ISLAM - THE RELIGION OF PEACE

ALL RELIGIONS TEACH MEN TO BE RIGHTEOUS, THEN WHY FOLLOW ONLY ISLAM?

2008-01-01T21:07:00.000-08:00

Question

All religions basically teach followers to do good deeds. Why should a person only follow Islam? Can he not follow any of the religions?

Answer

1. Major difference between Islam and most other religions

All religions basically exhort mankind to be righteous and eschew evil. But Islam goes beyond that. It guides us towards practical ways of achieving righteousness and eliminating evil from our individual and collective lives. Islam takes into account human nature and the complexities of human society. Islam is guidance from the Creator Himself. Therefore, Islam is also called the Deen-ul-Fitrah (the natural religion of Man).

2. Example - Islam commands us to shun robbery and also prescribes method of eleminating robbery

a. Islam prescribes method of eliminating robbery
All major religions teach that theft is an evil act. Islam teaches the same. So what is the difference between Islam and the other religions? The difference lies in the fact that Islam, besides teaching that robbing is evil, shows a practical way of creating a social structure in which people will not rob.

b. Islam prescribes Zakaat
Islam prescribes a system of Zakaat (obligatory annual charity). Islamic law prescribes that every person who has a saving that exceeds the nisaab level i.e. more than 85 grams of gold, should give 2.5% of that saving every lunar year in charity. If every rich person in the world gave Zakaat sincerely, poverty will be eradicated from this world. Not a single human being would die of hunger.

c. Chopping off the hands as punishment for robbery
Islam prescribes chopping off the hands of the convicted robber. The Glorious Qurâ€™an says in Surah Maidah:
"As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands:a punishment by way
of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power, full of wisdom."
[ Al-Qurâan 5:38]
The non-Muslim may say, "Chopping off the hands in this 20th century. Islam is a barbaric and ruthless religion!"

d. Results achieved when Islamic Shariah Implemented
America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries in the world. Unfortunately it also has one of the highest rates of crime, theft, and robbery. Suppose the Islamic shariah is implemented in America i.e. every rich person gives Zakaat ( 2.5% of his savings in charity above 85 grams of gold every lunar year), and every convicted robber has his or her hands chopped off as a punishment. Will the rate of theft and robbery in America increase, remain same or decrease? Naturally it will decrease. Moreover the existence of such a stringent law would discourage many a potential robber.

I agree that the amount of theft that takes place in the world today is so tremendous that if you chop off the hands of all the thieves, there will be tens of thousands of people whose hands will be chopped off. The point here is that the moment you implement this law the rate of theft will decline immediately. The potential robber would give it a serious thought before jeopardizing his limbs. The mere thought of the punishment itself will discourage majority of the robbers. There will barely be a few who would rob. Hence only a few persons hands would be chopped off but millions would live peacefully without fear of being robbed.

Islamic Shariah is therefore practical, and achieves results.

3. Example: Islam prohibits the molestation and rape of women. It enjoins hijaab and prescribes capital punishment for a convicted rapist.

Islam prescribes method of eliminating molestation and rape
All the major religions declare the molestation and rape of women as grave sins. Islam teaches the same. What then is the difference between Islam and the other religions? The difference lies in the fact that Islam does not merely preach respect for women, or abhor molestation and rape as serious crimes, but also gives clear guidance as to how society can eliminate such crimes.

Hijaab for men
Islam has a system of hijaab. The Glorious Qurâan first mentions hijaab for the men and then for the women. Hijaab for the men is mentioned in the following verse:

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do."
[Al-Qurâan 24:30]

The moment a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he should lower his gaze.

Hijaab for women
Hijaab for women is mentioned in the following verse:

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands fathers, their sons...."

[Al-Qurâan 24:31]

The extent of hijaab for a woman is that her complete body should be covered. The only part that can be seen, are the face and the hands up to the wrists. If they wish to cover, they can even cover these parts of the body. However some Islamic scholars insist that even the face should be covered.

Hijaab prevents molestation
The reason why Allah has prescribed Hijaab for the women is given in the Qurâan in the folowing verse of Surah Al-Ahzab:

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women,that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, most Merciful."

[Al-Qurâan 33:59]

The Qurâan says that Hijaab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women this would prevent them from being molested.

Example of twin sisters
Suppose two sisters who are twins and who are equally beautiful, walk down a street. One of them is wearing the Islamic Hijaab i.e. the complete body is covered except for the face and the hands up to the wrists, and the other twin is wearing a mini skirt or shorts. Around the corner there is a hooligan who is waiting for an opportunity to tease a girl. Who will he tease? The girl wearing the Islamic Hijaab or the girl wearing the mini skirt or shorts? Dresses that expose more than they conceal, are an indirect temptation to the opposite sex for teasing, molestation and rape. The Qurâan rightly says that the hijaab prevents women from being molested.

Capital punishment for rapist
The Islamic shariah prescribes capital punishment for a convicted rapist. The non-Muslim may be horrified at such a stringent punishment in this age. Many accuse Islam of being ruthless and barbaric. I have asked a common question to hundreds of non-Muslim men. Suppose God-forbid, some one rapes your wife, your mother or your sister and you are made the judge. The rapist is brought in front of you. What punishment would you give him? All of them said, "we would put him to death." Some went to the extent of saying, "we would torture him to death", If your wife or your mother is raped you want the rapist to be put to death. But if someone elses wife or mother is raped, capital punishment is a barbaric law. Why the double standards?

U.S.A. has one of the highest rate of Rape
The United States of America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries of the world. An F.B.I report in the year 1990 says that 1,02,555 cases of rape were reported. It further says that only 16% of the cases of rapes are reported. Thus, in order to know the actual number of rapes that took place in 1990, the reported figure should be multiplied by 6.25. We get a total of 6,40,968 rape cases that took place in the year 1990. If the total is divided by 365 the number of days in a year, we get an average of 1,756 rape incidents everyday.

Later another report said that an average of 1900 cases of rape are committed in U.S.A every day. According to National Crime Victimization Survey Bureau of Justice Statistics (U. S. Dept. of Justice) in 1996 alone 3,07,000 cases of rape were reported. Only 31% of the actual cases of rape were reported. Thus, 3,07,000 X 3.226 = 9,90,322 rapes took place in 1996. That is, an average of 2,713 cases of rape took place everyday in America in 1996. Every 32 seconds one rape is taking place in America. Maybe American rapists got bolder. The FBI report of 1990 continues and says that out of the rape cases that were reported only 10% of the rapist were arrested, that is only 1.6% of the actual rapes committed. Out of those arrested, 50% were let free before the trial. This would mean that only 0.8% of the rapists faced a trial. In other words if a person commits 125 rapes the chances that he will get a punishment for rape is only once. Many would consider this a good gamble. And the report says that of those people who faced trial 50% received sentences of less than a yearâ€™s imprisonment though the American law says rape carries a seven year sentence of imprisonment. For a rapist, the judge is lenient to first time offenders. Imagine a person commits 125 rapes and the chances of being convicted is only once, and 50% of the time the judge will grant leniency and give a sentence of less than a year!

Results achieved when Islamic Shariah Implemented
Suppose the Islamic shariah is implemented in America. Whenever a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he lowers his gaze. Every woman wears the Islamic Hijaab, that is the complete body is covered except the face and the hands upto the wrists. After this if any man commits rape, he gets capital punishment. The question is, will the rate of rape in America increase, will it remain the same or will it decrease? Naturally it will decrease. Islamic Shariah gets results.

4. Islam has Practical Solutions for the Problems of Mankind

Islam is the best way of life because its teachings are not doctrinaire rhetoric but practical solutions for the problems of mankind. Islam achieves results both at the individual and collective levels. Islam is the best way of life because it is a practical, universal religion not confined to any ethnic group or nationality.

VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISLAM AND THE ACTUAL PRACTICE OF MUSLIMS

2008-01-01T21:04:00.000-08:00

Question:

If Islam is the best religion, why are many of the Muslims dishonest, unreliable, and involved in activities such as cheating, bribing, dealing in drugs, etc.?

Answer:

1. Media maligns Islam

Islam is without doubt the best religion but the media is in the hands of the westerners who are afraid of Islam. The media is continuously broadcasting and printing information against Islam. They either provide misinformation about Islam, misquote Islam or project a point out of proportion, if any.
When any bomb blasts take place anywhere, the first people to be accused without proof are invariably the Muslims. This appears as headlines in the news. Later, when they find that non-Muslims were responsible, it appears as an insignificant news item.
If a 50 year old Muslim marries a 15 year old girl after taking her permission, it appears on the front page but when a 50 year old non-Muslim rapes a 6 year old girl, it may appear in the news in the inside pages as Newsbriefs Everyday in America on an average 2,713 cases of rape take place but it doesnt appear in the news, since it has become a way of life for the Americans.

2. Black sheep in every community:

I am aware that there are some Muslims who are dishonest, unreliable, who cheat, etc. but the media projects this as though only Muslims are involved in such activities. There are black sheep in every community. I know Muslims who are alcoholics and who can drink most of the non-Muslims under the table.

3. Muslims best as a whole:

Inspite of all the black sheep in the Muslim community, Muslims taken on the whole, yet form the best community in the world. We are the biggest community of tee-totallers as a whole, i.e. those who dont imbibe alcohol. Collectively, we are a community which gives the maximum charity in the world. There is not a single person in the world who can even show a candle to the Muslims where modesty is concerned; where sobriety is concerned; where human values and ethics are concerned.

4. Dont judge a car by its driver:

If you want to judge how good is the latest model of the "Mercedes" car and a person who does not know how to drive sits at the steering wheel and bangs up the car, who will you blame? The car or the driver? But naturally, the driver. To analyze how good the car is, a person should not look at the driver but see the ability and features of the car. How fast is it, what is its average fuel consumption, what are the safety measures, etc. Even if I agree for the sake of argument that the Muslims are bad, we cant judge Islam by its followers? If you want to judge how good Islam is then judge it according to its authentic sources, i.e. the Glorious Quran and the Sahih Hadith.

5. Judge Islam by its best follower i.e. Prophet Mohammed (pbuh):

If you practically want to check how good a car is put an expert driver behind the steering wheel. Similarly the best and the most exemplary follower of Islam by whom you can check how good Islam is, is the last and final messenger of God, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Besides Muslims, there are several honest and unbiased non-Muslim historians who have acclaimed that prophet Muhammad was the best human being. According to Michael H. Hart who wrote the book, ˜The Hundred Most Influential Men in History, the topmost position, i.e. the number one position goes to the beloved prophet of Islam, Muhammad (pbuh). There are several such examples of non-Muslims paying great tributes to the prophet, like Thomas Carlyle, La-Martine, etc.

NON-MUSLIMS REFERRED AS "KAFIR"

2008-01-01T21:02:00.000-08:00

KAFIR means one who rejects.

KAFIR is derived from the word AL KUFFAR, which means to conceal or to reject. In Islamic terminology, KAFIR means one who conceals or rejects the truth of Islam and a person who rejects Islam is in English called a â€˜non-Muslimâ€™.

If non-Muslims are hurt - they should accept Islam.

If any non-Muslim considers the word KAFIR i.e.non-Muslim as an abuse, he may choose to accept Islam and then we will stop referring to him as or call him a kafir i.e. a non-Muslim.

NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD MAKES MUSLIMS VIOLENT

2007-12-26T16:24:00.001-08:00

Question:

Science tell us that whatever one eats, it has an effect on oneâ€™s behaviour. Why then, does Islam allow Muslims to eat non-vegetarian food, since eating of animals could make a person violent and ferocious?

Answer:

1. Only eating of herbivorous animals allowed

I agree that, what a person eats has an effect on his behaviour. This is one of the reasons why Islam prohibits the eating of carnivorous animals like lion, tiger, leopard, etc. who are violent and ferocious. The consumption of the meat of such animals would probably make a person violent and ferocious. Islam only allows the eating of herbivorous animals like cow, goat, sheep, etc. that are peaceful and docile. We Muslims eat peaceful and docile animals because we are peace loving and non-violent people.

2. The Qurâ€™an says Prophet prohibits what is bad

The Qurâ€™an says:

"The Prophet commands them what is just and prohibits what is evil". "He allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them what is bad (and impure),"
[Al-Qurâ€™an 7: 157]

"So take what the Messenger assigns to you and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you."
[Al-Qurâ€™an 59: 7]

For a Muslim, the Prophetâ€™s statement is sufficient to convince him that Allah does not wish humans to eat some kinds of meat while allowing some other kinds.

3. Hadith of Mohammad (pbuh) prohibiting eating of carnivorous animals

According to various authentic Ahadith narrated in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim including hadith narrated by Ibn Abbas in Sahih Muslim, Book of hunting and slaughter, Hadith No. 4752 and Sunan Ibn-I-Majah chapter 13 Hadith no. 3232 to 3234, the Holy Prophet (pbuh) prohibited the eating of:

i. Wild animals with canine teeth, i.e. meat eating carnivorous animals. These are animals belonging to the cat families such as lion, tiger, cats, dogs, wolfs, hyenas, etc.

ii. Certain rodents like mice, rats, rabbits with claws, etc.

iii. Certain reptiles like snakes, alligators, etc.

iv. Birds of prey with talons or claws, like vultures, eagle, crows, owl, etc

ISLAMIC METHOD OF SLAUGHTERING ANIMALS APPEARS RUTHLESS

2007-12-26T16:23:00.000-08:00

Question:

Why do Muslims slaughter the animal in a ruthless manner by torturing it and slowly and painfully killing it?

Answer:

The Islamic method of slaughtering animals, known as Zabiha has been the object of much criticism from a large number of people.

Before I reply to the question, let me relate an incidence about a discussion between a Sikh and a Muslim regarding animal slaughter.

Once a Sikh asked a Muslim, "Why do you slaughter the animal painfully by cutting the throat instead of the way we do with one stroke i.e. jhatka?" The Muslim replied "We are brave and courageous and attack from the front. We are marad ka baccha (macho men), you are cowards and attack from behind".

Jokes apart, one may consider the following points, which prove that the Zabiha method is not only humane but also scientifically the best:

1. Islamic method of slaughtering animal

Zakkaytum is a verb derived from the root word Zakah (to purify). Its infinitive is Tazkiyah which means purification. The Islamic mode of slaughtering an animal requires the following conditions to be met:

a. Animal should be slaughtered with sharp object (knife)

The animal has to be slaughtered with a sharp object (knife) and in a fast way so that the pain of slaughter is minimised.

b. Cut wind pipe, throat and vessels of neck

Zabiha is an Arabic word which means â€˜slaughteredâ€™. The â€˜slaughteringâ€™ is to be done by cutting the throat, windpipe and the blood vessels in the neck causing the animalâ€™s death without cutting the spinal cord.

c. Blood should be drained

The blood has to be drained completely before the head is removed. The purpose is to drain out most of the blood which would serve as a good culture medium for micro organisms. The spinal cord must not be cut because the nerve fibres to the heart could be damaged during the process causing cardiac arrest, stagnating the blood in the blood vessels.

2. Blood is a good medium for germs and bacteria

Blood is a good media of germs, bacteria, toxins, etc. Therefore the Muslim way of slaughtering is more hygienic as most of the blood containing germs, bacteria, toxins, etc. that are the cause of several diseases are eliminated.

3. Meat remains fresh for a longer time

Meat slaughtered by Islamic way remains fresh for a longer time due to deficiency of blood in the meat as compared to other methods of slaughtering.

4. Animal does not feel pain

The swift cutting of vessels of the neck disconnects the flow of blood to the nerve of the brain responsible for pain. Thus the animal does not feel pain. While dying, the animal struggles, writhers, shakes and kicks, not due to pain, but due to the contraction and relaxation of the muscles defecient in blood and due to the flow of blood out of the body.

GOD'S CONCEPT IN ISLAM

2007-12-26T16:22:00.001-08:00

Introduction

It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities. This is not the case with Allah. Allah is the personal name of the One true God. Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender. This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word "god," which can be made plural, as in "gods," or made feminine, as in "goddess." It is interesting to notice that Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and a sister language of Arabic.

The One true God is a reflection of the unique concept that Islam associates with God. To a Muslim, Allah is the Almighty Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Who is similar to nothing, and nothing is comparable to Him. The Prophet Muhammad was asked by his contemporaries about Allah; the answer came directly from God Himself in the form of a short chapter of the Qur'an, which is considered to be the essence of the unity or the motto of monotheism. This is chapter 112, which reads:“ In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O Muhammad), He is God, the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone”.

Some non-Muslims allege that God in Islam is a stern and cruel God who demands to be obeyed fully and is not loving and kind. Nothing could be farther from the truth than this allegation. It is enough to know that, with the exception of one, each of the 114 chapters of the Qur'an begins with the verse " In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate". In one of the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), we are told that “ God is more loving and kind than a mother to her dear child”.

On the other hand, God is also Just. Hence, evildoers and sinners must have their share of punishment, and the virtuous must have God's bounties and favors. Actually, God's attribute of Mercy has full manifestation in His attribute of Justice. People suffering throughout their lives for His sake should not receive similar treatment from their Lord as people who oppress and exploit others their whole lives. Expecting similar treatment for them would amount to negating the very belief in the accountability of man in the Hereafter and thereby negate all the incentives for a moral and virtuous life in this world. The following Qur'anic verses are very clear and straightforward in this respect.

Verily, for the Righteous are gardens of Delight, in the Presence of their Lord. Shall We then treat the people of Faith like the people of Sin? What is the matter with you? How judge you?

Islam rejects characterizing God in any human form or depicting Him as favoring certain individuals or nations on the basis of wealth, power or race. He created the human-beings as equals. They may distinguish themselves and get His favor through virtue and piety only.

The concepts that God rested on the seventh day of creation, that God wrestled with one of His soldiers, that God is an envious plotter against mankind, and that God is incarnate in any human being are considered blasphemy from the Islamic point of view.

The unique usage of Allah as a personal name of God is a reflection of Islam's emphasis on the purity of the belief in God that is the essence of the message of all God's messengers. Because of this, Islam considers associating any deity or personality with God as a deadly sin that God will never forgive, despite the fact that He may forgive all other sins.

The Creator must be of a different nature from the things created because if He is of the same nature as they are, He will be temporal and will therefore need a maker. It follows that nothing is like Him. If the maker is not temporal, then he must be eternal. But if he is eternal, he cannot be caused, and if nothing caused Him to come into existence, nothing outside Him causes Him to continue to exist, which means that he must be self-sufficient. And if He does not depend on anything for the continuance of His own existence, then this existence can have no end. The Creator is therefore eternal and everlasting: "He is the First and the Last".

He is Self-sufficient or Self-subsistent, or, to use a Qur'anic term, Al-Qayyum The Creator does not create only in the sense of bringing things into being, He. also preserves them and takes them out of existence and is the ultimate cause of whatever happens to them.

“ God is the Creator of everything. He is the guardian over everything. Unto Him belong the keys of the heavens and the earth” (39:62-63).

“ No creature is there crawling on the earth, but its provision rests on God. He knows its lodging place and its repository” (11:16).

God's Attributes

If the Creator is Eternal and Everlasting, then His attributes must also be eternal and everlasting. He should not lose any of His attributes nor acquire new ones. If this is so, then his attributes are absolute. Can there be more than one Creator with such absolute attributes? Can there be, for example, two absolutely powerful Creators? A moment's thought shows that this is not feasible.

The Qur'an summarizes this argument in the following verses:“ God has not taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god with Him: for then each god would have taken of that which he created and some of them would have risen up over others” (23:91).

“ And why, were there gods in earth and heaven other than God, they (heaven and earth) would surely go to ruin” (21:22).

The Oneness of God

The Qur'an reminds us of the falsity of all alleged gods. To the worshippers of man-made objects it asks:“ Do you worship what you have carved yourself” (37:95). “ Or have you taken unto yourself others beside Him to be your protectors, even such as have no power either for good or for harm to themselves” (13:16).

To the worshippers of heavenly bodies it cites the story of Abraham:“ When night outspread over him, he saw a star and said: This is my Lord. But when it set, he said: I love not the setters. When he saw the moon rising, he said: This is my Lord. But when it set, he said: If my Lord does not guide me, I shall surely be of the people gone astray. When he saw the sun rising, he said: This is my Lord; this is greater. But when it set, he said: O my people, surely I quit that which you associate, I have turned my face to Him who originated the heavens and the earth; a man of pure faith, I am not one of the idolators” (6:76-79).

The Believer's Attitude

In order to be a Muslim, that is, to surrender oneself to God, it is necessary to believe in the oneness of God, in the sense of His being the only Creator, Preserver, Nourisher, etc. But this belief, later called Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah, is not enough. Many of the idolators knew and believed that only the Supreme God could do all this. But this was not enough to make them Muslims. To tawhid ar-rububiyyah, one must add tawhid al-'uluhiyyah. That is, one acknowledges the fact that it is God alone who deserves to be worshipped, and thus abstains from worshipping any other thing or being.

Having achieved this knowledge of the one true God, man should constantly have faith in Him, and should allow nothing to induce him to deny truth.

When faith enters a person's heart, it causes certain mental states that result in certain actions. Taken together, these mental states and actions are the proof for the true faith. The Prophet said:“ Faith is that which resides firmly in the heart and which is proved by deeds”.

Foremost among those mental stated is the feeling of gratitude towards God, which could be said to be the essence of ibada (worship).

The feeling of gratitude is so important that a non-believer is called 'kafir', which means 'one who denies a truth' and also 'one who is ungrateful'.

A believer loves, and is grateful to God for the bounties He bestowed upon him, but being aware of the fact that his good deeds, whether mental or physical, are far from being commensurate with Divine favors, he is always anxious lest God should punish him, here or in the Hereafter. He, therefore, fears Him, surrenders himself to Him and serves Him with great humility. One cannot be in such a mental state without being almost all the time mindful of God. Remembering God is thus the life force of faith, without which it fades and withers away.

The Qur'an tries to promote this feeling of gratitude by repeating the attributes of God very frequently. We find most of these attributes mentioned together in the following verses of the Qur'an:“ He is God; there is no god but He. He is the Knower of the unseen and the visible; He is the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate. He is God; there is no god but He. He is the King, the All-Holy, the All-Peace, the Guardian of the Faith, the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All-Compeller, the All-Sublime. Glory be to God, above that they associate! He is God, the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper. To Him belong the Names Most Beautiful. All that is in the heavens and the earth magnifies Him; He is the Almighty, the All-Wise” (59:22-24).

“ There is no god but He, the Living, the Everlasting. Slumber seizes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His leave? He knows what lies before them, and what is after them, and they comprehend not anything of His knowledge save such as He wills. His throne comprises the heavens and earth. The preserving of them oppresses Him not; He is the All-High, the All-Glorious” (2:255).

People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth.

“ The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not "Three". Refrain; better it is for you. God is only one God. Glory be to Him -- (He is) above having a son” (4:171).

Links on CONCEPT of GOD in ISLAM:

The Concept of God in Islam
http://www.islam101.com/dawah/02_concept_God.html

God of Muslims is the same as God of Christians and Jews
http://www.thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=71

Who is Allah?
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/tawheed/conceptofgod.html

Who is Allah?
http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/whoisAllah.htm

Allah is God
http://www.iad.org/Islam/allah.html

God in Islam:
http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa052099.htm

The Question of God:
http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/thereisgod.htm

Attributes of God:
http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/AllahNames.htm

Belief in God
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=49

Faith in the Unity of God
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/tawheed/mautaw1.html

God's Love in Islam
http://www.beautifulislam.net/tellmemore/god_and_love.htm#love

Whom Must We Worship ?
http://sultan.org/articles/wmww.html

The Purpose of Life by Khalid Yaseen , Why We Are Created?
http://www.sultan.org/articles/purposeoflife.htm

Allahu Akbar (Allah is Greater)
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=391

Greatness of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala)
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=237

Hadith : Oneness, Uniqueness of Allah
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/093.sbt.html

Discussion with a Christian: The Oneness of God is the message of Jesus and all the Prophets, peace be upon them: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?QR=12628&ln=eng

Was Jesus Perfect God and Perfect Man at the Same Time?
http://www3.sympatico.ca/shabir.ally/new_page_26.htm

Is Jesus the same as God ?
http://jamaat.net/muh-christ/intro.html

What Is His Nature? (God In Christianity) By Naji Al-Arfaj (PDF)
http://www.sultan.org/books/WhatisHisnature.pdf

The God That Never Was
http://jamaat.net/gtnw/god.html

Oneness of God (Allah) : The Solution to the Trinitarian Controversy
http://www.wefound.org/allah.htm

Allah's Names and Attributes in the Qur'an
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/introduction/wasiti/taimiyah_5.html

Allah's Names and Attributes in the Sunnah
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/introduction/wasiti/taimiyah_6.html

Al-Hafeedh, One of Allah's Beautiful Names
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=244

Al-Lateef, One of Allah's Beautiful Names
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=195

Meanings of "Ar-Raheem", "Ash-Shakoor" and "Al-`Adheem"
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=72

On the Hadeeth Naming the 99 Names of Allah
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=68

Important Principles concerning Allaah's Names & Attributes
http://www.al-manhaj.com/Page1.cfm?ArticleID=90

Allah as "WE" in Quran:
http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/AllahWE.htm

"We" An Arabic And Hebrew Plural Of Respect
http://www.islamselect.com/english/index.php?ref=1165&pg=mat&CR=135&ln=2

Only Islam:
http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/oneDeen.htm

YOU ASK AND THE QURAN ANSWERS ...

