>> Such hateful language

Hate against lying scumbags is justified.

>> The theory propounded by Sharmasvamin was from a different link

Oh yeah. The link that was never given in the post.

It was given several months later.

blogs.outlookindia.com/default.aspx

At that time, the authorship of this article was attributed to "Team X".

If the jehadis choose to peddle such blogs as proof, it is their choice. But should they try to slime in a more reputable link like ehow to back their prejudiced theories? And when challenged, they choose to stay quiet, hoping their lies shall be forgotten with time.

>> What is so hard in this that the moron cannot understand?

The jehadi conveniently ignores that I was not talking about Taxila. I specifically mentioned the fake ehow link, which he claimed he had apologized for, but never had.

>> He seems to come up with a two year old slip as if he has something that will destroy me

Is there a time limit after which your lies stop becoming lies?

And I have raised this issue several times in the past. If you were scared of responding, that's your problem.

Details are there for everyone to see, and judge for themselves.

(Addendum to my previous post)

The theory propounded by Sharmasvamin was from a different link, so I had put it in brackets. Is that the capital offence for which the moron wants to hang me?

>> Given that the habitually lying jehadi had accused me of lying....

Such hateful language! This silly thread has to end.Twenty minutes after I had posted my erronrous comment on March 20, 2010, I had posted the following correction:

" Taxila was destroyed by the Huns in the 5th century. Kaffir had said that it was destroyed by Muslims. I had retorted that it was destroyed by Hindus. Both of us were wrong."

What is so hard in this that the moron cannot understand? He seems to come up with a two year old slip as if he has something that will destroy me!!! Is this vendetta or is it psychosis? 

Mr. Moderator, this will be my last post in this thread.

Given that the habitually lying jehadi had accused me of lying, claiming that his posting of a fake link was an "inadvertent error", which he had rectified immediately, would like to expose his lies again. Since the moderators deleted that entire exchange, going back to the article where the original lie was posted.

Please check the comment 176

www.outlookindia.com/feedbacks.aspx

I had challenged him almost immediately, but he neither admitted, nor apologized for his "mistake".

His response at being cornered; he compounds his original lie, by adding two lies. First, by claiming that he had, very quickly, accepted his error, and accusing me of lying about it.

He is welcome to produce evidence that he had accepted his error very quickly. I know he doesn't have the decency to apologize to me for claiming that I lied.

To the moderators,

I can understand that the exchange in the other thread was deleted. In fact, I was expecting it. It had degenerated into a pissing contest, and had nothing to do with the article.

Hopefully, these comments shall be retained.

Murtuza:

>>>But freedom of belief and non-imposition must also be defined in negative terms.

I consider non-belief also as a particular kind of belief system. And needless to say anyone is free to choose it. I think that is the belief system of the future. Of course criticism is good, even for holy books and holy men.

In this regard, the Congress and the BJP flaunt their own set of injustices to make spurious populist appeals. The BJP plays up the Delhi massacre of Sikhs by Congress hoodlums. The Congress blames the BJP for its criminal role in Ayodhya and for the carnage of Muslims in Gujarat among other outrages. Both sides had their chance to right the wrongs that they were so worked up about, with political and judicial remedies. They didn’t." Dawn

http://www.dawn.com/...endra-modi-930-hh-06

Its sad to see my sister gayatri again spreading venom. Sister please stop this i know you are mentally disturbed after whatever has happened with you but these poisonous lines will not help your cause. Lets spread Love and not hatred...lets all be one, come out of that sick mentality of me better than you. God cure you soon.

Kaffir:


Your post is a good exposition of what
be summarized as similar to the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

But freedom of belief and non-imposition
must also be defined in negative terms.

We must all have the right NOT to believe.

Something like the Cairo Declaration of
Human Rights in Islam does not permit it.

Kaffir,

>> We are all barking down the wrong path by quoting history. It is foolish to conclude that the temples of .....

I liked your message. Thank you.

Kaffir:


A common tactic that 'anti-hate' types
like Anwaar will use will be political
correctness. Don't insult Islam, don't
criticize Muslims, don't hurt feelings.

We should distinguish things that are
innate to human beings, and things that
are learned or acquired belief systems.

It is bigotry to criticize someone's
skin color or physical impairments or
what kind of parents they were born to.

It is not bigotry to criticize religion.

Yes, they were force-fed religion as kids.

But adults are responsible for their belief systems.

As an adult, you cannot run away if I start
to question your belief in some barbaric old
book. You cannot say "This is my religion,
and you have insulted who I am by criticizing."

So, basically, Muslims think this guy Muhammad
taught people how to relate to the Creator of
the Universe, how to avoid and treat people who
do not share their views, and how to make sure
they get to a nice place, and avoid a bad place,
where non-believers will be eternally tortured.

If I say: What a load of s**t, I am not a bigot.

Common sense.

Don't let political correctness obscure it.

"You are a moron of the first order. For your knowlledge in Hindy Mythology or myth, The Hindu god, Lord Krishna, the 8th incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu had 16,108 wives"

One was a play boy and the other was a raider, trader of human trafficking, pedophile and rapist.

maulvi

you are a lier about hindus burning nalanda. a shameless
effort by you to implicate hindus .

regarding godhra many muslims claimed that they burnt the train because they were annoyed with slogans from the
pilgrims.

some claim it was done because a muslim tea vendors daughter
was abducted by the rar sevaks.

however the best was the life line thrown by banerjee-
a judge hired by lalloo for election purposes

if the train was on fire, the muslim mob let it burn,
and threw stones to stop the kar sevaks from escapeing.

hindus are devided about gujerat killings . some consider it to be crime against humanity. the others say that it was good that muslims were taught a lesson.

facts are that despite their vulnerable situation muslims are not scared to provoke others.

they are paying for nine elleven, for july 2005 bombing of
the train in london, and in nearly every country for terror.

carry on with your stubborn foul behaviour but dont complain
if you are paid back in the same coin.

modi will keep winning in gujerat, and besides the media
he will get support from many hindus. he is supported not because hindus approve of the massacre , but because they are outraged by the behaviour of muslims .

one sign of this is that you are scared to write under your real name- ie ghulam faruki.

Folks:

We are all barking down the wrong path by quoting history. It is foolish to conclude that the temples of old or Nalanda or Takshashila are exclusive heritage of today's Hindus. Neither is Taj Mahal an exclusive heritage of today's muslims. A Nalanda or a Takshashila is as much a heritage of today's Indian Muslim as is Taj Mahal a heritage of today's Hindu. The sacking of temples and universities in days of old is a sad event no matter what religion you belong to or do not belong to today. The loss of knowledge and lives is a matter of regret for an Indian Muslim as much as it is for an Indian Hindu. We are all inheritors of the same civilization. Warriors of the history did what was prevalent in the old days and this was not restricted to people of a particular religion. Everyone was guilty of it. My critique here has been to suggest that the verses in religious books have been used to substantiate and justify violence in the name of religion. This has continued to this day. Hence the need for reinterpreting all holy books in the context of today's society. DO NOT reduce this to a Muslim versus Hindu game. There are no winners here. "Is Hamaam me sab nange hain". Can we hold the Muslims of today to account for what Mohammed Ghori or Khilji did? Can we hold to account the supposedly upper class of Brahmins today for what the Hindu society did to the supposedly lower class of society? But it is fair game to reinterpret and criticize the books and the prophets. A Muslim of today has nothing to do with Khilji of yesteryear nor does a Hindu of today anything to do with Prithviraj of yesteryears. They are mere historical figures. What we need to rather do is criticize the books and the doctrines that we consider holy (irrespective of religion)? I have quoted my personal opinion that all books were written by men of that particular age and time. However any individual belonging to any faith is entitled to his opinion that his own book is divine and literally the word of the God. All I am asking is you are entitled to your beliefs whatever they might be. The paramount requirement of co-existence and mutual respect in a multi-cultural society is that if anything in your belief system impacts or has a negative effect on any other individual that cannot be justified. As long as people keep their belief systems to themselves and do not impose it on others we will do fine. Even if your religious books ask you to impose it on other people forcefully this cannot be justified today. It is in light of this that I am asking for a critical evaluation of religious books and doctrines. Obviously people of every religion or no religion have to introspect. So please stop making this a war of labels between Muslims and Hindus. Bottomline is that violence, hatred and ill-treatment of any individual is not justified and acceptable either in the name of religion or a political concept or any other multitude of ideologies that are prevalent in the world today. Again my request is not to make this a Hindu vs Muslim game. There will be no winners here. We will all lose. Let us put humanity first.

mr ghai

everyone knows of the poor relations of muslims with many-not all- nonmuslims. muslims are taught in schools, homes to
stay away from nonbelievers.

which nonmuslim would have anything to do with faruki.
or for that matter who of any religion would .

he is an embarrassment to his family ,of this i feel certaim. he is sparring with all, and liberal ex muslims have given up on him.

what a sad ending.

Faruki

"Did he destroy the kafirs? Were not many of his generals and soldiers Hindus? "

Akbar disowned Islam slowly and also realised he needed the co-operation of Hindus more to rule .Ultimately he abondened Islam and opted for Deenai Ilahi .

Ghai,

>> Akbar also procalimed to be destroyer of Kafirs.

Did he destroy the kafirs? Were not many of his generals and soldiers Hindus?

Taxila was destroyed by the Huns in the 5th century. Kaffir had said that it was destroyed by Muslims. I had retorted that it was destroyed by Hindus. Both of us were wrong.

Akbar adopted the title of GHAZI before he attacked Rajputs "Ghai

Did he then proceed to convert the Rajputs to Islam?

When Hindu Kings set out to fight battles, did they not have elaborate puja ceremonies? " Faruki

Akbar also procalimed to be destroyer of Kafirs while adopting the Title of Ghazi .

"Niqab ban gets unanimous support in Canada"

http://in.news.yahoo...mous-support-in.html

Seems like while Islam has refused to change, rest of the world is changing.

>> http://www.ehow.com/...anda-university.html

What a shameless and deliberate piece of lying! The link you mentioned above, makes no mention of the theory propounded by Sharmasvamin. You did a neat cut-paste job with some part of the article, and provided a link, to make an impression that the entire text was from the link, in a shameless bid to provide some authority to your unsubstantiated source.

I'll repeat the queries I raised in a few posts before

Will the resident Jihadi care to explain if any scholar gives credence to this story by Sharmasvamin. Did such a person even exist; if so did he even visit Nalanda, and if so, is there anything to confirm the veracity of these reports?

Hopefully, this time you shall provide some real and concrete proof, instead of more lying and gimmickry.

"Nalanda University was destroyed thrice: in the mid-5th (when it was only a few years old), early 7th, and late 12th centuries. The first two times, Nalanda was rebuilt by the rulers of the day. But by the time Turkish Muslim invaders destroyed it for a third time in 1197, the enthusiasm for Buddhist learning had long declined and there was no ruler in the region with enough clout to restore the institution to its former glory. As a result, Nalanda has languished in its ruins ever since." (It was destroyed a fourth time when, "According to Sharmasvamin, a Tibetan pilgrim who visited Bihar three decaes after the invasion of Bakhtiaruddin Khilji in the
12th century, the biggest library at Nalanda was destroyed by Hindu mendicants who took advantage of the chaos produced by the invasion. He says that "they (Hindus) performed a Yajna, a fire sacrifice, and threw
living embers and ashes from the sacrifice into the Buddhist temples. This
produced a great conflagration which consumed Ratnabodhi, the nine-storeyed
library of the Nalanda University".)

http://www.ehow.com/...anda-university.html

Anwaar:

>> But it is time we get over these schoolboys' games.


And so to believe in fairy tales is
somehow all grown-up? Rationality
and atheism are the future. Let us
be as mature and rational as we can.

Hinduism vs. Islam is childish.
But to believe is childish too.

Anwaar:


Taxila University was destroyed by the Huns.

Not by Hindus.



As for Nalanda, we all know the story: the
invader asked -- "Is there a Koran in it?"
Since the answer was no, it was completely
annihilated as an embodiment of jahiliyyat.

>> So, our resident Islamist hate monger will have us believe a Tibetian who showed up years after Nalanda was destroyed....here's a more reasonable version...

And another, from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia....anda#Decline_and_end

In 1193, the Nalanda University was sacked by an Islamic fanatic Bakhtiyar Khilji, a Turk;[19] this event is seen by scholars as a late milestone in the decline of Buddhism in India. Khilji is said to have asked if there was a copy of the Koran at Nalanda before he sacked it. The Persian historian Minhaj-i-Siraj, in his chronicle the Tabaquat-I-Nasiri, reported that thousands of monks were burned alive and thousands beheaded as Khilji tried his best to uproot Buddhism and plant Islam by the sword;[20] the burning of the library continued for several months and "smoke from the burning manuscripts hung for days like a dark pall over the low hills."[21]

...

When the Tibetan translator Chag Lotsawa (Chag Lo-tsa-ba, 1197–1264) visited the site in 1235, he found it damaged and looted, with a 90-year-old teacher, Rahula Shribhadra, instructing a class of about 70 students.[22][23] During Chag Lotsawa's time there an incursion by Turkish soldiers caused the remaining students to flee.

Ahir considers the destruction of the temples, monasteries, centers of learning at Nalanda and northern India to be responsible for the demise of ancient Indian scientific thought in mathematics, astronomy, alchemy, and anatomy.[24]

Will the resident Jihadi care to explain if any scholar gives credence to this story by Sharmasvamin. Did such a person even exist; if so did he even visit Nalanda, and if so, is there anything to confirm the veracity of these reports?

>> Takshila was destroyed in the 5th century. Islam was not even born then.

So you do, what any self respecting secular would do; blame the Hindus. I'm sure that if RSS (or some version of it) had existed at that time, you would have blamed them.

Here is what wikipedia says about destruction of Takshshila

c. 460–470 CE[18] – The Hephthalites sweep over Gandhara and Panjab; and cause wholesale destruction of the Buddhist monasteries and stupas at Tak?asila, which never again recovers

http://en.wikipedia....ty#History_of_Taxila

And who were these Hephthalites? Well, again, according to Wikipedia, they were from Central Asia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephthalite

Let these facts not stop you from parading your lies though.

So, our resident Islamist hate monger will have us believe a Tibetian who showed up years after Nalanda was destroyed....here's a more reasonable version...

[That day there was some peril in the heart of the Principal of Nalanda because Pal king Govind Pal had almost been defeated by Muahmmad-bin-Akhtiyaar. Principal was highly worried about the future of Nalanda.

