Salman Rushdie; who wants to kill him?
David Byrden
Rushdie, and you also come across an Iranian who quietly swears that he
will kill the man.
Will you tell the man where Mr. Rushdie lives, thus possibly causing his
death?
David Byrden
Daniel Lomax
David Byrden (10010...@compuserve.com) wrote:
: Suppose that you accidentally become aware of the whereabouts of Salman
I would inform the police, I have no doubt. Why do you ask?
I have never heard any Muslim threaten to kill Rushdie. A few, only a
very few, justify the death sentence, but I have never heard them
threaten to carry it out if they had the opportunity.
--
Abd ulRaHman
mar...@vnet.net
P.O. Box 25133
Asheville, NC 28813
Syed Kamran A. Bukhari
I wanted to ask if the killing of the person who turned his back to Islam
is supported in the holy Quran and the Hadiths of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH)
T.O.Shanavas
ould be any comoulsion in Religion. According to the Following verses and many more it is haram (prohibted and punishable by God if =
carried out) to forcifully impose religion on anyone.
"There is no compulsion in religion..." [2:256]
>>>>Any Hadiz that conflict with the literal meaning of the Qur'an is
invensions attributed to the Prophet even if it is acknoledged by any
scholar. Remember even Imam Gazzali was threatened with death for
so-called rejection of Islam.
Peace
Tufail
jos
>
> Assalamualaikum,
>
> I wanted to ask if the killing of the person who turned his back to Islam
> is supported in the holy Quran and the Hadiths of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH)
the prophit (pbuh) said:"man badala denho menkom faqtoloh"
so...yes it positively supported but can not be caried out by
an indivisual ,it has to be caried out by the state which is the khalifa
or who is commisioned by khalifa like a judge..and only if found guilty
of that crime in court of law.
wassalam
Hyder A Khan
> Assalamualaikum,
>
>
> I wanted to ask if the killing of the person who turned his back to Islam
> is supported in the holy Quran and the Hadiths of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH)
>
Wa alaikum assalam,
It is the obligatory duty of every Believer who is capable, to execute the
death sentence that has been imposed upon Salman Rushdie, the accursed
one.
May Allah(SWT) bless Muhammad(SAW) and his progeny,
and silence those who seek to put out the light of Islam,
and guide us all,
Hyder Ali Khan
Paul O Bartlett
: It is the obligatory duty of every Believer who is capable, to execute the
: death sentence that has been imposed upon Salman Rushdie, the accursed
: one.
By what right, authority, and legitimacy did Ayatollah Khomeini
pass the death sentence in the first place? I am not aware that he
was khalifa over all Muslims. Whence did he derive such authority?
If the death sentence was not legitimate, then it is not obligatory.
First we have to establish the legitimacy of the sentence.
Paul <pob...@access.digex.net>
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul O. Bartlett, P.O. Box 857, Vienna, VA 22183-0857, USA
Finger, keyserver, or WWW for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Home Page: URL: http://www.access.digex.net/~pobart
Daniel Lomax
Hyder A Khan (hkh...@uic.edu) wrote:
: It is the obligatory duty of every Believer who is capable, to execute the
: death sentence that has been imposed upon Salman Rushdie, the accursed
: one.
For too long we have allowed Islam to be sullied by lawless fanatics.
Here is my fatwa, issued by the authority of whatever light Allah has put
in my heart, to be followed by all those who recognise it:
It is the obligation of every believer who is capable to bring to justice
those who would kill in the name of Islam without legal process. It is
lawful and may be obligatory to cooperate with secular, non-Muslim
authorities in the pursuit of justice.
Those who would kill without the full protections of legal process are no
better than Kharijites.
: May Allah(SWT) bless Muhammad(SAW) and his progeny,
: and silence those who seek to put out the light of Islam,
: and guide us all,
Yes; this prayer fully justifies whatever actions may be required to
silence its author.
zeeshan hasan
>On 27 Jan 1996, Syed Kamran A. Bukhari wrote:
> It is the obligatory duty of every Believer who is capable, to execute the
>death sentence that has been imposed upon Salman Rushdie, the accursed
>one.
I wouldn't. And your assertion that all Muslims must
think as you do means nothing to me. Obviously I
interpret the relevant Qur'anic verses differently,
and if you bear in mind that each believer necessarily
does this for him/herself, perhaps you would be less
sweeping in your judgements.
farewell,
zeeshan
Lee Cooper
>
> It is the obligatory duty of every Believer who is capable, to execute the
>death sentence that has been imposed upon Salman Rushdie, the accursed
>one.
Please forgive my ignorance on this, but as the Fatwa was issued by a Shia
cleric (Ayatollah Homeni) does this also mean it is every Sunni muslim's duty
to carry this out?
Lee Cooper
le...@kuwait.net
chau...@wmich.edu
> On 30 Jan 1996, Lee Cooper wrote:
>
> In a likewise manner, it is also the duty of every Muslim to administer
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> justice according to the penal laws of Islam. Thus, if according to
If this is true(and I am sure its not) that every Muslim must administer
justice according to the penal laws of Islam, then you are inviting anarchy.
Penal codes are instituted and implemented by the state run authorities
and are not under the jurisdiction of the individuals. Please refrain from
issuing such rulings.
I am happy that such injunctions are not made incumbent upon muslims by
Quran. Allah has made Quran sufficient for His servants and one should look
into the Quran before giving any attention to such calls. Nowhere in Quran
individual is authorised to take law in their hand. I find it a mercy and
blessing from our Creator, The Wise and The Praiseworthy.
I am thankful to Allah for everything that He bestowed upon His servants and
seek His favours in this life and the life hereafter. May Allah lead us all
to His right path.
Catherine Hampton
: > Hyder A Khan (hkh...@uic.edu) wrote:
: > : It is the obligatory duty of every Believer who is capable, to
: > : execute the death sentence that has been imposed upon Salman
: > : Rushdie, the accursed one.
: So, now we all understand why the world is so afraid of Islamic
: Fundamentalism. By the way I am curious to know your opinion on the death
: fatwa on Taslima Nasreen. For those who do not know, Taslima Nasreen is a
As I recall, the situation with Taslima Nasreen is that she has been
charged with violating a Bangladeshi law which forbids blasphemy. I
do not think conviction would mean a death sentence -- just a few
years in jail. In any event, as far as I know there has never been
a death fatwa issued against her. And I have followed this case
fairly closely. I've been a member of Amnesty International for
well over fifteen years, and am very involved in human rights
work.