2007-12-26T16:20:00.000-08:00

1) Who is the creator?

(40:64) Allah, it is he Who has made for you the earth as a dwelling place and the sky as a canopy. and has given you shape and made your shapes good (looking) and has provided you with good things. That is Allah, your Lord: so Blessed be Allah, the Lord of the Alamin (mankind, jinn and all that exists).

(39:6) He created you (all) from a single person (Adam) ; then made from him his wife {Hawwa , (Eve)}. and He has sent down for you of cattle eight pairs (of the sheep , two , male and female ; of the goats , two , male and female of the oxen , two , male and female and of the camels, two, male and female). He creates you in the wombs of your mothers: creation after creation in there veils of darkness. Such is Allah your Lord His is the Kingdom. La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). How then are you turned away?

(7:54) Indeed your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and then He rose over (Istawa) the Throne (really in manner that suits His Majesty). He brings the night as a cover over the day, seeking it rapidly , and (He created) the sun, the moon, the stars subjected to His Command. Surely, His is the Creation and Commandment. Blessed is Allah, the Lord of the Alamin (mankind, jinn and all that exists)! (10:32) Such is Allah, your Lord in truth. So after the truth, what else can there be, save error. How then are you turned away?

Â 2) Who is Allah?

(59:23-24)

23:He is Allah beside Whom La Ilaha Illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the King, the Holy, the one Free from all defects, the Giver of security, the Watcher over His creatures, the All- Mighty, the Compeller, the Supreme. Glory, be to Allah! (High is He) above all that they associate as partners with Him .

24:He is Allah, the creator, the Inventor of all things, the Bestower of forms. To Him belong the Best Names. All that is in the heavens and the earth glorify Him. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise .

(20:14)

â€œVerily! I am Allah! La ilaha illa Ana (none has the right to be worshipped but I), So worship Me, and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as- Salat) for My Remembrance.

(2:255)

Allah! La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), Al-Hayyul-Qayyuum (the Ever Living the One Who sustains and protects all that exists). Neither slumber nor sleep overtakes Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His Permission?

Â He Knows what happens to them (His creatures) in this world, and what will happen to them in the Hereafter. And they will never compass any thing of His Knowledge except that which He wills. His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them. And He is the Most High, the Most Great. (This Verse 2:225 is called Ayat-ul-Kursi) .

(35:13)

He merges the night into the day (i.e. the decrease in the hours of the night is added to the hours of the day), and He merges the day into the night (i.e. the decrease in the hours of the day is added the hours of the night). And has subjected the sun and the moon: each runs its course for a term appointed. Such is Allah, your Lord; His is the Kingdom , And those, whom you invoke or call upon instead of Him, own not even a Qitmir (the thin membrane over the date-stone).

(3:18)

Allah bears winess that La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), and the angels, and those having knowledge (also give this witness); (He always) maintains His creation in justice La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the All- Mighty, the All-Wise.

(3:51)

Truly! Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him (Alone). This is the straight Path.

3) Did you think that Allah created you only for play and without any purpose?

(3:115)

â€œDid you think that We had created you in play (without any purpose), and that you would not be brought back to Us?â€

4) For what did Allah create mankind?

(51:56)

And I (Allah) created not the jinn and mankind except that they should worship Me (Alone).

5) What did Allah command us to do?

Â (4:58)

Verily! Allah commands that you should render back the trusts to those to whom they are due; and that when you judge between men, you judge with justice. Verily, how excellent is the teaching with He (Allah) gives you! Truly, Allah is Ever All-Hearer, All-Seer.

(6:151)

Say (O Muhammad (PBUH)):â€œCome, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited you from: be Join not anything in worship with Him; be good and dutiful to your parents; Kill not your children because of poverty â€“ We provide sustenance for you and for them; come not near to Al-Fawahish (shameful sins, illegal sexual intercourse) whether committed openly or secretly; and kill not anyone whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause (according to Islamic law). This He has commanded you that you may understand.

6) From where shall we seek guidance?

(1:1 â€“ 6)

1: In the Name of Allah, the Most. Gracious, the Most Merciful.

2: All the praises and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of the Alamin (mankind, jinn and all that exists).

3: The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful .

4: The Only Owner (and the only Ruling judge) of the Day of Recompense (i.e the Day of Resurrection)

5: You (Alone) we worship, and You (Alone) we ask for help (for each and everything).

6: Guide us to the Straight Way.

7) Who shall we invoke in time of disaster?

(29:65)

And when they embark on a ship, they invoke Allah, making their Faith pure for Him Only: but when He brings them safely to land, behold they give a share of their worship to others .

(10:12)

And when harm touches man, he invokes Us, lying on his side, or sitting or standing. But when We have removed his harm from him, he passes on as if he had never invoked Us for a harm that touched him! Thus it is made fair-seeming to the Musrifun that which they used to do.

8) What happened to the previous nations when they disobeyed Allah?

(29:40)

So We punished each (of them) for his sins; of them were some on whom We sent Hasib (a violent wind with shower of stones) (as on the people of Lut (Lot) , and of them were some who were overtaken by As-saihah (torment â€“ awful cry. (as Thamud or Shuabs people), and of them were some whem We caused the earth to swallow (as Qarun (Korah), and of them were some whom We drowned (as the people of Nuh (Noah), or Firaun (Pharaoh) and his people). It was not Allah Who wronged them, but they wronged themselves.

9) Does Allah guard and save the Quran from corruption?

(15:9)

Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption).

10) Who should we worship?

(20:14)

â€œVerily! I am Allah La ilaha illa Ana (none has the right to be worshipped but I), so worship Me, and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-assalat) for My Remembrance.

11) What is the religion of Allah?

(3:19)

Truly, the religion with Allah is Islam. Those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) did not differ except, out of mutual jealousy, after knowledge had come to them. And whoever disbelieves in the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah, then surely, Allah is Swift in calling to account.

12) What is the religion accepted by Allah?

(3:85)

And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.

13) Where does the Quran come from?

(42:3)

Likewise Allah, the All-Mighty the All-Wise sends Revelation to you (O Muhammad (PBUH) ) as (He sent Revelation to) those before you.

(6:114)

(Say (O Muhammad (PBUH)) â€œShall I seek a judge other than Allah while it is He Who has sent down unto you the book (the Quran), explained in detail.â€ Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) know that it is revealed from your Lord in truth. So be not you of those who doubt.

14) Why did Allah send messengers?

(4:64)

We sent no Messenger, but to be obeyed by Allahâ€™s Leave.

15) Do we have to believe in all the messengers?

(2:285)

The Messenger (Muhammad (PBUH) _) believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers. Each one believes in Allah, His angels, His Books, and His Messengers. (They say), â€œWe make no distinction between one another of His Messengersâ€ â€“ and they say, â€œWe hear and we obey. (We seek) Your Forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the return (of all).â€

16) What happened to the previous scriptures?

(4:46)

Among those who are jews, there are some who displace words from (their) right places and say: â€œWe hear your word (O Muhammad (PBUH)) and disobey,â€ and â€œHear and let you (O Muhammad (PBUH) _) â€œhear nothing.â€ And Raina with a twist of there tongues and as a mockery of the religion (Islam) And if only they had said: â€œWe hear and obeyâ€, And â€œDo make us understand,â€ it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not except a few.

(5:13)

So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them and overlook (their misdeeds).

Verily, Allah loves Al-Muhsinun (good-doers).

17) Who is the last messenger?

(3:144)

Muhammad (PBUH) is no more than a Messenger, and indeed (many) Messengers have passed away before him. If he dies or is killed, will you then turn back on your heels (as disbelievers)? And he who turns back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; and Allah will give reward to those who are grateful.

18) To whom did Allah send the last messenger Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)?

(34:28)

And We have not sent you (O Muhammad (PBUH)) except as a giver of glad tidings and a warner to all mankind, but most of men know not.

19) What did Allah prepare for those among the Jews and Christians who believe?

(57:28)

O you who believe (in Musa (moses) (i.e. Jews) and Isa (Jesus) (i.e. Christians)! Fear Allah, and believe in His Messenger (Muhammad (PBUH) _), He will give you a double portion of His Mercy, and He will give you a light by which you shall walk (straight). And He will forgive you. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

20) What is the likeness of lsa (Jesus) before Allah?

(3:59)

Verily, the likeness of Isa (Jesus) bofore Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: â€œBeâ€ â€“ and he was.

21) What did Allah say about Mary?

(3:42 â€“ 47)

42:And (remember) when the angels said: â€œ(O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allah has chosen you, purified you (from polytheism and disbelief), and chosen you above the women of the Alamin (mankind and jinn) (of her lifetime).â€

43:O Mary! â€œSubmit yourself with obedience to your Lord (Allah), by worshipping none but Him Alone) and prostrate yourself, and Irkai (bow down) along with ArRakiun (those who bow down).â€

44:This is apart of the news of the Ghaib (unseen, i.e. the news of the past national of which you have no knowledge) which We reveal to you (O Muhammad (PBUH) ) You were not with them, when they cast lots with their pens as to which of them should be charged with the care of Maryam (Mary); nor were you with them when they disputed.

45:(Remember) when the angels said: â€œO Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word (â€œBeâ€- and he was! I.e. Isa (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary), from Him, his name will be the Messiah Isa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allah.â€

46:â€œHe will speak to the people in the cradle and in manhood and he one of the righteous.â€

47:She said: â€œO my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me.â€ He said: â€œSo (it will be) for Allah creates what He wills.

When He has decreed something, He says to it only: â€œBe!â€ â€“ and it is.

22) Was Jesus crucified and died on the cross?

(4:157â€“158)

157:And because of their saying (in boast), â€œWe killed Messiah Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah,â€ â€“ But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but they resemblance of Isa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they Killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not (i.e. Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) (PBUT)).

158:But Allah raised him (Isa (Jesus) up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he (PBUH) is in the heavens). And Allah is Ever All- Powerful All-Wise.

23) Was Jesus the son of God ( Allah )?

(112:1 â€“ 4):

1:Say (O Muhammad (PBUH)): â€œHe is Allah, (the) One.

2:(Allah the self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, (He neither eats nor drinks).

3:He begets not, nor was He begotten.

4:And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him.

24) How could you be secure?

(6:82)

It is those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah and worship none but Him Alone) and confuse not their belief with Zulm (wrong i.e. by worshipping others beside Allah), for them (only) there is security and they are the guided.

25) What is the life of this world?

(57:20)

Know that the life of this world is only play and amusement, pomp and mutual boasting among you, and rivalry in respect of wealth and children. (It is) as the likeness of vegetation after rain, thereof the growth is pleasing to the tiller; afterwards it dries up and you see it turning yellow; then it becomes straw. But in the Hereafter (there is) a severe torment (for the disbelievers â€“ evil-doers), and (there is) Forgiveness from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure (for the believers â€“ good-doers). And the life of this world is only a deceiving enjoyment.

26) Whatever of blessings and good things you have , is it from Allah?

(16:53)

And whatever of blessings and good things you have, it is from Allah.

Then, when harm touches you, unto Him you cry aloud for help.

27) How could you guarantee the blessings of Allah?

(14:7)

And (remember) when your Lord proclaimed: â€œIf give thanks (by accepting Faith and worshipping none but Allah), I will give you more (of My Blessings); but if you are thankless (i.e. disbelievers), verily My punishment is indeed sever.â€

28) How could you save yourself from a painful torment?

(61:10 â€“ 11)

10:O you who believe! Shall I guide you to a trade that will save you from a painful torment?

11:That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad (PBUH) _ ).

29) Whosoever puts his trust in Allah , what will happen to him?

(65:3)

And He will provide him from (sources) he never could imagine. And whosoever puts his trust in Allah then He will suffice him. Verily, Allah will accomplish his purpose. Indeed Allah has set a measure for all things.

30) What is the destination of the disbelievers?

(57:15)

So this Day no ransom shall be taken from you (hypocrites), nor of those who disbelieved (in the Oneness of Allah â€“ Islamic Monotheism).

Your abode is the Fire. That is your maula (friend â€“ proper place), and worst indeed is that destination.

31) What is the destination of the believers?

(4:57)

But those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah â€“ Islamic Monotheism) and do deeds of righteousness, We shall admit them to Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise), abiding therein forever. Therein they shall have Azwajun Mutahharatun (purified mates or wives), and We shall admit them to shades wide and ever deepening (Paradise).

32) How could you be happy?

(16:97)

Whoever works righteousness- whether male or female â€“ While he (or she) is a true believer (of Islamic Monotheism) verily, to him We will give a good life (in this world with respect, contentment and lawful provision), and We shall pay them certainly a reward in proportion to the best of what they used to do (i.e. Paradise in the Hereafter).

EATING NON-VEGETERANIAN FOOD

2007-12-25T06:03:00.001-08:00

Question:

Killing an animal is a ruthless act. Why then do Muslims consume non-vegetarian food?

Answer:

â€˜Vegetarianismâ€™ is now a movement the world over. Many even associate it with animal rights. Indeed, a large number of people consider the consumption of meat and other non-vegetarian products to be a violation of animal rights.

Islam enjoins mercy and compassion for all living creatures. At the same time Islam maintains that Allah has created the earth and its wondrous flora and fauna for the benefit of mankind. It is upto mankind to use every resource in this world judiciously, as a niyamat (Divine blessing) and amanat (trust) from Allah.

Let us look at various other aspects of this argument.

1. A Muslim can be a pure vegetarian

A Muslim can be a very good Muslim despite being a pure vegetarian. It is not compulsory for a Muslim to have non-vegetarian food.

2. Qurâ€™an permits Muslims to have non-vegetarian food

The Qurâ€™an, however permits a Muslim to have non-vegetarian food. The following Qurâ€™anic verses are proof of this fact:

"O ye who believe! Fulfil (all) obligations. Lawful unto you (for food) are all four-footed animals with the exceptions named."
[Al-Qurâ€™an 5:1]

"And cattle He has created for you (men): from them Ye derive warmth, and numerous benefits, And of their (meat) ye eat."
[Al-Qurâ€™an 16:5]

"And in cattle (too) ye have an instructive example: From within their bodies We produce (milk) for you to drink; there are, in them, (besides), numerous (other) benefits for you; and of their (meat) ye eat."
[Al-Qurâ€™an 23:21]

3. Meat is nutritious and rich in complete protein

Non-vegetarian food is a good source of excellent protein. It contains biologically complete protein i.e. all the 8 essential amino acid that are not synthesized by the body and should be supplied in the diet. Meat also contains iron, vitamin B1 and niacin.

4. Humans have Omnivorous set of teeth

If you observe the teeth of herbivorous animals like the cow, goat and sheep, you will find something strikingly similar in all of them. All these animals have a set of flat teeth i.e. suited for herbivorous diet. If you observe the set of teeth of the carnivorous animals like the lion, tiger, or leopard, they all have a set of pointed teeth i.e. suited for a carnivorous diet. If you analyze the set of teeth of humans, you find that they have flat teeth as well as pointed teeth. Thus they have teeth suited for both herbivorous as well as carnivorous food i.e. they are omnivorous. One may ask, if Almighty God wanted humans to have only vegetables, why did He provide us also with pointed teeth? It is logical that He expected us to need and to have both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food.

5. Human beings can digest both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food

The digestive system of herbivorous animals can digest only vegetables. The digestive system of carnivorous animals can digest only meat. But the digestive system of humans can digest both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food. If Almighty God wanted us to have only vegetables then why did He give us a digestive system that can digest both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food?

6. Hindu scriptures give permission to have non-vegetarian food

There are many Hindus who are strictly vegetarian. They think it is against their religion to consume non-vegetarian food. But the true fact is that the Hindu scriptures permit a person to have meat. The scriptures mention Hindu sages and saints consuming non-vegetarian food.
It is mentioned in Manu Smruti, the law book of Hindus, in chapter 5 verse 30

"The eater who eats the flesh of those to be eaten does nothing bad, even if he does it day after day, for God himself created some to be eaten and some to be eater."

c. Again next verse of Manu Smruti, that is, chapter 5 verse 31 says

"Eating meat is right for the sacrifice, this is traditionally known as a rule of the gods."

d. Further in Manu Smruti chapter 5 verse 39 and 40 says

"God himself created sacrificial animals for sacrifice, ...., therefore killing in a sacrifice is not killing."

e. Mahabharata Anushashan Parva chapter 88 narrates the discussion between Dharmaraj Yudhishthira and Pitamah Bhishma about what food one should offer to Pitris (ancestors) during the Shraddha (ceremony of dead) to keep them satisfied. Paragraph reads as follows:

"Yudhishthira said, "O thou of great puissance, tell me what that object is which, if dedicated to the Pitiris (dead ancestors), become inexhaustible! What Havi, again, (if offered) lasts for all time? What, indeed, is that which (if presented) becomes eternal?"

"Bhishma said, "Listen to me, O Yudhishthira, what those Havis are which persons conversant with the rituals of the Shraddha (the ceremony of dead) regard as suitable in view of Shraddha and what the fruits are that attach to each. With sesame seeds and rice and barely and Masha and water and roots and fruits, if given at Shraddhas, the pitris, O king, remain gratified for the period of a month. With fishes offered at Shraddhas, the pitris remain gratified for a period of two months. With the mutton they remain gratified for three months and with the hare for four months, with the flesh of the goat for five months, with the bacon (meat of pig) for six months, and with the flesh of birds for seven. With venison obtained from those deer that are called Prishata, they remaingratified for eight months, and with that obtained from the Ruru for nine months, and with the meat of Gavaya for ten months, With the meat of the bufffalo their gratification lasts for eleven months. With beef presented at the Shraddha, their gratification, it is said , lasts for a full year. Payasa mixed with ghee is as much acceptable to the pitris as beef. With the meat of Vadhrinasa (a large bull) the gratification of pitris lasts for twelve years. The flesh of rhinoceros, offered to the pitris on anniversaries of the lunar days on which they died, becomes inexhaustible. The potherb called Kalaska, the petals of kanchana flower, and meat of (red) goat also, thus offered, prove inexhaustible.

So but natural if you want to keep your ancestors satisfied forever, you should serve them the meat of red goat.

7. Hinduism was influenced by other religions

Though Hindu Scriptures permit its followers to have non-vegetarian food, many Hindus adopted the vegetarian system because they were influenced by other religions like Jainism.

8. Even plants have life

Certain religions have adopted pure vegetarianism as a dietary law because they are totally against the killing of living creatures. If a person can survive without killing any living creature, I would be the first person to adopt such a way of life. In the past people thought plants were lifeless. Today it is a universal fact that even plants have life. Thus their logic of not killing living creatures is not fulfilled even by being a pure vegetarian.

9. Even plants can feel pain

They further argue that plants cannot feel pain, therefore killing a plant is a lesser crime as compared to killing an animal. Today science tells us that even plants can feel pain. But the cry of the plant cannot be heard by the human being. This is due to the inability of the human ear to hear sounds that are not in the audible range i.e. 20 Hertz to 20,000 Hertz. Anything below and above this range cannot be heard by a human being. A dog can hear up to 40,000 Hertz. Thus there are silent dog whistles that have a frequency of more than 20,000 Hertz and less than 40,000 Hertz. These whistles are only heard by dogs and not by human beings. The dog recognizes the masters whistle and comes to the master. There was research done by a farmer in U.S.A. who invented an instrument which converted the cry of the plant so that it could be heard by human beings. He was able to realize immediately when the plant itself cried for water. Latest researches show that the plants can even feel happy and sad. It can also cry.

10. Killing a living creature with two senses less is not a lesser crime

Once a vegetarian argued his case by saying that plants only have two or three senses while the animals have five senses.

Therefore killing a plant is a lesser crime than killing an animal. Suppose your brother is born deaf and dumb and has two senses less as compared to other human beings. He becomes mature and someone murders him. Would you ask the judge to give the murderer a lesser punishment because your brother has two senses less? In fact you would say that he has killed a masoom, an innocent person, and the judge should give the murderer a greater punishment.

In fact the Qurâ€™an says:

"O ye people! Eat of what is on earth, lawful and good"
[Al-Qurâ€™an 2:168]

11. Over population of cattle

If every human being was a vegetarian, it would lead to overpopulation of cattle in the world, since their reproduction and multiplication is very swift. Allah (swt) in His Divine Wisdom knows how to maintain the balance of His creation appropriately. No wonder He has permitted us to have the meat of the cattle.

12. Cost of meat is reasonable since all arenâ€™t non-vegetarians

I do not mind if some people are pure vegetarians. However they should not condemn non-vegetarians as ruthless. In fact if all Indians become non-vegetarians then the present non-vegetarians would be losers since the prices of meat would rise.

MUSLIMS ARE FUNDAMENTALISTS AND TERRORISTS

2007-12-25T06:02:00.002-08:00

Question:

Why are most of the Muslims fundamentalists and terrorists?

Answer:

This question is often hurled at Muslims, either directly or indirectly, during any discussion on religion or world affairs. Muslim stereotypes are perpetuated in every form of the media accompanied by gross misinformation about Islam and Muslims. In fact, such misinformation and false propaganda often leads to discrimination and acts of violence against Muslims. A case in point is the anti-Muslim campaign in the American media following the Oklahoma bomb blast, where the press was quick to declare a â€˜Middle Eastern conspiracyâ€™ behind the attack. The culprit was later identified as a soldier from the American Armed Forces.

Let us analyze this allegation of â€˜fundamentalismâ€™ and â€˜terrorismâ€™:

1. Definition of the word â€˜fundamentalistâ€™

A fundamentalist is a person who follows and adheres to the fundamentals of the doctrine or theory he is following. For a person to be a good doctor, he should know, follow, and practise the fundamentals of medicine. In other words, he should be a fundamentalist in the field of medicine. For a person to be a good mathematician, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of mathematics. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of mathematics. For a person to be a good scientist, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of science. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of science.

2. Not all â€˜fundamentalistsâ€™ are the same

One cannot paint all fundamentalists with the same brush. One cannot categorize all fundamentalists as either good or bad. Such a categorization of any fund amentalist will depend upon the field or activity in which he is a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist robber or thief causes harm to society and is therefore undesirable. A fundamentalist doctor, on the other hand, benefits society and earns much respect.

3. I am proud to be a Muslim fundamentalist

I am a fundamentalist Muslim who, by the grace of Allah, knows, follows and strives to practise the fundamentals of Islam. A true Muslim does not shy away from being a fundamentalist. I am proud to be a fundamentalist Muslim because, I know that the fundamentals of Islam are beneficial to humanity and the whole world. There is not a single fundamental of Islam that causes harm or is against the interests of the human race as a whole. Many people harbour misconceptions about Islam and consider several teachings of Islam to be unfair or improper. This is due to insufficient and incorrect knowledge of Islam. If one critically analyzes the teachings of Islam with an open mind, one cannot escape the fact that Islam is full of benefits both at the individual and collective levels.

4. Dictionary meaning of the word â€˜fundamentalistâ€™

According to Websterâ€™s dictionary â€˜fundamentalismâ€™ was a movement in American Protestanism that arose in the earlier part of the 20th century. It was a reaction to modernism, and stressed the infallibility of the Bible, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record. It stressed on belief in the Bible as the literal word of God. Thus fundamentalism was a word initially used for a group of Christians who believed that the Bible was the verbatim word of God without any errors and mistakes.

According to the Oxford dictionary â€˜fundamentalismâ€™ means â€˜strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, especially Islamâ€™.

Today the moment a person uses the word fundamentalist he thinks of a Muslim who is a terrorist.

5. Every Muslim should be a terrorist

Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word â€˜terroristâ€™ is generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. anti-social elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people.

6. Different labels given to the same individual for the same action, i.e. â€˜terroristâ€™ and â€˜patriotâ€™

Before India achieved independence from British rule, some freedom fighters of India who did not subscribe to non-violence were labeled as terrorists by the British government. The same individuals have been lauded by Indians for the same activities and hailed as â€˜patriotsâ€™. Thus two different labels have been given to the same people for the same set of actions. One is calling him a terrorist while the other is calling him a patriot. Those who believed that Britain had a right to rule over India called these people terrorists, while those who were of the view that Britain had no right to rule India called them patriots and freedom fighters.

It is therefore important that before a person is judged, he is given a fair hearing. Both sides of the argument should be heard, the situation should be analyzed, and the reason and the intention of the person should be taken into account, and then the person can be judged accordingly.

7. Islam means peace

Islam is derived from the word â€˜salaamâ€™ which means peace. It is a religion of peace whose fundamentals teach its followers to maintain and promote peace throughout the world.

Thus every Muslim should be a fundamentalist i.e. he should follow the fundamentals of the Religion of Peace: Islam. He should be a terrorist only towards the antisocial elements in order to promote peace and justice in the society.

WAS ISLAM SPREAD BY SWORDS ??

2007-12-25T06:02:00.001-08:00

Question:

How can Islam be called the religion of peace when it was spread by the sword?

Answer:

It is a common complaint among some non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of force. The following points will make it clear, that far from being spread by the sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible for the rapid spread of Islam.

1. Islam means peace.

Islam comes from the root word â€˜salaamâ€™, which means peace. It also means submitting oneâ€™s will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting oneâ€™s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).

2. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.

Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and anti-social elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.

