Thursday, April 18, 2019

Shahrukh Khan’s Comment on Mohammad and Al Taqiyyah

Shahrukh Khan is in trouble. Because the Muslims believe that he said something insulting about the Prophet. He was asked by a magazine “According to you who is the most impressive figure in history?” He replied “There are lots of them, some negative ones like Hitler, Napoleon, Winston Churchill and if I can call it history, then Prophet Mohammed and from recent time Nelson Mandela.” “And there are nice ones like Gandhiji and Mother Teresa.”

Now, Muslims say that he clubbed Mohammad along with Hitler, Napolean and Churchill. Shahrukh Khan replied back to Mid-day on this:[1]

“Obviously, I think there is no figure in history more important than Prophet Mohammed. Also, being a Muslim and standing up for the tenets of Islam is my most important agenda… and if they have seen my interviews, etc on TV about Islam, then the people who are objecting, should realise that what has appeared is a writing error not a thought or view that I believe in. Prophet Mohammed is the most important positive figure in Islam… and anyone who questions my view on that, is doing it just to create a controversy.”

Shahrukh had sometime back started asserting his Muslim identity since past few years and after 26/11, he made a grand statement about Islam and expressed his anger against the attacks.[2]
Rajdeep: You mentioned in the starting that you are liberal, you are Muslim. What has been interesting, your Indian identity or your Muslim identity? You are a proud Indian Muslim, now when you hear terrorists who speak on the name of the religion, speak on the name of Islam, claim that through some form of terrorism they’ll actually reach jannat(heaven). What do you have to say those?

Shah Rukh: Let me clarify, I have read the holy Quran. It states that if you heal one man, you heal the whole mankind, and if you hurt one man, you hurt the whole mankind. Nowhere in the Quran does it say that jihad will lead you to jannat (paradise). As a matter of fact, the book says that in a war, you can not kill any woman, you can not kill any child and you can not kill any animal, or destroy any crops. Jihad was supposed to be propagated by the Prophet himself but unfortunately now two versions of Islam exist. There is an Islam from Allah and – I am not being anti – very unfortunately, there is an Islam from the Mullahs. I appeal to all of them to please give the youngsters, the right reading of the Quran.

Now, the major thrust of his argument is the statement of the healing and killing a person extrapolates to the entire mankind. But is that really true?

Here are a few verses to look at specifically, and you can find a more detailed list of verses by Suras that exhort the “believers” to not only subjugate the unbelievers but actually kill them mercilessly for the blessings of Allah and as the righteous way of living.[5]

002.191
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
PICKTHAL: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
SHAKIR: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

002.192
YUSUFALI: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

SHAKIR: But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

002.193
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

================

Update:
To completely understand the meaning of the word “oppressor”, one has to look at the last sentence of Verse 191 above.. which gives out the most significant characteristic of an oppressor – “disbeliever”. Which essentially means one who does not believe in the Islamic way of things. There is another verse, which actually became the bed rock of Jizya – the tax on non-believers. If there was any confusion about whom the earlier verses exhort a believer to fight, then this verse adequately and unequivocally clears the confusion up. Fight against those who (i) do not believe in Allah, (ii) Do not believe in last Day, and (iii) do not forbid what Mohammad forbid. Not going along these three things is enough to make you a fair target for killing.

It would be interesting to study a scenario where Buddha was living in the village next to Mohammad’s and just as He did in his lifetime, completely negated the existence of a God… and gave his “middle path” instead… and just as He did in his lifetime, sent his followers to evangelize his teachings to Mohammad’s village. Would that have been “Oppression”? Would that have been “crime” enough for Mohammad to order his followers to kill.. actually slay Buddha? The verses of Quran, at least point to that possibility… if they are analyzed in any detail, sans the spin that many “moderates” apply … bound as they are to their duty of Al Taqqiya!

Now, read the verse that the features of the person whom the believers are exhorted to fight….

9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

================

Of course, many will say this is “hate-mongering”, but all I am doing is CITING the Quran. Mind you, I am not giving an opinion as yet. Just citing the scripture for people to think on their own. A scripture that Shahrukh Khan claims works for peace of mankind. He

RelatedPosts

He has made an assertion which is a “Sky is Blue” kind of grand statement. I would like to understand the veracity of the statement in light of these verses. That’s all.

Al Taqiyya: The Holy Deception

The Taqiyah doctrine is based on the following verse from Qur’an 3:28:

“Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather then believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them”.

Sunni commentator Ibn Kathir explained that “believers that fear for their safety from the unbelievers… are allowed to show friendship to the unbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly”.

What does this mean?[3] It basically means that when there is a “danger” to Islam, the believers can show goodness and friendship for unbelievers – at least outwardly. It also translates into the obfuscation that goes on by the moderates when they keep on making the grand “Sky is Blue” kind of statements that Shahrukh made.

The real thing is to of course ask these “moderates” to explain themselves in light of the scriptural edicts, which betray a totally different message. As this article argues,[4] is a “moderate” Muslim one who is a nice human being? How does one define a “moderate” Muslim? For the very definition of a Muslim is that one who lives by the way Mohammad lived and acts like he did… basically replicate him. But given the verses in Quran and injunctions in Hadiths, the people whom we call terrorists seem to be living those teachings the most closely! Who else is treating Unbelievers the way Mohammad did or asked his followers to treat.

