Home » Current Affairs, Debates & Discussions, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Hindu Dharma, Islam & Terrorism

Join the discussion on Islam, Hindutva, Dr Zakir Naik, Godhra

8 July 2007 2,300 views 160 Comments

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. (Pl. also see: Excerpts from “Can Islam Reform Itself?”

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

UPDATE: See also excerpts from Sadia Dehlvi’s article on this comment: http://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/09/07/shabana-azmi-on-muslims/#comment-16941

Original here: http://indianmuslims.in/zakir-naik-yazid-fatwa/

UPDATE – II

Some of you may also find this discussion on another blog fascinating. On that discussion, Thiagan has mentioned four points which I am paraphrasing below: (actually five points but I will leave the fifth one since it crosses the line for this discussion)

I would really like a response on these questions:

Is it really possible for a Muslim who is a believer to:

1. Acknowledge that all religions are equal?
2. Reject gender discrimination?
3. Have transcending loyalty to host country?
4. Renounce the establishment of worldwide Islamic rule at a future date and universal imposition of sharia?

***

Related Post: Excerpts from “Can Islam Reform Itself?”

Part II – Join the discussion on Islam, Hindutva, Dr Zakir Naik

160 Comments »

  • 1. B Shantanu said:

    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.

  • 2. Ajay Raina said:

    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.

  • 3. Mohammed Ali said:

    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

  • 4. Mohammed Ali said:

    Dear Shantanu,
    you have stated
    The original video was not about Dr. Zakir Naiks 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 Naiks 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.

  • 5. Nandagopal said:

    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 Allahs 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 Allahs 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.

  • 6. B Shantanu said:

    @ 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 Rsuhdies books and Danish cartoons while allowing Shri Husains 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 Ahmeds article which I posted yesterday: Islams 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, dont you think its better to argue about that on faithfreedoms 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.

  • 7. Ali said:

    ***** 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.

  • 8. panam said:

    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.

  • 9. Mohammed Ali said:

    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

  • 10. panam said:

    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.

  • 11. Indian said:

    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.

  • 12. Indian said:

    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.

  • 13. Panam said:

    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.

  • 14. Mohammed Ali said:

    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

  • 15. Panam said:

    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.

  • 16. Mohammed Ali said:

    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

  • 17. Mohammed Ali said:

    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]

  • 18. Mohammed Ali said:

    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

  • 19. Indian said:

    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.

  • 20. Indian said:

    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.

  • 21. Solomon said:

    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=IlqyDAThrpA&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

  • 22. Solomon said:

    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?

  • 23. Solomon said:

    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.”

  • 24. Nandagopal said:

    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.

  • 25. Nanda said:

    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

  • 26. B Shantanu said:

    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.

  • 27. Mohammed Ali said:

    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, Franceyou 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).

  • 28. Indian said:

    Well said Solomon.

  • 29. Indian said:

    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.

  • 30. B Shantanu said:

    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.

  • 31. Indian said:

    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.

  • 32. Mohammed Ali said:

    @ 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.

  • 33. Mohammed Ali said:

    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 authors 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 whoevers claims?

    Any person u kno who understands Arabic who can explain things to you in better perspective?

    hava a good day

  • 34. energy said:

    ***** 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.

  • 35. Solomon said:

    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 postI 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, dont 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 dont you read the posts first before replying. I do not care what Zakir Naik has said otherwise. I am not a part of Zakir Naiks entourage. Im 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 Naiks 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 folkshe 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 Chomskys book by a ten-foot pole. You have copy-pasted material from one of Chomsky essay-discussion forums!! Just my thoughtsI 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…

  • 36. Solomon said:

    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 Asads 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

  • 37. Solomon said:

    By the way, has anyone read
    Wisdom (Al-Hikmah): Qur’anic Mis-Interpreted Verses, by Faysal Burhan?

    What do you think?

  • 38. Solomon said:

    On a more personal note, I loved Satanic Verses. I just adored Rushdie’s style. Or should I say, Sir Salman Rushdie’s style!

  • 39. B Shantanu said:

    @ 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.

  • 40. Nanda said:

    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?

  • 41. B Shantanu said:

    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 Kaaba, 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

  • 42. george said:

    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 .

  • 43. Indian said:

    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.

  • 44. B Shantanu said:

    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.”

  • 45. Solomon said:

    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…

  • 46. Mohammed Ali said:

    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.

  • 47. Mohammed Ali said:

    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 cant discuss. Well we ought to make it possible to discuss it. So thats 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. Were 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!

  • 48. Solomon said:

    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!

  • 49. rick said:

    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.

  • 50. Harry Potter said:

    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

  • 51. energy said:

    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

  • 52. B Shantanu said:

    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 impressionIf 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.

  • 53. Solomon said:

    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

  • 54. Indian said:

    Solomon, You are the best!

  • 55. Jagmohan Singh Khurmi said:

    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 doesnt 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, dont 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 !!!

  • 56. Nandan said:

    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.

  • 57. Mohammed Ali said:

    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.

  • 58. Rick said:

    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.

  • 59. Jagmohan Singh Khurmi said:

    ***** 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.

  • 60. Mohammed Ali said:

    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

  • 61. Mohammed Ali said:

    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 Prophets 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 wasnt 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 enemys 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 whos 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, dont 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 Quran is in the context of a battlefield. When the enemies who have broken the peace treaty, when they attack you, dont 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 will make him sound like a cruel man. Such a statement is appropriate in the battlefield, to boost up the morale, when two opposing forces are arrayed against each other. In a similar manner, the Quranic verse refers to the situation in the battlefield, when the enemies had broken a peace treaty.

    I am not an expert on the Quran. I have read only a part of it. I hope this explanation will suffice. Do tell me about any discrepancies you find with respect to this verse.
    Looking forward to your reply. Again, apologies for the delay.

    Mohammed Ali.
    pseudo_ku@yahoo.com

  • 62. Nandan said:

    Dear Mohammed Ali,

    I have never participated in a discussion with you or anyone else on the subject of Quran. Kindly note that it was Mr. Nandagopal and not me (Nandan) you must be addressing. As a matter of principle I do not comment on the Scriptures of other religions nor am I particularly inclined to change my policy any time soon. It was just that I felt impelled to voice my disagreement at the language used in some comments (Comment #56)

    Best wishes for a happy discussion in the site and my regards.

  • 63. Mahesh Prasad Neerkaje said:

    @Mohammad Ali,

    I have been through most of the stuff here, so thought i would clarify another thing. Why then idolatry is a sin? In what way it makes us (Hindus) a lesser race than non-idolaters? what it has to do with the slavery and landlords?

  • 64. B Shantanu said:

    @ Mohammed: I will accept your argument that Quaranic verses are to be interepreted within the context and circumstances that you mention above.

    If this is indeed the case, should this not be explained more explicitly by Muslim leaders?

    I suspect at least one of the reasons why a “wide misinterpretation” occurs is because there are not enough sensible voices saying these things – or perhaps there are but they do not say it loudly enough?

    ***
    Some of you may also find this discussion on another blog fascinating:

    http://politeindian.wordpress.com/2006/10/03/is-islam-violent

    On that discussion, Thiagan has mentioned four points which I am paraphrasing below: (actually five points but I will leave the fifth one since it crosses the line for this discussion)

    I would really like a response from Mohammed and others on these questions:

    Is it really possible for a Muslim who is a believer to:

    1. Acknowledge that all religions are equal?
    2. Reject gender discrimination?
    3. Have transcending loyalty to host country?
    4. Renounce the establishment of worldwide Islamic rule at a future date and universal imposition of sharia?

    Thanks.

  • 65. Thiagan said:

    22/07/07

    Shanthanu

    Thank you very much for your reference. The usual explanation is also given by by Moahammed Ali, only to sidestep the real issue- that Islam is violent. That the verses are event based. Then
    > do muslims accept that these verses or a portion of the Book do not have universal application
    > why Ahemediaas, who actually give this liberal interpretation of Koraan is condemned as apostates and persecuted by shiaas and sunnis
    > why Koraan, the supposedly the last word of Allah, be not clear and categorical about this and give room for so much of confusion. The explanation is taqquia i.e. deception.
    > why for the last 1200 years of its existence, this liberal interpretation has nor been preached and the message has sunk into the minds of muslims..

    There are violent verses in the Old Testament also; but there is a difference. In the Bible the violent verses come first; the Jesus comes with love thy neighbour, show the other cheek etc. The peaceful verses supercede the violent verses; Christianity has also undergone many reforms and it has no religious violence. In Koraan the peaceful verses come first and they are overthrown by the violent verses. Islam during the 1200 years of its existence has never seen a reformer; any one who attempts will be done to death. Hence it continues to be violent.

    Mr.Ali- Can you please explain why adoption of children is prohibited in Islam?

  • 66. Thiagan said:

    23/07/07

    Shantanu

    “Have trascending loyalty to the host country”

    This should be in addition implicit acceptance of the local laws like acceptance of single child norm and family planning as in India.

    Mr.Ali- A husband utters triple talaaq in a drunken state and they are divorced; what is the procedure for them to be reunited. Please clariify.

  • 67. Thiagan said:

    23/07/07
    Ali says

    “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.”

    Thiagan says

    This is what I am also saying; in those days politics and religion were not two separate entities. They were one and the same. Islam considers it that way even today; Christianity separated religion and politics after reformation and thus ended their religious violence. It refuses to go in Islam.

    I will take the same analogy. I am a Hindu and you are a muslim.You say Islam is only true religion and I refuse to accept. There is a war and I am defeated, overpowered and disarmed. You point the gun at my forehead and demand to say that Islam is the true religion; if I refuse you will shoot me and if I accept I will be pardoned.

    This is not the logic the world will accept today. This is listed as the fourth condition in the comment No. 64 of Shantanu. This is the problem with Islam.

  • 68. Solomon said:

    Interesting discussion

  • 69. Solomon said:

    Interesting discussion between Thiagan and Mohammed Ali. However, Ali again and again quotes Zakir Naik, reducing his credibility to ZERO. Naik is suffering from a major inferiority complex (he overcompensates, as you may have noticed) and is just a jingoistic charlatan, who uses his memory skills to awe his audience and take their attention away from serious flaws in his arguments.

    Regarding “mis-interpretation” of the sword verses, Ali cannot (and has not) said much. He said he would reply to my posts too (see above), but how long can he really rationalize the mindless violence by his crazy fundamentalist islamist brethren and then blame it on everything else (western media, western foriegn policy etc.) and cherry-pick sentences from writings of people like Chomsky strictly according to convenience!!

    If, as Thiagan says, these violent verses are accepted by learned islamic scholars, they would have been declared as not relevant in today’s day and age. However, it has never been done. In fact, these are the very verses that are used to incite violence. Moreover, let’s assume that these verses really are outdated! Just try and make a suggestion that they should be ignored or removed. Most muslims would take to streets and start riots (the usual acts demonstrating the peaceful nature of their religion).