3. Opinion of historian De Lacy Oâ€™Leary.

The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy Oâ€™Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page 8):

"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."

4. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.

Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.

Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India.

The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

7. Indonesia and Malaysia.

Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"

8. East Coast of Africa.

Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, "Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?"

9. Thomas Carlyle.

The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book "Heroes and Hero worship", refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: "The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one manâ€™s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can."

10. No compulsion in religion.

With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qurâ€™an says in the following verse:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion:
Truth stands out clear from error"
[Al-Qurâ€™an 2:256]

11. Sword of the Intellect.

It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qurâ€™an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:

"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord
with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are
best and most gracious."
[Al-Qurâ€™an 16:125]

12. Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984.

An article in Readerâ€™s Digest â€˜Almanacâ€™, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in â€˜The Plain Truthâ€™ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?

13. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe.

Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?

14. Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson.

Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, "People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was born"

HIJAB FOR WOMEN

2007-12-25T06:01:00.001-08:00

HIJAAB FOR WOMEN

Question:

Why does Islam degrade women by keeping them behind the veil?

Answer:

The status of women in Islam is often the target of attacks in the secular media. The â€˜hijaabâ€™ or the Islamic dress is cited by many as an example of the â€˜subjugationâ€™ of women under Islamic law. Before we analyze the reasoning behind the religiously mandated â€˜hijaabâ€™, let us first study the status of women in societies before the advent of Islam

1. In the past women were degraded and used as objects of lust

The following examples from history amply illustrate the fact that the status of women in earlier civilizations was very low to the extent that they were denied basic human dignity:

1. Babylonian Civilization:
The women were degraded and were denied all rights under the Babylonian law. If a man murdered a woman, instead of him being punished, his wife was put to death.

2. Greek Civilization:
Greek Civilization is considered the most glorious of all ancient civilizations. Under this very â€˜gloriousâ€™ system, women were deprived of all rights and were looked down upon. In Greek mythology, an â€˜imaginary womanâ€™ called â€˜Pandoraâ€™ is the root cause of misfortune of human beings. The Greeks considered women to be subhuman and inferior to men. Though chastity of women was precious, and women were held in high esteem, the Greeks were later overwhelmed by ego and sexual perversions. Prostitution became a regular practice amongst all classes of Greek society.

3. Roman Civilization:
When Roman Civilization was at the zenith of its â€˜gloryâ€™, a man even had the right to take the life of his wife. Prostitution and nudity were common amongst the Romans.

4. Egyptian Civilization:
The Egyptian considered women evil and as a sign of a devil.

5. Pre-Islamic Arabia:
Before Islam spread in Arabia, the Arabs looked down upon women and very often when a female child was born, she was buried alive.

2. Islam uplifted women and gave them equality and expects them to maintain their status.

Islam uplifted the status of women and granted them their just rights 1400 years ago. Islam expects women to maintain their status.

Hijaab for men

People usually only discuss â€˜hijaabâ€™ in the context of women. However, in the Glorious Qurâ€™an, Allah (swt) first mentions â€˜hijaabâ€™ for men before â€˜hijaabâ€™ for the women. The Qurâ€™an mentions in Surah Noor:

The moment a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he should lower his gaze.

Hijaab for women.

The next verse of Surah Noor, says:

" And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbandsâ€™ fathers, their sons..."
[Al-Qurâ€™an 24:31]

3. Six criteria for Hijaab.

According to Qurâ€™an and Sunnah there are basically six criteria for observing hijaab:

1. Extent:

The first criterion is the extent of the body that should be covered. This is different for men and women. The extent of covering obligatory on the male is to cover the body at least from the navel to the knees. For women, the extent of covering obligatory is to cover the complete body except the face and the hands upto the wrist. If they wish to, they can cover even these parts of the body. Some scholars of Islam insist that the face and the hands are part of the obligatory extent of â€˜hijaabâ€™.

All the remaining five criteria are the same for men and women.

2. The clothes worn should be loose and should not reveal the figure.

3. The clothes worn should not be transparent such that one can see through them.

4. The clothes worn should not be so glamorous as to attract the opposite sex.

5. The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.

6. The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelieversâ€™ religions.

4. Hijaab includes conduct and behaviour among other things

Complete â€˜hijaabâ€™, besides the six criteria of clothing, also includes the moral conduct, behaviour, attitude and intention of the individual. A person only fulfilling the criteria of â€˜hijaabâ€™ of the clothes is observing â€˜hijaabâ€™ in a limited sense. â€˜Hijaabâ€™ of the clothes should be accompanied by â€˜hijaabâ€™ of the eyes, â€˜hijaabâ€™ of the heart, â€˜hijaabâ€™ of thought and â€˜hijaabâ€™ of intention. It also includes the way a person walks, the way a person talks, the way he behaves, etc.

5. Hijaab prevents molestation

The reason why Hijaab is prescribed for women is mentioned in the Qurâ€™an in the following verses of Surah Al-Ahzab:

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
[Al-Qurâ€™an 33:59]

The Qurâ€™an says that Hijaab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women and this will also prevent them from being molested.

6. Example of twin sisters

Suppose two sisters who are twins, and who are equally beautiful, walk down the street. One of them is attired in the Islamic hijaab i.e. the complete body is covered, except for the face and the hands up to the wrists. The other sister is wearing western clothes, a mini skirt or shorts. Just around the corner there is a hooligan or ruffian who is waiting for a catch, to tease a girl. Whom will he tease? The girl wearing the Islamic Hijaab or the girl wearing the skirt or the mini? Naturally he will tease the girl wearing the skirt or the mini. Such dresses are an indirect invitation to the opposite sex for teasing and molestation. The Qurâ€™an rightly says that hijaab prevents women from being molested.

7. Capital punishment for the rapists

Under the Islamic shariah, a man convicted of having raped a woman, is given capital punishment. Many are astonished at this â€˜harshâ€™ sentence. Some even say that Islam is a ruthless, barbaric religion! I have asked a simple question to hundreds of non-Muslim men. Suppose, God forbid, someone rapes your wife, your mother or your sister. You are made the judge and the rapist is brought in front of you. What punishment would you give him? All of them said they would put him to death. Some went to the extent of saying they would torture him to death. To them I ask, if someone rapes your wife or your mother you want to put him to death. But if the same crime is committed on somebody elseâ€™s wife or daughter you say capital punishment is barbaric. Why should there be double standards?

8. Western society falsely claims to have uplifted women

Western talk of womenâ€™s liberalization is nothing but a disguised form of exploitation of her body, degradation of her soul, and deprivation of her honour. Western society claims to have â€˜upliftedâ€™ women. On the contrary it has actually degraded them to the status of concubines, mistresses and society butterflies who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers, hidden behind the colourful screen of â€˜artâ€™ and â€˜cultureâ€™.

9. USA has one of the highest rates of rape

United States of America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries of the world. It also has one of the highest rates of rape in any country in the world. According to a FBI report, in the year 1990, every day on an average 1756 cases of rape were committed in U.S.A alone. Later another report said that on an average everyday 1900 cases of rapes are committed in USA. The year was not mentioned. May be it was 1992 or 1993. May be the Americans got â€˜bolderâ€™ in the following years.

Consider a scenario where the Islamic hijaab is followed in America. Whenever a man looks at a woman and any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he lowers his gaze. Every woman wears the Islamic hijaab, that is the complete body is covered except the face and the hands upto the wrist. After this if any man commits rape he is given capital punishment. I ask you, in such a scenario, will the rate of rape in America increase, will it remain the same, or will it decrease?

10. Implementation of Islamic Shariah will reduce the rate of rapes

Naturally as soon as Islamic Shariah is implemented positive results will be inevitable. If Islamic Shariah is implemented in any part of the world, whether it is America or Europe, society will breathe easier. Hijaab does not degrade a woman but uplifts a woman and protects her modesty and chastity.

POLYANDRY

2007-12-25T06:00:00.001-08:00

POLYANDRY

Question:

If a man is allowed to have more than one wife, then why does Islam prohibit a woman from having more than one husband?

Answer:

A lot of people, including some Muslims, question the logic of allowing Muslim men to have more than one spouse while denying the same â€˜rightâ€™ to women.

Let me first state emphatically, that the foundation of an Islamic society is justice and equity. Allah has created men and women as equal, but with different capabilities and different responsibilities. Men and women are different, physiologically and psychologically. Their roles and responsibilities are different. Men and women are equal in Islam, but not identical.

Surah Nisaâ€™ Chapter 4 verses 22 to 24 gives the list of women with who you can not marry and it is further mentions in Surah Nisaâ€™ Chapter 4 verse 24 "Also (prohibited are) women already married"

The following points enumerate the reasons why polyandry is prohibited in Islam:

1. If a man has more than one wife, the parents of the children born of such marriages can easily be identified. The father as well as the mother can easily be identified. In case of a woman marrying more than one husband, only the mother of the children born of such marriages will be identified and not the father. Islam gives tremendous importance to the identification of both parents, mother and father. Psychologists tell us that children who do not know their parents, especially their father undergo severe mental trauma and disturbances. Often they have an unhappy childhood. It is for this reason that the children of prostitutes do not have a healthy childhood. If a child born of such wedlock is admitted in school, and when the mother is asked the name of the father, she would have to give two or more names! I am aware that recent advances in science have made it possible for both the mother and father to be identified with the help of genetic testing. Thus this point which was applicable for the past may not be applicable for the present.

2. Man is more polygamous by nature as compared to a woman.

3. Biologically, it is easier for a man to perform his duties as a husband despite having several wives. A woman, in a similar position, having several husbands, will not find it possible to perform her duties as a wife. A woman undergoes several psychological and behavioral changes due to different phases of the menstrual cycle.

4. A woman who has more than one husband will have several sexual partners at the same time and has a high chance of acquiring venereal or sexually transmitted diseases which can also be transmitted back to her husband even if all of them have no extra-marital sex. This is not the case in a man having more than one wife, and none of them having extra-marital sex.

The above reasons are those that one can easily identify. There are probably many more reasons why Allah, in His Infinite Wisdom, has prohibited polyandry.

POLYGAMY

2007-12-25T05:59:00.000-08:00

Question:

Why is a man allowed to have more than one wife in Islam? i.e. why is polygamy allowed in Islam?

Answer:

Definition of Polygamy

1. Polygamy means a system of marriage whereby one person has more than one spouse. Polygamy can be of two types. One is polygyny where a man marries more than one woman, and the other is polyandry, where a woman marries more than one man. In Islam, limited polygyny is permitted; whereas polyandry is completely prohibited.

Now coming to the original question, why is a man allowed to have more than one wife?

2. The Qurâ€™an is the only religious scripture in the world that says,"marry only one".

The Qurâ€™an is the only religious book, on the face of this earth, that contains the phrase â€˜marry only oneâ€™. There is no other religious book that instructs men to have only one wife. In none of the other religious scriptures, whether it be the Vedas, the Ramayan, the Mahabharat, the Geeta, the Talmud or the Bible does one find a restriction on the number of wives. According to these scriptures one can marry as many as one wishes. It was only later, that the Hindu priests and the Christian Church restricted the number of wives to one.

Many Hindu religious personalities, according to their scriptures, had multiple wives. King Dashrat, the father of Rama, had more than one wife. Krishna had several wives.

In earlier times, Christian men were permitted as many wives as they wished, since the Bible puts no restriction on the number of wives. It was only a few centuries ago that the Church restricted the number of wives to one.

Polygyny is permitted in Judaism. According to Talmudic law, Abraham had three wives, and Solomon had hundreds of wives. The practice of polygyny continued till Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah (95% C.E to 1030 C.E) issued an edict against it. The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries continued the practice till as late as 1950, until an Act of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife.

3. Hindus are more polygynous than Muslims

The report of the â€˜Committee of The Status of Woman in Islamâ€™, published in 1975 mentions on page numbers 66 and 67 that the percentage of polygamous marriages between the years 1951 and 1961 was 5.06% among the Hindus and only 4.31% among the Muslims. According to Indian law only Muslim men are permitted to have more than one wife. It is illegal for any non-Muslim in India to have more than one wife. Despite it being illegal, Hindus have more multiple wives as compared to Muslims. Earlier, there was no restriction even on Hindu men with respect to the number of wives allowed. It was only in 1954, when the Hindu Marriage Act was passed that it became illegal for a Hindu to have more than one wife. At present it is the Indian Law that restricts a Hindu man from having more than one wife and not the Hindu scriptures.

Let us now analyse why Islam allows a man to have more than one wife.

4. Qurâ€™an permits limited polygyny

As I mentioned earlier, Qurâ€™an is the only religious book on the face of the earth that says â€˜marry only oneâ€™. The context of this phrase is the following verse from Surah Nisa of the Glorious Qurâ€™an:

"Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one."

[Al-Qurâ€™an 4:3]

Before the Qurâ€™an was revealed, there was no upper limit for polygyny and many men had scores of wives, some even hundreds. Islam put an upper limit of four wives. Islam gives a man permission to marry two, three or four women, only on the condition that he deals justly with them.

In the same chapter i.e. Surah Nisa verse 129 says:

"Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women...."

[Al-Qurâ€™an 4:129]

Therefore polygyny is not a rule but an exception. Many people are under the misconception that it is compulsory for a Muslim man to have more than one wife.

Broadly, Islam has five categories of Doâ€™s and Donâ€™ts:

i. â€˜Fardâ€™ i.e. compulsory or obligatory

ii. â€˜Mustahabâ€™ i.e. recommended or encouraged

iii. â€˜Mubahâ€™ i.e. permissible or allowed

iv. â€˜Makruhâ€™ i.e. not recommended or discouraged

v. â€˜Haraamâ€™ i.e. prohibited or forbidden

Polygyny falls in the middle category of things that are permissible. It cannot be said that a Muslim who has two, three or four wives is a better Muslim as compared to a Muslim who has only one wife.

5. Average life span of females is more than that of males

By nature males and females are born in approximately the same ratio. A female child has more immunity than a male child. A female child can fight the germs and diseases better than the male child. For this reason, during the pediatric age itself there are more deaths among males as compared to the females.

During wars, there are more men killed as compared to women. More men die due to accidents and diseases than women. The average life span of females is more than that of males, and at any given time one finds more widows in the world than widowers.

6. India has more male population than female due to female foeticide and infanticide

India is one of the few countries, along with the other neighbouring countries, in which the female population is less than the male population. The reason lies in the high rate of female infanticide in India, and the fact that more than one million female foetuses are aborted every year in this country, after they are identified as females. If this evil practice is stopped, then India too will have more females as compared to males.

7. World female population is more than male population

In the USA, women outnumber men by 7.8 million. New York alone has one million more females as compared to the number of males, and of the male population of New York one-third are gays i.e sodomites. The U.S.A as a whole has more than twenty-five million gays. This means that these people do not wish to marry women. Great Britain has four million more females as compared to males. Germany has five million more females as compared to males. Russia has nine million more females than males. God alone knows how many million more females there are in the whole world as compared to males.

8. Restricting each and every man to have only one wife is not practical

Even if every man got married to one woman, there would still be more than thirty million females in U.S.A who would not be able to get husbands (considering that America has twenty five million gays). There would be more than four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine million females in Russia alone who would not be able to find a husband.

Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or suppose your sister happens to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who already has a wife or becomes public property. There is no other option. All those who are modest will opt for the first.

In Western society, it is common for a man to have mistresses and/or multiple extra-marital affairs, in which case, the woman leads a disgraceful, unprotected life. The same society, however, cannot accept a man having more than one wife, in which women retain their honourable, dignified position in society and lead a protected life.

Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to marry a married man or to become public property. Islam prefers giving women the honourable position by permitting the first option and disallowing the second.

There are several other reasons, why Islam has permitted limited polygyny, but it is mainly to protect the modesty of women.

7 REASONS TO READ THE HOLY QURAN

2007-12-25T05:57:00.000-08:00

By: Shabir Ali

(1) Intimate:

It dares you to disprove it. How? It says that humans can not write a book like this even if they pooled all their resources together and got help also from the spirits. The Quran said this fourteen hundreds years ago and yet no one has been able to disprove it. Billions of books have been written - but not another one like the Quran.

(2) Incorruptible:

It is the only religious sacred writing which has been in circulation for such a long time and yet remains as pure as it was in the beginning. The Quran was kept intact. Nothing was added to it; nothing was changed in it; and nothing was taken away from it ever since it was completely revealed 1400 years ago.

(3) Unsurpassable:

The Quran is God's final revelation to humankind. God revealed the Torah to Moses, the Psalms to David, the Gospel to Jesus, and finally the Quran to Muhammad. Peace be upon all of them. No other book will come from God to surpass his final revelation.

(4) Indisputable:

The Quran withstands the test of time and scrutiny. No one can dispute the truth of this book. It speaks about past history and turns out right. It speaks about the future in prophecies and it turns out right. It mentions details of physical phenomena which were not known to people at the time; yet later scientific discoveries confirm that the Quran was right all along. Every other book needs to be revised to accord with modern knowledge. The Quran alone is never contradicted by a modern discovery.

(5) Your Roadmap for Life and Afterlife:

The Quran is the best guidebook on how to structure your life. No other book presents such a comprehensive system involving all aspects of human life and endeavor. The Quran also points out the way to secure everlasting happiness in the afterlife. It is your roadmap showing how to get to paradise.

(6) God's Gift of Guidance:

God has not left you alone. You were made for a reason. God tells you why he made you, what he demands from you, and what he has in store for you. If you operate a machine contrary to it's manufacture specification you will ruin that machine. What about you? Do you have an owner's manual for you? The Quran is from your function for success lest you fail to function. It is a healing mercy from God. It satisfies the soul, and cleans the heart. It removes doubts and brings peace.

(7) Your Calling Card to Communicate with God:

Humans are social creatures. We love to communicate with other intelligent life. The Quran tells us how to communicate with the source of all intelligence and the source of all life- the One God. The Quran tells us who God is, by what name we should address God, and the way in which to communicate with God. Are these not seven sufficient reasons for reading the Quran?

PAKISTANIS MUST REALIZE THEIR MISTAKES

2007-12-15T09:58:00.001-08:00

sSanao Menghwar has had three of his daughters kidnapped, then forced to marry Muslim men. That means that the young women were coerced into becoming Islamics.

This happens daily, particularly in the Pakistani Sindh province, according to Hasan Mansoor, reporter, Midday.com.

Other Hindus in the province worry when their daughters will disappear. Therefore, there are entire Hindu families leaving Pakistan for Canada, India or other nations.Menghewar and his wife left their house on errands. When they returned to their residence, their daughters were missing. They reported the missing young women to the police department, filing the necessary papers. Neighbors helped them on a search party to locate the daughters, but to no avail.

Menghwarâ€™s daughters have yet to be found. However, authorities have arrested three Islamic young men assumed to be connected with the girlsâ€™ kidnapping. The men have been released on bail by a court due to the men being minors.

"â€™Kidnapping Hindu girls like this has become a normal practice. The girls are then forced to sign stamp papers stating that theyâ€™ve become Muslims,â€™ says Laljee Menghwar, a member of the Hindu Panchayat in Karachi."

Because of Muslim threats, Hindus have had to turn to what those in the Netherlands are resorting to. Both areas have been under extreme pressure from maiming and killing Islamics so that the local citizens have put into action what one person refers to as "self-censorship."

There is no talk. There is no public utterance. There is nothing said negatively about the Muslims in the area for fear of being slain.

So it is that Islamic killers international could overtake country after country, area after area. Instill such fear in the people that no one speaks the facts concerning local Islamics kidnapping and killing; therefore, they have open skies to do just that â€” more so.

"â€™Hindus here are too frightened to vent their anger â€” they fear victimization,â€™ said one local."

Nevertheless, Pakistani Christian community members have come to their aid. The Christians have organized support for the Hindus persecuted by Muslims. The Christians have "carried out a demonstration with them in Karachi, protesting against this crime.

Source: americandaily.com

A question to pakistani muslims. Is this what Islam teaches you? Please know that Islam asks you to rule justly and safe guard the minorities. According to shariya, muslims and non muslims must e treated equally under law.

We muslims must stand up to protect our faith. We must realise and correct our mistakes. Untill then, these kind of news wont stop spreading ill impression aout Islam.

VHP / RSS / SANGH PARIVAR WILD NATURE REVEALED ONCE AGAIN

2007-12-15T09:56:00.002-08:00

“If you kill someone can you undo it? He has already spoken, so it can’t be taken back,” : This was a statement by Leader of Dalit Sena, Palanimuthu in Tamil Nadu.

He was referring to Ram Vilas Vedanti's call for beaheading Tamil Nadu Chief minister Karunanidhi. Naturally shocked and angry supporters of Karunanidhi now want immediate arrest of Ram vilas vedanti.
On the other hand, Vedanti says that it was not his remarks and he was just quoting a verse from the hindu sciptures. The main question that arises here is 'Was he unaware of this verse when his party was blaming Islam and muslims to be violent"?
VHP and BJP are trying to wash their hands from this issue. They are apparently condemning this statement of Vedanti, as they believe that lok sabha elections are about to begin in short.

It is wrong on part of Karunanidi to pass such comments which may hurt sentiments of people. But then again many hindus do believe that Ramayan was just and epic and a story. Karunanidhi should have made his point in more decent manner instead of making a mockery of people's beliefs.

But issuing a fatwa "Joh karunanidhi ka sar kaat ke layega hum ayodhya ke sant use sona se tolenge" shows the wild and violent nature of these leaders. They have to be more civilized and cultured. VHP/RSS people think that they are representing and protecting the hindu tradition and culture while actually they are damaging it. Not one person of these organizations follows the vedas. If killing people in the name of religion is extremism and terrorism, how are these people different from other terrorists?

HYPOCRISY AND CONSPIRACIES OF HINDUTVAVADIES

2007-12-15T09:56:00.001-08:00

"Most of us do not even know the difference between Madras and madarsa. Some believe madarsa to be a pious religious school. It may have been so. No more now. They, at least most of them, are now jehad factories." (S. Gurumurthy, The New Indian Express, April 26, 2002).

As a starter to this saga, the first article was published under the heading: Madrasas - Pious schools or Jehadi factories? (April 26, 2002), which was automatically and expectedly succeeded by another entitled" Madarsas: The terror factories, their anatomy, spread, funds' (April 27). The third write-up dealt with how Pakistan is controlling Madarsas and why India should follow Pakistan's example (April 29). The essays deriding the madarsas as Jehadi factories need not have been published now. Jehad ceased to be a buzzword three months ago.

When anti-Muslim pogroms are being ruthlessly conducted in Gujarat, and while the communal situation in the country is highly volatile, this incisive violence-inciting article shouldn't have been published. Now, that it has been printed in its full glory, we need to seek some explanations. Like what caused this breach of ethics? And what propagated this crude insensitivity? And finally, what / who licenses the full-scale debasing of minority communities? Madarsas have been on the Hindutva hit list for too long. The timing of the article exposes the game plan of the Sangh Parivar. The writing is aimed at capitalizing on the current Hindutva sentiments. It follows the old RSS methodology of campaign first, crusade later.

Accordingly, Gurumurthy writes "The terror contacts were all in madarsas, all in UP. Who has uncovered these covert acts? The Indian Intelligence in a top-secret report. In a meticulously documented report, it brings out the link between madarsas and jehad. It says more." Why are these "top-secret meticulously documented" reports of the Indian Intelligence freely accessible to Gurumurthy - an average citizen, who is not associated with the CBI? Even granted he is a member, what allows him the right of reproducing information from a confidential report? For the illegitimate demands of the saffron mob to gain legitimacy, the Indian Intelligence is cleverly included.

Compare the Hindutva panic over the madarsas in India and the following report which was widely published: "We have never caught any militant with a madarsa background," said K. Rajendra, Inspector General of Police, Kashmir. "We have no objection to their functioning in Kashmir. They are unlike the madarsas in Pakistan which have become Jehadi factories," he added. Jammu and Kashmir Police, the Army and the BSF investigated the madarsas in Kashmir after the Government decided to ascertain the "hidden" agenda of the religious schools. None of them found any evidence that pointed towards the involvement of madarsas in spreading militancy. From the time militancy first reared its head in the Valley, these institutions of the Deobandi school of thought have distanced themselves from extremism. Their focus has solely been religious studies, the inquiries found." (Valley madarsas above board: Inquiry, The Indian Express, April 25, 2001).

Intelligence reports, like the one above, which illustrate the innocence of the madarsas, are cleverly neglected. The right wing indulges in selectively quoting only those reports that seek to sully the image of the religious schools. Lacking an unbiased brain, the saffron bandwagon reels off false information. Willing politicians take up the cause. Oft-stated falsehoods prominently published in the media achieve the exalted positions of truth. Swadeshi intellectuals' who don't know the difference between Madras and madarsas carry 'elaborate' desktop investigations into the 'Jehadi factories'. Only the madarsas and the poor Muslim students there suffer.

Heading the hallowed list of saffron 'intellectuals', who have decried the madarsas, is our Prime Minister Mr. Vajpayee. Enacting motherly concern he says, "We are not against all madarsas. But we want them to teach science, geography and other subjects as well as prepare children studying there to face global challenges in every field." On that account, he, rather the BJP government, is against some madarsas. Thus, these madarsas have to bear the brunt of weekly police checks, random seizures, a few tantalizing visits by the Indian intelligence officers and, to top it all, highly unfavorable media coverage. No need to fret Mr. Prime Minister, these harassments will ensure that the children studying in madarsas are well prepared to face global challenges in every field. Now, to the overtone of botheration: The pracharak in the PM wants madarsas to teach science, geography and other subjects as well. The words accentuate the pretense. If there was a genuine interest in the education of Muslims, steps must have been taken to improve the condition of Urdu. Significantly, the government endorses the VHP demand that Urdu must not be accorded the status of second official language. Instead of developing the madarsas, Vajpayee condemns them.

