Are the Converted Tribals Really Hindu?

Cheema sahib,

For a murtid, you do know a lot about the Faith.

Regards

Ref Bull-Yeah #360

[......the aim is not to astonish you or anyone else........the aim is to figure out the philosophical basis of islam.......this basis may seem ridiculous to many people......but if one is going to debate something, one has to, first figure out what it is......]

So, instead of astonishing me, can you figure out for me the following, taken straight from the Quran?


“Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.� Koran 2:191

“Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.� Koran 9:123

“When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.� Koran 9:5

“Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.� Koran 3:85

“The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.� Koran 9:30

“Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam� Koran 5:33

“The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque.� Koran 9:28

“Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies.� Koran 22:19

“Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.� Koran 47:4

“The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.� Koran 8:65

“Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.� Koran 3:28

“Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an.� Koran 8:12

“Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.� Koran 8:60

Re: # 367

... go on, since you happen to be an 'angrezi daan', here it is in English:

[In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

HAST thou not seen how thy Lord dealt with the army of the ELEPHANT?

Did he not cause their stratagem to miscarry?

And he sent against them birds in flocks (ababils),

Claystones did they hurl down upon them,

And he made them like stubble eaten down!]

Re: # 365; st. tahmed

that wasn't the question Urstruly sahib asked .... you are so fond of distracting from issues and coming up with gobbldegook pseudo-explanations, it is not funny!

what he asked is where do we get the context of 'Surah Al-Fil'? .... the story is hardly explained in detail in that short Surah ... unless I read it wrong? where do we get to know about "Abraha" and his army ... there attack on the Kaaba ... and the "Ababeel" sent down from the skies with nothing but small rocks to throw on the advancing army ... and how the whole 'lashker' was completely destroyed!

[Bismillah-ir-rahman-ir-rahim

1. ''Alam tara kayfa fa'ala rabbuka bi-as-habil-fil


2. ''Alam yaj'al kaydahum fi tadlil


3. Wa-''arsala 'alayhim tayran ababil


4. Tarmihim bihijaratinm min sijjil


5. Faja'alahum ka'asfinm ma" kul]

now you show me where in the Surah above you get the 'legend' in detail? if it is difficult for you to understand arabic, I am happy to provide with a translation ... I just want to see what you make of it first!

Re: # 364

... and as for the 'un-altered' status of the Quran, the following Hadith gives us some historical perspective:

[Bokhari: vol. 6, hadith 510, pp. 478-479; book 61
Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) ..." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. ..." ]

... all Bokhari did was to simply "compile" the existing Ahadith in a book form ... like I said, he did it with utmost sincerity and even included 'Istikhara' as a discriminator! ... those 'traditions' DID exist all through muslim history .. same as the Quran DID exist before being compiled into a book form by Uthman (as we know it) ...

... surely you are not suggesting there was NO Quran in the years of AbuBakr and Umer when it wasn't available in its current book version that we know today?

urstruly #350 Here is my response to your challenge: The Quran makes a fundamental point, which basically is that each human being is responsible for using his God-given faculties to distinguish between right and wrong, and for doing the right thing, and for having faith in God in doing so. The rest of the Quran basically provides examples to illustrate this basic message.

Seen in the above context, Surah Al Fil is easily understood as being an illustration of faith in power of God - i.e., even the best armed army can be reduced to nothing by an Act of God. A perfectly reasonable illustration of a perfectly reasonable message.

End of business as far as a muslim is concerned.

Now you tell me what I missed because I did not have the benefit of hadith? btw, in your response, dont tell me that I missed the point about this army was destroyed because it had evil intent of some kind - the Quran makes it clear elsewhere that man cannot understand the ways of God, and so sometimes bad things can happen to good people too.

Re: # 360; bulleya

it is often said that Christ's message was 'hijacked' by Paul and the Christianity that evolved was more a 'Pauline' tradition then had anything to do with Jesus himself ... therefore the muslim stand on this is that the whole 'tradition' ... despite having similarities with Islam, is null and void since the "last and FINAL" message is here

you are making the same assertions regarding Islam ... Mohammed's 'true' message, as stated in the Quran, distorted by the likes of Bokhari ... hence giving rise to a "tradition" which had distorted the 'original' message .... do we then conclude this message has lost its credibility along the same lines as Pauline Christianity? (despite having superficial similarities with the 'original' message via the Quran)

as far your statement re: the 200 years gap... in the days of the "Salaaf" and subsequently, all these "traditions" were incorporated into muslim life/juriprudence etc ... in fact people used to go as far as doing "Istikharas" to 'validate' the 'true' message! Sahaba used to have meetings to 'speculate' what "the messanger of God" would have done under similar circumstances .... apparently every single Hadith in "Sahih" Bokhari was included only after a positive 'Istikhara' by the man .... those heresay 'traditions DID exist and got passed down the generations ...

.... don't make up/distort history to "delude" yourself and create a make/believe reality that only convnices one person ... because you don't have the courage to call a spade a spade

the next exit is the smoky forest exit, famous for ultra clear self imposed illusions..