    Besides, as I mentioned in one of my previous posts, 9:29 is the verse asking true muslims to subjugate non-muslims and make them pay jiziah. And it is the last verse, so it has not been abrogated. Further, as Thiagan mentions and I have mentioned it too, the New Testament is a wonderful example of a peaceful writing. There are violent verses in the OT, but no Jew or Christian reads them and straps a bomb on himself or herself. Besides, Jesus Christ NEVER advocated violence, so finding violence in the New Testament is impossible.

    Oh well, what’s the point of us arguing here. Most crazy fanatic islamists out there read the sword verses in the quran everyday and get ready to kill! Let us just hope and pray that they come to their senses, sooner than later, and peace prevails!

  • 70. Indian said:

    Hi, Thiagan

    Great going. Keep Up.

  • 71. B Shantanu said:

    Thiagan and Solomon: Thanks for your comments.

    ***
    Dear Mohammed:

    This discussion has spread well below the original “quote(s)” that you are/were talking about.

    In the interest of a more informed and broader discussion, I suggest we concentrate on more substantive and serious issues.

    In particular, I would like to draw your attention to the following points and would appreciate a clear answer with regards your position on these issues (your position rather than Dr Zakir Naik’s or anyone else’s)

    A. The principle of banning Rushdies books and Danish cartoons while allowing Shri Husains exhibition of paintings containing offensive images of certain Hindu deities?

    B. 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?

    C. Your comment on Tanveer Ahmeds article: Islams uncomfortable truths? excerpts from which are here

    and finally, your views on:

    “Is it really possible for a Muslim who is a believer to:

    1. Acknowledge that all religions are equal?;
    2. Reject gender discrimination?;
    3. Have transcending loyalty to host country?; and
    4. Renounce the establishment of worldwide Islamic rule at a future date and universal imposition of sharia?.”

    Thanks.

  • 72. Nandan said:

    Dear Shantanu:

    You must be more patient with Mr. Ali. He is trying his best to defend the un-defendable. If you allow him to continue, the day is not far when he will find out the futility of the effort. The very fact that he has endeavored to give new meanings to some of the verses is proof enough that he finds so many things that are not compatible with enlightened vision. You must allow the reform take place by itself. It must not be forced upon anyone. The only thing you need to do is prompt them to think The rest will happen by itself. If you need proof, look no further. Read this news item in the Indian Express.

    People can choose own religion’ http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=89939
    The answer is yes, they can,” Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa said in a posting on a Washington Post-Newsweek forum picked up by the Egyptian press.

  • 73. Mohammed Ali said:

    Dear All,
    I was on leave when this discussion started and am finding it exceedingly difficult to maintain the same frequency of response as before. I shall respond during the weekend.

    @Thiagan
    Please quote the verse of the Quran which prohibits adoption so that I can look it up and make sense of it.

    @Solomon
    There is no point in giving your personal conclusions on Dr. Naik’s character traits. And I do not quote Zakir Naik again and again. I gave my explanation of the verses first. And then just added a perfectly rational explanation given by Dr. Naik.
    Unfortunately, everyone is not as intelligent and profound as you are, so Dr. Zakir Naik has to use examples for the sake of better clarity. If that is “overcompensation” according to you, then so be it.

  • 74. Thiagan said:

    26/07/07

    Ali

    I am not sure about the verse; the news gained prominence recently because a social activst, I think Shabana Azmi, filed a petition in the SC that she be permitted to adopt a child, despite a ban on adoption in Islam.

  • 75. Thiagan said:

    30/07/07

    Ali says in his comment No.27

    “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.”

    Thiagan says:

    USA and the Hindutva are the two favourite whipping boys for the muslims and the left lunatics. For the last sixty years, left academics have been championing the cause of Marxism and with its fall, their standing, credibility and acceptance have been smothered and they were proved to be liars. Hence they hate USA.

    Let us assume that there is no USA for the last fifty years. How the owrld will be:
    > Saddam Hussain would have brought the entire middle east and the oil under his control and the world will be under constant fear of his subjugation
    > Gadaafi would have brought the entire Africa under his control, with no space for anyone else
    > Israel would have been wiped out and the fight between the factions of Palestinians will be fifty years old. They are anyway doing that only.
    > Afganistan and Pakistan will be two big training centres for Al Quaida jehadis, who will be exporting terror to other countries and causing havoc and mass murders
    Does any one want this state of affairs?

    Ali is wrong that it is the USA intervention in the middle east is the cause for growing terrorism. How will PI explain the following. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in 1786 in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of jihad piracymurder, enslavement (with ransoming for redemption), and expropriation of valuable commercial assetsemanating from the Barbary states (modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, known collectively in Arabic as the Maghrib). During their discussions, they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of the unprovoked animus directed at the nascent United States republic. Jefferson and Adams, in their subsequent report to the Continental Congress, recorded the Tripolitan Ambassadors justification:
    that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.
    Thus as Joshua Londons Victory in Tripoli elaborates in lucid prose, an aggressive jihad was already being waged against the United States almost 200 years prior to America becoming a dominant international power in the Middle East. Moreover, these jihad depredations targeting America antedated the earliest vestiges of the Zionist movement by a century, and the formal creation of Israel by 162 yearsexploding the ahistorical canard that American support for the modern Jewish state is a prerequisite for jihadist attacks on the United States.

  • 76. Mohammed Ali said:

    Thiagan said
    I will take the same analogy. I am a Hindu and you are a Muslim. You say Islam is only true religion and I refuse to accept. There is a war and I am defeated, overpowered and disarmed. You point the gun at my forehead and demand to say that Islam is the true religion; if I refuse you will shoot me and if I accept I will be pardoned.
    This is not the logic the world will accept today

    Ali says:
    Religion and Politics were separate back then. The verses were revealed during times of strife and according to you, they are not relevant today as Politics and Religions are two different entities and that makes the Quran outdated.

    No, it doesn’t. Today they are both separate and the same verse (9:5) can still be applied.

    In the above-italicised quote, you have said that there is a battle over religion. Muslims and Hindus are fighting over which is the true religion. So, it is understood that the victor at the end of the battle would proclaim that his is the True Religion and would obviously want the vanquished to convert. If not, then what were they fighting about? They fought a battle, waged a war to prove a point is it? Thats the religious fall-out of the verse. It is entirely relevant today, IF a war is fought only on the basis of religion.

    As per the political fallout, Ive given the answer in post #61.

    Solomon said
    Moreover, lets assume that these verses really are outdated! Just try and make a suggestion that they should be ignored or removed.

    As I explained above, they are not outdated, but are perfectly relevant. As far as verse 9:5 is concerned, the rational explanation, which I presented, is not from a liberal/secular/left-wing point of view. I simply had to read the translation from verse 9:1 and things are as clear as water. If people misinterpret them for their own selfish ends, one cant blame the Quran for that. And there is a reason why people are readily buying the misinterpretations. Circumstances created by the West.

    Thiagan says
    USA and the Hindutva are the two favourite whipping boys for the muslims and the left lunatics. For the last sixty years, left academics have been championing the cause of Marxism and with its fall, their standing, credibility and acceptance have been smothered and they were proved to be liars. Hence they hate USA.

    Ali says:
    There is a reason why USAs policies are hated by not only Muslims but also anyone without an inherent bias towards US policies. To quote just one instance,
    Between the years 1991-96, due to US imposed sanctions on the people of Iraq, 500,000 Iraqi children died due to absence of basic medical facilities. On being asked about this, US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright said, It was worth it. Thats reason enough for me to hate US Policies (not America as such), more so when a leader of a state speaks with such scant regard for human life.

    Thiagan says:
    Ali is wrong that it is the USA intervention in the middle east is the cause for growing terrorism.
    The above is probably the most ill-informed statement I have read on contemporary Islamic Terrorism in my life.
    Osama Bin Laden himself has said that he wants American Military forces off the Holy Land and recruits people to do that. America itself has acknowledged that there is growing resentment against it due to its policies in the Middle East, which is fuelling terrorism. I also fail to understand what Osama must be telling his prospective followers in order to get them to sign up for Terrorist Duty.

    Would bin Laden say

    America is directly responsible for the death of 500,000 children in Iraq between 1991-96. 100,000 killed in Operation Desert Storm. 200,00+ and kicking in the present war against Iraq, not to mention direct support to Israel in its aggressions against Palestine, Lebanon etc. Do I need to tell you idiots what America is doing? Dont you watch the news? And yeah, they also killed 250,000 in Vietnam for no reason.
    The Quran tells you to wage a war against such an enemy!!

    Or would he say,
    The Quran tells you to kill all the infidels. We are a terrorist religion and thats all there is to it. Thats about it. Now go my darlings. Go ahead, Xplod!

    I find the former more convincing. You must surely agree with the latter.

    As far as that ultra-speculative-extrapolative rant about how the world would be without the United States, have to admit, amusing at best. That will impress some harebrain who reads this post. Hope youve built some muscles with that futile exercise.

    As for the following piece of irrefutable, undeniable, infallible piece of incriminating evidence that you keep waving endlessly from atop the high ramparts of selective ignorance (it has to be selective. You are way too smart to have missed everything),

    Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in 1786 in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja
    .
    .
    .
    .
    these jihad depredations targeting America antedated the earliest vestiges of the Zionist movement by a century, and the formal creation of Israel by 162 yearsexploding the ahistorical canard that American support for the modern Jewish state is a prerequisite for jihadist attacks on the United States.

    Firstly, please quote your reference.

    Secondly, America back then was at war with Europeans, were wiping out the Native American population with unhindered cruelty, were proponents of slavery, bonded labour, subjugation of rights, and a White Supremacist State. If present circumstances are of any value to you, heres some food for thought. If the above state of affairs existed in an oil-rich country today, the US govt. would be the first to wage a war, no, a pre-emptive strike rather, for the sake of humankind. So being a supporter of US humanitarian initiatives in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. you should support the attitude of Sidi Adja. And last I heard, they were taking slaves in from Africa. All the more reasons to worry for Adja. Stop making it look like two innocent boys went about asking Uncle Adja for candy and the cruel uncle rebuked them (The last line based on the style of writing. Solomon will understand. Its for him).

    Thirdly, (Im assuming here) from the sound of it, I believe that was a private conversation. So there is no proof that Adja said anything like that. Frankly, I dont even know who he is. Im just speculating here.

    And finally, even if Beavis and Butthead are telling the truth, and Jadeja really did say those things, that does not mean he speaks for all of Islam. Beavis and Butthead werent from the most respectable, human rights-respecting country in the world back then. If they could capture people, plunder them, rape and molest them in the name of Colour, I dont see why Jadeja cant say silly things in the name of religion. Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja is a man I know nothing of and have never heard his name being quoted so often that I take him seriously.

    You can delve into history and point out instances when Muslims said and did committed violent acts of rape and plunder. Well, you arent the only one with access to the annals of history.