As to the second case you mention, that was not at heart a
religious matter. The mullah who accused the child of blasphemy
apparently had a financial disagreement with the child's uncle
and was taking revenge by swearing a false oath. The Prime
Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, personally intervened
to overturn the verdict.
Pakistani law, IMHO, makes it waaaaaayy too easy for offended
Muslims, or greedy Muslims, to take revenge on non-Muslim neighbors
by swearing that they committed blasphemy. Islam itself, though,
strictly forbids false oaths and (as I recall) imposes an extremely
strict punishment for them. (Perhaps a Muslim here can call to memory
the correct Qur'an surah and/or Shari'ah citation.)
In other words, if you want to blame unthinking, arrogant fanatics
for causing problems, I agree. Even as a Christian, though, with
no particular need to defend Islam, I think it is utterly
unfair to blame Islam itself for these activities.
As to Hyder's original statement, it is beneath contempt.
Certain human beings seem incapable of recognizing that their
conviction of their own righteousness and their refusal to consider
that they might be wrong is, in itself, arrogance, pride, and
a usurping of what belongs to God only, not to human beings. :(
I just wish the problem were confined to Islam, but it isn't. As
a human rights activist I've run into people from just about every
religious background, including atheism, who are willing to kill others
over a matter of belief. As far as I'm concerned, this is murder, and
a particularly dangerous and evil kind of murder.
--
Catherine Hampton
==================================================
ar...@best.com hr...@gw.traveller.com
--------------------------------------------------
Human Rights Web: http://www.traveller.com/~hrweb/
Home Page: http://www.best.com/~ariel/
==================================================
Hyder A Khan
> Please forgive my ignorance on this, but as the Fatwa was issued by a Shia
> cleric (Ayatollah Homeni) does this also mean it is every Sunni muslim's duty
> to carry this out?
Greetings Mr. Lee Cooper,
Yes.
When an individual accepts Islam, he is making the voluntary commitment
to uphold the Islamic Cause. He will fight for the propegation and
defense of Islam. He will fulfill all of the obligations imposed upon him
by Islam that he has towards himself, his Lord, and toward others. He
will dedicate his entire existence to the worship of the Lord of the
Worlds.
For example, it is the duty of every Muslim to pray five times a day.
In a likewise manner, it is also the duty of every Muslim to administer
justice according to the penal laws of Islam. Thus, if according to
Islamic law, a Muslim's mother is caught committing adultery by four just
witnesses, then even if she is your mother, it becomes obligatory upon
you to execute her, if you are available and able to carry out the death
sentence. Love of and sympathy for other people (especially doers of evil
and injustice such as an adulteress) can never override one's love of Islam.
For a Muslim, Islam is a dear beloved. It is also a trust that God has
charged the Muslims with. Thus, it is the responsibility of every Muslim
to uphold and maintain this trust.
May Allah(SWT) guide us all,
Hyder Ali Khan
Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya
> : It is the obligatory duty of every Believer who is capable, to
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
execute the death sentence that has been imposed upon Salman Rushdie, the
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
accursed one.
So, now we all understand why the world is so afraid of Islamic
Fundamentalism. By the way I am curious to know your opinion on the death
fatwa on Taslima Nasreen. For those who do not know, Taslima Nasreen is a
Bengali writer from Bangladesh. Taslima Nasreen became famous when she was
sentenced to death for publishing Lajja, and again for criticising the
Quran. The death sentence forced her to flee to Sweden.
You might also care to comment abount the case of Salamat Masih. Salamat
Masih (an illiterate 14 year old Pakistani christian boy) was accused of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
writing blasphemous grafitti on the walls of a mosque? The curious facts
about this case was that Salamat Masih is illiterate, underage and the
Mullahs were the only one who saw that alleged graffitti. They rubbed it
off and refused to repeat the contents of the alleged grafitti in court
saying that it was too blasphemous! On such flimsy evidence the lower
court awarded the death panalty to Salamat and his co-accused. The
verdict was overturned by the higher court only after the world spotlight
was focussed on Pakistan. Unidentified gunmen (obviously inspired by
religious fervour) however killed one of the accused.
--
Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya
--
Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya
T.O.Shanavas
>as-salamu 'alaykum.>: It is the obligatory duty of every Believer who is capable, to execute the
>: death sentence that has been imposed upon Salman Rushdie, the accursed
>: one.
********************************************************************
>>>>>Abdul Rahaman replied:
>
>For too long we have allowed Islam to be sullied by lawless fanatics.
>Here is my fatwa, issued by the authority of whatever light Allah has put
>in my heart, to be followed by all those who recognise it:
>
>It is the obligation of every believer who is capable to bring to justice
>those who would kill in the name of Islam without legal process. It is
>lawful and may be obligatory to cooperate with secular, non-Muslim
>authorities in the pursuit of justice.
>
>Those who would kill without the full protections of legal process are no
>better than Kharijites.
>
>: May Allah(SWT) bless Muhammad(SAW) and his progeny,
>: and silence those who seek to put out the light of Islam,
>: and guide us all,
>
>Yes; this prayer fully justifies whatever actions may be required to
>silence its author.
>--
>Abd ulRaHman
>>>>Assalamu alaikum.
>>>>I totatally and completely agree with Mr.Lomax. People who are ready to kill to put out the light of Islam are to be handed over=
to the secular authorities. These fanatics are like the Meccan polytheists who
tried to kill and destroy Islam. When the situation became intolerant
Prophet recommended to his followers to get protection from the
Christianking of Abysenia. Now similar situation exist. The fanatics want
to destroy the light of Islam. So following the example of Prophet(s), we
must bring these fanatics to secular authorities. Otherwise, Muslims
would suffer greatly as it happened in the history when Murabits
[1090-1147] plundred, perscecuted and killed in the name of
Islam. They burned the works of many respected Muslim scholars including
Imam Ghazalli.
>>>>Contemporary fanatics believe that the Qur'an is the word of Allah, but cannot see plain and simple commands from Allah such as:=
"There is no compulsion in religion..." [2:256]
"And so, O Prophet, exhort them; thy task is only to exhort:
thou canst not compel them to believe." [88:21-22]
"Thy duty is to make the message reach them; it is Our part
to call them to account." [13:40]
>>>>These fanatics cannot recile these verses with their fanaticism. So,
invented the doctrine of abrogation. If they abrogate these verses, then
they are free to kill and persecute.
