Is Jehad Passe’?

#98

``SAMIR JB

2. Brand Barelvis and Shias as non-Muslims.

1. Brand Deobandis and Wahabis as non-Muslims.``

-------

Another crack pot idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AnNy you r non muslim declared so by your Saheb Jaan

re: tahmed
Why dont you answer my question ?

WHen 2 people read a book they can get two meanings , yes or no.....
Isn`t this what this whole Jihad is about, my interpretation is more right than yours hence my cause more HOLIER and PURER than yours.....HENCE ALLAH is on my side in this fight.
Please answer the question. Who has divine rights of interpretting what is written and meant in a book (any book/passage/verse for that matter). (FOr Allahs sake just read the many different interpretations of verses on chowk itself). I cant believe EDUCATED people go on and on about it.....
And I am stupid because I am a kafir so dont worry about me and my brain, JUST PLEASE DO ANSWER THE QUESTION. ESPECIALLY IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE ONE

and yeah tahmed

never mind all your insults towards me and your assumptions of how I hate Muslims...answer my questions below about ``interpretations`` and why people fight over ``differing interpretations`` .

The sexually laced dig about houris is aimed at any dim wit who believes that stuff about the Jihadi way to heaven. Not all Muslims believe that. So I dont think you can assume that insult is towards ``Muslims``....... anyway lets hope you answer my question in the previous reply ......
I am but a fakir not as exalted as you YOU BELIEVER YOU.....kindly for Allahs sake answer my questions

Your analysis was very interesting. I would just like to pull you in 2 directions. Do not Pakisthanis (and all Muslims) have to think hard on Islam, the kind of force Islam is in todays world. For Islam CANNOT dissociate itself with acts of violence cvommitted in its name (and a valid argument can easily be made staing that the people who died for what they thought was right were related to Islam in a far more serious way than Bush or Blair- ``its nothing to do with Islam``.2.Do not Pakithanis have to seriously rethink the basis of their nationhood take a hard look again, this time at History and the Muslim League (and the fact that most all the provinces of present day Pakisthan were comfortable with a united India almost till the ``last minute``

OmarAkram:

“had hired a driver back in Middle East while I was on a project there for navigation purpose, he happened to be from Hayderabad India. I asked him how is his life there and he gave a very honest answer, they were just a few words but let me quote them to you ``If I am living with Muslims I feel secure than in Hayderabad`` then I asked him why dont you move over to Pakistan and he said ``then my relatives will be persecuted as traitors`` now thats quite a motivation isent it.”

…ever bothered asking a pakistani hindu what his/her life is like in pak. and how he’s treated by his ‘muslim’ bretheren?…i’m sure you’ll get just as honest an answer….

Ref OmarAkram #: 104

[I too have a lot of christian colleagues and a lot of them are spanish it really broke my heart when I went to see the Al-Hambra (spanish for Al Hammra) if you want to verify you can go there your self and see the Mosque in the Palace complex first converted to a Horse stable and then later on converted to a church (this is not something I came up with it was as told/briefed to me by the spanish collegues)]

When you were in Turkey, did you go to St. Sophia`s Church there? It was a church until the 15th century when Muslims conquered Constantinople and named it Istanbul. It then became a mosque. After the Turkish Republic was proclaimed, it has become a museum.

So, pardon me if I don`t weep copious tears and my heart isn`t broken that Alhambra is no longer being used for its original function.

[I dont say we use the same tactics used against Muslims by them I do not call for out right slaughter of non-muslims, what I do call for is that if some Muslim brother or sister is in need do help him/her and help them anyway u can.]

Man, I am just so impressed that you AREN`T calling for the slaughter of non-Muslims. Where were you when we Indians needed you back in 11th century to 18th century?

[... you seek guidence from what they taught us and what they left for us as a message from Allah but is the message still intact in Bilble (Old testament, new etc. at most places donot agree at all besides majority of the bibles were written by people after Christ was lifted to Heavens as Alive, please refer to Haroon Yahya`s web site for more details www.hyahya.org) and for that matter in any other book except for Quran which is still in the same form as it was at the time of revelation...]

You wouldn`t be sh!tting me about the Quran being in the same form as when it was revealed, would you? Did you know that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was illiterate, meaning he couldn`t read or write? How did he write the Quran down? Huh?