    Pope Urban I, by the way, granted remission of all sins to anyone who joined the Holy War against Muslims. He said of the Muslim Turks an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God. He added, it was Christian duty to exterminate this vile race from our lands.
    – from The Shade of Swords by MJ Akbar. Pg. 87 (You may question the veracity of the author due to his religion, but let me add that he is married to a Christian and she hasnt converted to Islam.
    It is common knowledge that Popes authorized the Crusades).

    You can say that the Popes did so because the Muslim menace became intolerable etc etc. But I would expect country folk to feel that hatred for Muslims. But the Pope?

    I thought Christians are supposed to show the other cheek and also that there are no violent verses in the New Testament, then how is it that at one point of time, Christians had colonized the entire world? How is it that the Popes blessed their voyages towards rape and plunder? How is it that their Pope authorized war?

    No matter how much you defend the political, military reasons why the Popes authorized the wars, fact remains – Wars were fought in the name of religion, irrespective of whether the religion was VIOLENT or was a WHITE LITLE PEACE DOVE.

  • 77. akhmed said:

    Sorry folks. I joined the discussion late. But let me start from the beginning.

    Human beings have bben on this earth for more than 100000 yrs. What was allah doing till 7th century AD ?

    Does he make mistakes that he has to keep revising his REVEALATIONS ??????????

    Isn’t God or Allah supposed to be all powerful, omniscient ? Omnipotent and what not. The supposedly Holy Quran attributes more than 90 superlative qualities to Him /// Her.

    If that be the case, why does he need help of prophets to communicate with his own creation – Man ?

    If muslim women are supposed to wear Hizb, as per His wish , Can he not give them a permanent Hizb ? Can he not design it in a manner that it grows starts coming up after a certain age, keeps growing as the women gains ht and weight ? Can he not ensure that hizb vanishes when the wearer genuinely needs it ?

    This may be impossible for man, but not for Allah!
    If he is finding it difficult, then either he is not All PPowerful OR There is no Allah.

  • 78. Thiagan said:

    01/08/07

    Ali says:
    “As per the political fallout, Ive given the answer in post #61.”

    Thiagan says
    The explanation, lengthy, contrived and convoluted, is hardly convincing. Look at the other three remarks and please answer them.
    If a diabetes specialist, a neuro surgeon, general physician and an aeronautical engineer do not understand the verses and go about committing acts of terrorism, I am inclined to blame the text and not the individuals. It is not misreading of the verses but a literalist interpretation of them that causes the problem.

    Ali says:
    The above is probably the most ill-informed statement I have read on contemporary Islamic Terrorism in my life.

    Thiagan says:
    Please clarify why USA is not interfering in India, Japan, China etc. They are not troublesome states; almost all muslim states are the sources of instability, chaos and violence. See Pakistan, there are 700 suicide bombers roaming around to blast away the country to anarchy. This sounds ill informed because you wish to believe in your own delusions created world and be blind to reality.

    Ali says:
    As far as that ultra-speculative-extrapolative rant about how the world would be without the United States, have to admit, amusing at best.

    Thiaga says:
    I trust you are referring to the possible situation in the absence of USA and let us leave it to the better judgment of the readers whether my postulates are realistic or not; who will consider 8 years of Iran-Iraq war, Sadaams invasion of Kuwait, perennial cry for the liquidation of Israel, failiure to modernise, constantly blaming others etc.

    Regarding the African piracy, you take any book on Thomas Jefferson and you will find the incident narrated in detail. Jefferson purchased a English version of Koraan and the signed copy is still available in the Congress library and Keith Ellison, a muslim senator recently elected, was administered oath of office with this copy. You want to deny history; that is your pleasure.

    The history of any converting religion is bound to be violent; market share being the driving force. The west and the Christianity have reformed and thrive in any plural society; but Islam refuses and prefers world dominance. You have not answered the four qualities Shantanu asked in comment No.71.

  • 79. Thiagan said:

    01/08/07

    Shantanu says:
    ” The principle of banning Rushdies books and Danish cartoons while allowing Shri Husains exhibition of paintings containing offensive images of certain Hindu deities?”

    Thiagan says:
    It is not fair that the question is posed to Ali; it should be answered by any of these secularist scoundrals. The left lunatics have lost their paradise on earth and history has condemned them as failiures. They hate the west and Hindus because they have succeeded and the lunatics are short of an explanation.
    But you can justifiably pose the question – why Islam does not allow any critical scrutiny of the religion, Mohammed, the Book, his conduct and its history? What are they afraid of?

  • 80. B Shantanu said:

    Thiagan: I take your point.

    Mohammed: Thanks for being diligent in your follow-up to various comments. However, I will repeat what I said in my comment # 71:

    In the interest of a more informed and broader discussion, I suggest we concentrate on more substantive and serious issues.

    How about starting with the ones I raised in my comment #71.

    Thanks.

  • 81. Thiagan said:

    002/008/07

    ” 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?”

    Thiagan says:

    I have already established that muslims were doing that in 1786 and this is only a continuation of the great legacy.

  • 82. Mahesh Prasad Neerkaje said:

    Thiagan says:
    “Please clarify why USA is not interfering in India, Japan, China etc. They are not troublesome states; almost all muslim states are the sources of instability, chaos and violence. See Pakistan, there are 700 suicide bombers roaming around to blast away the country to anarchy. This sounds ill informed because you wish to believe in your own delusions created world and be blind to reality.”

    I think its a good point. Also there are poorest muslim countries like indonasia and some african countries. Why they are not invading that?

    Is it for oil? Let Mr. Ali clarify how much oil USA has taken from iraq after the fall of saddam. I do not have this information. But the point is that, America has spent more money on the iraq war than the expense of producing the power equivalent to the amount of oil it alegedely took from iraq. I’m sure about it. Why would the USA people who are good in buisiness do this lossy buisiness?

    Mr. Ali, could you please clarify this?

  • 83. Mohammed Ali said:

    Will respond during the weekend….

  • 84. Thiagan said:

    08/08/07

    Ali

    We will abide by what Shanthnu says in comment No.80. Plesae clarify on the remarks in Comment No.71

  • 85. B Shantanu said:

    Mohammed: I request you to specifically respond to my points raised in comment #71, to the extent you can.

  • 86. Indian said:

    Islam is not a religion but political agenda or cult. Please dont get offended. Its not me who says this many around the world have concluded. No matter what people(muslims) says, dont give them benifit of doubt. Hindus shouldn’t act like deaf and dumb, when we have all the evidences in front of us.

    Muslims will not leave a single opportunity throwing dust in our eyes to show there religion bigger and full of humanity. But be careful, this is just a trick to convince us and then to carry on their agenda.

    Mr. Mohmmed Ali, if you dont agree with me leave my comment, I am not changing my views as I have seen many abuses by the hand of Muslims all around the world. I have only one question for you and that is why musliums have problems everywhere in the world and with every religion? This also proves that Hindus(India) is not bad, Muslims(Islam) itself is bad.

    Jai Hind

  • 87. Thiagan said:

    10/08/07

    Indian

    This is taaquia or deception. Koraan says “war is deception”.

  • 88. Indian said:

    Thiagan,

    Yes, Exactly!

  • 89. Vlad said:

    *** Comment moved by Moderator ***

    Vlad: Thanks for your comment. I have edited it slightly and moved it to this post where it is probably more appropriate:

    Why are Christian Missions targetting India? – II

  • 90. Thiagan said:

    11/08/07

    “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

    2) I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so – Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941
    Vlad

    Please see my concluding remarks in comment No.78 and that answers your comment.

    I am afraid you are distracting the debate. Please read the comment No.71. I am a Hindu and I readily accept; Christians, notwithstanding the verses in the Bible and Hitler, have reconciled and will accept them. Will any muslim accept the four requirements listed in comment No.71?

  • 91. B Shantanu said:

    Thiagan: I have moved the comment to this post (which I think is a more appropriate location):

    Why are Christian Missions targetting India? – II

  • 92. Human said:

    Dear All,
    pls. do not debate all with one person.
    this will not give fare result
    and not fare at all
    as i am a human

  • 93. Indian said:

    Islam only knows believers and non-believers. From when did they started identifing human?

    someone resquested at begining only that it is no use to debate here, as this one person can fool easily. Go to faithfreedom.org for true debate. But people dont like as truth will be or is already exposed there. It is Mohmeed Ali himself wanted to debate here and wanted to show truth which is not at all existing in Islam.

  • 94. Solomon said:

    Mohammed Ali is either a coward or does not have answers to any of our questions. If you scroll up, you will see a bunch of questions I had asked him a long time ago and he promised he would be back with a reply. I am still waiting (not really)!!

    Of course, as I had said before, Ali is in the unenviable position of trying to defend a violent intolerant bigoted cult. He does not really have much to say.

  • 95. Solomon said:

    For reference, see my posts # 21, 22, 23, 35, 36 and 48

  • 96. B Shantanu said:

    @ Human: Good point and fair comment.

    I had already offered Mohammed this option (in my comment ’39 above and repeated in #44).

    I am repeating it here again:
    “Given that you are on your own responding to most of the questions, please pick and choose as you deem fit.”

    ***
    @ Solomon: I agree with you. Mohammed’s position is very hard and difficult to defend rationally. So let us give him some more time.

    ***
    All: Some of you may enjoy reading this column by Vir Sanghvi in Hindustan Times: “Dilemma of an Indian Muslim

  • 97. Human said:

    Hi Friends,
    My humble request to all of you,
    There are two typres: 1> Creator & 2> Creation,
    We all are creation, we do not have right to become creator, so please friends do not give judgement here, which is right of creator, & if anybody gives judgement means he/she is trying to become creator means that person dont trust in creator & if belief is not there means that person is not religious,

    Thanks & Regards
    your truely
    HUMAN

  • 98. abdussamadh said:

    Dear brothers,

    i just want to say one thing

    u may be a generous hindu

    u may be a generous christian

    u may be a good human being who can under stand ones

    pain and ones suffering;

    BUT THERE IS NO ONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD WHO CAN KNOW , UNDERSTAND OR ATLEAST TRY TO UNDERSTAND HOW DOES A I N D I A N M U S L I M FEEL OR SUFFER.

    For the last 60 years we are facing the same thing

    where ever in the world something happens you our own brothers point to us

    if some one ruins buddhist idols u point to your own brothers

    if some crazy fellow drives a car into glasgow with his own intentions u point your own brothers

    so i conclude by saying one line in urdu :

    “MUSLIM BANKAR HIND (INDIA) MAY RAHNA SAB KE BAS KI BAATH NAHI”

    ALLAH HAFIZ
    abdussamadh

  • 99. Indian said:

    To abdussama

    Have you ever seen the life of Hindu in Pakistan, or in any Islamic countries? If not than you must. They follow the same rule of Islamic Govt., In Iran even a muslim cannot live peacfully if they have slight inclination towards other religion. Everyday I read tortured stories of many muslims.
    You have freedom in India. Don’t be regardless.
    Sorry, they are not our brothers who attacks others nor are they Indian.