Going back to the Prime Minister's argument, how many part-time poojaris/purohits are trained in science, geography and other subjects as well? What could be the other subjects, Mr. Prime Minister? In keeping with Hindutva Agenda here's a possible list - Sanskrit, Jyotish Vigyan, Vedic Mathematics – an oozing list of Hindutva mumbo-jumbo. Then, maybe the Sangh Parivar wouldn't find problems with these Islamic centers of education!

Talking about the madarsas in India, the saffron crowds openly bemoan the "damage that is being wreaked on impressionable minds." Why this misplaced magnanimity? And what about the "damage that is wreaked on impressionable minds" by the RSS itself - Who accounts for that? What about the militant exercises, the practice in lathi-wielding, the marches; all the physical training? Or the bauddhik sessions of indoctrination where anti-minority ideas are permeated under the guise of patriotism? At least no madarsa is India gives arms training to its students.

A prominent Hindutva website (www.swordoftruth.com) writes regarding the "Places of Worship (Special Provision Act, 1991): "On the surface this Act appears to be simply a guarantee by the government to protect places of worship. What it actually entails is that the ownership of
thousands of buildings which have been misappropriated by Muslims all over India, can no longer be questioned. It also means that limitations will be set on raiding Mosques which are primary
storehouses of weapons supplied by ISI to Indian Muslim terrorists. In other words such an act would severely restrict the law enforcement agencies of India from investigating and searching Islamic religious places like Mosques, libraries, Madrasas, etc. which are the primary training centers for anti-national activities." We read and as a first reaction, we laugh aloud. Secularists need their share of laughter - it maintains our sanity. We forage for some civil, sophisticated words to label this anti-Muslim madness - Hyperbole. Hallucination. Delusion. Delirium. Quite unpredictably what follows this high-handed laughing-at-silliness, this stylish cataloging-the-communal is a despondency that pulls us back into our former hurt selves. We read it again - the Hindutva definition of Mosques - primary storehouses of weapons supplied by ISI to Indian Muslim terrorists. The words traumatize, making us terror-stricken. Tomorrow, the words will serve their intended purpose - Catalyze the communalists to carry on their devastation.

The website quoted above comments on the formation of a madarsa Board: "Setting up of a Madarsa Board which will facilitate the Muslim students to be given modern educational facilities like computer education, visual and electronic aids etc. It is in these very Madrasas that ISI breeds its Islamic terrorists for Jehad in Kashmir. Allowing these students access to Internet, and electronic media ensures that ISI and the Muslim terrorists of India can have instant communication access to each other via email, etc." Without the help of evidence, the Hindutva zealots have accomplished in portraying the madarsas as breeding grounds for terrorists. As a second part of their campaign, they stress that madarsas must not be given modern educational facilities - computers, internet and the like. Information Technology, Dot Com Boom, Cyber Revolution - like the Vedas of historic times, must be inaccessible to non-Brahmans. And obviously, the Muslims.

The hysteric angst over the madarsas, is a reflection of the brahminical system that refuses education to others. Learning, according to the Manu Smiriti, was meant to be a completely Brahmin preserve. Sudras and the Dalits were denied the knowledge of the Vedas, and (as an oft-quoted example in the Manu Smiriti goes) a Sudra who accidentally heard the Vedas was liable to have molten lead poured into his ears. The Brahminical set up, was so very obsessed with the idea of safeguarding their knowledge that they did not commit any of the Vedas to writing. They maintained the secret of Vedas by an oral tradition for the inherent fear that it was always easy for the scripts, if any, to be stolen. Insecurity characterizes the high-caste elite in the Hindutva. The Muslim presence in population makes them feel threatened, not because Muslims are menacing. It is the liberating nature of Islam that forces the communalists into their incoherencies, their rehearsed babble. The Brahmin paranoia over education continues and modernizes itself.

The campaign against madarsas is the campaign against Islam. In Hindutva parlance, this translates to "doing away with madarsas is tantamount to doing away with Islam". This is a diabolic Brahmin way of letting Islam die a slow death. If there are no madarsas, from where will the mosques find the Alims and the Imams? When the Islamic religion is censured, who will stand up to defend it? Who will be left to spread the word of the Almighty? And the most important question: If there are no madarsas where will the poor Muslim students go? The answers are apparent.

With the recent developments, Fascism in India has finally (and formally) arrived. The Sangh Parivar has started advising the minorities that their safety lies in the goodwill of the majorities. That's what the new Hitlers tell us - If you wanna live, better listen to us. And they have begun to send out their orders. A Muslim eating beef can somehow end up hurting the Hindu sentiments. (See the cow is their spiritual mother.) And the Brahmins seem to have conveniently forgotten their beef-eating tradition. Perhaps, no meaty aftertaste of having ate beef remains. Remind them of the Vedic passages that describe in great detail how beef must be cooked, garnished in ghee and served - the saffron fanatics will tell us that they are cunning interpolations of their sacred Sanskrit. Absence of proof, will perhaps, absolve them of their sins.

The extensive focus on the absistence from beef eating by the Parivar must be understood in an entirely different viewpoint - it is not a matter of individual taste. Beef eating is the root of Untouchability. The following words of Dr. Ambedkar will highlight the severity of this stricture:

"Untouchability is the result of the breach of the interdiction against the eating of the sacred animal, namely, the cow. The Brahmins did not make a difference between a dead cow and a living cow. The cow was sacred, living or dead. Beef eating was not merely a crime. If it was only a crime, it would have involved nothing more than a punishment. Beef eating was made a sacrilege. Anyone who treated the cow as profane was guilty of sin and unfit for association."

The beefeaters, who were the scorned men - the Untouchables continued to reel under brahminical oppression. Only with the coming of Islam to India, did they gain an identity of their own, and most of the early converts to Islam were from the discriminated castes of the Shudras and the untouchable 'Dalits'. Islam ushered in brotherhood and social equality; concepts that were entirely absent in the existing Hindu society. Moreover, Islam never associates beef eating with a crime, or with a lowering of the social status - this has left the high caste gau-sevaks angered. As a result, with renewed vigor, the Sangh launches its dietary dictatorship - Muslims have been asked not to eat beef. Today it is food. Tomorrow we will be told a lot of other things. Like, what to wear. Whom to wed. Where to go. Which God to pray. How to live. When to die.

And, sadly for us, our death wouldn't be the end of damnation. We will be cruelly conditioned, to burn our corpses, not 'selfishly' bury it. During our lifetimes, we will be made second-class citizens, with the state believing that Hindu interest is national interest. To save our skins and for prolonging our dismal lives, we will be strained to blend in. The rightist regime will force Lord Ram on us. It was in their agenda even three decades back. Golwalkar, "Guruji" of the RSS fame wrote in the Organizer (June 20, 1971) - "Let Muslims look upon Ram as their hero and communal problems will be over". And the Parivar, in its role as a mighty messiah will take steps to shepherd us back into the Manuvadi faith of Hinduism. For this purpose, they may loot and shoot. Goondas and guns will have a gala time. The myth manufacturers will begin their businesses. Ramzan and Mohorram, they may announce were Hindu festivals in honor of Ram which were later corrupted by the 'invading Muslim armies'. We will be taught to hate our past. And more specifically, hate ourselves.

An Indian Muslim will be required to become a Hindu. The RSS will maintain that "they consider all the natives of this land as Hindus, irrespective of religion, but that their main stress is on organizing traditional Hindus." So, we will be Hindus and we will still be discriminated against. The traditional Hindus will be organized and the orthodox Hindus (Brahmins) will rule. Caste considerations will be stronger than ever. Hinduism is, after all, approved and unchallengeable Hierarchy.

The Parivar has taken extensive steps to see that a Hindu society is established. Pakistan, which was always viewed as the enemy, is now being lauded by the Saffron Wing. In February 2002, the VHP General Secretary Pravin Togadia called for a full-fledged drive against madarsas and wondered why the Indian Government cannot take action against the madarsas when President Musharraf could talk of action against them. The VHP asking the government to follow the Pakistani parameter shows their desperation against Islam. Why restrict oneself to Pakistan alone? So Gurumurthy, the Sangh Parivar's mouthpiece, craftily ropes in the entire world. He writes, "The whole world is concerned about the growth of madarsas. For, madarsas, wherever there are, in Egypt, or in the Middle East, in Iraq or Iran, in Pakistan or Afghanistan, in Malaysia or Indonesia, in India or Bangladesh, are now known as the cradle of terror. The world debates madarsa. Scrutinizes it. Tries to control it. But thanks to our secular establishment most of us are ignorant of this phenomenon." So the Swadeshi screams his long-harbored Hindutva demand: Scrutinize the madarsas and try to control them. There occurs at the end of three days, a grand finale to the entire series - "The story ends here. But the madarsa-inspired Jehad continues. It will continue as long as the madarsa is free to spread the message of terror, unimpeded and unregulated."

What pains me is the totality, the absoluteness. The complete absence of logic and a much forgotten love. It is true that one or two madarsas could have been conducive to the ISI, but condemning every madarsa in the land is a product of extremist perversion. Their concern is the existence of madarsas, not the lives of lakhs of Muslims, both students and teachers whose existence revolves around these centers. It wants all the madarsas down - perhaps reduced to rubble. This Hindutva insanity pulled down the Babri Masjid. A decade later, their aggressive plans have taken enormous proportions. Their target is no longer confined to one single mosque - it encompasses every mosque, every madarsa and every Muslim.

The Hindutva maniacs believe that they publicly reserve the rights to call any Muslim a militant and every madarsa a Jehadi terror factory. The Parivar preaches: Hindu fundamentalism is patriotism. But, Muslim fundamentalism is terrorism. And they relentlessly work towards their fanatic goals, trying to turn the best of us into brutes. They attempt to bulldoze into our minds the crudity of their religion: subjugating our faiths to suppress us. Being a merciless majority, nobody stands up against them. But it is time we did. Protest their propaganda not just for Islam's sake, but for our own selfish sakes. For, Hindutva tomorrow will be drastic. Caste and religion will come as a package deal. Two hundred million Dalits will once again become untouchables. We will be denied food, education, jobs, a respectable life. Our rights will vanish, so will brotherhood. Secularism and social justice will die their deaths. Our silence in this disaster will ensure our defeat. It will irrevocably ensure the collective defeat of every revolution, every liberation. In the end, it will enslave us like never before.

We need to fight because the end of Islam in India represents the end of equality.

By Meena Kandasamy

Source: http://www.boloji.com/opinion/0047.htm

SAFFRON / HINDU EXTREMIST TERROR

2007-12-15T09:53:00.000-08:00

Nanded, in Maharashtra, is a town with a significant population of different faiths – Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and Buddhist. Nanded could well have become a new metaphor for secularism as practised in the Subcontinent, but this was not to be. Instead, Nanded has come to represent the emergent danger of a violent new brand of Hindu militancy, with due support from a section of the state machinery. A place that was once witness to the final days of Guru Gobind Singh, Sikhism’s Tenth Guru, has today metamorphosed into an epicentre of violent Hindutva. Indeed, Nanded represents the build-up of the violent fundamentalist Hinduism of the past half-century. The town has been witness to a new spate of acts that can be inarguably dubbed ‘terrorism’.

The inner workings of this new form of Hindutva were on show recently in two, evidently accidental, explosions in Nanded within a span of nine months, in April 2006 and February 2007. These blasts, which killed four people, took place at the houses of activists from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena. The arrival of Nanded on India’s ‘terror’ map was followed by media investigations into similar previous incidents, which also showed the involvement of Hindu youth in terrorist actions.

The new element here is the increasing similarity between Hindu militancy and ‘terrorism’ of other hues. While various enquiry commissions have looked into riots in post-Independence India and corroborated the proactive role played by the RSS in instigating riots, the irony of the situation is that the organisation is still able to maintain its ‘missionary’ image. Part of this is because the group has long maintained a strict division of labour within its ranks, delegating much of the ‘dirty work’ to fringe workers. The Nanded blasts proved to be an exception to this pattern, as the RSS links were obvious. This is why, in the immediate aftermath of the explosions, the Sangh Parivar leadership went to great lengths to suppress the news. Indeed, activist friends of this writer in Maharashtra were themselves unaware that any such incident had taken place.

One set of blasts took place in a house belonging to Laxman Rajkondwar, an old RSS activist, and killed two youths belonging to the Bajrang Dal and RSS, while injuring three others. The explosives that were being made were to be used during the entry into Maharashtra of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader L K Advani’s Bharat Suraksha Yatra, the idea being to warn of the grave security situation existing in the country. Later investigations found that the plan had been to instigate communal riots in Nanded that could have spread to adjoining areas. Such a situation, it was hoped, would boost the sagging morale of both the BJP and its ageing stalwart, Advani (see accompanying story, “Befuddled, jingoistic party”).

The aim was clearly to instigate a communal conflict. A police raid on one of the deceased’s houses found maps of nearby mosques, as well as clothes and caps usually worn by Muslims in the area, which the activists were going to wear to sneak into and attack the mosques and gurudwaras. The only thing still needed was explosives. The making of bombs in a house owned by an old RSS activist – one who supposedly also dealt in firecrackers, at that – seemed like the perfect plan.

Of course, the story neither begins nor ends in Nanded. Since 2003, at least five, and perhaps six, Hindutva-related explosions have taken place in central Maharashtra alone, in Parbhani, Purna, Jalna and Nanded. Malegaon also witnessed a bomb blast last year, killing 40 people, with strong indications of a Hindutva hand behind it. (The final picture will emerge after an ongoing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation finishes.) Beyond the geographical similarities, the details of the attacks were uncanny: each took place between 1:45 and 2:00 in the afternoon, just after Friday prayers, at the most prominent mosque in town. (The bomb that went off in Nanded in 2006 exploded on 6 April, a Thursday, but was apparently meant to be set off at an Aurangabad masjid the following day.)

At the same time, this cannot be dubbed a Maharashtra-centric phenomenon. Madhya Pradesh’s former chief minister, Digvijay Singh, has publicly admitted to the involvement of various groups and individuals affiliated with the RSS in similar acts in his state. As for the rest of the country, no systematic study of saffron ‘terror’ has yet been undertaken. One reason for this could be the thin line that separates the different anushangik (affiliated) organisations of the RSS, thereby making it possible to move from the ‘legal’ to the ‘illegal’ without great effort. Indeed, there is every possibility that funds collected from the Hindu diaspora for philanthropic work might also have been channelled to further ‘terrorist’ activities.

Nonetheless, culturally integrated practices are being utilised to arm certain sections of the Hindu community. Back in 2001, Rajasthan’s then-Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot revealed that up to four million trishuls – six to eight inches long and sharp enough to kill – had been distributed by the Bajrang Dal to Hindu households across the country. Meanwhile, in 2002, a group in Orissa, under the district Shiv Sena unit, formed the first-ever Hindu suicide squad, aimed at countering Muslim ‘extremism’ in Jammu & Kashmir and elsewhere. More than 100 youths, including some women, are said to have joined the group.

Hindutva collusion

Nanded’s population is made up of around 500,000 Hindus, 200,000 Muslims and 100,000 Sikhs. The town has seen a significant amount of communal tension in the past, which spiked following the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992. In more recent years, this tension seems to have also spilled over into surrounding towns such as Parbhani, where, in November 2003, motorcycle-borne attackers hurled bombs into the midst of a large congregation of Muslims assembled for Friday papers. Although the identities of the Parbhani bomb-throwers were never traced, forensic tests following the Nanded blasts revealed that the accused were part of the same group of Hindu militants that had executed the attack in Parbhani.

Following the April 2006 blasts in Nanded, an odd silence ensued – in the local and national media, as well as in the local and national governments. There was also a disturbing lack of sincerity on the part of the investigating agencies in pursuing the case, despite appearing to have gathered significant evidence of the involvement of district and state leaders of the RSS and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). As investigations by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and other rights organisations have made clear, the district administration even saw to it that news of the blasts did not receive wide coverage. After the initial excitement, district officials also allegedly pressured the local media not to follow the case any further.

The lackadaisical reaction also spread through those involved in local and national investigations. Local police made contradictory statements, and failed to make arrests in the initial stages. Despite the sensitive nature of the Nanded case, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) expressed its “inability” to conduct the subsequent investigation. In response to a case filed by some social organisations against the tardiness of the investigations, the CBI filed a suo moto affidavit explaining that it was “overburdened” and had “limited hands to deal with such cases”. The cumulative effect of the half-hearted – or wholly obstructionist – initiatives, at both the state and central level, was to show the kid-glove treatment being meted out to India’s new breed of Hindutva militants. Secular activists questioned whether the reaction would have been similar had the explosions taken place in a minority-dominated area, and the involvement of some ‘fanatic’ Islamic group been detected.

The cavalier manner in which the probes of the Nanded blasts were undertaken may have prepared the ground for a stepping-up of similar activities in the area. On 10 February 2007, at little after midnight, biscuit boxes being hauled by 28-year-old Pandurang Ameelkanthwar in another area in Nanded exploded, killing him instantly. His cousin, Dnaneshwar Manikwar, sustained massive burns and died six days later. Ameelkanthwar had been a former shakha pramukh (branch head) of the Shiv Sena, and was also associated with the Bajrang Dal. He hailed from an area in Nanded called Rangargalli, a known hotbed of rightwing Hindu outfits.

A mere ‘fire-related accident’ was how state officials subsequently reported the incident. But preliminary findings of a civil-society inquiry suggest that Ameelkanthwar and Manikwar died due to handled planted explosives. Neighbours near the explosion also told the team that there had been a third person present at the time, who had also been injured but has been unaccounted for in subsequent reports.

These eyewitnesses also said that a police officer, who went on to be part of the official investigation, supervised the seizing and spiriting away of critical evidence from the spot. In their report, the civil-society investigators state that the Maharashtra police, particularly the superintendent and inspector-general, appeared to be in “undue haste to close all possibilities of a possible liquid-substance-driven explosion, preferring to quote oral findings of forensic experts from Aurangabad who are reported to have told them that it was a petrol-ignited fire”. Among other evidence, this conclusion is brought under serious suspicion by the fact the explosion threw the iron shutter of a nearby godown a distance of 40 feet – an extremely long way for a fire set off by burning gasoline.

The civil society team also refers to a “nexus between some police officials and the rightwing Hindu outfits”. According to the probe’s findings, Nanded Police Inspector Ramesh Bhurewar, who was leading the investigation of the 2006 Nanded blast, was also in charge of the investigation into the Parbhani blasts in November 2003. During the course of the long investigation, he had not made a single arrest. A First Information Report was only registered after a legislator raised a question in the state assembly. But following the Nanded blasts in April 2006, the accused admitted to having placed the bombs at Parbhani. As such, the civil-society report concludes: “The Nanded and state police are hence guilty of underplaying crimes wherein members of the minority community are the victims, causing a loss of face for the state police.”

In their conclusion, the fact-finding team demanded that the central government keep a close watch over the increasing incidence of Hindutva ‘terror’ activities. They also asked for independent investigations under a team of neutral officers; and impartial, public inquiries into the Nanded, Malegaon, Parbhani and Purna incidents, in order to ascertain whether state intelligence and police agencies are indeed professional and neutral enough to investigate instances of politically driven Hindutva violence.

History of hate

Post-Independence India is replete with examples of the participation of Hindu extremists in aggravating communal situations, targeting particular communities, and aiding and abetting riots. Those who have watched the organisation since its inception say that the ‘terrorism’ label may be modern, but the acts themselves, fundamentalist to the core, are decades old: making communally sensitive speeches that culminate in riots; leading religious processions in sensitive areas inhabited by Muslims and other minorities; and outright provocations leading people to engage in violence.

Rajeshwar Dayal, chief secretary of Uttar Pradesh at the time of Partition, provides in his 1999 memoirs A Life of Our Times details of another kind: damning evidence of RSS chief Golwalkar’s plans to conduct a pogrom against Muslims. Pyarelal Nayyar, Mohandas Gandhi’s secretary during those tumultuous times, adds to these accusations: “It was common knowledge that the RSS … had been behind the bulk of the killings in [Delhi] as also in various other parts of India.”

Contrary to the perception that the Sangh Parivar has gained momentum only since the 1990s, various commissions that have looked into communal riots since 1947 have gathered a significant body of evidence on the role of the RSS and affiliated organisations. The Reddy Commission, which in 1969 looked into rioting in Gujarat; the Justice Madon Commission, which analysed the riots in Bhiwandi, Maharashtra, in the early 1970s; the Justice Vithayathil Commission, which probed the 1971 Tellicherry riots – all of these provide solid details of the involvement of either the RSS or its mass political platform, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, in fomenting the trouble.

Justice Venugopal’s report, on the Kanyakumari riots of 1982, also severely indicted the RSS for its role in instigating riots against Christians. According to Justice Venugopal, the RSS methodology for provoking communal violence was as follows: rousing communal feelings in the majority community; deepening fear in the majority community; infiltrating into the state administration; training young people of the majority community in the use of weapons; and spreading rumours to widen communal splits. About the shakhas that the RSS organises under the rubric of physical training, Justice Venugopal said that the aim appeared to be “to inculcate an attitude of militancy and training for any kind of civil strife”.

It was only in 2004 that the Terrorism Research Centre (TRC), a US-based institute, declared the RSS a ‘terrorist organisation’, lumping it together with a host of jihadi and secessionist outfits, including the Lashkar-e-Toiba, the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) and the Hizb ul-Mujahideen. This new listing came close on the heels of an internationally embarrassing incident for the Hindutva-wallahs, wherein Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi was denied a visa to travel to the US. The two slaps in the face left the Sangh Parivar bosses seething (although it took more than eight months for the RSS to formally react to the TRC’s assessment). But this was not the first time that Hindutva organisations had earned international opprobrium. In 2002, secular activists in the US brought out a thoroughly researched report called “Funding Hate”. For the first time, this document exposed how funds collected in the US by the India Development and Relief Fund (the IDRF, an umbrella organisation floated by the Hindutva brigade) were directly sponsoring sectarian violence in India.

Cover-up
One potential reason for the inability of the powers-that-be to establish a connection between Hindu militants and acts of terror in India could be the near absence of non-Hindus in the central government’s various intelligence wings. Whatever the reasons, this dearth is shocking. Barring the Intelligence Bureau, which has around 12,000 personnel and only a few Muslim officers, none of the other intelligence departments have even a single Muslim officer between them. From 1969 until today, neither the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) nor the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) has hired even one Muslim officer. (Following the Malegaon blasts, S M Mushrif, a retired India Police Service officer, publicly disparaged the Intelligence Bureau for having long been the source of “unsubstantiated rumours” due to “deep-seated bias”.) The state of affairs has inevitably led to what can be dubbed the government’s rather monochromatic presentation of the menace of terrorism in recent years, with sole responsibility for attacks almost immediately placed on various Islamist groups, regardless of evidence.

Despite a ‘secular’ coalition currently holding the reins of power at the Centre and in many of India’s state administrations, there have been depressingly few sincere attempts to move beyond post-9/11 mythology and the rhetoric of the ‘war on terror’, which demonises Islam. So complete is this perspective that it is difficult to decipher any qualitative difference between the ‘secular’ Congress and the ‘communal’ BJP in their responses to any act of ‘terror’. Instead, even while we have been witness to the dilly-dallying of the Congress following the Nanded and Malegaon blasts, the same Congress-led government had no qualms in targeting Muslims as a community after the July 2006 bomb blasts in Bombay. (In the immediate aftermath of the Bombay attacks, an anti-terrorist squad singled out the Muslim community for suspicion, and immediately began ‘combing’ operations.) The Maharashtra state administration has also shown its anti-Muslim bias in times of tragedy. Even while attesting to their sadness over the Malegaon blast, state officials saw to it that victims, the majority of whom were Muslim, received just a fifth of the compensation received by the victims of the Bombay blasts of 1993 – the majority of whom were Hindu.

The fallout of this situation has been the administrative failure to address terrorism unleashed by Hindutva activists and formations. One possible reason for the government’s ostrich-like position could be that, due to electoral considerations, nobody has wanted to displease the majority Hindus. While it is true that Hindutva groups are not currently in a majority at the Centre, the impact of Hindutva nonetheless transcends its strength in government. Note the inability of ‘secular’ groups to bring criminal cases against the likes of communal leaders like Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray, and the champions of Hindutva: Praveen Togadia, Lal Krishna Advani or Narendra Modi. Indeed, the present-day Congress itself is a faint shadow of its Nehruvian avatar: after all, it ‘discovered’ the idea of ‘soft Hindutva’ two decades ago, in a bid to further its hold on the reins of power.

It is time that the public be made aware of the rising trajectory of Hindutva criminality. The dangerous understanding that a particular community, region or religious ideology is more prone towards ‘terrorist’ activities needs to be refuted at all costs. The people of Southasia in general, and India in particular, need to be convinced that there is no qualitative difference between the violent acts committed by LTTE suicide bombers, al-Qaeda jihadis, Khalistani militants or members of militant Hindutva organisations. This realisation could be the first step in organising simultaneous social and political strategies to expose, challenge and dissolve these groups.

