Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Mubashir

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
General Discussions / Drawing inference for punishment
« on: March 27, 2013, 05:39:00 PM »
 Salaam Dear Friends.

How would you respond to a question like this:

"....There is no doubt that misusing or misapplication of any law is wrong whether the law pertains to blasphemy or some other issue. However, the question is should we simply reject the blasphemy law(s) on the grounds that Quran does not include Blasphemy among other punishable crimes.

Was it absolutely necessary that the punishment for blasphemy be prescribed in Quran ''explicitly'' before Islamic states could penalize blasphemous people? Does an earthly punishment for any crime necessarily have to be prescribed in Quran explicitly? In logic, there is something called '' Drawing Inference'' from a set of given statements. Is it possible that some things are implicitly stated in Quran rather than stated in explicit words?

There is a verse in Quran which talks about punishing those who spread ''Fisaad" or corruption on earth. What if an Islamic government infers based on the aforesaid verse a punishment for blasphemy arguing that the act is tantamount to causing disruption or fisaad on earth. After all, no matter what religion, when an act of insult is committed against anything sacred in any religion, it is a gross misconduct that has the power to cause disruption in society by hurting people's religious feelings and emotions. Pragmatically speaking, the act of blasphemy causes rash and anger among a huge number of people in a country where the act is committed. Shouldn't the perpetrator be punished for disturbing the peace in a country especially when the perpetrator commits this act knowingly and willfully? Yet, this is not to say that blasphemy should be punished by death.

Pragmatism is an approach that is becoming prevalent in legal systems across the world. Based on this approach, some acts are punished just based on the consequences which may result after the commission of the act. ...."

Thanks in advance !!


Please kindly share your thoughts if and when you have time.


General Discussions / Cause thee to forget??
« on: March 15, 2013, 12:47:22 PM »
Salam Friends,

Are the following verses addressed to the blessed Muhammad or mankind in general?

87:6 By degrees We will teach you to declare the message, so you will not forget,
87:7 Except what God wills, for He knows what is manifest and what is hidden.

Many translators assume that they are addressed to Muhammad and while trying to explain it, end up with the theory of abrogation.

87:6 [Prophet], We shall teach you [the Quran] and you will not forget––

87:7 unless God wishes; He knows both what is open and what is hidden––

Would appreciate a better and clear understanding. Thanks.

Salaam Friends

The following verse is quoted to justify hurting/killing/destroying properties of those who insult the blessed Nabi. A couple days back according to media reports, over hundred homes were burnt down and their contents destroyed in Lahore, Pakistan because a mob was enraged over a Christian man who reportedly insulted the Nabi (SWS). BTW what kind of Islamic justice was the mob trying to enforce in punishing the whole neighborhood for the alleged crime of one man?

33:57 Those who insult God and His Messenger will be rejected by God in this world and the next- He has prepared a humiliating torment for them-

Question: Can the above verse be used to punish any body who offends the Nabi?


General Discussions / Unemployment Benefits to Finance Jihad
« on: March 05, 2013, 01:43:37 PM »
Dear All, Salaam. Allow me to share the following with you. It will illustrate how ahadith and fabricated stories of history are used to justify fraud. I am utterly shocked and speechless over the rationalisations used here in the name of Allah and His Rasool:

UK: Unemployment Benefits to Finance Jihad

by Soeren Kern

February 28, 2013 at 5:00 am
"The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar [non-believer]. You work, give us the money." — Anjem Choudary

A radical Islamic cleric who lives off charity of the British welfare state has been filmed urging his followers to quit their jobs and claim Charity of Government unemployment benefits so they have more time to plot holy war against non-Muslims.

Excerpts of the speech, published by the London-based newspaper The Sun on February 17, have drawn renewed attention to the growing problem of Muslims in Britain and elsewhere, who are exploiting European Charitable welfare systems.

In the video, Anjem Choudary -- a former lawyer, who has long campaigned to bring Islamic Sharia law to Britain and other European countries (here, here and here) -- is recorded as saying that Muslims are justified in taking money from non-Muslims.