Pakistan, India and the United States

2230 GMT, 011227

Summary

http://www.stratfor.com/home/0112272230.htm

With al Qaeda and Taliban elements fleeing Afghanistan, the United States will continue to grapple with strategic problems concerning its traditional ally, Pakistan. There are significant differences between what President Pervez Musharraf has said he will do to fight terrorism, what he intends to do and what he actually can accomplish. The threat of an imminent Indo-Pakistani war may be just the lever Washington needs to move Islamabad.

Analysis

The United States has been engaged in intense debate regarding the next steps it must take to eradicate al Qaeda. Two main strategies have emerged of late. One argues that there can be no solution to the problem of Islamic attacks on the United States until the regime of Saddam Hussein is eliminated. The other strategy argues that Iraq`s role is secondary, and that the United States` primary mission is to prevent al Qaeda from establishing a command center in some other isolated country, like Yemen or Somalia.

Obviously, the strategies are not incompatible. Equally obviously, at least from STRATFOR`S point of view, the debate misses the point entirely: the next country on the agenda is Pakistan.

When planning for the Afghan campaign began immediately after Sept. 11, it was clear -- at least from a naive standpoint -- that Pakistan, which has an extensive border with Afghanistan and a long-standing strategic relationship with the United States, would be the strategic key to the campaign. The planners` first impulse was to deploy U.S. forces in Pakistan and prosecute the campaign from there. This proved impossible. Instead, U.S. ground forces had to deploy in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, while air attacks were carried out from carriers in the Arabian Sea and from strategic bombers on Diego Garcia and elsewhere. Clearly, some forces were deployed in Pakistan, but only under tight secrecy.

The need for secrecy is the key to everything. Simply put, the Pakistani government was not in a position to permit a war against the Taliban regime to be waged from its soil. This was not simply because of substantial sympathy for the Taliban in Pakistan, although that existed. Nor is it simply because Pushtuns, the foundation of Taliban power, live on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border, although they do.

Rather, it was because the Taliban was ultimately as much a Pakistani phenomenon as it was Afghan. In a sense, the Taliban was a Pakistani construct, designed to conclude -- on terms acceptable to Pakistan -- the civil war that raged in Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal. Pakistan feared the ascendance of the Northern Alliance as well as other groups in Afghanistan, and saw in the Taliban a government that was congenial to Pakistan both strategically and ideologically. The ISI, Pakistan`s intelligence service, was in many ways the godfather of the Taliban government.

As the Taliban government provided al Qaeda with a secure operational base, the United States continued to parse the issue of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is inconceivable that the Taliban would have been able to develop its relationship with al Qaeda without the knowledge of Pakistan`s intelligence services and government, and it is difficult to imagine that they would not have given at least implicit approval. However, the United States was not prepared to frame the issue as an Afghan-Pakistani issue -- only as an Afghan problem fundamentally distinct from Pakistan.

This policy continued after Sept. 11 and throughout the campaign, despite the clear limits Pakistan placed on cooperation with the United States. Washington clearly and rationally wanted to contain the Afghan campaign. It placed sufficient pressure on President Pervez Musharraf to force him to remove senior officials who were too closely aligned with the Taliban, to permit at least some basing of U.S. forces in Pakistan and to publicly commit himself to use Pakistani forces along the frontier to prevent Taliban forces from crossing into Pakistan.

The United States recognized that much of this was cosmetic. Support for the Taliban ran deep in the government and deeper in the country. The U.S. forces based in Pakistan were hardly strategic. Finally, whatever he promised, there were significant differences between what Musharraf said, what he actually intended to do and what he ultimately was able to do.

The United States carefully refrained from pressing the issue, afraid that excessive pressure would topple Musharraf and throw Pakistan either into chaos or into a fundamentalist dictatorship. Or if excessive pressure threatened Musharraf`s survival, he might simply reverse course and turn against the United States. In any case, the United States adopted a minimax policy -- it demanded the most it could get within the limits of what Islamabad could deliver, and it lived with the three differences: what was said, what was actually intended, what could really be delivered.

The manner in which the Afghan war concluded has suddenly rendered this policy untenable. While the Taliban has abandoned the cities, it continues to exist, both in alliances with particular warlords and in its own right. Where it exists most intensely, in fact, is in Pakistan, among Taliban sympathizers as well as among hundreds or thousands of Taliban fighters that have crossed into Pakistan during the past month. A very few have been very publicly apprehended, but most have gone to ground -- some protected by Pakistani forces.