    They are simply muslims following Islamic agenda. Dont try to fool people.

    IRADE NEK NAHI HO TO< MUSLIM BANKE HIND MEI TO KYA KAHI BHI REHNA MUSKIL HAI.

  • 100. abdussamadh said:

    TO INDIAN BHAI:

    The countries u mentioned above i dont even care about those bcoz those countries are not my mother land.

    im talking about my OWN BROTHERS from my own mother land INDIA.

    What is our fault

    1) To be born as indian

    2) To be born as muslim

    Plz clarify

    and INDIAN BRO u cant be a true indian untill and unless u accept us as ur brother.

    We r true INDIANS bcoz we didnt leave INDIA at the time of partition bcoz WE R INDIANS and treated pakistan as an enemy from the day it was parted.

    And we hate Terrorists as much as u hate.And infact we hate more than you all do bcoz we know what they r doing is wrong and islam prohibits it. So we hate them for two reasons.

    1) they r creating terror in our country

    2) they r spoiling the name of islam

    Do u think we allow a robber to rob our house if he is a muslim.

    PS: I DIDNT SAY “MUSHKIL HAI” I SAID
    “SAB KAY BAS KI BAATH NAHI”

    So stop blaming us dear brother.

    allah hafiz
    abdussamadh

  • 101. B Shantanu said:

    abdussamadh: Glad to see that you have joined the thread here.

    Would you please respond to the points I had raised in my comment #71 above?

    Thanks.

    ***

    All: I am seeing an increasing occurence of “troll-like” activity on my blog.

    I hope I am not forced to put comment moderation in place but if I am, you know why I had to that.

    Thanks for your patience and support.

  • 102. abdussamadh said:

    Dear Shantanu plz clarify me two things

    what do u mean by gender discrimination

    what do u mean by “HOST COUNTRY”

    PLZ STATE IT CLEARLY.

    INSHAW – ALLAH IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME .

  • 103. xyz said:

    Why is that islam alone is spawning terrorists?

    Why were minorities exterminated in pakistan,bangldesh?

    Why did the vast majority of indian muslims support the demand for pakistan?

    Why were they hostile to the freedom movement?

    What about kashmir and a hundred other terrorist atrocities in jammu,kashmir and the rest of india

  • 104. B Shantanu said:

    @ abdussamadh: Instead of getting bogged down in clarifications and definitions, I suggest you start by responding to these four points first:

    A. The principle of banning Rushdies books and Danish cartoons while allowing Shri Husains exhibition of paintings containing offensive images of certain Hindu deities?

    B. 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?

    C. Your comment on Tanveer Ahmeds article: Islams uncomfortable truths? excerpts from which are here

    and

    D. Is it really possible for a Muslim who is a believer to acknowledge that all religions are equal?”

    The two points that you mention were from a comment by Thiagan on another blog.

    So I will let Thiagan clarify them for you (although I think the terms are fairly straightforward and obvious).

    But let me repeat:

    Let us begin by discussing the four points (A,B,C and D) that I have noted above.

    Pl. stick to the topic and try and provide a clear, direct and unambiguous response.

    Thanks.

    ***

    @ xyz: Please avoid rhetorical questions. I encourage you to read what has already been written above and then join the discussion.

    ***

    All: Pl. give abdussamadh a reasonable time to respond before asking him additional questions.

    Thanks.

  • 105. Thiagan said:

    06/09/07

    abdus samad

    gender discrimination and host country – clarification

    1) Do you accept that women have equal rights as men; Islam says that women are deficient and are the property of men; endorses wife beating; gives half of property and half evidentiary value etc. Do you accept that it is unacceptable in 21st century

    2) All countries where muslims are in minority are the host countries and they should accept the policies of the majority without demur, for eg,one child norm in India.

    Sir, you know the questions andthe and the answers are inconvenient and hence you evade.

  • 106. B Shantanu said:

    Thiagan: Thanks for the clarification. We will wait to see abdus samad’s response on this.

  • 107. Amit Kapoor said:

    Dear All,

    I have been reading most of your comments regarding the nature of terrorism and have found several comments interesting but no progress interms where the conversation is going.

    Without offending anyone i would like to submit the following points.

    I feel there is no point in discussing the history of violance between religous backgrounds as we have no way of controlling these fundelmentalists.

    I feel it is in every humons duty to persue the truth whatever religon and the truth being God which ever name you have for HIM.

    So in this persuit i would like to open a discussion

    For purposes i have decided to focus on the Four Major Relgions: Islam
    Christianity
    Jeudaism
    Sanarta Dharma (hinduism in common terms)

    I have put these in order of timescale with Islam being the newest.

    *** FOLLOW UP COMMENT / COMBINED BY MODERATOR ***

    Being a Vedantist (hindu) my views might seem one sided but believe me its just that i can only give one angle and ill encourage others to give their views also so we can bring each other to light.

    From what i know..Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) was born into Quereshy tribe apperantly in a family who were Brahman. Thus Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him was a vedantist and followed the vedas.

    Allah itself is a sanskrit word meaning God.
    Mecca is a sanskrit word meaning fire as mecca used to be a place of fire worship..(vedic tradition)

    Mecca was a shiv temple as you notice how islam got the cresent and the star..as it is a Known sign for Lord Shiva.

    I am sorry but i would have to leave the conversation as my libary is closing.i will finish it next time.so sorry..

    BUT..the main purpose is that we need to come up with the common terms so we can all unite we should make a stand to unite people even if our priests gurus imams donti promise ill finish my aricle .lets premote peace thankyou love you all

  • 108. Muhamed Yussef said:

    (to the above statement)

    i am a muslim, and i really do wish that dr zakir naik was more like you.

    inshallah may you stay safe

  • 109. Jagmohan Singh Khurmi said:

    I gave a very proper and hard-hitting reply to the cynical,personal and unwarranted attack on me. I was just trying to expose the tricky justification of Zakir Naik towards islamic terrorism. Mr Shantanu erased my reply but did not erase the mud thrown at me by Mohammed Ali. This action of Mr. Shantanu is a brilliant example of what Mr.Sita Ram Goel’s calls “islamic censor” imposed on us !

    “All muslims should be terrorists…”! This is astounding ! This is the insult of the government, the state itself, contumely of law and order ! Zakir Naik should be arrested for saying such a thing but, alas, one cannot even openly condemn him !

  • 110. B Shantanu said:

    Jagmohan,

    To set the record straight, I am publishing below extracts from the reply I sent to your email in which you asked my why had I deleted your comment:

    *** REPLY TO JAGMOHAN’s EMAIL ***

    Jagmohan,

    …this sentence in your (deleted) comment (emphasis added), “One should never expect politeness from a muslim !” was a little over the top – especially given that we are trying to engage someone in debate.

    As I mentioned in my comment to energy (whose comment # 34, I was likewise forced to delete),

    “..Editorial control is a delicate right – and I hope I exercise it with restraint and judgement …I felt your comment ws 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.

    …sometimes in the heat of the moment, we may say certain things/use words that (may) convey the wrong impressionIf 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.

    Like energy, 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.

    Jagmohan, I sincerely hope you will continue to watch and join the discussion and I hope you understand..but please feel free to write back if you disagree..”

    ***

    Jagmohan, Your attack was not personal, it was generic.

    It was directed at ALL Muslims – which I believe is wrong.

    Finally, note that you did make your point in the comment dated July 14th. Mohammed Ali clarified that his intent was not to offend in his comment dated July 15th to which you replied on July 17th with the generic comment which I have mentioned above and which I chose to delete.

    Readers who follow the entire thread of discussion will notice that nowhere have I defended Zakir Naik…so I am puzzled by what you mean when you say this is an example if “Islamic censor”…

    Anyways, this is now a theoritical argument given that neither Mohammed Ali nor abdussamadh have bothered to continue the discussion.

    Jagmohan, I hope we can let the matter rest here and I look forward to your views and thoughts on other posts on this blog.

    Jai Hind.

  • 111. Jagmohan Singh Khurmi said:

    Yes, Shantanu ji, I admit that a part of my comment was ‘over the top’ , as you very rightly put. I also respect your impartial position as blog-editor and I congratulate you for your fine brinkmanship and insistence to be unbiased, which made you take-off my comment (and not ‘islamic censor’, as I wrongly accused you)

    But please look at the comment 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 doesnt 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, dont you Mr. Khurmi?

    This is the punishment I received for telling the folks that I do not agree with Zakir Naik ! This comment has not been subject to deletion for some mysterious reasons that I fail to understand.

    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 secular 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 are 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 at 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 ). And 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 )

  • 112. B Shantanu said:

    Jagmohan:

    Point taken. Perhaps I should have allowed less leeway to Mohammed and given more quarter to you.

    Anyways, let us rest the matter here.

    As for Dr Zakir Naik, I would not take his utterances too seriously – he is somewhat of a demagogue.

  • 113. Thiagan said:

    08/10/07

    Khurmi says:
    ” And 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 )”

    Thiagan says:
    According to shariaat, the a woman who complains that some one has raped her, the onus of proof is on her. She must produce four adult males and they should have witnessed the actual penetration. Else she will be charged with adultery and will be stoned to death. Rapist will go unpunished. Forty percent of women who languish in Pakistani prisons are rape victims but who were unable to prove. She is raped and she is also jailed.

  • 114. Tarryn (author) said:

    Tarryn

    I just came across your blog and wanted to drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here. I also have websites & blogs so I know what I am talking about when I say your site is top-notch! Keep up the great w…

  • 115. Might Is Right said:

    *** COMMENT EDITED ***

    *** Note by Moderator: Please be careful about “blanket” condemnation of any belief system ***

    20 Things That You Should Know About Islam:

    http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/11/20-things-you-should-know-about-islam.html

  • 116. Ashish said:

    I think we should all step back a bit and appreciate the love Muslims are showing for fellow Muslims in Iraq and Pakistan, Then we can get back to appreciating the love Muslims (true believers only, not the poor “trapped in Islam and no way out” variety) show the for kafir.

    One line of love for every 72 lines of hate!

    For every
    No compulsion in religion onlee….
    Heaven lies at the feet of the mother onlee..

    There are 72:
    Kill them wherever you find them..
    Hell is filled with women..

    *Read*
    Iqra..

  • 117. Jagmohan Singh Khurmi said:

    @ Mohammed Ali, you wrote :
    ” Osama bin Laden is a covert cowardly man who sends innocents into a war by misinterpreting the Quran whos benefits he reaps “

    That is great, what a pleasant surprise ! That is real courage. We are very indebted to you for doing us this honour…splendid…you deserve a Nobel Prize for so openly criticizing the esteemed sheikh !