He recalled that golden period when a traveler came to India at the time of Principal SheelBhadra. Then he went to the rooms of the big libraries Ratnasagara, Ratnodadhi and Ratnaranjaka. He took out some book from the shelf. Then he look around the room. Millions of books were looking like the bricks of castle that was built for Goddess Saraswati. "My ancestors have spend thousands of years to collect this Gyan, Oh God ! Save this Gyan from disappearing in the flames", thought the Principal.

It was very difficult for him to see the every corner of Nalanda because it was like a big city. Hundreds of pounds, reading rooms and parks look a like a country itself.
Just then a messenger came and said, "Sir, Arya Govind Pal has been defeated and slaughtered."

The principal has realized that it was not peril, it was the reality of future.

.....Without wasting a single moment he announced emergency in the University. All students were ordered to leave the University immediately but It was too late because all the Muslim soldiers had covered all temples, Pagodas and the University Nalanda. There was no escape.

After three days, when a shepherd went there, he saw a ground that was created after collapsing a mountain. The ground was covered with the crows and vultures who were enjoying a feast. Feast of blood and flesh of the students who came here to earn Gyan from the countries like China, Japan, Tibet, Burma, Greek, Malay etc.

Three gigantic libraries were still smoldering and kept smoldering for a couple of months. Gyan that was collected by the mankind in this Aryavart had again mingled into the Shoonya.]

Muslamaans do not understand the value of the filth that Koranic hatred brings with it....

Ghai,

>> Akbar adopted the title of GHAZI before he attacked Rajputs...

Did he then proceed to convert the Rajputs to Islam?

When Hindu Kings set out to fight battles, did they not have elaborate puja ceremonies?

Kaffir,

>> The only other book I can think of is Bible.

Similar stuff from Hindu scriptures has been posted here several times by other posters. But it is time we get over these schoolboys' games.

Maha,

Even after Bakhtiar Khilji invaded Nalanda, it was destroyed by Hindu zealots. "According to Sharmasvamin, a Tibetan pilgrim who
visited Bihar three decaes after the invasion of Bakhtiaruddin Khilji in the
12th century, the biggest library at Nalanda was destroyed by Hindu mendicants
who took advantage of the chaos produced by the invasion. He says that "they (Hindus) performed a Yajna, a fire sacrifice, and threw
living embers and ashes from the sacrifice into the Buddhist temples. This
produced a great conflagration which consumed Ratnabodhi, the nine-storeyed
library of the Nalanda University". [Prakash, 213]".

Takshila was destroyed in the 5th century. Islam was not even born then.

Anwaar:

I appreciate what you are saying. I had never read these things till now. Maybe I let my shock and outrage overwhelm me to some extent. But yes I did learn a few things I did not know. So thanks for participating it and sharing your views.

>> Did Muslim conquerors who invaded, killed and plundered do it for religion?

Quite likely that for some of them (maybe even a majority), it was one of the main reasons.

Their own historians have often described their acts as being driven by religion and faith. Why should these be discounted?

Kaffir,

>> how these violent verses are to be interpreted.

Seems I have wasted two hours with you for nothing.

>> why I as a Kaffir human does not have to fear persecution because of these verses.

What persecution you have been subjected to so far? You hate pracharaks know these verses better than most Muslims. The Al Qaeda types may believe them, but I would not recommend your going to see them and re-educate them. Even I have to keep out of their way.

'Did Muslim conquerors who invaded, killed and plundered do it for religion? '

Faruki

Even Akbar adopted the title of GHAZI before he attacked Rajputs per neutral Inidan Historians like Jadu Nath Sarkar who wrote 'Rise and Fall of Mughal Empire' a classical text book of Mughal History.

Let us hope that the hatred and intolerance of all religious books remain in the books and not played out in the real world. Peace.

>> that "other religious books" be quoted

The only other book I can think of is Bible. Here are some quotes:

In Leviticus 25:44-46, the Lord tells the Israelites it's OK to own slaves, provided they are strangers or heathens.

2) In Samuel 15:2-3, the Lord orders Saul to kill all the Amalekite men, women and infants.

3) In Exodus 15:3, the Bible tells us the Lord is a man of war.

4) In Numbers 31, the Lord tells Moses to kill all the Midianites, sparing only the virgins.

5) In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different god or who worships the Lord differently.

6) In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law.

7) In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.

If you have Hindu and Buddhist scriptures that suggest violence please suggest it. I will add it to the list of verses which I hate.

>> And you did not quote anything from the "other religious books"

If a secular can criticize only Hindu communalism, and remain silent about others, what is the justification of this demand, that "other religious books" also be quoted.

Anwar,

>> Countless ruins of temples and the universities at Nalanda and Takshashila.

Much of it done by Hindus but now being blamed on Muslims. "

What do you mean by this ? Nalanda and other destructions are work of hindus ? Where did you read this history ? can you clarify ?

>>>>> All I want is that the hatred of Quran and other religious books is to remain in the books and not played out in the real world.

Why are you distorting my words? Please cut and paste in full and not selectively.

>>>You are not qualified for the job. And you did not quote anything from the "other religious books".

I did not apply for one. You can help me by suggesting some. I am telling you that there verses in Quran that I hate and hence I hate the book. I do not hate the people who follow it. If you can suggest how these violent verses are to be interpreted or why I as a Kaffir human does not have to fear persecution because of these verses I would appreciate it.

>> All I want is that the hatred of Quran and other religious books ....

You are not qualified for the job. And you did not quote anything from the "other religious books". Why don't you just admit that you are an anti-Islam hate pracharak?

>>>> I have no interest in a discussion with you. All I want you to do is keep your hate to yourself.

All I want is that the hatred of Quran and other religious books is left in the books and not played out in the real world. Be well!

>> It is pointless arguing with Anwaar. All he does is stonewall and throw out convoluted messages.

Sore loser ! I have no interest in a discussion with you. All I want you to do is keep your hate to yourself.

Murtuza:

It is pointless arguing with Anwaar. All he does is stonewall and throw out convoluted messages. He wants to fight hate but does not see the hatred right under his nose.

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” - MLK Jr.

>> Don't you know what the phrase means?

I think I know Jesus well enough to.
Jesus' quote says swine, not 'swines'.


And my post was not about my childhood.

It was about the cruelty of the Qur'an.

But avoid it if you must.

>> Calling people pigs?

Don't you know what the phrase means?

>> respond to my point below
where I reference my childhood.

I do not want to go further in your personal experiences. Such examples can be found in other religions also.

Have a good evening!

Anwaar:

>> swines

The plural is swine.

Why are such insults needed? Calling people pigs?

Please respond to my point below
where I reference my childhood.

Religion is about real people like me.

>> Can you clearly state what you are arguing for?

I fight hatemongers, especially those who try to use Outlook's forum to run a systematic hate campaign against Islam. I am not pushing my belief system. I am not opposing your belief system. I am just fighting hate.

>>>> The day will never come when I throw pearls before swines.

Make sure you do not throw it in front of yourself.

>>> Can you say that with a straight face?

It does not matter with what sort of face I say it. The fact remains. I can see that you are trying to reduce this into a personal slanging match for which I have no inclination. So be well.

>>>>I do not ask you any questions about your beliefs, but you and Kaffir think I am subject to your inquisition !

Can you clearly state what you are arguing for? What is your position? All I can understand is that you believe in something which will not or cannot defend. How can there be a constructive dialog with such thinking? Or is your intention not to be understood but rather babble in incoherent pieces of thought with personal insults thrown in for good measure. Is there some other exalted forum (other than outlook) where one can have such a discussion?

>> I politely stated my opinion of you and your convoluted way of thinking.

Can you say that with a straight face?

>> The day you are able to defend the man and the book you purport to defend let me know then.

The day will never come when I throw pearls before swines.

>> Anwaar has not answered me on the two
critical points: the Qur'an and Muhammad.

Why do you need to ask me those questions? You have already made your decision and are now an apostate. I do not ask you any questions about your beliefs, but you and Kaffir think I am subject to your inquisition !

>>> Words of a loser! And where has all your politeness gone now?

You cannot be the judge, jury and executioner. I politely stated my opinion of you and your convoluted way of thinking. The day you are able to defend the man and the book you purport to defend let me know then.

Anwaar:


>> Readit as "Good deeds will be rewarded. Evil deeds will be punished." Or beter still, "Good deeds are their own rewards. Evil deeds will come back to haunt you."


Did you even read the two quotes?

I was forced as a child to memorize it
in both Arabic and Gujarati. Do you
know how many nights I spent worrying
about my friends -- at age 6-7 -- who
were not Muslim and who would meet the
fate laid out so cruelly - graphically?

Please don't tell me 'how to read it'.

I have been a believing Muslim for the first
14 years of my life -- and know it by heart.


Qur'an (22:19-21) - But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads; Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron


So: what "evil deeds" merit this punishment?

You know and I know it is unbelief -- kufr.

>> he has not indulged in any critical evaluation or defense of the one book and the one man on whom the whole religion rests.

Am I going to do a critical evaluation of Islam with a professional hate merchant in Outlook's forum? You must be kidding!

>> you have shown you are a merchant of ignorance coupled with hate.

Words of a loser! And where has all your politeness gone now?

>> What about the Qur'an's description of hell?

Readit as "Good deeds will be rewarded. Evil deeds will be punished." Or beter still, "Good deeds are their own rewards. Evil deeds will come back to haunt you."

>>>> You may have some maturity and reasonableness, but seen only sporadically.

Well you have shown you are a merchant of ignorance coupled with hate. I do not see maturity or reasonableness even sporadically. But yes thanks for letting me know about Ziaduddin Sardar and Dr. Chandra. I shall read them.

>>>>Anwaar has not answered me on the two critical points.

He has not answered or defended any of his arguments. His only concession is that if people have other beliefs he is fine with it. That is perfectly fine. But he has not indulged in any critical evaluation or defense of the one book and the one man on whom the whole religion rests.

>> Can you please clarify why somebody would destroy his own places of worship?

Hindus destroyed a lot of Buddhist places of worship.

>> He created a religion for the purpose of land, power, gold and women.

You can believe that if you want. Muslims see it differently. This discussion has been useful in that it has let me show you to be a bitter hate merchant and take away your pretense of being a mature and reasonable discussant. You may have some maturity and reasonableness, but seen only sporadically.

murtu and kaffir

one trait of islam is that muslims find it difficult to live with nonmuslims. even shias and sunnis can not live togather. what does this imply- surely not tolerance.

examples are also the partition of india in 1947. division of pakistan and formation of bangladesh after an enormous
blood bath in 1971.maulvijee claims that the first was
engineered by hindu radicals, denying what people like
rafiq zakaria and maulana azad have written.

there are other examples. bosnia, kosovo separateing from
serbia.

partition of cyprus into greek and turkish.

lebenon where one part is predominately christian and the
other shia.

iraq has now expelled most christians, and same story in
iran. egypt has been very bad to coptic christians. pakistan
and afghanistan are known for their awful behaviour towards non muslims. 90 percent support laws against blasphemy.jehad is taught in schools from class one.

maulvijee knows this. however when ever some unpleasant fact is discovered he is ready with a glib retort.

no point in going on.

muslim countries opress women, more then most others.

however maulvijee is happy with the status quo, and baby steps towards modenity. he is devoted to islam, and has deluded himself that it is a great religion. he ignores
what most people find rotten about it.

consequently he has done his best to ignore people like
tasleema nasrin, ayan hirsi ali and those like them.

he does enormous hair splitting to excuse islam, and is not
averse to distort the truth in its service. if we say that verses in the koran are evil, he goes into a sulk and starts insulting people. its a stupid and childish reaction.
no dialogue is possible.

i am convinced that muslims are not ready for reform, even
after liveing in india for 60 years. m.j.akbar has spoken about them ,calling them a sick limb.

pakistani journalists write openly about their bigoted and
fanatic muslim countrymen, who they claim number 95 percent of their population.

looking from the point of view of a agnostic it would be
nice if muslims liberalised, but frankly i doubt this will
happen. in this case lets live far apart, so that we have
as little to do with each other as possible.

i have noted that many muslims have withdrawn into their own areas, where they can practice their religion without
intereference. thats their choice. jews did this also in
europe. its a defensive mechanism to maintain their
conservative life style ie halal meat , burqas, skull caps
the nearbye mosque, madrassahs .

so be it. .

Kaffir:


I doubt if a Salafi -- or even a mainstream
Hanbali Sunni, would accept him as a Muslim.

But Anwaar has not answered me on the two
critical points: the Qur'an and Muhammad.

Unless he does, he's just evading the issue.

Evasion is not reform, nor is it moderation.

Murtuza:

Anwaar will not comment on any of the verses. Or he might say they are not relevant today. That is exactly what we are saying. That this book is irrelevant in this day and age.

>>>> Scroll back to where you said your "wise words" and proceed from there.

All my words are wise.

What about the Qur'an's description of hell?


Qur'an (22:19-21) - But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads; Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron

Qur'an (4:56) - Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise


And this vile, horrible garbage is what
children are forced to memorize by rote?

>>>Much of it done by Hindus but now being blamed on Muslims.

Can you please clarify why somebody would destroy his own places of worship?

>>>> Islam at its outset did fight some bloody wars for survuval, but in the 1000 years since then most of the conquests were like the conquests and bloodsheds all over the globe, for land, power and gold.

You may be partially right. But there was a strong sense of it being done for the religion.

At the end of the day, Muhammed did the same thing and was no different. He created a religion for the purpose of land, power, gold and women.

>> Can you please clarify and rephrase this question?

Scroll back to where you said your "wise words" and proceed from there.

Anwaar:


>> Islam at its outset did fight some bloody wars for survuval


Killing scores of Jewish teenage boys -- i.e.
'whoever had started growing hair', 13 upward
-- this is 'a war for survival'? And killing
Asma bint Marwan, a poetess and a mother? If
Islam is the last and final word of God, what
kind of a cruel, ruthless beast is this God?

>> Countless ruins of temples and the universities at Nalanda and Takshashila.

Much of it done by Hindus but now being blamed on Muslims.

>> How about the genocide of Banu Qurayza? How about the complete ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arabia?

Islam at its outset did fight some bloody wars for survuval, but in the 1000 years since then most of the conquests were like the conquests and bloodsheds all over the globe, for land, power and gold. Western historians, especially Will Durant, Francois Gautier and Koenraad Elst, had an axe to grind. They wanted to minimize Western massacres especially in the Americas, and they did so by vastly exaggerating the Muslim scale of violence.

Come on, Anwaar.

You're an intelligent man.


Step one: Muhammad raids and loots and distributes
the spoils -- women and wealth, to his 'Companions'.
He also mass-kills Jewish teenage boys in Qurayza.
He orders the murder of poetess Asma bint Marwan.


