Hijacking of Islam

Re:krishna_abcd#215

[...Both Islam and Christianity are narcissistic, predatory religions. While Christians have chosen the more ``civilized`` method of using their money to coax people into joining their camp, Muslims have retained their more straightforward methods. The saving grace for Christianity is twofold - 1) The good example of Jesus himself - who was not into killing other people, and 2) the huge number of educated people born into Christian families who understand, and are ashamed of what Christianity has stood for in the past, and increasingly have no use for organized religion......]

Islam and Christianity are literally twin brothers in terms of structure, philosophy and development as a faith as well as a militant desire for proselytization. The conversion of pagans to christians in Europe was a bloody, millenia long enterprise that rooted out paganism and led to almost 100% conversion. We dont hear much about that horror since there are no pagans left to complain about it. Until the dark ages, that is the first 1500 years of christianity, this relentless regression into relgious fundamentalism, conversions and ignorance continued.

The question is how did Christianity change for the better? It was not the threat of external conflict. Nor was it a sudden development of ``educated`` people who developed a distaste for religion. The change happened when ordinary people who were christians got fed up with their way of life and decided to change. Human beings, no matter how brainwashed we may be, are basically selfish beings. If a system or ideology or religion leads to a crappy life, we can only take it for so long. At some point, people rebel and say enough is enough. That is what happened in Europe, when people just got fed up with the barbaric life and papal tyranny and wanted something better. By the way, this change was bloody and dragged out over centuries. Bottom line is that we humans still have the sense to detect what is rotten and not working and what is good and take action accordingly. It takes time and is not visible as a sudden event.

Can the same happen in Islam? Islam is still in the first 1400 years of existence, which maps close to the 1500 years of dark ages for its twin brother, christianity. Today the Islamic world is regressing to the bottom and life is miserable for most muslims. No matter how many cries for jihad are raised, vast numbers of muslims are realizing the need for internal change and improvement. As they view the devloped world and look at the luxurious life and development happening, their selfish desires come up as to why they cant reach the same goals? Even on this forum, the predominant muslim voice is that of moderates berating fundos all the time. Of course, the faith will not disappear. It will morph into something benign like Christianity, albeit after a lot of bloodshed. After all there was a golden period for a few centuries, when Islam was the standard bearer of knowledge and enquiry, science and innovation. So there is a precedent for better times.

#210 by ranjit

[That is what I am arguing as well. Islam is going through a militant phase since it is still a relatively younger faith as compared to hinduism, buddhism or christianity. Also it has a history of conquest with full or partial conversion of local people, which has left conflict situations in places like India or Balkans.]


I think that your attitude is one of completely baseless optimism. This ``phase`` as you call it, has been constantly the same for 1400 years. This Jehad has been practiced and preached by Mo and his adherents all throughout. This IS what it is. How can it ``change`` into something that it is not?

Christianity could change, because the acts of Jesus himself are at least at odds with that of his adherents. So there was a correcting influence. But there is nothing like that here. Listen to Urstruly here:

[...somehow Quadinis think that it is nullified even though Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself did Jihad throughout his life, his companions did it during his life and after him and kept on doing it until Mirza sahib tried to change this law 1300 years after Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). So much for the non-law bearing prophets. ]

Islam is a soio-political movement that aims to devour all else through the instrument of ``jehad``, subjugation of non-Muslims, and then assimilation of non-Muslims into their fold by constant and relentless pressure - social ostracism, denying non-Muslims privileges reserved exclusively for Muslims, economically punitive measures like the Jizya, forcing people to give one of their children up to become Muslim etc. Muslims are right when they say that the majority of non-Muslims were not forced to convert. After a while living like this, non-Muslims give in to the pressure. People just want to live their lives, and if conversion makes it so much easier, then so be it.

Because religions like Islam and Christianity are totally devoid of any kind of philosophy, Islamists like Urstruly, Echoboom, and the majority of Muslims, as well as the faithful Christians have been brought up on the logic that says that the veracity of their faith over others is provable by winning the pissing contest - who can have the most people in their camp. Because either it proves that ``Jesus was the final and ultimate prophet of God who died on the cross for our sins`` or ``Muhammad was the final release version from God`s prophet-factory``. And we are supposed to take their deep and profound messages (that we previously had absolutely NO clue about - which is why ``God`` had to ``send`` these ``prophets``) like ``don`t kill your neighbor`` (wow, really?) and ``smite off their fingertips``.

