preach people numbers of years ago. Today so called christians has become wise and starts showing us how to become wise. It was the need of yours not ours.
Comment by Indian | July 11, 2007
Mohammed: This is in response to your comment #9 – which I part responded to in my comment #30.
(Other readers may find it helpful to read both together to follow the thread of logic)
I will address the remaining points here:
You write:
“But, I did not find any of your ‘corrective’ statements following comments glorifying a mass-murderer like Mr. Modi”
First of all, let us be clear that Shri Modi is a democratically elected Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat in India and not a person convicted of mass murder.
So please be careful before making statements such as above.
“whether Modi is a mass-murderer or not” is NOT a a question “open for discussion” – It is a question to be decided by the judiciary not by you or me or this group of readers.
As for letting certain unsubstantiated remarks stay on the site, there is a difference between remarks that may not be substantiated and personal insults. I will let unsubstantiated remarks remain on the site but will draw the line at personal insults (as you have noted I have already deleted a few comments here which crossed that line).
I have already responded to Dr Zakir Naik and Faithfreedom in my comment above.
In your comment, you write: “…you have provided ur response by saying that whether Modi was guilty or not is up for discussion and that Muslims were not the only people who suffered.”
This is NOT what I said.
What I said was:
“As for the “hero-worship” of Mr Modi, it is subject – which I am sure you will agree – deserves a separate post in itself and
“There can never be any justification for taking the lives of innocent people (and lets not forget that it was not just Muslims who were killed in the riots and several thousand Hindus had to flee their homes as well – I am not justifying anything just mentioning this fact in the interest of completeness)“.
Please do not put words in my mouth
As I said before, let us pick up a serious subject and continue the discussion rather than dwelling on semantics and peripheral matters.
Thanks for joining the discussion and I will reiterate what I said in my coment # 39: “Given that you are on your own responding to most of the questions, please pick and choose topics/questions/issues as you deem fit.”
Comment by B Shantanu | July 11, 2007
To Nanda:
Christians may have and probably still do commit violence. The difference is violence committed by Christians has no religious basis. The New Testament is clear about being non-violent, peaceful, tolerant (there are violent verses in the Old Testament, but that is adifferent issue altogether). Of course, evangelists and other newer sects of Christianity try proselytizing, but that again has little support in the NT. However, from what I understand, islam and quran advocate conversions by the sword and subjugation, second-class treatment of non-muslims and jiziah for all “kafirs”. ~800 AD to ~1800 AD of Indian history is testament to the atrocities of the “peace-loving”, “tolerant” muslims. Most muslims from the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) are likely forcible converts (they are indigenous and not migrants from the middle east, as genetic studies have proved) and the funny thing is they don’t realize their forefathers were forcibly made to accept this violent religion and they will fight against everything non-islamic! The irony…
Comment by Solomon | July 11, 2007
Given that you are on your own responding to most of the questions, please pick and choose topics/questions/issues as you deem fit.”
I shall respond to most of the posts during this weekend. I’m stuck due to some prior engagements and am indeed finding it difficult to respond everyday. If I do respond in small bits, do understand that it is due to sheer contraints concerned with time.
Comment by Mohammed Ali | July 12, 2007
Dear Solomon,
You have given me a lengthy response and it will take me time to respond. I running on a tight-rope schedule here so I wont be replying over the next two days at least. Also please make an effort to copy and paste parts of my post whenever you respond so that it is easier for me to respond… and i shall do the same when I respond to you. otherwise, the discussion spreads into too many branches….
Here’s some food for thought, or wait, feast for thought..
And Chomsky points out some the mistakes of the US government. He is not using that as an explanation for terrorism.
Chomksy points out some(??) of the mistakes of the US Govt?
I can’t believe your knowledge of a person who’s two books you’ve “claimed” to have read is so shallow, that you missed what the man was saying all along? Let me rephrase- Deliberately ignored what the man was saying all along.
Chomsky talks about nothing but US-sponsored terror in the world. How could you miss that? or, Why did you ignore that?
And when the most widely read man in the world on Foreign Policy talks about the the action (US-led or US-sponsored terror), it would be very simpleminded and harebrained of him not to talk of the reaction (Terrorism).
In fact does Chomsky even need to tell you that, when country after country are bombed for no reason, there will be a response at some point of time?