Far more important than the fate of the Taliban is the fate of al Qaeda`s senior commanders, including Osama bin Laden, and of its fighters. It is becoming increasingly obvious that neither the Taliban`s high command nor al Qaeda`s has been captured. The release of a new videotape that appears to have been made in the past few weeks, and perhaps as recently as last week, dealt a blow to speculation that bin Laden and the others were killed at Tora Bora. It was always problematic that bin Laden would have chosen to travel from Kandahar to Tora Bora in the chaos that followed his last known taping. This would be not only dangerous but pointless. It was far more likely that he went directly to Pakistan, where supporters hid him and may still be doing so.

Whether bin Laden is in Pakistan or has traveled elsewhere, it is clear that many of his forces as well as Taliban leaders went to Pakistan and that the vast majority of those remain. In other words, apart from native support for the Taliban and al Qaeda, elements from Afghanistan are now in Pakistan and operating under the protection of, if not the government, certainly elements of the government and powerful political forces.

If we are correct in this, then the problem the United States faces in destroying al Qaeda does not concern Somalia, Yemen or Iraq, but Pakistan. Ideally, the United States would like Musharraf to use his security and military forces to destroy al Qaeda`s forces and hand senior leaders over to the United States. Certainly, this is something that Musharraf has assured the United States he would do. However, it is not clear that he is in a position to deliver on his promise -- it is not clear his orders are being obeyed. Nor, frankly, is it clear that he wishes to see these orders carried out. Certainly, he wants to placate the United States, but there is a huge gap between saying he will act, acting, and acting effectively.

A case in point is the Dec. 13 attack on India`s parliament by gunmen, which the U.S. government says were Islamic militants based in Pakistan. There are two explanations for the attack. The first is that Musharaff knew about plans for the attack and sanctioned it. The second is that he neither knew of nor sanctioned the attack. In a real sense, it doesn`t matter which it was. Either explanation raises serious questions about the course of Afghanistan.

All this creates a strategic crisis for the United States. Its fundamental goal is to defend its own territory against al Qaeda attacks and the global destruction of al Qaeda. In our view, al Qaeda has taken refuge in Pakistan -- historically an ally of the United States, and a country that poses a military challenge on an order of magnitude beyond that posed by Afghanistan. Launching a military campaign in Pakistan is possible but requires much greater resources than in Afghanistan, as well as the destruction of Pakistan`s nuclear capability. Rather than use direct military action, the United States would prefer a more subtle lever.

The attack on India`s parliament provides precisely that lever. Obviously, the shootout was as intolerable for India as a similar attack on Congress would be for the United States. India must react. But even apart from that, India sees itself as having an unprecedented opportunity to deal not only with the Kashmir issue but with the entire issue of the nature and future of Pakistan.

Pakistan`s alliance with the United States has placed severe limits on how far India could go. However, a profound schism is developing between Washington and Islamabad as post-Sept. 11 events evolve. Clearly, both sides are doing everything to avert an open breach -- but equally clearly, if it becomes undeniable that Pakistan is harboring al Qaeda elements, a break becomes inevitable. At that moment, India would have the opening it has awaited for 50 years. The United States would be not be able to refrain from acting against Pakistan, nor could it act efficiently without Indian support and involvement. India was eager to help from the beginning; now the United States would have no choice but to accept that help.

The United States does not want an Indo-Pakistani war, but the threat of such a war is precisely what Washington needs to move Islamabad. For Pakistan, the threat of a war with India in which the United States either stood to one side or actively participated is the worst possible nightmare. By allowing the specter to rise, Washington has given Musharraf an opportunity to become more forthcoming. If he is in control but insincere, he is being shown the abyss and can change course. If he is sincere but not in control, he can show the abyss to Islamic fundamentalists in his government and bring them under control.

The problem is that many of the fundamentalists would actually welcome a war and even defeat by India. Their goal is to radicalize the Islamic world by demonstrating that Christians, Hindus and Jews have formed a vast alliance designed to crush Islam. A combined U.S.-Indian attack would be exactly what would be needed to demonstrate this to the world. The destruction of Pakistan`s nuclear capability -- whether by nuclear or conventional weapons -- would further illustrate the point. It is therefore no accident that Islamic fundamentalists struck India at what would normally be considered the worst possible moment. From their point of view, it was the best possible moment to act.