>>>>These and other verses guide the Muslims to act righteously. Unfortunately, the contemporary fanatics use the Qur'an as a book o=
f
reverence rather than Book of Guidance. In my view these people do not
even rever this Book because if they rever it, thy must follow the
commantments. They acts like Murabits of 11th century. These fanatics who
want to kill had to be brought to the secular authorities to preserve the
light of Islam. I have no hesitation to call the authorities if I hear
"the threat to kill anyone" from anyone.
Peace
Tufail
Virk Shakeel
: It is the obligatory duty of every Believer who is capable, to execute the
: death sentence that has been imposed upon Salman Rushdie, the accursed
: one.
: Hyder Ali Khan
Totally false, and I challenge you to present your proof from the Holy
Quran; if you feel you are correct.
Islam does not prescribe corporal punishment for those who renounce Islam
as their faith. What Hyder Ali Khan is basically saying is that anyone who
gives up Islam as their religion should be killed, and this in my opinion
is against the teachings of the Holy Quran, as I will now demonstrate.
We read in the Holy Quran:
"Surely those who have turned away after guidance has been made manifest
to them have been deceived by Satan who has beguiled them with false hopes."
(Quran 47:26)
In this verse God mentions those who turn away from Islam after guidance
had been made manifest to them, and we find no mention of killing such
people.
In fact we find proof in the Holy Quran that shows the punishment is not
the death sentence, I will explain, we read in the Holy Quran:
"Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve,
and then increase in disbelief, Allah (God) will never forgive them nor
will He guide them to the way." (Quran 4:138)
In this verse we are told of those people who give up belief, then again
beleive. But if the Islamic Law was death for giving up belief, how do
these people "beleive gain, then disbelieve, and then increase in
disbelief" ?
We find no verse after or before this one, which states that apostates
should be killed.
Not only this but we also read in the Holy Quran:
"There should be no compulsion in religion. Surely, right has become
distinct from wrong; so whosoever refuses to be led by those who
transgress, and believes in Allah, has surely grasped a strong handle
which knows no breaking. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing."
(Quran 2:257)
Now if the Islamic Law was to kill anybody who gives up Islam, then we
would find a major contradiction in the verse above, which states that
there should be no compulsion in religion. If threat of the death
sentence is not compelling somebody, please explain what is. ??
So what should be the punishment for apostacy ? Is it mentioned in the
Holy Quran ? We find the answer in the following verse:
"Whoso disbelieves in Allah after he has believed, excepting the case of
one who is forced to make a declaration of disbeleif while his heart
rests securely in faith, but one who opens his mind wide to disbeleif,
on him is Allah's wrath and he shall have a grievous punishment."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(Quran 16:107)
Do you think Allah needs humans to give out his punishment ? The
punishment as stated in the Holy Quran is that on the apostate is
Allah's wrath and the apostate will have a grievous punishment.
Again we do not read any order given by God Almighty to kill such people.
If you are going to kill in the Name of Allah you better be sure that is
what Allah has ordered you to do, after all Murder is a very serious crime.
"And those who call not on any other God along with Allah, nor kill a
person that Allah has forbidden except for just cause, nor commit
adultery, and he who does that shall meet with the punishment of sin.
Doubled to him will be the punishment on the Day of Ressurection, and he
will abide therein disgraced,.."
(Quran 25:69-70)
Thank you.
Shakeel Virk
Hyder A Khan
Assalam alaikum,
[This note is in response to Daniel Lomax's reply to my note in the
subject "Salman Rushdie: Who wants to Kill Him?"]
On 30 Jan 1996, Daniel Lomax wrote:
> For too long we have allowed Islam to be sullied by lawless fanatics.
By the grace of Allah(SWT), today we are able to look back upon the
history of Islam and recognize the errors that had been committed that
let Islam sink into the traps that shaytan has laid out. From the
beginning, when the Muslim nation fell into the hands of the monarchical
regime of the post-Imam Ali(AS) caliphate, we have born witness to the
secularization and colonialization of Islam by the western powers that
took advantage of our one weakness:
The lack of a true leader and of a true system of Islamic Government.
Had we had these two institutions set aright from the beginning rather
than taken into the hands of the unjust, Islam would have been the
strongest political force on the earth since the demise of the Holy
Prophet(SAW) and would have by now captured the heart and mind of every
sound-thinking human being who has ever walked the earth.
Today, by the grace of Allah(SWT), the Islamic Republic of Iran has
emerged from the darkness of American and British dominance as an
independent superpower from whence the light of Islam and the hope for
all of the Believers who fervently desire to see Islam rule and conquer
over all evil now eminates.
The "lawless fanatics" in Iran today have, by the grace of Allah(SWT)
driven out the last trace of anti-Islam from within its borders and Iran is
now governed by pure Islam. The shariah is fully implemented and serves
as the law of the land.
> Here is my fatwa, issued by the authority of whatever light Allah has put
> in my heart, to be followed by all those who recognise it:
>
> It is the obligation of every believer who is capable to bring to justice
> those who would kill in the name of Islam without legal process.
Alhamdulillah, justice has already been served to those who have defied
the world's secular legal process and have sincerely killed in the name
of Islam: They have either been martyred and shall be guaranteed
paradise, or they have now become the founders of the world's only true
Islamic Government and are now enjoying the fruits of their struggle.
> It is lawful and may be obligatory to cooperate with secular, non-Muslim
> authorities in the pursuit of justice.
There is no cooperation with secular "authorities", because there is no
authority other than the Lord of the Universe.
> Those who would kill without the full protections of legal process are no
> better than Kharijites.
To kill in the name of the legal process of Islam is an act of worship
and submission to the will of Allah(SWT) and is worthy of great reward.
Hyder A Khan
> On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Hyder A Khan wrote:
>
> By what right, authority, and legitimacy did Ayatollah Khomeini
> pass the death sentence in the first place?
If I tell you that it is obligatory to pray Maghrib prayer right now,
and it is indeed the time of the Maghrib prayer, then you will not argue
with me on whose authority I am advising you to pray, because you know
that it is the command of Allah(SWT). Likewise, if I tell you not to eat
that pork sandwich (unless it is made of pork FAT, then it is okay for the
Khalifites) that is sitting in front of you, then you will not question
the authority on which I am advising you not to eat it, because you know
that it is the command of Allah(SWT).
