This is a reply to Imam Iftekhar Hai who wrote about Pluralism in Islam
Srinivas says: July 18, 2014 at 6:29 pm [more on Sri at http://sri000.wordpress.com/about/]
First, this author, Iftekhar Hai, must know that, there is not a single Islamic country in this world which is secular as we understand. Nor any of Muslim majority nations gives equal rights to Non-Muslims living there.
One might say Turkey, but according to Turkey’s constitution, Muslims and Non-Muslims are not equal.
But most of the Non-Muslim majority nations are secular and pluralist.
So, is it not appropriate that this Hai should be restricting his preaching of secularism and multiculturalism to Muslims alone ?
But he doesn’t ! Why ? Because such equivalency conceals ugly truth about Islam, its holy book Koran and its Prophet Mohammad.
Hai writes, ‘…Muslims are challenged to embrace pluralism…..’
This statement is rhetorical. Its like, he is posing this: ‘First, are they pluralist before lecturing Muslims on pluralism ?’.
A simple look at this present world shows this, apart from what I wrote at the top : Muslims, when they are in minority, enjoy equal rights proselytize and construct mosques in our secular nations. But how many Muslim nations extend basic human rights to Non-Muslims let alone extending privileges, those Muslim enjoy in Non-Muslim majority nations, to Non-Muslims?
The answer is obvious and to say Hai doesn’t know this basic fact shows only their’s lever of ignorance.
Moreover, do we see any groups from other, i.e. non-Islamic, religions indulging in terrorism with the aim of making the whole world Christian or Hindu or Buddhist ?
Only Muslim terrorist organizations are involved in this kind, with the stated aim of bringing the whole world under Islamic rule ( i.e Sharia Law ). They quote verses from Koran in support of their terrorism.
What? They say those Muslim terrorists are misinterpreting verses ? We come to that.
Interestingly, Hai writes : ” Time has come for all religions to bury violent verses/ayats in the Holy Scriptures in historical context and to bring forward verses/ayats of pluralistic and democratic nature.”
What is this actually ? and Why ?
What he means is all religions contain violence in their scriptures.
I am not sure how he groups the three monotheisms with religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism and Sikhism ?
Their books never called for violence against others just based on the reason that they worship different Gods !
Look at Old Testament ! Violence in it makes people repulsive about the idea of God itself.
But there is a marked diff. that sets Old Testament apart from Koran.
All the violence in Old Testament, is limited to that particular period and that particular place, i.e. Israel.
Jews were the chosen people by the “FIRST” God of monotheism to live and rule in Israel, not the whole world.
Moreover, verses in Old Testament are not direct injunctions to Jews to make war on others. Most of the time, they, violent verses, come as stories.
Come to second Testament ! The teachings of Jesus more or less counteract all that violence present in Old or New Testament.
Jesus was central to Christianity. Any Christian quoting from Bible in support of violent actions is in direct contradiction of the very model of Jesus. If Christians emulate Jesus in their life, we will not see any violence from Christians.
But what about Islam, its holy scripture and its prophet Mohammad ?
Just few verses and teachings of Mohammad will give the idea :
2:193 > And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimoon (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)
9:29 > Fight against those who
– believe not in Allah,
– nor in the Last Day,
– nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger
– and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians),
until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
9:005 > Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (idolaters) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush……
9: 111 > Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed……
48 : 28 > He (Allah) it is Who has sent His Messenger (Prophet Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), that He may make it (Islam) superior over all religions…..
Koran itself tells these verses should be read literally when it says it is clear guidance and message to Muslims.
Verses in Koran come as open commands.
Through out the history of Islam, Muslims understood Koran like this.
This can be seen from the fact that all four major schools of Islam define Jihad as aggressive warfare against Non-Muslims with the aim of converting them to Islam or subjugating them under Islam.
The major point is the role of Prophet Mohammad itself !
Koran in more than 90 verses tells Muslims follow and obey Mohammad and to take him as example in their life i.e. they should mimic his life where ever its possible.
And Prophet Mohammad said :
“I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”
(Sahih Bukhari ; Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25)
It is this kind of teachings that present day Muslim terrorists keep citing in support of their actions.
So when Muslims follow Prophet Mohammad as their role model, they will be violent, murderers, rapists and pillagers and intolerant, just like Prophet Mohammad was.