    But criticizing bin Laden is not enough. You have to stop him from killing people. So do us another favour : next time you meet Him please tell him to stop this madness…

  • 118. Alpesh said:

    Dear Brothers & Sisters

    I am a Alpesh,

    I had pasted below links in my previous reply but all the reply was eliminated by controler

    where as the reply from MIGHT IS RIGHT and in that the link against muslims is appearing from 6th Nov 2007,

    So my question, Is it fair that the links which shows facts about hinduism are being deleted by controler and the link against muslims appear ing from long time?

    the below links* self explaining all truths

    http://humanists.net/avijit/article/oh_hindu_awake.htm

    http://www.geocities.com/indiafas/Hindu/part3.htm

    http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?showtopic=22630&mode=threaded

    * URL links referring to the same article have been removed

  • 119. B Shantanu said:

    Alpesh: Your earlier comment was awaiting moderation along with this one. You have probably realised that I am slightly busy these days (see my latest post) and hence was not able to approve it earlier.

    Since the links from the earlier comment appear to be included in this one too (with some new ones!), I am deleting the earlier comment and “approving” this one with the proviso that if any of them is found to be unsuitable/irrelevant, I reserve the right to remove them without further notice.

    Also, pl. do not post the same article through different URLs – It does not help (or fool) anyone.

    Unfortunately I dont have time to respond to the points made in some of the links but most readers of the blog know enough about Hinduism and Sanatan Dharma to form their own judgement.

    If you have some time, I would encourage you to read these posts on my blog as well:

    http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/10/09/hinduism-caste-system-and-discrimination/

    http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/07/02/is-this-too-much-to-ask/

    http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/04/19/shameful-and-inexcusable/

    http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/07/05/redefining-hinduism-need-of-the-hour/

    Thank you for joining the debate.

    P.S. Comments with multiple links are always moderated to check for spam.

    Also note my comment moderation policy (under Legal Disclaimer).

    As you are aware, this is a private blog and I decide what should appear and what should not.

  • 120. Hadeedi said:

    Dear Bothers,

    While going thru many of the comments in this blog, I feel that you guys are explaining things the way blind man have seen elephant. It reminds me the proverb ”a fool is better than a half pandit”.

    We have people like Modis in our door step and we go to abroad to find Ladens

    All religions are preaching peace and advocate respect to other religions, here people are throwing mud each other with no knowledge of what they are doing.
    May God show you the right path
    Salam

  • 121. B Shantanu said:

    Dear Hadeedi,

    Thanks for your comment. Your comparison of Modi with bin Laden is possibly a bit over the top.

    One is an elected leader of a state in a democratic country…The other is not…I hope you see the point.

  • 122. sanathandharma said:

    Hi Ali,

    Hindus describe how Kashmiri Pundits were terrorized and driven away from Kashmir. Muslims talk about Godhra carnage. Both were unfortunate.

    In 1947, when India was partitioned, the Hindu population in Pakistan was about 24% .Today it is not even 1%.

    In 1947, the Hindu population in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was 30% . Today it is about 7%.

    What happened to the missing Hindus?

    But after Godhra carnage Hindus allowed Muslims to live in Gujrat.

  • 123. ali said:

    i m from india and hindus are lovely people,
    whatever ill we have as communal hatred in india is 50% supported by pakistan, 40% by supported by clumsy politicians and 10% due to fools who dont know the importance unity of the republic….

    pakistani muslims should tend to their own business and not try to grasp muslim condition in india … we are far better here then you are there…

    as far as zakir naik is concerned as long as he is not spreading communal hatred,l i have no problem with him…. but i’ve heard recently that he has made certain political statements … but any how he is a great scholar but he should be careful as to what he speaks…

  • 124. Indian said:

    Thanks Ali, for wonderful words.

  • 125. Hassan Mahfooz said:

    Unite all Indians…….Jai Hind…..

  • 126. Mohammed Nizam said:

    Assalaam Alai Kum,
    (May peace be upon you)

    I just chanced to read about this blog, today. I was confronted today by various misconceptions of Islam by the various people. Under their misundertanding and misconception of Islam, they are all detailing their views. But such misinformation they have is very disturbing and very harmful, so I humbly request them not to disrespect learned people such as Dr. Zakir Naik. You have any questions, please ask him directly in any of his debates or you can check his various debates, which have covered all the topics you have discused above. One more humble request, please verify you queries without prejudice.

    My understanding is anything can be said, until not clarified by an expert on the subject (which is very harmful), so please refer to Dr. Zakir Naik’s debates for better understanding, as mentioned before WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Especially those regarding “Misconceptions of Islam,” “Similarities in Islam and Hinduism, in light of Sacred Scriptures,” “Is terrorism a monopoly of Islam,” and “Christanity and Islam.”

    All his debates are based on facts in the Holy Scriptures of all religions.

    We are all INDIANS, so we must work for living peacefully, without hatred towards others.

    Islam stands for PEACE, and I started this post with the Islamic greetings of PEACE.

    I regret, I will not be replying to your further queries, as I mentioned earlier, I just chanced to visit this blog while browsing for Dr. Zakir Naik’s various reports.

    Thank You.

    Assalaam Alai Kum.

  • 127. nahid said:

    *** COMMENT COMBINED ***

    to sum1 who wrote that in islam u must kill non muslims where ever u find them.
    THIS IS A LIE AND U R IGNORANT. ILL TELL U Y?
    BECAUSE U ALL NON MUSLIMS AND FEW MUSLIMS TOO QUOTE TH QURAN OUT OF CONTEXT TO BLASPHEMISE, ARUN SOORIE, SALMAN RISHDI DO THAT.CHUCK THESE CRITICS.
    NOW THE POINT- ” IT WAS IN THE BATTLEFIELD WHEN MUSLIMS WERE FIGHTING AGAINST THE NON MUSLIMS- PROPHET MUHAMMAD SAID IF U FIND ANY NON MUSLIM KILL HIM BUT IF HE PLEADS AND SEEKS ASYLUM ESCORT THEM TO THE PLACE OF SAFETY .” OTHERWISE IF WE KILL ANY HUMAN BEING IT IS AS IF WE HAVE KILLED THE WHOLE OF HUMANITY.
    WE R NOT ALLOWED TO KILL AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING.ACCORDING TO ISLAM
    IF ANY HUMAN BEING TAKES MY EYE I HAVE THE IHT TO TAKE EVENGE BUT WITH THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE OR GUILTY. AN AYE FOR AN EYE. AND IF SUM1 TAKS MY LIFE THAT PESON’S LIF WILL BE TAKEN NOT THAT PERSON’S SIBLING’S OR COMMUNITY PEOPLE’S LIFE. IN EVEY COUNTRY THIS IS THE RULE .

    to mr amit kapoor- Prophet Muhammad was not a brahman, he did not believe in idol worship , he was an illiterate and his parents aminah(peace) and abdullah(sevant of allah) died when he was young. he only knw arabic and did know any religion at all. it was through allah that he came to know about various other prophets and that he is a prophet too. and all the prophets were either without parents or one parent. if u r a vedantist then in it , it is clealy mentioned about the coming of prophet muhammad. and the one who belive that islam is a new religion then i must tell u that islam prevails since the time of adam. and fo prophet muhamaad who was an illitrate to speak about scientific facts which science has just discovered and do u know islam completely conciliates with establishd scince and no other religion does.

    ***
    TO THE FIRST COMMENT TO THIS ISSUE

    Dr zakir naik just gave an example- and he always has to answer within a prescribed time limit. he said a policeman is a terrorist to a criminal. he didnt say that a human being cannot be a terrorist to a criminal. it is true that when an accused sees a police man he gets terrorized or scared and runs away. not always when a criminal or an accused sees normal or civil people, he gets terrorised. and in many of his public talks he has mentioned that quran speaks about freeing a person unjustly confined whether muslim or non muslim. now if sum1 is holding me nd putting me inside a closed room or molesting me it is the job of any human being to help me. and protecting women is the job of all men in islam , it is ordaind by allah. if any1 outrages a womans modesty he will be punished by the court by the police by the family of the victim and by allah subhanavatallah.

    to amit kapoo if allah is a sanskrit word for god then stat believing in allah. all languages r of allah. it is mentioned in the book. nd we know in the vedas it is mentioned about propht muhammad. du to the difference in languages u fail to realise the truth and also becaus u dont want to know the truth. i am a muslim but i do respect other religions . if u discrimat on the gouns of race, colour, language, cast, religion u will perish this is the law of allah. unfortunately all holy scriptures except the quran have been changed by human beings for petty gains.im not biased, this is the truth. and vedas is noo alaihis salaams book he was also our messenger but u all call him by the name in sanskrit. we belive in all the prophets.

    ***
    islam is there since the first man step foot on earth. our beloved prophet muhammad is not the founder of islam but the last and final messenger of allah. allah says, there is not a nation he has not send a warner and to evey ntion h has snt a guide by name only 25 names of prophets r mentioned in the quran. allah has send 1,24,000 till date on the face of earth and all the messengers were send only for a particular group of people fo a paticular period of time like jesus christ was sen for the jews, noah, abraham, adam, moses.
    allah says, we narate the stories of some of the prophets and prophet muhammad was an illiterate he ha no knowldge about things, there were and are many witnesses and authentic proofs regarding this. then who excpt god would tell him about all these messengers and all the things which have been scientifically oroven that moons light is the reflected light, embryology, creation of the universe, shape of earth, rotations and revolutions, honey presnt in the belly of the honey bee, skin can feel not brains, and many things. thes things mentioned by an illiterate 1400 years ago which science has discovered 50 or 100 years ago. and no religion has mentioned these facts and truth before.
    to solomon
    dr zakir naik compares religion cause he wants the world to know the truth. and he gives infeiority complx to everyone. h is a fundamntalist muslim, therefore he won’t lie, or blasphemise anything or any1. he mentions facts in ur holy scriptures which u all who are having a conversation here dont know about. he didnot learn ur holy scriptures to lie or speak ill, he wantd to know the truth about all the religions. if u dislike him so much then y don’t u lean ur holy scriptures and go to IRF and prove him wrong? the truth is already heard by every1 and millions have converted. y? not because dr zakir naik compares religion people have a mind of their own. it is bcause when truth is head against falsehood, falsehood perishes and falsehood by its nature is bound to perish. when they see and hear contradictions and absurdness in their scriptures they convert. and any1 on this planet cannot prove that quran is not a word of god. he does not say a non muslim is bad or hinduism teaches to kill or islam teaches to do jihad-he says islam teachs to fight for truth. he only mentions facts and faults in various reliious scriptures. prove him wrong not me. go have a conversation with him, he holds several public debates.

  • 128. B Shantanu said:

    @ Nahid: This is the first time I am seeing you on this blog…so welcome.

    But pl. let me mention a few “ground rules”/ rules of etiquette to have a sensible discussion here.

    1. Pl. do not write in ALL CAPS. It makes your point weaker – not stronger.

    2. Good language – with attention to spelling and grammar, enhances your argument(s).

    3. Facts, refereneces and logical reasoning is the only way to convince me to take you seriously. So please avoid sweeping statements and rambling remarks.