Step two: Muhammad leaves a revelation, in which
he is attested as Al-Insan-Al-Kamil, "Perfect Man".


Step three: Muslims carry out very similar acts
to those Muhammad carried out in Step one, here.


And we're wrong to draw a causal relationship?


Come on. Let's give up the farce.

>>>>>if someone else worships idols, we are not ill-treating others or indulging in violence against others, are we?

Can you please clarify and rephrase this question?

>> He asks me to name violence in the name of Islam.

I never did, so stop lying.

>>>> If I do not associate any partners to Him or if someone else worships idols, we are not ill-treating others or indulging in violence against others, are we?

Can you please explain what it is that you want me to answer? Yes you are ill-treating others and starting from Muhammed.

>> withdraw your comment about
my wanting to limit your free speech.

Okay. I do want you on my side in believing in the First Amendment.

>> You asked me quote examples of violence and ill-treatment in the name of Islam.

I did not. Roll back to see how the discussion evolved.

>> Did they commit the murders because others were not atheist?

Such lame excuses can be adduced for Muslim murderers too. Muslims, Germans and Soviets were all empire builders.

>>>> Did Muslim conquerors who invaded, killed and plundered do it for religion?

They were just following their beloved Prophet. Countless ruins of temples and the universities at Nalanda and Takshashila are testimony to that.

How about the genocide of Banu Qurayza? How about the complete ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arabia? How about the assassinations of Asma? These were done by Muhammed. And if he did not do it in the name of Islam I dont know why he did it.

Anwaar:


>> Did Muslim conquerors who invaded, killed and plundered do it for religion?


Did the Prophet Muhammad ever raid or plunder?

Did he ever distribute the spoils to his gang?

When you seek to separate apparently worldly
goals of 'loot and plunder' from the 'inner
spiritual struggle' of jihad, you miss this:


Muhammad himself raided and plundered, and
divided the spoils -- women and wealth.

So what is a 'religious motivation' here?

Does the religion itself not encourage it?

Anwaar:


Again - please withdraw your remarks about
my wanting to impinge on your free speech,
and don't cut my sentences to make it seem
like I am saying something that I am not.

>> Really? In the name of atheism?


Did Muslim conquerors who invaded, killed and plundered do it for religion?

>>>It's good to have you here. Stay long.

Pal this is the weirdest argument I have had. He asks me to name violence in the name of Islam. I can literally give thousands of such examples. And when I give them he says it is not relevant even when I have quoted Muhammed committing these atrocities. Was it Muhammed or Mother Theresa who invented Islam?

Kaffir:


It's good to have you here. Stay long.

I thought I was the only atheist/agnostic
here -- certainly I'm the only ex-Muslim.

>> Somehow I get the feeling that the liberal and enlightened Muslims are aware of this. Yet they do not want to rebuke it in public because of the fear of the huge backlash they would face.

The process by which one proposes reform itself evolves with time. There are ways of approaching reform other than direct attack and are best exemplified by the writings of Ziauddin Sardar and Chandra Muzzafar. There are several other writers who have criticzed literalism and advocated alternative interpretations.

Anwaar:

>> Atheist have carried out the worst mass murders in the 20th century compared to anyone else. Add the number of people kille by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pat. And although Hitler called hinself a Christian, many people think he was an atheist.


Really? In the name of atheism?

Where is this atheist doctrine
that asks to kill unbelievers?

Did Mao, in his Cultural Revolution
or Great Leap Forward, kill people
because they were not atheists or
because they were not communists?

The same with Stalin.

And Hitler was a lapsed Catholic
who both publicly and privately
believed in a pagan 'Providence',
until the last day of his life.

In North Korea, another Communist
state, all sorts of supernatural
beliefs about the cult of the Dear
Leader abound. Communism is evil.

The atheism that is finally, now, in
respectable prominence recently, is
the quest for freedom -- freedom from
clerical oppression and from theocracy.

Freedom is indivisible, as Ron Paul says.

Its goal is not a Communist state
like that of Stalin's or of Mao's.

And, last time I checked, most Nazis today are pagans.

I hope we can be honest about this,
and not tar atheists with the evil
crimes of every communist regime.

>>>>Not relevant to the question that was being discussed.

You asked me quote examples of violence and ill-treatment in the name of Islam. How are the examples I quoted not relevant? I even quoted examples of Muhammed himself murdering people and committing genocide. How much more relevant can you get? Dude you have a weird sense of logic.

>>>> Atheist have carried out the worst mass murders

Did they commit the murders because others were not atheist? Did Hitler kill the Jews in the name of Christians? You may claim that these were bigots and terrorists who used Islam for their own purpose. So please extend the analogy and call Muhammed a terrorist and a bigot.

>> the history is replete with ill-treatment and murder of non-Muslims.

Not relevant to the question that was being discussed. If you want to throw everything at Islam, irrespective of relevance, and as if Hinduism or Christianity have better histories, the discussion becomes just an exercise in smearing. Atheist have carried out the worst mass murders in the 20th century compared to anyone else. Add the number of people kille by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pat. And although Hitler called hinself a Christian, many people think he was an atheist.

Anwaar:

Please stop cutting off my words to
make them sound like something else.

>> >> If Islam is to reform, the following
two things must not be believed.

The fewer the musts, the better. (No personal details on this board please).


What I actually said was:

".. If Islam is to reform, the following
two things must not be believed with
absolute, uncritical sincerity now:

1. The Qur'an is the literal words of Allah.

2. Muhammad was The Perfect Man, and we are
to model all our behaviors on his behaviors.."

Why did you leave out
".. with absolute, uncritical sincerity now.."?


And please withdraw your comment about
my wanting to limit your free speech.

I insinuated no such thing.

Anwaar:

>>>> where is the evidence which proves that circucision is a protection against AIDS?.

>>Your ignorance is amazing. Ask your doctor.


Assuming there is evidence, is it right
to force this traumatic procedure on
children and infants who cannot say no?

Let adults decide it.

And if you're a parent, surely you would
think that educating your child in safe
sex is more relevant and important than
circumcising him to protect against AIDS?

Stupidity, cruelty and medical fraud.

>> If Islam is to reform, the following
two things must not be believed.

The fewer the musts, the better. (No personal details on this board please).

>>>>> If Islam is to reform, the following two things must not be believed with absolute, uncritical sincerity now:

Somehow I get the feeling that the liberal and enlightened Muslims are aware of this. Yet they do not want to rebuke it in public because of the fear of the huge backlash they would face. I guess they are happy to play along and sweep everything under the rug. But at least in the west we hear of Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Ali and others speaking out openly. I do not know when this will happen in our country. I do believe the reform has to come from inside the Muslim community. Any external criticism might lead to the opposite effect????

Anwaar:

You're repeatedly posting
replies on the wrong pages.

Namo4,

>> where is the evidence which proves that circucision is a protection against AIDS?.

Your ignorance is amazing. Ask your doctor.

Anwaar:

>> I cannot criticize because my freedom of speech is lesser than yours?


You know very well that I meant 'cannot
criticize' in the figurative sense of
such a critique having no real value.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Where am I proposing limiting your free speech?

>> I cannot criticize because my freedom of speech is lesser than yours?

Why is your freedom of speech less than anybody else's?

Anwaar:

>> I cannot criticize because my freedom of speech is lesser than yours?


You know very well that I meant 'cannot
criticize' in the figurative sense of
such a critique having no real value.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Where am I proposing limiting your free speech?

>> after reading the life-story of Muhammed and his teachings.

Arshad Alam has a few thing to say about that in his article.

>> you cannot criticize people for bashing the
Deen.

I cannot criticize because my freedom of speech is lesser than yours?

>>>>Anwaar is an extraordinary exception

Like I said I have nothing to disagree with Anwaar. We can only hope every human reaches this level of maturity soon :-). But like he said calling a spade a spade might also have the opposite effect. It is a catch-22 situation!

Anwaar:

>> I do not need to prove anything because all I am asserting is my right to believe what I believe and your right to believe what you believe.


Am I challenging that right?

Am I hinting at challenging it?

Again: find me a Hitchens or Dawkins fan
who supports an atheist dictatorship.

We are not communists.

>> If you believe in Allah .... it's
up to you to prove they exist.

I do not need to prove anything because all I am asserting is my right to believe what I believe and your right to believe what you believe.

>>>> If I do not associate any partners to Him or if someone else worships idols, we are not ill-treating others or indulging in violence against others, are we? Don't alter the parameters when you are losing an argument.

Of course the history is replete with ill-treatment and murder of non-Muslims. How about the genocide of Kashmiri Pandits for a starter? How about the 80 million people killed over the period of Islamic conquest of India? How about the war between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, Indonesia, Thailand? How about the beheadings of the Sikhs in Pakistan? How about the murder of countless Christians in Pakistan in the name of blasphemy? How about the murders between Shia and Sunni in Pakistan each of whom thinks the other is a non-believer? How about the genocide of Bani Qurayza by Muhammed himself? How about the murder of Asma bint Marwan? How about the countless terror attacks in India? How about the genocide in Darfur, Sudan? How about the Shia-Sunni killings in Iraq? There is a 1400 year history replete with violence and ill treatment of people who do have different beliefs. I cannot believe that you are not aware of these and countless other incidents.

Kaffir:

Anwaar is an extraordinary exception.

He does not take umbrage at insults
to the Prophet Muhammad (S'A'W'S),
is ok with Allah being worshiped
as a Hindu god, and believes that
the whole of the Islamic Fiqh must
be discarded and started over with.

What percentage of Muslims in the
world share these exact opinions?

Not over 5%, I'd wager. From all
my interactions and friendships and
travel in the Arab Gulf states, in
Malaysia and in all of South Asia.

And of course the Qur'an is about
the conquest of Arabia. Muhammad
was a greedy, cruel old reprobate.

If Islam is to reform, the following
two things must not be believed with
absolute, uncritical sincerity now:

1. The Qur'an is the literal words of Allah.

2. Muhammad was The Perfect Man, and we are
to model all our behaviors on his behaviors.
(which includes his genocides, assassination
of a poetess, his tortures and his pedofilia)

>> the certitude of an atheist is restricted to himself and does not extend to ill-treating others or indulging in violence against others.

The question was about "why the almighty God cares about how we pray to him or whether we associate partners to him or we pray to an idol or mistakenly believe he doesnt exist." If I do not associate any partners to Him or if someone else worships idols, we are not ill-treating others or indulging in violence against others, are we? Don't alter the parameters when you are losing an argument.

>>>>> Attacking the verses will have the reverse effect of what you desire. A better approach would be to oppose hate and intolerance and promote mutual respect, dialogue and understanding.

Anwaar I do agree with you on this. I do not know which approach is good. Havent we waited all this years for the moderates and liberals Islam? But I hope and pray that your tribe increases. My comments were intended to initiate dialogue and understanding. I believe we have had an honest dialogue.

To tell people the truth I was fascinated by Islam and I wanted to learn more about it. I wanted to assimilate the good ideas in their holy books. Unfortunately after reading the life-story of Muhammed and his teachings it left me shaken and sad. You could easily label the Quran as the conquest of Arabia. Maybe I am wrong and people have other interpretations?????

Anwaar:

>> You are more foolish than you think! All you will do is streghten the hands of the fundamentalists, make Muslims more closed in, and weaken the moderates and the progressives.


As I have made clear before, while Rushdie
or Ayaan Ali or Nasreen will make no impact,
you cannot criticize people for bashing the
Deen. Many ex-Muslims despise the religion.

Sometimes for good reasons, dare I say.

Islam started and grew by the sword.

Atheists with Google will finish it.

>> Pasting verses verbatim without changing a word is no evil.

Verses selected by and prefaced by a hate merchant like you!!! It is your intent and your activity that are evil.

>> My purpose is to ask for some introspection and awakening.

You are more foolish than you think! All you will do is streghten the hands of the fundamentalists, make Muslims more closed in, and weaken the moderates and the progressives.

>>>>Those wise words do not suit you.
>> I do not understand your self-righteousness.

You preach tolerance for diverse approaches to God while attacking the approach of 1.3 billion earthlings !

>> one of those who believes that these verses have no relevance in today's world.

Attacking the verses will have the reverse effect of what you desire. A better approach would be to oppose hate and intolerance and promote mutual respect, dialogue and understanding.

Kaffir:

>> No! It is only because the certitude of an atheist is restricted to himself and does not extend to ill-treating others or indulging in violence against others who do not share that certitude. An atheist does not impose his certitude on others. If this were true of Islam I could not care less who they worship or how they worship or what book they consider holy.


Hear, hear!

So -- I think we have to get our
definitions of 'agnostic' right.

Anwaar:

>> Does an agnostic quarrel with the certitude of an atheist?


Always. Cop-outs cannot be respected.

Scientifically, it is not possible to
PROVE that a god (sorry, no capitals)
does not exist. You cannot prove a
negative. And you believers have not
ever proven that a god does exist.

But that does not mean that it is a 50-50 chance.

Any more than there is a 50-50 chance
that there are flying carpets or jinns.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If you believe in Allah, or UFOs, it's
up to you to prove they exist, not for
me to prove that they do not exist.

Until you prove it, I can dismiss your belief
as being no more valid than that in fairies.

>>>Does an agnostic quarrel with the certitude of an atheist?

No! It is only because the certitude of an atheist is restricted to himself and does not extend to ill-treating others or indulging in violence against others who do not share that certitude. An atheist does not impose his certitude on others. If this were true of Islam I could not care less who they worship or how they worship or what book they consider holy.

>> If he believes in his agnostic view of
God, the first target should be the
arrogant certitude of Qur'anic Islam.

The wise words he uttered would dictate that he can have his agnostic view of God, and let the Muslim have his certitude. Does an agnostic quarrel with the certitude of an atheist?

Anwaar:

>> Simplistic answers indulged in by idiots!


Well, perhaps it is not the whole answer.

But surely it is a large part of the answer.

If there was not a huge percentage of Muslims
in the India of 1947 who believed that Islam
was too superior a religion, and Muslims too
superior a people, to live with the Mushrik
Hindus under a secular state, would there
have been a partition? I hardly think so.

>>>If I paste them here I would be falling to your level, won't I?

Pasting verses verbatim without changing a word is no evil. They are what they are.

>>>>Depends upon the purpose.
My purpose is to ask for some introspection and awakening.

>>>>Those wise words do not suit you.
I do not understand your self-righteousness.

Anyway the tragedy is that you are one of those who believes that these verses have no relevance in today's world and hence I have nothing to disagree with you. Unfortunately there are others who think otherwise. My objective is to reach such people.