Srinivas says: July 18, 2014 at 6:27 pm (Edit)
My next comment will be on verses he, Hai, quoted from Koran.
But let me clearly say this.
The concept of One God and ‘THAT ONE GOD’ SENDING HIS PROPHET is not the part of beliefs of religions like Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism.
This line is exclusive to those three monotheism s i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The philosophy of these Dharmic religions has nothing to do with that thuggish line of ‘one god and he sending his prophets’.
Those who wants to understand brutality behind such line of theology can read Bible and Koran to know themselves how violent that God was and how violent each of his Prophets were. The kind of violent things these Prophets do, according to these holy books themselves, are beyond human imagination.
What’s worst is the effect of these books on the real world. Roughly together, Christianity and Islam were responsible for half a billion deaths.
That’s the human cost of one God and his Prophets.
Coming to Hinduism, Krishna was not a Prophet.
Nor Rama was a Prophet.
Nor were Buddha and Jain.
Ofcourse, Christianity too says Jesus was not a Prophet but Son of God.
But its a historical fact that Christianity was responsible for massive human suffering and engaged in wars of genocide. But it was not only able to reform and change itself, as Protestantism has shown, as its own teachings produced a different thinking, and was able to become the source of modern day enlightenment. The life and teachings of Jesus made it possible for Christianity to adopt and change.
But Islam ? We already have seen it.
When Hai refers to these central figures of other religions as prophets sent by that one God, Allah, despite the fact that that approach is erroneous, he was more or less no different from those terrorists.
He was more or less literally establishing Koranic thought as the only truth.
He supports pluralism and multiculturalism, but only along the lines of Islamic philosophy. Any other line has no place in his thinking.
One need not be an Einstein to see the duplicity behind his writings and his so called calls for pluralism.
He is not the first Muslim to misguide non-Muslims like this. Offering this line of Islamic tolerance, deliberately misguiding Non-Muslims about teachings of Islam, has been the cornerstone of ‘SO CALLED INTERFAITH DIALOG’ that Non-Muslims ignorantly participate in.
I hope and pray that admin of this website see and understand this clearly. -Srinivas
Also read:
Pluralism in Islam by Iftekhar Hai,
Koran on Hindus?
Bible on Hindus?
Torah on Hindus?
Bar Mitzvah,
Follow Jesus not church,
Hindu, abrahamic and Intolerant,
Can Allah be the Father God,
Idol-worshippers: Who is and who is not?
Agnotist: My Muslim boy friend could not understand the concept of pluralism.
Aamir Khan: “My kids will always follow only Islamic.” Admin: Is Aamir Khan a Male chauvinist or an intolerant Muslim?
Return to Home, Blogs, How to Share? Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Book, Media.
Who is a Muslim? This question has never been answered with a definitive note. I am not talking about what the non-Muslims have to say. Instead, it’s the Muslims who take a dig at other Muslims, Shias, Sunnis, Ahmadiyas, Sufis and so forth. For every sect of Islam that considers itself a Muslim, there are a whole bunch of other Muslims who contradict by tooth and nail. The antagonism is to this extent that they are thirsty of each other’s blood. Middle east and the 1400 years of Muslim history is witness to it. See what did the hundreds of Khalifas the protagonists of the Muslims? Not only all of them had to face a defiance to them from a good chunk of Umma, but had to decide it in the battle field. This tradition is not only continuing, but there is every sign of it that it will continue in the future as well until so called religion of peace is extinct.
There is a silver lining in the sky though. Due to the advent of Internet, the demise of Islam is close as the foundation of Islam that is ‘lgnorance’ is being revealed. And hence, the end of this cult is near.
allah already said in quran that you will fight and fight will bring world to an end, its already predicted
Sir,
After the partition, and Pakistan declaring itself as a Islamic republic, a high court Judge wanted to know who is a Muslim and who is not a Muslim – regarding a case.
He convened few scholars of Islam and asked for defining ‘Muslim’. And all of them couldn’t agree on a single definition that is acceptable to everyone.
Having said this, this shouldn’t matter to Non-Muslims, which you also mentioned.
Its like asking which of 4 schools of Islam represents true Islam !