This indicated that Musharraf may not be able to gain control of the situation, even if he wanted to. Thus, he visited Beijing in late December. China has historically been an enemy of India and an ally of Pakistan. Beijing has been extremely cautious since Sept. 11, but it remembers both the EP-3 spy plane incident and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld`s redefinition of strategy toward the Pacific and against China prior to Sept. 11. Beijing is happy to see the United States diverted. It would not be happy to see India emerge without a threat on its western flank. Hence, Musharaff had a very cordial visit to Beijing.

At this point, the strategic imperative of defeating al Qaeda begins to intersect with Eurasian geopolitics. It is one thing to take Afghanistan apart, quite another to do the same with Pakistan. Afghanistan`s fate is of little significance to great powers. The fate of Pakistan matters to China, among others. At the same time, if al Qaeda is using Pakistan as a base of operations or even as a transit point and the Pakistani government can`t or won`t do anything decisive and effective about it, this strikes at a fundamental U.S. interest and cannot be tolerated.

The United States is, therefore, in the midst of a veiled crisis over Pakistan. It is an odd crisis in that Washington, fearing the consequences of a public confrontation, is trying very hard to maintain the fiction that Pakistan has been fully cooperating in the battle against al Qaeda, that it is acting effectively against the Taliban and al Qaeda and that its forces would certainly arrest senior al Qaeda leaders if they could catch them. At the same time, the United States is quietly showing Pakistan the abyss in the hopes that the plausible fiction of U.S.-Pakistani relations might thereby become reality.

The problem is that in Pakistan, there are those who prefer an open breach with the United States to accommodation. Even if we assume that Musharraf is not one of these elements, it is not clear that he can control them. If he can`t control them, the United States is faced with an extraordinary dilemma -- to go into Pakistan and get al Qaeda itself. It cannot do this without India, and India will not move unless Pakistan`s nuclear weapons are destroyed. It is not clear that U.S. precision-guided munitions are sufficient for a task that will tolerate no failure.

The rest follows logically.

Re tahmed (#95):

Yes, we debated this issue in the past, but did not reach a firm conclusion from what I recall.

If memory serves me right …

… We agreed that prophets do have different levels and statuses.

… I pointed out that in Surah-e-Fatiha Muslims invoke Allah’s blessings in “ … guide us on the right path, the path of those on whom Thou has bestowed Thy blessings …”. I then pointed out verse 4:69 where followers of Allah and His Messenger (pbuh) are given news that they will be among those on whom Allah has bestowed his blessings, prophets being one of the blessings.

… You did not see the connection between the blessings invoked in Surah-e-Fatha, and the blessings mentioned in 4:69. I argued that since the same Arabic word is used for “blessings” in both places, the connection is clear, and also that 4:69 may be read independently of Surah-e-Fatiha, and it still conveys the same meaning. I do not remember we pursued this any further.

… I also pointed out verse 35 in Surah-e-Araf, where coming of future messengers is hinted at to the “chileren of Adam”, but I do not recall we discussed this much either.

… I recall that the crux of your argument was that since Quran, the perfect, complete, final word of Allah is with us, there now is no need for any future prophets. It is up to us to follow it. I did not get a chance to discuss this further with you, but disagreed with your point of view.

… I do not recall discussing the interpretation of “seal of prophethood” in detail with you, unless I am being forgetful. I cannot find your earlier post on this subject, but would very much appreciate if you can provide me with a “chowk link” to those posts of yours, or re-post if you still have a soft-copy handy. I would very much appreciate your help in this matter.

Re Fatimah (#109):

In a brief response to your post … yes, both shia and sunni Muslim sects believe that Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) is the final, last prophet. Ahmadi-Muslims disagree with both sects in this interpretation.

Since I follow Quran where Allah has chosen the word “Islam” for my faith, I consider myself a Muslim. Therefore I cannot accept as valid any claims calling me a non-Muslim. Discrimination against Ahmadis, or any other sect, or religion has basis in Islam.

Regards, Asad

Oops ... last sentence of my previous post should read ....