Speaking to a group of Muslim men, Choudary mocks non-Muslims for working in nine-to-five jobs their whole lives. He says: "You find people are busy working the whole of their life. They wake up at 7 o'clock. They go to work at 9 o'clock. They work for eight, nine hours a day. They come home at 7 o'clock, watch EastEnders [a British soap opera], sleep, and they do that for 40 years of their life. That is called slavery. ... What kind of life is that? That is the life of the Kuffar [a non-Muslim]."

Choudary urges fellow Muslims to learn from revered figures in Islamic history, who only worked one or two days a year. "The rest of the year they were busy with Jihad [holy war] and things like that," he says.

Choudary continues: "People will say, 'Ah, but you are not working.' But the normal situation is for you to take money from the kuffar [non-Muslims]. So we take Jihad Seeker's Allowance."

At this point, Choudary takes a page from the late Anwar al-Awlaki, killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen in September 2011. In a 2006 sermon entitled, "Allah is Preparing us for Victory," al-Awlaki said that robbery and extortion of non-Muslims was the strategy the Islamic Prophet Mohammed prescribed for conducting Jihad, the central mission of Islam.

Al-Awlaki said: "Leave the farming to the people of the book [Jews and Christians], you go and spread the religion of Allah [through jihad]; they will farm and they will feed you; they will pay Jizya [Protection Money], they will pay Kharaaj [tribute], if the sustenance of the Prophet Mohammed was through Ghaneema [plunder] it must be the best and better than farming, business, shepherding and better than anything else because Mohammed said: 'My sustenance comes beneath the shadow of my spear.'"

Accordingly, the British-born Choudary states that Muslims are entitled to welfare payments because they are a form of Jizya, Protection Money tax imposed on non-Muslims in countries run by Muslims, and a reminder that non-Muslims are permanently inferior and subservient to Muslims.

In another video, Choudary says: "We take the Jizya, which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar. They give us the money. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar [Allah is great]. We take the money. " He then adds: "Hopefully there's no one from the DSS [Department of Social Security] listening to this."

Choudary, who is married and has four children, enjoys a rather comfortable lifestyle that is being paid for by British taxpayers, year after year. In 2010, for example, The Sun reported that he takes home more than £25,000 ($38,000) a year in (British Government Charity of) welfare benefits.

Among other handouts, Choudary receives £15,600 a year in Housing Benefit Charity to keep him in a £320,000 ($485,000) house in Leytonstone, East London. He also receives £1,820 council tax allowance, £5,200 income support Chaity and £3,120 in child benefits Charity from British Government. Because his welfare payments are not taxed, his income is equivalent to a £32,500 ($50,000) salary.

By comparison, the average annual earnings of full-time workers in Britain was £26,500 in 2012.

According to The Sun, the university-educated Choudary is "notoriously vague about whether he works or has other money coming in. He is understood to be employed by a Muslim organization on a shoe-string wage, which allows him to claim income support and free time to spread his message. Asked during a radio interview this week if he worked, he replied: 'Well, what I do is my business. I don't think it is important.'"

During an interview with BBC Radio 5 on February 17, Choudary was equally evasive on his sources of income. (The radio interview begins at 00:57 in the video linked here.)

Although analysts are divided over the question of how many followers Choudary actually has, no one disputes the fact that he is far from alone in exploiting the British welfare system.

Consider the issue of polygamy. Although the practice is illegal in Britain, the state effectively recognizes the practice for Muslim men, who often have up to four wives (and in some instances five or more) in a harem.

Social welfare experts believe there are at least 20,000 bigamous or polygamous Muslim unions in England and Wales. If the average size of such a "family" is 15 people, these numbers would imply that around 300,000 people in Britain are living in polygamous families.

According to British law, a Muslim man with four wives is entitled to receive £10,000 ($15,000) a year in income support alone. He could also be entitled to more generous housing and council tax benefits to reflect the fact that his household needs a bigger property.

The result is that the more children produced by Muslim polygamists, the more state welfare money pours in for their wives and themselves. By having a string of wives living in separate homes, thousands of Muslim immigrants are squeezing tens of millions of British pounds from the state by claiming benefits intended for single mothers and their children.

