The incoherence of the mesmerized

Hujjut-ul Islam Imam al Ghazali (radi Allahu anh) wrote the Incoherence of the philosophers during a time of great confusion, where Muslims were presented with conflicting versions of Islam. I won’t go into too much detail regarding that period in history, but just want to mention parallels between his time and ours. Imam al Ghazali (radi Allahu anh) articulately, and successfully, defended the articles of faith against a tide of philosophical thinking that was based on incorrect and unscrupulous sets of thinking. Today, we have two camps who are challenging the orthodox traditions.

First are the liberals, who tend to avoid or shun certain religious practices and beliefs that do not fit within their pre-conceptualised secularist mindset. They support the western versions democracy, freedom, equality, etc.

Secondly, we have the Salafis/fundamentalists. They see everything in black and white. To them there is no compromise; no areas of discussion; no grey area. They do not tolerate much that does not fit within their framework of thought.

I want to ask these people a question. What do you make of this video?

If you do not feel sick after watching this, then shame on you. How much are we willing to sacrifice for so called freedom and democracy? What sort of Muslim, forget that; what sort of human being vandalises the grave of a deceased?

Go ahead and have your party. But remember, reality dictates that awareness of injustice is fruitless without sound grounding. Without the real understanding and application of Islam, nothing truly tangible will be achieved.

As a brother on a forum said, “some people ask why Sunnis cannot make peace and truce with Salafis…. here in this simple video is your answer”.

If you want to see real politics, then have a read of the this. We are nowhere near the standard of Sayyiduna Umar bin Abdul Aziz (radi Allahu anh).

Subramaniam Swamy Spewed Venom against Indian Muslims in DNA News Paper

New Delhi. 22nd July 2011 Friday

Seema Mustafa V Subramanian Swamy

Subramanian Swamy in his true insightful but provocative style has written an article in DNA July 14: ‘How to wipe out Islamic Terror’. Much of the article is on Islamic terrorism and how it threatens Hindus in India. In response Seema Mustafa, a noted journalist, has responded with another article in DNA July 19 titled ‘Dr Subramanian Swamy has inflamed passions through blatant falsehoods’. I have read only a few of Mustafa’s articles which have come across as good, sensible pieces of journalism. This particular piece of hers in response to Swamy stands out in some ways. Falsehoods she says. Okay, so before I come back to her article let’s try and understand what Swamy has said.

Swamy’s strongly worded article revolves around 5 goals that he attributes to the Islamists or the ‘unfinished’ Islamic business for India if you like. I believe these being central to his article would constitute the falsehoods that Seema Mustafa is talking about.

Goal 1 (Falsehood 1) : Overawe India on Kashmir.

I need not go into the history of Pak-funding of militants, frequent incursions, Kargil war and all that. They never happened. Lakhs of Hindu Pandits displaced violently from their homes and are refugees in their own country. Falsehood, never happened. SmitaPrakash, another prominent journalist writes chillingly about how teenagers and youths were paid money in the stone pelting exercise. Oops, falsehood again! Geelani and company go around the country  with inflammatory speeches. Falsehood! Again! Hoisting Pakistani flags at Lal Chowk on Republic Day. Falsehood, never happened. There you go, Mustafa disproves Swamy’s goal no.1

Goal 2 (Falsehood 2): Blast temples, kill Hindu devotees.

Blasts at Varanasi this year. Oops, that wasn’t a temple, that was some Sulabh Sauchalay. Daring attack on Akshardham in Gandhinagar (Gujarat) in 2002. Again Akshardham is hardly a Hindu temple. Sai Baba temple blast in 2002. Misreported. Sankat Mochan temple blast. What a lie! All these are falsehoods because Muslims and Christians may have died in these temple blasts too. There might be more and I guess all of those are falsehoods too. Mustafa exposes Swamy’s lie on this one too.

Goal 3 (Falsehood 3): Turn India into Darul Islam.

That’s a blatant lie by Swamy. This statement by the Imam Bukhari of Delhi was falsely reported by media all over. “We were rulers here for 800 years. Inshaallah, we shall return to powerhere once again”” and threatens “this country is in for another partition,so let us be prepared for nation- wide riots and violence. ” I would recommend readers to go through the post ‘Life,Liberty and the pursuit of Sharia’. Swamy is a liar. It is not just India, this particular falsehood is for the whole world and not just India. Mustafa, once again, brilliantly exposes the falsehood.

Goal 4 (Falsehood 4): Change India’s demography by illegal immigration, conversion, and refusal to adopt family planning.

Read my post ‘Make Mumbai aseparate state’. There isn’t still a handle on the number of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan or other places in Mumbai, Assam, Bengal and other places. The vote-bank hugging ‘secular’ government simply loves this. And when was the last time you ever heard of population control, family planning etc.? Those terms died in the late seventies. Mustafa doesn’t have much to say on this so her silence proves it to be an absolute falsehood. Bravo!