[[
sunnah is, of course, taken as a part of islam......but only that which is described in the quran, as quoted by the verse, which declares islam to be finished and defined......it does not say quran is finished.....it says islam as a religion is totally defined.......
]]

which verse is it guys? Let me know I will check it to see if Kuran should have continued after this verse or not? This is an interesting question?

Also, what are we doing about the fact that Kuran itself was written much after the death of Muhammad, do we know if those Qurras or reciters were lying or not, did somebody do a quality check on those qurras???

... ok leave it, let's consider only Quran exists and no hadiths and let's even forget who Muhammad is, so what is the philosophy of Kuran??

Re: # 351

"...were not claimed by any Hindu, Jain or Buddhist authority but were the exaggerations of court flatterers in the exaggerated persian style praising the muslim piety and iconaclasm of Ghazni, Aurangzeb and others...."

Unfortunately, we Hindus did not take to celebrating the martyrdoms that are aimed at keeping alive the hatred against the enemies for generations by turning such events of massacre into evens like Muharrams .........

It is good that the sikhs took leaf and started celbrating Ghallu-garas and martyrdoms .....

It is really sad that we hindus did not celebrate these events of masscares and genocide because we are supposed to live a life of Kshama, Daya and Ahimsa....

Atleast celebrations like Moharrum would have kept that hatred against muslims alive for generations.....

In modern days , perhaps we should start keeping fasts and remember the day Ghouri massacred 10,000 hindus in one day.........at least then Hindus would never forget the fate that Islam has reserved for Hindu idolators like me........

akcheema #: " there are no examples throughout muslim history where Quran was taken as a guideline in its own right without the Sunnah .... "

this is not correct.......the first book of hadith came out around 200 years after the quran.....there was no authored book of hadith during those 200 years......

there is a difference between sunnah and hadith.....sunnah is what the prophet actually did.....hadith is what a person, 200 years after the prophet, thought that he did......

the fact that hadith have been followed, primarily through a clergy, for centuries, does not make them valid.......validity has to be established, via facts and logic......

sunnah is, of course, taken as a part of islam......but only that which is described in the quran, as quoted by the verse, which declares islam to be finished and defined......it does not say quran is finished.....it says islam as a religion is totally defined.......

anything that comes after that, can be thrown out, or adapted....but cannot be declared undisputable......

"the whole argument is astounding!!"

....you are missing the point......the aim is not to astonish you or anyone else........the aim is to figure out the philosophical basis of islam.......this basis may seem ridiculous to many people......but if one is going to debate something, one has to, first figure out what it is......

george bush may seem ridiculous to me.......but if i am in a discussion on him, i should at least establish what and whom he happens to be......

urstruly #: "by the Holy Prophet (pbuh) the need for Hadith (explanation of Qura'n) becomes inevitable. Holy Prophet (pbuh), himself instructed and allowed to document Hadith, and while doing that he clarified to the scribes as to what constituted as his words (hadith) and what was the Divine verses."

........i will ask you the same question......can you take any hadith, written by bukhari in any of his volumes....and validate its genuniness......take any single one.....

can you tell me exactly where these documneted hadith are present that the holy prophet, "allowed"......where are they.......

the basic tracibility of the hadith is as follows: so and so told so and so who told so and so, over two hundred years........there is no way to prove whether any one of these links actually distorted the words or actually uttered them, since most of the people in the chain were dead by the time bukhari authored the hadith.......

#356 Posted by akcheema on
[[
I thought this article is about the gobbldegook called hindooism; no?? so how come it is Islam that is always 'discussed'?
]]

good question:-) That is the most amazing part, we start with hinduism and always end up at Islam and you will see that the battle is always fought in defense of Islam:-) Only one sided small fights are there in case of hanoodism... the reason is simple, the ideologically weak fort, with lot of insecurities is Islam (irrespective of how strong it was or is with swords or beheadings).... so after some initial movements the armies are always fighting under the fort of Islam:-).... This is the fort of group ego of Islam that knows very well what Islam is but has to defend it, in any case...


-pinku, saheb aur bivi dono ka gulaam

******************
heresay cannot even lead to a prosecution in a court of law, in the same timeframe and in the same neighborhood.....how in the world can heresay be used to validate oral traditions, over centuries and different countries.......to the point that the exact wordings of heresay are considered 100% exact and can be used for jurisprudence......

it is logically impossible......and the statistical possiblity of such accuracy would be microscopic.......
******************

I'm amused by the dragging of logic, statistics, and accuracy into discussions like this. :-)

So you want validation that whether some Bukhari dude accurately documented the life of Mr.Muhammad.

Do you ever think along the same lines of asking for validation whether Muhammad dude accurately reflected what Mr.Allah said ?. Instead of Mr.Allah it could it be Mr.Devil ?. How do you validate one way or the other?.

Re: # 355; pinku mian (or bibi ... as the case may be)

[[discussing Islam???]]

I thought this article is about the gobbldegook called hindooism; no?? so how come it is Islam that is always 'discussed'?

hmmmmm so discussing Islam is like ignore the straight forward reason, blurr the discussion using blurred islamic text and then take the very first exit into the thick forest filled with smoke.... and show your clear vision there.... in that thick smoke and zero visibility everything is ultra clear..