The moderates, meanwhile, are also playing along the scriptural advise.. and doing their bit by practising Taqiyya… the great game of Holy Deception.

Reference Links:

1. SRK Receives No-Bail Prize
2. ‘No political party’s agenda can be communal’
3. Taqiyya
4. Refuting Counter-Terrorism Dhimmitude
5. Translation of Quranic Verses

Get Drishtikone Updates
in your inbox

Subscribe to Drishtikone updates and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Drishtikone

Drishtikone

The panache of a writer is proven by the creative pen he uses to transform the most mundane topic into a thrilling story. Desh - the author, critic and analyst uses the power of his pen to create thought-provoking pieces from ordinary topics of discussion. He writes on myriad interesting themes. Read the articles to know more about his views and "drishtikone".

Related Posts

Next Post

Comments 117

  1. Tom Halstead says:

    Looking at an overland trip starting in Durban, SA http://www.hughes.info travelling via Mosimbique and into Tanzania. would like to stay costal throughout Mosimbique as diving will be on the ‘itinery’.

  2. Nicola Mandlik says:

    So I think I may be building a desktop computer in mid-January, depending how our finances look. It’s going to be mid-high range for gaming, with a budget of about $800 (I have a case and an LCD already). It needs to run Vista and Linux, and be compatible with both (I’m thinking Arch). I’ve

  3. Dan-Mihai says:

    hi everyone,i am a chinese girl teaching english in China now. my bf is from the US, since he is about to go back to the us to attend the grad.school.he wants me to find a job there. I am thinking what i can do in the US, my major is english in the collage,it is like no major at all in an english speaking country. and my bf told me his chinese teachers in the collage are all major

  4. Edward says:

    A couple months back I got a Samsung NC10 Netbook. I had been on the fence for a long time, trying to decide among the an Eee PC from Asus, the MSI Wind, and the Samsung NC10. Right about the time I was going to finally do it, the ASUS Eee PC 1000HE was announced. I read a lot of reviews from folks who’d bought those netbooks and eventually settled on the NC10. The main deciding factors, in order, were:…

  5. John Drew says:

    That’s how I would have done it at least:)

  6. Hannah says:

    A condemned prisoner gives up his last meal in exchange for a moment with the only female warder of the prison. And what a warder! This slutty, teasing, luscious, well-endowed woman loves to look down her nose at men! Only that this time she is going to be subjected herself to the humiliation she subjects

  7. Bianca says:

    Thankyou
    This blonde casting couch cutie takes a huge load right into http://www.lemmon.net her eye and loves it.

  8. Chanda says:

    Thanks Guys!
    I am back to SOCIAL FASTING, after having too many boring conversations with travellers that are fishing for that “You are so intelligent” compliment from other travellers.

  9. Ilana Webborn says:

    […] I’m not sure they are new because I have had a look around and blogs are mentioning them from 2005 but they are new to me and super

  10. Hye says:

    Just a quick question!
    http://www.orpin-massey.info

  11. Richard Mavahalli says:

    Am seeking a travel companion to travel with to uganda to visit the endagered Mountain gorillas. Am a German lady fluent in both English and German Non smoker and moderate drinker. I Love adventure, traveling, and wildlife. I would like to meet both Male and Female all over the world. All applications are welcome

  12. Anonymous says:

    Religious books – be it Quran, Gita or Bible – are the most misinterpreted and misquoted books on the planet. You are not saying anything new – hundreds of people have quoted the verses that you have and hundreds others have pointed out why this is wrong… but that’s not going to stop you, is it?

    Anyway… it is true that the verses of Quran you have quoted here (and various others) have been WRONGLY used to justify violence and/or killings by some fundamentalists / terrorists. But to say that this interpretation of these verses – devoid of their context – is true Islam and that the “moderate” Muslims are not really following Allah; that the terrorists are following the true path of Mohammed is really laughable. Thankfully, except for a few idiots like yourself, people don’t think this way.

    Here are links to articles and videos about misinterpretations of Quran, of Gita and of Bible that make a mockery of your poor attempt at idiotic hatred mongering. Enjoy…

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    1. 15 most common mis-interpretations of Quran

    Read the entire text here:
    http://islamzpeace.com/2008/12

    And here’s an excerpt from the concluding paragraph:

    “What many people falsely present as Islam has actually been proven to be diametrically opposed to the values and laws of Islam. The narrations and verses explained in this article are frequently misquoted by those who seek to malign Islam and spread hatred towards its followers. In doing so, they follow in the footsteps of historical tyrants who performed ethnic cleansing by painting a certain group as evil.

    Such was the method of the Nazis who slaughter millions of Jews by labelling them as Christ-killers. History repeats itself, and it is unfortunate that people have not learnt from previous atrocities.

    Today, Muslims are experiencing the same hatred, as people become more tolerant of attacks on Islam. The only cure to this problem is education. Everyone must strive to spread the truth about a misunderstood religion. Islam is not the enemy. Hatred, Intolerance and Ignorance are the enemies of humanity.”

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    2. Does Gita encourage violence?