Chomsky points out to “some mistakes” of USA is like saying, Playboy magazine has “some photos” of women!
I do like his style, but i…
What are we reading here? Erotica? That you have to appreciate the style? Maybe you were appreciating the style all along and missed parts of what he was saying, or, ignored parts of what he was saying.
And the mother of all laughs is that I havent touched his work with a ten-foot pole it seems! Alrite.
But you, my friend, have read quite a few of his books, with your eyes closed and have heard him give a few talks, by applying the same treatment to your ears…
Here is but one part of his numerous lectures and references to the causes of terrorism… I heard it with my ears open.. I could give you another 50 if you want.
We certainly want to reduce the level of terror, certainly not escalate it. There is one easy way to do that and therefore it is never discussed. Namely stop participating in it. That would automatically reduce the level of terror enormously. But that you can’t discuss. Well we ought to make it possible to discuss it. So that’s one easy way to reduce the level of terror.
Beyond that, we should rethink the kinds of policies, and Afghanistan is not the only one, in which we organize and train terrorist armies. That has effects. We’re seeing some of these effects now. September 11th is one. Rethink it.
- The New War Against Terror By Noam Chomsky October 18, 2001 - Transcribed from audio recorded at The Technology & Culture. Forum at MIT.
Wake up solomon! you’re probaby reading Chomksy in your dreams. But wait… it must be mighty difficult to read a book while prostrating in front of the television with CNN blaring in your years.
It would be a sight watching you defend yourself on this one.
I never thought a man who speaks with such flagrant clarity as Chomsky could be misinterpreted. The Quran? Yes. Chomsky? No. At least I never thought so.
You, have made it possible.
clap!clap!clap!
Comment by Mohammed Ali | July 12, 2007
You picked on my talking about Chomsky’s writing style, in a nasty manner…I guess you are at a loss for words since you cannot refute ANY of my comments…maybe a sword in your hand might better help you express yourself, since that is the only way your cult teaches, right? Kill people who do not agree with you? So, what was wrong in my appreciating someone’s writing style? Some of Chomsky’s anarchist, syndicalist thinking is not something I agree with, but I like his writing style. The same way, I love Sir Rushdie’s style and his books too!
Ironically, about Chomsky, his anarchist views are diametrically opposite to the islamic way, the shariah which islam insists on. SEE WHAT I MEAN WHEN I SAY YOU EITHER DID NOT READ CHOMSKY OR JUST PICKED SENTENCES CONVENIENT TO YOU?
And yes, Chomsky points out mistakes by the West and about how the US is being a world policeman. But, you, like most islamofacists tries to use that to justify the last thousand years of oppression and tyranny spread in the name of your so-called book of “peace”! You use Chomsky’s writings, he mentions bad foreign policy in the last 50 years, I ask you about the quotes in quran written some 1400 years ago. Oh right though, what US did in the last 50 years made islam intolerant, bigoted, fundamentalist, anti-secular, anti-progressive, anti-feministic, anti-everything-nice and barbaric for the last 1400 years.
Mohammed, YOU DIGRESS, YOU SPLIT HAIR BUT DO NOT GIVE ANY ANSWERS ABOUT THE VIOLENCE BASED ON QURAN. You are just stuck on my words like “some mistakes”, on my comments about Chomsky’s “writing style” …guess you cannot really answer for much of the bad islam committed in the name of quran. But then YOU ARE IN THE UNENVIABLE POSITION OF TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE POSITION OF A CULT (ISLAM IS BETTER CALLED A CULT THAN A RELIGION) that has resorted to needless killings, bombings and barbarism! Read the New Testament and then see what being peaceful and forgiving means.
And see this story about “peaceful” and “loving” islamics:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20726085-2703,00.html
And no, I do not watch CNN. It is not the most popular channel where I live. Stop with all the delusions of persecution already. Not all media is out to propogate anti-islamic agenda. Islam spreading terror all over the world just happens to be the truth!
Comment by Solomon | July 12, 2007
Mohamed Ali is justifying the terror of Islam by giving references here and there and he asks others not to justify the terror of Modi. He wants to remain blind as long his religion is concerned but is very responsive in picking other religions. Commonly it is said, Islam mind is at work.
One need courage accepting the truth, that jihadis are working on the agenda of Quran and fanatic mullhas.
Truth always hurts but braveness is in accepting.