Because, these schools of Islamic thought might differ on few issues, but they totally agree with each other over Islamic concepts like Jihad, inferior status of Non-Muslims under Islamic law, and death to apostates.
They also agree over triple talaq (related to woman).
Similarly, however one defines a Muslim, relationship with Non-Muslims will be the same on the concepts like non-believer, Dhimmi and Harbi.
Yes, you must be wondering how Muslim sects kill each other with such impunity ? They do so because each defines other as infidels or as non-believers.
In 2009, when Sunni militants killed few Shia s by planting and exploding a bomb during a procession taken by Shia s, INTERIOR MINISTER OF PAKISTAN TOLD REPORTERS THIS :
“Whoever has done this, he cannot be a Muslim. He is worse than an infidel”.
Infidels are the worst of all creatures (98.06), implicit in that statement.
These rival sects might fight and kill each other; but Non-Muslims are always their enemies.
During the present civil war in Syria, Christians were at the receiving end of both the groups. Similarly, in Iraq too.
There is a well developed Islamic theology, based on Koran and Sunna, behind this which develops a kind of distrust and enmity in Muslims towards Non-Muslims.
An splendid and eye openener write up. It very well elucidates what are some of the characteristics of Islam that set it apart from other religions. The differences are so staggering that it doesn’t even qualify to be called a religion as the notion exists for most of the people today.
The above mentioned very facts entail a change from Islam’s present rhetoric. The two essential elements of transformation must be Islamic voluptuous view of Women and the interaction with non muslms. The only bottleneck against this change is Muhammad, an interface(obstacle) betweem the Muslims and Allah. Though Muhammad is no more, a breed of his followers such as mullahs, Imams etc are making sure Muhammad’s legacy stays for ever. The reformists will hae to fight against them. The most spectacular way is to go agaist the obvious malafide injunctions of Muhammad. For example, let the Women lead Namaj in males’ mosques. Declare FGM, polygamy and burqa haram. Let the rapists prove their innocence, not the victims prove the accusations and so forth.
If Islam doesn,t change, it will bring about the holocaust. The muslims must think about themselves as the saviors of Islam are killng the Muslims! Any doubt? Afghanistan and Iraq are just the examples.
Islam doesn`t need any reforms, iftekar hai is not a muslim, he is a idiot, don`t know anything about islam, might have read english version of quran and here he is proclaiming to be reformer of islam, islam has no place for extremist,radicalist and moderate, a muslim is a muslim, if one says i m radical muslim or moderate muslim then he is no longer a muslim according mohammad peace be upon him, beacuse mohammad said to follow the middle path, both moderate and extremist are harmful for islam, they didn`t understand islam and day by day creating problems for real people, extremist are reaction of moderate and moderates are reaction of extremist, both are causing harm to islam, no one can reform islam, only allah has the power to reform islam, and as quran is the final revalation of islam so there is no one who can change islam, if it was possible to change islam then moderate would have changed or if it was possible for extremist to take control of world using islam then they would have succedded, but both failed and will continue to be a failure, iftekar hai, what reforms you want, can you make a list of it what needs to be reformed
Srinivas is right.
Every society has to change. Muslims must also change…..there is no doubt in my mind.
Reforms are coming……rather slowly…….but they are coming. Today most of the Muslims are not religious…………they follow the laws of the land wherever they happen to live.
Except for Saudi Arabia………….there is not a single Muslim country that follows the Sharia laws enacted 1000 years ago.
And in those days…………..Islamic society was living in GOLDEN AGE because the other society of Jews, Christians, etc was in DARK AGES. Now Muslims are living in DARKNESS and KNOWLEDGE is in countries other than Muslim lands.
RE-VISITING OR RE-INTERPRETING IS ONLY PEACEFUL OPTION. MUSLIMS ARE LIGHT YEARS BEHIND IN MILITARY TECHNOLOGY………HENCE THE ONLY OPTION IS EDUCATIONAL REFORMS…….SLOW BUT SURELY COMING.
We need everyone’s help brothers and sisters.
Iftekhar Hai, President
UMA Interfaith Alliance
http://www.umaia.net
Sir,
I was never the one to believe in existence of Moderate Islam or Moderate Muslims. And you prove me right. You are not a reformer. You are like a wolf in sheep’s clothes.