Both Islam and Christianity are narcissistic, predatory religions. While Christians have chosen the more ``civilized`` method of using their money to coax people into joining their camp, Muslims have retained their more straightforward methods. The saving grace for Christianity is twofold - 1) The good example of Jesus himself - who was not into killing other people, and 2) the huge number of educated people born into Christian families who understand, and are ashamed of what Christianity has stood for in the past, and increasingly have no use for organized religion.

While it is good to have two religions like Islam and Christianity to keep each other in check (kind of like using snakes to control rats), and let other people in the world survive with a modicum of peace in their lives, Islam has the much bigger cancer-like efficiency because of its apostate laws - kind of like the teeth of an anaconda that are hooked inwards, so that the victim can only move inwards. So Islam will eventually destroy its only deterrent Christianity unless it is destroyed itself.

However, we can only hope that instead of being completely destroyed, Islam gets changed into a completely different religion that will still act as a deterrent to Christianity, and give human beings the breathing space to come to the realization that all humans are EXACTLY the same, and spirituality has to be a personal quest and personally scrutinized philosophy.

Until then, we can only keep hoping for the best.

``Muslims are a besieged lot``

By whom, AVK?

Re: # 211

You have got it right. Muslims are a besieged lot now and their irrational reactive anger is most reserved for the fringe elements among them..

But it is not that strange!

Fear of deprivation, Fear of unknown, Fear of losing one`s authority have been the primary reason for the majority of human conflicts,

- Avkrishna

Re: # 211 Ranjit

Your assessment of the slippery-slope theory is absolutely correct and horror of horrors Quadianis themselves agree with it as well. In order to explain their dichotomy they claim that sure there will be prophets coming after Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) but they will be ``non-law bearing`` prophets; and they will only come to re-affirm what Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) already preached and established as law.

The hollowness of this claim becomes evident when we examine their claim on Jihad. They claim that Jihad has been nullified after Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). In other words Mirza Quadiani is nullifying a value which Holy Prophet (pbuh) and Qura`n established as law themselves. Even a non-Muslim with a cursory glance at Qura`n will attest that Qura`n in no uncertain terms makes it incumbent upon Muslims to do Jihad against the oppressor. You do not need to go farther, take a look at your own post addressed to abcd. Throughout the world there is a concerted effort by all anti-Muslim forces today to prove that Qura`n teaches ``violence aka Jihad`` to its adherents but somehow Quadinis think that it is nullified even though Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself did Jihad throughout his life, his companions did it during his life and after him and kept on doing it until Mirza sahib tried to change this law 1300 years after Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). So much for the non-law bearing prophets.

It is very easy to understand how and why British colonialists butteressed characters like Mirza Sahib to help them weaken the Muslim resistence against their colonial aspirations throughout the globe. Although Mirza Sahib was the only one of their agents who claimed prophethood but there are hundereds of them also who didn`t and only called themselves `Pirs` who misguided Muslims into ignorance and superstition and keep tyhem from their political resposnibities. Please google `Mehdi Sudani` and you will understand how British tried to stop a global Jihad against themsleves through characters like Mirza Sahib.

Re:Dost-Mittar

DM, as a non-muslim, dont you find this whole Qadiani-Muslim quarrel to be very interesting? I find it fascinating to note that Urstruly actually finds Qaidianis to be a bigger threat to Islam than say hindus or jews or christians. As non-muslims, we can hardly distinguish between Qadianis and Muslims since they seem to be identical except for some minor nuances in their belief of ``last`` prophethood. It is hard to understand why that is such a bone of contention that Qadianis become the ultimate enemy of Islam? I mean why does it matter so much?

My own hypothesis is that muslims like urstruly believe in the slippery-slope theory. If they allow Qadianis to be muslims, they open the door to other muslims to become future prophets who can take Islam`s message and change/modify it. Qadianis havent really changed the message as such, but other future prophets could do so. In other words, they are fearful that Islam will change in the future. I guess it is this fear that drives their irrational, homicidal anger at Qadianis. Very strange!!