Very common answer from Muslims- yes I am accepting and condemning but not ready to reform. It is the need of others to reform.
Comment by rick | July 12, 2007
good information and very well written peice, solomon
especially liked the idea of mohammedism being cult not religion
mohmmed, u r using faulty arguments to justify bad behavior by ur people… and to justify murder and killings is a sin too
christianity never advocated or supported violence neither did any other religion i know of…only cults do that (eg mohammedanism)
in a discussion on relgion, u must separate acts of individuals from that of their religion
eg. US waging a war is because of their ambition for world domination (as someone has said above), nothing to do with religion
other than mohammedansim, no other religion commands murder, hate, torture, kidnaping, ransoms, cutting off body parts, stoning, murdering those who will not join islam and those who leave it
only the tenats of mohammedansim require these things.
for christians to do those things they must violate the tenats of being christian. when jesus was asked what is the most important command he said it was to “love thy god with all thy heart” and he said the second was to love thy neighbor as thyself. not once did jesus say to murder anyone, or kill anyone
Comment by Harry Potter | July 12, 2007
to the moderator,
im surprised by the deletion of my earlier comment.
you say it crosses the line you have set for this topic.
dunno where it crossed the line and how
anyways its your blog and you have al rights to keep what you want and delete what you dont.
the comment i made about terrorists getting their due is very directly linked to this topic
im suprised while on one hand you allow very caustic comments of mohammad ali ( at times even when they are not concerned directly to the topic) but you feel my comments crossed the line.
looks like you prefer your site to remain secular and anemic.
thanks … wudnt bother your site with my comments which cross the line. if you want me to be apologetic and overtly formal like other readers then im not that types and im not apologetic about my views.
am sure when the heat and dust settles down your good work for sanatan dharma will have its furits.
its a disappointment though….
best regards
Comment by energy | July 12, 2007
Dear Energy: Editorial control is a delicate right - and I hope I exercise it with restraint and judgement – It was not the “terrorist” related comment I deleted (I think you maybe referring to comment #9 to the “As ye sow” post?) but something else – I will not reproduce it here but I felt it was abusive (at least in my opinion – but I am not God, only human).
The intention was not to insult you or devalue your contribution - it was to ensure that the parameters that I had set for this discussion were maintained.
You are free to be informal and non-apologetic on this blog – that is not a problem. I am all for free speech, hard arguments and straight words.
However, sometimes in the heat of the moment, we may say certain things/use words that (may) convey the wrong impression…If and when that happens, or if/when our comments become abusive, insulting or vulgar, we blunt the sharpness of our arguments and lessen the credibility of the debate.
I value you as a reader and a commentator on this blog and save for this one comment, I have had no occasion to find fault with your other remarks.
I sincerely hope you will continue to watch and join the discussion - and keep commenting on this blog. Thanks.
***
@ Mohammed (#46): Take your time.
.
Jai Hind, Jai Bharat.
Comment by B Shantanu | July 12, 2007
Hi Shantanu!
Just found a link where Zakir Naik talks about how he thinks all muslims should be terrorists and how he actually says he supports OBL…shameful really! Disgusting… cannot believe people actually give this bigot a stage to spew such hatred.
Sol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI&mode=related&search=
Comment by Solomon | July 12, 2007
Solomon, You are the best!
Comment by Indian | July 12, 2007
Dear Mr Shantanu,
I have just read Mohammed Ali’s zealous defence of Dr Zakir Naik ( may peace be upon his name ) which turned into a rabid personnnel attack against me :
Mr. Khurmi opposes what Dr. Naik says and agrees with faithfreedom.org
So IF Mr. Khurmi sees his sister (all Indians are my brothers and sisters, remember?) getting raped by 5 people, he will not
interfere, rather, he will call the police and wait for them to come. If the police comes, well and good. But if it doesn’t come, he will
still stand around and watch his sister get raped, because if he gets into a fight with the rapists and terrorizes them, he will become
a “TERRORIST FOR ANTI-SOCIAL ELEMENTS”. And NO, Mr. Khurmi strongly opposes that, don’t you Mr. Khurmi?