Those women are eligible for full housing benefits -- which reach £106,000 ($250,000) a year in some parts of London -- and child benefits paid at £1,000 ($1,500) a year for a first child, and nearly £700 ($1,000) for each subsequent one.

Welfare payments are also sent abroad to support children who live outside Britain.

* In December 2010, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, said that Muslim immigrants who send a portion of their welfare payments to families back home are "heroic." She also said the government should make it easier for them to send the money home, and called for tax refunds to encourage more immigrants to follow suit, "in particular those who paid for their children to be educated in the Third World."

Another point of contention involves British taxpayers who are spending millions of British pounds to house unemployed Muslim immigrants in luxury homes across the country.

* In August 2012, for example, Palestinian refugee Manal Mahmoud was given a new taxpayer-funded property after she and her seven children trashed a £1.25 million townhouse they had been living in in Fulham, West London. Mahmoud, who came to Britain in 2000 with her husband before they split up, says, "I am entitled to live in a house like this, even if I don't pay for it -- and get benefits."

* In July 2010, Somali asylum seekers Abdi and Syruq Nur and their seven children, after complaining that their home in the Kensal Rise area of Brent was in a "poor" area, were given a £2.1million house in Kensington (one of Britain's most exclusive addresses) at a cost of £8,000 a month to the taxpayer. After Nur lost his £6.50-an-hour job as a bus driver in 2009, the family is totally dependent on state benefits. The new home is believed to be one of the most expensive houses ever paid for by housing benefit

* In February 2010, it emerged that Essma Marjam, an unemployed single mother of six, receives more than £80,000 a year from British taxpayers to pay the rent on a £2 million mansion in an exclusive London suburb located yards from the house of Paul McCartney. Marjam also receives an estimated £15,000 a year in other payouts, such as child benefits, to help look after her children, aged from five months to 14.

Marjam said, "I moved here at the beginning of the month as I'm entitled to a five-bedroom house. I was in a three-bedroom council house but I needed a bigger place once my new baby came along. So the council agreed to pay the £1,600 a week to a private landlord as they didn't have any houses big enough. I'm separated from my husband. He's a solicitor in Derby, but I don't know if he's working at the moment. He doesn't pay anything towards the kids. Things are quite difficult between us. The house is lovely and very big, but I don't have enough furniture to fill it."

* In November 2009, it was reported that former Somali asylum seeker Nasra Warsame, her seven children (aged from two to 16) and her elderly mother are living in a luxury £1.8 million five-story house in central London. Annual rent for the house costs British taxpayers £83,200.

Warsame's husband, Bashir Aden, and another of their children, are living in a separate property in nearby Camden. He said they live separately because the family is too big to fit under one roof. His two-bedroom flat is also paid for by housing benefit. Both homes are equipped with statutory plasma televisions and computers.

* In October 2008, it emerged that Toorpakai Saiedi, a mother of seven originally from Afghanistan, was living in £1.2million seven-bedroom luxury house in Acton, West London, paid for by British taxpayers. At the time, she was receiving £170,000 a year in benefits, including an astonishing £150,000 paid to a private landlord for the rent of the property, equivalent to £12,500 a month.

Saiedi's son Jawad, a student who admitted he spent most of his time driving around in cars and playing billiards, said, "When the council chose to put us here we did not say no. If someone gave you a lottery jackpot, would you leave it? When I heard how much the council was paying, I thought they were mad."

* British taxpayers have footed the bill for the Moroccan-born Najat Mostafa, the second wife of the Egyptian-born Islamic hate preacher Abu Hamza, who was extradited to the United States in October 2012. She has lived in a £1million, five-bedroom house in one of London's wealthiest neighborhoods for more than 15 years, and she raised the couple's eight children there.

Abu Hamza and his family are believed to have cost British taxpayers more than £338,000 in benefits. He has also received £680,000 in legal assistance for his failed US extradition battle. The cost of keeping him in a British prison since 2004 is estimated at £500,000.

Fellow hate preacher Abu Qatada, a Palestinian, has cost British taxpayers an estimated £500,000. He has also won £390,000 in legal aid to avoid deportation to Jordan.