You wrote, ‘Every society has to change. Muslims must also change…..there is no doubt in my mind.’
Again the same bluff. It looks you believe in the maxim that if one repeats lie enough times people eventually believe it. Nazis believed in this and put in to effect very well also.
Nazism and Islam; Nazis and Muslims. Both are totalitarian and fascist (supremacist) ideologies.
I wrote about the present day world and the reality by drawing your attention to facts i.e. there is hardly Muslim majority nations which grants basic human rights to Non-Muslims let alone additional privileges, which Muslims, when in minority, seek from Non-Muslim majority nations.
If Non-Muslim societies had to change in anyway, it should only be in dealing with Muslims in their societies by stopping those privileges and putting an end to secular laws.
You write, ‘…there is no doubt in my mind….’.
I stated facts that can be observed and wanted people to come to opinions based on those observations. But you ? Basically what you are saying is ‘TRUST ME’ even if observations, made scientifically, are against your claims.
This attitude is not a sign of intelligence nor honesty. It is a sign of your pure bigotry and intolerance.
You write, ‘….Today most of the Muslims are not religious…………they follow the laws of the land wherever they happen to live…..’
This is a statement of deception. Muslims use those secular laws and pluralist media and society to advance Islam and to gain special privileges in the name multiculturalism. Muslims do not want to assimilate in to these host countries, a fact proved by opinion polls in UK. There are numerous Muslim organizations in Non-Muslim nations, who stated their Islamic agenda i.e. to bring their host nations under Sharia law or Islamic rule. And we have not seen any real and significant efforts by these ‘so called moderate’ Muslims to counter these extremist Islamic organizations. At the same time these Moderate Muslims are at the forefront and are very active when protesting against their perceived insults to their religion and their Prophet. Its a proven fact that in about 85% of mosques in US, extremism is preached. Till yesterday, American Muslim students are being taught Jihad in schools.
You write, ‘….Except for Saudi Arabia………….there is not a single Muslim country that follows the Sharia laws enacted 1000 years ago…..’
Sharia is Islam; and Islam is Sharia. There is no difference between these two.
Every Muslim nation, except Turkey (still, Turkey does not grant equal rights to Non-Muslims) and Indonesia (even here, some provinces enforce strict Sharia), declares Islam as official religion or itself as Islamic nation. Such declarations are not symbolic, like Ashghar Ali Engineer – self styled Muslim reformer – writes. Non-Muslims suffer a wide range of discrimination and persecution that is legal and life-reality.
Yet again, you showed that you are not averse to using false statements. To prove your statement, you only had to mention those Muslim nations, out of 57, which have secular constitutions and grants equal rights to Non-Muslims. But you couldn’t.
Every Muslim nation follows Sharia to some degree. All most all Muslim nations declare in their constitution that Sharia is the source of All laws and definitions of various rights and duties.
Here we see some examples :
Pakistan : Article 227(1) of the Pakistani constitution reads, “All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and sunna ( i.e. Sharia)… and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such injunction”
Egypt : Article II of the 1980 Egyptian constitution states that Islam is the religion of the state and “Islamic jurisprudence (i.e Sharia) is the principal source of legislation.”
IRAQ : Under the supervision of Imperial forces of USA, its ARTICLE 2 IN ITS constitution reads :
“Article 2
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.
C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this
constitution may be established.”
SYRIA : Article 3 [Islam]
(1) The religion of the President of the Republic has to be Islam.
(2) Islamic jurisprudence is a main source of legislation
Above quoted ones are few examples. (I left out the obvious ones like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran and recent addition like Qatar; may be that you, Hai, are not keeping with current events.)
Even then, it is habitual for Muslim commentators to write their constitutions are secular in nature, a laughable statement like ‘I am a steak eating vegetarian’.
Before I move to discussion on Pakistan, I like to mention few salient features of such constitutions, which are in complete accordance with Sharia.
1. Construction of Non-Islamic places of worship is prohibited or made very difficult.
2. Muslims can not convert to other religions. Other faiths can not proselytize.
3. But Muslims can convert others to Islam and proselytize.
4. While Muslim men are permitted to marry Non-Muslim women and raise their children as Muslims, marriages of Muslim women with Non-Muslim men are not recognized. (Infact, such Non-Muslim guys trying to marry Muslim women would be killed by Muslims.)