    Funny enough, idiots similar to you have claimed (using a methodology similar to yours) that Gita encourages violence, promotes the killing your own relatives, and justifies murder since you’re not really killing the soul, it’s only the body and bla bla bla

    But as this article points out, this is sheer nonsense. Read here:
    http://deepak.esmartguy.com/ss

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    3. Misquoting Jesus: Scribes Who Altered Scripture and Readers Who May Never Know

    This youtube video presents a textual criticism of Biblical manuscript tampering by Bart Ehrman, Professor or Religious Studies of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The lecture illustrates for the bible what is also true for all other religious texts – that the real texts are untraceable and perhaps unknowable. The copies we have today are full of errors – both intentional and unintentional.



    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  13. Anonymous says:

    Religious books – be it Quran, Gita or Bible – are the most misinterpreted and misquoted books on the planet. You are not saying anything new – hundreds of people have quoted the verses that you have and hundreds others have pointed out why this is wrong… but that’s not going to stop you, is it?

    Anyway… it is true that the verses of Quran you have quoted here (and various others) have been WRONGLY used to justify violence and/or killings by some fundamentalists / terrorists. But to say that this interpretation of these verses – devoid of their context – is true Islam and that the “moderate” Muslims are not really following Allah; that the terrorists are following the true path of Mohammed is really laughable. Thankfully, except for a few idiots like yourself, people don’t think this way.

    Here are links to articles and videos about misinterpretations of Quran, of Gita and of Bible that make a mockery of your poor attempt at idiotic hatred mongering. Enjoy…

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    1. 15 most common mis-interpretations of Quran

    Read the entire text here:
    http://islamzpeace.com/2008/12/03/when-people-misquote-the-quran/

    And here’s an excerpt from the concluding paragraph:

    “What many people falsely present as Islam has actually been proven to be diametrically opposed to the values and laws of Islam. The narrations and verses explained in this article are frequently misquoted by those who seek to malign Islam and spread hatred towards its followers. In doing so, they follow in the footsteps of historical tyrants who performed ethnic cleansing by painting a certain group as evil.

    Such was the method of the Nazis who slaughter millions of Jews by labelling them as Christ-killers. History repeats itself, and it is unfortunate that people have not learnt from previous atrocities.

    Today, Muslims are experiencing the same hatred, as people become more tolerant of attacks on Islam. The only cure to this problem is education. Everyone must strive to spread the truth about a misunderstood religion. Islam is not the enemy. Hatred, Intolerance and Ignorance are the enemies of humanity.”

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    2. Does Gita encourage violence?

    Funny enough, idiots similar to you have claimed (using a methodology similar to yours) that Gita encourages violence, promotes the killing your own relatives, and justifies murder since you’re not really killing the soul, it’s only the body and bla bla bla

    But as this article points out, this is sheer nonsense. Read here:
    http://deepak.esmartguy.com/ss/why_gita_encourage_violence.htm

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    3. Misquoting Jesus: Scribes Who Altered Scripture and Readers Who May Never Know

    This youtube video presents a textual criticism of Biblical manuscript tampering by Bart Ehrman, Professor or Religious Studies of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The lecture illustrates for the bible what is also true for all other religious texts – that the real texts are untraceable and perhaps unknowable. The copies we have today are full of errors – both intentional and unintentional.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  14. Desh says:

    First of all, I have not quoted unconfirmed and unrespected sources of translation. Even the article that you have the author considers these three resources to be the most authoritative.

    Second, the author gives the EXACT same translations of these verses as I GAVE. So, I don’t understand what your beef is?

    Now, the author gives his “kosherized” version on pretext of giving context. This is what he says:

    How many times do we see the above verse repeating the message to make it clear? These verse were revealed at a time when Muslims of Madinah were under constant attack from the Makkans. An example would be when the Makkans conducted the public crucifixion of the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Khubaib bin Adi. These would be classified as ‘terrorist activities’ according to the modern usage of the term. So what does this verse say in this context? “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you”, “unless they (first) fight you there” – the context of this verse applies to those who initiate the attack against Muslims. And even after they attack, the verse makes it clear: “But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” And it also makes clear the purpose for what Muslims fight: “fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God”. It is the duty of Muslims to defend humanity from oppression and persecution and to establish justice. Muslims believe that God has placed us here on earth as his deputy or viceroy, and thus, it is our duty to enjoin the good and forbid the evil, to establish peace and justice in the land. Dr. Maher Hathout writes the following on verses 2:190-194:

    These verses were applicable to a particular situation or if, hypothetically, the same situation was to be repeated… Historically, fighting back against the aggressors was prohibited during the thirteen years of the Meccan period. After the migration to Medina and the establishment of the Islamic state, Muslims were concerned with how to defend themselves against aggression from their enemies. The aforementioned verses were revealed to enable them to protect the newly formed state by fighting in self-defence against those who fought them. However, the Quran clearly prohibits aggression. The verses explain that fighting is only for self-defence. Thus, a Muslim cannot commit aggression and kill innocent men, women, children, the sick, the elderly, monks, priests, or those who do not wish to fight. A Muslim is also mandated not to destroy plant life of livestock. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.49, emphasis added)

    The main thrust of this arguments are two fold:

    1. If someone hurts or fights you, fight them
    2. Fight until “there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God”.

    So, if a Muslim feels his faith is under “threat” then its fine to go ahead and fight that “oppressor”. But more importantly, the verse asks Muslims to fight under “there prevail justice and faith in Allah”. Which means until all convert to Islam, specially those who are in fight with you, keep fighting.

