Early in January 2003, in Kashmir, three Muslim women were slaughtered for showing their face in public.
Also in January 2003 three Christian missionaries were gunned down in Yemen. In November 2002 Nigerian Muslims took to the street and at least two hundred people lay dead and hundreds wounded.
In October 2002, in Bali, Indonesia, a bomb claimed nearly two hundred lives. In September 2002, in Karachi, seven Pakistani Christians were gunned down, execution style, at a charity organization.
In January 2002 Daniel Pearl, an American journalist was abducted in Karachi and was later butchered.
In March 2002 five people were killed in an attack on a church in Islamabad, Pakistan.
In October 2001, in the Punjab, Pakistan, sixteen worshippers were killed in an attack on a church.
In September 2001 two aircraft, piloted by suicide bombers, crashed into the World Trade Center in New York, killing three thousand people.
This is not meant to be a catalogue of violence committed around the world in recent years. Such a catalogue would be unconscionably longer than the above account and would, for example, include the Gujarat riots of last year that claimed a thousand lives. Going only a few more years in the past, it would include the massacre of twenty-nine Muslim worshippers in the West Bank of Palestine by a Jewish fanatic.
What, however, distinguishes the events listed above from some of the other acts of violence is their common denominator: all of them were acts by Muslims who were waging war against the infidels or against those fellow Muslims who did not conform to their idea of Islam. This is not to suggest that violence by Islamic fundamentalists is entirely new. In Algeria, dozens of women have been killed over the past decade for not wearing the hijab. State- sponsored terror in various forms to enforce strict Islamic tenets is endemic in Iran and was notorious in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.
How does one, especially a Muslim, look at the increasing use of violence and terror, whether to defeat the infidel or to make better Muslims out of otherwise ordinary Muslims? "What went wrong?", a leading western scholar of Islam has asked in the title of his latest book and that question has probably been on many minds. One might even ask whether there is anything "wrong" at all. Among the Muslims themselves a systematic examination of such questions has, however, been rare. It is as if Muslim thinking has shelved itself in a cocoon, from which it is unable to extricate in order to have a better look at Islam in a changed world.
How have Muslims reacted to some of the most recent acts of terror and violence? In most cases, in must be acknowledged, the silence was deafening. Apart from official condolences and assurances that the culprits would be brought to book, few voices have been raised against atrocities committed on innocent non-Muslims and non-observant Muslims.
Newspapers have certainly not filled with protests. People have not demonstrated in the streets, either in the country where the violence was committed or elsewhere. Massive street demonstrations to protest oppression and injustice are a normal feature of the political landscape in most non-Arab Muslim countries.
How many people took to the street in protest in Pakistan, for example, when the Christian worshippers were gunned down or when Sunni fanatics butchered Shias or when Shia extremists murdered Sunnis? Or in Kashmir, when the three women were murdered?
This is not to suggest that nobody worries about the increasing incidence of violence. But the worry is strangely muted and, more importantly, couched in distinctly defensive terms. The dominant reaction to acts of violence by fellow religionists has been to point out that Islam does not approve of them.
It is enough to summarize here the arguments generally put forward. For that purpose I shall use below a newspaper article that I came across immediately after the Bali bombings, and a number of others that appeared since September 11, 2001. These are fairly typical and the arguments can be stated in general terms without attribution.
Islam was never a religion of violence and intolerance and therefore, so the argument went, the Bali bombing and other acts of terror were unIslamic and hence condemnable. The Prophet of Islam himself was a kind and compassionate man and was opposed to any unjustifiable violence. A number of ahadith have been cited to suggest how he abhorred violence and intolerance.
One hadith, for example, states: "He is not one of us who incites class prejudice or fights for class interest or die in its pursuit". In another he said: "Seek refuge from the curse of the oppressed %u2026.for the portals of God are always open to the oppressed and innocent ones". Furthermore, "He who knowingly lends support to tyranny is outside the pale of Islam".
I am not sure that the ahadith cited are strong evidence of indictment of violence and terror in the present context, and those who cite them have probably not done a good job in scouring the relevant literature. But I shall leave it at that for the present and move on to the Qur%u2019an. Among the verses of the Qur%u2019an that have often been quoted to show that Islam does not condone violence are the following:
" Let there be no compulsion in religion "[Sura Baqara. (II.256). (Translation by Yusuf Ali in this and in the rest of the quotations from the Qur%u2019an)]; " Those who believe (in the Qur%u2019an) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians%u2026.shall have their reward from their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve" [ ibid. II:62]; "Thus have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced%u2026." [ ibid. II: 143]. In some translations the last citation is "We have made you a moderate sect", the emphasis here being on moderation. It can be argued that all of these statements can be interpreted in ways other than in defense of Islam as a religion of peace, but this need not detain us here.