Re:krishna_abcd#172

[...Show me ONE period in Islam`s existence of 1400 years, where Muslims have been a SIZEABLE MINORITY in any country AND have lived peacefully with their neighbors....]

That is what I am arguing as well. Islam is going through a militant phase since it is still a relatively younger faith as compared to hinduism, buddhism or christianity. Also it has a history of conquest with full or partial conversion of local people, which has left conflict situations in places like India or Balkans.

The question is whether Islam can evolve into a mature, peaceful religion in the future so that its followers can live in peace with the rest of the world. The world has changed today and non-muslims have both economic and military superiority by orders of magnitude over muslims. So naturally muslims cannot live in perpetual conflict since that guarantees failure. Unlike the past, muslims do not have the means to impose their views on others. So either they adjust and evolve their way of life, or they perish.

So far the jury is out on how the future will shape up. Of course, you have the lunatics of al-quaeda, ahmedinijad, taliban and the fundos who all want more and more conflict. You also have islands of very peaceful modern coexistence whether it is in Dubai, other liberal Gulf Emirates, Turkey, Malaysia etc where a secular and peaceful coexistence has shaped up between muslims and non-muslims. My feeling is that the conflict between muslims and non-muslims is yet to play out to its fullest extent. There will be one or two major holocausts in a couple of theaters of muslim/non-muslim conflicts. Ultimately the hope is that motivated by sheer survival instict, muslims will evolve towards the ``Dubai`` model rather than the ``Taliban`` model for themselves!!

Sattar;

As a matter of fact the spirit of Ramadan did get into me and only because Holy Prophet has (pbuh) ordered us to reply when someone inquires, I am going to explain this Hadith to you, in the hopes that you may find the true path.

As said earlier the said Hadith is taken from the following reference:

Reference: (Compendium of Ahadith by) Muslim
Book: Kitab-ul-Hajj (the book of Pilgrimage)
Chapter: Fadl-us-Salat bi Masjidi Mecca wal Medina (The benefits of offering prayers in the Mosques of Mecca and Medina)

Needless to say that the hadith comes from most authentic source of collection of ahadith by Muslim, hence, it is accepted to be true. Here is the complete text of Hadith:



Muslim Chapter 90: THE MERIT OF PRAYING IN THE TWO MOSQUES, AT MECCA AND MEDINA

Book 007, Number 3211:

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported: Prayer in the mosque of Allah`s Messenger (may peace be upon him) is more excellent than a thousand prayers in other mosques except the Masjid al-Haram, for Allah`s Messenger (may peace be upon him) is the last of the Apostles, and his mosque is the last of the mosques. Abu Salama and Abu Abdullah (two of the narrators in this chain of narrations said: We had no doubt that what Abu Haraira (Allah be pleased with him) had said was from Allah`s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and so we did not like to get an attestation from Abu Huraira about this hadith until Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) died. We discussed it (the issue of getting attestation from Abu Huraira) amongst ourselves and blamed one another as to why we did not talk about it to Abu Huraira regarding it so that he could attribute its transmission to Allah`s Messenger (may peace be upon him) in case he had heard It from him. While we were discussing it as we sat with `Abdullah b. Ibrahlm b. Qariz; we made a mention of this hadith, and our omission (in getting its attestation) about its direct transmission by Abu Huraira from him (the Holy Proohet) ; thereupon Abdullah b. Ibrahim said to us: I bear witness to the fact that I heard Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) say that Allah`s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I am the last of the Apostles and my mosque is the last of the mosques.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/007.smt.html

The complete text of Hadith helps us to understand the context in which the narrators were quoting the said Hadith.


Now lets take the phrase “ I am the last of the Apostles and my mosque is the last of the mosques. and examine it logically. We see that the sentence of this hadith has two parts separated by an operand “and”; this sentence thus gives two bits of information on two separate subjects – one related to prophet himself and other related to his mosque. Based on this categorization we can form four possible hypothesis. Once we state these hypotheses, we will test them one by one using two assumptions:

Assumption 1: The word “last” in the text has its literal meaning i.e. final. This is Muslim interpretation.