    Now, the context he has given is Meccan and Medinan tribes… and how the Meccans fought Mohd… and how this was for them a bad thing. Of course, this explanation is given from the context of Mohammad. What about the context of the Meccans? Mohammad’s main thrust of the revelation was anti-Meccan. He promoted breaking of the idols.. while they were pagans. What if they were ALSO following the dictates of the same verse? And that is why they killed his accomplice?

    Starting a war in “God’s name” is the most hypocritical thing. But that is what these verses promote.

    Now about Gita and Violence. I doubt you have read what I have written because you just aren’t right. My arguments are pretty similar to the ones in the link you put in your comment anyways.

    In Mahabharat, Krishna’s role is very unique. He gave his Army (supposed to be the greatest) to the offending and aggressor party… while He himself joined the ranks of those who were being subjugated.. WITH the vow that He himself will NOT pick a weapon and fight. So, if you look at it substantively, his action favored the aggressor. So, his call to Arjun should be viewed from the context of this very important fact. Throughout Gita and most of Vedic/Vedantic traditions, religion was NOT a factor. It was not that if you did not believe in God, or even my Version of God.. then you should be fought with. It was all about what is Dharmic and what is not. Dharma is more like way of life. So, if you usurped what was not yours.. that’s A-dharmic. So, you need to be punished and pay for that. Law of Karma in effect does the same. However, Krishna tried to avoid war despite the transgressions of Kauravas until the end. In his last attempt, when he was told by Duryodhan that not “one inch” will be given to Pandavas, what was justly theirs anyways…. and no quarters for any compromise was left, that’s when the war started.

    Now, greatness of Krishna’s message was that he called War and Violence an “Action”… which was no different from the any other Action. Action, he said was colorless and did not have any property of its own. Which I think is a revolutionary way of looking at things.

    In India, very importantly, religious disagreements were never a reason for oppression. That is why so many religions came up WITHOUT any harm to the new Upstart and persecutions. Buddha, for example, made claims and gave arguments that were pretty strong in those times – specifically in the state that Hinduism was at that time. Yet, He was assimilated. Same for Guru Nanak. Same for Mahavir and other Jain Tirthankars. Same for Dayananda Saraswati.

    If you don’t understand what I write, that’s fine.. but at least desist from making a fool of yourself by making outlandish claims here.

  15. Desh says:

    First of all, I have not quoted unconfirmed and unrespected sources of translation. Even the article that you have the author considers these three resources to be the most authoritative.

    Second, the author gives the EXACT same translations of these verses as I GAVE. So, I don’t understand what your beef is?

    Now, the author gives his “kosherized” version on pretext of giving context. This is what he says:

    How many times do we see the above verse repeating the message to make it clear? These verse were revealed at a time when Muslims of Madinah were under constant attack from the Makkans. An example would be when the Makkans conducted the public crucifixion of the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Khubaib bin Adi. These would be classified as ‘terrorist activities’ according to the modern usage of the term. So what does this verse say in this context? “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you”, “unless they (first) fight you there” – the context of this verse applies to those who initiate the attack against Muslims. And even after they attack, the verse makes it clear: “But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” And it also makes clear the purpose for what Muslims fight: “fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God”. It is the duty of Muslims to defend humanity from oppression and persecution and to establish justice. Muslims believe that God has placed us here on earth as his deputy or viceroy, and thus, it is our duty to enjoin the good and forbid the evil, to establish peace and justice in the land. Dr. Maher Hathout writes the following on verses 2:190-194:

    These verses were applicable to a particular situation or if, hypothetically, the same situation was to be repeated… Historically, fighting back against the aggressors was prohibited during the thirteen years of the Meccan period. After the migration to Medina and the establishment of the Islamic state, Muslims were concerned with how to defend themselves against aggression from their enemies. The aforementioned verses were revealed to enable them to protect the newly formed state by fighting in self-defence against those who fought them. However, the Quran clearly prohibits aggression. The verses explain that fighting is only for self-defence. Thus, a Muslim cannot commit aggression and kill innocent men, women, children, the sick, the elderly, monks, priests, or those who do not wish to fight. A Muslim is also mandated not to destroy plant life of livestock. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.49, emphasis added)

    The main thrust of this arguments are two fold:

    1. If someone hurts or fights you, fight them
    2. Fight until “there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God”.

    So, if a Muslim feels his faith is under “threat” then its fine to go ahead and fight that “oppressor”. But more importantly, the verse asks Muslims to fight under “there prevail justice and faith in Allah”. Which means until all convert to Islam, specially those who are in fight with you, keep fighting.

    Now, the context he has given is Meccan and Medinan tribes… and how the Meccans fought Mohd… and how this was for them a bad thing. Of course, this explanation is given from the context of Mohammad. What about the context of the Meccans? Mohammad’s main thrust of the revelation was anti-Meccan. He promoted breaking of the idols.. while they were pagans. What if they were ALSO following the dictates of the same verse? And that is why they killed his accomplice?

    Starting a war in “God’s name” is the most hypocritical thing. But that is what these verses promote.

    Now about Gita and Violence. I doubt you have read what I have written because you just aren’t right. My arguments are pretty similar to the ones in the link you put in your comment anyways.

