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

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.

Dear Shantanu,
you have stated
The original video was not about Dr. Zakir Naik’s comments which have been referred to by Mohammed Ali (below). It was to do with his remarks on a different subject – unfortunately it is no longer available on youtube

Everyone should know that the reason I’m defending the points said by Zakir Naik even though The original video was not about Dr. Zakir Naik’s comments is because I found the following posted by a Mr. Jagmohan Singh Khurmi on the same forum where Zakir Naik’s “no longer available on youtube” video was posted.

Mr. Khurmi had written thus-

Here the great faithful let us know why it is right to kill us infidels : http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina51022.htm
…by the way, there is another chapter in faithfreedom.org ( I am yet to find the exact link there) which shows the transcript of two muslim chatters referring to a terrorist training camp in ( or near ) Mumbai, connected with Zakir Naik !

I think the people ought to know why I am writing about a topic that wasn’t even mentioned in the initial post.

@ Mohammed: Thanks for your clarifications in comments # 3 and 4 above.

Let me respond to the your last but one comment extracted on the post beginning with: “Just for my information, are there any posts on your blog condemning the Hindu-led state sponsored riots by the Ugly Indian (Modi)…”

This is a topical blog. The simple reason that there is not a single post on the blog condemning the riots in Godhra is that the blog did not exist in 2002.

That said, thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify my views. I sincerely mean it. In fact, I probably will end up writing a post on Godhra.

In the meantime, here is my position on Godhra, Mr Modi etc.

1. There can never be any justification for taking the lives of innocent people (and lets not forget that it was not just Muslims who were killed in the riots and several thousand Hindus had to flee their homes as well – I am not justifying anything just mentioning this fact in the interest of completeness)

2. If the people who did this, did it in the name of Shri Ram or Hinduism, they are not only ignorant of the fundamentals of Hinduism, they are also insulting its great traditions and principles

3. I will not even attempt to get into the argument of whether Hindutva taught them to do this (can I point out that unlike the Quran – which has verses that can be interepreted as commands to go and kill the infidels, Hindu/Vedic texts do not have any sunch injunctions)

4. As for comments on my site, I have repeatedly said that I am for freedom of expression – which is why I let comments stand even if I do not always agree with them – If you do not agree with this principle of freedom of thought/expression, that is another matter

5. As for the “hero-worship” of Mr Modi, it is subject – which I am sure you will agree – deserves a separate post in itself

Hope that clarifies somewhat.

In the interest of a full debate, can you also please clarify your position on

· The principle of banning Rsuhdie’s books and Danish cartoons while allowing Shri Husain’s exhibition of paintings containing “offensive images” of certain Hindu deities?

· The terrorist acts that are committed in the name of “Allah” – the latest example being the man who tried to ram a car into Glasgow Airport?

· The quotes and remarks in Quran that are interpreted as justification for such acts?

Can you also comment on Tanveer Ahmed’s article which I posted yesterday: Islam’s “uncomfortable truths”? https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/07/08/islams-uncomfortable-truths/

And finally, you may find this debate interesting: https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/05/29/can-islam-reform-itself/

And I still need to find the link to the Zakir Naik video that was originally linked to on my blog – which is something that I am sure you will find interesting (it had something to with conversion, not definition of terrorism or terrorist training camps).

P.S. As for comments on what faithfreedom.org says and does not say, don’t you think its better to argue about that on faithfreedom’s site rather than here?

***************

@ Ajay: Please be careful with your words. As I requested at the beginning of this post:
please stick to civil language; please refrain from personal insults; please avoid dismissive arguments; and of course, no abuse or vulgarity allowed…

***************

@ Nandagopal: Thank you for your comment and quotes. Mohammed: I look forward to your response to these as well.

***************

Thanks everyone for contributing to the debate.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

———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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

Well said Solomon.

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.

@ Shantanu
I requested you to take your time and respond to my comments by quoting me because text debate is by default prone to misunderstanding, dropping of points, misrepresentations etc. And I do know that it takes time to respond and i mentioned that as well. It would’ve been better if you responded by quoting me instead of a general essay with a quote here and one there. Anyway, you say you’ve closed that discussion.

If I had a opinionated site on, say global warming, and some user gave me a link to a site encouraging pollution and I acknowledged it and left it on the site, it means I would like people to read that and come to their own conclusion.

After reading my acknowledgement, anyone would assume that I have read the pollution article.
>>If I stay silent and do not give my point of view, others visiting the site would assume that I read it (since I said I’ll check out the site) and would look forward to what I had to say.
>>On seeing no response, they would assume that I either agree or disagree. My silence could be interpreted as a ‘yes I agree’ or ‘No, I disagree’ (there can be no neutral position as mine is a heavily opinionated blog).
If the interpretation is ‘yes, i agree’, then people would ask me why I agree.
If i told them their’s is the wrong interpretation and that I actually ‘disagree’, well and good.
>>But if I say that their interpretation is correct and ‘I agree’ with what is on that site, people are going to ask me how I can put it up on a site where I’m preaching Global Warming?
At that point, I have to step forward and clarify.If I say, ” it is another user’s comment. I just said I will have a look and never did,” the question asked will be, “How were we supposed to know.”

@ Indian

He is arguing with us on Quran and Zakir Niak and in reply to our post he will say I am not the part of Zakir Niak, and stick to Zakir Niak.

The only reason I’n bringing Quran in the middle is because people are asking me about it. I did not bring it in to start preaching.