In one of the latest writings (after Bali) I also found this quotation: " O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other" [Sura Hujurat. (XLIX: 13)]. Also cited as codes of modesty and decorum required of a Muslim: " When a (courteous) greeting is offered to you, meet it with a greeting still more courteous, or (at least) of equal courtesy" [ Sura Nisa. (IV:86)].
The idea behind the last citation is, of course, to suggest that a people who are required to be so polite cannot be expected to be violent or cruel at the same time.
Perhaps more immediately relevant to the issues of intolerance, the breeding ground of violence, is this verse: "To each among you have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single People, but (His Plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues." [ Sura Maida. V: 48 ]. This has been seen as an affirmation of pluralism.
On the other hand, Muslims whose acts of violence the above quotations are meant to decry can come up with an array of quotations from the Qur%u2019an and hadith as well as instances from Islam%u2019s history to bolster their point of view. They could, for example, cite the following from the Qur%u2019an: "%u2026.fight and slay the Pagans whenever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)" [Sura Tauba. (IX:5)].
There is, in the same verse, advice to relent but only if the adversary becomes true Muslims, " if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity%u2026." . A comparable verse is: " Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" [Sura Tauba ( IX:29)]. It is easy to bring in more quotations in the same vein but this is unnecessary. This also ends my reference to recent writings.
The history of mankind is spattered with blood and religious wars have been among the bloodiest. The wars among Catholics and Protestants in Europe and the Inquisitions stand out in the history of man%u2019s cruelty to man for the sake of his soul. Islam%u2019s history was no exception. And, again, those who wish to find support for their cult of cruelty can find a great deal of it in history. That history, for example, tells the story of the massacre of the entire male population of Banu Quraiza believed to number between 600 and 700, soon after the Battle of the Trench in the year 627 AD/ 5 AH.
There have been differences of opinion on the circumstances of the massacre, but the magnitude of the blood bath has never been in question. The enormity of the massacre was such that some Islamic commentators have found it necessary to point out that it was done according to Jewish law. This is a reference, specifically, to Moses%u2019 command to his people in the Old Testament: "And when the LORD thy God hath delivered [the besieged city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword.[ Deuteronomy:20:13 ]
Those who are willing to murder for religion can also find sustenance in what I believe to be the first assassination in Islamic history. The Jewish poet Ka%u2019b bin Al-Ashraf , of the tribe Banu Nadir, was a sworn enemy of Islam and was writing slanderous poems about the religion and its prophet. He soon become insufferable to the Muslims and a group of assassins, led by Muhammad b. Maslama, and with the express blessing of the Prophet (SM), tricked him out of his house at night and murdered him. Ibn Ishaq ( d. 622 AD/ 151AH.) the Arab historian, describes the assassination in gory detail.[ Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, English translation entitled The Life of Muhammad by A. Guillaume. Oxford University Press, Karachi. 1967.p.368.] The Sahih Al-Bukhari [ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Darussalam Publishers, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Vol. 5. 1997. pp. 221-223] fully confirms the story.
A Muslim who does not condone violence would of course point out that Arab society, both Pagan or Jewish, in the early days of Islam was a violent one and that certain events and Qur%u2019anic statements should be judged in their historical context. That violence is easy to illustrate, and some of that were meted out to the Muslims in the early days of Islam. For example, the Prophet (SM) had sent a group of six Muslims to some Bedouin tribes of Najd, at the latter%u2019s request, to instruct them in practices of Islam. All of them were brutally killed. Two of them were sold to the Quraish in Mecca and were killed by crucifixion, a practice not considered unusual in those days.
This, however, is unlikely to sway those who see themselves as custodians of %u2018true%u2019 Islam which to them is unvarying and eternal, and to whom there is no %u2018historical context%u2019 to necessary cruelty. They would only point out that the six murdered Muslims were among the early martyrs of Islam and would commend them. And they could claim to be able to reel off from history a whole series of events and actions, which are cruel only to the infidels and today%u2019s Muslim bleeding hearts who do not want true Islam established. They could, for example, cite the following punishment meted out by the Prophet (SM) himself as an example of legitimate cruelty:
A group of people from out of Medina lived in the city for sometime and then expressed their desire to return home. The Prophet (SM) provided them a shepherd on their return journey. At one point these ungrateful people killed the shepherd. According to the Sahih Al-Bukhari, "When the news reached the Prophet (SM), he sent some people in their pursuit. When they were brought, he cut their hands and feet and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron". [ibid. Vol.7. p.329]
It is impossible for two opposing points of view of Islam -- one that sees only peace, harmony, and humanity in Islam and the other that legitimate violence and even cruelty -- both to be right. This also makes it impossible to take a dispassionate look at violence that uses religion as its springboard through the lens of religion itself. Religion, or rather its standard bearers, when it sought peace in its dealings with people of other faith, has done so only on its own terms. Islam, the newest of the great monotheist religions was no exception.