Goal 5 (Falsehood5): Denigrate Hinduism through vulgar writings and preaching in mosques, madrassas, and churches to create loss of self-respect amongst Hindus and make them fit for capitulation.

Well, I suppose at all mosques and madrasas they are only preaching love for humanity. I guess the FBI in the USA is stupid to be keeping a close vigil on all major mosques. The UK does it now too. Some mosques in Germany have even been shut down. It is only in India that Swamy is stupid to peddle this lie. Once again Seema Mustafa has nothing to say on this. So once again her silence on this proves it to be a falsehood. We would never get to know what goes on in mosques and madrasas because our ‘secular’ government considers that too important a sentiment to offend.

So now that Seema Mustafa has clearly established the falsehoods in Swamy’s article let’s see what she actually had to say in her piece. Much or almost all of her article is an ad hominem attack on Swamy and is basically an opinion piece. It neither confronts the basic premise of Swamy’s central arguments nor does it offer a solid, logical and factual rebuttal of his contentions. Needless to mention, Swamy’s article also contains quite a bit of his opinions and his solutions to the goals are basically his opinions, some of which are also impractical. But a response basically requires disproving the theories stated in an article. To that end, Swamy’s article contains nothing but commonly known facts which he outlines in the 5 goals. None of that is a big secret to anyone, anywhere in the world.

“Swamy’s article has drawn absolutely excellent responses from the people of this country, mostly non-Muslims, to put him and his exhortations in their place” says Seema. Oh yeah? How do you know? Did you carry out a survey? Did you research all the respondents in all forms of media? This is the typical defence of the secularist. Everyone says so, so it must be balderdash. Since when is that childish logic the foundation of mature debate?

“The Hindus, he keeps insisting, are the targets. But when blasts take place in crowded market places in Mumbai or any other part of India, the targets are the people of India, Dr Swamy. Hindus and Muslims and Sikhs and Christians and Parsis and Jains and Brahmins and Dalits and all those who are at the spot die because the bomb cannot differentiate among religions and castes. India, as we have grown up to understand it, is a secular, democratic country belonging to all who are its citizens” writes Mustafa. First note how cleverly and significantly she segregates Hindus, Brahmins, Dalits as three distinct entities. Isn’t that a common secular strategy? That’s the first line of attack of secularists. Separate Hindus into different groups.Wouldn’t it be funny to suggest bombs kill Shias, Sunnis, Protestants and Catholics? Well, only in case of Hindus the bombs know the segregation I suppose..

There is a saying in Goa: “If you throw a stone it will invariably land on a bar”. But, of course, there is a tiny chance it can also land on a church. Same is true for people dying from bomb blasts I suppose. The bombs aimed at Hindus invariably land on other religious groups.

Yeah, bombs don’t know who they kill – brilliant. I don’t walk backwards ‘cuz I don’t have eyes in my ass! But those who plant bombs do know who their intended target is. I suppose those who planted bombs at Zaveri Bazar didn’t know there might be Muslims and Christians in the area. Of course, they also didn’t know that bazar is a predominantly Hindu and Jain bazar or a majority are Gujaratis. Of course, secularists conveniently forget that people have been dragged out of buses in Kashmir, Hindus have been sorted out and lined up separately and killed. So when terrorists have the opportunity they would indeed choose their specific targets. It’s only when it is not possible or inevitable that some collateral damage has to be accepted. How intelligent would it be to suggest that the 9/11 attack wasn’t Islamic terror because Muslims also died in those towers? Yeah, sure, we are so convinced of this line being churned out by politicians, now we have to be reminded repeatedly by journalists, that’s all.

Does anyone remember the Israeli raid on Entebbe airport in 1976. An Air-France airline was hijacked by terrorists and landed at Entebbe airport in Uganda. The terrorists allowed all to go except Jews. Does that explain that when the chance is available terrorists do choose who they wish to target or kill?  I can believe politicians can make silly statements but can’t believe journalists too expect people to be so naïve.

Seema suggests Swamy may even face charges of hate speech or some law-violation. Well, I suppose he has no right to air his views some of which are based on facts but the likes of Digvijay Singh delight our secularists. I have yet to see one really strong piece in any major media outlet that questions the utterances of that man. Never mind that either. Let’s see some more brilliance from Mustafa.

“It (India) is home to all religions, and it is a vibrant democracy that thrives on plurality and diversity. The terrorists, al-Qaeda, Lashkar or the Aseemanands…” Hahahhaha! That really takes the cake! You win Seema! Aseemanand, whose arrest is full of controversy and still not convicted of anything, is sweepingly bracketed with Al-qaeeda and LeT. So fools like me finally realise now, through the wisdom of the likes of Seema Mustafa, that Aseemanand is as big a threat to India and Hindus as are Al-Qaeeda and LeT. I guess that is what RG meant by 99% terror stopped!

There, the falsehoods of Subramanian Swamy stand thoroughly exposed. On behalf of Seema Mustafa should I say, ‘QED’?