Come to Pakistan, because it is our neighbor and your home country, and you find more Sharia.
Pakistan’s blasphemy law is too famous to be missed out by a person like you. Is it not that this Blasphemy law is from Sharia ? How many Christians have fallen pray to this law ? You might say that in reality no Non-Muslim has been executed under this law. Besides the fact that it has become an instrument of persecution of Non-Muslims, many have been convicted and even those acquitted by courts were killed by Muslims outside the courts.
One case needs a good mention here for it throws light on concept of Moderate Muslims.
Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of 5 children, was awarded death sentence under the charge of Blasphemy by a court. She was not executed because of attention it would get internationally. And she is still in prison.
When (Late) Salman Taseer, the then Governor of Punjab, former husband of Indian journalist Tavleen Singh, went to the support of Asia Bibi and called for repeal of this Blasphemy Law. Subsequently he was killed by his own body guard. Massive demonstrations were held across Pakistan praising the killer and his act, and asking for his acquittal and release.
One might say that those masses are illiterate ! When the assassin was to court for trial, the lawyers in Pakistan showered rose petals on him in the court room itself.
In Pakistan’s legal, civil and constitutional courts, the testimony of one Muslim man is equal to testimony of two Hindu (Non-Muslim) men. In Sharia courts, the testimony of Non-Muslims is not even accepted.
Doesn’t Sharia law say that testimony of Non-Muslims is not accepted ? It does.
Its common practice in Pakistan that Hindu and Christian women are kidnapped, converted to Islam and forced to marry Muslim men. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has reported that about 25 Hindu women are kidnapped every month by Muslim men. And about 700 Christian women are also kidnapped annually by Muslims. Even married Hindu women were not safe, it looks. More over, Pakistan’s constitution doesn’t even recognize Hindu marriages – according to few human rights activist, this has worsened the situation for Hindus.
In 1950 s, in present day Pakistan Hindus comprised 15% of Pakistan’s population. According to 1998 reports, it came down to 1.8% and now it must be below 1%.
This ethnic cleansing of Hindus of Pakistan from its land is talked and mentioned proudly by Muslims in their magazines.
Reading all this, you will still say that only Saudi Arabia enforces Sharia and no other Muslim nation does (!!!) like you did earlier. Because you neither have any conscience nor any moral values.
You are not out to reform your Islam, though I doubt if it could be reformed.
Your main job is, under the guise of moderate Islam and inter faith reach (or dialog), to keep Non-Muslims in a false sense of security so that other Muslims carry on their Jihad for advancing Islamic rule unopposed.
Frankly, like I said before, you people, i.e. so called reformers, are worse than those Muslim terrorists, for they are at-least honest.
Your quotes from Koran clearly suggest that your views are no diff. from those of Orthodox Islam. If those Muslim terrorists want to archive their aim of Islamic dominating the world through terrorism, you want to do it through subterfuge and non-violent means. but the goal is the same.
Other point is, ‘so called golden age of Islam’ is largely a myth, which I will write about later.
Reply at https://www.interfaithshaadi.org/?p=8223
Dear Srinivas:
In all honesty …. what you are saying is “Radical Islamism.” How do we change this is what I think and research about.
The Arabian society jumped from the camel back into the Cadillac. They did not go through real transformation of industrial or educational nature. Their minds are still anchored in the times that existed in the 6th, 7th and 8th century Arabia.
Indian Muslims, I am one of them are different that way and so are non-Arabs. Today out of 1.5 billion Muslims, Arabs comprise only 18%. But the Arabian religious interpretation is dominating all over the non-Arabian countries. HOW DO WE CHANGE THIS IS A MULTI-D
Reforms are needed in Arabian minds
@ Hai
If what I am saying is Radical Islam, then it is Islam which is radical intrinsically.
Each and every Muslim nation treats Non-Muslims as Dhimmis or as second class citizens and you point your fingers at me for that ! Typical Muslim attitude, I say
You are not an Indian Muslim. You are from Pakistan i.e. a Pakistani Muslim. But it hardly matter.
All Muslims exhibit the same behavior, everywhere they live, shaped by Islamic Fascism.
Infact, I believe Indian Muslims are more fanatical than those Arabs.