* The Islamic preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed, a Syrian, obtained £300,000 benefits before being exiled to Lebanon. The money was provided to raise his six children, including Yasmin Fostok, a single mother who makes a living as a pole-dancer in London nightclubs.

* In February 2013, a judge in London acquitted two brothers from Pakistan who swapped houses in an effort to defraud British taxpayers out of £315,000. The Pakistani couples, who have 11 children between them, submitted bogus tenancy agreements for 16 years.

Judge Neil Sanders said, "The two men dishonestly represented through their wives to the London Borough of Redbridge that this was a genuine rental arrangement." But, he said: "You have both worked hard in terms of making a life for yourselves and in many ways the greatest punishment is the loss of your good name."

As for Anjem Choudary, he was also filmed saying that Islam will take over Europe. He said: "Now we are taking over Birmingham and populating it. Brussels is 30% Muslim, Amsterdam is 40% Muslim. Bradford is 17% Muslim. These people are like a tsunami going across Europe. And over here we're just relaxing, taking over Bradford, brother. The reality is changing. We are going to take England: the Muslims are coming."

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

General Discussions / "Oh you who believe, believe..."
« on: February 14, 2013, 01:26:19 AM »
Dear All, Salaam

[Shakir] 57:28 O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and believe in His Messenger: He will give you two portions of His mercy, and make for you a light with which you will walk, and forgive you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful;

Upon reading this verse, I am wondering if it is addressing those who came to believe in Allah, Muhammad (PBUH) and The Quran, or has it been addressed to those who believed in previous Messengers (Ahl e Kitab)? Why would Muslims be asked to believe when they already believed?

Muhammad Asad has translated the verse in a slightly different way:

[Asad] 57:28 O YOU who have attained to faith!*Remain conscious of God, and believe in His Apostle, [and] He will
grant you doubly of His grace, and will light for you a light wherein you shall walk, and will forgive you
[your past sins]: for God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

In his foot note to this verse he writes:

"...*  As is evident from the preceding passage as well as from verse 29, the people thus addressed are the
followers of earlier revelation (ahl al-kitab), and in particular the true - i.e., unitarian -
followers of Jesus..."

If this verse is asking the believers (Muslims) to fear Allah and believe in His apostle then Allah makes a promise to them. Looking at the Muslim world we find majority Muslims fear Allah and believe in His Apostle but still they are not doing too well in the world.

Would appreciate comments from my respected brothers and sisters.



General Discussions / 59:2
« on: January 12, 2013, 01:37:00 PM »
Salam Friends

59:2 [Asad] He it is who turned out of their homes, at the time of [their] first gathering [for war], such of the followers of earlier revelation as were bent on denying the truth. You did not think [O believers] that they would depart [without resistance] - just as they thought that their strongholds would protect them against God: but God came upon them in a manner which they had not expected, and cast terror into their hearts; [and thus] they destroyed their homes by their own hands as well as the hands of the believers. Learn a lesson, then, O you who are endowed with insight!

Question: The People of the Book believe in God. Why would they, then, think that they needed protected against God?

One would think  that their strongholds would protect them against their enemies? Or does it mean that their stronghold would protect them against the Muslim God (who they, perhaps, thought was different than theirs)?

General Discussions / Atmam Hujjat and freedom of belief
« on: November 29, 2012, 05:28:02 AM »
Javed Ghamdi explains his view about Punishment for Apostasy. He seems to be a big believer in "Atmam Hujjat" and says killing of those rejecting Islam and punishment of those who wanted to leave it is Quran-based, but limited to the era of the blessed Rasool. It is not applicable for all other times.

How are we, then to understand scores of verses of the Qur'an that show freedom for others to choose Islam or to reject it which were revealed to the blessed Messenger for the people he was dealing with.

Seems as if he is opening up Islam to the accusation that Muslims talk about peace and tolerance and freedom of religion only as long as they don't have power. Once they do, their story changes.