The Author can be contacted at: subhash.gatade@gmail.com

2007-12-15T09:51:00.000-08:00

According to the report, Panse’s (Leader of Bharatiya Vidhyarti sena Organization) motive was to avenge the deaths of Hindus killed in terror attacks. Panse was convinced that the mastermind behind these attacks were underworld dons Abu Salem and Dawood Ibrahim.

The report says that Panse was “pained” by the terrorist attacks in Delhi and Varanasi. He felt that Hindus would be “treated as hijras” if they failed to take any action.

Feeling that retaliation was necessary to uphold Hindu honour, Panse decided after the Varanasi blasts to engineer explosions in Muslim-dominated areas in central Maharashtra with the target of killing at least 300-400 Muslims in each incident.

A closer look at all the recent blasts that have occurred in central Maharashtra reveal a pattern which seems to fit with Panse’s plan. All blasts (including the ones in Malegaon on September 8) occurred between 1.45pm and 2.00pm at the most prominent mosque in these towns, just after the Friday prayers, when attendance is maximum

Click above pic for source.

HINDU EXTREMISM - ON THE RISE IN INDIA

2007-12-15T09:49:00.000-08:00

Conservative News Service, Feb 14, 2000

NEW DELHI, India (CNS) -- Hindu fundamentalist groups in India are trying to curb the activities of other religious groups and control the "expressions" of those not conforming to their world view, according to analysts here. As examples, analysts point to Hindu attempts to change the Indian constitution in ways that would curb artistic free expression and restrict the right of minority Christians and Muslims to preach and practice their religion freely.

"Increasing intolerance among the Hindu fundamentalist organizations, which pose a grave threat to democracy, are an indication of the rise of fascist forces in India," said politics professor M. Mohanty of Delhi University.

"What happened with European fascism is now happening with the Hindus," he told CNSNews.com.

Kanti Bajpai, professor of international politics at Jawaharlal Nehru University, agreed, telling CNSNews.com that "the rise of right-wing politics in India is far more advanced and violent than in Austria."

More than 80 percent of India's nearly one billion people are Hindus. Muslims form a sizeable minority of around 15 percent, while just 2.5 percent are Christians.

Although Hindu fundamentalist leaders have formally denied responsibility for attacks on minority religious communities, their propaganda is characterized by threats of violence.

In Orissa, where Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two sons were murdered 13 months ago, the local government passed an order last November prohibiting religious conversions without the prior permission of the local police and a district magistrate.

The order, an amendment to the 1967 Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, stipulates that a citizen wishing to convert must undergo a police inquiry to explain his or her reasons.

India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, has passed a bill restricting the building and use of places of worship. It is awaiting the approval of the Indian president.

The western state of Gujarat recently lifted a ban on government employees being members of the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (national self-service organization, or RSS).

The RSS, which claims to be a socio-cultural organization, is the main think tank of several fundamentalist bodies in India, including the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The RSS functions as the principal guardian of Hindu ideology.

An RRS member assassinated Mahatma Gandhi in 1948. It has been banned three times since independence for its activities.

Also in Gujarat, lawmakers soon will debate a draft Freedom of Religion Bill, which makes it a criminal offense to use force or fraud in converting a person from one religion to another.

Hindu fundamentalists forced an Indo-Canadian movie director, Deepa Mehta, from filming a movie that reportedly depicted an upper caste Hindu widow falling in love with a lower caste laborer as well as widows being forced into prostitution by those in the upper castes.

Taking exception to the storyline of "Water," activists said it "tarnished the image of the country and Hindus."

Actress Nandita Das, who stars in "Water," said the fanatics were misleading people and causing trouble for the whole society "in a country known for its unity in diversity."

Political scientist Mohanty warned that the greatest danger to India's "extremely strained social fabric" may come not from Sikh or Muslim separatists, but from Hindu fundamentalists.

The vice-president of the ruling BJP, J.P. Mathur, said Hindus were known for their tolerance, but that "Muslim fundamentalism has now forced us to raise our head and counter it. It is all because of the survival of the fittest."

India has a long history of violence between the Hindu majority and Muslims. Recently, Christians also have been targeted.

The New Delhi-based United Christian Forum for Human Rights has documented more than 120 attacks against Christian individuals, churches, and schools, allegedly by Hindu fundamentalists, in the past year. Half of the incidents have occurred in Gujarat.

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Delhi, Alan de Lastic, said extremists were employing a national-level strategy to try to stem the influence of Christians.

"It is more pronounced in states where there is a government affiliated to the Hindu ideology and a small Christian population," he said.

A resurgence of Hindu fundamentalism has taken place over the past decade, beginning with an RSS television campaign in the late 1980s to forge a self-conscious collective Hindu identity.

In 1991, present Home Minister L. K. Advani undertook a historic "chariot journey" from a Hindu temple in Gujarat to the legendary birthplace of the Hindu god Ram.

The symbolic journey helped transform the BJP from marginal group with just two seats in parliament a decade ago to the ruling party today.

In 1992, Muslims became the main targets of Hindus with the destruction of a mosque built in the 16th century on a site some Hindus believe a Hindu temple once stood.

International politics professor Bajpai compared the strategy used by the RSS to that of Joerg Haider and the Freedom Party in Austria.

"The right here too advocates extreme and flagrant positions and then retreats and recants as a way of disarming critics and opponents - and succeeds only too well."

The fundamentalists had also used the fear of "outsiders within" to build a support base.

"Immigration has been one way of doing this, but more important here has been the portrayal of religious and ethnic minorities as aliens whose loyalty to the nation is questionable," Bajpai explained.

"Measures need to be taken to curb this trend, otherwise it will destroy the multi-cultural fabric of India," warned Mohanty.

HINDU EXTREMISM BEING IGNORED

2007-12-15T09:48:00.002-08:00

The American media often has a lot to say about Islamic militants and Muslims who commit violence in the Middle East, and it is true that they pose a threat to others (as well as to other Muslims). However, that same media typically ignores similar extremism and similar violence committed by Hindu nationalists in India.

Paul Marshall, a senior fellow at Freedom House’s Centre for Religious Freedom who recently published a book on the rise of Hindu extremism in India, writes that a country once personified by Mahatma Gandhi is fast becoming known for religious hatred and violence. While India remains the world’s largest democracy, the ruling BJP is linked to Hindu extremist groups like the RSS, the Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), which mount hate campaigns and sometimes-violent attacks against religious minorities and demand that Hinduism dominate society and politics. The RSS was founded by admirers of fascism and Nazism, produced Gandhi’s murderers and is now perhaps the world’s largest paramilitary organisation, with millions of members, he adds.

India's political traditions are founded upon liberalism, democracy, and tolerance - but the growth of extremism in that nation threatens those foundations, and threatens to ignite not only internal violence, but also conflict with other nations like Pakistan. There are justifiable concerns about the possibility of Muslim extremists taking over in Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons, but we should have similar concerns about India as well - a country which is much larger, more powerful, and which possess more nuclear weapons than Pakistan.

This is an article written by Austin Cline from about.com

RSS POISONING CHILDREN

2007-12-15T09:48:00.001-08:00

In Orissa, over the last five years the Sangh Parivar's tentacles have spread and thickened. Minorities, refugees, and the poor -- the social crevices in which they live narrow from neglect. The disenfranchised struggle to confront social violence. The annexation of territory and resources from the subaltern, the imposition of virulent ideologies and alienating economies, have produced diverse identity politics defining contested practices of citizenship. At the intersections of globalization and hyper nationalism, Hindutva intervenes, unravelling the fragile fabric of democracy.

The communalization of education is a serious concern across India. Sectarian education campaigns undertaken by Hindu extremist groups demonize minorities through the teaching of fundamentalist curricula. Such corruption of education incites the political and social fires of communalism. The RSS has spearheaded the movement, successfully penetrating into the educational systems of both the grassroots and centralized regulatory commissions. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has fashioned an institutional umbrella that is having a damaging impact on education at the grassroots. The RSS has established Vanvasi Kalyan Parishads, Vivekananda Kendras, Sewa Bharatis and other groups to advance the ideological agenda of Hindu nationalism. The RSS administers 9,300 Ekal Vidyalayas in adivasi areas. For the diversity of cultures allied under the rubric of 'adivasi', the ongoing reality of Hinduization offers evidence of their gradual and brutal incorporation into this caste system.

Created by the RSS in 1978, the Vidya Bharati Akhil Bharatiya Shiksha Sansthan network focuses on moral, extracurricular and physical education for 'mind, body and spirit'. The Vidya Bharati system supervises over 18,000 schools across India, with 1.8 million students and 80,000 teachers. A shared curriculum is used across the country. The Vidya Bharati operates 60 graduate institutions. About 5,000 Vidya Bharatis are endorsed by Education Boards primarily in states where the Bharatiya Janata Party is in power..

Known as Shiksha Vikas Samiti, Vidya Bharati directs 391 Saraswati Shishu Mandir schools with 111,000 students in Orissa. The RSS has constructed a network of educational institutions across the state. Initially the RSS maintained a public distance between the Sangh and Vidya Bharati. In recent years, as Hindutva consolidates its position in Orissa, the RSS has actively declared its affiliation with these schools. Rashtra Deepa, the RSS Oriya weekly, regularly chronicles some of the academic aspirations of the Sangh Parivar. Most RSS run schools are affiliated with the State Board of Education and adhere to the state approved curricula. As the Sangh infiltrates into regulatory bodies and actively leads the rewriting of textbooks and reorganization of the curriculum, the classroom transforms into an agent of Hindutva.

With the increasing impetus on the privatization of education, the RSS has been actively inaugurating schools in areas across Orissa where the government fails to provide public funding. The vigorous assertion of Sanskrit provides for the erasure and Hinduization of minority languages. History, science, geography, literature, religious texts are interpreted into Hindutva. These texts, written in Oriya, are taught in schools and available in bookstores. The texts weave disparaging and malevolent fictions about minority groups, inciting Hindus to revenge history. The curriculum is censored and obscurantist, interpreted to legitimate the sanctity of a 'Hindu worldview' in India and the assembling of a Hindu state. It enables Hindu nationalism in advancing 'righteous' violence for ethnic cleansing. The RSS broadcasts this education as 'holistic', patriotic and accessible.

These schools are financed by individual donations and contributions from various charitable organizations such as the Mumbai based Bhansali Trust. These schools also offer income generation and computer skills. They serve as gathering places for Sangh organizations providing youth contact with Hindutva leaders. Parents say they are drawn to RSS run schools because they are affordable and profess to educate children in culture and religion, history and ritual.

Students receive ideological training through extra-curricular activity as well. They participate in development work and disaster relief, politicizing education and linking it to social service. An RSS worker in Bhubaneswar speaks with pride. "We ask people to devote one hour a day for their country, in the name of the motherland. To gather in a field and play Indian games; with sticks, swords, other exercises, teach youth to march, some musical instruments. And then we workers discuss the ideology of the RSS -- what Hinduism is, how Hindu culture was great and how it is fading, how the youth must become involved to revive and purify it."

Through regular educational camps, he continues, the RSS recruits teachers and campaigners. Their task is to draw people to the Sangh. "To convince people that the country is in danger, the motherland is in danger. To tell people that no matter who they are, if they return to Hinduism there is place for them in the nation." After training, RSS state and district units send campaigners to serve within the different wings of the Sangh Parivar, and to the rural areas to recruit and organize the Sangh cadre.

The RSS holds month long training sessions across Orissa during summer vacations to attract students and young children. From these sessions, the RSS recruits for the Officers Training Camps (OTC). Held twice a year, the OTC provides schooling in self-defense and leadership. Around 500 people attend each year. On completion, approximately100 join the organization as campaigners. Graduates take an oath, "I will devote my body, mind, and money (tana, mana, bhana) to the motherland." For about 10 recruits, this develops into a lifelong, intense and full time commitment. Each December, the RSS organizes the Sita Shibir, a 7-10 day winter camp. The families of attendees finance the camps. The growth of the RSS testifies to the success of these camps. The RSS boasts of 50,000 shakhas in India, 2500 in Orissa with a 100,000 strong cadre.

In Orissa, the RSS charges that aggressive Hinduization is a 'rational' and warranted response to, among other factors, the growth of missionary activity leading to an increase in the Christian population. In fact, Christians constitute less than 3 percent of the population in the state, with a 1 percent increase since 1981. The Christian population in India does not record any appreciable increase from 2.6 percent in 1971, to 2.43 in 1981, 2.34 in 1991, and 2.6 in 2001.

History is animated through extra curricular activities, seminars and workshops. New heroes, timelines, events emerge to construct India's antiquity, to naturalize her geo-political borders, to define her heritage as Hindu. History is rewritten to determine belonging and un-belonging. Difference is represented as 'other', a threat to the integrity of India as a Hindu nation, unless manipulated and straitjacketed. A whole new generation is being grown indoctrinated in Hindutva. It is a devious strategy to teach hate to the young.

ARYAN INVASION IS NOT A MYTH

2007-12-15T09:45:00.000-08:00

It had been argued [in the December 2, 2005 Curriculum Commission hearing] by the Vedic Foundation (VF) and the Hindu Education Foundation (HEF) supporters on the basis of a 1999 paper by Toomas Kivisild et al that the Aryan Invasion Theory has been “conclusively disproved” and should therefore be discarded from 6th grade school textbooks currently in the review process. Based upon these arguments, the Curriculum Commission had decided to accept many changes proposed by VF/HEF relating to the question of Aryan origin.

The study by Kivisild et al primarily focused on the question of the original migration of the human race from Africa some 50,000 years ago, and as such was not meant to determine the question of Aryan origin that is said to have happened around 3,500 years back. Further, the study was restrictive in that it dwelt primarily on the evolution/mutation of maternal genetic material (mitochondrial DNA) and did not take paternal genetic inheritance into account. Additionally, DNA dates work well for the periods of the Exodus out of Africa (c. 60,000 BCE); but by the time of the Indo-Aryan influx into South Asia (c. 1500 BCE) any DNA calculation has huge temporal error bars that render the exercise useless for the question at hand, at least at the present state of research. Lastly, the presently acknowledged Aryan Influx Theory is based on a combination of cultural-linguistic migration of Indo-European people into India. Since genes and languages do not necessarily migrate in tandem, the findings of genetic migration patterns from Archeogenetic studies are not central to the determination of Aryan origin.

Nonetheless, since the 1999 paper by Kivisild was offered by HEF/VF supporters as “proof” of the indigenous origins of Aryan/Vedic people, we are presenting below a brief summary of more recent Archeogenetic studies as relates to the question of Aryan origin and related theories of Aryan invasion, influx or migration. The several papers cited and included here are more recent than the Kivisild paper and have argued in favor of an Indo-European genetic migration into India. These papers have not been acknowledged by the VF/HEF in the partisan promotion of their Aryan Indigenity Theory.

Abstracts of key studies referred to below along with links/references to the full publication are included at the end of this document.

Summary
A 2001 examination of male Y-DNA by Indian and American scientists [which also incidentally includes Toomas Kivisild as one of the authors] indicated that higher castes are genetically closer to West Eurasians than are individuals from lower castes, whose genetic profiles are similar to other Asians. These results indicate that at some point male West Eurasians provided a significant genetic input into the higher castes, a result which supports the notion that the caste system was an attempt by these predominantly male arrivals to keep themselves separate from the native population. (http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Bamshad_2001a.pdf)

The genetic studies by Michael J Bamshad and his team (2001) from University of Utah and Dr. Spencer Wells (2003) give strong backing to the Aryan invasion/migration theory.

In the study by M.J Bamshad and his team [4] they wrote, "Our results demonstrate that for biparentally inherited autosomal markers, genetic distances between upper, middle, and lower castes are significantly correlated with rank; upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians; and upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are lower castes."

(http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Bamshad_2001a.pdf)

The genetic study involves the analysis of genetic material known as the Mitochondrial DNA which is only passed maternally and so it is used to study female inheritance. The male-determining Y chromosome, is passed along paternally and is therefore used to study male inheritance. The evidence implies that few millennia ago group of males with (Eastern) European affinities invaded the Indian subcontinent from the Northwest of the sub-continent.

The researchers went on to state that genetic variations between upper castes and lower castes is the evidence to the origin of the caste system. The people who were either migrating or invading the sub-continent had descendants in the male population largely in the higher castes than in the lower castes. The researchers state that these invading or migrating people might have instituted the caste system.

In the abstract to their paper the researchers stated, "In the most recent of these waves, Indo-European -speaking people from West Eurasia entered India from the Northwest and diffused throughout the subcontinent. They purportedly admixed with or displaced indigenous Dravidic-speaking populations. Subsequently they may have established the Hindu caste system and placed themselves primarily in castes of higher rank."

The study also revealed another classic anthropological observation, that of women being significantly more mobile in terms of caste and hierarchical class than men, who are almost not socially mobile at all in terms of caste and hierarchical class. Genetic evidence reveals that over millennia men have married women from lower castes but women have rarely married men from lower castes. Thus the researchers imply that caste and class to a large extent is perpetuated by women and has also thereby contributed to the minimal mixing of Aryan blood with the natives.

A study conducted by Quintana-Murci [2000] present genetic evidence for the occurrence of two major population movements, supporting a model of demic diffusion of early farmers from southwestern Iranand of pastoral nomads from western and central Asiainto India, associated with Dravidian and Indo-Europeanlanguage dispersals, respectively.

A study conducted by R Spencer Wells et al focuses on the non-recombining portion of the Y-chromosome and provide an insight into the earliest patterns of settlement of anatomically modern humans on the Eurasian continent. Central Asia is revealed to be an important reservoir of genetic diversity, and the source of at least three major waves of migration leading into Europe, the Americas, and India. The genetic results are interpreted in the context of Eurasian linguistic patterns.

In the 2003 study, Basu et al provide genomic evidence that (1) there is an underlying unity of female lineages in India, indicating that the initial number of female settlers may have been small; (2) the tribal and the caste populations are highly differentiated; (3) the Austro-Asiatic tribals are the earliest settlers in India, providing support to one anthropological hypothesis while refuting some others; (4) a major wave of humans entered India through the northeast; (5) the Tibeto-Burman tribals share considerable genetic commonalities with the Austro-Asiatic tribals, supporting the hypothesis that they may have shared a common habitat in southern China, but the two groups of tribals can be differentiated on the basis of Y-chromosomal haplotypes; (6) the Dravidian tribals were possibly widespread throughout India before the arrival of the Indo-European-speaking nomads, but retreated to southern India to avoid dominance; (7) formation of populations by fission that resulted in founder and drift effects have left their imprints on the genetic structures of contemporary populations; (8) the upper castes show closer genetic affinities with Central Asian populations, although those of southern India are more distant than those of northern India; (9) historical gene flow into India has contributed to a considerable obliteration of genetic histories of contemporary populations so that there is at present no clear congruence of genetic and geographical or sociocultural affinities.

In a recent research paper in Current Biology, Cordaux et. al. confirms the Bamshad (2001) results and concludes that the paternal lineages of Indian caste groups are primarily descendants of Indo-European speakers who migrated from central Asia about 3,500 years ago. [cordaux:2004 (http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/CordauxCurBiol2004.pdf)]

Conclusion

The above summary and attached documents are provided to demonstrate the selective promotion of research material by the supporters of Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation and the suppression of other, more recently available research that undermines their thesis is reflective of their priorities in promoting their ideological agendas over a factual, methodical and unbiased study of history. Further, this desire by VF/HEF supporters to “prove” by any means that Aryans are “indigenous” people directly relate to their contemporary political agenda back in India of distinguishing the “indigenous Aryan Hindus” from “foreign Muslim and Christian invaders” and thereby characterizing India’s Muslim and Christian minorities as “traitors” that need to be marginalized and persecuted. It is disturbing to witness how dangerously close these Hindu nationalist groups have come to whitewashing California’s school textbooks with their unsavory political agendas.

GREAT MALLA KINGS

2007-12-15T09:44:00.000-08:00

Aryans used to call dravidians who faught with them bravely as asuras. The mountain tribes of dravidians especially malla, maala, malayas, kuruvas, koyis faught bravely agsinst these Aryan invaders. The Aryans wrote stories about these battles depicting the Dravidians as Asuras and worshipers of Ashuras and the Aryans as Gods and worshipers of Gods.

The Mallas ruled the maharastra before the aryans invaded it. Mala tribes were found in all over india and were proud kings. Adding the name malla in their name was thought to be a matter of prestage and good luck for the kings (Ahavamalla, yuddhamalla, Jagadekamalla, trailkomalla, tribhuvanamalla).
Malla were also called Mhar which eventually took the word Mahar. The word Maharastra in those days meant the kingdom of Mahar (mallas). It was also called as Mallarastra. But as the aryans invaded and the fortune of Mallas was degraded down as low caste people by the invaders, the word Mallarastra lost significance slowly and Maharastra was left behind and the aryans gave it the meaning 'great kingdom'.
The word Pariah in marathi still corresponds to Mahar. Even today, Mallas are found scattered all over the country- Malla Arayar, Malacar, Malayalis, Malavas, Malair, Mallar, Maravar. Mallas are even found in Nepal and north eastern states. But very few Mallas are found in north west India because of the influence of Aryan invaders.

What does the Word Aryan Mean?
The word Aryan had different meaning at different times in Tamil also. According to the oldest Tamil Dictionary (Thevaagaram or Nigandu written may be between 1- 3 Century BC) the word ‘Aryan’ – was defined as Millacher meaning ‘Uncivilized’. Later to mean a person who did not learn Tamil properly and later on it meant outsider. (Ref: Moovendar yaar (Revised Edition) – Page 36). Some old tamil dictionaries also say that Aryan means 'destroyer'.

The Aryan invaders were stopped from entering the south by the vindhya mountains.

When Alexander the great invaded India, he was wounded seriously in a war which took place near Multan. Sir Alexander Burnes writes in his 'travels into Bokhara' (vol 3. p.114) that "Mooltan is styled 'Malli than' or 'Malli tharum' , the place of Malli".

Dravidians were the true possessors of Vedas. The Aryans who invaded the land eventually corrupted them. They changed it as per their wishes and took care that their position in society is not harmed. They said that the dravidian sudras and should not touch nor listen to the Vedas. According to them, aryan brahmins must read vedas and visyas could listen to them. they suppressed the brave Malla and sudra kings very horribly.

Did Hindu Population Decrease to 3% in Pakistan?

2007-12-15T09:43:00.000-08:00

Hindu extremists claim that hindu population in pakistan decreased from 30% in post partition days to 3% today. They take it as an genuine reason to access license to spread hatred against muslims and kill them. Lets analyse this issue step by step and find out the truth:

The Hindu population in West Pakistan, that is today Pakistan, was 20% in 1941. That came down to 1.5% in 1951
.http://www.newindpress.com/Column.asp?ID=IEH20020531144657&P=old
According to the 1951 census, the population of west Pakistan was 33,816,000 or better 33.8 million

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Demographics_of_pakistan
Around 6.5 million Muslims came into Pakistan while 5.4 Hindus left it. Therefore there was an addition of approximately 6.5-1.1=1.1 million people in the Pakistan population so we can assume that before the partition it was 33.8-1.1= 32.7 million.

http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~akhwaja/papers/The%20Big%20March%20December%202005.pdf(Look through Page 8 of the above pdf link)
Assuming the percentage of Hindus continued to remain 20% till 1947, their numbers before partition would have been 20/100 * 32.7= 6.54 million Hindus.Since we have established that 5.4 million Hindus left during the partition. 6.54-5.4=1.14 million Hindus were left behind. Using the same PDF link, we can estimate that around half a million Hindus were killed during parition riots therefore the net population of Hindus would have been 1.14-0.50= 0.64 million.So basically the percentage they now formed was 0.64/33.8 * 100= 1.89%

So the truth is, inspite of continous migration of pakistani hindus to dubai and other arab countries, their number has actual raised from 1.89% to 3%.

THE RAM SETHU ISSUE

2007-12-15T09:42:00.002-08:00

It is very unfortunate that Ram sethu issue is being so foolishly dealt with. Political greed and hypocrisy showed up itself once again. The BJP itself granted the sethu samudram project and now opposing it unnecessarily making it a religious issue.

The congress should have dealt this issue more sensitively. Freedom of speech and expression has some limitations. Karunanidhi (Tamil Nadu chief minister) or anyone else has no right to hurt the sentiments of people may it be Hindus or Muslims. He would have represented his point in a more decent manner instead of mocking the hindu religious sentiments. Congress on the first hand should have noticed and removed the objectionable content in the affidavit filed by archaeological society of India.

The BJP feels that Ramar sethu issue 'is a gift by Congress'. they want to exploit as much as they can out of this issue. The Sangh parivar members once again proved that they are no different or no lesser than any terrorist organization in the world. After burning a Tamil Nadu bus in Banglore and burning two people to death, the BJP leader ramvilas vedanti's statement is a mockery on the Indian law and order and the Indian constitution itself. An open murder threat in public is something everyone must be worried about. The person agaisnt whom he issued a 'fatwa' (of beheading) is non other than a Chief minister. If Sangh parivar people can go to an extent to threaten a Chief minister in power, what about ordinary people? For them ordinary Indian who stand in their way should simply die.