    Thanks.

  • 129. s.srinivas said:

    Muslims are past master in deceit and deception. If they are in minority, they speak of secularism, tolerance, peace and what not, to gain sympathy and show their true colour when they are in majority, the proof for it is the ethnic cleansing of Hindus being undertaken by them in Pakistan and Bangladesh. I dont know why they should blare from their mosque five times a day I testify that there is no god worthy of worship than Allah. Does this not indicate that the gods being worshipped by Hindus, Christians and Buddhists are unworthy?

    Just watch Q TV and see the English translation given below the verse. In India Hindus are taunted five times a day that what they are worshipping are unworthy gods. The Muslims want mosques to be constructed wherever they live but does not reciprocate the same to other religious group. Why Saudi Arabia doesnt allow the construction of temples, churches or synagogues? Is it not the duty of Indian Muslims who enjoy religious freedom here to take a delegation and force the Saudi king to allow building of temples? Recently in 2006 an Afghan converted to Christianity was awarded death sentence. When I read the news a scene from the bollywood films flashed in my mind. Our hero tells to the gang leader that he was wants to leave the gang and the leader tells him that, once he joins the gang, he cannot come out of the cesspool.

    One should watch the QTV telecast from Pakistan to know all about Islam. According to the mullahs who come to answer various question asked by the people, singing or even earning a living by selling CDs, are harams. This implies that our late Mohammad Rafi Sab was doing harami. Even the famous Painter, M.F.Hussain is involved in harami as Painting is prohibited in Islam. So also the famous Khan actors of bollywood, by acting with Hindu girls, sporting tilak, praying infidel gods, dancing and singing love songs are going against the tenets of Islam. But I am surprised why the mullahs have not declared the use of guns and bombs manufactured by kafirs as haram. Just go through the below websites maintained by people who were once Muslims and hear from them all about Islam.

    ***

    These websites maintained by former Muslims give excellent information on Islam.
    http://www.islam-watch.org/index.html
    http://www.religioustolerance.org/
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/
    http://www.faithfreedom.org/
    http://www.answering-islam.org/
    http://www.apostatesofislam.com/index.htm

  • 130. Muslim (ISLAM means PEACE) said:

    *** COMMENT EDITED by MODERATOR ***

    Dear “Muslim”, I have edited your comment as it was essentially a sermon quoting various verses from the Holy Quran.

    Please stick to the topic if you wish to comment on this site.

    *** Excerpts from original comment below ***

    In the name of Allah, We praise Him, seek His help and ask for His forgiveness. Whoever Allah guides none can misguide, and whoever He allows to fall astray, none can guide them aright. We bear witness that there is no one (no idol, no person, no grave, no prophet, no imam, no dai, nobody!) worthy of worship but Allah Alone, and we bear witness that Muhammad(saws) is His slave-servant and the seal of His Messengers.


    Allah, in His Sublime Mercy has made the sources of the Quran and Sunnah available to us so that we can be guided aright. He has given every person a free will and the intelligence to choose between the Truth and the falsehood and formulate his own path. It is the decree of Allah, that some people will accept and believe in His Revelations, and some unfortunate people will not.

    To : S.Srinivas,
    Thanks brother to provide the links in your reply which is showing all wrong information about ISLAM, believe brother all these sites are developed by JEWS and AMERICAN (western) people in the name of MUSLIMS, once again thanks Mr. Sriniva for your great effort. for which Allah will reward you.

    To : ALL MUSLIMS,
    Please be carefull about all these sites if you dont have proper knowledge these may be lead you to wrong direction because shaitan is open enemy of human, it will always try to misslead.

    Allah Says in the Holy Quran Chapter 29 Surah Ankabut verse 68:
    And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against Allah or rejects the Truth when it reaches Him? Is there not a home in Hell for those who reject faith?

    above is my first and last reply please do not expect reply from me as i am very busy in studies.

    once again thanks brothers ans sisters.
    best regards
    Muslim

  • 131. tarique said:

    ”but do u mean to tell me than a man who was in the full flush of youthful vigour ,a young man of 24 , married a widow of 40 ,and remained faithful to her for 26 years,at 50 married for lust and sexual passions ??not thus are men’s life to be judged .and u look at the women whom he married , u will find by every one of them a alliance was made for his people ,or something was gained for his followers,or the woman was in sore need of protection ”— dr.annie besant in ‘the life and teachings of mohamed ‘madras, 1932.

  • 132. tarique said:

    no great religious leader has been so maligned as prophet mohammed .attacked in the past as a heretic ,an imposter and a sensualist,it is still possibble to find him referred as a ‘false prophet’.a modern german writer accuses mohamed of sensuality ,surrounding himself with young women . this man was not married until he was 25 years of age ,then he and his wife lived in fidelity for 25 years ,until her death.only between the age of 50 and his death at 62 did prophet mohamed take other wives,only one of whom was a virgin, and most of them were taken for political and dynastic reasons. certainly the prophets records were better than the head of the church of england ,henry 8th———geoffery parrinder in ‘mysticism in the world’s religions ‘( NEW YORK :OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS , 1976 PAGE 121 )

  • 133. tarique said:

    according to the teachings of islam only allah has the right to decide who is a kafir and who is not . no human being or even prophets has ever been granted that right. judging a human being for his deeds is the sole right of the almighty and nobody else .the true teachings of islam prohibits a muslim from using words like kafir for anyone.

  • 134. tarique said:

    a lot of critics of prophet mohammed point out to his multiple marriages as an excuse to show him in a poor light. his marriage to aisha and his other marriage to his adopted son’s wife are widely cited today on internet .yet they have tried and failed for 1300 years .his first wife was a widow of age 40 . he was 25 when he married her . this was unheard of during that time anywhere in arab society . the common culture was marrying younger virgins who were considered auspicious . u must remember that the culture of multiple marriage was a common practice in arabia due to the low fertility rate among arab women .he lived happily with khadija for 26 long years and even his worst detractors have failed to find any relationship with other women during this period.a sensualist does not have the patience to wait for 26 long years ,and any man will tell u that . his second marriage was to a 50 year old widow.aisha was age 6 when she was struck by a white skin disease, where a woman’s skin turns into white patches.she was the prophets best friends daughter. he had already got her engaged to an outsider of another religion as it mostly happened in those days . but after her illness ,her father decided he was not going to send his daughter very far away from his sights . she recovered from her illness at 9 . that is when she got engaged to mohammed for marriage .she married him at 9 and they began to live as man and wife when she was 12 which was perfect according to the customs of the time .he had 4 daughters from his 1st marriage. after that he married a few slave women who were ‘PRISONERS OF WAR ‘ . in those days such women mostly ended up as prostitutes . here they got the status as the wife of chief of islam . he even married a 56 year old widow ,whose husband has laid down his life during the starting phase of islam.he divorced none of his wives and they all lived with him till his death . his marriages show examples of widow remarriage , marrying women with white skin defects (even today it exists ), marrying women to save their honour . in the last case , he married his adopted son’s divorced wife . they split after a failed marriage . zayed,who was more like a companion , as he was only 6 years younger to him , but prophet mohammed treated him like a son .his marriages helped unite a lot of warring tribes in arabia who all later joined the fold of islam

  • 135. tarique said:

    his multiple marriages covered widows ,divorcees, women with defects ,prisoners of war,except aisha most of his wives were older women . he married them during a period in arab culture where it was normal to marry multiple women of the younger breed .

  • 136. tarique said:

    widow remarriage , divorcee remarriage , POW marriage, and skin infected women marriages were unheard in those times.

  • 137. tarique said:

    shantanu , i would like to respond to ur poser on whetrher muslims can….treat all religions as equal….give rights to women…..loyalty to one’s nation…….oppose the worldwide imposition of shariah law .

  • 138. tarique said:

    i m not a scolar on islam , but whatever knowledge i gained i would like to share with u . islam says the creator of all humanity irrespective of caste creed and religion is one.islam never claimed that a hindu god created a hindu or a muslim god created a moslem .it treats all humanity equally.the true teachings of islam which are unfortunately censored by some of our corrupt mullahs say that before mohamed allah sent 124000 prophets or messengers on earth . even prophet mohamed claimed to be the last prophet and not the first . when he said he was the last prophet , he meant to say that there were 124000 who came before him . but his statement is twisted by our mullahs for the sake of greed and power. i spoke to a lot of liberal maulanas and they confessed that there is actually nobody qualified enough to intrepret the meanings of the holy koran in its pure form due to lack of knowledge of arabic grammer and dialects of desert tribes.now who r these 124000 prophets ?? the koran which originated in arabia mentions mostly prophets of neighbouring nations like jesus christ , abraham , moses ,noah .who r the others ?? the koran clearly states that prophets or messengers of god were sent by him to every nook and corner of this world before mohammed . so according to koran it could include ram , krishna , buddha , mahavir jain , and other hindu , chinese , african great leaders . that is why it is forbidden in islam to speak bad about dieties of other faiths .in islam , only the almighty whom u call ishwar , bhagwan , daata can be worshipped . the messengers of god can only be respected and their true teachings to be followed , but worshipping them is prohibited . it is a great sin in islam even if we bow to the grave of prophet mohammed . ‘kafir ‘ in islam means one who ‘rejects the existence of the almighty and his will ‘. it is purely a dialogue between an individual and the almighty .it applies to all faiths and religion . no human being has ever being granted the right to decide who is a ‘kafir ‘ and it includes all prophets sent my him . an infidel can be judged only by him .the quran begins with the lines ‘ALHAMDULILLAH HI RABBULL ALAMEEN AR RAHANNUR RAHEEM ,MALIKI YAU MIDDEEN…….IT MEANS ‘PRAISE BE TO ALLAH THE LORD OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE , THE MOST BENEFICIENT AND MERCIFUL’. nowhere it mentions the lord of only the muslims .islam has two kinds of teachings which are noble and respect humanity , but unfortunately today the dirty politics of greed ,has made man to twist its meanings for the sake of power and domination.in the first is a common man’s conduct with god . islam says allah is very forgiving by nature coz he is the creator of us all ‘allah loves his ‘banda ‘ 70 times more than a mother who gives birth to a baby’. so even if u reject him he is all forgiving in the end .in the second is a man’s conduct towards his fellow human beings . islam says even if u do something and ur actions hurt the feelings of a fellow human , it is unforgiveable leave alone innocent killings . even saying something like ‘kya be saale ‘ rudely is not permitted .islam says ‘allah can forgive all ur sins regarding modes of worship , ur rejection of faith , and things related to ur spiritualism , but hurting a fellow human being is most unforgivable . today, muslims do just the opposite . they pray with devotion yet plan attacks and murders . it shows that they are not well versed with true teachings of islam or their islamic guru is a dacoit in disguise .