Kaffir,

>> tragedic partition of the sub-continent where millions of human beings killed can be clearly attributed to this book and religion.

Simplistic answers indulged in by idiots! And you say you are not here to generate and exacerbate hate?

Anwaar:

>>>> I just dont understand why the almighty God cares about how we pray to him or whether we associate partners to him or we pray to an idol or mistakenly believe he doesnt exist.

>>Wise words, but those who believe them do not go attacking the religions of others. Those wise words do not suit you.


Excuse me, but is the definition of Islam
not to 'not associate partners with Allah'?

It's what Islam is.

If he believes in his agnostic view of
God, the first target should be the
arrogant certitude of Qur'anic Islam.

By the way the tragedic partition of the sub-continent where millions of human beings killed can be clearly attributed to this book and religion. The saga is continuing in Kashmir where the entire Kashmiri Pandit community has suffered genocide and been thrown out of their ancestral homes by their own brothers. Is there no end to this madness? I really struggle to understand how this will lead to the progress of mankind.

Kaffir,

>> I had replied how the Qadiyanis were blackmailed and not allowed to hold their meeting in Hyderabad.

The question was about getting killed. Stop your deceptions please.

>> Dont you think the murderer Hafiz Saeed used these verses to instigate countless murders of Indians.

Do you want me to defend what the terrorists do?

>> you can produce scripts from any book in the world.

If I paste them here I would be falling to your level, won't I?

>> quoting verses from Quran verbatim is a gutter level activity.

Depends upon the purpose. Your purpose is to generate anti-Islam hate. Since your purpose is evil, you activity is gutter level.

>> I just dont understand why the almighty God cares about how we pray to him or whether we associate partners to him or we pray to an idol or mistakenly believe he doesnt exist.

Wise words, but those who believe them do not go attacking the religions of others. Those wise words do not suit you.

>> Influential Islamic scholar Dr Tahir ul-Qadri says that Islam forbids the massacre of innocent citizens and suicide bombings.

I wonder if these words mean anything.

There are certainly passages in the Koran that can used to justify violence. Don't know much about them, but passages have been quoted extensively on this site itself. Qadri, or some other scholars may have certain interpretation of these (assuming they really mean it, and are not saying something convenient). Other scholars, or lay men might have their own interpretation.

For people suffering at the hands of the terrorists, the wisdom of Qadri is entirely irrelevant. Their only concern is the actions of the terrorists. If they gain their inspiration from a certain interpretation of the Koran or some other text, then that is of concern to them.

Murtuza:

I am an agnostic. I just dont understand why the almighty God cares about how we pray to him or whether we associate partners to him or we pray to an idol or mistakenly believe he doesnt exist. I am pretty sure if he exists he is a lot more benevolent and will forgive us these trifle matters.

Kaffir:

>>>>yourself are engaged in a gutter level base activity !

>>Are you saying quoting verses from Quran verbatim is a gutter level activity?


Lol! Good!


Kaffir, what is your religious affiliation?

Are you an atheist or an agnostic?

Let's join hands for religion's annihilation.

maulvijee

there is no one who makes so many poor excuses on behalf of his religion. poor man- what hard luck.

none of us -atheists,hindus, christians or budhists have
to apologise so much.

as comments in this forum reveal there are dozens of verses
in the holy koran which are full of hate,and call for killing of people of other faiths. the jews are especially targeted. whats more the history of muslims show how your religion has been practiced.

yesterday i was looking at wikepedia and read the views of
ex muslims such as tasleema nasrin, ayan hirsi ali, dr
wafa sultan. all of these people have been honoured by
many european governments, universities and so forth.
salman rushdie has been knighted, and naipaul has been given the nobel prize for his books-mainly "amongst the
believers."

you seem to have conjured up a belief in islam which is
not shared by most muslims.if muslims were such nice
tolerant people then they would have rooted out the killers
in their midst. even today the pakistani govt-your govt-
is protecting the killers behind the nov 2008 killings'
in mumbai. after the killings about 50 muslims protested
against these. a few days after hundreds got togather in
sympathy for arabs in gaza. recently 50,000 muslims got
togather to protest against taslima nasrin in shimoga.

with what face can you speak up for islam and muslims.

after nine elleven ordinary muslims celebrated in new york,
london and copenhagen until they got cold feet. usa expelled
30,000 pakistani,s hand cuffed and with leg irons back
to pakistan. and despite what you claim muslims are under
a cloud every where. why if islam is so peaceful and
muslims are so nice.

these people are representative of islam.either they are
right or you are. the overwhelming opinion of nonmuslims,
ordinary people ,theologians, authors,journalists is that
islam is a backward religion, full of hate ,bigotry and
violence. india has experienced muslims like aurangzeb
and allmost all hindus despise him and hate him.

if 57 percent of the peaceful swiss vote against minarets,
and 20 percent of the dutch vote for geert wilders then
this is something you can not ignore if you have any sense,
which i doubt.

the overwhelming view of most european politicians of
islam is bad- and most of them would throw out muslims
if they could. few accept your views.

stop makeing pitiful excuses for islam and muslims.

you force us to comment on them. its a subject not worth
talking about. none of us believe in your claims of islam
being a peaceful and tolerant religion.

stop makeing a fool of your self.

>>>>>Earlier you had said, "Since Hindus are cleared of being Kaffirs can this amnesty be extended to other potential Kaffirs like atheists, agnostics,Jews, idolators, Qadiyanis, homosexuals and any other category of human beings who deserve to be killed as ordained in Quran or any other holy book?"

And I had replied how the Qadiyanis were blackmailed and not allowed to hold their meeting in Hyderabad. I had also mentioned about how Jews were killed in 26/11 with the help of Indian nationals (who happened to be Muslims). Dont you think the murderer Hafiz Saeed used these verses to instigate countless murders of Indians? Dont you think the Indian Mujahideen and SIMI and God knows what other organizations are inpsired by these verses? By the way Hafiz Saeed is also an "Islamic Scholar". Now I dont know how many people follow Dr. Tahir Quadri, but Hafiz Saeed and his ilk have been generating murderers and terrorists since 30 years.

>>>>>Equally objectionable material can be posted fronm Hindu scriptures if one wanted to make this site an arena of hate.
Brother Anwaar - you can produce scripts from any book in the world (Hindu, Christian, Zoroastrian or whatever). If they are evil and designed to generated hatred and violence I promise to denounce it equally.

>>>>yourself are engaged in a gutter level base activity !
Are you saying quoting verses from Quran verbatim is a gutter level activity?

Anwaar:

>> I do not know of any Qadianis being killed in India recently. Do you?


No. You're right there.

Unlike in the Fortress of Islam, where
thousands of them were killed in the
'70s-'80s. You know, it's funny how we
never hear about them. As if when the
Muslims kill other Muslims, that's ok.

Kaffir,

You are running a scurrilous hate campaign in this forum and posting material that has no relevance today. Equally objectionable material can be posted fronm Hindu scriptures if one wanted to make this site an arena of hate. You are scolding Gayetri for being rude, when you yourself are engaged in a gutter level base activity !

Earlier you had said, "Since Hindus are cleared of being Kaffirs can this amnesty be extended to other potential Kaffirs like atheists, agnostics,Jews, idolators, Qadiyanis, homosexuals and any other category of human beings who deserve to be killed as ordained in Quran or any other holy book?" I had replied, "I don't know if Indian Muslims are targetting any of those groups, so your bringing it up is just a piece of malicious mischief." You never answered that charge. Does it mean you are accepting the charge that what you are engaged in is malicious mischief?

>> Influential Islamic scholar Dr Tahir ul-Qadri says that Islam forbids the massacre of innocent citizens and suicide bombings.


Good. Hope more like him succeed.


But what is 'Islam'?

Did Muhammad also avoid killing 'innocent citizens'
-- assuming the Jews of Banu Qurayza come under the
category -- most of them teenage boys -- or poetess
Asma bint Marwan? Let's call a scumbag a scumbag.

Reforms and de-literalizing are important and good.

But Muhammad was just a cruel, ruthless thug.

It has to be faced -- and religion has to go.

India has firmly ruled out both mediation and arbitration in the Kashmir dispute for over 50 years, and yet people still keep bringing up mediation!

Gayatri/Lalit,

>> in the ritual beheading of daniel pearl his executioners recited verses from the koran.

Because they are as stupid and hateful as you! This must be the sixth time you have mentioned it and the sixth time I have given this reply. Their knowledge of Islam is no better than yours. Influential Islamic scholar Dr Tahir ul-Qadri says that Islam forbids the massacre of innocent citizens and suicide bombings. "Terrorists can't claim that their suicide bombings are martyrdom operations and that they become the heroes of the Muslim Umma. No, they become heroes of hellfire, and they are leading towards hellfire. There is no place for any martyrdom and their act is never, ever to be considered jihad."

But why am I wasting my time telling this to an empty headed bigot like you?

>> what drives and inspires them to commit such horrendous things in the name of their religion?

Because then they get support from lot of fanatics and "moderates" too.

Jinnah himself was not religious. However, when he called for the partition on the country on the basis of religion, he got very very wide support from all sections of the Muslims in India.

Nasar
"Though Muslims are largely innocent,they never act in advance to thwart the attempts of the communal fundamentalist Hindus"

We understand that. That may be the reason, hindu population in pakistan has increased to 13.8 % and the muslims in india has decreased to just 1.5%.

To give people an idea of how other people feel about the Quran, I have interchanged the role of non-believers and Muslims in the same verses of Quran. I have left the other words exactly as they are. Please tell me if this sounds fair:

Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who "are Muslims". Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Qur'an (8:39) - "And fight with "Muslims" until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah
(replace with the God of your choice)"

Qur'an (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who "are Muslims", then smite the necks until when you have overcome
them, then make (them - Muslims) prisoners,"

Qur'an (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."

Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the "Muslims", and the
stone behind which a "Muslim" will be hiding will say. "O Jew! There is a "Muslim" hiding behind me, so kill him."

What a maturity of mind and thought at age 22!

>>>>>They are idiots.

Yes they are idiots and more idiotic is the book and the man who inspires them. Here are a few verses from the Quran and a few verses from the Hadith of Sahih Bukhari. I am quoting them verbatim so that people do not say these are figments of my imagination. Anyone can look it up online and make their own opinion.

Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Qur'an (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"

Qur'an (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"

Qur'an (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."

Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

>>>>>They are idiots.

Yes they are idiots and more idiotic is the book and the man who inspires them. Here are a few verses from the Quran and a few verses from the Hadith of Sahih Bukhari. I am quoting them verbatim so that people do not say these are figments of my imagination. Anyone can look it up online and make their own opinion.

Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Qur'an (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"

Qur'an (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"

Qur'an (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."

Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

I could sense the pain in your writings.May Allah bless you with fortitude and guide to your success.The so called intellectuals who write in these comments have hardly undergone the pain that you have.So ignore them and pursue the truth and justice as Allah wants every Muslim in this world to do.
Religion has always been used for political and personal ends throughout history.America used the religious zeal of the Afghan tribal Muslims to drive out the Russians and they were praised as martyrs and freedom fighters.When other Muslims use the same religion against them they are called terrorists!Ignorance plays a huge part in all these machinations.Media too is used in democracies to blind the people.India is no exception.Though Muslims are largely innocent,they never act in advance to thwart the attempts of the communal fundamentalist Hindus.In the age of information and communication technology there is a far better possibility of putting the Muslims cause to the public.Hardly Muslims use the media.Why not you do it?Recently Amitav Kumar has written a book on the atrocities on Gujarat Muslims.Why not make a documentary?
You are advocating action which I fully endorse as Islam wants every Muslims to be proactive. Not just speaking theology as in other religions.Even the way of worship is full of action not just contemplation through meditation.With your zeal you should be able to do and I wish you success.

Gayatri:

Please do not stoop to personal abuse. Arguments and discussions should be based on ideas and not insulting other people. We should encourage Anwaar and others to talk and exchange ideas in the open rather than shunting them out. Please refrain from such comments. Respect others like you want them to respect you irrespective of their opinions. All of Anwaar's comments are civil and polite.

i am allways surprised why the resident maulvi is so obsessed in remaining in this forum, despite pails of dung
being thrown at him on a daily basis.

he is the worst advertisement for islam, which is the only thing which interests him. he is the epitome of the fanatical ,bigoted and stubborn muslim.

vendetta against modi, the injustices committed against
muslims in india are his other interest.

what does he expect from all of this. another kinky virgin
on top of the 72 the normal allowance. how do muslim men
justify this to their wives. how is that their wives accept
this licentious behaviour-

how is it that they can drink wine ad lib in heaven but not
a drop in this life.


has heaven beem updated so that the residents have the latest gadgets, mobile telehones,lap tops, flat tv,s.

however the resident maulvi has decided that its unwise to change horses in mid stream. he has been a true believer
all his life. its best to stay one til the bitter end.

at any rate why bother to stay in this forum and be laughed at,made fun off and abused every single day.

that sure is something i can not understand.

murtu

i love your open defiance of islam and the prophet-pbuh.

in his reply maulvisahib says that the those who committed
the atrocities were not serious about islam.

however in the ritual beheading of daniel pearl his executioners recited verses from the koran.

imagine a christian beheading his enemy and reciting verses
from the 10 commandments- oops. "though shalt not kill"

his constant refrain reminds me of a book "one day in the life of iavan denisovitch" written by alexander solzetsynin.

when the out spoken former captain of the red navy appears
before the commander of the labour camp he says. " you are
not a communist"

give him another 14 days with bread only is the answer. from
the commander.

mullah omar, osama bib laden, sayeed who is behind let have
read the koran more often then even the maulvi sahib. so
have the hundreds of thousand of terrorists.

so have people like tasleema nasreen, ayan hirsi ali, and
many others who have been sentenced to death by mullahs
for expressing their opinion of islam. these are people who
have been honoured in the west by governments, writers
and thinkers. they have paid a high price for their beliefs.

maulvisahib on the other hand is not even willing to write in his own name and correct adress. so scared is he for
usa authorities for finding him out.

islam has stayed immobile , without introspection for centuries. its critics have been named apostates, killed
and beaten. why do they bother i wonder . . are the billion
and more muslims worth bothering about. they are an enigma
to many of us. what do they see in this religion, which
does not love a woman but women and those whose principle
attribute is that they are on call at all times of the day.

mehemmet is known to have said that muslims should travell
even to china in search of knowledge. in contrast we have
in this forum who rejects all knowledge which is critical
of islam.

i wonder if one can find a book on poetry by chaucer or wordsworth in the libraries of muslim countries. how about
books by richard dawkins, karl marx or the western philosophers.

" this is my last post in this thread "

>> All my comments are based on trying to understand what drives and inspires them to commit such horrendous things in the name of their religion?