Here is what Mr Khurmi will do : He will bravely and fiercely fight to save the life and honor of the woman in trouble ( even if she is not his sister ) , because he is a proud citizen of a modern and seculer nation, And to save the honor of the woman he does NOT need be a terrorist ! being a brave man is enough ! Fortunately, Mr Khurmi does not belong to a religion that approves of raping women, yes sir, not even the women who oppose his religion.
On the contrary, if one is a terrorist then there is almost NO chance that he will have the guts to take any effective action,
that is because a terrorist is a coward by nature, if he has a healthy mind he would never become a terrorist in the first place. Shooting down unarmed people and then run away to hide in a rat-hole can not be described an act of bravery.
Infact , if Mr Khurmi is a terrorist like Zakir Naik or Mohammad Ali, the chance to engage in such a secular struggle are zero,
because in that case he will be busy rehearsing where to plant his next RDX package or decideing what time to set the detonator…!
And there is one very-very serious complication in this situation : what if the rapists happen to be Muslims ? ( and that is high on chance because of tight “moral policing”, muslim males are far more sexually-repressed ) then there are differnet sets of rules about how to punish the rapists ! (Please consult Dr Zakir Naik on what the holy koran says about this )
And the other thing is : what will be done if the woman being raped turns out to be a kafir ? Now your merciful and compassionate prophet has clearly provided ye believers the luxery of enjoying kafir woman in such situations ! Then what will happen ? the woman is kafir , but the rapists, holy warriors are the faithful : your TERRORIST, instead of stopping the rape, will probably join the queue and wait for his turn
thanking the Allah for this halal reward for participating in Jihad !!!
Comment by Jagmohan Singh Khurmi | July 14, 2007
Well, well, well Mr. Khurmi, you are really an angry (young?) man. You have every right to put forward your views in a public forum. But don’t you think you must tone down the language a bit? We can always disagree with other people, but must still keep our language within the limits of decency. This is even more so when your opponent is from a different culture. It is not the done thing to shout down the participants in a discussion even when you are right and others are wrong. That is the sign of low self-esteem.
Comment by Nandan | July 14, 2007
Dear All,
There have been a lot of posts to which I haven’t replied entirely due to lack of time.
@ Nandan
I shall give you the explanation to the “verse 9:5 : Kill all the disbelievers” in detail in a day’s time at the most. Sorry abt the delay.
mr. khurmi,
I may have used rough language, but my intent was not to offend. It was only to drive the point home with a strong reference. You can read my other posts and tell me if I have made similar comments. I believe I havent,
Solomon,
I shall reply to your post in detail.
Comment by Mohammed Ali | July 15, 2007
Hey guys
Whats this? Are we preaching or giving tutorial on how to write, what to write? and again justifiying by giving explaination on low self esteem. I wonder, how can a person who is dictating others to be of low self esteem can have higher self esteem.
When one start dictating, outcome cannot be of very superior standard thats for sure. every one has reason to fight, argue and frustrate. Thinking only higher standard makes us psychic.
Let everyone be free in there opinion.
Comment by Rick | July 15, 2007
***** COMMENT DELETED BY MODERATOR *****
Jagmohan, I have been forced to delete this comment as this crossed the line I had set for this debate.
Please do join the discussion but be mindful of your language. Thanks.
Comment by Jagmohan Singh Khurmi | July 17, 2007
Mr. Khurmi,
If you have to say anything to me but aren’t able to post it on this sites due to regulations put forth by Shantanu, pls feel free to e-mail me at
pseudo_ku@yahoo.com
Comment by Mohammed Ali | July 21, 2007
Dear Nandan,
Following is the explanation of verse 9:5 with reference to context. Sorry about the delay. I hope you are still checking this post.
Before understanding any verse of the Quran, one has to consider the circumstances under which it was revealed i.e. the context.
The verse in question was revealed during times of war.
Back in the day, the Prophets following was ever-increasing as he preached equality in a land dominated by slavery. The early followers of Islam were mostly slaves who had broken the shackles of slavery to march ahead with the Prophet. This obviously enraged the rich, sinful landlords and they launched a perpetual battle against the Prophet and his companions. The Prophet was banished and he left with his band of 300 men. This group of former slaves was attacked by an army of 1000 men belonging to the Quraysh (the Prophet’s tribe), led by their most prolific Army General. The outcome of the battle was nothing short of a miracle. The 300 untrained men prevailed over the 1000 trained fighters. Every man in that battle, known as the Battle of Badr, swore that he saw angels on horses fighting along with him. That was the first Jihad. That obviously wasn’t the last of the attacks against the Prophet. Islam continued to grow as more and more slaves, laborers came under its umbrella. It goes without saying, that for every liberated slave, there was an enraged landlord. Islam grew in strength.