    In Mahabharat, Krishna’s role is very unique. He gave his Army (supposed to be the greatest) to the offending and aggressor party… while He himself joined the ranks of those who were being subjugated.. WITH the vow that He himself will NOT pick a weapon and fight. So, if you look at it substantively, his action favored the aggressor. So, his call to Arjun should be viewed from the context of this very important fact. Throughout Gita and most of Vedic/Vedantic traditions, religion was NOT a factor. It was not that if you did not believe in God, or even my Version of God.. then you should be fought with. It was all about what is Dharmic and what is not. Dharma is more like way of life. So, if you usurped what was not yours.. that’s A-dharmic. So, you need to be punished and pay for that. Law of Karma in effect does the same. However, Krishna tried to avoid war despite the transgressions of Kauravas until the end. In his last attempt, when he was told by Duryodhan that not “one inch” will be given to Pandavas, what was justly theirs anyways…. and no quarters for any compromise was left, that’s when the war started.

    Now, greatness of Krishna’s message was that he called War and Violence an “Action”… which was no different from the any other Action. Action, he said was colorless and did not have any property of its own. Which I think is a revolutionary way of looking at things.

    In India, very importantly, religious disagreements were never a reason for oppression. That is why so many religions came up WITHOUT any harm to the new Upstart and persecutions. Buddha, for example, made claims and gave arguments that were pretty strong in those times – specifically in the state that Hinduism was at that time. Yet, He was assimilated. Same for Guru Nanak. Same for Mahavir and other Jain Tirthankars. Same for Dayananda Saraswati.

    If you don’t understand what I write, that’s fine.. but at least desist from making a fool of yourself by making outlandish claims here.

  16. Anonymous says:

    “Starting a war in “God’s name” is the most hypocritical thing. But that is what these verses promote.”

    I am not making any outlandish claims. I am only saying that you are quoting verses out of their context and you have proved me right again. Nowhere does the Quran talks about STARTING a war in the name of God. There’s a big difference between “starting” a war and fighting back. When you interpret “fighting back against oppression” as “starting a jehad against all non-believers”, you are using the same logic that fundamentalist terrorists use to recruit youngsters across the world. This logic, irrespective of which side it is used on, is flawed; promotes hatred; and is outrageously stupid.

    About Gita, I did not say I agree with those who think Gita promotes violence. I said some people, who excel in mis-quoting religious texts, have made that stupid assertion. So again, I don’t see where I am making any outlandish claims!!

    If you do not have anything sensible to say in response to my comments, you can chose not to respond but stop making a complete idiot of yourself on your own site!

  17. Desh says:

    Nice try again.. but I will not let you get away even this time. You have tried the Spray&Run strategy earlier also.. and everytime you have moved on to the next stuff when rebuffed. So let me do the honors this time as well!

    “Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.”
    is how the first verse ends.. and that gives a “sneak-peak” into what Oppression ostensibly means in context of the verse. We will look at another verse to get a better understanding….

    That one should fight only when one is oppressed looks very benign on the surface.. and very moralistic. But the real crux is what does Oppression really mean? For many applying Jizya – and spitting in the mouth of the one who pays Jizya WHILE paying is UPHOLDING of the faith – as per Quranic verses. I am not sure about you.. but for many THAT is Oppression. But for a Muslim living BY the Quran that is Upholding of the faith.

    So, lets go to another verse.. to get the context of what Oppression may mean in the last verse.

    9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

    Now read this verse in context of the earlier verses cited in the post above.

    Oppression could also mean that someone whom you live alongside DO NOT believe in your faith.. or the way YOU believe in your faith. For like this verse clears the doubt – EVEN if you are a person of the Book (which includes Jews and Christians).. but do not believe in:

    – Last Day
    – or in Allah
    – or forbid what Mohammad had forbid

    Then.. FIGHT them. That is Oppression ENOUGH. Now, reading a verse at a VERY high level and making generic noises about its piety is great.. but that does not work in an intellectual discussion.

    Now, if we look at the history you will find that its been the Muslims who has MISUSED the Quranic verses.. specially the so call authorities… and not the non-Muslims.

    Imagine a world, where EVERR Religion had the SAME injunctions but DIFFERENT Gods (as we have anyways). What if EVERY religion’s fountainhead.. had copied and pasted Quranic verses in their language and APPLIED them ON muslims?? Can you even imagine the barbarism that would have been perpetrated?

    ====
    Gita and violence:
    In your first comment you said this:

    idiots similar to you have claimed (using a methodology similar to yours) that Gita encourages violence, promotes the killing your own relatives, and justifies murder since you’re not really killing the soul, it’s only the body and bla bla bla

    and then you go on:

    I did not say I agree with those who think Gita promotes violence. I said some people, who excel in mis-quoting religious texts, have made that stupid assertion.

    In the first comment, you are asserting that I (along with others) “claim” Gita encourages violence…. and in the second comment.. you suddenly shift gears and go to “some people”.

    Quite obviously you have NEVER read my comments or thoughts on Gita.. so how can you make any claims. Besides, I doubt you understand Gita’s stand on Violence or non-violence anyways.

    people have a habit of shooting off without ever having read or analysed the text.

    Anyways.. better luck next time.. read something and be a bit consistent in your stuff.