Perhaps it's the 72 houris.


Seriously, though, if you ever loved someone
on earth, would you not want to spend eternal
life with them, instead of screwing virgins?


Shows you what kind of thinker Muhammad was.


A stupid, barbaric, inhuman, petty brigand.


The sooner we leave his Islam behind, the better.

>> what drives and inspires them to commit such horrendous things in the name of their religion?

They are idiots. Kasab's testimony shows that he had hardly any interest in or knowledge of Islam. Western hostages released by the Taliban have said that their captors hardly every prayed or read the Quran. They habitually take the name of religion in everything they do, but what motivates them is not religion but geopolitics and xenophobia. This will be my last post in this thread.

_Kaffir. One more sensible voice on the forum.
Keep up the good work Murtuzu and Kaffir.
Tks

Anwaar:

I think we are on the same side.

>>>>>Terrorists kill everyone, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Christians

All my comments are based on trying to understand what drives and inspires them to commit such horrendous things in the name of their religion?

>> Dont forget 26/11 where Jews were brutally killed in Mumbai.

Terrorists kill everyone, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Christians. The fact that they specifically targetted Nariman House is especially heinous. But terrorists are beyond the pale.

Thanks Murtuza for bringing up the Qadiyani case in Hyderabad. Of course the Qadiyanis were treated unfairly and the implication from Mr. Owaisi was that there would be "law and order" problem. No prizes for guessing what Mr. Owaisi was hinting at.

Dont forget 26/11 where Jews were brutally killed in Mumbai - of course by people from the neighboring bigoted country, but with the assistance of a few Indian nationals. Imagine seeking out a handful of people from a city of 15 million people and coming all the way from Karachi for that.

If we dont question such tendencies today we might as well get ready for someone to be killed tomorrow.

>>>>> Am I here to answer your questions?
No you are not. You are free to comment on what you choose. But you seemed unhealthily obsessed with whether I was a Sangh or a Hindu or what not. So my comment was to ask you not to bother who I was, but rather comment on what I wrote (if you choose to).

Murtuza,

>> Owaisi demand not to permit
an Ahmadiyya gathering in Hyderabad.

The question about Qadianis was, "human beings who deserve to be killed as ordained in Quran or any other holy book?" I do not know of any Qadianis being killed in India recently. Do you? I have been rebuked several times for criticizing the treatment of Qadianis in the subcontinent. However when this propagandist jumps form the subject of kafirs to Qadianis to homosexuals, it means he is out to throw everything including the kitchen sink at Muslims. I have no patience with such hate pracharaks, so I give them terse one sentence answers.

Anwaar:

>> I don't know if Indian Muslims are targetting any of those groups


Are you serious about the Qadianis?

A few weeks before his death, YSR Reddy
acceded to an Owaisi demand not to permit
an Ahmadiyya gathering in Hyderabad, on
the grounds that it would create a "law
and order problem" in the city. In the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, meanwhile,
they are declared non-Muslims, and every
Pakistani citizen who applies for a
passport has to sign a document that says
that he/she rejects and disclaims the
religion of the Ahmadi. What a shameful,
disgusting, bigoted country Pakistan is.

But yes, they are persecuted in India too.

Not by Indian Hindus, but Indian Muslims.

Facts are facts.

Religion's had its way unchallenged -
for millenia. It's time to push back.

Kaffir,

>> Since Hindus are cleared of being Kaffirs can this amnesty be extended to other potential Kaffirs like atheists, agnostics,Jews, idolators, Qadiyanis, homosexuals and any other category of human beings who deserve to be killed as ordained in Quran or any other holy book?

I don't know if Indian Muslims are targetting any of those groups, so your bringing it up is just a piece of malicious mischief.

>> Last time I checked Islam was a religion.

What I said was that I do not discuss religion in this forum, but I do confront those who try to use this forum to carry on a systematic hate war against Islam. Several other posters take on those who attack Hinduism, and they have every right to do so.

>> Just answer the questions I have raised.

Am I here to answer your questions? I shall comment on anything that I wish to comment on as long as it is relevant to the discussion.

Kaffir:

>> 50 years from now kids (at least the ones who go to regular schools) will laugh at us for believing in such stupidity.


In Islam's case, it's going to have to
be more like 150 years. But I agree
broadly with you. Let's work for the
annihilation of religion in the future.

Faith's extirpation is nigh.
Please visit here regularly.

Anwaar:

I do think you mean well and have sincere intentions. So do I.

Sorry! Muhammed lived in 7th century AD. I dont want to be called a sanghi because of a minor error :-).

>>>>>These are not the words of a sagacious peace seeking Hindu, but of someone who is rearing for a fight. Modern Muslim scholars reserve the word 'kafir' for those who betrayed Mohammed. Last year in response to a VHP qustionaire, several Muslim leaders averred that the word kafir cannot be applied to Hindus.

I never claimed I was a Hindu. What if I were a Muslim? Please read with attention. If every Muslim agrees that a Kaffir is someone who betrayed Muhammed that is perfectly fine. Since Muhammed lived in 7th century BC nobody can betray him today and hence nobody can be killed or ill-treated for being a kaffir.

Since Hindus are cleared of being Kaffirs can this amnesty be extended to other potential Kaffirs like atheists, agnostics,Jews, idolators, Qadiyanis, homosexuals and any other category of human beings who deserve to be killed as ordained in Quran or any other holy book?

>>>>>I do not discuss religion in this site. I do try to show up those with a systematic anti-Islam propaganda program as the despicable hate peddlers that they are.

Last time I checked Islam was a religion.

You can be suspicious and paranoid all want. Just answer the questions I have raised.

www.faithfreedom.org is not a hate site. If you think so you have not read it.

I look forward to the day when religion is extinct. 90% of China has no religion and they are doing perfectly fine. 50 years from now kids (at least the ones who go to regular schools) will laugh at us for believing in such stupidity.

All I am asking is for people to introspect if what their religion says makes sense. Some of it might and some of it might not. The other option is to see a procession of endless violence and hatred in the name of religion.

Anwaar:

>> The myriad virtues are the ones that Tauseef sees in his faith. If you think they are not there, that too is a valid point of view.


No. Religion needs to be a bit de-personalized.

Islam is, in the end, an explicit belief system.

Either you believe in its claims, or you do not.

Either it has been, on balance, a good thing for
the world or it hasn't. All this is observable.


Not everything is about personal
and / or subjective experiences.

Religion is something that works in the real world.

Murtuza,

>> This is just sophistry and soft-peddling
the so-called "myriad virtues" of faith.

The myriad virtues are the ones that Tauseef sees in his faith. If you think they are not there, that too is a valid point of view.

Anwaar,

>> I have not heard the word kafir used by Muslims as much as it is used by sanghi hate propagandists.

Do you really visit all the islamic forums that you claim you do ?

Anwaar:

>> I have not heard the word kafir used by Muslims as much as it is used by sanghi hate propagandists.


I would recommend you watch any Pakistani
television channel, except CNBC and GEO.

You'll soon change your mind on this.

What a disgusting, bigoted country it is.

Anwaar:

>> I do not accept your bonafides for a minute.


I suspect him too. But his statements
will prove who he is: he agreed that
Hinduism is not true, so he's probably
not a Sanghi. There are many Indian
Hitchens-Dawkins fans now on the web.

Thank God for that!

Anwaar:

>> Let more and more young people articulate such inpiring messages. Sooner or later the grown-ups will have to listen.


What, pray is inpiring (sic) about the
paragraphs you quoted there? Nothing.


He said:
>>>> It pains me to see that so many of the progressive world’s youth are now rapidly abandoning religion, not because they spurn its myriad virtues,


This is just sophistry and soft-peddling
the so-called "myriad virtues" of faith.

Let him list one.

And:

>>>> instead of defining our actions by our religion, we work to define our religion through our actions. A new perspective is needed, so that what becomes most salient is a human conscience, with our divine confidence being only a reaffirmation of the direction in which our moral compass is already pointing


This is simply insulting.

What about those of us who see no need to
place the Hindu or Islamic fairy tales on
a pedestal, and seek to let them either
'define us' -- which I hope to God we do
not -- or to 'define them with our acts'
-- whatever that means. As for 'divine
confidence being only a reaffirmation of
the direction in which our moral compass
is already pointing', to translate it into
English, this long-winded soliloquy simply
reaffirms what I said before: Religion is
a human invention. To the extent that we
pick and choose from the filth of the Bible
or the Qur'an today, we define our morality
mostly by modern, 21st century consensus.

No thanks to religion.

None whatsoever.

"It frightens me that efforts to promote bigotry among the ignorant have been much more successful than the ability to spur the enlightened from their complacency. It pains me to see that so many of the progressive world’s youth are now rapidly abandoning religion, not because they spurn its myriad virtues, but because they feel the need to disconnect from its perceived refusal to place values and the human kindred spirit ahead of its reprobate desire to be an identifier of its followers.

"Despite concerns of the present and fears for the future, there remains much reason for optimism. We can change our stance so that instead of defining our actions by our religion, we work to define our religion through our actions. A new perspective is needed, so that what becomes most salient is a human conscience, with our divine confidence being only a reaffirmation of the direction in which our moral compass is already pointing."

Let more and more young people articulate such inpiring messages. Sooner or later the grown-ups will have to listen.

Kaffir,

>> Let me clarify that I bear no ill-will or hatred towards any set of human beings.

I do not accept your bonafides for a minute. Most previous hate pracharaks who have come to this forum have posted links to faithfreedom.org, a hate website. Your picking the handle of Kaffir reveals your malevolence.

>> I am an unabashed Kaffir. And I am not anti-Islam by choice. It is rather Islam that is anti-kaffir. And 90% of India is kaffir.

These are not the words of a sagacious peace seeking Hindu, but of someone who is rearing for a fight. Modern Muslim scholars reserve the word 'kafir' for those who betrayed Mohammed. Last year in response to a VHP qustionaire, several Muslim leaders averred that the word kafir cannot be applied to Hindus. I have not heard the word kafir used by Muslims as much as it is used by sanghi hate propagandists.

>> I would love to hear your thoughts.

I do not discuss religion in this site. I do try to show up those with a systematic anti-Islam propaganda program as the despicable hate peddlers that they are.

Kaffir:

>> I consider all the books to be glorified history of that particular time and place. I mean if we were in 5th century B.C. a person like Obama would have been turned into a God or a prophet.


Excellent.

We agree entirely.

Welcome.

on the train from ahmedabad to mumbai about 6 people
entered our compartment.

there were 4 women, two of whom had their faces covered with
their saris. they sat like newts through out the 7 hour journies. the two men tall,rugged and short hair were their
keepers . i asked them where they came from. i was told it
was some backward town in rajasthan.

the injustice that these two young girls faced was enormous.
how can one treat young girls-or anyone at all -like that.
i did not pursue the matter. however i was outraged at the
unfairness of it all- i was outraged that the state ignored
such issues. however the people in power in india hindu or muslim were a hopeless breed- they had no ideas of freedom,
equality for womem. those who had kept silent.

some make excuses for their communities like the resident maulvi, despite liveing in usa,the land of the free.

religion in india and elsewhere is for people who are afraid
to think. this applies more to muslims then any other community.

i read in this edition that the elderly muslim resented muslim women out of their homes even when they were clad in a burqa. that is the way many muslims think.and where do they get their ideas. naturally from their holy koran where every word is the word of god.

it is time that the secular state stepped in to change the
rules of the game.

yesterday i was out in the shopping street in kalundborg
where i live with my wife. we say pretty young girls cycleing on the car free shopping street. people sat in caffes drinking coffee or beer. we heard music from a distant place. the bells of our 800 year old church were still.

this is peace , and freedom. this is what civilised liveing is all about.

azamgarh and places like that are a blot on the face of the civilised and liberal world. no excuses can be made for such places as far as liberal people are concerned.

sarkozy president of france has said so. the burqa and the
veil will be banned because it is incompatible with the
ideals of french society.

kaffir

imagine the cheek of the resident maulvi-

if you want to discuss religion go else where.

this is typical of bigoted muslims- the only solution to this is to send the maulvi to a muslim country. nonmuslims
in india and the west should not tolerate such drop outs
in their society. he does not own outlook,india. he has
absolute no right to decide who shall debate or what should be debated.

the so called secularists have been playing footsie with
the islamists for far too long. the results are hopeless.

how can such bigots and their community demand so much from
a plural society when they admit their own backwardness.

should the backward and bigoted decide over the more enlightened. its farsical.

its time maulvis and mullahs were put in their place. if
anything the resident maulvi should move to another site,
i am tired of his mindless drivel- his reluctance to
avoid debateing the key matters in india which is the bigotry of the muslims , their adherence to a medieval faith is known to all.

akbar has called the muslims a sick limb, with little hope of getting better. all evidence points out to the fact that
a overwhelming majority do not wish to change.

more modern muslims have given up. who dares fight the
hordes of did witted fanatics.

liberal muslims should jump ship like murtu-let the rest
sail or sink in the leakey vessel of islam.

if maulvisahib is so sure of his views why continue in this
forum where he meets universal disapproval.he knows our views.

he should post in a muslim blog and get to learn more about his communities mindset.

Anwaar:

Let me clarify that I bear no ill-will or hatred towards any set of human beings.

>>>That should be done for all religions, but not here in Outlook's forum.
It should be absolutely done for all religions. Yes I do write in other forums and blogs.

I am writing on this forum because Tauseef's article has to do with violence in the name of religion. I am writing it because it has relevance to our country.

Like my handle suggests I am an unabashed Kaffir. And I am not anti-Islam by choice. It is rather Islam that is anti-kaffir. And 90% of India is kaffir. I would love to hear your thoughts rather than you trying to shut my mouth. And if you happen to be a Muslim I would treasure your thoughts a bit more.

Salaam

hi tauseef!!! what is the name of this school ;) which year you graduated? who was the principal? lol very good story, very original title but some basic facts would be appreciated lol

Murtuza:

I dont know what a professional Sangh blogger is :-).

I am pretty sure there are plenty of inconsistencies with the books of the Hindus. For example the Manusmriti talks of caste or varnas. I believe it is hogwash and needs to be chucked in the dustbin of history. Now let us take the most well regarded book -the Bhagavad Geeta. I do not consider it the word of God. In the Mahabharat there are many instances where Krishna is manipulative and cunning. But as far as I know there is no concept of "Hindus" as a religion or how they should treat "non-Hindus" in the books of Hinduism.

I consider all the books to be glorified history of that particular time and place. I mean if we were in 5th century B.C. a person like Obama would have been turned into a God or a prophet.