Assumption 2: The word “last” in the text has its figurative or implied meaning i.e. most exalted. This is the Quadiani interpretation.

Hypothesis #1: I am the “most exalted” of the Apostles and my mosque is the “most exalted” of the mosques.

This hypothesis forms the basis of Quadiani contention.

Let us suppose that the first part of this sentence is true because it is just a subjective assessment that Holy Prophet may have done of himself; for the sake of argument we assume that it is true. But when we apply this implication of the word “last” as “most exalted ” to the second part of the sentence then it contradicts the original statement in hadith where Abu Huraira say that that praying in Prophet’s mosque in medina is second best to praying in Masijid-al-Haram in Mecca.

Hence this hypothesis fails the test.

Hypothesis #2: I am the ‘last’ of the Apostles AND my mosque is the ‘most exalted best’ of mosques

Here we again see that even if we take the first part of sentence to be true (as per Muslim belief ), the second part fails the hypothesis because of the reason cited in hypothesis#1.

Hence this hypothesis also fails the test.

Hypothesis #3: I am the ‘most exalted’ of the Apostles AND my mosque is the ‘last’ mosque

In this case if we take the first part of the sentence to be true for the reason cited in hypothesis #1, the second part of sentence fails the test because we know that there are millions of mosques built after Mosque of Holy Prophet and neither Qura’n nor Holy Prophet prohibited building new mosques. Hence second part of the hypothesis fails the test.

Hence this hypothesis fails the test.

Hypothesis #4: I am the ‘last’ of the Apostles AND my mosque is the ‘last’ mosque

We start analysing this hypothesis by taking the second part first. If we look at the statement of hadith quoted above it becomes clear with the combination of narrations that Holy Prophet (pbuh) was making a comparison of his mosque with that of mosque in Mecca. And he was ascribing a second status to his mosque as compared to the mosque in Mecca. Every Muslim in the world knows that there are three mosques in Islam that have been given the highest status among all the mosques in the universe. The first mosque is the Masjid-al-Haram in Mecca, which was built by Prophet Abraham (pbuh) – it is the first and oldest surviving mosque in the history of mankind. The second mosque is the mosque of Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, which was built by Prophet and King Solomon (pbuh), who was the great great great grandson of Abraham (pbuh). The third mosque was built in medina by holy prophet (pbuh) which became the foundation stone of a new civilization; from here emanated the guiding light, which is now the only hope for the salvation of mankind. Therefore, by ascribing the status of “last” mosque among a series of three most exalted mosques, Holy Prophet is using the word “last” in the literal sense. From here if we apply the same logic to the first part of the sentence every thing fits perfectly and logically in its place i.e. the the last prophet in the line of Prophets is building the last of the mosques among the most exalted ones”.. In order to support this point of view as applied to first part, we have 450+ ahadith which explain the issue of Finality of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in every which way possible. So if this hadith is true and only one of those 450+ ahadith is also true then there remains no doubt in any fair mind that in Islam Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was the final prophet in the chain of prophethood.

So you see Sattar, how Quadianism tries to cling to the straws to get itself validated. I am sorry to say this but it is quite pathetic. Reject the untruth and come to your salvation.

Ham duo’aa likhte rahe voh dagha paRhte rahe
Aik nuqtay ne mehrim se mujrim bana diyya.

teshah#203:

Sir, you are way too generous; I am still trying to understand the various meanings of masjid.

correcion#206:

``I had not said that their compassion is circumscribed by their faith, not to people of their own faith.``
shoule be:
``I had said that their compassion is circumscribed by their faith, not to people of their own faith.``

sattar2:

“learned men who circumscribe their compassion to people of their own faith”.

I had not said that their compassion is circumscribed by their faith, not to people of their own faith.

I agree with you re the pyramid of hate and would also feel differently about these individuals if they were saying the same things on a real rather than this virtual chowk. However, this is a discussion forum where every idea can be stated or challenged as you have been doing all along. But yes, I would also feel better if these people condemned the attacks on Ahmedis and their isnstitutions.

``...are the same people who complain that neo-cons manipulated intelligence on Iraq.``

So do I and millions of other people, including now many Americans.

