QUOTE (HAJiME @ Apr 27 2008, 09:35 PM)

My friend says that the link to the drawing thing is mostly Sunni view. He is Shi'a.

Is there anything in the actual Qur'an about such subjects?

Shia's don't agree with the Qur'an 100%, did you know that? They are considered by some Sunnis as the worst enemies of Islam. I just wanted to tell you that before I answer your question. This link explains the drawing of pictures using both sources from the Qur'an & the Sunnah: http://muttaqun.com/pictures.html.

so what is the difference between shias, sunnis, bhais. they all follow quran and mohammed so why this animosity.
as they are all supposed to be different do they proseltyze to convert each other to the other sects, does the rules of apostasy apply to one another.
so which is the popular group in following the book most.
is the interpretation of quran done differently by these sects. if so which interpretation is correct.

Hi, Im on lunch, so a quick reply to you above post before i do so in depth later today. For now a simple answer is this. When you study a relgion, the academic and methodical approach used, is not based on judging it by its followers, because the latter are human and fallible, thats our nature, so even as muslim you can be bad muslims, do the same things non muslims do, whether that be state sponsered terrorism like in Iraq and other places or muslim extremists. You study the source and its teachings not those who follow them, because at large, they follow what they are told by their teachers, they dont verify the info, this is applicable to all religions.

Oh by the way, the above claims about muslim terrorist being a threat more than anything is ludicrous at best, this why? You kill yourselves over small disputes in more numbers on a daily basis than anywhere else, you are more likely to die at teh hand of a drunk driver than a suicide bomber, or drugs related crimes, or simply being mugged and knifed than any islamic threat, the latter is just to make people like you think your threatened so you give up more liberties, and get brainwashed by the media. If islam has a past of killing all those opposing islam, india, the middle east, basically anywhere with muslim populations would have no non muslim left, india for example has more hindus than muslims, the latter ruled for a 1000 yrs, enought to wipe em out. You see what you argue are the same age old repeated propaganda from the crusader era.





I believe the hindus went to america, even the egyptians, and many other before islam, but muslims got there before colombus too.




Hmmm, well if thats the case, lets judge hinduism and its followers, like the acts of Sati, i will leave this for you to explain to the rest. Not just that, the ancient warrior empire of the religion, Ashoka etc. Shall we go in depth. I can even bring verse about jihad from your scriptures. Like i said you dont judge something allegedly divine, by its human subjects, due to the latter being fallible.

ozi

The Muslim rule of India was the bloodiest period in that countries' history.


To the best of my knowledge there is no archeological record of Hindus or Muslims in America prior to its settlement by Europeans. If there is any written record of that, anywhere, I am not aware of it. Could you please cite references that support your claim?

The Caves of Anu in western Oklahoma contain both Coptic and Ogam scripts in the same caves. The style is the same as that used in the 6th century by IRISH monks. The best explanation seems to be that Irish explorers, a la St. Brendan, reached this location by coming up the Mississippi, Red and Canadian Rivers from the Gulf of Mexico. In any case, they were neither Hindu nor Muslim and the only thing Egyptian about them was their writing.
Doug

Not to change the subject, but the 9-11 Hoax discussion was moved to the "Conspiracy" forum. And please check out the response on YouTube by the Onion to those who believe 9-11 was a hoax! Some much needed satire.

9-11 A Hoax
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t=0&start=0

MK,

Sean

You see this is typical mistake made by people about islam in America. The mistake is this, neither the muslim or the hindus claim to have been in America first, if you read what i wrote, i said they got there before colombus, as did many others, and some even before the muslims and the hindus or the egyptians etc.

As for the rule in India, known to be its bloodiest, is a myth, simply put. the Myth suggest islam was spread by the sword, i dont contest that there might have been small incidents where this happened, largely initiated by an individual, and totally contrary to islam, yet the latter would be blamed for it. A bit like today, actions of a few cause the media to label it islamic terrorism, while terrorism is simply terrorism, regardless of the faith of the pepertrators. You see you never here that the Irish terrorism in Britian and Northern Ireland, was christian terrorism or fundamentalist, people are quick to suggest it was a different conflict, and it was political and not religious, yet those who were fighting were doing so and killing each other based on whether one was catholic or protestant, even today in footaball matches, fan of teams like Celtic, still associate it themselves strongly with catholacism and behave in a hooliganish manner against rival of protestant faiths and vica versa. Indian muslim rule no doubt had some incidents which are contrary to islam too, but as a whole, it was the best period of indias history in modern history. Even notable and credible indian leaders and academics agree on this, quotes can be provided if needed.