  18. Anonymous says:

    I think the comment made by u is simply the few points which the critics of islam play with.according to me u should be more consious before proclaiming anything.in ur pointers to the islamic cruelty(according to u) u first wrote a whole of pages saying to muslims and non muslims to beaware of islam and indirectly u supported western act compared to islam(in the commentry of v:9 of surah women) i ask u one question related to this is-WAS USA’S ATTACK ON AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ IN THE RECENT TIME WAS ACT OF HUMANITY IN WHICH LAKHS OF LIFE OF CHILDRENS,WOMEN,OLD AND CATTLES ENDED JUST ON THE HYPOTHESIS OF OSAMA’S PRESENCE AND A BOMB PRESENCE? the answer to any common person whether it be muslim and non muslim will be NO,my non-muslim friends to say it as ONE OF THE BIGGEST ACT OF CRUELTY.according to me people like have least bit of knowledge and say a thing in the air without having a firm proof in their support.As for the people misblief of the 9/11 attack made by a muslim which highlighted the image of islam as a religion of terrorism I would personally recommend u to search the truth on ur net if u like truth,there are a number of documentry films made on this topic one among them is THE LOOSE CHANGE made by a american and he showed that it was an attack planned by whom?.Coming to ur verses of hell for the unbelievers,I would narrate to u a simple thing that if a student knows everything and he doesn’t writes in the answer sheet will he score anything? No,because he did not executed what he knew therefore he would be punished and will fail.We have to executed what we know.In almost all the religion the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad SAW is made,like in Rig Veda Book 2 Hymn 3 Mantra 2,Rig Veda Book 5 Hymn 5 Mantra 2,Rig Veda Book 7 Hymn 2 Mantra 2 etc likewise in the Bible of John Chapter 12 Verse 14-16 so if a hindu or a christian does not believe in Muhammad SAW then they are not following their scriptures keeping Quran aside.The stuff written by u simply shows ur hatred towards islam and people like u who want peace should not be of this type.U must not read the Quran superficially and start commenting out of context.

  19. Anonymous says:

    “Starting a war in “God’s name” is the most hypocritical thing. But that is what these verses promote.”

    I am not making any outlandish claims. I am only saying that you are quoting verses out of their context and you have proved me right again. Nowhere does the Quran talks about STARTING a war in the name of God. There’s a big difference between “starting” a war and fighting back. When you interpret “fighting back against oppression” as “starting a jehad against all non-believers”, you are using the same logic that fundamentalist terrorists use to recruit youngsters across the world. This logic, irrespective of which side it is used on, is flawed; promotes hatred; and is outrageously stupid.

    About Gita, I did not say I agree with those who think Gita promotes violence. I said some people, who excel in mis-quoting religious texts, have made that stupid assertion. So again, I don’t see where I am making any outlandish claims!!

    If you do not have anything sensible to say in response to my comments, you can chose not to respond but stop making a complete idiot of yourself on your own site!

  20. Desh says:

    Nice try again.. but I will not let you get away even this time. You have tried the Spray&Run strategy earlier also.. and everytime you have moved on to the next stuff when rebuffed. So let me do the honors this time as well!

    “Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.”
    is how the first verse ends.. and that gives a “sneak-peak” into what Oppression ostensibly means in context of the verse. We will look at another verse to get a better understanding….

    That one should fight only when one is oppressed looks very benign on the surface.. and very moralistic. But the real crux is what does Oppression really mean? For many applying Jizya – and spitting in the mouth of the one who pays Jizya WHILE paying is UPHOLDING of the faith – as per Quranic verses. I am not sure about you.. but for many THAT is Oppression. But for a Muslim living BY the Quran that is Upholding of the faith.

    So, lets go to another verse.. to get the context of what Oppression may mean in the last verse.

    9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

    Now read this verse in context of the earlier verses cited in the post above.

    Oppression could also mean that someone whom you live alongside DO NOT believe in your faith.. or the way YOU believe in your faith. For like this verse clears the doubt – EVEN if you are a person of the Book (which includes Jews and Christians).. but do not believe in:

    – Last Day
    – or in Allah
    – or forbid what Mohammad had forbid

    Then.. FIGHT them. That is Oppression ENOUGH. Now, reading a verse at a VERY high level and making generic noises about its piety is great.. but that does not work in an intellectual discussion.

    Now, if we look at the history you will find that its been the Muslims who has MISUSED the Quranic verses.. specially the so call authorities… and not the non-Muslims.

    Imagine a world, where EVERR Religion had the SAME injunctions but DIFFERENT Gods (as we have anyways). What if EVERY religion’s fountainhead.. had copied and pasted Quranic verses in their language and APPLIED them ON muslims?? Can you even imagine the barbarism that would have been perpetrated?

    ====
    Gita and violence:
    In your first comment you said this:

    idiots similar to you have claimed (using a methodology similar to yours) that Gita encourages violence, promotes the killing your own relatives, and justifies murder since you’re not really killing the soul, it’s only the body and bla bla bla

    and then you go on:

    I did not say I agree with those who think Gita promotes violence. I said some people, who excel in mis-quoting religious texts, have made that stupid assertion.

    In the first comment, you are asserting that I (along with others) “claim” Gita encourages violence…. and in the second comment.. you suddenly shift gears and go to “some people”.

    Quite obviously you have NEVER read my comments or thoughts on Gita.. so how can you make any claims. Besides, I doubt you understand Gita’s stand on Violence or non-violence anyways.

    people have a habit of shooting off without ever having read or analysed the text.