Sure if the Quran or the Geeta or the Bible has good and uplifting things by all means read it and use it. But considering each and every letter in the book as sacred and beyond doubt and as God's word does not make sense in this age and day.

I dont know if I pass the litmus test. But these are my thoughts.

My summary and opinion is that all the holy books no matter what religion were written by men of that particular age and place.

Kaffir:


Are you really what you say you are?

Or are you a professional Sangh blogger?

Tell me what you think of Hinduism, say.

Kaffir,

>> it is only fair that we examine the book and the man under the harshest microscope before accepting it.

That should be done for all religions, but not here in Outlook's forum. You should take your discussion to a religiously oriented forum. If you want to run a systematic anti-Islam campaign, you should start your own blog on the internet. Or you can write on the faithfreedom.org blog.

Murtuza:

You are right. I am no Muslim. So I dont pretend to know what their thoughts on such issues (de-literalizing) are. Maybe most do de-literalize. Otherwise the world would have seen a lot more Osamas.

If this discussion leads to even one person doing some introspection I would consider it a success.

Salaam from a Kaffir
www.faithfreedom.org

Anwaar:

I have no propaganda nor do I have hatred. However I have been reading the Quran and the Hadiths critically and sincerely. What I have conveyed are my opinions after reading the early history of Islam and the life of Muhammed. I would encourage you to refute my arguments logically. I am commenting because I am sick and tired of violence and intolerance in the name of religion (every religion). If that sounds like propaganda then yes I have a propaganda.

If we are going to lead our entire lives based on a man and a book, it is only fair that we examine the book and the man under the harshest microscope before accepting it.

As a starter, I ask you to tell me how Islam intends to deal with a "kaffir" in this world? I am perfectly fine with being roasted in hellfire or whatever other macabre torture Allah has for me in the next world.

Not to lose sight of the main article, I sincerely hope the Jafri family gets justice.

I believe it is better to cure a disease (figurative not literal) rather than taking medicine just to suppress the symptoms of the disease.

Perhaps we spend too much time obsessing
with Hindu-Muslim issues all the time.

So very much more could be achieved if we
focused on economics and on infrastructure.

Sadly, every poll conducted shows that India
is one of the most religious nations on earth.
Something like 99% have some kind of belief
in God, even if it is a wishy-washy belief.

Kaffir:

While all that you say is true,
we must hope that Muslims can
achieve a de-literalizing of
the Qur'an. The Qur'an must
not be taken 100% literally as
the words of Allah. If that is
achieved, we have very little
to worry about. I hope it is.

Kaffir,

Are you planning to use this forum for your anti-Islam hate propaganda?

To Ajith & Vivek:

I agree with Murtuza on this. Burying our heads in the sand and wishing the problem away will not solve the problem.

Yes there are incidents of violence in every religious book. But it is my contention that only in Islam was violence used to intimidate and convert people. In fact the central theme of Islam (and to an extent Christianity) is to convert non-believers into Muslims (by hook or crook). Why the desperation???? Allah will take care of us in the next world. So please stop taking "care" of us for him in this world.

#1: Islam teaches Quran is literally the word of the God and it is perfect. All the mention of killing non-believers and the wonderfully sensuous descriptions of Heaven and the amazingly sadistic tortures of Hell are in the book and the Hadiths. No Muslim (at least publicly) will concede that it cannot or may not be true. The reason for not conceding even if they have doubts is that the same book has said they will be killed for apostasy if they do that. This is the reason this religion has "flourished" till this day.

#2: There are no religious schools in Hinduism/Christianity. I mean this in the sense that a child at a small age does not start exclusively learning religious ideas. However there are millions of students being taught in Madrassas. These kids are brainwashed with the ideas of Quran and the Hadiths. It beggars belief that
millions of lives are being wasted in the name of religious education in Madrassas. We have to speak up so that more lives are not wasted.

#3:>>>>>>>Ram was bad because he killed Bali slyly or that Krishna coaxed Arjun to defy the well-established rules of war or that Yudhishtra lied etc.
Let me first clarify that I am not a defender of Hinduism. But let me also explain how this differs from Islam. Krishna did not ask Arjuna to fight so that he can convert the Kauravas into his religion and believe in Krishna. He asked him to fight against injustice. Nor did Krishna ask his followers to keep waging wars until everybody in this world believes in Krishna. Same thing with Ram. On top of it anybody in the world can criticise Ram and Krishna and disagree with them without having to be killed. You just have to look at the murder of Theo van Gogh to understand what I am saying.

#4: Muhammed's life is no different from that of Genghis Khan. They were brutal to people who opposed them and extremely benevolent to their followers. Their goals were the same - world domination. Now I admire Muhammed and Genghis for their military and political brilliance. But brainwashing every child and human being that he needs to live a life like Genghis or Muhammed will lead to nothing but destruction. For a man from the 7th century Muhammed did some good things and a lot of despicable things. He is no "Insaan-al-Kamil" (perfect man)....at least not for the 21st century.

#5: I ask the readers (especially the Muslim readers) to read the Quran and the Hadiths with a logical and rational bent of mind. Maybe, just maybe not everything mentioned in it is right.

Salaam from a Kaffir,
www.faithfreedom.org

>> It's also my free expression to criticize it.

Of course it is!
It's also my free expression to differ with it!
(Not that you said it isn't!)

>> if some women on their own want to wear the burqa, it is free expression.

Of course it is.

I am 100% opposed to any ban-burqa laws.

It's also my free expression to criticize it.

Of course, Murtuza, one stands for secularism. Always. Never shy away from calling a spade a spade, when required. But I think with or without invoking the Quran, if some women on their own want to wear the burqa, it is free expression.

Ajit:


At the family and social level, of course
you're right. And I love Shrikhand myself,
for that matter, or anything from Chitale!

But we all have politico-religious views.

And we should stand by some principles,
when it comes to things like secularism.

Murtuza, you are right.

But I cannot go and tell my grandmother that Ram was bad because he killed Bali slyly or that Krishna coaxed Arjun to defy the well-established rules of war or that Yudhishtra lied etc.

All right, I can, but I know I better not because she would refuse to make me my favourite shrikhand and puri.

So with her, I play along. With my father and mother I don't need to hold back and can say what I want. Point is: one looks at what is possible to achieve. I like Dawkins and the battle he is waging against the creationists etc. It is important to do that. But one has to try out various methods to wean people away from violence. Whatever works, should be used, I say!

Tauseef,

My best wishes to you and your family. May justice and truth triumph.

Vivek:

>> There are many bad things in every religion.


Try getting a believing Muslim to concede that.

They'll usually say 'this is a perversion of
true Islam and a misreading of the Qur'an'.

Almost never is there an acknowledgement that
Muhammad was a controversial, violent man, or
that the Qur'an is maybe not the word of God
as literally uttered, after all. Big problem.

>>Oh you bet. you forgot to add " we will put a fatwa on your head & kill you if you do not think so "

>>May you be allotted an extra nubile virgin or two , in addition to the usual quota of 72 for this great discovery.

A huge majority of muslims don't believe in this kind of crap. There are many bad things in every religion. We can analyze or criticize religious practices. But lets stop painting every person with the same brush.

Tauseef

Excellent article. I am very sorry to hear about your grand father's murder. I hope people will reach a stage in India, they value and respect other human beings not look them by their caste, religion or class. Over several centuries, we have developed a feudal and closed mindset that does not give importance to fellow humans. That mindset is changing slowly but our political system tries to keep it going.

One thing about the reason you wondered why religion is losing appeal among youth. Most of religious explanations were proved wrong by science. Instead of accepting that our understanding of universe proved that many of religious dogmas are wrong and irrelevant, religion tries to force people to ignore the truth. That is in direct conflict with new reality.

There are many great thing about religions, the most important one is teaching people to be good humans through compassion. The compassionate co-existence brought the human race to do extra-ordinary things. But now, religion has become a tool to grab power and fight. The more religious bigotry, the lesser will be the appeal among the youth.

>>Islam is a peaceful religion

Oh you bet. you forgot to add " we will put a fatwa on your head & kill you if you do not think so "

May you be allotted an extra nubile virgin or two , in addition to the usual quota of 72 for this great discocery.

Murtuza Polen.

Keep up the good work. We need more people like you.

Brother Tauseef:

First let me express my heartfelt condolences for the tragedy imposed on your life. Nothing can justify the violence of either the people killed on the Sabarmati
train or the post-Sabarmati express violence in retaliation.

Having said that it needs to be questioned why do these violent incidents keep happening, particularly in India. You just have to breeze through the pages of history
to see the trend. Ever since the religion of Islam was invented, it has tried to propogate a certain kind of Arabic cultural imperialism. Islam was the first religion
to bind an individual's faith with a politico-military doctrine. The adherents are asked to conquer the world for Allah and Muhammed at the cost of their lives.
Any rational or logical reading of the Quran, the Sira and the Hadith cannot but lead one to conclude that it justifies and even promotes violence. There are numerous instances/verses asking Muhammedans
to kill the non-Muslims. I will not even mention the verses on women and polygamy or the verses which describe heaven and hell. All of these verses are consistent
with the Arabic culture and the knowledge that the primitive Arab society had in the seventh century.
I hold no brief for any of the other religions. However it must be said that none of these actively promote violence/jihad in the way that Islam does. No scripture
of Christiantiy or Hindusim or Buddhism asks their followers to kill people who do not believe in them. Nor do their prophets as in Jesus Christ or Buddha have
anything to do with violence. Muhammed is said to have personally been involved in 78 military raids which involved looting and murder and taking women and children
captive. While apologists will say the raids were defensive, I question anyone how can a "raid" or "ghazwas" be defensive.

I ask the readers to go through the early history of Islam and especially the life story of Muhammed. Muhammed's story does not parallel Jesus Christ or Buddha, rather it
has parallels with other brutal military leaders like Genghis Khan and Hitler. I have no issues with Muslims and they are as wonderful a people as any other faith. However
there indeed are numerous issues with Muhammed and his teachings.

A simple pointer to the inherent intolerance of Islam is that no non-Muslims are allowed in the city of Mecca. As far as I know this is the only place on Earth
which practices religious fascism.


An excellent site for readers to acquaint themselves with matters on this issue is: http://www.faithfreedom.org.

Salaam from a Kaffir.

Tauseef:


My best to Ms. Zakia Jafri.

Justice and truth will prevail.

Mohammed:

Well, well, what do we have here?


>> It seems to me that you are lacking the knowledge about islam and Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). I advise you to learn about islam before make any such statements.


What do I not know about Muhammad (SAWS)?

I know that he ordered the execution of
Jewish teenagers of the Banu Qurayza --
see the quote on "whoever had begun to
grow hair underneath the armpits, was
killed" -- that he was a violent and
intolerant thug who had the poetess
Asma bint Marwan killed for her verses.

Don't try to teach me about the Deen.

I have, prior to my apostasy, translated
a couple of Tafsir into the Kutchi dialect.

I am a Hafiz. Are you?

So don't start with this 'lacking knowledge'
and 'learn about Islam' garbage -- please.


>> Islam is a peaceful religion and fastest growing religion in the world.


More empty-headed, meaningless propaganda.

To say 'Islam is peaceful' is as meaningless
as to say 'Islam is violent'. The relevant
question is: what are the doctrines of the
so-called Prophet Muhammad (SAWS)? What were
his views on murtads, on kuffar, on gays, on
freedom of expression, or theocratic states?

As for 'fastest growing', why boast about
the fact that Muslim women bear more kids
than any other religious group on earth?
It hardly testifies to women's equality.


>> Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) who always presented himself as a servant of God (Allah) while maintaining utmost simplicity,


How do his raids, loot and plunder fit into this?
Many dictators had personally simple lifestyles.


>>.. showed everybody a path that leads closer to God (Allah), he is a role model for every body.


Let us be thankful that most Muslims
today do not really ape the barbarity
and intolerance of the Insaan-al-Kamil.

Muhammad was a monster.

As was the supposed Moses, and many other
barbaric founders of the semitic faiths.

It's time to forget about him and move on.

High time.

Murtuza Polen

It seems to me that you are lacking the knowledge about islam and Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). I advise you to learn about islam before make any such statements. Islam is a peaceful religion and fastest growing religion in the world. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) who always presented himself as a servant of God (Allah) while maintaining utmost simplicity, showed everybody a path that leads closer to God (Allah), he is a role model for every body.

Tauseef:

>> Just to clarify, I am not particularly religious myself. I do think religion has taught me many good values and played a large part in my cultural upbringing,


Good for you. And I apologize if I sounded
uncaring or harsh -- I deal with religion as
a bunch of ideas, not the passionately held
beliefs of individuals -- that's how I see it.

I sympathize deeply with your grandfather's
death, and think you are very big-hearted and
forgiving to rise above hatred and revenge.

But I return to this point: we invented it.

What is Islam, say? It is largely a collection
of the mores of seventh-century Arabia. How
women ought to dress, what people ought to eat
-- remember the 'camel's urine as a medicine'
Hadiths -- and so on. The character of the
individual Muhammad does nothing to inspire
confidence that his doctrines have any truth.
It is appalling to go into details of what he
said and did. His doctrines are simply cruel.


>> Although I have and know many people in my life who do love their relationship with their religion, and I can surely appreciate that, though I do not share it.


Here we part company. I have not had a very
good relationship with the Momeen myself --
post-apostasy, that is. I have had death
threats, and in-your-face intimidation by a
NYC bunch of Neanderthals called the 'Islamic
Thinkers Society'. The question is not if
we 'respect each other'; it is, do we respect
each other's right to believe or disbelieve?

I do.

The votaries of Muhammad don't.


>> Whatever religion we are, I think the most important thing is to not judge others based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, and instead understand people based on the way they live their lives.


This is not about 'people'. It is about
belief systems. If I was to attack your
presumed support for Obama, say, or for
the Yankees, you would think nothing of
it. Why, then, must we ringfence faith?

Religion is a belief system.

It must be criticized.

The fact that it chooses to hide behind
blasphemy laws is proof of its weakness.

And again: at a very minimum, we need to
make it clear that in the 21st century you
don't have the Salafis spreading their
textbook poison globally, ruining the minds
of children by telling them 'not to take
the Jews or Christians as friends', or to
kill adulterers, homosexuals or apostates.

That should be our focus.

Tauseef Hussain

It is an excellent posting that I have read recently. I concur with your views on religion. Religions of all kinds are modern anachronisms that are not relevant to modern realities. The Japanese used to say in relation to hoarding inventory in bulk as inventory is the root of all evils and I believe all religions are the root of all evils in the world today.