Websites to face anti-Islam checks

Pakistan will start monitoring seven major websites, including Google, Yahoo and Amazon, for sacrilegious content, while blocking links to 17 lesser-known sites it deems offensive to Muslims, including pages within YouTube.

The move, which came in response to a court order, follows last month’s temporary ban on Facebook following a competition to draw the Prophet Mohamed.

The ban drew both praise and condemnation in a country that has struggled to figure out how strict a version of Islam it should follow. The sites to be monitored also include MSN, Hotmail, YouTube and Bing.

A few related links:

Moderate Islam must find its voice

Why are we promoting Islamicism?

Ad campaign to counter negative views of Muslims

Source: The Independent

Obama stresses US partnership with Islam

Barack Obama marked his first visit to a Muslim nation as US president today with a declaration that the US “is not at war with Islam”.

Addressing the Turkish parliament, Mr Obama called the country an important ally in many areas, including the fight against terrorism.

He devoted much of his speech to urging a greater bond between Americans and Muslims, portraying terrorist groups such as al-Qa’ida as extremists who did not represent the vast majority of Muslims.

“Let me say this as clearly as I can,” Mr Obama said. “The United States is not at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject.”

Al Jazeera and Al Arabiyia, two of the biggest Arabic satellite channels, carried Mr Obama’s speech live.

Mr Obama acknowledged in his speech that relations between the United States and the Muslim world have been strained.

In fact, Mr Obama said, the partnership between the US and the Muslim world was critical in rolling back what he called a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject.

“America’s relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaida,” he said. “We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.”

“We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country,” Mr Obama said.

Mr Obama also said, to a round of applause, that the United States supports Turkey becoming a member of the European Union.

Source

Pir Saqib sahibs challenge to Yazid’s lawyer Dr Naik

Official response from Kanz ul Huda regarding the speculative threads on the debate between Pir Saqib Shami Sahib and Dr. Zakir Naik

In response to the recent threads with regards to the aforementioned matter, Kanz ul Huda would like to clarify and outline the whole issue in order to avoid public confusion and speculation.

Approximately two months ago the Ullema of India, who have substantial links to the religious community in Karachi, asked Pir Saqib Shami Sahib to refute in written form Dr. Zakir Naik’s argument on the issue of Yazeed.

Pir Saqib Shami Sahib responded to the challenge and submitted a pamphlet on 10^th August 2008 to the Ullema in Karachi detailing the thorough refutations on Dr. Naik’s opinion on Yazeed. The pamphlet included extensive rebuttals that discredited Dr. Naik’s arguments and exhorted him to either repent from making grossly false arguments on Yazeed or submit a written refutation to Pir Saqib Shami Sahib’s response. The pamphlet was posted by the Ullema of Karachi to Khutbate Zakir Naik Karachi and receipt of this pamphlet and it being forwarded to Dr. Naik was confirmed by the organisation on 17^th August 2008

 

 

 

After no response was received by Dr Naik, the Ullema of Karachi insisted that Pir Saqib Shami Sahib challenge Dr Naik to a debate in order to quell his growing arrogance which has led him to openly challenge scholars to a debate on the issue of Yazeed. On 24^th September 2008 Pir Saqib Shami Sahib wrote to the Ullema of Karachi stating that he is ready to debate Dr. Naik provided that two conditions are met, as follows:

1) The Shari’at-e-Munazzara must be negotiated by both parties. This involves the debate proceeding according to the classical Salf us-Saliheen method of debating and not according to Dr. Naik’s modern equivalent, whereby one speaker delivers his arguments at length followed by a lengthy rebuttal by the other speaker, followed again by a question and answer session; and

2) Dr. Naik, when quoting from the Hadith or classical texts, must have the source (i.e. the hadith), at hand, read in Arabic without the i’rab (i.e. the fatha, damma and kasra), and not simply mentally repeat the chapter and verse reference in English.

As yet no response has been received.

In late October, Pir Saqib Shami Sahib is Inshallah going to Pakistan to deliver a series of lectures at both the International Azmat-e-Auliya Conference in Azad Kashmir and the Jashne Fareed in Pak Pathan Shareef. The Ullema of Karachi have insisted that Pir Saqib Shami Sahib publicly accept the challenge made by Dr. Naik during these talks. This, it is hoped, will notify the public about the challenge being accepted by the Ahl-e-Sunnah scholars.

As for the allegation that the threads were a public stunt, Pir Saqib Shami Sahib strictly ordered his mureeds to not mention anything regarding the potential debate until it became official. Kanz ul Huda has no knowledge of the identity of the mureed who is alleged to have spread the story. Furthermore, Kanz ul Huda is aware that Dr. Naik is in India; if indeed the debate does take place, it will do so in that country.

Kanz ul Huda will further publish information on this event if there is any progress or any changes.

Jazaakumullaahu Khayran

Kanz ul Huda