Some of the quotations from the Qur%u2019an given above illustrate this. To attempt to examine the violence we have been talking about from an %u2018Islamic%u2019 viewpoint alone would be to entangle oneself in the cocoon I alluded to above. Muslims who protest against violence, cruelty and terror and believe in non-violence would do far better to look at these issues through other lenses as well.
It is all too easy to forget that, in large parts of the world, society is more humane and tolerant today than it was only a couple of hundred years ago, and that this had little to do with religion. Neither is formal religion the only or even the main fountain of morality and human decency. The abolition of slavery was brought about by voices of protest that drew their strength from liberal thinking, as well as by changing economic necessity. Formal religion never called for its abolition.
The Quakers had a role in the abolition of the institution, but they were themselves persecuted by mainstream Christianity, which was more concerned with the soul of the slave than with his status. While Islam has called for treating slaves humanely and in some cases encouraged freeing them, the abolition of the system was never the idea. It certainly was no sin, either in Christianity or in Islam, to own slaves, and the institution flourished throughout the ascendancy of both religions.
Back in Bengal, to two great Bengalis belong the credit for the abolition of the suttee and the introduction of laws that allowed young Hindu widows to marry. Both of them held unorthodox religious views. In fact, both Raja Ram Mohun Roy and Ishvar Chandra Vidyasagar had to fight the bigotry of their co-religionists to bring about the two great reforms in eighteenth century Bengal. In both men their religion paled beside their humanism.
It is through the lens of what is broadly called secular humanism that Muslims who are against violence and terror waged in the name religion has to look at the world and the place of Islam in it. Not incidentally, this is also the most effective way one can stand up to bigotry that undoubtedly exists among people of other faiths as well. Secular humanism might mean somewhat different things to different people but its broad features are too well known to need elaboration here. It suffices for me to conclude by illustrating what it is not.
In the month of Ramadan last year, I read a brief article in a premier newspaper in New York. It was written by a young Muslim woman, an immigrant brought up in America, and an ardent new lover of Islamic ideals. Dwelling on the beauty of fasting, she pointed out that giving in charity was its most glorious complement. And she went on to narrate how moved she was by the idea, put to her by an Islamic charity foundation, that only a modest donation could feed a Muslim family in Bosnia for a month. The idea that there were, in that same holy month, millions of other hungry human beings around the world, but who happened not to belong to her faith, probably never crossed her mind. That was NOT secular humanism.
The article, written some six weeks ago, was originally meant for the print media and was sent to a leading English daily newspaper in Dhaka to which I occasionally contribute. It was not published for reasons not made known to me. Past experience tells me, however, that any writing that even remotely looks %u2018critical%u2019 of Islam stands little chance of acceptance in the print media in our society. ]
So much for our freedom of thought! It saddens me to publish an article on a particular strain of violence, just as the violence of a war rages. I almost wish I had published this article in quieter times. But the issues raised here remain valid even as a war is being waged and will not go away after it is over. ( Author )
Author Mahfuzur Rahman is a former United Nations official.
RE:Violence, terror, and Islam
by ratnajayant gudavally on May 22, 2007 03:29 PM Permalink
Thank you Sir, May the true God Almighty who loves the whole world bless you and your knowledge. May it be useful for all the meek and humble non violent,Human beings.T
The self righteous have to answer God. Let's wait and watch.
RE:Which Religion supports Terrorism?
by Ibrahim Sheik on May 21, 2007 03:58 PM Permalink
Almost all the Religions have VIOLENCE component in it..... 1) Christiantiy Spread with the Dominance of King Constantine along with St.Paul... Thousands of Unitarian Christians, Pagans, Jews are slaughtered... to maintain Trinity.. 2) Only a few chapters in Koran depict Violence, but the entire Bhagavat Gita is about WAR..... 3) The injection of Vedic Hindusim on Common Hindus and maintain Upper caste Supremacy... 4) 5000 Years of Caste System Attrocity is no lesser evil than killing.. 5) Budhism flourished under the influence of Ashoka...
So all the Religions are spread with the Back ground of Power... Some are less successful and some are really successful....
RE:Which Religion supports Terrorism?
by prompt on May 21, 2007 04:48 PM Permalink
u mean to say its ISLAM are u the eyewitness for all the blasts & attacks people like u have the thinking that all muslims are terrorist if it is that u will be the first target
Ibrahim you have quite a regular in gaga over religion. Please tell us in Indian History who are these Mod Kasim Ghazni, Taimur, Nadir, Feroz Shah, Shah Abdul, Ghori, Babur, Arungzeb, Iktiar bin Bhaktiar. You mean to say all these were saints and god sent Angels, who have Uplifted and fed the poor and the needy. They have constructed Temples which included Somnath, Kasi, Vrindhavan, Mathura etc and provided state funds in the form of jiziya to the people. They built most famous temples, provided state funds for piligrimage for Amarnath, Kailash and Manasarovar.