Javed Ghamdi believes that once a Messenger provides enough proof of his mission (Atmam Hujjat), people have two choices; To accept it or to reject it. If they reject it, they are liable to be punished. He rationalizes it by giving examples of those who were punished by natural disasters when they were warned by previous Messengers including Messenger Lot. In the case of the blessed Messenger Muhammad, he says sometimes Allah punishes the rejecters by believers once they have enough power.

Here is the relevant part from a long article (

2. The Punishment of Apostasy

The answer to the second question is that the punishment of apostasy has arisen by misunderstanding a Ḥadīth. This Ḥadīth has been narrated by Ibn Abbās in the following way:

مَنْ بَدَّلَ دِينَهُ فَاقْتُلُوهُ (بخاري، رقم: 3017)

Execute the person who changes his faith. (Bukhārī, No: 3017)

Our jurists regard this verdict to have a general application for all times upon every Muslim who renounces his faith from the times of the Prophet (sws) to the Day of Judgement. In their opinion, this Ḥadīth warrants the death penalty for every Muslim who, out of his own free will, becomes a disbeliever. In this matter, the only point in which there is a disagreement among the jurists is whether an apostate should be granted time for repentance before executing him, and if so what should be the extent of this period. The Hanafite jurists however, exempt women from this punishment. Apart from them, there is a general consensus among the jurists that every apostate, man or woman, should be punished by death.

In the opinion of this writer, this view of our jurists is not correct. The verdict pronounced in this Ḥadīth has a specific application and not a general one: It is only confined to the people towards whom the Prophet (sws) had been directly assigned. The Qur’ān uses the words Mushrikīn and Ummiyyīn for these people.

I now elaborate upon this view.

In this world, we are well aware of the fact that life has been endowed to us not because it is our right but because it is a trial and a test for us. Death puts an end to it whenever the duration of this test is over, as deemed by the Almighty. Commonly, He fixes the length of this period on the basis of His knowledge and wisdom. However, in case of the direct and foremost addressees of a rasūl (Messenger of Allah), once the truth is unveiled to them in its ultimate form after which they have no excuse but stubbornness and enmity to deny it, they lose their right to live. The Almighty had blessed them with life to try and test them, and since after اِِتْمَام الحُُجَّة (itmām al-ḥujjah6) this trial becomes totally complete, therefore the law of the Almighty in this regard is that generally such people are not given any further right to live and the death sentence is imposed upon them.

This punishment is enforced upon the direct addressees of a rasūl in one of the two ways depending upon the situation which arises. In the first case, after accomplishing اِتْمَامُ الحُجَّة (itmām al-ḥujjah) upon his nation, a rasūl and his companions (rta) not being able to achieve political ascendancy in their territory migrate from their people. In this case, Divine punishment descends upon their nation in the form of raging storms, cyclones and other calamities, which completely destroy them. The tribes of A^d and Thamūd and the people of Noah (sws) and Lot (sws) besides many other nations met with this dreadful fate, as is mentioned in the Qur’ān. In the second case, a rasūl and his companions are able to acquire political ascendancy in a land where after accomplishing اِتْمَامُ الحُجَّة (itmām al-ḥujjah) upon their people they migrate. In this case, a rasūl and his companions subdue their nation by force, and execute them if they do not accept faith. It was this situation which had arisen in the case of the rasūl Muhammad (sws). On account of this, the Almighty bade him to declare that those people among the Ummiyyīn who had not accepted faith until the day of Ḥajj al-Akbar (9th hijrah) should be given a final extension by a proclamation made in the field of ‘Arafāt on that day. According to the proclamation, this final extension would end with the last day of the month of Muḥarram, during which they had to accept faith, or face execution at the end of that period. The Qur’ān says:

فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الْأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوْا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ (5:9)

When the forbidden months are over, slay the Idolaters wherever you find them. Seize them, besiege them and every where lie in ambush for them. But if they repent from their ill beliefs and establish the prayer and pay zakāh, then spare their lives. God is Most-Forgiving and Ever-Merciful. (9:5)

A Ḥadīth illustrates this law in the following manner:

أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاةَ فَإِذَا فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلَّا بِحَقِّ الْإِسْلَامِ وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللَّهِ (مسلم ، رقم : 22)