Thus, in the same manner, if I tell you, the Holy Prophet Muhammad(SAW)
tells you, the Imam of your mosque tells you, or even Imam Ruhullah al-Musavi
al-Khomeini(RA) advises you that it is obligatory to carry out the
execution of an apostate who is fighting against Islam, then you should not
question "on whose authority" this command is being issued.
> I am not aware that he was khalifa over all Muslims.
Well now you know. He was not actually the khalifa, but he was the
Vali-e-Faqih over all Muslims.
> Whence did he derive such authority?
From the Holy Prophet of Islam(SAW).
> If the death sentence was not legitimate, then it is not obligatory.
> First we have to establish the legitimacy of the sentence.
It has already been established - 1400 years ago.
May Allah bless Muhammad(SAW) and the progeny of Muhammad(SAW),
Hyder Ali Khan
Muhammad-Amjad Tariq
>> Hyder A Khan <hkh...@uic.edu> wrote:
>> >On 27 Jan 1996, Syed Kamran A. Bukhari wrote:
>> > It is the obligatory duty of every Believer who is capable, to execute the
>> >death sentence that has been imposed upon Salman Rushdie, the accursed
>> >one.
Dear Readers,
There are few posting about RUSHDIE - SATANIC FICTION and some
Fatwas about his death. Here I present my analysis.
I have divided into four sections;
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THE MOTIVES
3. POSSIBLE OBJECTIVES
4. PUNISHMENT FOR APOSTASY AND BLASPHEMY IN ISLAM IS NOT DEATH
1. INTRODUCTION
It is amazing that so much has been written about Salman Rushdie's book
Satanic Verses yet no one has analyzed possible motives (other than profit)
or tried to explain where the ideas might have come from. Most news reports
have focused on Khomeni's fatwas - which have been universally condemned.
Although occasional indirect support for the fatwas by some writers and
commentators has existed. For instance, Yaqub Zaki, an ethnic Scotsman,
writing in The Times tried very hard to convince us that the reaction of
extremist mullahs and those of Khomeni were understandable and indeed were
no different from what has happened in the past and could happen in the
future in both theocratic and secular states. More on such extremist view
points later.
It is an undeniable fact that Penguin Publishers and Rushdie have made a lot
of money from the book - perhaps most of it is attributable to the publicity
surrounding it. It is impossible to believe that more than a small
percentage of purchasers have actually read the book. The average English
reader has not only to enter Rushdie's psychotic trance but also has to put
up with the book's tedious literary style incorporating innuendoes in words
and names that mean little to him. Who knows the meaning of ekdumjaldi,
tinkas, and so on? To make any sense the reader also has to be familiar with
characters from Hindu mythology and Islamic history and tradition. Obviously
there was no sense to the book unless the intention was to mock and defame.
2. THE MOTIVES
Questions then arise - why should Rushdie write a book that is potentially a
flop because of its limited appeal? Why write a defamatory work of fiction
which can offend but not be subject to academic review? Why should Penguin
publish a book with limited appeal and a potential flop with the possibility
of law suits against them for blasphemy in the various Islamic states? The
justification of freedom of speech is a non-starter. First, because that is
an idea put forward after the event to defend the book. Second, the book
does not claim to be putting forth ideas that have not been allowed to be
aired before. Third, because neither Rushdie nor Penguin are in the business
of championing causes such as freedom of speech and expression.
It is interesting to note that the title Satanic Verses is a plagiarism from
Muhammad at Mecca (1953) by the Scotsman Professor W. Montgomery Watt. What
a revelation! Indeed, one could be forgiven for believing that Rushdie's
book - the parts relating to the Prophet were actually written by Professor
Montgomery Watt. The similarities of presentation are uncanny. One
difference is that Watt's book is a serious one subject to academic review
and scrutiny. But, his book is known only to a handful of scholars. It is
ironic that none of the vociferous Muslim ulema have picked up on these
points made by Professor Watt in 1953!. Rushdie, on the other hand can argue
that his book is only a novel - a fiction that cannot be debated.
It is stranger indeed to note that Rushdie did not acknowledge the principal
source for his book other than an oblique reference to those who must remain
anonymous. Such a blatant omission, coupled with the provocative title, the
subject matter and subsequent events, is difficult to explain.
3. POSSIBLE OBJECTIVES
First, to hurt Iran's sensibilities as it had failed to bow down to Western
might and influence in the face of overwhelming pressures. Second, to
besmirch the good reputation and name of Islam by exploiting the inevitable
over-reaction of the Khomeni regime. Predictably, the book has succeeded in
exploiting the fundamental departures from true Islamic values and
traditions that have been invented by Muslim fundamentalist groups. Such
fundamentalists have only themselves to blame.
4. PUNISHMENT FOR APOSTASY AND BLASPHEMY IN ISLAM IS NOT DEATH
These fanatic groups have adopted the theories put forward by Khomeni and
Abul Ala Maududi (Jamaat-e-Islami the counterpart of the Muslim Brotherhood
in Egypt). Followers of their theories include the late President Zia-ul-Haq
of Pakistan. Maududi advocated a method of Islamic reform modelled on
Marxism and Khomeni used similar ideas to lead a revolution. One such theory
was that in Islam the punishment for apostasy and blasphemy was death. In
reality, there is no authority in Islamic law to support this viewpoint.
Indeed clear authority actually points to no punishment.
Even Khomeni with his life-long study of the Quran based his fatwa against
Rushdie on verse 5:34. The text reveals that the death penalty occasionally
applies to:
those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create
disorder in the land.. (5:34)
This clear reference to persons committing acts against the state can by no
stretch of the imagination be attributed to simple apostates or blasphemers.
Clear references to apostasy in the Quran, namely 2:218; 47:26; 5:55; 4:138;
3:145; etc.., invoke neither capital nor corporal punishment in this world -
only punishment in the hereafter by Allah. The declaration there shall be no
compulsion in religion (2:257), speaks for itself and no amount of secondary
sources to support the Maududi viewpoint can override it.
Likewise for blasphemy, Islamic law advocates no penalty in this world.
Instead, the Quran relies on goodwill to uphold the honor of Allah and his
prophets. It says:
And abuse not those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they, out of
spite, abuse Allah in their ignorance. Thus unto every people their deeds
seem fair. Then unto their Lord is their return; and He will inform them of
what they used to do. (6:109)
So we have come a full circle with this story. Clearly there are powerful
forces that may have wanted adverse publicity against Islam in general and
Khomeni in particular. Rushdie and Penguin became their instruments -
motivated by monetary gains. The only losers were Khomeni's Iran, Islam's
good name (by the perpetuation of a false doctrine on apostasy and
blasphemy) and even good racial relations in countries with significant
Muslim minorities.