    Anyways.. better luck next time.. read something and be a bit consistent in your stuff.

  21. Anonymous says:

    I think the comment made by u is simply the few points which the critics of islam play with.according to me u should be more consious before proclaiming anything.in ur pointers to the islamic cruelty(according to u) u first wrote a whole of pages saying to muslims and non muslims to beaware of islam and indirectly u supported western act compared to islam(in the commentry of v:9 of surah women) i ask u one question related to this is-WAS USA’S ATTACK ON AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ IN THE RECENT TIME WAS ACT OF HUMANITY IN WHICH LAKHS OF LIFE OF CHILDRENS,WOMEN,OLD AND CATTLES ENDED JUST ON THE HYPOTHESIS OF OSAMA’S PRESENCE AND A BOMB PRESENCE? the answer to any common person whether it be muslim and non muslim will be NO,my non-muslim friends to say it as ONE OF THE BIGGEST ACT OF CRUELTY.according to me people like have least bit of knowledge and say a thing in the air without having a firm proof in their support.As for the people misblief of the 9/11 attack made by a muslim which highlighted the image of islam as a religion of terrorism I would personally recommend u to search the truth on ur net if u like truth,there are a number of documentry films made on this topic one among them is THE LOOSE CHANGE made by a american and he showed that it was an attack planned by whom?.Coming to ur verses of hell for the unbelievers,I would narrate to u a simple thing that if a student knows everything and he doesn’t writes in the answer sheet will he score anything? No,because he did not executed what he knew therefore he would be punished and will fail.We have to executed what we know.In almost all the religion the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad SAW is made,like in Rig Veda Book 2 Hymn 3 Mantra 2,Rig Veda Book 5 Hymn 5 Mantra 2,Rig Veda Book 7 Hymn 2 Mantra 2 etc likewise in the Bible of John Chapter 12 Verse 14-16 so if a hindu or a christian does not believe in Muhammad SAW then they are not following their scriptures keeping Quran aside.The stuff written by u simply shows ur hatred towards islam and people like u who want peace should not be of this type.U must not read the Quran superficially and start commenting out of context.

  22. Anonymous says:

    1. Hahahahaha…. “intellectual discussion” LOL what you write here is not intellectual even in the remotest way so shut that crap.

    2. “In the first comment, you are asserting that I (along with others) “claim” Gita encourages violence…. and in the second comment.. you suddenly shift gears and go to “some people”.”

    Are you really out of your mind? I said, and you have quoted me, “idiots similar to you”… that does not include you. Two idiots can say two wrong things – it won’t be a miracle, you know? You and these idiots are similar since both of you mis-quote religious texts out of their context and make stupid assertions. Is my limited knowledge of English (as you claimed) proving too much for you? I know you are stupid… but THAT stupid…really…???? LOL

    3. “That one should fight only when one is oppressed looks very benign on the surface.. and very moralistic. But the real crux is what does Oppression really mean? For many applying Jizya – and spitting in the mouth of the one who pays Jizya WHILE paying is UPHOLDING of the faith – as per Quranic verses.”

    Exactly, so the Quran makes a “very benign” statement – go and fight oppression. Now if some idiots twist it to include the selling of coca cola as oppression, its not the fault of Quran or Allah. Likewise, if another idiot proclaims that murdering all non-believers is true Islam and the so-called “moderates” aren’t real Muslims, only the terrorists are – that is even more idiotic. So there, you have proven yourself to be even more stupid than those idiots who misuse Quran to recruit terrorists.

    4. “Oppression could also mean that someone whom you live alongside DO NOT believe in your faith.. or the way YOU believe in your faith. For like this verse clears the doubt – EVEN if you are a person of the Book (which includes Jews and Christians).. “

    Like I said, this “excessively liberal” definition of oppression is limited to idiots such as you and those terrorist organizations. You have no right to impose this definition on all Muslims.

    5. “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.”

    Please focus, if you can, on the first part of this sentence. Fight against “SUCH OF THOSE”. What does “such” mean; and who are “those”? Given that the context of this verse is oppression and the fight against oppression, does this not mean, “Fight against the oppressors (such) of those (irrespective of whether they belong to Islam, Christianity, Jewism or any other faith)”.

    If you had honestly interpreted this verse, without your OBVIOUS biases, you would have AT LEAST considered this to be a possibility. Now you can decide for yourself which of us is “reading a verse at a VERY high level and making generic noises”.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Oh and as far as the “Spray&Run” strategy is concerned, you are the one who deleted my replies what I quoted references. You are the one who showed how open you are to “intellectual discussions”. You are the one who is so scared that my replies uncover your sham that you have to moderate the comments. You are the one who keeps contradicting himself by first, claiming all Pakistan and Islam is evil and then backtracking to say that you meant only the terrorists and then re-backtracking to say, there’s nothing to backtrack…not me! LOL

  24. Anonymous says:

    1. Hahahahaha…. “intellectual discussion” LOL what you write here is not intellectual even in the remotest way so shut that crap.

    2. “In the first comment, you are asserting that I (along with others) “claim” Gita encourages violence…. and in the second comment.. you suddenly shift gears and go to “some people”.”