The congress should at least realise its mistakes at this point and try to deal with sensibility instead of worrying about consequences. It should apologise to hindus and explain the 'good' it is willing to do by the construction of sethu samudram project. Otherwise such incidents will repeat again. This time it was Hindus next time when the power shifts in BJP's favor, it will be Muslims on the road.

STRUGGLE FOR JUSTICE

2007-12-15T09:42:00.001-08:00

Rizwanur Rahman, who had married Priyanka Todi without her parents' consent on August 18 under the Special Marriage Act, was found dead beside the railway tracks near Dum Dum at 10.30 am on Friday — barely 20 minutes after he fixed up an appointment with a human rights activist for a visit to Lalbazar.

He had earlier sought police protection, which he never got.

In a complaint he had filed with the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) just two days before his death, Rahman had claimed two deputy commissioners of police posted at the Lalbazar headquarters had threatened to arrest him if Priyanka did not return to her parents. A copy of his letter was submitted to the state human rights commission.

Rahman's death triggered anger in Tiljala, where he lived. On Saturday, thousands of residents of Park Circus and surrounding localities took to the streets. They blocked bridge no. 4, the critical link to the Park Circus-EM Bypass connector, demanding a probe into the death.

The protesters vented their anger on the police. They were particularly furious that officers of Karaya police station had refused to accept an FIR filed by Rahman's parents. Rumours that the body had gone missing from police custody further inflamed the protesters, who went on the rampage, torching a police jeep and wrecking nine other vehicles. The police lathicharged the mob, which retaliated with brickbats. The street fights continued for over an hour.

Rahman's death triggered anger in Tiljala, where he lived. On Saturday, thousands of residents of Park Circus and surrounding localities took to the streets. They blocked bridge no. 4, the critical link to the Park Circus-EM Bypass connector, demanding a probe into the death.

The protesters vented their anger on the police. They were particularly furious that officers of Karaya police station had refused to accept an FIR filed by Rahman's parents. Rumours that the body had gone missing from police custody further inflamed the protesters, who went on the rampage, torching a police jeep and wrecking nine other vehicles. The police lathicharged the mob, which retaliated with brickbats. The street fights continued for over an hour.

Bhadra has demanded an impartial probe into the case and asked the police to immediately produce Rahman's "missing wife". Priyanka's whereabouts are still unknown. Repeated attempts to contact Todi both at his residence and on his cellphone failed.

Source: timesofindia.indiatimes.com

This is an horrible incident of violation of human rights. The police instead of protecting the couple acted like the private security guards of Todi. Its a shame on their part.

PAKISTAN CONTRIBUTION TO INDIAN MUSLIM

2007-12-15T09:40:00.002-08:00

In India, across the Indian Muslim community it is widely accepted now that the partition of India was the biggest blunder that happened. Instead of safeguarding the interests of the Indian Muslims it reduced the ones who continued to live in India to a position of significantly reduced significance. It impacted the most those who needed the biggest safeguards, the poorest of the poor. A significant portion of the educated cream of the Indian Muslim community migrated to Pakistan; some say they chickened out when the push came to shove. Most of the remaining Muslims in India were poor who would be just fighting to make their two ends meet.

The first silver lining in this was that India was formed as a secular and democratic state. The constitution of India recognized that every citizen will be absolutely equal in his rights and will be free to profess, practice and propagate his religion. The goals were set in the clearest way and the struggle was to achieve the goal and not about the goal itself. It has often been a struggle for the Indian Muslims no doubt but the question has not been the constitution but it has been about upholding the spirit of the constitution. The same Nehru who is often held responsible in Pakistan for the inflexibility fought to uphold the secular fabric of India.

The second is the demographics of the country. India is a unique country, one of its kind. It is like Western Europe put together in a single country. That is true whether you compare it in size, population, languages, cultures, cuisines, dress, habits and many other things. This fact itself makes it a land of huge diversity and contradictions unlike any other place in the world. This structure itself demands that people of different backgrounds have different needs in their daily lives. The result of that is the number of players that have emerged in the Indian political structure.

The identities are not Hindu and Muslim so much as the Muslim League would have thought or the BJP wants.

The result of this diversity has been that even after unleashing its whole might and propaganda machinery through RSS its political offshoot the BJP, at its zenith, could never get more than 25% of the votes. It is only in Gujarat that the worst fears of the Muslims have come true. Other than many of the leaders of BJP no political party questions the Muslims about their existential and cultural position. Many political parties acted as ‘messiah’ of the Muslims and paid just lip service yet perhaps no other party other than the exception of BJP pursued harming the interests of the Muslims.

The worst thing that can happen to the Indian Muslims is adding fuel to the propaganda machinery of the right wing. While Indian Muslims have their own weaknesses and moles that are responsible for this but the focus here is only on Pakistan’s contribution.

Firstly, by opposing India being a member of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). In 1969, when OIC was formed and India lobbied to be included as it had the third largest Muslim population in the world Pakistan successfully lobbied against it. Pakistan looked at its strategic self-interests and not anything about safeguarding the Indian Muslims otherwise it was a significant move on the part of India to have made that move to be included in the organization as an Islamic country! If Gabon with just 10% Muslims (150,000 Muslim citizens) can be a member, it is a mockery that India with 150 million Muslims and till very recently having the second largest Muslim population on the planet is denied that status. If India was denied significant position vis a vis Muslim countries there was little incentive for her to put the strong feet of her Muslim cultural identity forward and sustain it.

Secondly, the most contentious issue of the way we look at history. The propaganda machinery of the Indian right wing does a great job in picking up all the opinions, lies and rumors against Muslim rulers and paint a picture that the presence of Muslims in India has been the biggest damage and tragedy to the Indian civilization. Whereas invaders like Ghauri and Ghaznavi are understandably condemned even the Mughals who lived in India as their own home are termed as foreigners. While Indian Muslims look at the past as a syncretic culture of great tolerance the Pakistani reading of history is music to the ears of the right wing in India. When Pakistan builds its missile programme it names these weapons as Ghauri, Ghaznavi and Babur as instruments to attack India

This just reiterates the point to every Indian listening to them and reinforcing the deep rooted prejudices.

It matters little to both the sides on this reading of history – of Hindus pitted against Muslims in the medieval ages - that Babur defeated a Muslim Ibrahim Lodhi at Delhi’s throne, Ghauri defeated Prithvi Raj’s army which was led by a Muslim and Ghaznavi had one of his top generals who was a Hindu named Tilak. It also matters little in this reading of history that when Akbar and Maharana Pratap fought at Haldighati then Akbar’s army was led by a Hindu Raja Man Singh and Maharana Pratap’s army was led by a Muslim Hakim Khan Suri. It also matters little in this reading that the Sikh Guru Arjan Dev who was executed by Aurangzeb had the foundation stone of Golden Temple laid by Mian Mir a sufi saint and had included so many sufi songs in the Sikh holy book Guru Granth Sahib. Or that Shivaji who fought with Aurangzeb had a Pathan unit and one of his most trusted aides was Didi Ibrahim, a Muslim and that Aurangzeb sent Raja Jaisingh, a Hindu to fight him. Or that when Babur defeated Rana Sanga at Panipat the latter’s army had around 50,000 Muslim soldiers.

Thirdly, it is the treatment in Pakistan to its minorities. The fuel to the Sangh Parivar is that while the Muslim percentage in India has marginally increased since partition that of Hindus in Pakistan has significantly reduced and they are widely discriminated against at all levels. They say that if Hindu discrimination is so deep in Pakistan then why should Muslims of India claim anything better?

I don’t know about what the social context was in which partition happened but I now know for sure that the leaders who pursued it were shortsighted. Pakistan formed as an ‘Islamic’ country refused to acknowledge the rights of Bangla Muslims and the country split within 25 years. In its sixty years of existence it has been under military rule for a significant portion. The independent presence of judiciary is so impacted that its most famous Prime Ministers are either barred from entering their own country or hanged. A couple of weeks back Dina Wadia (daughter of Jinnah) wanted to spend her last days in Jinnah House in Bombay and not at any place in Pakistan. If today 13% Muslims can impact the political scene in India then definitely about 35% could have never been taken for a ride.

But today let us have bygones be bygones. India needs a strong Pakistan; not as an enemy but as a friendly neighbour. A neighbour that works with India in creating a South Asian super zone similar to the Euro Zone, by looking in the syncretic past and not by picking up twisted irritants from the past. The solution is not by putting Pakistan in contrast to India in everything particularly in identity but in drawing inspiration from the mutual past. Having multi billion dollar budgets to safeguard the borders in countries where still hundreds of millions of its citizens earn less than dollar a day is no way justifiable. Working on projects of recreating national boundaries will not solve anything as we have seen. But peace and respect among the largest ethnic population on the face of the earth can create wonders. It will make life easier for India’s Muslims too as the propaganda machinery of the Sangh Parivar will have lesser fuel to add to the fire.

A TRIP TO GUJARATH

2007-12-15T09:40:00.001-08:00

‘Modi Sahib has wrought a revolution in Gujarat’ announced the glum-looking corpulent businessman sitting on the berth next to mine on the train to Ahmedabad recently.He proudly introduced himself as a Nagar Brahmin, even though I did not ask him his caste. ‘We now have regular electricity for our industries, new superhighways and massive shopping malls’, he went on excitedly. ‘Modi ji is the saviour of the Hindus of Gujarat. He taught the bloody Muslims a lesson in 2002 and now they dare not raise their heads’, he belligerently asserted as I squirmed in my seat.

A young Sindhi man sharing our compartment, also a businessman based in Ahmedabad, winced and hurriedly changed the topic. A while later, when the Nagar Brahmin was not within hearing range, he whispered, ‘Not all Gujarati Hindus think like this man, although many do. I, for one, don’t, but we can’t openly counter such views, such is the climate of fear in Gujarat’.

The man was right, I discovered during a recent short trip to the state. Public opposition to Modi and to the Hindutva lobby is muted, not just because of fear but also because the claims of the Hindutva forces have become received truths for many Gujarati Hindus, thanks to years of carefully-planned indoctrination. The BJP and allied Hindutva fronts have made deep inroads among sections of communities such as Dalits and Adivasis, who form a large chunk of Gujarat’s ‘Hindu’ population, who were traditionally opposed to the ‘upper-caste-controlled Hindutva groups and were once earlier strong Congress vote-banks.

‘The Congress is totally ineffective as an opposition force in Gujarat’, says Raju Solanki, a well-known Dalit activist, who works with the Centre for Social Justice in Ahmedabad. ‘In the last six decades, the Congress did precious little for the Dalits and Adivasis besides taking their votes and so the BJP has taken over. There’s no difference, as far as Dalits and Adivasis are concerned, between the two—they both represent broadly the same dominant caste-class groups. Hinduvta fronts are desperately trying to Hinduise the Dalits and Adivasis, to use them as foot-soldiers against the Muslims, setting them against each other so that ‘upper’ caste rule remains unchallenged’, he argues.

Unity between Dalits, Backward Castes, Adivasis and Muslims, who together form the overwhelming majority of Gujarat’s population, is the only way to challenge the BJP and the Congress, Solanki says. Yet, he laments, hardly any efforts are being made in this regard. In the wake of the state-sponsored anti-Muslim genocide in 2002, scores of NGOs entered Gujarat to provide relief, but today, he says, few of them are involved in anti-communal work. ‘Many of them made tall promises of working for empowerment, for Dalit-Muslim unity, for taking on the Hindutva lobby and so on. They got lots of money to fund big projects but nothing much has come of this’. ‘And then there are so many stories of corruption in the NGO circuit’, he wryly adds. ‘And so’, he goes on, ‘the only effective opposition I see today is within the BJP itself, among dissidents opposed to Modi’. ‘But that’, he explains, ‘in no way challenges the ideology and caste-base of Hindutva’. ‘

Solanki speaks of how the focus solely on communalism in Gujarat has led to an obscuring in secular political discourse of the widespread oppression of Dalits and Adivasis in the state. ‘The secularists, self-proclaimed secularists such as the Congress, and the Hindutva lobby all focus only on the issue of Hindu-Muslim relations, thus effectively ignoring the Adivasis and Dalits’, he notes. ‘Of course we need to work for communal harmony, for the rights of the Muslims and Christians, but that must go along with strengthening of the struggles of the Adivasis and Dalits. Hindutva forces seek to whip up anti-Muslim sentiments precisely to sabotage the growing awareness of the Adivasis and Dalits about the oppression that they suffer at the hands of the caste Hindu establishment’. ‘Hence’, he insists, ‘communalism cannot be defeated without taking up the caste issue, without working to unite the oppressed castes and the Muslims at the political and social level against the system of caste-class oppression of which they are the common victims’. ‘We need to make Dalit and Adivasi issues, along with the plight of Muslims, the centre of a new social, cultural and political movement, which alone can challenge the ‘upper’ caste Hindu hegemony which both the BJP and the Congress represent and defend’, he tells me.

Solanki talks of the work of his Centre in taking up numerous cases related to these communities. He speaks of widespread discrimination being practiced against Dalits in Gujarat—for instance, in this state which the Hindutva lobby touts about as about as its most successful experimental ground, a veritable ‘Hindu Rashtra’, Dalits continue to be refused entry into temples in many villages. He cites figures about rape of Dalit and Adivasi women by ‘upper’ caste landlords, many of them firm BJP supporters; of increasing land alienation among these groups; of the squalid slums, deprived of even the most basic amenities, to which the ‘low’ castes have been confined in Gujarat’s towns; and of the rapid impoverishment of Dalits and Adivasis communities in the face of the government’s economic policies.

*

Godhra, a town located in Gujarat’s Panchmahals district, a two hours’ journey from Ahmedabad, has a roughly equal Hindu and Muslim population. This obscure town shot into the limelight when, in 2002, a coach of a train caught fire near the town’s railway station, triggering off a massacre of Muslims throughout Gujarat on an unprecedented scale. Today, Godhra, like many other towns in Gujarat, is geographically completely polarized. A narrow river divides the town into two clearly Hindu and Muslim areas.

A semblance of ‘normality’ prevails in the town, although, its residents are quick to point out that the massacres of 2002, which, curiously, left Godhra itself largely untouched, have severely impacted on inter-communal relations. Almost all the NGOs that appeared in Godhra in the wake of the genocide to extend relief to Muslim victims in scores of villages nearby have now departed. Only a couple or so remain, with much trimmed budgets and staff. ‘As a result’, says Ilyas Bhagat, a local social activist, ‘the victims of the massacre, including families of over 80 men arrested under the deadly POTA law, have been left to fend for themselves’.

Bismillah Behen works with an NGO in Godhra and outlying villages. Her house in Himmatnagar was burnt down by Hindu mobs in 2002. Her husband has taken a second wife, and so she now lives by herself. Her own trauma, as a victim of both the anti-Muslim pogrom and of an insensitive husband, she says, has made her even more committed to working for communal harmony and women’s rights. ‘Women are the worse sufferers in riots’, she explains. She tells me of the efforts she and some of her colleagues, including Adivasis and Dalits, have made to bring women of different marginalized communities in Godhra to fight for their rights. She sees this as important not only in itself but also as one way of countering communalism. ‘We face opposition from patriarchal conservative forces in all our communities. Some Adivasi and Dalit men tell our non-Muslim sisters who are with us that they should not associate with us because we helped Muslim victims of the massacres. Likewise, some maulvis oppose the Muslim sisters in our group because they refuse to cover themselves in burkhas. They are angry with us because they insist that women must not come out of their homes’. ‘But’, she emphatically adds, ‘we women have undergone so much suffering during the riots. We have to come out and speak out’.

Bismillah Behen has not read any arcane feminist texts—what she speaks reflects her own personal and collective struggle, along with that of other women like her, who have experienced what it means to live through a genocide. ‘We have to join hands with sisters from other marginalized communities to fight for women’s rights and also against communalism’, she insists. ‘We have to explain to our sisters in other communities that communalism poses a major threat to women’s rights and to our freedom. The issue of women of all socially marginalized communities must be made a central part of the anti-communal struggle’.

Lakshmi Parmar, 26, is Bismillah’s colleague. She is the only female graduate in her village. Hailing from a poor Dalit family of the Vankar or weaver caste, she faces considerable opposition from her villagers, including some fellow Dalits, for working with Muslim women and for communal harmony. She tells me about how, in many villages around Godhra, Dalits were literally forced by the ‘upper’ castes to join them in attacking and killing Muslims in 2002. ‘They searched Dalit houses to see if any Muslims were hidden there. They threatened to boycott them if they helped the Muslims flee. Many Dalits yielded to this pressure as, being mostly landless labourers, they are dependent on the ‘upper castes for work’, she says.

Lakshmi speaks of how in these villages Dalits continue to suffer humiliation at the hands of the ‘upper’ castes, who consider them as fellow ‘Hindus’ only at the time of anti-Muslim violence, when they are generally used to attack Muslims. ‘In my own village’, she says, “Dalits cannot enter the local temple. A Dalit bridegroom cannot sit on a horse like ‘upper’ castes do. Last year my brother, who was getting married, tried to do that but we were forcibly stopped”.

‘Those days were really harrowing for all of us’, Lakshmi recounts of the brutal events of 2002. ‘I had to stay in a village, where Muslims had been driven out from. We started meetings to bring the different communities together, to facilitate the return of the Muslims to their homes, to rebuild their houses. But, eventually, due to the opposition of a local BJP politician, I had to flee’, she says. ‘However, we carried on working. We tried to bring together Dalits, Muslims and Adivasis through cultural activities, such as observing the anniversary of Babasaheb Ambedkar, Women’s Day and so on’.

We need to widen the scope of the movement for the unity of marginalized communities from just aiming at the political level to the wider social level’, she explains. ‘We have to work to unite our people through new forms of culture of resistance and struggle’.

*

‘This is, of course, may be easier said than done’, says Raju Solanki, ‘but we have to make it our main focus. From ancient times to this day, ‘upper’ caste forces, including today the Congress and the Hindutva lobby, have used culture, including religion, to oppress us. We now must use those very tools to challenge our oppression’.

Solanki shows me a book he’s written celebrating a fellow Gujarati Dalit activist who recently died, who opposed the entry of Hindutva activists into his slum and also prevented attacks on Muslims in his locality. ‘I’m preparing a book about such unsung heroes’, he informs me. ‘These voices of resistance, be they of Adivasis, Muslims, Backward Castes or Dalits, have been deliberately invisibilised from our history by the Brahminical establishment’, he notes. ‘We need to retrieve their memory, and build up a culture of resistance based on this’. ‘You cannot counter caste Hindu chauvinism without this’, he insists.

Solanki reads to me from a booklet that he has just published, titled ‘Blood Under Saffron’, to make his point about the dire need for marginalised communities in Gujarat to join hands to counter caste Hindu chauvinism, of which he says they are fellow victims. The booklet speaks of Gujarat’s panchayat rules that specify that disposing off dead animals and unclaimed corpses is a responsibility particular to the Scheduled Castes, a continuation of Manu’s ancient code; of the deaths of numerous sweepers belonging to the ‘lowest’ castes from suffocation while cleaning manholes; of the continuing practice of Valmikis in Gujarat being forced to carry human excreta on their heads; of ‘upper’ castes denying Dalits access to burial grounds; of mounting Dalit impoverishment, and, in the face of this, of continuing neglect by the state, and so on.

‘We need to bring the Dalits and other marginalized communities, besides the Muslims, back into Gujarat’s political discourse’, Solanki reiterates. ‘We need to shift the discourse from the secularism versus communalism debate to bring to the centre issues of caste-class domination and subjugation’, Solanki concludes. ‘Only then can Hindutva be effectively challenged, not just in Gujarat, but in the rest of the country as well’.

-By Yoginder Sikand at indianmuslims.in

THE STORY OF CRUEL MUSLIM INVADERS OF INDIA

2007-12-15T09:39:00.001-08:00

The Hindu extremists cunningly picturise muslim rulers of India as 'cruel' with all bad qualities in them and that they destroyed 'age old' hindu traditions as the 'peaceful hindu' just stood like a silent spectator. Let us look at the history if what they claim is right or not.

Treatment of women and the 'Sati':
Hindu extremists claim that Sati (burning the wife along with his husband's corpse) was practiced to protect the husbandless widow from the 'cruel Muslim ruler' who would take her away and rape her. As if the ruler had nothing else to do other than searching for widows and raping them.

Lets look into History:
Sati was the name of Lord Shiva's (hindu God) wife. She burnt herself alive after cursing her own father for insulting her husband. In olden days, Indians used to regard the practice of Sati (burning wife along with his husband's corpse) as a religious ceremony. They believed Sati to be the 'highest virtue' of a woman. Brahman priests used to force Sati on women. If any lady is unwilling, the people would doubt her fidelity and affection towards her departed husband.

What Muslim Emporers did:
Akbar, one of the muslim rulers was the first king to take Sati seriously. He gave an order which stated "If a woman wants to practice sati on her will, she should not be stoped. But no woman must be forced Sati"
Aurangazeb, who was more strict in this aspect issued orders as soon as he came back from Kashmir in Dec. 1663 AD "In all hands under Mughal control, never again should the officials allow a woman to be burnt".

Polygamy:
Polygamy was practiced by both muslims and hindus of that age especially the upper classes. Lower classes used to have only one wife irrespective of their religion. Mukundaram and Puija Madhava refer to a rich merchant marrying second wife khullana even though he had a wife (Lahana) and she was alive and had children. In Ghanaram chakravarty's 'Dhamamangal', Lausen had four wives namely Kalinga, Amala, Bimala, Kanara. Even the hindu scrptures allow marriage of more than one wife.
Hindu extremists who always point out fingure at Polygamy in Muslims have forgotten these facts and also that there are very few muslims who marry more than one wife in present India.

Cow Slaughter:
Akbar was the first Mughal king who prohibited killing of animals on 'sacred days'. He believed that killing cow was not good. He used to have food called 'Sufiyana food' which was purely vegitarian. This was surely somethingwhich was not taught by Islam. this was induced in him by his respect to Indian culture and beliefs.
Humayun considered beef was bad.
Another historian K.M.P Verma in his book 'Relevance of Gandhian Thought' says "Babar, Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir, Ahmad Shah and Hyder Ali banned cow slaughter" in their kingdom.

Hindu Culture, traditions and Education:
Hindu extremists picturise Mughal kings as cruel invaders who destroyed hindu culture and traditions while actually history speaks quite opposite to this claim.
In Akbar's reign, cities like Banaras, Mithila, Navadwipa, Kashmir, Multan, Sirhind, Thatta and Gujarath flourished as centers for Hindu Education and culture.

Some of Hindu scholars and poets in the 'Cruel Invaders'' court were:

Akbar- Gangadhar, Mahesh, Kishun Joshi, Bhagawan, Tansen, Raja Todar Mal, Narahari Mahaprata, Ganga, Brahmadatta, Raja, Askaran, Manohar.

Jahangir- Jadrup Gosain, Rai Manohar lal, Bishun Das. Raja Surja Singh presented a hindu poet to Jahangir who was inpressed and gave an elephant to him as present.

Shah Jahan- Jagannath Pandith (author of Ras Gangadhar), Siromani Mishra, Vedanga Rai, Harinath (he was gited a horse, an elephant and one lakh Dawrs).

Dara Shukoh- Chanda Bham (a brahmin from Lahore)

Aurangazeb- Birdas, Bhushan, Brinda, Iswardas, Bhimsen.
Aurangazeb who is considered as a deadly enemy of Hindus, learned hindi and even appreciated hindu cultures and traditions. He had Raja Jai Singh, a hindu as his strong Nobel who faught with Shivaji (who is considered as the protector of hindu religion by RSS/VHP hindu extremists). Shivaji inturn had a pathan (muslim) unit under him and one of his strong aides was Didi Ibrahim, a muslim.

Caste System:
Tons of books are written on caste system that prevailed in Hindu society. Mughals were opposed this caste system but used to be genlte in this matter because they did not want to interfere in hindu religious sentiments. Brahmins used to ill treat lower castes called Shudras and Panchum Bundum. They were beaten up quite often if they tried to enter into villages. they were supposed to live in the village outskirts. Francis Euchanan in his book 'Journey from Madras through the countries of Mysore, Canara and Malabar writes that Brahmins never touched the plough and their farms were cultivated by shudras.Brahmins used to torture Parriars (Panchun Bandhum is divided into Parriar, Baluan, Schliar, Toti classes) if they tried to enter Brahmin temples or try to participate in their prayers of processions. Shudras were given their own temples and Brahman priests would never enter those temples. They considered a shame for themselves to pray to these 'low level' Gods of shudras. Brahmins used to travel in night along with their desciples beause they use to consider that other travellers (muslims and christians) would not give them the respect they deserve if they travel in the night. Parriars were treated so badly that no one would take the charity they gave. But Francis notes that if the parriars gave 1000 or 2000 pagodas, Brahmins used to accept.
He further writes that Hyder Ali, the king of Mysore used to give Shudras farms of their own and was 'so sensible of their feelings that he would not let them suffer by calling them by their proper name (shudras). He ordered that they should be called cultivators'.

Akbar issued orders declaring a marriage illegal if the girl was elder than the boy. If the girl was more elder by more than 12 years, the marriage was considered as illegal. This was to show respect to the Brahmins who strongly practiced ManuSmriti (hindu book of law) which says that the Bridegroom must be elder than the Bride. It should be noted here that Islam allowed marriages where the bride was elder than the bridegroom.