In these days of world gloom with the rise of fundamentalism in all
religions and of nationalism it is encouraging to see the occasional glimmer
of moderation and humanity elsewhere. It is foolish to judge Islam on the
basis of fatwas and pronouncements from politically motivated extremist
groups - just as it is foolish to judge Christianity by reference to Hitler,
South Africa or Hiroshima. Moderate and rational groups are now speaking out
against fanaticism. Indeed, one Muslim group, the Ahmadiyya sect, has
peacefully opposed the extremist viewpoint for over a century - and has been
prosecuted in the process.
If there is one single thing that we can learn from the Rushdie affair - it
is that fatwas issuing forth from self-appointed clergy (there being no
priesthood in Islam) rarely represent the true Islam because they are
usually based on extraneous considerations such as a thirst for political
power quite divorced from Islamic law, scripture or tradition. This
appreciation may ensure that the Rushdie affair causes no real lasting
damage.
[References from 'The Holy Quran' are based on a system that counts the
initial verse as verse 1. Some systems exclude the first verse from the
count so that 5:34 becomes 5:33 etc.]
Comments are welcome!
Best wishes. Amjad Tariq
Daniel Lomax
There is no doubt that the book "Satanic Verses" is difficult to read,
even for proficient native English speakers. However, as one of these, I
must say that, by the standads of English literature, it fully deserved
the awards it receieved. The book is a fascinating and extremely accurate
study of schizophrenia. Its subject is not "Islam," but rather Islam as
understood by a lunatic and by certain modern Muslims who are Muslim in
name only.
It is also extremely complex. Essentially, it is enveloped in mystery and
indirection. The title hints at the narrator, who, on careful reading,
turns out to be Satan (not Rushdie as some have stated, based on a
shallow reading). Satan is telling us the story of a schizophrenic actor,
named Gibreel Farishta, who, in his dreams, which break into his waking
life, believes that he is the angel of revelation, his namesake. Much of
the book is composed of dream sequences.
A fictional account of a story told by Satan about the fantasies of a
lunatic. Yet people took the content of this book as if it was a
collection of affirmations of fact, and its author as if he were
accountable for such!
josman
may lead a moslem with good intentions to do something mobah
,halal,"legal" without knowing if it is legal or not before hand.Moslems
do not do that ,rule of the thumb is..find out befor hand if the action
your about to take if it it is halal or haram "legal or illegal".
Now..the fatwa that khomeni isued is as far as all moslems are
concerned is null and void,...why..?In the islamic legal system the only
one who is entiteled for such a fatwa is the Khalifa or somebody who is
comissiond by the khalifa ...and since khomeni is neither a khalifa nor
comissiond by one..his fatwa is null and void. Akhalifa represents all
moslems of the world..in a central government that implements the law of
ALLAH on all it's citizins, where the the state has no boarders ,where
the law of the land is Islam ..I would like to see Rushdi getting court
marshalled to an islamic court and tried according to islamic law .
upon that I have no problem with whatever verdict he gets..as long as
the law of ALLAH(swt)has been put to force.
Daniel Lomax
Hyder A Khan (hkh...@uic.edu) wrote:
[I wrote]
: > Those who would kill without the full protections of legal process are no
: > better than Kharijites.
: To kill in the name of the legal process of Islam is an act of worship
: and submission to the will of Allah(SWT) and is worthy of great reward.
This is exactly the position of the Kharijites, and they killed 'Ali, RA,
precisely with that argument. To be correct, "legal process" must include
the judgement of a court having jurisdiction, and other safeguards such
as, in the absence of an immediate threat of violence, the opportunity
for the defendant to defend himself against the charges and to present
evidence. All this is lacking in the Rushdie case, which was judged on
hearsay evidence; and the fatwa stated no cause of action sufficient to
warrant its judgement.
Often overlooked is the fact that the fatwa did not explicitly state who
was to be killed; once again, any fanatic could apply it to just about
anyone. So far, two publishers representatives, one in Japan and one in a
Scandinavian country, have been assassinated, and an imam in the
Netherlands, I believe it was, was shot to death with a friend,
apparently for the crime of having denied that Rushdie should be killed.
Lawful futuwa are not implemented by furtive assassins, except among the
Kharijites and other fanatic sects.
Paul O Bartlett
On 1 Feb 1996, Hyder A Khan wrote (excerpt):
: Iran is
: now governed by pure Islam. The shariah is fully implemented and serves
: as the law of the land.
I see. And just *who* in Iran is the khalifa to whom all Muslims
everywhere in the world should owe allegience. What is his name? How
was he selected? If there is no such khalifa, how can you can that the
shariah is fully implemented as the law of the land?
Mohammad Noorul Islam
[Deleted for brevity only]
>A fictional account of a story told by Satan about the fantasies of a
>lunatic. Yet people took the content of this book as if it was a
>collection of affirmations of fact, and its author as if he were
>accountable for such!
BRAVO Mr.Lomax! Finally here is someone who understands the spirit of
this exquisite piece of writing. I wish that many more Muslims actually
took the trouble of reading the book rather than passing a judgement
based on the words of some over-enthusiastic clerics.
Sincerely
Mohammad Noorul Islam
--
Mohammad Noorul Islam
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
The Johns Hopkins University
Email: mis...@rowland.pha.jhu.edu
Paul O Bartlett
: If I tell you that it is obligatory to pray Maghrib prayer right now,
: and it is indeed the time of the Maghrib prayer, then you will not argue
: with me on whose authority I am advising you to pray, because you know
: that it is the command of Allah(SWT).
But I may permissibly ask you for your proof from Qur'an and Sunnah
that what you say is in fact part of the teaching and Shariah. I do not
simply have to take your word alone for it. Islam is not like some
religions which expect unthinking, blind obedience to some (human) guru.
: Thus, in the same manner, if I tell you, the Holy Prophet Muhammad(SAW)
: tells you, the Imam of your mosque tells you, or even Imam Ruhullah al-Musavi
: al-Khomeini(RA) advises you that it is obligatory to carry out the
: execution of an apostate who is fighting against Islam, then you should not
: question "on whose authority" this command is being issued.