    Are you really out of your mind? I said, and you have quoted me, “idiots similar to you”… that does not include you. Two idiots can say two wrong things – it won’t be a miracle, you know? You and these idiots are similar since both of you mis-quote religious texts out of their context and make stupid assertions. Is my limited knowledge of English (as you claimed) proving too much for you? I know you are stupid… but THAT stupid…really…???? LOL

    3. “That one should fight only when one is oppressed looks very benign on the surface.. and very moralistic. But the real crux is what does Oppression really mean? For many applying Jizya – and spitting in the mouth of the one who pays Jizya WHILE paying is UPHOLDING of the faith – as per Quranic verses.”

    Exactly, so the Quran makes a “very benign” statement – go and fight oppression. Now if some idiots twist it to include the selling of coca cola as oppression, its not the fault of Quran or Allah. Likewise, if another idiot proclaims that murdering all non-believers is true Islam and the so-called “moderates” aren’t real Muslims, only the terrorists are – that is even more idiotic. So there, you have proven yourself to be even more stupid than those idiots who misuse Quran to recruit terrorists.

    4. “Oppression could also mean that someone whom you live alongside DO NOT believe in your faith.. or the way YOU believe in your faith. For like this verse clears the doubt – EVEN if you are a person of the Book (which includes Jews and Christians).. ”

    Like I said, this “excessively liberal” definition of oppression is limited to idiots such as you and those terrorist organizations. You have no right to impose this definition on all Muslims.

    5. “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.”

    Please focus, if you can, on the first part of this sentence. Fight against “SUCH OF THOSE”. What does “such” mean; and who are “those”? Given that the context of this verse is oppression and the fight against oppression, does this not mean, “Fight against the oppressors (such) of those (irrespective of whether they belong to Islam, Christianity, Jewism or any other faith)”.

    If you had honestly interpreted this verse, without your OBVIOUS biases, you would have AT LEAST considered this to be a possibility. Now you can decide for yourself which of us is “reading a verse at a VERY high level and making generic noises”.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Oh and as far as the “Spray&Run” strategy is concerned, you are the one who deleted my replies what I quoted references. You are the one who showed how open you are to “intellectual discussions”. You are the one who is so scared that my replies uncover your sham that you have to moderate the comments. You are the one who keeps contradicting himself by first, claiming all Pakistan and Islam is evil and then backtracking to say that you meant only the terrorists and then re-backtracking to say, there’s nothing to backtrack…not me! LOL

  26. Desh says:

    Please focus, if you can, on the first part of this sentence. Fight against “SUCH OF THOSE”. What does “such” mean; and who are “those”? Given that the context of this verse is oppression and the fight against oppression, does this not mean, “Fight against the oppressors (such) of those (irrespective of whether they belong to Islam, Christianity, Jewism or any other faith)”.

    If you had honestly interpreted this verse, without your OBVIOUS biases, you would have AT LEAST considered this to be a possibility. Now you can decide for yourself which of us is “reading a verse at a VERY high level and making generic noises”.

    So, are you trying to say that fight ONLY those oppressors that do not believe in day of judgment/believe in Allah etc? Or all the oppressors? In any case, this verse has NOTHING to do with Oppression. This verse is about Non-Believers.

    Now, it is indeed amazing that for the earlier verses that I cited, you want the entire book also related along with it to “give context”… but now suddenly, you want me now to ONLY concentrate on the FIRST part. Isn’t it a double game?

    Why don’t you read what you are saying.

    Like I said, this “excessively liberal” definition of oppression is limited to idiots such as you and those terrorist organizations. You have no right to impose this definition on all Muslims.

    No, sir, its NOT my interpretation.. but the interpretation of the Verse ITSELF. You selectively choose to read what you want.. and not the whole thing. The last line is VERY CLEAR…

    And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

    The last line in context of the verse is VERY UNEQUIVOCAL! So, if someone is talking of Oppressors, why bring up “disbelievers”?? If slaying is for the Oppressors… then why is that the same for disbelievers? Or is it that Disbeliever’s PRESENCE is Oppression enough?

    I have to spend time to explain this because despite the fact I had reproduced the last line in my last comment, you JUST COULDN’t GET it! You really make me work hard. 😉

    Are you really out of your mind? I said, and you have quoted me, “idiots similar to you”… that does not include you.

    If you didn’t understand what I say in plain English, that was fine.. but the tragedy is that you don’t even understand what you yourself write! lol…. that is a tough job for anyone to handle in a debate. I have said again and again to you.. why don’t you do me a favor and get a good English tutor for yourself. learn what the basic construct of the sentences mean??

  27. Desh says:

    You are the one who is so scared that my replies uncover your sham that you have to moderate the comments.

    Dil ko behlane ko Ghalib yeh khayal accha hai! If your comments – sans the spam that you put on here – were what lead me to moderate the comments then this comment would not have been published.

    To prick your balloon of ego, the reason why I had to moderate the comments was because certain spammers were able to successful dodge Captcha and spam comments with porn content. Its painful for me to moderate.. but I will have to. In any case, until you remain on topic.. i will keep publishing your comments.. you “look at Tokyo and talk of London” and your comment is pushed into spam. you know this now. don’t you?

  28. Desh says:

    I know I know the world is rather interesting.. where Muslims are in a dock BECAUSE of Americans, Jews, Hindus and Everyone else. Meanwhile Americans