They have named Hindu Kush in honour and resppect of the Hindus.
In your view do we have to take above in the described way.
Tell us all are this done on name of Religion of Peace.
If you think that all could convert to your religion you must be living in Fools paradise.
Tell us one thing and this is a classical example in Hyderabad "After the Bomb Blast in Hyderabad why your persons retorted to Throwing stones, looting, arson, rioting and vandalism. Cant they be peaceful enough to allow police to do their job.
Is this the works of Peaceful People ?
Ibrahim Shiek thumhari Jamat me a Bhashan Do thumhare anpad ghavar log ae bhaton kho sunenge and try your luck in Paki or Beggardesh. You can be succeful story writer and can earn a Booker Prize.
RE:Which Religion supports Terrorism?
by ABHIJIT ZENDE on May 21, 2007 07:20 PM Permalink
Idiot. The statistics shows that equal number of prostitutes of India are muslims. For eg. the bar club dancers in mubmai even more than 50% are muslims who are indulged in flesh trade
More than 50% of the bangladeshi muslim girls are too engaged in prostitution business.
Hence please deviate from making such nonsense statements. Your community is equally responsible for this
RE:Which Religion supports Terrorism?
by Bharat on May 21, 2007 03:59 PM Permalink
ISLAM....because we have enough evidance for this.... World trade centre attack, Parliment attack, mumbai train blast, malegaon blast, varanasi blast, UK serial blasts, Akshar dham temple attack, ISCKON temple attack, Delhi blast at the time of diwali.. list goes on...........
RE:Which Religion supports Terrorism?
by Rationalist on May 21, 2007 04:20 PM Permalink
London metro blasts, Mumbai metro, Amarnath genocide, Bali bomb blast,Kashmir,Sankat mochan, Coimbatore blast.......
RE:RE:Which Religion supports Terrorism?
by Rationalist on May 21, 2007 04:23 PM Permalink
Are those killed in above incedents not innocents according to you?What was thier sin?Being kafirs is it?
RE:Which Religion supports Terrorism?
by mayur on May 21, 2007 04:53 PM Permalink
For your kind information no religion supports Terrorism not even Islam. Killing innocent people is not the motto of Muslims if it would be so then you would`nt have got the time to write this comment because every religion support to be friendly in nature and not to fight and hurt your brothers. Remember one thing that people who are Illiterate are being targeted and used for this purpose.Who are responsible for that which has happend in gujrat we cannot blame the religion on the basis of this. Assume that you belong to some Y community and you unfortunately become a don and creating disturbance to the normal people%u2019s life. Who would be blamed you or your community in which you were. Think for a minute while making any statement, it shows indecency.You are not a kid because don't know what is what. I suggest you as a brother that never hurt anyone%u2019s feeling it%u2019s too bad. We are here to live together with love try to make others happy.
RE:RE:Which Religion supports Terrorism?
by ABHIJIT ZENDE on May 21, 2007 07:20 PM Permalink
Idiot. The statistics shows that equal number of prostitutes of India are muslims. For eg. the bar club dancers in mubmai even more than 50% are muslims who are indulged in flesh trade
More than 50% of the bangladeshi muslim girls are too engaged in prostitution business.
Hence please deviate from making such nonsense statements. Your community is equally responsible for this
RE:Which Religion supports Terrorism?
by Ibrahim Sheik on May 21, 2007 04:10 PM Permalink
Wow what a Great Answer, Dear Bharat, Please define Terrorism.. To me Terrorism means "Killing of Innocents", if that is the case then 1) The Bloody Sangh Gang are Terrorists 2) Mr. Bush is the King of All Terrorists... and the list goes on.....
RE:RE:Which Religion supports Terrorism?
by Ibrahim Sheik on May 21, 2007 04:11 PM Permalink
Do you an Interesting Stat, in India 98 % of the Prostitutes are Hindus, should I say "All Hindus are not Prostitutes but, all Prostitutes are Hindus"
RE:Which Religion supports Terrorism?
by ABHIJIT ZENDE on May 21, 2007 07:18 PM Permalink
Dear ibrahim
Idiot. The statistics shows that equal number of prostitutes of India are muslims. For eg. the bar club dancers in mubmai even more than 50% are muslims who are indulged in flesh trade
More than 50% of the bangladeshi muslim girls are too engaged in prostitution business.
Hence please deviate from making such nonsense statements. Your community is equally responsible for this
RE:RE:RE:Which Religion supports Terrorism?
by Rationalist on May 21, 2007 04:22 PM Permalink
Where did you get that stastics from? Anyway do you say prositutes are guitlty of what?