I have been directed to wage war against these people until they testify to the oneness of God and to the prophethood of Muhammad, establish the prayer and pay zakāh. If they accept these terms, their lives will be spared except if they commit some other violation that entails their execution by Islamic law and [in the Hereafter] their account rests with God. (Muslim, No: 22)

This law, as has been stated before, is specifically meant for the Ummiyyīn or the people towards whom Muhammad (sws) had been directly assigned. Apart from them, it has no bearing upon any other person or nation. So much so, even the people of the Book who were present in his times were exempted from this law by the Qur’ān. Consequently, where the death penalty for the Ummiyyīn is mentioned in the Qur’ān, adjacent to it has also been stated in unequivocal terms that the people of the Book shall be spared and granted citizenship if they pay jizyah. The Qur’ān says:

قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنْ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حَتَّى يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ (29:9)

Fight against those among the people of the Book who believe not in God nor in the Last Day, and who do not forbid what God and His Prophet have forbidden and do not accept the religion of truth as their own religion, until they pay jizyah out of subjugation and lead a life of submission. (9:29)

The foregoing discussion, outlines a law of the Almighty. There is a natural corollary to this Divine law as obvious as the law itself. As stated earlier, the death penalty had been imposed upon the Ummiyyīn if they did not accept faith after a certain period. Hence, it follows that if a person among the Ummiyyīn after accepting faith reverted to his original state of disbelief, he had to face the same penalty. Indeed, it is this reversion about which the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said: “Execute the person who changes his faith.”

The relative pronoun “who” in the above quoted Ḥadīth qualifies the Ummiyyīn just as the words “the people” (al-nās) in the Ḥadīth quoted earlier are specifically meant for the Ummiyyīn. When the basis of this law as narrated in these Aḥādīth has been specified in the Qur’ān, then quite naturally this specification should also be sustained in the corollary of the law. Our jurists have committed the cardinal mistake of not relating the relative pronoun “who” in the Ḥadīth “Execute the person who changes his faith” with its basis in the Qur’ān as they have done in the case of “the people” (al-nās) of the Ḥadīth quoted above. Instead of interpreting the Ḥadīth in the light of the relationship between the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth, they have interpreted it in the absolute sense, totally against the context of the Qur’ān. Consequently, in their opinion the verdict pronounced in the Ḥadīth has a general and an unconditional application. They have thereby incorporated in the Islamic Penal Code a punishment which has no basis in the sharī‘ah.

General Discussions / To defend the Hadith, attack the Qur'an !
« on: October 29, 2012, 11:58:41 PM »
On Facebook, a Bukari hadith has been quoted where the blessed Messenger is supposed to have said that those who eat Aujora Dates, can stay safe from poison and magical spells.

When someone challenged Ahl e Hadith to prove this by eating these dates and then consuming rat poison, a response came that said (quoting 8:65):

"First Let 20 Quranists (called Parwezis) challenge 200 Kuffars to a fight and prove that they can beat them. If they beat them, they have a point".

So, instead of admitting that the Hadith could have been misreported, they cleverly turn around and indirectly attack the Quran. What a a way to go!!

Discussions / Israeli General's son calls Israeli Army "Terrorist Army"
« on: October 15, 2012, 03:35:37 AM »
Please don't miss watching. A real eye opener!!