Re: # 195

DM

You are right dear when you say:

``Come to think of it, even the Prophet and the Quran made many harsh statements about the religious beliefs of other people, for example, polytheism and idol-worship and I would like to think that the Prophet did not hate the people -the Quraish- who held those beliefs.``

All of them; Allah, Quran, prophet, etc., showed a soft corner for the Quresh, the tribe to which the prophet belonged, as compared to the Arabs in general.

In Quran Allah addressed the Arabs in general:

``The Arabs(some translate it as `Ganwar or uncivilised`) say: We believe. Say(unto them): Ye believe not, but rather say ``We submit,`` for the faith has not yet entered into your hearts.`` (49/14)

But He addresses the Quresh as under:

``Surah 106. Quraysh

1. For the covenants (of security and safeguard enjoyed) by the Quraish,

2. Their covenants (covering) journeys by winter and summer,-

3. Let them adore the Lord of this House,

4. Who provides them with food against hunger, and with security against fear (of danger).``

The difference is quite obvious. In fact the quresh considered them to be the progeny of Hazrat Ismaeel and ordained to be the leader (Imam) of the muslim umma. As it is, unlike Arabs in general, they claim to be Semitic cousins of bani israel.

As usual you started a new topic which requires more detailed discussion. Why not you attempt an article on the subject as you know Islam more objectively than most of the Muslims do.

Regards

echoboom: I just head the bangladesh Nobel peace prize winner interviewed on NPR. He was very very happy to win the prize and I`m sure he has no intention of trashing it.

So...Sadly - for you- Mohd Yunis is a secularoon, munafiqoon etcoon etcoon...

hijacking my ass...The fact of the matter is that the trajectory is supported by the majority of muslims and any muslim with a tolerant view is labelled a secularoon

Liberal Canadian woman leader called ‘apostate’

WASHINGTON: Farzana Hassan, the newly elected president of the Muslim Canadian Congress, a liberal group, is being subjected to fatwas of apostasy by neoconservative Islamists who are said to be running riot in the religiously tolerant Canada.

Hassan has asked Ontario provincial authorities to take note of the threats being made to progressive Muslims like her and to preempt any possible attacks. She said “thinly veiled death threats” were being issued against liberal Muslims. “We are being subjected to a hate campaign by conservative Islamic groups with allegations of being anti-Islam and of smearing Islam which is tantamount to being accused of blasphemy and apostasy,” she said this week in Toronto. She disclosed that she has been labelled an apostate twice and called the “younger sister of Satan.”

The Muslim Canadian Congress is asking Ontario’s attorney general to include the utterance of such allegations under existing hate crime laws. “Killing a fellow Muslim accused of apostasy is considered an act of religiosity,” according to the group’s secretary general Munir Pervaiz. The group has named the Canadian Islamic Congress leaders like Elmasry among those inciting “passionate reactions.” “When Canadian Muslims find out that allegations of blasphemy and apostasy come under hate crime laws ... you will hear the voices of moderate and progressive Muslims much more,” Raheel Raza, interfaith affairs director of the Muslim Canadian Congress told the newspaper Ottawa Citizen. khalid hasan

S_dickhead writes <<< Can you tell me what can be really done with the monies?

Can you tell me what is the proportion of themonies spend in temrs of GDP per capita, GDP, budgetary allocations? >>>

What I know is that Human Development indicators suggest that Pakistan is the lowest of the low, poverty figures in India suggest that it also is the lowest of the low. By far a huge chunk of the yearly budget (two fifths) goes for defense spending and recently Pakistan signed a multi billion dollar deal with the US.

Education/literacy stats reveal that the state of primiary education is also next to nothing. budgetary allocations mean nothing if they get lost in corruption, neither does spending in terms of GDP per capita mean anything when development is next to zero for the masses. As usual you are busy with BS, I`m looking at the actual state of the public.

hamidm (#192),

… and the interesting part is that … the owner of Shaheen place could very well have NOT been an Ahmadi. It simply may have been a ploy by the competitor to drive him out of business …

There seems to be some of this going on in Pakistani politics … that is, label your opponent an Ahmadi, and let him deny it. The more he denies it, the more the label sticks. And once he is labeled as an Ahmadi, the label will stick for a very long time … even if he had been a staunch anti-Ahmadi wahabi all along …