Lets come to the verses of Surah Taubah, which was revealed during times of War.
Verse 9:1 – A declaration of immunity from Allah and his messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom you have contracted mutual alliances.
Peace treaties were signed between the Muslims and the non-Muslims. The above verse says that those factions that have signed peace treaties with the Prophet are immune to any attack from the Prophet. Most of the treaties were broken and Muslims were attacked on a regular basis. The following verses will explain.
9:2 – Go ye, for four months, backward and forward, throughout the land but know ye that you cannot frustrate Allah and Allah will cover with shame those who reject him.
The four months are supposed to be the four holy months during which Muslims are not supposed to indulge in warfare. It is a period of ceasefire. People who break treaties are given a period of four months to repent even after they break the treaty. “those who reject” refers to the tribes who are at war with the Prophet.
9:3 – An announcement from Allah and his messenger to the people assembled on the day of the great pilgrimage that Allah and his messenger dissolve obligations with the Pagans. If ye repent, it were best for you; if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah and proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject faith.
The Great Pilgrimage refers to the Hajj. The call to “repent” here is basically a call to peace as the tribes were breaking treaties. Any doubts that may arise in your mind regarding this verse should be clarified in the next.
9:4 – Treaties are not dissolved with those Pagans, with whom you have entered into an alliance and who have not failed you in aught, not aided anyone against you. Fulfill your engagements with them to the end of their term: For Allah loveth the righteous.
The phrases like “grievous penalty”, “cover with shame” are all obviously referring to those who have broken peace treaties and attacked the Muslims as those who followed the treaties were to be left alone.
9:5 – But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war but if they repent and establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
A time of four months is given even after breaking the peace treaties. In spite of signing a peace treaty with Muslims, in spite of being given a four month grace period, if the enemy continues to cheat and deceive, assault and raid, the enemy is to be beleaguered and slayed. This is perfectly logical as the enemy’s intent is already evident by actions.
You may express doubt at the following section, “if they repent and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, open the way for them”, and conclude that it refers to forcible conversion. You have to understand that there were no secular coalition governments back then. Politics and religion were not two different entities. They were one and the same.
Take for instance, you are an Indian and I am a Pakistani. You say Kashmir belongs to you while I say otherwise. In the battle, you overpower me, disarm me and point your gun towards me. It is your decision to let me free or kill me. If you are to let me free, you have to make sure I concede that Kashmir belongs to India. If I were to beg for mercy, I would have to say that Kashmir belongs to you and accept that my point of view was a mistake. Only then could you consider letting me go. If I insisted that Kashmir belonged to Pakistan and still pleaded for mercy, that would be the mother of all paradoxes. The same logic extends to the acceptance of Islam in this case.
(Remember that the person being told to establish regular prayers is not just any passerby but a man who has rejected peace, rejected ceasefire and who’s only desire is bloodshed).
9:6 – If one amongst the Pagans asks thee for asylum, grant it to him so that he may hear the word of Allah and escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
I do not think that the aforementioned verse needs any explanation.
Words like Pagans, disbelievers, polytheists etc. refer to warring Arabs of those days and not to modern day Hindus as is widely misinterpreted. I have found the above verses in sync with logic when taken in the context and times in which they were revealed. Without taking in to account the circumstances, any verse in any work may sound offensive. The following is an explanation given by Dr. Zakir Naik.
Allah is telling the Muslims, don’t get scared in the battle field, whenever the enemy comes to attack, fight them, and kill them if required; wait for them in every stratagem of war. This verse of the Qur’an is in the context of a battlefield. When the enemies who have broken the peace treaty, when they attack you, don’t get scared in the battlefield, fight them, if required even kill them. Now any army general, any President of any country, or any Prime Minister, to boost the morale of his soldiers he will use these words. For example, a few decades earlier, there was a war between America and Vietnam. If the American President or Army General tells the American soldiers in the battlefield that they should not get scared and wherever they find a Vietnamese, they should kill him, now if we were to quote the American President and say that he said that wherever you find a Vietnamese kill him, we wi