RE:Which Religion supports Terrorism?
by The Lion on May 21, 2007 04:39 PM Permalink
"Bhagavat Gita is about WAR" - poor escape! Its a narrated war which tells you that darma and truth alone wins. Its not yours violence. Nothing in this universe is ever comparable to it.
------------------------------------------------
"ALL MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS BUT, ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS".
RE:Which Religion supports Terrorism?
by Bharat on May 21, 2007 08:29 PM Permalink
dear Ibrahim, mind ur language. "ALL MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS BUT, ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS". there was a article in one of english daily on this subject. so, don't drag the things to other issue.... try to accept the reality....
RE:Which Religion supports Terrorism?
by ramesh yadav on May 21, 2007 04:47 PM Permalink
Dear Rahul
No Religion in the world preaches unhuman behaviours to any body. and no religion encourages terrorist activities of killing of innocent human beings. The thing is the egoism, the personal attitudes among the followers of the religion will dominate them to take up these unhuman things. Those who support these activities by saying that they are innocents are the real culprits and even dangerous of all these people.
RE:Which Religion supports Terrorism?
by Real on May 21, 2007 05:01 PM Permalink
Mr. Ibrahim sheik Bhagavat gita talks about war. But it doesn't tell to kill unbelievers, it tells to fight for justice. That is the difference.
Mosques is good place for Terrorists to hide and operate easily. It may be possible Terrorists have become now innocent MUSLIM hidden in Mosque and police is rading in KOKATA that to person who sells Mobile Phone....
RE:Are Actual Cuprits still hidden in Hyd Mosques ?
by Ibrahim Sheik on May 21, 2007 03:25 PM Permalink
INVITED FOR MOSQUE
Some of the Guys in this Board Pointed out that the Bombs are made in Mosques ???? Weird statements.. You have made good assumptions on Mosques, as Hatred Preaching Centers.. If you are ready with a Open Mind, come with me I will take you to a Madrassa. Spend all the Time you want to, Read all the Books and attend all the Religious Lectures... Stay as much as you can, It think then you will understand that what ever you are thinking is Wrong.... If you are really Open Minded come with Me, or if your Intention is just to Acuse Muslims, keep doing it for the Whole Life, Your acusing will not make any impact on Muslims...
Can you do the same Gesture, by inviting me to RSS Shakas, as a Indian Citizen I want to know, what great ideas you discuss on the Progress of Country...
I am confident that Mosques dont do anything against People, so I am inviting everyone.. if you have the same confidence, invite me to a RSS Shaka
RE:Are Actual Cuprits still hidden in Hyd Mosques ?
by Murali krishna on May 21, 2007 04:10 PM Permalink
If madarasa preached peace... there would never be a religion terrorist in this world. First try to accept that your people are creating trouble. There is more bad than good in Islam. Anywhere in the world... you can see that. Who are the problem creators.
RE:RE:Are Actual Cuprits still hidden in Hyd Mosques ?
by The Lion on May 21, 2007 04:47 PM Permalink
RSS shakha is nice place for a growing/emerging youth/children to shape themselves with fine characters, habits and devotion over this nation. They provide sticks like thin logs to practice self-defence. To simply tell, it could be like NSS/NCC camps. Nice about it. Its prode to be Indians here. So many eminent perosnalities are from this camps whom are not much spot lighted by media.
RE:RE:Are Actual Cuprits still hidden in Hyd Mosques ?
by Ibrahim Sheik on May 21, 2007 04:20 PM Permalink
The World is loosing Balance only with 5 % of Mis-understood Muslims.. If all are Terrorists according to you means, then it is hard to imagine the situation of the World... This World is there due to 95 % of True Muslims, please keep that in Mind....
RE:Are Actual Cuprits still hidden in Hyd Mosques ?
by prompt on May 21, 2007 03:46 PM Permalink
Ibrahim Sheikh,
I appreciate your confidence!!! I would like to tell you that, these people know the facts but are not ready to accept, its only because of their bogus self respect and because of corrupted politions, these politions make these people fools and these people follow the foot steps of these corrupted politions....
And morever our work is to invite, Hidayat will only be blessed by Allah. Just pray for it.
The day is not far,, they will understand the facts but pity to say they will not have even time to repent for their deeds....
RE:Are Actual Cuprits still hidden in Hyd Mosques ?
by Bharat on May 21, 2007 04:02 PM Permalink
Dear Mr. Ibrahim Sheikh, I will invite you to RSS shakha. give me ur contact number and address.
RE:Are Actual Cuprits still hidden in Hyd Mosques ?
by vivek hiremath on May 21, 2007 04:01 PM Permalink
sir, tell me. why muslims in indian subcontinent demanded for separate nation for themselves to be carved out from then unified india where ever muslims were in majority. although they were well aware that still devided india is going to have more muslims than pakistan. truth is islam teaches her followers either convert kafir ( non beleivers) to islam or kill him. whenever muslims find themselves in majority they become ruthless and start their activities , just like demanding separate nation , why they didnt thought of for those muslims, to be in more numbers than themselves, who are going to remain in divided india ? and i understand muslims in present india voted in bulk for separate pakistan than muslims in today's pakistan. i really fail to understand with more muslims remaining in india what muslims in general got for themselves by creating pakistan?