  • 139. ketaki (author) said:

    Tarique

    So Islam is trying to be what the concept of Hindu Dharma fundamentally promoted (way way before Mohammed presented the Koran),ie, the existance of “Eternal Absolute”, The Brahmman and the individual soul’s dialogue with it.

    If what you write, truely represents the Koran and its viewpoint, then there is no need for Islam to exist.

    Since 70% of the Muslims in the world (if one accounts for the converted populations of present day Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Indonesia), are progeny of Hindus whose forefathers were converted to Islam, they can, I guess, return back to Hinduism.

    When I read the Koran, I found it to be quite antagonistic to non-believers and non-acceptors of Mohammed as the Last Prophet.

    Btw, Whats with Mohammed’s obsession with being the last Prophet?

  • 140. Indian said:

    I agree Ketaki with the point that all were Hindus. They were converted during moghuls time or I dont know when, but most of them were Hindus. Even Iran was filled with persian people, now one can only find islam there, no sign of persian who followed Zorostrian religion. Such a pity!

  • 141. Indian said:

    Tarique

    You are right about what you mentioned in your post about all that terms, Kafir or Jihad. But it is you who have understood this meaning but what about other muslim family. I knew one muslim family who were my neighbour. They appear so good from outside but within their mind they carried such a bad attitude about Hindus. I always respected them and their religion, never utterd any such words that can harm feelings and relations. But they showed no respect to religion of Hindu. Once their daugther(Grown up) started telling me we consider you as na-pak (not pure), I said why? she said because you are hindu (or not muslim). I was surprised that am I living in Pakistan or India? In my country they say I am not pure what do they mean?

    Tarique its nothing to hurt you or complain you, but I am just sharing this incident with you, which I have never shared with any one till now. Just to let you know that this kind of things keeps coming in daily lives too, inspite of it is well described in Quran as per what you said in above comment.

  • 142. ketaki (author) said:

    Dear Indian:
    Actually the Zoroastrian Persians of Iran were mostly killed or converted under Islam.

    Those that escaped came to the Hindu states on the Western coast of India and became part of our syncretic Hindu culture seamlessly.

    And boy!! we all know how greatly the Zoroastrian (Parsi) community has contributed to the world in general and India in particular, inspite of their extremely small numbers.

    I wonder what their contribution would have been, had the country of Iran not been forced into Islam.

  • 143. tarique said:

    indian, even i have gone through the same humilation u mentioned . it not happen only to hindus but also muslims who dare to question these stupid beliefs . but u must also understand that these beliefs in india among muslims mostly generated frm uttar pradesh based muslims .i often keep wondering how all the headquarters of muslim seminaries are based in one state i.e. uttar pradesh . since uttar pradesh is an undeveloped state , a lot of children from deprived homes find cheap education in a madarssa ,which i feel is a wrong way to develop young kids . besides , madarassa funding in uttar pradesh and bihar is a huge manipulation on ‘zakat ‘ funds which is 2.5 percent of a muslims wealth and income .it must be noted that ‘zakat’ funds can only be used according to teachings of islam for destitutes , widows , eradication of poverty and helping poor relatives to come up in life . since all muslim institutions are based in uttar pradesh and has the biggest madarssas , they started the trend by asking muslims to donate the zakat or charity money to madarssas . i once asked a moulvi from uttar pradesh ” how can u use zakat funds for madarrsa education when it is not sanctioned by islam ”.he replied ” yes islam makes no provison for zakat funds to be diverted to madarssas , but how will we will able to generate funds for operational purpose . nobody donates money for religious teachings easily , so we have to rely on zakat funds through a bit of manipulation” . it shocked me . he further added ”we take zakat funds from muslims in the name of feeding orphaned kids and children from poor homes. we then donate it to some poor members and ask them to donate the amount back for the cause of islamic education. this way we r able to legitimise zakat funds for madarssa use .the moulvis who spread all over india from uttar pradesh and bihar to collect zakat money get a 40 percent cut along with lodging and boarding expenses” . after i heard his secret , i have been opposing the donation of zakat to uttar pradesh based moulvis . but since this has been going on for decades now , it has almost become a ritual .rich muslims complain ”who has got the time to go to backward villages of india and look for poor backward muslims by ignoring our business interests ”.these problems and many more are contributing to the wrong spread of islam in india . the problem is more economic than islamic . most students of madarrsa are from underprevilaged backgrounds from backward villages , who have very little exposure to the changing world around them . when they pass out of these seminaries , they travel to the big cities to become moulvis in other parts of india . moulvis , are the most underpaid class of india .even in today’s time they are paid as low as 1000 per month . the trustees of mosques make them dance to their tunes. very few percentage of mosques pay the moulvis well.another point to be noted is that parents mostly send their most ‘dull ‘ kid or black sheep of the family to a madarrsa . they reserve their sharp minded kids for modern education . there are many more problems which we are facing in this diverse country , and i agree a lot of them are self inflicted . but again , i want to say it has nothing to do with the pure teachings of islam . it has to do with economics of the madarssa system and the fact these madarssas are mostly based in the heart of the ‘political capital state of india ‘ that is uttar pradesh .

  • 144. tarique said:

    ketaki , despite the zoroastrian being intelligent people , a fact is that their rulers were feudal in their rule of iran .most of the land owners during their rule were zorastrians . the sassanid empire was on the verge of a total economic collapse , due to a huge rebellion during that period from the common people .that was the time when their armies began to look at arab trade interests in their neighbourhood . when the arabs struck back to save their trade interests , the sassanid empire’s economic situation was exposed .the landless rebels sided with the arabs. a few thousands zorastrians from the ancient trading class, who mostly dwelled on the coast , escaped to western india , not because they were attacked ,but because the trading community all over the world is the 1st to run away from a changing political scenario . today rich iraqis have all escaped to dubai . the rich trading class always manages to find escape routes during an emergency.besides it must be noted that zorastrians were still a minority in iran ,when they were ruling it . when islam was not even born , zorastrian built up huge armies and were engaged in war with byzantines and mongols for imperialist expansion .during the rise of muslim powers the persian empire was in a economic crisis , due to homegrown rebellion .with all respects to the parsi trading community who ended up on the shores of western india , let us not forget the military side of the persian empire and make it totally one sided .

  • 145. tarique said:

    the iranian government of today still follow the zorastrian new year and other customs left behind by the powerful empire.a lot of parsis visit iran during these festives . political changes took place in a lot of places over a period of time . the ottomon empires rule extended from central asia to persia to the entire arabia and coasts of africa , large parts of todays russia ,and major nations of eastern europe right up to the gates of vienna . today , after the collapse of the ottomans , it has settled down to a modern day ‘turkey’ founded by mustapha kemal ataturk .the turkish or ottomon empire was 7 times bigger than what it is today . yet ataturk accepted the changing power equations of modern times after turkey were subjucted to a large number of defeats after a glorious 600 year period of unchallenged power .the other leaders before mustapha kemal rufused to accept it .

  • 146. tarique said:

    ketaki, even today the world population of parsis is only around 1.4 lakhs and is decreasing.it proves that that the entire persian empire was not zoroastrian as widely believed.the ruling class was zoroastrian not the subjects .

  • 147. tarique said:

    indian , when i 1st started writing on this blog , uttar pradesh , being the core of all hatred being spread in the name of islam, was where i started it all here.read comment number 5 , on the jamia encounter blog , where i started the discussion at first .

  • 148. B Shantanu said:

    @ tarique: interesting observations about the economics of Madarasas…thanks for sharing that with us..

  • 149. v.c. krishnan said:

    Dear Tarique,
    If what you say is true I just hope the maulvis and the Indian priests in the villages lead the revolution. We can a great Bharat.
    God does not seem to work at both the ends. Must be with the rich Christian folk!
    Regards,
    vck

  • 150. ketaki (author) said:

    Tarique
    Thanks for the hisotry of Persians.
    You seem to miss the point.
    Zoroastrians were rich and powerful, alrite and had a huge history before Islam was even born (actually longer than Islam).

    The point of the mentioning them was not that.
    The point was that Islam wiped them out (those that refused to convert), and forced majority of them to leave for India.

    As for Navruz., sad inst it…Eid is bigger than Navruz for the Iranians.

  • 151. tarique said:

    ketaki , u r missing the point that zorastrians were rulers ,yet a minority . and the whole of iran did not come to india . it was a section of the trading and industrial community who fled fearing a danger to their lives . it happens even today all over the world . in 1991 , many kuwaiti rich arabs fled to UK and US , AFTER IRAQ INVADED IT .today most rich iraqis have fled to dubai . a lot of iranis fearing a US attack are shifting to dubai bases . during the irish war with britian , most irish rich shifted to america.besides eid is a religious festival in iran , where the majority is muslim . navruz is celebrated for many more days in iran today ,as a cultural festival.ketaki , before u read history u must learn to seperate conflicts and spiritualism ,religion and regionalism,human greed and human kindness.a history of invasions and wars only talks about brutal killings and destruction. they never talk about how humanity stood up after the destruction to reconstruct human lives .if the base of islam was falsehood , if every muslim was a killer let loose , do u think muslims would survive even in a muslim nation ?? muslims do not kill only non muslims , they kill a lot of their co religionists as well . it is greed and power that drives these acts rather than the koran.a human weakness for political space created groups that created ‘dirty politics ‘ resulting in justification of human killings and hate culture.yet the majority of common people of all faiths died in these conflicts and their sacrifice did not go waste . the world has survived to live for another day . the politics of human killings can be a ‘power based’ ideology and not a religion at all.the base of every religion was to subsidise human violence and killings , and spread love and hope .it may have recieved a few setbacks but ultimately it will triumph and settle down .

  • 152. tarique said:

    a muslim boy went up to a moulvi and complained that his call for prayer (azaan)had no sweet melody in it . the moulvi shot back ”at a salary of 1200 per month do u a expect a mohammed rafi out of my voice ”

  • 153. khadar basha said:

    iam sorry if iam wrong with this. One brother had asked that why did allah make this life on earth untill 7th century does make mistake. I want to ask him why do u have such a long period grow up and require food to feed ur self simply u say u and i require food to energy thats the solution u have brother allah! if wanted to make them he can and u also bcz on this earth every one life standig on his denstiny written by Allah condisdering all aspects u r in and because u and expects some but happen or not but the creater doesn’t expect any thing because he is more superior to our knowledge than u and i and any one on this earth who had life cann’t say how superior is god ALLAH almity even messneger also they also expect only but creature of u me and every one every living creature on this and this whole universe u can’t find end point but he knows every thing.
    And now my quession is that how can i proove that living beigns who born with flesh and blood on this earth cannot be equal to AllAH. how ?

  • 154. B Shantanu said:

    @ Khadar: I could not understand the point you are trying to make…

    Can you pl. explain? or be a bit clearer?

    ***

    @ All: I am considering opening a second thread here if the number of comments exceeds 155….

  • 155. Naved Zia said:

    There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad (pbuh) is the Messenger of Allah.

