Prophecy and the Mullah: Hotel Mohenjodaro

Raw Dust: (to add to me other post I just sent you), that if you read the past few posts you will see I have stopped responding to maududilives for some time. He on the other hand has two posts (#227 and #221) addressed to me to which I have not responded, and in addition I see him using his mocking my repetition of Quranic verses concerning respect for all religion (by referring to some hidden motive of india-pakistan friendship on my part, rather than accepting that as a simple representation of something made loud and clear in the Quran, even though it goes counter to what he would like to think). I have not responded to any of this. THis makes your advice to me to make space for him all the more gratuitous.

But these are simple facts - and if simple facts of what the Quran itself says fail to impress you, I am sure what I have said above is of no consequence to you.

sattar: #237 actually much of what I have said about maududiites and mullahs applies to ahmedis also. You people are more alike than either side cares to admit - you chose to disblieve the Quran when it says that it is a book to make things simple (not once but a number of times), and look towards other men for guidance.

Anyway, we have had this discussion before, and I know nothing I say will convince you either. At least you people are not a threat to pakistani society, while maududiites are a very real threat and have already caused bloodshed through sectarian violence in Pakistan.

My two bits on this …

My view is that Ram, Krishna, and several other prophets were sent to Indus valley civilizations by Allah Almighty. Vedas is the scripture from Allah/God/Bhagwan for these nations.

I have read parts of Gita, which is a dialogue between Arjun and Lord Krishna. I found teachings of Gita to be strikingly similar to the message of Quran. The concept of one’s duty, moral code, rising above one’s selfish desires, the Supreme being etc. bear close resemblance to Islamic teachings of Quran.

The polytheistic appearance of Hinduism that we see nowadays, in my view, is due to changes Hinduism suffered at the hands of people over time. That’s all. Not surprisingly, even Islam is undergoing similar changes at the hands of its followers. If you peel through the layers … and read the true message of Vedas, you’ll find it very similar to Quran. And yes, you may also discover that Vedas contain references to a future ‘Rishi’ … which seem to fit the person of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in Arabia.

In summary … I have strong reasons to think that Hindus are among the People of the Book …

( … on a lighter note … I am clueless when it comes to the chaste/unchaste women issue. If my college day experiences are to serve as a yardstick … which in itself is a dangerous proposition … I recall the unchaste ones being a lot more fun to be around …)

tahmed32 sahib: I disagree with your ``reading`` of Quran and i wont make a judgement whether your approach is closed minded or open minded etc. I expect you to give MaududiLives his space too without being judgemental about his interpretation.

peace.

#229 by Mantolives
//...tahmed`s argument about Hindus being the people of the book is sound... //

Gosh... Hindus are people of the book? You sure? Better check it out guys - this looks like a sure-shot case of blasphemy.

I thought only Muslims, Christians and Jews are people of the book ... How can polytheist hindus be people of the book?

tahmad

Thank you, as promised there will not be follow-up questions so you don`t need to get defensive.

urstruly #232 This should not be news to you if you have read the Quran - as you should know there are a number of verses that explicitly limit the prophet`s role to that of messenger or warner. So you are either pretending to be ignorant (I doubt it) or trying to be clever.

I would normally not give you references you ask, for reasons explained in #231. You, and only you, are responsible for making sure you are not being misled by charlatans and power hungry men who make religious parties and claim to be enforcing God`s laws when in fact all they are doing is trying to seeking by hook or by crook to gain power. Surely these are the most evil of men, and the damage they have done to human societies and muslim societies is immense. They will pay for it one day. So, dont let me stop you from following them.

Just this once I will give you some references: see e.g. 2:256 (``Let there be no compulsion in religion``). This one phrase is a rejection of the concept of an islamic state (since a state by definition implies compulsion). Of course, clever mullahs will find ways around it (cooking convenient hadith to negate the Quranic injunction), but this is the truth. Similarly, on how muadudi and his followers seek to arrogate to themselves the role deined explicitly even to the Holy Prophet, see 3:144 (``Muhammad is no more than a Messeenger: many were the Messengers that passed away before him``), and 32:3, 36:3, 48:8, 50:2, 51:50, 51:51, 53:56, 54:5 e.g. where it restates over and over again his role as messenger and warner.

I will not waste any more time with you, and am sure you will find something around it. But please dont feign ignorance, since I am sure you must have read these things a hundred times in the Quran, and these things have obviously fallen on deaf ears and sealed hearts.

tahmad

Although you have resigned yourself from the debate citing the reason that you can deal only one moulvi at a time, but I am not debating you. I only want to know how you reached to the following conclusion in your words ``On your question: do i need to remind you of the clear instruction to the prophet that he is a messenger, a warner, and implementation of the message is not his concern. This is crystal clear in the Quran, and maududiism is a violation of this fundamental instruction in the Quran. There is no compulsion in religion.``

With reference please.

Raw Dust #225 You say ``infact, Quran makes a clear distinction between People of the Book and Polytheists.`` It certainly does in some places. But the two questions I have are as follows:

1. It can easily be argued that hinduism is, IN ESSENCE, the same as islam - the Supreme Being - Brahman (God, not the caste) is central to the concept of hinduism. As I said earlier in this discussion, there is even a hindu prayer (as I understand from reading about it in Huston Smith`s book ``The World`s Religions``) where the devotee begs forgiveness for worshipping God in material form saying that it is his own weakness that leads him to worship God as an image. The ``consensus`` you say is heavily colored by a thousand years of history in India, not based on an objective view.