RE:Are Actual Cuprits still hidden in Hyd Mosques ?
by Ibrahim Sheik on May 21, 2007 04:16 PM Permalink
Dear Vivek, If the Option is to Convert to Islam or Kill, means then why are you still alive.. Option-1: Muslims ruled India for 1000 Years, if your assumption is true means, then all the 90 crore hindus should be dead or converted into Muslim. Option-2: If the Hindus were successful in retaliating Muslim Invaders and retained Hinduism, then why there was 1000 Years of Muslim Rule ?? Option-3: The last assumption is all the Hindus lived a Nomadic life and Hiding for the Muslims... This is also false... Go to any Indian City, you can see the Palace of Muslim Kings near to Hindu Settlements for Centuries..
The Moral of the story is Nobody is compelled to change the Religion... That is why you are here alive and as a Hindu...
Every Hindu in India is a Living Proof that Compulsion is not used...
RE:RE:Are Actual Cuprits still hidden in Hyd Mosques ?
by Real on May 21, 2007 05:10 PM Permalink
Ibrahim, You are wrong. Option 1: They tried their best to convert, but they needed local support. Marathas were giving continuous trouble and Vijayanagar empire prevented Islami from spreading further south atleast till mid of 16th century. Eventually British arrival almost stopped conversion. Option-2. In Hindus only Kshatriyas will go for war. Muslim army had a large number of slaves. Option 3: read option 1 answer. If you say there was no compell. How come entire Afghanistan, Egypt and many other countries completely converted by invasions.
RE:Are Actual Cuprits still hidden in Hyd Mosques ?
by vivek hiremath on May 21, 2007 04:34 PM Permalink
dear ibrahim, comment on pakistan's creation as well
RE:Are Actual Cuprits still hidden in Hyd Mosques ?
by Real on May 21, 2007 05:09 PM Permalink
You are wrong. Option 1: They tried their best to convert, but they needed local support. Marathas were giving continuous trouble and Vijayanagar empire prevented Islamic from spreading further in south atleast till mid of 16th century. Eventually British arrival almost stopped conversion. Option-2. In Hindus only Kshatriyas will go for war. Muslim army had a large number of slaves. Option 3: read option 1 answer. If you say there was no compell. How come entire Afghanistan, Egypt and many other countries completely converted by invasions.
RE:pigislam
by Abdul Rahim PakkirMydeen on May 21, 2007 01:56 PM Permalink
any thing u know about ISRALE History? without knowing anything don't submit any article. please sut town ur mouth and keep quiet// In palestine they are fighting for their freedom like our indian freedom. don't confuse with that... I thing u from US/ISRAEL
RE:RE:pigislam
by The Lion on May 21, 2007 04:48 PM Permalink
RSS shakha is nice place for a growing/emerging youth/children to shape themselves with fine characters, habits and devotion over this nation. They provide sticks like thin logs to practice self-defence. To simply tell, it could be like NSS/NCC camps. Nice about it. Its prode to be Indians here. So many eminent perosnalities are from this camps whom are not much spot lighted by media.
Spare Religion and please identify the real culprit!
by KK on May 21, 2007 01:44 PM Permalink | Hide replies
Nowhere in Islam allows such heinous act regardless if it against other religion or on its own, Islam doesnt allow this. Islam teaches how to develop tolerance, how to behave well, how to control over temper, how to be more down to earth, how to help others, how to be more simple, how to remove proud from oneself, how to care others, how to love people, how to respect people, how to remove poverty, how to respect women, how respect other religion, how to live within a Islamic state or in state ruled by any other religion etc. Also Islam teaches Jihad which means basically Struggle and it applies to many different forms: for an example controlling from doing any bad deeds it is kind of struggling to stay in the path of truth is also one kind of Struggle. Paying good enough money for charity, this is also struggle for the cause of money. Struggle to control temper, struggle to earn money in the right way, struggle to save life, and struggle to save religion. The outcome or rewards that mentions in Islam are no different from those different form of struggle. Here I would elaborate little more about struggle to save religion. This context clearly means that when a Muslim is forced to convert his religion or something like a planned attach is being applied to his religion that is completely cause of religion issue or insulting Islam then in this case a Muslim is responsible to fight back and it is another form of Struggle or Jihad. Attacking from behind, killing innocent people are simply act of Terrorist and they should be punished to maximum torture something like they should hanged to poster live and the part of the body should chopped one by one to make sure they get maximum pain before they die. In the Koran it is more often mentions about entire Humanity rather than just to talk to on Muslim. The language, grammar and speech clear shows it is the word of God and the Koran is for the whole community in the World. Muslim start prayer by starting with the must read Sura, Which is Alhamdulilahi Rabbil Alaamin Here Alaamin means the entire humanity in the world. It doesn%u2019t tell that only Muslilimin. It is unfortunate that some idiot explains the meaning of Koran differently and misguiding people. In Madrasah where main objective is to learn Koran would never teach such distorted meaning of Jihad unless there is terrorist group who are influencing those teachers. Please stop criticizing any religion. Especially I would request to Muslim people that please respect other religion because it has clear guidance from Koran that If you insult other religion then they will also insult your religion which means you respect other religion so that they will also respect your religion.