    A Muslim believes in the existence of that which is beyond human perception. A Muslim believes in Allah and His attributes. A Muslim believes in the angels, the scriptures, and the Prophets. A Muslim believes in the Hereafter and what it entails of the Resurrection, Heaven and Hell, the Balance, and the Bridge and other details mentioned in the Quran and the authentic Sunnah. So without Imaan, we would not even exist.

    From what you guys state here, I am afraid you have read or learnt nothing about Islam.

    Anyhow.. Dr Zakir Naik is not trying to prove the Quran to be the word of God, with the help of science. What he is trying to do, he brings a compatibility, and shows the superiority Quran – That what your science has told us yesterday… Quran has told us 14 hundred years ago. He is trying to prove that our yard stick… the Muslim yardstick… the Quran, is far superior to your yard stick – The science. Therefore, you should believe in Quran, which is far superior.

    Bible was not revealed in English – It is Old Testament in Hebrew, New Testament in Greek. Though Jesus Christ peace be upon him, spoke Hebrew – But the original Manuscript that you have – it is in Greek. The Old Testament, the original Hebrew is not available – do you know that? The Hebrew translation of the Old Testament is from the Greek – So even the original Old Testament, which is in Hebrew, is not present in Hebrew. So you have a double problem – No wonder you have scribal errors, etc. But the Quran – Alhamdulillah, the original Arabic is maintained. It has been… Alhamdulillah scientifically – you can prove it is the same.

    The Quran says in Surah Al-Rad, Chapter. 13, Verse 38, that Allah Subhanawataala has sent down several Revelations. By name only 4 are mentioned – The Torah, the Zaboor, the Injeel and the Quran. The Torah is the Wahi, which was given to Moses, peace be upon him. The Zaboor is the Revelation, the Wahi which was given to David, peace be upon him. Injeel is the Revelation, Wahi which was given to Jesus, peace be upon him. And Quran is the last and final Revelation which was given to the last and final Messenger, Prophet Mohammed, may peace be upon him.

    But the present Bible is not the Injeel, which we believe in, which, was revealed to Jesus Christ peace be upon him. This Bible according to us, it may contain the words of God – But it also contains words of Prophets, words of historians, it contains absurdities, obscenity, as well as innumerable scientific errors. If there are scientific points mentioned in the Bible – there are possibilities – why not? It may be part of the word of God, in the Bible. But what about the scientific errors? – What about the unscientific portions? – Can you attribute this to God?

    As Jesus Christ, peace be upon him said…‘Search ye the truth, and the truth shall free you.’ We have the Old Testament, we have the New Testament – Now you should follow the Last and Final Testament, which is the Glorious Quran.

    We have many a number of versions of the Bible and it does not exist anymore in the original form either in memory or text anywhere on the earth, nor has it existed as such for at least 1,500 or more years. Infact none of the religious scripture exist in its original form… they have been revised. The Quran on the other hand, is exactly preserved and memorized as it was during the lifetime of the holy prophet, peace be upon him. The teachings of Islam from the Quran and the hadeeth of Muhammad, peace be upon him, are very clear and available in the original texts in Arabic for whomsoever would like to read them. Allah has said that he would preserve His deen till eternity.

    ISLAM is a great religion – it represents the final word of god – it is a matter of individual conscience whether you accept or reject it at an existential level — one man could not be defeated over a period of 23 years -despite attempts at assasination — there are now 1.3 billion muslims and fourteen centuries of history-god will defend his own faith. If a person could not arrive at belief through the miracle of his own intellect, after obviously having studied Islam thoroughly enough to debate with a Muslim, nothing could turn his heart.

    “Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).” (Qur‘an 2:7).

    Prof. Tejasen accepted Islam on the strength of just one scientific ‘sign’ mentioned in the Quran. Some people may require ten signs while some may require hundred signs to be convinced about the Divine origin of the Quran. Some would be unwilling to accept the Truth even after being shown a thousand signs. The Quran condemns such a closed mentality in the verse:

    “Deaf, dumb and blind, They will not return (To the path).” [Al-Quran 2:18]

    The Quran contains a complete code of life for the individual and society. Alhamdulillah (Praise be to Allah), the Quranic way of life is far superior to the ‘isms’ that modern man has invented out of sheer ignorance. Who can give better guidance than the Creator Himself? I pray that this humble effort is accepted by Allah, to whom I pray for mercy and guidance (Aameen).

    Also, all your answers to the questions you posted here are at the below post. I dont intend to attack your thoughts, all I want is to present to you the truth.. Islam as it is and not as many non-muslims think it to be. As I said.. want to clear the air.

    http://navedz.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/is-the-quran-god%e2%80%99s-word/
    http://navedz.wordpress.com/2008/12/24/the-quran-and-modern-science-compatible-or-incompatible/
    http://navedz.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/then-which-of-the-favours-of-your-lord-will-you-deny/

    People try and link terrorists with Islam which is wrong. Terrorists do not have a religion. They use it as a mantle to do what their religion forbids. At its heart is the desire to meet their own narrow agenda.

    If we look into the historic records, it proves that a large number of terrorist acts in the 20th and 21st century were committed by non-Muslims. The so-called global phenomenon of “Islamic terrorism/militant Islam” was a creation of the western governments and their media outlets. Politics lies at the heart of labeling Muslims across the globe as perpetrators of terror acts.

    Dr. Zakir, who is one of the Muslim world’s leading and most prolific speakers, has quoted from the scriptures of other religions and has proved that associating killing with Islam is incorrect.

    “It says in the Book of Numbers that whoever worships other than God should be killed,” he said, referring to the Bible, yet such militant verses were conveniently ignored by the Western media.

    “In every religion there are black sheep and the media keep putting these people forward. This is a media conspiracy and a way of pushing people away from Islam.” he added.

    No religion encourages terrorist acts or violence. Islam is a religion of PEACE. It doesn’t teach us to kill unlike other religions. Muslims start their greetings with “As-salaam-wa Alaikum Wa Rahmatu Allah Wa Barakatuh”, which means in English “May GOD’s peace, mercy and blessings be upon you.”

    Allah states : “Whoever kills a human being [unjustly]… then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life it is as though he had saved all mankind.”

    No one probably ever heard of such a stunning message of peace, which considers killing just one person (be it innocent or not) tantamount to killing the entire humanity? The doubters should not have any more skepticism about Muslim’s claim that “Islam is a religion of peace”. The unjustified criticisms of and spitting venoms at Islam by the hateful Islam-bashers got to stop now.

    Palestinians are called terrorists just because they are fighting to get their land back. We can cite the examples of LTTE (in Sri Lanka), IRA (in UK), Lord’s Salvation Army, which trains the young children to conduct terrorist attacks, and many other non-Muslim terrorist outfits. The lives claimed by these outfits are more than the ones by the SO CALLED Muslim terrorists.

    Naxalites/Maoists across India and the LTTE in Sri Lanka were non- Muslim terror organisations, which had had developed pan regional bases beyond national boundaries. Other such non-Muslim terror outfits included the United Liberation Front of Asom, National Democratic Front of Bodoland and All Tripura Tiger Force in the Northeast.

    On international examples, the Japanese Red Army, Lord’s Salvation Army and the ETA in Spain were also non-Islamic in character and composition.

    So nothing is more removed from truth as to suggest that Muslims have monopolized terrorism. The Irish Republican Army, which was considered to be terrorist group, has a history of 100 years of violence against the British, but the British government doesn’t seem to be scared about them as they are about radical Islamic groups. Besides, even a single killing by a Muslim is condemned by Islam, whatsoever the reasons. Islam does not justify using wrong means to reach the right goals. People should not take the law in their hands.

    India has seen maximum number of communal riots in recent years. Politicians have been using the ‘Divide and Rule Policy’ to secure their vote banks. However, the masses should not get instigated by them. Terrorism is a monopoly of politicians. People, regardless of their religion, wish to live harmonious lives, but politicians feed the feeling of hatred amongst them.

    What is happening in Palestine.. some people have the opinion that it is muslim terrorsim. I think you are not aware of what has been happening.. they need to read the authentic history. you would know about the biggest ever robbery in history for 20th century.. read up on the history of Palestine and Israel.

    Read about a group of people homeless in Europe. Read about them set their eyes on a land they not only wanted to live in, but rule over. Read about them coming into Palestine and throwing people out of their homes, bulldozing them down and making people refugees in their own land. Read about bloodshed, read about their domination, occupation spreading like a infectious disease. Read about their sophisticated missiles and tanks, whose design, manufacture was aided in Britain and America; massacre families, and the resistance of the Palestinians named as terrorism. Palestinians who grew up generation after generation in the muddy squalor of refugee camps in their own land attempted to fight this occupation with whatever they had. Read it all.

    http://navedz.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/top-5-lies-about-israel%e2%80%99s-assault-on-gaza/
    http://navedz.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/the-biggest-robbery-of-the-20th-century/

    For further interaction visit my site http://navedz.wordpress.com/

    Regards,

    Naved Zia

    .
    *** Pl. continue the discussion on this thread ***

  • 156. Patriot said:

    @Naved:

    What would you have to say about this discourse on your prophet?
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/History.htm

    And, allah is the only god? What a terribly, terribly narrow view to have … have you looked at my god? You can find his noodlyness here:
    http://www.venganza.org

    Seriously, get a life or at least stop wasting the one that you currently have.

    Cheers

  • 157. Patriot said:

    “hat what your science has told us yesterday… Quran has told us 14 hundred years ago. He is trying to prove that our yard stick… the Muslim yardstick… the Quran, is far superior to your yard stick – The science.”

    Ummmmmm, really? Some evidence please?

    Just the proof that the Quran discovered penicillin should be enough?

    Oh and yes, cars.

    Thank you.

  • 158. Patriot said:

    BTW, Naved, you say:

    “The Quran on the other hand, is exactly preserved and memorized as it was during the lifetime of the holy prophet, peace be upon him”

    Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllly? Pls prove this with a proper chain of custody evidence link.

    Thank you

  • 159. Patriot said:

    Oh, Naved, one final thing:

    As I read Islamic history and history of the Arabian peninsula, I find that Mohammad drove out the Jews from Medina for being non-believers, and killed all those who refused to convert or leave.

    So, if we are setting right historical wrongs, I think we should start with Medina – pls let me know when the muslim community is ready to hand it over to the jews.

    Also, since you say that Islam does not justify the killing of any innocent and that wrong means for a right end are unacceptable, I trust that you are going to write a post denouncing Faizullah and Osama bin Laden. Send me a link when you have done that.

    Thanks.

    .
    *** Pl. continue the discussion on this thread ***

  • 160. B Shantanu said:

    *** NOTE by MODERATOR ***

    Comments on this post may please be continued on this link (Part II) .

    This is to avoid comment overload on a single thread. Please continue the discussion here:Join the discussion on Islam, Hindutva, Dr Zakir Naik – Part II

    Thanks.