2. EVEN if the above were not true (i.e., hinduism was a polytheistic religion, the Quran makes it amply clear that one should nevertheless respect all religions - on matters of religion the judge is God, not man). I would normally end my post here, without pulling verses out of the Quran - rather I would simply urge you to read the Quran carefully and with an open mind untinged by a thousand years of tradition - and reach your own conclusions on this matter. In discussion in past years on chowk, when asked I would go through the specific verses, but dont like to do that any more - as an individual it is your responsibility to read carefully through the Quran with an open mind, use your common sense, and reach your own conclusions, rather than to simply accept what some other man claims is being said. In this case, I will make an exception, and refer you to specific verses (from Yusuf Ali translation) in support of this point 2:

22:17

Thos who belive (in the Quran),
Those who follow the Jewish (scriptures),
And the Sabians, Christians,
Magians, and Polytheists -
Allah will judge between them
On the Day of Judgeemnt:
For Allah is witness
Of all things.

This verse is explicit enough on this issue - it does not draw this arbitrary distinction between ``people of the book``, and even includes polytheists. And this is not a standalone verse (a common excuse of the maulvis), but is entirely consistent with the basic message that is repeated over and over again in the Quran: it is not for man to pass judgement on religious matters. See for example 16:36 (``For we assuredly sent among every people a mesenger``) - it refers to ``EVERY`` people and 22:67 (``To every people We appointed rites``). As I said earlier - the Quran expects us not only to respect every religion but their rites and rituals as well. THAT is the way of islam.
And another one, 2:213 ``Mankind was one single nation. And Allah sent messengers...and with them He sent down the Book n Truth...But the people of Book after the clear signs came to them did not differ among themselves except through selfish contumacy``. This last is a clear condemnation of religious differences promoted by mullahs.

Other verses with a similar, consistent message are to be found across the Quran.
I could go on, but as I said, it is your responsibility to read the Quran and not just follow like sheep what other men are saying.

mantolives #229 I am glad you and I agree on this point. I have always had respect for your honesty even when have sometimes differed on some issues. And if one is honest and reads the Quran with a view to understanding what it says then there is no question that the direction the maulvi points is in opposite on fundamental issues to the one direction the Quran points. The Quran does NOT make distinctions between people of different religions (in my post to Raw Dust below, I even went through the trouble of pointing to some verses at his request - even as I emphasize that it is his duty to read the entire Quran and to understand these things for himself).

The Quran calls for respect for all religions. Over and over again it says all religions are from God. Over and over again it calls for people not to fight over differences in religion. That religions is a personal matter. Maulvis have made a career (literally) out of fanning religious hatreds and intolerance. This makes them criminals not just in the eyes of human law, but also (from what is clearly written in the Quran) in the eyes of God as well. To take just one example.

tahmed`s argument about Hindus being the people of the book is sound... according to the Quran... Quran said that we sent every people on earth a book and a prophet... the name Hindu comes from the land... so it is quite probable, nay quite definite that the Hindus are the people of the book...

Raw_dust - Please note the ayah below. I quoted it in post # 200. brother Tahmed made the shameful attempt of distorting it by moulding it to fit his argument. PLease note, this ayah clearly refers to the people of the book (monotheistic) prior to Islams coming. Also the word ``believer`` is a translation of the arabic word ``maumin``. So the ayah says that either you can marry amongst the ``mauminaats`` or from among the people of the book revealed before Islam. However, in his absurd efforts to look more likeable to his masters, and in the spirit of Pak-india friendship, tahmed32 has ``proven`` from the following ayah that hindus are ``believers`` !!!!

Al-Ma`idah (The Table Spread) - (Arabic)
5:5 This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the people of the book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers , but chaste women among the people of the book , revealed before your time ,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).

I just happened to browse this debate and i find it very very strange that tahmed sahib is including Hindus in the ``people of the book``. There has been a concensus (correct me if am wrong) on this (in all fiqhs and sects in Islam) that Books refer to the previously revealed sources of ``Divine Religion`` (Allah`s religion).
How tahmed can argue for Hindus to be considered as people of the book escapes me.

peace.

infact, Quran makes a clear distinction between People of the Book and Polytheists. Tahmed sahib your assertion is conclusively shot down by the Divine word Himself.

098.001
YUSUFALI: Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, were not going to depart (from their ways) until there should come to them Clear Evidence,-
PICKTHAL: Those who disbelieve among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters could not have left off (erring) till the clear proof came unto them,
SHAKIR: Those who disbelieved from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists could not have separated (from the faithful) until there had come to them the clear evidence:

tahmed32 - beleagured? me? hardly :)

Continuing your view of the ``simple islam`` you claim that implementation of islam is not Prophet (saw)`s concern. Then you say ``there is no compulsion in Islam. Well, aside from the fact that you have once again failed to provide any Quranic or sunnah references to this regard so we can establish a context, these are two DIFFERENT things.

Have you ever heard of the ayah ``amr bil maaruf, va nahee unil munkar`` ?

urstruly #220 I am glad to see chowk`s resident maulvi arriving to save the beleagured maududilives, whose lack of respect for the Quran has been exposed by his own words.

On your question: do i need to remind you of the clear instruction to the prophet that he is a messenger, a warner, and implementation of the message is not his concern. This is crystal clear in the Quran, and maududiism is a violation of this fundamental instruction in the Quran. There is no compulsion in religion.

Now go ahead and tell me what loophole you have found around this simple and clear instruction in the Quran? Exactly what part of this clear and simple NO in the Quran do you propose to say on Qiyamat day you did not understand?