``Discrimination against Ahmadis, or any other sect, or religion has NO basis in Islam.``

One little word ... made all the difference

Regards, Asad

fatimah # 98

oh fatimah...such a pretty name and such utter nonsense...i wish you`d just `shattap` for a few days

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Rana: This is a reoccuring theme in ALL religions which don`t emphasize a personal, introspective path.

If God/religion is found EXTERNALLY (books, science) and not from within, a ``believer`` has two options... (keeping in mind that we all have an innate idea of ``truth, right and wrong.``)

1. Repress your notions of what truth is and follow the religion BLINDLY. This involves adapting yourSELF(soul) to the religion - the COWARDLY approach cuz ur not being U.

2. Either leave the religion, or ADAPT it to yourself. This means u gotta accept the fact that u may go to that (fairy tale) place called ``hell.`` It means that you follow what u KNOW is right and that ur man enough to face the consequences...

The latter doesnt depend on other people`s interpretation, its less fanatical. The former is taken by a coward who thinks its the ONLY way (FOOLZ)....

Thats the REAL delineation.

While there is no error proof discision ,the good honest effort to re evaluate certain principles of Islam need to be discussed by all muslims.What if the act it self may be Non Islamic but acted on by muslim named individuals.?

tehrantimes.com

- Friday, December 28, 2001

How to Counter Terrorism?

By Dr. Mohsen Esmaeili Univ. Professor,

Holding the scientific seminar ``Terrorism and Legitimate Defense from the

View of Islam and International Law`` was an appropriate and laudable

measure taken by the Judiciary, especially considering the present

circumstances in the region and the world.

The undeniable fact to all those who are not at the service of the

illegitimate interests of global arrogance is that the fight against

terrorism, like all other noble concepts and human ideals, has

unfortunately turned into an instrument for suppressing the rightful

demands of the oppressed people throughout the world. Anyone with common

sense would surely condemn terrorism. Intentional violence with political

motives is a sharp but two-edged sword that destroys both the agent and

victim of terrorism. This ugly phenomenon is a stinking quagmire, getting

out of which is impossible.

Islam, this lofty religion, compares political assassination of one

individual with the killing of the whole mankind and considers the

ramifications of this social and political menace to be much more serious

than simple murder. Thus, it is very surprising that the Islamic school of

thought, which condemns terrorism in all its forms and with any motives,

is today charged by the real promoters of international violence with

supporting terrorism! And more painful is that some ignorant radicals or

knowledgeable but dishonest individuals prepare the ground for such

accusations.

The most bitter irony of our time is that the United States calls itself

the leader of global coalition against terrorism, while the downtrodden

nations everywhere in the world have experienced the U.S. tyranny. The

killing of 290 innocent passengers and crew on board the Iranian airliner

over the Persian Gulf by the U.S. warship Vincennes in 1988 and conferring

a medal of honor on the captain of the ship by the U.S. Administration is

just one example of the so many crimes committed by the U.S. against other

nations.

It is the United States that has fostered the occupier, aggressor and

racist regime of Israel, and it is Washington that has divided terrorism

into two categories, acceptable and unacceptable! And by doing so, the

U.S. officials have openly accepted a form of terrorism. Still, it is the

United States that has allocated funds for acts of terrorism by its agents

in other parts of the world. Therefore, the question is, what makes the

U.S. qualified to lead the global campaign against terrorism?

Indeed, as long as Washington continues to support the state-sponsored

acts of terrorism committed by the Zionist regime against Palestinians, as

long as it not only refuses to condemn these acts of terrorism, but also

vetoes the UN Security Council resolutions issued in condemnation of

Israel, and as long as the United States labels as ``terrorists`` those

Palestinians who are defending their homes and resisting Israeli

occupation, Washington lacks all legitimacy and qualification to lead the

holy struggle against terrorism.

Terrorism is an international catastrophe, whose ugly face was partly

revealed through the terrorist incidents during the recent months.

Fighting this phenomenon requires tackling its roots, and one of the most

striking roots of this phenomenon is state-sponsored terrorism.

Any strategy to fight international terrorism should, in particular,

reconsider national and international rules and place more emphasis on the

enforcement of these rules, promote international cooperation in this

regard, reject a selective approach to the issue and ultimately encourage

concerted action to condemn and firmly deal with those promoting and

defending this inhuman practice.