Just to clarify, I am not particularly religious myself. I do think religion has taught me many good values and played a large part in my cultural upbringing, and that for those people who take the good from religion, it can be a wonderful thing.

I don't believe I need religion in my life in order to be a good person, and I don't think it would be very sincere of me to practice religion if I did not believe strongly. I believe we can find the lessons that religions preach, and apply them to our lives, without having to rely on religion to guide us. Although I have and know many people in my life who do love their relationship with their religion, and I can surely appreciate that, though I do not share it.

I wrote the article more as my outlook on religion (as a whole) as I have grown to view it in my 22 years of life, but not as a religious person, just as a person...Whatever religion we are, I think the most important thing is to not judge others based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, and instead understand people based on the way they live their lives.

I am glad and very interested to read all your comments.

Religion was man made,and God had nothing to do with it. All the religious books were man's creation,and they reflect their minds through the ages.The sooner people realize it,the better it is for all.

Tauseef,

Thanks for sharing your story. Whether your name is Hussain or Hari, it is sad to see lives of ordinary people being dislodged or ruined because of the intolerance and hatred of others. It is good to see that instead of becoming bitter, you have decided to speak up against religion based hatred. You should be proud of the struggle for justice waged by your grandmother, Mrs.Ehsan Jafri.

>> It pains me to see that so many of the progressive world’s youth are now rapidly abandoning religion, not because they spurn its myriad virtues,


What virtues?

Religion gets its morality from us, not we from it.

We invented religion.

It was our first and worst explanation for a lot
of things: death, birth, weather, cosmology...

We have real, evidence-based explanations now.

It's time to put aside mythologies and move on.


>> but because they feel the need to disconnect from its perceived refusal to place values and the human kindred spirit ahead of its reprobate desire to be an identifier of its followers.


So do you really suppose Muhammad cared
more about "values and the human kindred
spirit" than he did about his own power,
followers and his self-aggrandizement?

Get real.

The 'prophets' were the -- charismatic --
political leaders of their day. Nothing
more and nothing less. And yes, they had
many credulous followers. So did Hitler.

If only you shared T. Jeff's contempt for religion.

What is the Qur'an? Why should you, an educated,
sensible person in the 21st century, let yourself
be identified with some text from medieval Arabia?

Give it up.

Or, at least, don't take it literally.

That's the first step Islam needs: de-literalizing.

Sadly, it is very slow in happening.

If only you shared T. Jeff's contempt for religion.

What is the Qur'an? Why should you, an educated,
sensible person in the 21st century, let yourself
be identified with some text from medieval Arabia?

Give it up.

Or, at least, don't take it literally.

That's the first step Islam needs: de-literalizing.

Sadly, it is very slow in happening.

>> It pains me to see that so many of the progressive world’s youth are now rapidly abandoning religion, not because they spurn its myriad virtues,


What virtues?

Religion gets its morality from us, not we from it.

We invented religion.

It was our first and worst explanation for a lot
of things: death, birth, weather, cosmology...

We have real, evidence-based explanations now.

It's time to put aside mythologies and move on.


>> but because they feel the need to disconnect from its perceived refusal to place values and the human kindred spirit ahead of its reprobate desire to be an identifier of its followers.


So do you really suppose Muhammad cared
more about "values and the human kindred
spirit" than he did about his own power,
followers and his self-aggrandizement?

Get real.

The 'prophets' were the -- charismatic --
political leaders of their day. Nothing
more and nothing less. And yes, they had
many credulous followers. So did Hitler.

Tauseef,

Thanks for sharing your story. Whether your name is Hussain or Hari, it is sad to see lives of ordinary people being dislodged or ruined because of the intolerance and hatred of others. It is good to see that instead of becoming bitter, you have decided to speak up against religion based hatred. You should be proud of the struggle for justice waged by your grandmother, Mrs.Ehsan Jafri.

Religion was man made,and God had nothing to do with it. All the religious books were man's creation,and they reflect their minds through the ages.The sooner people realize it,the better it is for all.

Just to clarify, I am not particularly religious myself. I do think religion has taught me many good values and played a large part in my cultural upbringing, and that for those people who take the good from religion, it can be a wonderful thing.

I don't believe I need religion in my life in order to be a good person, and I don't think it would be very sincere of me to practice religion if I did not believe strongly. I believe we can find the lessons that religions preach, and apply them to our lives, without having to rely on religion to guide us. Although I have and know many people in my life who do love their relationship with their religion, and I can surely appreciate that, though I do not share it.

I wrote the article more as my outlook on religion (as a whole) as I have grown to view it in my 22 years of life, but not as a religious person, just as a person...Whatever religion we are, I think the most important thing is to not judge others based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, and instead understand people based on the way they live their lives.

I am glad and very interested to read all your comments.

Tauseef Hussain

It is an excellent posting that I have read recently. I concur with your views on religion. Religions of all kinds are modern anachronisms that are not relevant to modern realities. The Japanese used to say in relation to hoarding inventory in bulk as inventory is the root of all evils and I believe all religions are the root of all evils in the world today.

Tauseef:

>> Just to clarify, I am not particularly religious myself. I do think religion has taught me many good values and played a large part in my cultural upbringing,


Good for you. And I apologize if I sounded
uncaring or harsh -- I deal with religion as
a bunch of ideas, not the passionately held
beliefs of individuals -- that's how I see it.

I sympathize deeply with your grandfather's
death, and think you are very big-hearted and
forgiving to rise above hatred and revenge.

But I return to this point: we invented it.

What is Islam, say? It is largely a collection
of the mores of seventh-century Arabia. How
women ought to dress, what people ought to eat
-- remember the 'camel's urine as a medicine'
Hadiths -- and so on. The character of the
individual Muhammad does nothing to inspire
confidence that his doctrines have any truth.
It is appalling to go into details of what he
said and did. His doctrines are simply cruel.


>> Although I have and know many people in my life who do love their relationship with their religion, and I can surely appreciate that, though I do not share it.


Here we part company. I have not had a very
good relationship with the Momeen myself --
post-apostasy, that is. I have had death
threats, and in-your-face intimidation by a
NYC bunch of Neanderthals called the 'Islamic
Thinkers Society'. The question is not if
we 'respect each other'; it is, do we respect
each other's right to believe or disbelieve?

I do.

The votaries of Muhammad don't.


>> Whatever religion we are, I think the most important thing is to not judge others based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, and instead understand people based on the way they live their lives.


This is not about 'people'. It is about
belief systems. If I was to attack your
presumed support for Obama, say, or for
the Yankees, you would think nothing of
it. Why, then, must we ringfence faith?

Religion is a belief system.

It must be criticized.

The fact that it chooses to hide behind
blasphemy laws is proof of its weakness.

And again: at a very minimum, we need to
make it clear that in the 21st century you
don't have the Salafis spreading their
textbook poison globally, ruining the minds
of children by telling them 'not to take
the Jews or Christians as friends', or to
kill adulterers, homosexuals or apostates.

That should be our focus.

Murtuza Polen

It seems to me that you are lacking the knowledge about islam and Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). I advise you to learn about islam before make any such statements. Islam is a peaceful religion and fastest growing religion in the world. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) who always presented himself as a servant of God (Allah) while maintaining utmost simplicity, showed everybody a path that leads closer to God (Allah), he is a role model for every body.

Mohammed:

Well, well, what do we have here?


>> It seems to me that you are lacking the knowledge about islam and Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). I advise you to learn about islam before make any such statements.


What do I not know about Muhammad (SAWS)?

I know that he ordered the execution of
Jewish teenagers of the Banu Qurayza --
see the quote on "whoever had begun to
grow hair underneath the armpits, was
killed" -- that he was a violent and
intolerant thug who had the poetess
Asma bint Marwan killed for her verses.

Don't try to teach me about the Deen.

I have, prior to my apostasy, translated
a couple of Tafsir into the Kutchi dialect.

I am a Hafiz. Are you?

So don't start with this 'lacking knowledge'
and 'learn about Islam' garbage -- please.


>> Islam is a peaceful religion and fastest growing religion in the world.


More empty-headed, meaningless propaganda.

To say 'Islam is peaceful' is as meaningless
as to say 'Islam is violent'. The relevant
question is: what are the doctrines of the
so-called Prophet Muhammad (SAWS)? What were
his views on murtads, on kuffar, on gays, on
freedom of expression, or theocratic states?

As for 'fastest growing', why boast about
the fact that Muslim women bear more kids
than any other religious group on earth?
It hardly testifies to women's equality.


>> Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) who always presented himself as a servant of God (Allah) while maintaining utmost simplicity,


How do his raids, loot and plunder fit into this?
Many dictators had personally simple lifestyles.


>>.. showed everybody a path that leads closer to God (Allah), he is a role model for every body.


Let us be thankful that most Muslims
today do not really ape the barbarity
and intolerance of the Insaan-al-Kamil.

Muhammad was a monster.

As was the supposed Moses, and many other
barbaric founders of the semitic faiths.

It's time to forget about him and move on.

High time.

Tauseef:


My best to Ms. Zakia Jafri.

Justice and truth will prevail.

Brother Tauseef:

First let me express my heartfelt condolences for the tragedy imposed on your life. Nothing can justify the violence of either the people killed on the Sabarmati
train or the post-Sabarmati express violence in retaliation.

Having said that it needs to be questioned why do these violent incidents keep happening, particularly in India. You just have to breeze through the pages of history
to see the trend. Ever since the religion of Islam was invented, it has tried to propogate a certain kind of Arabic cultural imperialism. Islam was the first religion
to bind an individual's faith with a politico-military doctrine. The adherents are asked to conquer the world for Allah and Muhammed at the cost of their lives.
Any rational or logical reading of the Quran, the Sira and the Hadith cannot but lead one to conclude that it justifies and even promotes violence. There are numerous instances/verses asking Muhammedans
to kill the non-Muslims. I will not even mention the verses on women and polygamy or the verses which describe heaven and hell. All of these verses are consistent
with the Arabic culture and the knowledge that the primitive Arab society had in the seventh century.
I hold no brief for any of the other religions. However it must be said that none of these actively promote violence/jihad in the way that Islam does. No scripture
of Christiantiy or Hindusim or Buddhism asks their followers to kill people who do not believe in them. Nor do their prophets as in Jesus Christ or Buddha have
anything to do with violence. Muhammed is said to have personally been involved in 78 military raids which involved looting and murder and taking women and children
captive. While apologists will say the raids were defensive, I question anyone how can a "raid" or "ghazwas" be defensive.

I ask the readers to go through the early history of Islam and especially the life story of Muhammed. Muhammed's story does not parallel Jesus Christ or Buddha, rather it
has parallels with other brutal military leaders like Genghis Khan and Hitler. I have no issues with Muslims and they are as wonderful a people as any other faith. However
there indeed are numerous issues with Muhammed and his teachings.

A simple pointer to the inherent intolerance of Islam is that no non-Muslims are allowed in the city of Mecca. As far as I know this is the only place on Earth
which practices religious fascism.


An excellent site for readers to acquaint themselves with matters on this issue is: http://www.faithfreedom.org.

Salaam from a Kaffir.

Murtuza Polen.

Keep up the good work. We need more people like you.

>>Islam is a peaceful religion

Oh you bet. you forgot to add " we will put a fatwa on your head & kill you if you do not think so "

May you be allotted an extra nubile virgin or two , in addition to the usual quota of 72 for this great discocery.

Tauseef

Excellent article. I am very sorry to hear about your grand father's murder. I hope people will reach a stage in India, they value and respect other human beings not look them by their caste, religion or class. Over several centuries, we have developed a feudal and closed mindset that does not give importance to fellow humans. That mindset is changing slowly but our political system tries to keep it going.

One thing about the reason you wondered why religion is losing appeal among youth. Most of religious explanations were proved wrong by science. Instead of accepting that our understanding of universe proved that many of religious dogmas are wrong and irrelevant, religion tries to force people to ignore the truth. That is in direct conflict with new reality.

There are many great thing about religions, the most important one is teaching people to be good humans through compassion. The compassionate co-existence brought the human race to do extra-ordinary things. But now, religion has become a tool to grab power and fight. The more religious bigotry, the lesser will be the appeal among the youth.

>>Oh you bet. you forgot to add " we will put a fatwa on your head & kill you if you do not think so "

>>May you be allotted an extra nubile virgin or two , in addition to the usual quota of 72 for this great discovery.

A huge majority of muslims don't believe in this kind of crap. There are many bad things in every religion. We can analyze or criticize religious practices. But lets stop painting every person with the same brush.

Vivek:

>> There are many bad things in every religion.


Try getting a believing Muslim to concede that.

They'll usually say 'this is a perversion of
true Islam and a misreading of the Qur'an'.

Almost never is there an acknowledgement that
Muhammad was a controversial, violent man, or
that the Qur'an is maybe not the word of God
as literally uttered, after all. Big problem.

Tauseef,

My best wishes to you and your family. May justice and truth triumph.

Murtuza, you are right.

But I cannot go and tell my grandmother that Ram was bad because he killed Bali slyly or that Krishna coaxed Arjun to defy the well-established rules of war or that Yudhishtra lied etc.

All right, I can, but I know I better not because she would refuse to make me my favourite shrikhand and puri.

So with her, I play along. With my father and mother I don't need to hold back and can say what I want. Point is: one looks at what is possible to achieve. I like Dawkins and the battle he is waging against the creationists etc. It is important to do that. But one has to try out various methods to wean people away from violence. Whatever works, should be used, I say!

Ajit:


At the family and social level, of course
you're right. And I love Shrikhand myself,
for that matter, or anything from Chitale!

But we all have politico-religious views.

And we should stand by some principles,
when it comes to things like secularism.

Of course, Murtuza, one stands for secularism. Always. Never shy away from calling a spade a spade, when required. But I think with or without invoking the Quran, if some women on their own want to wear the burqa, it is free expression.

>> if some women on their own want to wear the burqa, it is free expression.

Of course it is.

I am 100% opposed to any ban-burqa laws.

It's also my free expression to criticize it.

>> It's also my free expression to criticize it.

Of course it is!
It's also my free expression to differ with it!
(Not that you said it isn't!)

To Ajith & Vivek:

I agree with Murtuza on this. Burying our heads in the sand and wishing the problem away will not solve the problem.

Yes there are incidents of violence in every religious book. But it is my contention that only in Islam was violence used to intimidate and convert people. In fact the central theme of Islam (and to an extent Christianity) is to convert non-believers into Muslims (by hook or crook). Why the desperation???? Allah will take care of us in the next world. So please stop taking "care" of us for him in this world.