On the contrary, I can, may, and do ask "on whose authority." I can
still demand that you verify for me from Qur'an and Sunnah that the
alleged penalty is Sunnah. I do not merely have to take your word for
it. And I may also ask for verification that a judicial process is in
accordance with the Shariah. Therefore, I claim that I have a right to
demand to know that a death sentence has been *properly* passed in
accordance with *Shariah*, not just because you, the imam of my mosque,
or Ruhollah Khomeini says so. We are dealing with an extremely grave
matter here, and it just won't do to claim that somebody says so. There
must be Islamic proof and legitimacy of the judge.
: > I am not aware that he was khalifa over all Muslims.
:
: Well now you know. He was not actually the khalifa, but he was the
: Vali-e-Faqih over all Muslims.
I am not familiar with this term "Vali-e-Faqih over all Muslims."
And you admit that Khomeini was not khalifa. That says a lot to me right
there.
: > Whence did he derive such authority?
:
: From the Holy Prophet of Islam(SAW).
That is an insufficient statement. In detail, by what means,
mechanism, appointment, or descent did he receive this authority from
Muhammad (saws). Your merely saying so is not proof.
: > If the death sentence was not legitimate, then it is not obligatory.
: > First we have to establish the legitimacy of the sentence.
:
: It has already been established - 1400 years ago.
Again, you are merely asserting. You are not providing any proof
(daleel).
Wassalaam,
Amir Asghari
Mr. Tariq:
There are some points on your analysis of Rushdi's affair.
1) Your standpoint toward Islamic values and standards is understandable
but the problem is that everytime a flaw, falacy, mistake, misconception,
or misconduct is discovered or obsereved, there is always a cliche answer
namely:"You don't understand! There's no such a thing in Islam. There's
no such a thing written in Quoran. There is anther 'Tafsir' to it.etc..."
Well, if somebody converts from Islam or insults Mohammad, there is
litterally a death penalty for it and that's what Islam suggets and in
the course of history Mahammad himself and other Islamic rulers have
practiced this. Now, as this concept is not compliant with modern age and
brings the credibility of Islamic values severely under question mark,
the contemporary Islamic intellectuals call for remedy namely:"You don't
understand. There is no such a thing in Islam ...". But the very truth
is that freedom of speech and individual freedom is not discussed in
Islam, let alone be guaranteed. This, however, shouldn't be a bad thing
necessarily because 1400 years ago, freedom concepts were realized
differently but one thing is for sure and that is that "the Real Islam"
doesn't deal with evolutionary, dynamic values. By this I DO NOT refer to
Western values, but at least the common sense.
2) Rushdie may be is not the most prominent so-called intellectual but
long before the whole commotion about him began in late 80's, he
repeatedly criticized the fanatism of Indian Sicks, Orthodox Jews, racism
in England and western Europe and ofcourse Islamic fundamentalism. It's
hard to believe that he had commercial ambitions by writting Satanic
Versus although it happened. In my opinion, the real thing was that he
conveyed a message about flaws in Islam and that's basically a
fundamental problem because nobody is allowed to doubt about Islam at
first place and if someone dares to do this he/she per definition risks
his/her life. The best evidence for this is, of course, that there is no
critical script about Islam in the course of history. Everyone just dares
to criticize Islam will be and must be eliminated.
3) I don't want to comment on Khomeini's regime because I assume that by
now it should be very clear that CIA helped his gang to take the power in
Iran not his Islamic charisma.
with respect,
Dr. Amir Asghari
Daniel Lomax
Mohammad Noorul Islam (rowland!mis...@uunet.uu.net) wrote:
: BRAVO Mr.Lomax! Finally here is someone who understands the spirit of
: this exquisite piece of writing. I wish that many more Muslims actually
: took the trouble of reading the book rather than passing a judgement
: based on the words of some over-enthusiastic clerics.
It is embarrassing to receive praise from "Mohammad Noorul Islam," who
is, if I am correct, not a Muslim in spite of his name, but even a
stopped clock is right twice a day. I must join him in wishing that
people would actually read the book before passing judgement on it;
unfortunately, the book is very difficult to read, and persons who are
not thoroughly proficient in English are very likely, I would say, to end
up with incorrect views on its contents, for without careful reading, one
may easily lose the context in which the words appears.
For example, on could find a page about certain prostitutes, and notice
that their names are the names of the wives of Muhammad, RA and SAS. If
one has not read what came before one could easily conclude that Rushdie
was claiming that the wives of our Prophet were prostitutes. But the
dream-wives of the dream-prophet Mahound are actually, in the book,
righteous characters against whom nothing unrighteous is reported. What
does happen is that certain prostitutes take on the names of these wives
to please their depraved customers.
What is all this about? Why does Rushdie even bother with all this? I
will only note that, today, certain politicians take on the name of Islam
to please their constituencies; the real news reports coming out of
Pakistan about women being flogged for false report because they reported
a rape (and could not produce four witnesses) are no more fantastic than
anything in Satanic Verses.
Milind Saraph
zeeshan hasan <zee...@ksg1.harvard.edu> writes:
|> Secondly, it should be noticed that Rushdie pokes a
|> quite a bit of fun at Khomeini in his book. That being
|> the case, Khomeini's ruling against Rushdie might
|> be seen as the result of a personal dispute between the
|> two. In fact, this seems to me like the real reason for
|> the fatwa... lots of non-Muslims have made fun of Muhammad,
|> and not recieved death sentences. Rushdie writes one book,
|> which is nowhere near as offensive as many others which have
|> been written, and happens to spend a few pages mocking
|> Khomeini... and Bang! Instant death sentence. But
|> to what extent are Muslims all around the world
|> obliged to take sides in this personal dispute?
I agree with you. I am currently reading the following book:
Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammed, Ali Dashti,
(Translated from Persian by F.R.C. Bagley), George Allen and Unwin, 1985,
ISBN 0 04 297048 2.
There is a lot of material in the book which could get it banned. Dashti
had this book published in Lebanon anonymously in 1970s before the Islamic
revolution. From what I have heard, this book has not been banned in
Iran.
There seems to be a clear division among scholars: Muslim apologetics and
so called oriental scholars. This book is interesting because it was
written by a person who has had a good training Islamic theology, history,
Arabic and Persian literature. He attended madrassas in Najaf and Karbala.
-- Milind Saraph
Hyder A Khan
Assalam alaikum,
[Please refer to original note in this subject for reference.]
On 31 Jan 1996 chau...@wmich.edu wrote:
> If this is true(and I am sure its not) that every Muslim must administer
> justice according to the penal laws of Islam, then you are inviting anarchy.