References: Glimpses of Social Life in Mughal India by Professor P.N.Ojha, Relevance of Gandhian thought by K.M.P Verma.

The hindu extremists and terrorists who are spreading lies about Muslim rulers so that they can keep their anti-muslim propaganda (which is the fuel for their movement) forgot that they can hide the history but can not change it.

AURANGZEB - BAD RULER OR BAD HISTORY ??

2007-12-15T09:38:00.001-08:00

Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 CE, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them in awarding high administrative positions, and who interfered in their religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government approved textbooks in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly, saintly, unbiased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent, and far-sighted.

Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years. Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti-Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position.

Banerjee further stated:

"No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions."

During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?

Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. But this fact is somewhat less known.

Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu temples. How factual is this accusation against a man, who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur'an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that

"There is no compulsion in religion."

Surah al-Kafirun clearly states: "To you is your religion and to me is mine." It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his caliber, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things that are contrary to the dictates of the Qur'an.

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History) used in Bengal for the 5th and 6th graders states:

"If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as temple sites and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant."

A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself. The proof of Aurangzeb's land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook reads:

"During the fifty year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities."

Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb's fifty year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb's imposition of the jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated this. Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb's jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defense of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from women, and neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.

It should be pointed out here that the zakaat (2.5% of savings) and ‘ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab). They also paid sadaqah, fitrah and khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to Auranzeb's credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned. In his book Mughal Administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb's reign in power, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state treasury. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty types of taxes, no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not heavy at all, people began to show their displeasure.

While some Hindu historians are retracting the lies, the textbooks and historic accounts in Western countries have yet to admit their error and set the record straight. Such intellectual dishonesty by historians is dangerous — more explosive and more damaging than nuclear bombs. We have already seen its hideous effect with the destruction of Muslim historic sites (including the Babri Mosque) and recent riots in India that killed thousands of Muslims.

WHO ARE ARYANS ?

2007-12-15T09:37:00.001-08:00

There are many theories trying to explain this question.
1. Aryans are Ancient Iranians-
"I am Dariush, the great king, the king of kings,
The king od many countries, many people,
The king od this expensive land,
The son of Wishtapsa of Archaemenid,
Persian, the son of persian,
Aryan from the Aryan race"
This was said by 'Darius the Great' in "Naqshe-e-Rostam"
Read more about this Here

2.Aryans are Native Indians- This Theory has been disproved by Y chromosome DNA testing which shows that Aryans resemble more to the middle eastern people than the dravidians, who are the oldest residents of India till date. Sanskrit meaning of Aryan means a 'stranger' while Old tamil (Gauda Dravidian in ancient times) dictionaries translate the meaning as 'Uncivilised'. More over there are lot of differences in Dravidians and the sanskrit speaking aryans.

3.Indo-Iranian-The most probable date for Proto-Indo-Iranian unity is roughly around 2500 BC. In this sense of the word Aryan, the Aryans were an ancient culture preceding both the Vedic and Avestan cultures. This further makes intensifies the doubts that Aryans invaded India and forced their religion in India. Read more Here

4. Aryans are warrior-nomads from the steppes of southern Russia and that they were ancestors of the Jews. Read more Here

In ninteenth century, many European racist claimed themselves to be Aryans. Hitler also claimed himself to be an Aryan and that he was superior race than others.

MORTALITY IN WAR

2007-12-15T09:36:00.001-08:00

Morality in War

Unmatched Morality:

Immediately after Umar ibn Abdul Aziz was elected Khalifah (caliph) in 717 A.D., a delegation of men from Samarqand (Uzbakistan) saw him and represented that the general of the Islamic armies, Qutaibah, had unjustifiably stationed his army men in the town in their midst. Khalifah Umar ibn Abdul Aziz wrote to the governor of Samarqand that he should appoint a tribunal to judge and settle the dispute between Qutaibah and the people of Samarqand. If the judgement of the tribunal goes against the army chief and his men are asked to vacate they must do so at once. The governor appointed Jami’ ibn Hadhir Albaji as judge for enquiry. After the enquiry was over, he, though himself a Muslim, passed the judgement that the Muslim army must vacate the town. He also remarked that the commander of the Muslim forces ought to have served an ultimatum of war to the city, and according to the Islamic Law relating to war, he ought have canceled all the treaties with them so that the people of Samarqand could get time to prepare for the war. "Sudden attack on them without warning was unlawful."

When the people of Samarqand witnessed this state of affairs, they were convinced that this was an unparallel case in the history of mankind .... the state keeping its Commander-in-Chief and the armies under such strict discipline and control, bound by lofty moral principles. And consequently they decided that fighting against such a people would be futile. Rather, they came to regard it as mercy and a blessing from God. Therefore, they agreed to live with the Islamic army in Samarqand.

Just imagine. An army conquers a city and enters it. The inhabitants of that city complain to the victorious government and the judges of that government decide the case against the victorious army, and order its externment, saying that they could not live there without the consent of the people of that city. Can either the ancient or modern history of mankind point out any war in which the fighting men kept themselves so strictly bound by the moral code, and followed such lofty principles of truth and justice, as demonstrated by the sons of our civilization? In so far as my own knowledge is concerned, not one among the nations of the world can be pointed out which demonstrated such lofty morals.

Treatment of Dhimmis:

Islamic armies conquer Damascus, Hams and the remaining towns of Syria and according to the terms of the treaty they realize some amount of tax for the protection of the life and property of the citizens and the defense of the country (634 A.D., within two years after Prophet Muhammad SAW). But later the Muslim leaders received news that Heraclius had brought a big army which he was anxious to bring against the Muslims. Therefore they decided to bring together their own scattered armies in various conquered towns to concentrate at one point to face the hordes of Heraclius with joint effort. So in keeping with this decision our armies started leaving the towns of Hams, Damascus and other towns. Khalid in Hams, Abu Ubaidah in Damascus and other generals in other towns addressed the citizens thus:

"The money or monies we had realized from you was meant for the protection of your lives and properties, and also to defend your lands from outside aggression. But we are sorry to inform you that we are parting with you and since we would not be able to protect and defend you, we are returning the amounts of taxes collected from you."
To this the citizens said in reply:

"God be with you and bring you back victorious. Your governance and your justice and equity have enamored us, since the Romans in spite of being our coreligionists, we have bitter experience of their oppression and tyranny. By God! If they had been in your position they would not have returned a copper out of the taxes collected from us. Rather, they would have taken away everything they could from here belonging to us."

Even in our so-called civilized period it is like that. If an army has to vacate a station, it does not leave there anything that the enemy could utilize to advantage. But is there a single example of the practice of the victorious armies of Our civilization, in the entire history of mankind. By God! If I had no faith in lofty values, and did not believe in their success or like the politicians of the modern age, considered it necessary to keep morals and principles dominated by the political interests, I would have said that the leaders of our armies stuck to lofty values and love of principles due to their unawareness and simplicity. But it is a fact that they were really true Believers and did not like to say things they could not put into practice.

Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah Liberated Jews and Christians

When the Tartars made a sudden assault on Syria and took countless men from Muslims, Jews and Christians as prisoners, Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn-e-Taimiyah talked to the Tartar Chief about the release of the prisoners. The Chief gave his assent for the release of the Muslim prisoners but refused to do so in the case of the Jews and the Christians. But Sheikh-al-Islam did not agree and insisted on the release of the Jews and the Christians, who, he told him, were the Zimmis (Dhimmis) of the Islamic state and were bound to them. They could not let even one individual remain in captivity whether he belonged to their own community or from those living with them under a covenant.

TOLERANCE IN ISLAM

2007-12-15T09:35:00.001-08:00

Tolerance in Islam

Introduction

Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall was an Englishman, an orientalist, and a Muslim who translated the meaning of the Holy Qur’an. His translation was first published in 1930 and he was supported in this effort by His Highness, the Nizam of Hyderabad (the ruler of Deccan, in the South), India. Pickthall traveled extensively to several Muslim countries, including Syria, Palestine, Turkey, Egypt, Arabia and India. He spent several years in India and had interacted with the Muslims of India.

In 1927 Pickthall gave eight lectures on several aspects of Islamic civilization at the invitation of The Committee of “Madras Lectures on Islam” in Madras, India. Parts of Pickthall’s lectures were made available in India at various times. All of his lectures were published under the title “The Cultural Side of Islam” in 1961 by Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Lahore from a manuscript provided by M.I. Jamal Moinuddin. The book has gone through several reprints since then.

An abridged version of his fifth lecture on the “Tolerance in Islam” is presented below. His long lecture frequently used quotations from the Holy Qur’an to emphasize many points and to support his analysis and conclusions. The major theme of his lecture is retained here. All of Pickthall’s eight lectures draw upon his vast knowledge of Islamic history, the Western religious, political and intellectual history through the ages, and their reasons for rise and fall. His lectures are very enlightening, analytically useful, and of great value even today.

An Abridged Version of Pickthall's Lecture

One of the commonest charges brought against Islam historically, and as a religion, by Western writers is that it is intolerant. This is turning the tables with a vengeance when one remembers various facts: One remembers that not a Muslim is left alive in Spain or Sicily or Apulia. One remembers that not a Muslim was left alive and not a mosque left standing in Greece after the great rebellion in l821. One remembers how the Muslims of the Balkan peninsula, once the majority, have been systematically reduced with the approval of the whole of Europe, how the Christian under Muslim rule have in recent times been urged on to rebel and massacre the Muslims, and how reprisals by the latter have been condemned as quite uncalled for.

In Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Khalifas, Christians and Jews, equally with Muslims, were admitted to the Schools and universities - not only that, but were boarded and lodged in hostels at the cost of the state. When the Moors were driven out of Spain, the Christian conquerors held a terrific persecution of the Jews. Those who were fortunate enough to escape fled, some of them to Morocco and many hundreds to the Turkish empire, where their descendants still live in separate communities, and still speak among themselves an antiquated form of Spanish. The Muslim empire was a refuge for all those who fled from persecution by the Inquisition.

The Western Christians, till the arrival of the Encyclopaedists in the eighteenth century, did not know and did not care to know, what the Muslim believed, nor did the Western Christian seek to know the views of Eastern Christians with regard to them. The Christian Church was already split in two, and in the end, it came to such a pass that the Eastern Christians, as Gibbon shows, preferred Muslim rule, which allowed them to practice their own form of religion and adhere to their peculiar dogmas, to the rule of fellow Christians who would have made them Roman Catholics or wiped them out.

The Western Christians called the Muslims pagans, paynims, even idolaters - there are plenty of books in which they are described as worshiping an idol called Mahomet or Mahound, and in the accounts of the conquest of Granada there are even descriptions of the monstrous idols which they were alleged to worship - whereas the Muslims knew what Christianity was, and in what respects it differed from Islam. If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of Christendom, in those days, those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension. I quote a learned French author:

“Every poet in Christendom considered a Mohammedan to be an infidel, and an idolater, and his gods to be three; mentioned in order, they were: Mahomet or Mahound or Mohammad, Opolane and the third Termogond. It was said that when in Spain the Christians overpowered the Mohammadans and drove them as far as the gates of the city of Saragossa, the Mohammadans went back and broke their idols.
“A Christian poet of the period says that Opolane the “god” of the Mohammadans, which was kept there in a den was awfully belabored and abused by the Mohammadans, who, binding it hand and foot, crucified it on a pillar, trampled it under their feet and broke it to pieces by beating it with sticks; that their second god Mahound they threw in a pit and caused to be torn to pieces by pigs and dogs, and that never were gods so ignominiously treated; but that afterwards the Mohammadans repented of their sins, and once more reinstated their gods for the accustomed worship, and that when the Emperor Charles entered the city of Saragossa he had every mosque in the city searched and had "Muhammad" and all their Gods broken with iron hammers.”

That was the kind of "history" on which the populace in Western Europe used to be fed. Those were the ideas which inspired the rank and file of the crusader in their attacks on the most civilized peoples of those days. Christendom regarded the outside world as damned eternally, and Islam did not. There were good and tender-hearted men in Christendom who thought it sad that any people should be damned eternally, and wished to save them by the only way they knew - conversion to the Christian faith.

It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant; and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture. Therefore the difference evident in that anecdote is not of manners only but of religion. Of old, tolerance had existed here and there in the world, among enlightened individuals; but those individuals had always been against the prevalent religion. Tolerance was regarded of un-religious, if not irreligious. Before the coming of Islam it had never been preached as an essential part of religion.

For the Muslims, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are but three forms of one religion, which, in its original purity, was the religion of Abraham: Al-Islam, that perfect Self-Surrender to the Will of God, which is the basis of Theocracy. The Jews, in their religion, after Moses, limited God's mercy to their chosen nation and thought of His kingdom as the dominion of their race.

Even Christ himself, as several of his sayings show, declared that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel and seemed to regard his mission as to the Hebrews only; and it was only after a special vision vouchsafed to St. Peter that his followers in after days considered themselves authorized to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. The Christians limited God’s mercy to those who believed certain dogmas. Every one who failed to hold the dogmas was an outcast or a miscreant, to be persecuted for his or her soul’s good. In Islam only is manifest the real nature of the Kingdom of God.

The two verses (2:255-256) of the Qur’an are supplementary. Where there is that realization of the majesty and dominion of Allah (SWT), there is no compulsion in religion. Men choose their path - allegiance or opposition - and it is sufficient punishment for those who oppose that they draw further and further away from the light of truth.

What Muslims do not generally consider is that this law applies to our own community just as much as to the folk outside, the laws of Allah being universal; and that intolerance of Muslims for other men's opinions and beliefs is evidence that they themselves have, at the moment, forgotten the vision of the majesty and mercy of Allah (SWT) which the Qur’an presents to them.

In the Qur’an I find two meanings (of a Kafir), which become one the moment that we try to realize the divine standpoint. The Kafir in the first place, is not the follower of any religion. He is the opponent of Allah’s benevolent will and purpose for mankind - therefore the disbeliever in the truth of all religions, the disbeliever in all Scriptures as of divine revelation, the disbeliever to the point of active opposition in all the Prophets (pbut) whom the Muslims are bidden to regard, without distinction, as messengers of Allah.

The Qur’an repeatedly claims to be the confirmation of the truth of all religions. The former Scriptures had become obscure, the former Prophets appeared mythical, so extravagant were the legends which were told concerning them, so that people doubted whether there was any truth in the old Scriptures, whether such people as the Prophets had ever really existed. Here - says the Qur’an - is a Scripture whereof there is no doubt: here is a Prophet actually living among you and preaching to you. If it were not for this book and this Prophet, men might be excused for saying that Allah’s guidance to mankind was all a fable. This book and this Prophet, therefore, confirm the truth of all that was revealed before them, and those who disbelieve in them to the point of opposing the existence of a Prophet and a revelation are really opposed to the idea of Allah's guidance - which is the truth of all revealed religions. Our Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself said that the term Kafir was not to be applied to anyone who said “Salam” (peace) to the Muslims. The Kafirs, in the terms of the Qur’an, are the conscious evil-doers of any race of creed or community.

I have made a long digression but it seemed to me necessary, for I find much confusion of ideas even among Muslims on this subject, owing to defective study of the Qur’an and the Prophet's life. Many Muslims seem to forget that our Prophet had allies among the idolaters even after Islam had triumphed in Arabia, and that he “fulfilled his treaty with them perfectly until the term thereof.” The righteous conduct of the Muslims, not the sword, must be held responsible for the conversion of those idolaters, since they embraced Islam before the expiration of their treaty.

So much for the idolaters of Arabia, who had no real beliefs to oppose the teaching of Islam, but only superstition. They invoked their local deities for help in war and put their faith only in brute force. In this they were, to begin with, enormously superior to the Muslims. When the Muslims nevertheless won, they were dismayed; and all their arguments based on the superior power of their deities were for ever silenced. Their conversion followed naturally. It was only a question of time with the most obstinate of them.

It was otherwise with the people who had a respectable religion of their own - the People of the Scripture - as the Qur’an calls them - i.e, the people who had received the revelation of some former Prophet: the Jews, the Christians and the Zoroastrians were those with whom the Muslims came at once in contact. To these our Prophet's attitude was all of kindness. The Charter which he granted to the Christian monks of Sinai is extant. If you read it you will see that it breathes not only goodwill but actual love. He gave to the Jews of Medina, so long as they were faithful to him, precisely the same treatment as to the Muslims. He never was aggressive against any man or class of men; he never penalized any man, or made war on any people, on the ground of belief but only on the ground of conduct.

The story of his reception of Christian and Zoroastrian visitors is on record. There is not a trace of religious intolerance in all this. And it should be remembered - Muslims are rather apt to forget it, and it is of great importance to our outlook - that our Prophet did not ask the people of the Scripture to become his followers. He asked them only to accept the Kingdom of Allah, to abolish priesthood and restore their own religions to their original purity. The question which, in effect, he put to everyone was this: “Are you for the Kingdom of God which includes all of us, or are you for your own community against the rest of mankind?” The one is obviously the way of peace and human progress, the other the way of strife, oppression and calamity. But the rulers of the world, to whom he sent his message, most of them treated it as the message of either an insolent upstart or a mad fanatic. His envoys were insulted cruelly, and even slain. One cannot help wondering what reception that same embassy would meet with from the rulers of mankind today, when all the thinking portion of mankind accept the Prophet's premises, have thrown off the trammels of priestcraft, and harbor some idea of human brotherhood.

But though the Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians refused his message, and their rulers heaped most cruel insults on his envoys, our Prophet never lost his benevolent attitudes towards them as religious communities; as witness the Charter to the monks of Sinai already mentioned. And though the Muslims of later days have fallen far short of the Holy Prophet's tolerance, and have sometimes shown arrogance towards men of other faiths, they have always given special treatment to the Jews and Christians. Indeed the Laws for their special treatment form part of the Shari'ah.

In Egypt the Copts were on terms of closest friendship with the Muslims in the first centuries of the Muslim conquest, and they are on terms at closest friendship with the Muslims at the present day. In Syria the various Christian communities lived on terms of closest friendship with the Muslims in the first centuries of the Muslim conquest, and they are on terms of closest friendship with the Muslims at the present day, openly preferring Muslim domination to a foreign yoke....

From the expulsion of the Moriscos dates the degradation and decline of Spain. San Fernando was really wiser and more patriotic in his tolerance to conquered Seville, Murcia and Toledo than was the later king who, under the guise of Holy warfare, captured Grenada and let the Inquisition work its will upon the Muslims and the Jews. And the modern Balkan States and Greece are born under a curse. It may even prove that the degradation and decline of European civilization will be dated from the day when so-called civilized statesmen agreed to the inhuman policy of Czarist Russia and gave their sanction to the crude fanaticism of the Russian Church.

There is no doubt but that, in the eyes of history, religious toleration is the highest evidence of culture in a people. Let no Muslim, when looking on the ruin of the Muslim realm which was compassed through the agency of those very peoples whom the Muslims had tolerated and protected through the centuries when Western Europe thought it a religious duty to exterminate or forcibly convert all peoples of another faith than theirs - let no Muslim, seeing this, imagine that toleration is a weakness in Islam. It is the greatest strength of Islam because it is the attitude of truth.

Allah (SWT) is not the God of the Jews or the Christians or the Muslims only, any more than the sun shines or the rain falls for Jews or Christians or Muslims only.

WHAT NEWSPAPERS SAY OF ISLAM

2007-12-15T09:33:00.000-08:00

I Wonder Why

Why a Jew can grow his beard in order to practice his faith

But when Muslim does the same, he is an extremist and terrorist!

Why a nun can be covered from head to toe in order to devote herself to God

But when Muslimah does the same she oppressed

When a western women stays at home to look after her house and kids she is respected because of sacrificing herself and doing good for the household?

But when a Muslim woman does so by her will, they say, "she needs to be liberated"!

Any girl can go to university wearing what she wills and have her rights and freedom?

But when Muslimah wears a Hijab they prevent her from entering her university!

When a child dedicates himself to a subject he has potential.

But when he dedicates himself to Islam he is hopeless!

When a Christian or a Jew kills someone religion is not mentioned, but when Muslim is charged with a crime, it is Islam that goes to trial!

When someone sacrfices himself to keep others alive, he is noble and all respect him.

But when a Palestinian does that to save his son from being killed, his brother's arm being broken, his mother being raped, his home being destroyed, and his mosque being violated -- He gets the title of a terrorist! Why? Because he is a Muslim!

When there is a trouble we accept any solution? If the solution lies in Islam, we refuse to take a look at it.

When someone drives a perfect car in a bad way no one blames the car.

But when any Muslim makes a mistake or treats people in a bad manner - people say "Islam is the reason"!

Without looking to the tradition of Islam, people believe what the newspapers say.

HINDU TERRORISTS !!!

2007-12-15T09:32:00.001-08:00

ISLAM AND WORKPLACE

2007-12-15T07:58:00.000-08:00

Suggested practice for HR personnel

Muslims now form one of the largest religious groups in the UK. At a time when great misunderstandings and stereotypes circulate the media and society regarding the religion, it is crucial for an effort to be made at all levels to go beyond archetypal images and to begin to understand Islam and Muslims.

With a population of approximately 1.5 million Muslims and growing, UK based companies are employing more and more young Muslim men and women. With this increase comes a greater need for HR practitioners to be aware of the respective cultural sensitivities.

As with individuals from any background, if they do not feel comfortable and understood in their office or company, it is likely that they will eventually seek employment elsewhere. In order to maximise retention of young Muslims, it is ever more important therefore, that their sensitivities are kept in mind.

The following information contains basic tips and guidelines for HR staff and others to bear in mind. Please note that these are very generic guidelines. Muslims differ from generation to generation, culture to culture, some are more devout than others and interpretations and practices of the faith are numerous. It may also be the case that the individual is Muslim by name only and chooses not to practice their religion.

Prayer

A Muslim, both male and female, is expected to pray five times a day. This prayer involves facing Makkah (in Saudi Arabia), usually on a prayer mat or clean surface and reciting prayers which follow a procedure of bowing and prostrating. This typically takes between 5 – 15 minutes depending on the individual. Prayer times are calculated according to the movement of the sun and take place at dawn, midday, late afternoon, dusk and at night.

For Muslims in your company it is a good idea to allocate a neutral space for them to use for their prayers. This can be a dedicated prayer room or simply access to a seldom used office or medical room. Such a space will make your Muslim staff feel at comfort knowing they have somewhere private and clean to say their prayers.

If staff are required to be committed to a desk space at certain times it may be a good idea to agree on allocated times in which they can read their prayers. This may involve the use of break times.

Friday Prayers

Most Muslim men attend the mosque on Friday afternoons for obligatory congregational prayers. Let your staff know you understand their requirements and agree on an extended lunch break and/or allocate their Friday lunch breaks to convenient times. Most mosques conduct prayers at 1.30 p.m. so try to aim for an hour between 1 – 2p.m.

Fasting

Fasting takes places during the month of Ramadan. Ramadan does not correspond neatly to any Gregorian months due to its method of calculation. It changes from year to year by about ten days. The more devout Muslims may also fast on Mondays and Thursdays throughout the year.

Fasting involves abstinence from food, drink, chewing and smoking from dawn till dusk. At dusk, Muslims traditionally break their fast with dates and water before proceeding to eat a meal.

In the workplace it is best to be aware of staff who are fasting as this avoids potential offence if the staff member declines an invite to lunch or to some other function involving food.

Dress

Most Muslim men will be wearing a shirt and tie like their colleagues and very few would challenge a dress code. This is simply because dress is not an area where strict guidelines exist in Islam.

One area Muslim men may clash with company policy is in their wearing of beards. If you have strict guidelines regarding facial hair or follow certain health and hygiene procedures, then it is wise to ensure that potential male Muslim employees are made aware of these procedures. You should also be willing to either compromise on religious grounds or ensure that beard covers are made available.

Muslim women are required to cover their hair (hijab) and to dress modestly. Many do neither but it is best to be aware of the needs of those who do. If your company has a uniform or a certain dress code be sure it permits the wearing of hijabs. Many companies have now taken the step to provide hijabs which match the company uniform.

Holidays

Generally Muslims in the UK take holidays as and when they need to. There are however a few dates of significance that should be noted.

Eid al-Fitr – this holiday celebrates the end of the month of Ramadan and fasting. It is traditionally a time when extended families congregate and presents given to children.

Although this holiday extends over a three day period, many Muslims typically take a single day holiday.

Eid al-Adha – celebrates the end of the Hajj (pilgrimage) and commemorates the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son. In Muslim countries sheep, goats and camels and usually sacrificed and the meat distributed the family, neighbourhood and the poor. In the UK such meat is ordered through a butcher due to our laws.

As with Eid al-Fitr, Muslims typically take a single day holiday during this period.

Socialising

One of the major discomforts for Muslims in the British workplace may involve the socialising culture of the office. Typical business culture involves after work socializing in pubs or restaurants. As Muslims do not drink any alcohol and places such as pubs, bars and discos are not considered suitable venues for relaxation, then Muslim staff may politely decline such offers.

This should not be interpreted as bad manners of unfriendliness, but rather a difference in cultures that should be respected. When planning team building trips or exercises or team outings always bear in mind a Muslim member of staff may feel uncomfortable if the venue is a pub, bar or even a restaurant serving alcohol. It is always best to check with that staff member first.

Try to think of alternative venues where all staff will be comfortable.

Food

There are certain restrictions as to what a Muslim can/can’t eat.