#1: Islam teaches Quran is literally the word of the God and it is perfect. All the mention of killing non-believers and the wonderfully sensuous descriptions of Heaven and the amazingly sadistic tortures of Hell are in the book and the Hadiths. No Muslim (at least publicly) will concede that it cannot or may not be true. The reason for not conceding even if they have doubts is that the same book has said they will be killed for apostasy if they do that. This is the reason this religion has "flourished" till this day.

#2: There are no religious schools in Hinduism/Christianity. I mean this in the sense that a child at a small age does not start exclusively learning religious ideas. However there are millions of students being taught in Madrassas. These kids are brainwashed with the ideas of Quran and the Hadiths. It beggars belief that
millions of lives are being wasted in the name of religious education in Madrassas. We have to speak up so that more lives are not wasted.

#3:>>>>>>>Ram was bad because he killed Bali slyly or that Krishna coaxed Arjun to defy the well-established rules of war or that Yudhishtra lied etc.
Let me first clarify that I am not a defender of Hinduism. But let me also explain how this differs from Islam. Krishna did not ask Arjuna to fight so that he can convert the Kauravas into his religion and believe in Krishna. He asked him to fight against injustice. Nor did Krishna ask his followers to keep waging wars until everybody in this world believes in Krishna. Same thing with Ram. On top of it anybody in the world can criticise Ram and Krishna and disagree with them without having to be killed. You just have to look at the murder of Theo van Gogh to understand what I am saying.

#4: Muhammed's life is no different from that of Genghis Khan. They were brutal to people who opposed them and extremely benevolent to their followers. Their goals were the same - world domination. Now I admire Muhammed and Genghis for their military and political brilliance. But brainwashing every child and human being that he needs to live a life like Genghis or Muhammed will lead to nothing but destruction. For a man from the 7th century Muhammed did some good things and a lot of despicable things. He is no "Insaan-al-Kamil" (perfect man)....at least not for the 21st century.

#5: I ask the readers (especially the Muslim readers) to read the Quran and the Hadiths with a logical and rational bent of mind. Maybe, just maybe not everything mentioned in it is right.

Salaam from a Kaffir,
www.faithfreedom.org

Kaffir,

Are you planning to use this forum for your anti-Islam hate propaganda?

Kaffir:

While all that you say is true,
we must hope that Muslims can
achieve a de-literalizing of
the Qur'an. The Qur'an must
not be taken 100% literally as
the words of Allah. If that is
achieved, we have very little
to worry about. I hope it is.

Perhaps we spend too much time obsessing
with Hindu-Muslim issues all the time.

So very much more could be achieved if we
focused on economics and on infrastructure.

Sadly, every poll conducted shows that India
is one of the most religious nations on earth.
Something like 99% have some kind of belief
in God, even if it is a wishy-washy belief.

Anwaar:

I have no propaganda nor do I have hatred. However I have been reading the Quran and the Hadiths critically and sincerely. What I have conveyed are my opinions after reading the early history of Islam and the life of Muhammed. I would encourage you to refute my arguments logically. I am commenting because I am sick and tired of violence and intolerance in the name of religion (every religion). If that sounds like propaganda then yes I have a propaganda.

If we are going to lead our entire lives based on a man and a book, it is only fair that we examine the book and the man under the harshest microscope before accepting it.

As a starter, I ask you to tell me how Islam intends to deal with a "kaffir" in this world? I am perfectly fine with being roasted in hellfire or whatever other macabre torture Allah has for me in the next world.

Not to lose sight of the main article, I sincerely hope the Jafri family gets justice.

I believe it is better to cure a disease (figurative not literal) rather than taking medicine just to suppress the symptoms of the disease.

Murtuza:

You are right. I am no Muslim. So I dont pretend to know what their thoughts on such issues (de-literalizing) are. Maybe most do de-literalize. Otherwise the world would have seen a lot more Osamas.

If this discussion leads to even one person doing some introspection I would consider it a success.

Salaam from a Kaffir
www.faithfreedom.org

Kaffir,

>> it is only fair that we examine the book and the man under the harshest microscope before accepting it.

That should be done for all religions, but not here in Outlook's forum. You should take your discussion to a religiously oriented forum. If you want to run a systematic anti-Islam campaign, you should start your own blog on the internet. Or you can write on the faithfreedom.org blog.

Kaffir:


Are you really what you say you are?

Or are you a professional Sangh blogger?

Tell me what you think of Hinduism, say.

Murtuza:

I dont know what a professional Sangh blogger is :-).

I am pretty sure there are plenty of inconsistencies with the books of the Hindus. For example the Manusmriti talks of caste or varnas. I believe it is hogwash and needs to be chucked in the dustbin of history. Now let us take the most well regarded book -the Bhagavad Geeta. I do not consider it the word of God. In the Mahabharat there are many instances where Krishna is manipulative and cunning. But as far as I know there is no concept of "Hindus" as a religion or how they should treat "non-Hindus" in the books of Hinduism.

I consider all the books to be glorified history of that particular time and place. I mean if we were in 5th century B.C. a person like Obama would have been turned into a God or a prophet.

Sure if the Quran or the Geeta or the Bible has good and uplifting things by all means read it and use it. But considering each and every letter in the book as sacred and beyond doubt and as God's word does not make sense in this age and day.

I dont know if I pass the litmus test. But these are my thoughts.

My summary and opinion is that all the holy books no matter what religion were written by men of that particular age and place.

hi tauseef!!! what is the name of this school ;) which year you graduated? who was the principal? lol very good story, very original title but some basic facts would be appreciated lol

Anwaar:

Let me clarify that I bear no ill-will or hatred towards any set of human beings.

>>>That should be done for all religions, but not here in Outlook's forum.
It should be absolutely done for all religions. Yes I do write in other forums and blogs.

I am writing on this forum because Tauseef's article has to do with violence in the name of religion. I am writing it because it has relevance to our country.

Like my handle suggests I am an unabashed Kaffir. And I am not anti-Islam by choice. It is rather Islam that is anti-kaffir. And 90% of India is kaffir. I would love to hear your thoughts rather than you trying to shut my mouth. And if you happen to be a Muslim I would treasure your thoughts a bit more.

Salaam

kaffir

imagine the cheek of the resident maulvi-

if you want to discuss religion go else where.

this is typical of bigoted muslims- the only solution to this is to send the maulvi to a muslim country. nonmuslims
in india and the west should not tolerate such drop outs
in their society. he does not own outlook,india. he has
absolute no right to decide who shall debate or what should be debated.

the so called secularists have been playing footsie with
the islamists for far too long. the results are hopeless.

how can such bigots and their community demand so much from
a plural society when they admit their own backwardness.

should the backward and bigoted decide over the more enlightened. its farsical.

its time maulvis and mullahs were put in their place. if
anything the resident maulvi should move to another site,
i am tired of his mindless drivel- his reluctance to
avoid debateing the key matters in india which is the bigotry of the muslims , their adherence to a medieval faith is known to all.

akbar has called the muslims a sick limb, with little hope of getting better. all evidence points out to the fact that
a overwhelming majority do not wish to change.

more modern muslims have given up. who dares fight the
hordes of did witted fanatics.

liberal muslims should jump ship like murtu-let the rest
sail or sink in the leakey vessel of islam.

if maulvisahib is so sure of his views why continue in this
forum where he meets universal disapproval.he knows our views.

he should post in a muslim blog and get to learn more about his communities mindset.

on the train from ahmedabad to mumbai about 6 people
entered our compartment.

there were 4 women, two of whom had their faces covered with
their saris. they sat like newts through out the 7 hour journies. the two men tall,rugged and short hair were their
keepers . i asked them where they came from. i was told it
was some backward town in rajasthan.

the injustice that these two young girls faced was enormous.
how can one treat young girls-or anyone at all -like that.
i did not pursue the matter. however i was outraged at the
unfairness of it all- i was outraged that the state ignored
such issues. however the people in power in india hindu or muslim were a hopeless breed- they had no ideas of freedom,
equality for womem. those who had kept silent.

some make excuses for their communities like the resident maulvi, despite liveing in usa,the land of the free.

religion in india and elsewhere is for people who are afraid
to think. this applies more to muslims then any other community.

i read in this edition that the elderly muslim resented muslim women out of their homes even when they were clad in a burqa. that is the way many muslims think.and where do they get their ideas. naturally from their holy koran where every word is the word of god.

it is time that the secular state stepped in to change the
rules of the game.

yesterday i was out in the shopping street in kalundborg
where i live with my wife. we say pretty young girls cycleing on the car free shopping street. people sat in caffes drinking coffee or beer. we heard music from a distant place. the bells of our 800 year old church were still.

this is peace , and freedom. this is what civilised liveing is all about.

azamgarh and places like that are a blot on the face of the civilised and liberal world. no excuses can be made for such places as far as liberal people are concerned.

sarkozy president of france has said so. the burqa and the
veil will be banned because it is incompatible with the
ideals of french society.

Kaffir:

>> I consider all the books to be glorified history of that particular time and place. I mean if we were in 5th century B.C. a person like Obama would have been turned into a God or a prophet.


Excellent.

We agree entirely.

Welcome.

Kaffir,

>> Let me clarify that I bear no ill-will or hatred towards any set of human beings.

I do not accept your bonafides for a minute. Most previous hate pracharaks who have come to this forum have posted links to faithfreedom.org, a hate website. Your picking the handle of Kaffir reveals your malevolence.

>> I am an unabashed Kaffir. And I am not anti-Islam by choice. It is rather Islam that is anti-kaffir. And 90% of India is kaffir.

These are not the words of a sagacious peace seeking Hindu, but of someone who is rearing for a fight. Modern Muslim scholars reserve the word 'kafir' for those who betrayed Mohammed. Last year in response to a VHP qustionaire, several Muslim leaders averred that the word kafir cannot be applied to Hindus. I have not heard the word kafir used by Muslims as much as it is used by sanghi hate propagandists.

>> I would love to hear your thoughts.

I do not discuss religion in this site. I do try to show up those with a systematic anti-Islam propaganda program as the despicable hate peddlers that they are.

"It frightens me that efforts to promote bigotry among the ignorant have been much more successful than the ability to spur the enlightened from their complacency. It pains me to see that so many of the progressive world’s youth are now rapidly abandoning religion, not because they spurn its myriad virtues, but because they feel the need to disconnect from its perceived refusal to place values and the human kindred spirit ahead of its reprobate desire to be an identifier of its followers.

"Despite concerns of the present and fears for the future, there remains much reason for optimism. We can change our stance so that instead of defining our actions by our religion, we work to define our religion through our actions. A new perspective is needed, so that what becomes most salient is a human conscience, with our divine confidence being only a reaffirmation of the direction in which our moral compass is already pointing."

Let more and more young people articulate such inpiring messages. Sooner or later the grown-ups will have to listen.

Anwaar:

>> Let more and more young people articulate such inpiring messages. Sooner or later the grown-ups will have to listen.


What, pray is inpiring (sic) about the
paragraphs you quoted there? Nothing.


He said:
>>>> It pains me to see that so many of the progressive world’s youth are now rapidly abandoning religion, not because they spurn its myriad virtues,


This is just sophistry and soft-peddling
the so-called "myriad virtues" of faith.

Let him list one.

And:

>>>> instead of defining our actions by our religion, we work to define our religion through our actions. A new perspective is needed, so that what becomes most salient is a human conscience, with our divine confidence being only a reaffirmation of the direction in which our moral compass is already pointing


This is simply insulting.

What about those of us who see no need to
place the Hindu or Islamic fairy tales on
a pedestal, and seek to let them either
'define us' -- which I hope to God we do
not -- or to 'define them with our acts'
-- whatever that means. As for 'divine
confidence being only a reaffirmation of
the direction in which our moral compass
is already pointing', to translate it into
English, this long-winded soliloquy simply
reaffirms what I said before: Religion is
a human invention. To the extent that we
pick and choose from the filth of the Bible
or the Qur'an today, we define our morality
mostly by modern, 21st century consensus.

No thanks to religion.

None whatsoever.

Anwaar:

>> I do not accept your bonafides for a minute.


I suspect him too. But his statements
will prove who he is: he agreed that
Hinduism is not true, so he's probably
not a Sanghi. There are many Indian
Hitchens-Dawkins fans now on the web.

Thank God for that!

Anwaar:

>> I have not heard the word kafir used by Muslims as much as it is used by sanghi hate propagandists.


I would recommend you watch any Pakistani
television channel, except CNBC and GEO.

You'll soon change your mind on this.

What a disgusting, bigoted country it is.

Anwaar,

>> I have not heard the word kafir used by Muslims as much as it is used by sanghi hate propagandists.

Do you really visit all the islamic forums that you claim you do ?

Murtuza,

>> This is just sophistry and soft-peddling
the so-called "myriad virtues" of faith.

The myriad virtues are the ones that Tauseef sees in his faith. If you think they are not there, that too is a valid point of view.

Anwaar:

>> The myriad virtues are the ones that Tauseef sees in his faith. If you think they are not there, that too is a valid point of view.


No. Religion needs to be a bit de-personalized.

Islam is, in the end, an explicit belief system.

Either you believe in its claims, or you do not.

Either it has been, on balance, a good thing for
the world or it hasn't. All this is observable.


Not everything is about personal
and / or subjective experiences.

Religion is something that works in the real world.

>>>>>These are not the words of a sagacious peace seeking Hindu, but of someone who is rearing for a fight. Modern Muslim scholars reserve the word 'kafir' for those who betrayed Mohammed. Last year in response to a VHP qustionaire, several Muslim leaders averred that the word kafir cannot be applied to Hindus.

I never claimed I was a Hindu. What if I were a Muslim? Please read with attention. If every Muslim agrees that a Kaffir is someone who betrayed Muhammed that is perfectly fine. Since Muhammed lived in 7th century BC nobody can betray him today and hence nobody can be killed or ill-treated for being a kaffir.

Since Hindus are cleared of being Kaffirs can this amnesty be extended to other potential Kaffirs like atheists, agnostics,Jews, idolators, Qadiyanis, homosexuals and any other category of human beings who deserve to be killed as ordained in Quran or any other holy book?

>>>>>I do not discuss religion in this site. I do try to show up those with a systematic anti-Islam propaganda program as the despicable hate peddlers that they are.

Last time I checked Islam was a religion.

You can be suspicious and paranoid all want. Just answer the questions I have raised.

www.faithfreedom.org is not a hate site. If you think so you have not read it.

I look forward to the day when religion is extinct. 90% of China has no religion and they are doing perfectly fine. 50 years from now kids (at least the ones who go to regular schools) will laugh at us for believing in such stupidity.

All I am asking is for people to introspect if what their religion says makes sense. Some of it might and some of it might not. The other option is to see a procession of endless violence and hatred in the name of religion.