It is the obligatory duty of every Muslim (wajib-e-kifa'i) to implement
the shariah and to do whatever is in his ability to establish an Islamic
government. Allah(SWT) has made every single Muslim accountable to uphold this
responsibility.
> Penal codes are instituted and implemented by the state run authorities
> and are not under the jurisdiction of the individuals. Please refrain from
> issuing such rulings.
In Islam, there is no difference between the civilian and the law
enforcement officer. Every Muslim is obliged to perform "Amr-bil-Maroof"
and "Nay-anil-Munkar."
Therefore, every Muslim is a soldier of Allah(SWT) in his or her own right.
Wajib-e-kifa'i refers to an obligation that is binding on all Muslims.
Failure to fulfil this wajib (obligatory) act would result in it being a
sin upon ALL Muslims (who were capable of doing the action but didn't
bother to do it). But as long as at least one person fulfils this
obligation, then everyone else is freed from this responsibility.
This is the principle upon which Islamic law in an Islamic government
is based.
> I am happy that such injunctions are not made incumbent upon muslims by
> Quran.
Such injunctions actually are made incumbent upon Muslims by Quran. As
long as two just witnesses (or four in the case of adultery) attest to a
criminal activity, then it is obligatory upon all those who come to know
of this crime and who are capable, to carry out the punishment, until and
unless at least one person satisfies the obligation, and if a specific
agency or institution is established that will deal with it, then it is
well and good.
> Allah has made Quran sufficient for His servants and one should look
> into the Quran before giving any attention to such calls.
Alhamdulillah, the Holy Quran does indeed make such declarations.
> Nowhere in Quran individual is authorised to take law in their hand.
> I find it a mercy and blessing from our Creator, The Wise and The
> Praiseworthy.
On the contrary, every Muslim is authorized, and in fact, ordered to
take the laws of Islam into their own hands, because we each are
responsible for our own deeds and must face them on the Day of Judgement.
> I am thankful to Allah for everything that He bestowed upon His servants and
> seek His favours in this life and the life hereafter. May Allah lead us all
> to His right path.
Ameen.
Mehdi Ali
> as-salamu 'alaykum.
>
> This is exactly the position of the Kharijites, and they killed 'Ali, RA,
Mawiya Ibne Abu Sufiyan Plotted the murder of 'Ali, RA. He used a
Kharijite to do so. The woman who motivated Abdur-rahman Ibne Muljim
(Assasin of 'Ali, RA,) was bribed by Mawiya that If she is successful
in convincing Ibne Muljim to Assasinate 'Ali, RA, she sould marry him and
in return Mawiya promised her to marry her with Yezid Ibe Mawiya.
Roger Wong
>percentage of purchasers have actually read the book. The average English
>reader has not only to enter Rushdie's psychotic trance but also has to put
>up with the book's tedious literary style incorporating innuendoes in words
>and names that mean little to him.
All of Rushdie's books are like this. I never finished reading the Satanic
Verses because of exactly this.
--
Roger Wong 3D art, music, sfx, www, c&c faq
High Wycombe, England Argh! Too much work! Argh!
ro...@powhq.nildram.co.uk http://kublai.pacificrim.net/~solaris
The C&C strategy FAQ v4.7 is available from my WWW page.
Giles Davidson
Ayatollah Khomeini's writ only runs in Iran. His jurisdiction only
applied in Iran. The leading Shia alim of the time was in Iraq, and
as far as I know didn't comment on the issue (I could be wrong here).
Khomeinis ruling does not apply to Sunnis in any case.
--
Giles Davidson
Daniel Lomax
Roger Wong (ro...@powhq.nildram.co.uk) wrote:
: mat...@nfri.affrc.go.jp (Muhammad-Amjad Tariq) wrote:
: >percentage of purchasers have actually read the book. The average English
: >reader has not only to enter Rushdie's psychotic trance but also has to put
: >up with the book's tedious literary style incorporating innuendoes in words
: >and names that mean little to him.
: All of Rushdie's books are like this. I never finished reading the Satanic
: Verses because of exactly this.
I can certainly understand. The book is difficult, but
not so difficult as James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake, for example. "Tedious"
is really not a description of the book, but of the mind of someone
attempting to read it who does not have sufficient background in the
culture and language.
I have at least half that background, the part that is Western, with some
understanding and experience of schizophrenia (which is one of the
subjects of the book, for the schizophrenia may experience a
pseudo-revelation), plus I was familiar enough with Indo-Pak culture to
follow some of the allusions there. I did not find the book tedious;
rather, it was fascinating. But some who thinks that it is about Islam
and the Prophet (SAS) has simply mistaken the accidental for the
essential. Islam only appears in the book because the characters are
nominal (not practicing) Muslims. So the dreams of a nominal Muslim who
is having a massive delusion that he is the angel of revelation are bound
to include Islamic imagery and, as well, a view, distorted as it may be,
of Islamic history.
For example, the well-known saying of Abu Bakr to Omar on the occasion of
the death of the Prophet, SAS, is put in one of the book's dreams in the
mouth of Ayesha. A mistake on Rushdie's part? I do not think so. Rather,
in this and other books, "mistakes" like this are incorporated because
real people, the models of Rushdie's characters, make mistakes.
The book is the most accurate portrayal of the schizophrenic mind I have
ever seen.
I did just download and read Ahmad Deedat's perjorative review of the
book. Deedat succeeds only in dragging himself and his readers through
the gutter, of which he imagines Rushdie is a denizen. He shows his
complete ignorance of Western culture, in thinking that we will be
shocked by the exceedingly impolite language of the book. The fact is
that most teenagers here, among themselves, talk with language like this,
and many adults as well. The characters in the book are immoral and given
to drunkenness. Their language is appropriate to a realistic portrayal,
and Westerners have come to expect realism in literature.
So Deedat quotes all these words, such as an Urdu word meaning one who
has intercourse with his sister, and its equivalent in English, and the
repeated use of the ordinary four-letter word for excrement, and other
examples, somehow imagining that all this is relevant. But what might
easily be overlooked is that Deedat does not just quote these words, he
uses them himself, not merely quoting. He shows that when the piety is
stripped off (by his anger, in this case), his language is not better
than that of Rushdie's characters. What a sad commentary on the dangers
of debate!
Deedat's commentary on Rushdie's book is available at
http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic
and
http://www.ummah.org.uk/unn.htm
though I only checked one of these. I was actually looking for the Qur'an
with Arabic and came across the article.