Women / Results of Taliban's twisted application of Sharia !!
« on: October 10, 2012, 06:22:53 PM »
: The banned militant organisation Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which claimed responsibility of shooting 14-year-old peace activist Malala Yousafzai in the head, issued a statement Wednesday, using Islamic Shariah to defend the attack.
In the statement sent out by TTP spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan from an undisclosed location, the banned outfit said that although they do not believe in attacking women, “whom so ever leads a campaign against Islam and Shariah is ordered to be killed by Shariah.”
The assassination attempt on the life of the young National Peace Award winner has drawn widespread condemnation from the government, political parties and civil society groups, terming it a bid to silent voice for peace and education.
The statement says that it is “not just allowed … but obligatory in Islam” to kill such a person involved “in leading a campaign against Shariah and (who) tries to involve whole community in such campaign, and that personality becomes a symbol of anti-Shariah campaign.”
Malala had won international recognition for highlighting Taliban atrocities in Swat with a blog for the BBC three years ago, when the Islamist militants burned girls’ schools and terrorised the valley.
Her struggle resonated with tens of thousands of girls who were being denied an education by the militants across northwest Pakistan, where the government has been fighting the local Taliban since 2007.
The Taliban statement further challenges – with Quranic and religious references – condemnation of the assassination attempt on the tender-aged girl, adding that it is a clear command of Shariah that any female playing a role in “war against mujahideen” should be killed.
“If anyone argues that she was female, and then we can see the incident of killing of wife by a blind companion of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) because she used to say demeaning words for the Prophet and the Prophet praised that act,” it argues equating the TTP act with that of a the prophet’s companion.
The statement goes on to defend the attack with a reference from the time of Hazrat Khizar, a revered figure in Islamic history who was described as a righteous servant of God and endowed with the qualities of unmatched wisdom and mystic power.
“If anyone argues about her young age, then the story of Hazrat Khizar in the Quran (states that) while traveling with Prophet Musa (AS), (he) killed a child. Arguing about the reason of his killing, he said that the parents of this child were pious and in the future he (the child) would cause a bad name for them,” adds the statement.
Malala Yousufzai, who was also nominated for the International Children’s Peace Prize by advocacy group KidsRights Foundation in 2011, had raised her voice against the militants’ ban on and threats against education for women in Swat.
The Taliban spokesman defends the education-ban in the statement, saying: “Tehrik-i-Taliban’s crime wasn’t that they banned education for girls. Instead, our crime was that we tried to bring education system for both boys and girls under Shariah. We are against co-education and secular education system, and Shariah orders us to be against it.”
The statement further defends the assassination attempt, blaming the media for spreading “propaganda against Taliban mujahideen with their poisonous tongues.”
“If anyone thinks that Malala was targeted because of education, that is absolutely wrong, and propaganda of media. Malala was targeted because of her pioneer role in preaching secularism and so called enlightened moderation. And whomsoever will commit so in future too will be targeted again by TTP,” it adds.
Zahir Shah Sherazi contributed to reporting for this article.

Those wishing to punish others for insulting the blessed Messenger often quote the following from the Qur'an in support of their actions.

5:33 It is but a just recompense for those who make war on God and His apostle, and endeavour to spread corruption on earth, that they are being slain in great' numbers, or crucified in great numbers, or have, in l' result of their perverseness, their hands and feet cut off in great numbers, or are being [entirely] banished from [the face of] the earth: such is their ignominy in this world. But in the life to come [yet more] awesome suffering awaits them-

This contrasts with numerous verses advising the Messenger to deal with those insulting him with dignified patience.

How best should 5:33 be interpreted and for what situations it came into effect or comes into effect?

Thanks in advance

An ancient scrap of papyrus makes explicit reference to Jesus having a wife, according to a renowned expert in Christian history.

Harvard divinity professor Karen King unveiled the 4th-Century Coptic script at a conference in Rome.

She said researchers had identified the words "Jesus said to them, 'my wife'", which might refer to Mary Magdalene.

Christian tradition holds that Jesus did not marry - but Ms King said in early years it was subject to debate.

The provocative find could spark debate over celibacy and the role of women within Christianity, she added.

But the announcement sparked scepticism from some theologians.

Jim West, a professor and Baptist pastor in Tennessee, said: "A statement on a papyrus fragment isn't proof of anything. It's nothing more than a statement 'in thin air', without substantial context."

Ms King said the fragment, written in ancient Egyptian Coptic, is the first known scripture in which Jesus is reported to cite his wife.

She said several experts agree the yellowish brown papyrus is authentic, but that "final judgment on the fragment depends on further examination by colleagues and further testing, especially of the chemical composition of the ink".

'Worthy disciple'

A video filmed by Harvard University reveals experts were "sceptical" before examining the ancient scrap of papyrus
Although the script is not proof of Jesus's marital status, Ms King said it revealed concerns early Christians faced with regards to family and marriage matters.

"This fragment suggests that some early Christians had a tradition that Jesus was married," she said.