RE:Spare Religion and please identify the real culprit!
by vivek hiremath on May 21, 2007 02:24 PM Permalink
sir, tell me. why muslims in indian subcontinent demanded for separate nation for themselves to be carved out from then unified india where ever muslims were in majority. although they were well aware that still devided india is going to have more muslims than pakistan. truth is islam teaches her followers either convert kafir ( non beleivers) to islam or kill him. whenever muslims find themselves in majority they become ruthless and start their activities , just like demanding separate nation , why they didnt thought of for those muslims, to be in more numbers than themselves, who are going to remain in divided india ? and i understand muslims in present india voted in bulk for separate pakistan than muslims in today's pakistan. i really fail to understand with more muslims remaining in india what muslims in general got for themselves by creating pakistan?
RE:Spare Religion and please identify the real culprit!
by The Lion on May 21, 2007 05:04 PM Permalink
If the thing is what you said, why your ppl asked a separte nation in name of Religion. That to by race, ethnic, lingual being same as of other indians. When their exist plenty of indic local languages why you forefront urdu/arabic in every way of your life. Urdu is noones language and it was just created to rootout Indians from their nativity and make them a 100% product of Islam. For example when 98% of sind and punjab speak their native languages why urdu alone made nationl languge in pak. When 90% are kashmiri speakers why then urdu official language in kashmir killing 'kashmiri'. Its plain that if you become a major chunk in the population, you will show you real face.
You show secular symptoms when you are marginal and when you become a majority, you show up THE TERROR. May be there few good ones out of you but again TERROR leads.
RE:RE:Spare Religion and please identify the real culprit!
by The Lion on May 21, 2007 05:07 PM Permalink
Can anyone repost or send the extract of that great posting of JGN.
RE:Spare Religion and please identify the real culprit!
by vivek hiremath on May 21, 2007 07:47 PM Permalink
RE:Spare Religion and please identify the real culprit!
by JGN on May 21, 2007 02:44 PM | Hide message Mr. Vivek, answer to your question:
During the eighteenth century the Mughal empire fell on bad days; in the nineteenth it rapidly declined. But the Muslims could not forget the privileged position they had enjoyed in the medieval period. With the decline of the Muslim political power at the Centre and in Muslim ruled provinces, a dilemma stared them in the face. They had to live on terms of equality with the Hindus. Worse still, these Hindus were in a majority. They could not think of living under the dominance of the Hindu majority. Three examples of this attitude, one each from the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth century will suffice to illustrate the point.
(1) After Aurangzeb's death when Muslim power started to disintegrate, the Sufi scholar Shah Waliullah (1703-1763) wrote to the Afghan King Ahmad Shah Abdali, inviting him to invade India to help the Muslims. The letter said: In short the Moslem community is in a pitiable condition. All control of the machinery of the government is in the hands of the Hindus because they are the only people who are capable and industrious. Wealth and prosperity are concentrated in their hands, while the share of Moslems is nothing but poverty and misery. At this time you are the only king who is powerful, farsighted and capable of defeating the enemy forces. Certainly it is incumbent upon you to march to India, destroy Maratha domination and rescue weak and old Moslems from the clutches of non-Moslems. If, Allah forbid, domination by infidels continues, Moslems will forget Islam and within a short time, become such a nation that there will be nothing left to distinguish them from non-Moslems.
(2) Nawab Wiqar-ul-Mulk (1841-1917) of the Aligarh School of Muslim Politics who is generally regarded as one of the makers of modern Muslim India, was Sir Syed Ahmed's loyal follower. He also became the Secretary of the Aligarh College. According to Tazkirah-i-Wiqar the Wiqar-ul-Mulk said: We are numerically one-fifth of the other community. If, at any time, the British Government ceases to exist in India, we shall have to live as the subjects of the Hindus, and our lives, our property, our self-respect and our religion will all be in danger. If there is any device by which we can escape this it is by the continuance of the British Raj, and our interests can be safeguarded only if we ensure the continuance of the British Government.