Meat must always be halal. Such meat has been slaughtered according to Islamic practice. If halal meat cannot be sourced then Muslims are allowed to eat Kosher meat too. Pork is not eaten at all by Muslims.

Always check ingredients of foods you plan to share out or use in staff lunches. Foods not suitable for vegetarians may contain non-halal meat or meat derivatives (e.g. gelatine) and cannot be eaten. Similarly, foods with alcohol content should also be avoided.

An easy way to overcome any catering difficulties is to provide a vegetarian option.

Touch/Personal Space

There is an opinion among some Muslims that touching between men and women should be avoided. Although not common in the UK, as compared with the Gulf, you may occasionally come across Muslim men and women who do not like to shake hands with members of the opposite sex. If you are unsure then it is advisable to wait and see if they extend their hands first.

Muslim men and women may also find close personal contact between sexes very uncomfortable. Unless you know otherwise be sure to leave a good deal of personal space.

As mentioned in the introduction, these are broad guidelines only and the degree of support from a business / HR perspective will be entirely dependant on the individual involved. Care should be taken therefore not to assume the needs of a member of staff, but to simply be aware of possible issues and resulting interventions if these become necessary.

ISLAM AND INTERNAL PEACE

2007-12-15T07:57:00.000-08:00

We are living in an age of conflicts and tensions. Internal peace and happiness are really seeked for by many people. A human needs to live in tranquality,real tranquality that is perminent and not drug-induced. But fear of injust superior powers, failure, enemies and the endless chain of fears are the enemies of this tranquality.

In Islam, believing in Allah and His Most High Names is the root of our faith. The fruits of this faith are innumerable. We are limited here to the subject of internal peace. The cure of all psychological problems springs of our faith that Allah is AlRahman "The All-Merciful". Whatever we are facing in our lives,we believe that Allah Al-Mighty is more kind to us than our own mothers. Can a mother throw her own baby into fire? Allah is more Merciful to us than our own mothers. Will He torture us if we are believers and faithful? Then let`s face our lives with internal peace as long as we believe that nobody and nothing can harm us.

"Praise be to Allah, who hath guided us to this (felicity): never could we have found guidance, had it not been for the guidance of Allah: Indeed it was the truth. "

WHAT IS ISLAMIC BEHAVIOUR ??

2007-12-15T07:56:00.001-08:00

We’re going to attempt what, until now, seems undoable for an infidel: write about Islamic behavior in a way that doesn’t upset Muslims or anybody else. Is that a challenge or isn’t it? Not really. All it takes, we think with persistent resistance to despair, is unwavering fairness, inarguable logic, and adherence to the truth as best as we can know and endorse it.

So here goes.

These days, we hear a great deal about what Islamic and un-Islamic behavior is. While it’s an understandable topic of discussion, the truth is, Islamic behavior pretty much comes down to how Islamic people behave – just as any other group’s behavior pretty much comes down to how the members of the group behave.

Let’s look at two extreme examples.

First, an Islamic person says, “Kill all the infidels and, while you’re at it, kill all the other Muslims who don’t agree with me 100%!” Then he or she goes out and sets off a bomb that kills an indiscriminate group of infidels and Muslims who aren’t behaving exactly according to his or her vision of Muslim behavior.Those tragically awful words and deeds become part of Islamic behavior.

On the other hand, if an Islamic person says, “Hi, there, friend. I often think about how much all human beings have in common and how all of us who believe in one God know we’re each a precious living representative of the same God, so we wouldn’t want to hurt or kill each other. We might even want to help each other along.” Then, if he or she lives in mutually considerate harmony with all other human beings, infidel or not, his or her wonderfully commendable behavior becomes part of Islamic behavior.

There’s just no escape for Muslims or anybody else from the inflexible bar of natural justice. At this point, we’ll dare to mention one of the infidel Plato’s least bandied about but most consequential statements: “We become what we do.” The entirely inescapable principle of natural justice has never been stated more exactly. And knowing it exists is a real consolation to people who sometimes wonder if there is any justice in the world.

Like all justice, it grinds very fine. For instance, if you decide to be a terrorist and murder somebody, you become a terrorist who murdered somebody. If you decide to be a mutually caring person who makes a considerate place for others and even helps them when you think you should, you become a mutually caring and helpful person.

You can see evidence of how inescapable this principle is wherever you look. The 911 hijackers decided to become suicidal terrorists and they became dead terrorists. Osama Bin Laden decided to instigate deeds that would bring the wrath of the world down on him, and now he has the life of a man who has brought the wrath of the world down on him. Same goes for his second in mayhem and murder, Ayman al-Zawahiri, except he still gets to sneak in somewhere and make detestable amateur videos.

The principle of natural justice is also, for example, the reason Alexander the Great, who set out to be a world conqueror, met death in a remote desert as a would-be world conqueror. He would have been much better off to hang around his dad’s palace in Macedonia and take the reins of power in his time. It’s also why Hitler took what might have been a perfectly ordinary or enjoyable life and turned it into one where he ended up locked in a bunker with no choice but to shoot his girlfriend, Eva, and then to turn the gun on himself.

Now, since we inescapably define our behavior by how we behave, it becomes especially important for influential people in the Muslim world, as well as in the non-Muslim world, to decide how they want Islamic behavior to be defined – and to know that the only way to influence how it is defined is to influence how Muslims, one and all, behave.

For instance, do Muslims want Islamic behavior to be defined by fellow Muslims becoming furious and murderous over comments about Islam or cartoons about Mohammed, at the same time Muslims kills non-Muslims and Muslims alike while an enormously troublesome silence prevails? Do Muslims want Islamic behavior to be defined by strict observance of how Muslims wear their beards but tolerance for vitriolic words and murderous behavior? Should it be defined by encouraging Muslim women to cover themselves up like medieval nuns, instead of to display proudly their physical beings, which represent, inarguably to a believer, the handiwork of Allah himself?

We would like to explore one more and especially touchy issue, since the article would be incomplete without doing so. Should Muslim behavior be defined by rigid adherence to every word in the Koran? Or should it to be defined by the recognition that the Koran, as well as the Bible or any other lasting document, is not only made up of its timeless content but of material that relates more or entirely to the time and place in which it was inspired.

Then what is the holiest Islamic behavior toward the Koran? To take the timeless inspirations and encumber them forever with the more earthly material that is an inevitable artifact of the time in which the verses were composed? Or to take the timeless inspirations and liberate them from the more earthbound contents – and thereby make the inspirations forever timely?

We think the latter. It enables the timeless values to become, if you'll permit intensification of an absolute, more timeless. Then they can be as at home in the modern world as they were at the time of their creation, and its adherents can participate in the modern world as intelligently and comfortably as anybody else.

As a closing note about Islamic behavior, we also think it would be commendable if Muslims ceased referring to non-Muslims as infidels. We do, after all, have our own faiths, and fair reference does tend to encourage fair reference.

Have we offended anybody? We hope not. If by some chance we have, then please indulge us and go back and read what we said again.

We did our best to please everybody. And we can’t apologize, because it’s wrong to apologize for the truth, which invites us all to recognize it and know it is the surest foundation for our beliefs.

RUSSIA AND ISLAM

2007-12-15T07:53:00.000-08:00

The Protohistory (Ninth to Twelfth Centuries): -

Russia’s position on the eastern flank of Europe has often been compared to that of Spain on the western side. Both are seen as bulwarks of Christendom facing the hostile world of Islam, of civilization facing ‘barbary’. Russia exhausted herself in a heroic struggle of several centuries, but this sacrifice was not to be in vain, for Europe was saved and could go on to develop its brilliant civilization well protected by the Russians. The price of this voluntary sacrifice was heavy, since in order to survive and finally to overcome the ‘Asia barbarians’, Muscovy was obliged to adopt their ways, such as tyranny, despotism, serfdom and lack of liberty. Such is the picture that is painted in nearly all Russian and Soviet historical works. Far-fetched as it is, there are deep reasons for defending this absurd concept. According to the Russians, ‘they have suffered more than any other people’ and have ‘played the role of protectors and saviours’, a kind of St George killing the Asiatic dragon and rescuing the European princess. This exclusive position ‘gives the Russians certain messianic rights’, in particular the right to assume the leadership over their lesser European brothers and to ‘civilize’ the world Asiatics.

The reality is of course far from this Manichaean approach to history. When the ancestors of the Russians first came into contact with Asia in the ninth century they were the ‘Barbarians’, not the highly civilized Muslims.

In the early tenth century, the borderline between ‘Civilization’ and ‘Barbary’ followed more or less exactly the frontier which today separates the Slavic ‘European’ people of the USSR from the area populated largely by Muslims: Middle and Lower Volga, North Caucasian mountains, Derbent, Syr Daria. However, ‘Barbary’ at this time was represented by the ‘Europeans’, ancestors of the Russians. (There are those who believe that the position has altered little over time.)

For the Muslims, the ‘Rus’ were wild and primitive natives, purveyors of rare blond slaves and such precious raw materials as fur and ivory. But they were dangerous neighbors and their plundering expeditions (912 and 941-4 raids in the Caspian Sea, the destruction of the Khazar Empire in 945 and 985 expedition against Bulghar) were described in gruesome detail by early Muslim chroniclers.

During 942-4 the ‘Rus’ devastated all Muslim Transcaucasia. Berdea, the most prosperous city of Azerbaijan, was completely destroyed and its inhabitants slaughtered. According to Ibn Hawkal, from the 1,200 5 remained. In 1850, a Russian historian, Grigor’ev, wrote”

When anarchy, fanaticism and barbarity were disputing the domination of Europe, the Khazar Empire was a center of law, order and religious tolerance, a refuge for all those who were persecuted for their belief. It was like a brilliant meteor over the dark horizon of Europe.

In the tenth century, when Russians were still mostly pagans, Islam had already penetrated Eastern Transcaucasia and Daghestan. It had conquered the whole of Turkestan south of Syr Darya and the King of Bulghar in the far north had adopted the religion of the Prophet, Except for the Bulghar Kingdom, all these territories had long been settled with highly developed urban societies going back to the second millennium BC. Even the nomadic Turks of the Caspian steppes – the Khazars – whose feudal nobility had adopted Judaism as their official religion, had attained a higher level of political and cultural development than the ancestors of the Russians, their vassals in the eighth and early ninth centuries.

During the eleventh and twelfth centuries political and cultural equilibrium was established between the sedentary Kievian Rus, Christianized and civilized by Byzantium and the nomadic Qypchaqs (Polovtsy) – heirs to the Khazars who ruled over the Steppe territories between the Dniepr and the Aral Sea.

Contrary to the commonly accepted but totally misleading version put forward by Russian historians, relations between sedentary Russians and nomadic Turks were not limited only to plundering expeditions and punitive counter-expeditions, but included wide cultural and diplomatic exchanges between partners who treated each other as equals. Moreover, during this period Turkic princesses often married Kievian princes. (It is a well known historical fact that the vassal seeks the hand of his suzerain’s daughter.) This happy period ended with the Mongol invasion, but not before a considerable number of Turkic, Iranian and even Arabic words synonymous with advanced societies were borrowed and have become so thoroughly Russified as to make it nearly impossible to recognize their Asiatic origins: chugun, bulat, topor, sablia, saray, bumaga, khram, terem, yazyk, ochag, cherdak, loshad’, chemodan, bogatyr, magazin, karandash, karaul, etc. In contrast, Slavic vocabulary made no impression on Turkic languages – at least until the nineteenth century.

In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the equilibrium which existed between the sedentary Kievian civilization and the steppe nomads in the Black Sea-Caspian Sea area could be likened to an outwardly similar situation between the sedentary Irano-Turkic and nomadic Turko-Mongol worlds along the line of Syr Daria. To draw any sort of parallel would, however, be wrong. In Central Asia, Bukhara of the Samanids and Empire of the Seljuqs were the great centers of world culture at that time and the defense line on Syr Daria marked the border between civilization and Barbary. There could be no borrowing of Mongol-Turkic or Manchu words from the Qara Khitay by the Persians or the Seljuqs and a Samanid king or a Khwarezm shah would never dream of marrying the daughter of a nomad chieftain roaming the Mongolian outback.

One element only was common to both: lack of any religious problem. This stemmed from the nomads’ tolerance towards religious matters and willingness to drop their ancestral Shamanism for the more enlightened Islam in Turkestan and Christianity in the West.

http://www.thesisspecialist.com

ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY

2007-12-15T07:52:00.000-08:00

The question before us is "What is Islamic Ideology"? To me Ideology is a philosophical term meaning the ‘Science of Ideas’. Idea is again a subtle and very comprehensive term. It is unnecessary for our present purpose to go into the details of the term. But generally this means a basic concept or the basic concepts on which any ‘system’ is built constitutes its ‘Ideology’. Since Ideology pre supposes the existence of a system, the question arises whether Islam is a system?

Yes, Islam is a system. Islam is not like other conventional religions, in other words Religion is the English equivalent for the Arabic word Mazhah which does not occur even once in the whole of the Holy Quran. The Quran has used the word Ad deen for Islam which means a particular way of life. The Holy Quran points to this aspect in its own inimitable way. It says that the healthy concept of life Ideology or kaIema-e-tayyiba revealed by Quran which has the capacity to rise high towards God Almighty. In Quran’s dialect Ideology makes up what we call Faith (Imaan) and the means to give the Ideology a practical shape are termed Righteous Actions from humans. Ideology forms the objective of the Islamic Order and positive actions constitute the program for attaining the objectives of Islamic System. In the present context you can say that Ideology provides the ‘Objectives Resolution’ of an Islamic State, its constitution gives political form to the resolution and its laws prescribe the program for helping the people attain their destiny.

The final position in a nutshell is;Islamic Ideology is another name for Permanent Values or unbreakable Principles elaborated in the Holy Quran that an Islamic State is established for the sole purpose of introducing Permanent Values in life that the first and foremost duty of an Islamic State is to provide means for the growth and development of the human body as well as human personality.

The considerations set forth before you lead to the following three-fold conclusion:

1. Islamic Ideology connotes the sum total of Permanent Values or Inviolable Principles which have been preserved in their complete and final form in the Holy Quran.

2. Islamic State is a state which adopts Quranic Permanent Values as its ideal.

3. Islamic Constitution is the document which proclaims the above ideal and details the plan according to which the structure of the State will rise solid and firm on the basis of Quranic Principles.

PROPHET MOHAMMED - PEACE BE UPON HIM

2007-12-15T07:46:00.000-08:00

Muhammad (PBUH) is, without a doubt, the most controversial figure in world history. No other personality throughout time has conjured up such overpowering emotion from the masses. On the Muslim side he is absolutely the most venerated and beloved man ever, a mercy sent to the entire world from God and the final prophet to all of mankind. The western view, however, has been anything but philanthropic. Rather, there has been a continuous “smear campaign” raged against this man from the very onset of the revelations and throughout the Middle Ages, perhaps most notably in the times of the Crusades. Accusations abound, some saying he copied the Bible, some saying he had hallucinations in the throws of an epileptic fit, and still others claiming that he was receiving false revelations from Satan himself.

So who was this man who today has more than 1.6 billion followers? Who was this man that Michael Hart named as the “most influential person in history” in his 1978 book, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History? What is it about him that continues to inspire so many people today in the west and afar, causing Islam to be the fastest growing religion in the world? Why is Muhammad the most common name in the world today?

Of course the answer is too broad to attempt in this short article, but perhaps we can have a brief introduction to this great prophet of God. His name was Muhammad ibn Abd Allah ibn Abd al-Muttalib, which means Muhammad the son of Abd Allah the son of Abd al-Muttalib. He was born into the tribe of Quraysh and the family of Banu Hashim in Mecca around 570 CE, to a family standard that could be described as “upper middle class.” His father died before he was born and his mother died when he was around six years old. The young orphan was then sent to live with his paternal grandfather, Abd al-Muttalib. When he was just eight years old, his grandfather also died and Muhammad (PBUH) was cared for by his uncle, Abu Talib, who continued to support and protect him for the next 40 years.

Mecca was a thriving commercial center and the home of the Ka’aba which is believed to have been built by Abraham and his son Ishmael. Even in that era of pre-Islam the Ka’aba was a holy site of pilgrimage for all of Arabia, but at that time it was filled with idols that were thought to be intermediaries between the worshipper and Allah. In pre-Islamic Arabia Allah was recognized as the Supreme Being, but the paganism and idolatry had corrupted the true religion that was originally brought to the Arabs by Ishmael.

It is known that Muhammad (PBUH) never partook in idol worshipping and was greatly disturbed by it. He was known to retreat for weeks at a time to a cave where he would pray to God alone and ask for guidance. At some point in his late teens he began to accompany his uncle to Syria with the trading caravans, giving him the knowledge to become a successful merchant. Among the people of Mecca he was nicknamed “Al-Amin” which means “The Trustworthy” due to his honesty and integrity displayed in every aspect of his life. This reputation attracted a 40 year old widow named Khadija who proposed marriage to Muhammad (PBUH) while he was in his mid twenties. They were happily married for more than twenty years and had 6 children together, however his sons died in their early childhood.

So, Muhammad (PBUH) was well-loved and respected by his family and friends before the revelations of the Qur’an began. The most famous incident in his life before Islam was his arbitration between four major clans in Mecca that were near taking up arms against each other. There had been a flash flood that destroyed part of the Ka’aba and each of the four major tribes were helping to rebuild the holy structure. The last stone to be placed was the black stone of the corner and each of the tribes wanted the honor of putting the stone back in its place. They decided that the next person who walked through the doors of the mosque would decide which tribe would have the honor of replacing the black stone. When they saw Muhammad (PBUH) walk in they were overjoyed, for here came Al-Amin, and they were confident he would find a just solution. Muhammad’s solution was to place the black stone on a cloak and have one member of each of the four clans hold a corner to lift it up, a!

nd Muhammad (PBUH) himself put the stone in place. Everyone was happy with this solution and fighting was averted.

During the month of Ramadan in the year 610 CE, Muhammad (PBUH) had retreated to a cave on Mount Hira outside of Mecca for fasting, prayer and contemplation. It was here that the angel Gabriel first descended from Heaven and told the prophet to “Recite in the name of your Lord who created!” which was the first revelation of the Qur’an. The word Qur’an itself means recitation, or something to be recited. Muhammad (PBUH) was terrified of the experience and was afraid he was going crazy. He returned to his wife, Khadija, and told her what had happened. Khadija was the first person to accept Islam; she told him that she believed that he was a prophet of God and that he was not crazy or sick.

After the first revelation, three years passed before the angel Gabriel returned to Muhammad (PBUH) with more of the Qur’an. During those three years he spent his time in prayer and religious practice. He had not started openly preaching yet, the only other people who knew of Islam and followed him were his wife, his young cousin Ali who was only 10, his adopted son Zaid and his best friend Abu Bakr.

In the year 613 Muhammad (PBUH) started to speak out in public, calling people to give up the worship of idols and worship only Allah, the one true God. At first the Meccans only thought he was a nuisance, they laughed at him and said his only followers were an old lady, a slave and a little boy. But, as he continued to preach the number of followers grew. The entire economy of Mecca was based on the idols housed inside the Ka’aba, so when Muhammad (PBUH) started to preach against the idol worshipping he was threatening the finances of the leaders of Quraysh. They offered Muhammad (PBUH) all the money, stature and women in Mecca if he would stop preaching, but he said that he preached for God and needed nothing from the materials of this world. They began to physically torture the Muslims and tried to get them to denounce Islam and they brutally murdered many more. Muhammad (PBUH) was protected from physical harm by his uncle Abu Talib who stood by his nephew’s side hi!

s entire life, but never converted to Islam.

The other clans of Quraysh implemented a trade embargo on the clan of Banu Hashim, Muhammad’s clan. The embargo lasted for three years and many of the clan starved to death. Khadija, weakened by starvation, died during this time as did his beloved uncle and sole protector, Abu Talib. That was the year 619 CE, “the year of sorrows.”

It was evident that the Muslims would have to seek a new place to establish themselves. The prophet asked many different tribes for their protection when they came for pilgrimage to Mecca, but found none. It began to look hopeless and Muhammad despaired that the religion would die with all the Muslims. Then, a miracle happened. In the town of Yathrib, now Medina an-Nabi, there had been fighting amongst the Arabs and the Jews for many years. The leaders of the tribes came to Muhammad (PBUH) because they knew his reputation as a trustworthy man and peaceful arbitrator. They asked that he come to Yathrib, with all of his followers, where they would have sanctity in exchange for his arbitrating between the tribes. Muhammad (PBUH) agreed and the Muslims emigrated to Yathrib in 622, this even is known as the hijra and it marks year 1 of the Muslim calendar.

It was here, in Medina, that Islam began to truly flourish. It was here that the laws of Islam were first put into practice, allowing the city and religion to blossom. Muhammad (PBUH) successfully brought peace amongst the warring factions of Medina, and quite a few of them became Muslim in the process. He drafted the Constitution of Medina which proclaimed the rights and duties of each of the citizens and detailed the relationship between each of the eight tribes of Medina and the Muslim emigrants.

Muhammad’s (PBUH) success in Medina was like a thorn in the sides of the Meccans. Although he was no longer physically in their presence, he had become quite famous and was thus constantly with them through conversations. Muhammad (PBUH) knew that this was the time when he would have to make his military move if he was to be victorious in winning the Meccans to Islam. Also, there was a need for money since the Muslims had left all of their homes and means of wealth behind in Mecca. The solution was to raid the rich trade caravans coming and going from Mecca. This gave the Muslims a cache of military arms and wealth, but it also provoked the Meccans to war.

In 624 the first and possibly most famous major battle between the Muslims and the Meccans took place, the Battle of Badr. In this battle the Muslims were outnumbered more than 3 to 1, yet they were victorious. They killed at least 45 Meccans and took approximately 70 prisoners of war while losing only 14 Muslims. Many of the prisoners of war were wealthy, so the Muslims ransomed them off for high prices which further increased their growing wealth. The prisoners who could not afford to ransom themselves were let go for free.

Of course the Meccans were outraged and vowed all-out war on the Muslims until Muhammad (PBUH) was dead and Islam effectively obliterated. The next major battle was the Battle of Uhud, where the Muslims lost more than 75 men and were defeated by the Meccans. However, they were unsuccessful in killing the prophet or his closest companions, Umar and Abu Bakr, so they were not satisfied. It was in this battle that Hamza ibn Abd al-Muttalib, the beloved uncle of the prophet (PBUH) was killed.

The third major attack came in 627 when the Meccans once again mustered a huge army to attack Medina. The Muslims were forewarned of the impending attack and dug a trench around the unprotected parts of medina, making it impossible for the enemy to enter the city. The Meccan army led an ineffective attack and decided it was best to return home.

The next major event to take place was the Treaty of Hudaybiya. The verses commanding hajj, pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a person’s life, had already been commanded, but the Muslims had not yet been able to make a pilgrimage. So, in the month of Shawwal in the year 628, the prophet (PBUH) and 1,400 Muslims set out for the lesser pilgrimage, Umra, wearing the simple white cloth that pilgrims wear. The Meccans heard the Muslims were coming and met them outside of Mecca at Hudaybiya. Here there were heavy negotiations that took place between the two sides, resulting in the treaty which made 4 main points:

1. Both sides would cease hostile activities against each other.

2. The Muslims would not be allowed to make the pilgrimage that year, but could return the following year for hajj.

3. When they come for hajj they should not stay in Mecca more than 3 days.

4. Any Muslims living in Mecca were forbidden to move to Medina, but any

Muslims in Medina who wanted to return to Mecca could do so. Many of the Muslims were unhappy with the treaty since they felt it greatly favored the Meccans, but Allah revealed verses in the Qur’an that stated it was an emphatic victory. And indeed, it was. Because of the peace treaty the men of Mecca and Medina were able to meet in peace, and in the next two years the number of Muslims more than doubled.

Two years after the treaty was signed, a clan associated with the Meccans raided a clan associated with the Muslims, killing several people. Muhammad (PBUH) sent a letter to the Meccans stating that either they should pay blood money for the killed, or cease all ties with the offending clan, or consider the Treaty of Hudaybiya nullified. The Meccans chose to nullify the treaty, but soon realized that was a mistake. They sent a delegation to try to reinstate the treaty, but Muhammad (PBUH) denied them.

In the year 630 he prophet (PBUH) gathered a huge army of more than 10,000 men and marched on Mecca. Without a drop of blood shed, the Muslims marched into Mecca and took control. Muhammad forgave all of the Meccans for the crimes that they had committed against the Muslims, which was revolutionary for that place and time, the norm would have been revenge. Muhammad (PBUH) marched right up to the Ka’aba, entered it, and smashed all of the idols that were housed inside. Almost all of the Meccans converted to Islam though they were not forced to, and, because of Mecca’s importance to Arabia, very shortly after all of Arabia converted to Islam.

In 632 Muhammad (PBUH) became ill and passed away at the age of 62. He had succeeded in taking the pagan, tribal society of Arabia and changing it to a monotheistic land that denounced tribalism and nationalism and completely changed every aspect of the society and government. He had proved himself to be a prophet of God, a man of truth, a man who revolutionized the world for all time, a loving husband and father, an intelligent and highly successful politician, a master of strategy and military command, a faithful friend, a good neighbor and the greatest man to ever walk the face of the earth. He is Muhammad (PBUH), the prophet of God sent as a mercy to all of the world.