"From the very beginning, Christians disagreed about whether it was better not to marry, but it was over a century after Jesus's death before they began appealing to Jesus's marital status to support their positions.

"What this shows is that there were early Christians for whom sexual union in marriage could be an imitation of God's creativity and generativity and it could be spiritually proper and appropriate."

According to Ms King's research team, the text also quotes Jesus as telling his followers that Mary Magdalene is worthy of being his disciple.

This, in turn, casts new doubt on the long-held belief that Jesus had no female disciples, and raises issues about Mary's biblical role as a sinner, they said.

Ms King presented the document at a six-day conference held at Rome's La Sapienza University and at the Augustinianum institute of the Pontifical Lateran University.

The faded papyrus is hardly bigger than a business card and has eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass.

The private collector, who owns the fragment, has asked to remain anonymous because "he doesn't want to be hounded by people who want to buy this", Ms King said.

Full Story at:

General Discussions / Our Way or Allah's Way?
« on: September 17, 2012, 04:11:43 PM »
What does the Qur’an say about dealing with those who insult the blessed Rasool? Patience with dignity. Nowhere Allah says go and destroy properties and lives of those who insult the Messenger.

Muslims are told to hold fast to their pledges and treaties they sign. They are obligated to provide security to various Embassies. After 911, how many Embassies of Muslim countries were attacked in Europe or US?

This video was produced by a perverted individual who has the remote control in his hand. All he has to do is to press a button and the Muslims start jumping up and down. Don’t give your power away!! Use this opportunity to educate others about real Islam. Islam does not allow anybody to punish Paul for the crime of Peter.

This world is a world of test for the Muslims to see if under pressure do they respond their way or Allah’s Way?

41:34 Good and evil are not alike. Repel evil with what is good. Then you will find your erstwhile enemy like a close. affectionate friend
41:35 but only those who are steadfast in patience, only those who are blessed with great righteousness, will attain to such goodness
41:36 Hence, if it should happen that a prompting from Satan stirs thee up [to blind anger], seek refuge with God: behold, He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing!

and last but not the least:

25:63 The (true) servants of the All-Merciful are they who move on the earth gently and humbly, and when the ignorant, foolish ones address them (with insolence or vulgarity as befits their ignorance and foolishness), they response with (words of) peace, (without engaging in hostility with them);

General Discussions / Lifeless body on a throne??
« on: September 03, 2012, 11:50:53 AM »
Salam Friends

Verse 38:34 has been translated in a variety of ways by diferent people:

[Asad] But [ere this], indeed, We had tried Solomon by placing upon his throne a [lifeless] body; and thereupon he turned [towards Us; and]

[Picktall] And verily We tried Solomon, and set upon his throne a (mere) body. Then did he repent.

[Wahiduddin Khan] We tried Solomon by placing upon his throne a [lifeless] body; and thereupon he turned towards Us].

[Al-Muntakhab] We decided to try Sulayman like We tried the other Messengers and test his true inclination worldly and spiritually, We seated a phantom on his throne. No sooner did it come to his mind that he was tried than he in lowliest plight repentant stood.

[Muhammad Sarwar] We tested Solomon by (causing death to his son) and leaving his body on Solomon's chair. Then he turned to Us in repentance

[Dr. Munir Munshey] We certainly put Sulaiman through a test. We raised (his heir) to the throne to be just a figure _ just a body (inept and incompetent). Then He repented and turned back (from his desire to bequeath the throne to one of his own descendants).

[Yusuf Ali] And We did try Solomon: We placed on his throne a body (without life); but he did turn (to Us in true devotion):

(Many, many  more translations can be read at )

Can anybody explain what really happened? Thanks.

General Discussions / An apparent conflict here?
« on: August 25, 2012, 06:13:11 PM »

Salam All: A questioner wants to know about an apparent confilct here:
Surat 'Āli `Imrān (Family of Imran) - سورة آل عمران
[Sahih International]

And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.
Surat Al-Baqarah (The Cow) - سورة البقرة

Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans [before Prophet Muhammad] - those [among them] who
believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.
Thanks. If this subject has already been dealt with, would appreciate a link to it.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5