Humiliating submission to the founders of terrorism in the world by

proposing to recognize the ugliest manifestation of this phenomenon and

ignoring the suffering of Palestinians, who have been victims of Zionist

terrorism for the past half a century, will not help to eradicate this

menace, but will only encourage its perpetrators. This proposal is not

acceptable, even if it is submitted under the demagogic title of

``strategic studies``, and even if some try to give it a gloss from the Holy

Book and Sunna

i think this is purely case of trying to use a sledge hammer to kill a fly.Yes terrorist problem in India is not new .There are Verappan ,Dawood ,Gowle ,Naik Naxalites ,Maoist ,Bodo & many non kashmiri terrorist that India cannot manage itself ,how can it only EXPECT pakistan to do the impossible whithout showing how India itself tackled or eradicated the problem.

I think like Reagans Libyan bombing ,or Saddams War it is more question of convenience than necessaity.But god forbid if India gets nuclear burnt in this expedition it would not be a smart exoperimentation.

Look at P.M. statesman like demeanor & Indian hawkish belligerent war cry

Wonder who is commando &who is non military back ground here

http://headlines.sify.com/popwin.html

Pakistan will never initiate war: Musharraf





Islamabad, Dec 28

Pakistan ``stands for peace`` and will never initiate a war, its leader General Pervez Musharraf said Friday.

``Pakistan is passing through a difficult stage. There is tension on the border,`` Musharraf told a dinner gathering at the presidential palace.

``Pakistan stands for peace, we do not want war. We will never initiate a war unless it is thrust and imposed on us.

``We do not want war because we understand all the hazards that could follow,`` he said.

In another statement, Musharraf said he would be willing to meet Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee during SAARC summit in Nepal next week.

``I don`t mind meeting him (Vajpayee). But as I said once before, you can`t clap with one hand. And if there is a willingness from the other side, then there is a willingness from my side,`` he told reporters.









http://headlines.sify.com/popwin.html

It`s time for the decisive war,says Advani







New Delhi, Dec 28

Accusing Pakistan of carrying on a consistent war against India, Home Minister L K Advani Friday said New Delhi would now wage a ``decisive`` battle to put an end to Pak-sponsored terrorism.

``Although they have faced defeat at our hands several times, they never stopped fighting against us. After the three wars they fought with India, they have been waging a proxy war against us which reached up to the Parliament House,`` Advani said, while speaking at the CRPF Day here.

The neighbouring country, he said, had now crossed all limits and given India the greatest challenge ever by attacking Parliament. ``We will now wage a decisive battle against their proxy war irrespective of the support we get from other countries in this war against terrorism,`` the Home Minister said.

Asserting that India would fight this battle on its own strength, he said, ``If the other countries support us, it`s well and good. If they don`t, we are not bothered.``











UNI

http://www3.sympatico.ca/gul.khan/main1.jpg

http://www3.sympatico.ca/gul.khan/main1.jpg

OmarAkram #104:

``I do agree that people have persecuted the Ahmedis viciously which is wrong, but there is still no denying the fact that their interpretations are quite contrary to what I have firm faith in and that does not make them muslim in my eyes...``

IN DEFENCE OF AHMEDIS:

Let me state at the outset that I am an Indian Hindu and have no stakes in how Pakistan treats its Ahmedi citizens. My comments below are purely in order to share my views in this debate. I know we in India/Hinduism ourselves have a long way to go in the way we treat our fellow-citizens/co-religionists.

I do not understand why Ahemdis have to be treated the way they are just because they do not believe in the finality of the Prophet. Those of you who have lived in the US, Canada, UK etc - how would you feel if these predominantly Christian countries persecuted those who did not believe in the finality of Jesus as the last Prophet.

Some people have objected to Ahmedis describing themselves as Muslims - who defines what a Muslim is and what a Muslim should believe? Any body who declares himself to be a Muslim (or of anyother religion), he should be respected as such. Those who would like to brand Shias, Ahmedis etc as non-Muslims must learn to live with and tolerate differences even within their own religion. Take a look around - all religions have difference sects that believe in different things. Hindus have Shaivism, VAishnavism, myriad beliefs in different Gods, Christians have Catholics, Protestants and further subdivisions, even small religions in India like Buddhism has Hinayana and Mahayana sects. Differences are inevitable - it is the nature of people. Learning to live with differences within our own religions would help us to tolerate differences with other religions, IMHO.