(3) About half a century later, Laiqat Ali Khan voiced his demand at a meeting with Lord Wavell on 24 January 1946 that the British resolve the transfer of power problem by imposing a solution on the basis of Pakistan. Wavell told him in reply that in such a case, the British would have to stay on in India to enforce this imposed solution. According to an entry in Wavell's journal of the same date Liaqat Ali said that in any event we (the British) would have to stop for many years yet, and that the Moslems were not at all anxious that we should go.
Thus highly educated and important Muslim leaders like Shah Waliullah, Wiqar-ul-Mulk and Liaqat Ali Khan preferred to live under the rule of foreigners like the Afghans and the British than to live as a free people with the Hindus just because the latter happened to be in a majority. Is it therefore any wonder that the majority of Muslims were not interested in joining the freedom struggle for India's independence? The leadership of Mahatma Gandhi was acceptable to them only in the context of the Khilaft movement. Else, he was declared as a leader of the Hindus only. And what the Ali brothers said about the Mahatma vis-a-vis an ordinary or even an anti-social Muslim has become proverbial as indicative of the Muslim attitude towards non-Muslims in India. Of course, today Muslims in India swear by democracy and secularism
The idea of Pakistan was as old as the Muslim rule in India. M.A. Jinnah is reported to have said that the seeds of Pakistan were planted when the first Hindu converted to Islam in India. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto reiterated the same conclusion in still clearer terms. Wrote he, The starting point of Pakistan goes back a thousand years to when Mohammed-bin-Qasim set foot on the soil of Sind and introduced Islam in the sub-continent.The study of Mughal and British periods will show that the seeds of Pakistan took root in the sub-continent from the time Muslims consolidated their position in India. The creation of two sovereign states of India and Pakistan merely formalised this existing division. Jinnah and Bhutto were not historians. But Aziz Ahmad in a historical analysis in his Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment arrives at the same conclusion. However, whatever the point of time or the genesis of Partition, never before was India geographically divided on religious basis in the course of its long history. The creation of Pakistan in 1947 showed the way to other ambitious or aggrieved identities in Kashmir, Punjab and Assam to clamour for secession. The partition of the country may, perhaps, have been the logical legacy of Muslim rule in India, but the cinder fuelled by the original separatists is posing an unsurmountable problem for India's unity and integrity.
Why RSS Not belived our indian constiution ? y they want to change constiution? Why RSS not hoist beloved tricolour on thier HQ at Nagpur ? Why RSS not belive in democracy , secularism ? DECIDE WHO IS ANTI INDIAN RSS OR INDIA MUSLIM ?
RE:WHY
by Narwekar on May 21, 2007 01:59 PM Permalink
Dear sunshine, It is simple, Some of Indian Muslim with corrupted mind influenced by mulla's / financed by ISI and arab countries are anti Indians.
RE:RE:WHY
by Mukesh Sharma on May 21, 2007 02:02 PM Permalink
canstitution can be ammended with 3/4 majority in house . Constitution is not something fixed & constant.
RE:WHY
by andrew on May 21, 2007 02:09 PM Permalink
U CAN NOT CHANGE BASIC STRACTURE OF CONSTIUTION . EVEN BJP CAN NOT ABLE TO FORMED GOVT IN FUTURE ON HIS OWN . BJP IS GOING TO DIE DUE TO HATERD AND BROKER POLICY .
RE:WHY
by vivek hiremath on May 21, 2007 03:06 PM Permalink
andrew, just think , your ancestors might not had been from europe they must had been from this land and most probably hindus. it is truely said converted people are more fanatic than original one.
Its your clear missunderstanding. Muslims are not anti Indian, they respect India its their living place and this place is blessed by the God and not by you and by your corrupted politions... Muslims respect India but not the people in India who are against Islam. Yes muslims agree that they against the people who critisize their religion and they have to be.
And poor people like you, without knowldge and with half knowledge claims everything they want to.
RE:WHY
by Bharat on May 21, 2007 04:17 PM Permalink
Dear Mr sunshine, can you give an example in which RSS involved in bomb blast?. RSS celebrates national festivls (Agu 15, 26 jan).
when there was a controversy related with singing Vande mataram, I saw in news channel one of the mulla open statement agianst the constitution of India....
There are enough evidance to show about muslims unconstitutional things towards India. They openly opposed singing of national anthem.
RE:WHY
by The Lion on May 21, 2007 05:10 PM Permalink
RSS has a HEALTHY POLICY for this nation. They are very very reasonable in thier demands. May be you ppl are not enough to diagonse their works.
Where are all those guys who were accusing at top of thier voice on Hindu groups(so called terrorists as per some groups) for supposed involvment in this bomb blast. Now what they got to say? No voice at all.....
We are to learn from China how they are dealing with anti nationals and terrorists.They have maintainedl their soverignity without any question in the last 50 years or so,though their area and population is greater to India.