Mehdi Ali
> as-salamu 'alaykum.
> subjects of the book, for the schizophrenia may experience a
> pseudo-revelation), plus I was familiar enough with Indo-Pak culture to
> follow some of the allusions there. I did not find the book tedious;
> rather, it was fascinating. But some who thinks that it is about Islam
> and the Prophet (SAS) has simply mistaken the accidental for the
> essential. Islam only appears in the book because the characters are
> nominal (not practicing) Muslims.
India was one of the first nations to ban this book long before Khomenie
gave that Fatwa. Rushdie had written a letter to the then Priminister of
India Rajiv Gandhi which was printed on the newspaper claiming that India
is depriving him of conveying his FIVE YEARS OF ISLAMIC RESEARCH from the
masses. (I dont have have the news archive but I have read it myself.) So
Rushdie claims that this book is a work of five years of Islamic research.
As for the language he used, he is from bombay (India) India having far
more conservative culture can never be used in a normal conversation even
among young people.
Was-salam
Mehdi Ali
Hyder A Khan
Greetings,
On 7 Feb 1996, Giles Davidson wrote:
> Ayatollah Khomeini's writ only runs in Iran.
That is not true. Imam Khomeini's(RA) authority is independent of Iran.
He was not the leader of Iran but of the Muslims.
> His jurisdiction only
> applied in Iran.
The Vali-e-Faqih has authority over the affairs of all the Muslims.
> The leading Shia alim of the time was in Iraq, and
> as far as I know didn't comment on the issue (I could be wrong here).
Grand Ayatullah Kho'i(RA) himself acknowledged the leadership of
Imam Khomeini(RA).
> Khomeinis ruling does not apply to Sunnis in any case.
The Ahl-e-Sunnah do not recognize any authority except consensus of the
majority of the believers. However, failure of a party of people to
recognize the authority of Vali-e-Faqih does not mean that the authority
of Vali-e-Faqih does not extend over them.
T.O.Shanavas
> ..... every Muslim is authorized, and in fact, ordered to
>take the laws of Islam into their own hands,
>
>
>May Allah(SWT) guide us all,
> Hyder Ali Khan
>
Assalamu alaikum,
>>>>>This is not Islam the way I understand. What Mr. Khan
describe is called anarchy.
May Allah guide us all
Peace
Tufail
AbdulraHman Lomax
> The Ahl-e-Sunnah do not recognize any authority except consensus of the
>majority of the believers. However, failure of a party of people to
>recognize the authority of Vali-e-Faqih does not mean that the authority
>of Vali-e-Faqih does not extend over them.
Br. Khan is correct about the "Ahl-e-Sunnah" only recognising as
religious authority the consensus of the majority of believers. The
complete name is "Ahlu ssunnah wa ljama'"; i.e., the people of the
practice and of consensus. By definition, this is not a "party."
Rather, the Shi'a are a "party." This is what the word "shi'a" means.
One could properly say that the failure of a majority of believers to
recognise the authority of "Vali-e-Faqih" does not deny that
authority. Truth has its own authority which is not dependent upon
recognition by minorities or majorities. But Br. Khan's assertions
about this are nothing short of arrogant, for he is presuming that the
opinion of a sect within his sect is binding on all believers, and he
claims this without any apparent shame.
mar...@gate.ioa.com
Behnam Sadeghi
AbdulraHman Lomax <mar...@gate.ioa.com> wrote:
>One could properly say that the failure of a majority of believers to
>recognise the authority of "Vali-e-Faqih" does not deny that
>authority.
One comment on the "wali-e faghih" concept which is not related
to 'Abdur raHman's message: This concept means that absolute
political authority must be in the hands of Islamic *legal*
scholars. The fact I would like to mention is that it is a
*minority* of Shia scholars through the ages who have held
this belief. The reason why I mention this is that sometimes
I run into people who assume this to be a fundamental Shia
belief, which it is not. It is at best one legitimate way the
sources can be interpreted, but it is certainly not the only (or
the most common) way.
Iran's current political system diverges from the concept of
valiy-e faghih as outlined in Ruhollah Khomeini's _Islamic
Government_, as it incorporates democratic elements. The Iranian
Constitution does not give the valiy-e faghih absolute power. One
could consider the Constitution as a compromise between democracy
and absolutist dictatorship.
Behnam
Manfredo Alejand Dix
: justice according to the penal laws of Islam. Thus, if according to
: Islamic law, a Muslim's mother is caught committing adultery by four just
: witnesses, then even if she is your mother, it becomes obligatory upon
: you to execute her, if you are available and able to carry out the death
This is part of Islam? Execute even your own mother? Is this true mainstream
Islam? I cannot believe it; if it is really true, now I am very happy for being a Christian. What a difference with Jesus!! In John, chapter 8 Jesus forgives anadulterous woman, while in Islam you are allowed to execute and kill your own
mother (in gross violation of the Fifth Commandment, by the way...). Of course,
Muslims claim that John chapter 8 is forged, changed, not the real original
Gospel, but that is another story.
: sentence. Love of and sympathy for other people (especially doers of evil
: and injustice such as an adulteress) can never override one's love of Islam.
: For a Muslim, Islam is a dear beloved. It is also a trust that God has
: charged the Muslims with. Thus, it is the responsibility of every Muslim
: to uphold and maintain this trust.
So in Islam the cause is more important than the person? Is that what you are
saying? Again, I am so happy for being a Christian, because Jesus taught us
to leave the 99 sheep and look for the one which is lost; Jesus taught us in
the parable of the Prodigal Son, to forgive the son who goes astray, to love
and receive him when he comes home (parable of the lost son). What a world of a difference with Islam!!!
: May Allah(SWT) guide us all,
No, not me in the light of the above. If what Mr. Hyder Ali Khan is main-
stream Islam, no, I do not want Allah to guide me. I want Jesus to guide me.
I want the Holy Spirit to guide me, I want the God of the Bible, the only
true God, to guide me.
: Hyder Ali Khan
Manfred
khairul
Hyder Khan"s views do not represent mainstream Islam.Anyway,ifyou do not
want Allah to guide you ,there is nothing we can do about it.The Quran has
the answer for your state of mind in Sura 109:
Say,O ye unbelievers,
I will not worship what you worship,
Nor will you worship what I worship,
And I will not worship what you have been wont to worship,
Nor will you worship what I worship,
To you ,your way;and to me mine.
Notice the message being repeated in this sura.I hope you find the Truth.
Peace be upon you
Khairul