***** COMMENT 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.

To Mohammed Ali

Cont’d from previous post:

Part II

I would have to confess that I am not a scholar on islam, but I have done my share of reading. I have read Muhammad Asad’s translation of the Qur’an (I think it is highly regarded amongst muslims) and I have occasionally read from the website islamic-study.org. On the other hand, I also visit sites like ff.org and thereligionofpeace.com. I have also read “Infidel” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali (incidentally he is a former member of the Dutch Parliament) and “The Trouble with Islam” by Irshad Manji, and I am currently half-way through reading “Why I am not a muslim” by Ibn Warraq. You know, these authors recently gave a joint statement/declaration which is as follows: We recommend separation of religion from the state and the observance of universal human rights. We recommend governments of the world to reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; we further oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostasy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and hope that muslims all over the world eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women.

Now, most radical muslims would have serious issues with these “recommendations”. One of my good friends Omar, with whom I have had hours of discussion on religion, is by the way, an apostate. He converted to Christianity. Thankfully, he lives here in Australia, so he will be safe from your shariah law!!

A key issue most religious scholars have with islam is that it does not respect pluralism. It is a theocratic religion. Like any other autocratic regimes, a theocracy will use violence if necessary to suppress dissent. Islam has been and continues to be a violent religion. It was spread by the sword and it believes in aggressively converting or conquering “infidels”. This infidel mentality has landed muslims in their current predicament where the the rest of the world views them with suspicion. There is a negative image in the world regarding islam–no question about it. Otherwise, my dear friend, how would explain the fact that islam is in conflict with all major religions of the world: Judaism in the Middle East, Christianity in the Balkans, Chechnya, Nigeria, Sudan, the Philippines and Indonesia, and Europe; and Buddhism and Hinduism in South Asia and Taoism and Confucianism in Western China?

This starts with the infidel philosophy which the muslims have practiced for centuries. The philosophy is flawed. Islam is bent on the destruction of every worldview that does not accept and subjugate to the rule of islam. Unfortunately, and please correct me here if I am way off, this attitude flows directly from the words of the quran. Look at what is happening in England. Look at what happened after the Danish newspapers published cartoons of the prophet?

Finally, to end my long post, this is part of a very well-written piece by a good religion columnist in a recent editiorial here (Sorry to copy-paste, I normally do not resort to it but this says exactly what I think most people in the world today feel):
“Islamic fundamentalism is indeed a violent political force. It is supported by theologically conservative clerics, theocratic Islamist states, and terrorist groups that mould their fanatical brand of faith with a hunger for worldly power. Only a bigot or a fool would suggest that all muslims are fundamentalists. But it is also utterly disingenous to argue, as many muslims do, that there is no connection between political islamism and the retrograde religious beliefs held by huge numbers of muslims around the world. International terrorism and the repression of women are connected to fundamentalist islam.”

I am sorry if my post has offended anyone, that was not my aim. Hopefully I have answered most of Mohammed Ali’s queries. He particularly put them in “bold” typeface and twice, in case I missed them!

Peace all…cheers and God bless!

Sol

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

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?

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 .

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.”

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.

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!

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

Dear Energy: Editorial control is a delicate right – and I hope I exercise it with restraint and judgement – It was not the “terrorist” related comment I deleted (I think you maybe referring to comment #9 to the “As ye sow” post?) but something else – I will not reproduce it here but I felt it was abusive (at least in my opinion – but I am not God, only human).

The intention was not to insult you or devalue your contribution – it was to ensure that the parameters that I had set for this discussion were maintained.

You are free to be informal and non-apologetic on this blog – that is not a problem. I am all for free speech, hard arguments and straight words.

However, sometimes in the heat of the moment, we may say certain things/use words that (may) convey the wrong impression…If and when that happens, or if/when our comments become abusive, insulting or vulgar, we blunt the sharpness of our arguments and lessen the credibility of the debate.

I value you as a reader and a commentator on this blog and save for this one comment, I have had no occasion to find fault with your other remarks.

I sincerely hope you will continue to watch and join the discussion – and keep commenting on this blog. Thanks.

***

@ Mohammed (#46): Take your time.
.

Jai Hind, Jai Bharat.

Solomon, You are the best!

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.

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.

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

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.

@ 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.

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.

Interesting discussion

Hi, Thiagan

Great going. Keep Up.

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.

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.

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? That’s 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, I’ve given the answer in post #61.

Solomon said
Moreover, let’s 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 can’t 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 USA’s 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? Don’t 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 that’s all there is to it. That’s 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 you’ve 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 years—exploding 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, here’s 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. It’s for him).

Thirdly, (I’m 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 don’t even know who he is. I’m 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 weren’t 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 don’t see why Jadeja can’t 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 aren’t 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 hasn’t 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.”

01/08/07

Ali says:
“As per the political fallout, I’ve 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, Sadaam’s 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.

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.

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?

08/08/07

Ali

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

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

Thiagan,

Yes, Exactly!

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?

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

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.

@ 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“

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

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

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 .

@ 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 Rushdie’s books and Danish cartoons while allowing Shri Husain’s 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 Ahmed’s article: Islam’s “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.

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

(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

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,

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.

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.

*** 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

@ Mohammed Ali, you wrote :
” Osama bin Laden is a covert cowardly man who sends innocents into a war by misinterpreting the Quran who’s 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…

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:

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

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

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

https://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.

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.

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…

Unite all Indians…….Jai Hind…..

*** 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 didn’t 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 woman’s 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 don’t 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 salaam’s 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 moon’s 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.

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 don’t 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 doesn’t 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

”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.

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.

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 .

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 .

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?

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.

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 .

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 .

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 .

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

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 .

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 ?

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 ***

“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.

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 ***