Sean, will check the thread, but in all honesty im absolutely exhausted with this argument. Simply put, those who dont believe it was an inside job base it on evidence which wont even stand scrutiny of a court. Not only that, all the Goverment has to do, is produce the CCTV footage around the pentagon at the time, which is conveniently was not working at the time, and the airports which all have CCTV cameras, at boarding stage showing exactly who is getting on the plane. Lastly, any action like this, to be credited to a bunch of men in a cave, suggests they have mean and intelligence to carry out such actions, yet at the same time they were so stupid, that they did not realise this will not benefit their movement and instead will almost wipe them out. Hmmm interesting..................

OK. We know that the Norse were here before Columbus. There is archeological proof of that. We have "probable cause" to believe that Irish monks were also here. And of course, the American Indians have been here for thousands of years, since at least 11,660 BP. It also appears that there were Solutrean people here around 15,000 years ago. Aside from that, what the hell are you talking about? Could you please tell me where I can find the evidence on which you're basing this conclusion?


If the period of Muslim rule in India was not India's bloodiest period, please tell me which one was.

The Ulster Defense Force is Protestant and the Irish Republican Army is Catholic. So what is this about never hearing about religious-affiliated terrorism in Northern Ireland? Ever hear of the Black and Tans? Yes, it's about more than religion, but because poverty correlates with religion in that area, it is about religion, as well class.

The Republic of Irealnd National Football Team is the Irish national soccer team. The Claymores are the Scottish national team and the Celtics are the Boston Basketball Team. So what is this you're saying about the Celtics? Neither the Claymores nor the RINF ever play the Celtics (different sports). ?????

You say we should not judge Islam by the behavior of Muslims (Do I understand that correctly?). If the people who say they follow a religion do not believe in it enough to practice what it says, then why should anybody else (That applies equally to Christians.)? And if they do not believe in it enough to practice it, what's the big deal about adopting a more-liberal interpretation of the Quran?
Doug

I will get you the evidence on the islam in america i have not had the time, and some other people have requested it too.

Glad we agree the muslim were not first to america, and only before colombus.

Like i said the muslim rule of india is not the bloodiest, the british rule was one of them and previously the infighting between hindus themselves and the reign of the warrior king Ashoka. You know any better then show it, i will show what leading indians respected by fellow indians have to say.

Regarding the IRA, do you even hear, "today the christian fundamentalist terrorist group bombed london" or " Catholic fundamentalism is on the rise in Ireland etc" you get my drift, this type of generalising is only applied to muslims who are terrorists and as result we are ridiculed with it. As for the football team i mentioned, I live in the UK and Celtic are a scottish Football/soccer team, you see we call football, football, because its played with the foot. My obsevations and comments about that are valid and its a known problem about fans in Ireland and scotland.

I say dont judge islam by its follower, like you dont judge, christian based on the KKK, or Hitler, Or hindus, based on the Tamil Tigers, etc, etc. Its pretty simple, not complex, judge islam on it teaching and its source, not the fallible humans who follow it, who will be bad and good, just like all humans are, but this does not mean islam is not the truth, is just like ignoring any truth, or acting partially on some truths.

Actually, at the height of the troubles, it was routine, at least in America, to hear the religious affiliation, Catholic or Protestant, of whichever thugs had performed the latest outrage.

Of course, nobody was left to wonder whether the Pope was cheering for the IRA or the Archbishop of Canterbury was rooting for the Orangemen. They both thought terrorism was despicable, and said so.

So, there are differences.

It is not a matter of judging a movement by its rogue followers. It is the strength of evidence that the terrorists are, in fact, rogues. In the case of Islam, such evidence is thin on the ground. Thoughtful people will take that into account, Ozi.

this is not about hinduism and i can answer your questions. you seem to be edgy, this topic is about misconceptions on islam so i am asking questions regarding that. if you cannot answer questions you can keep your silence nobody is going to force you. your knowledge about hinduism is from people like zakir naik. they do not hold anything. he is a laughing stock among indiam muslims with his yazid comments. only pakistanis like you are falling for him, if you want you can visit indian muslim league website for more info. hinduism is nothing but its followers. reformists for hinduism are born every century to reform the religion. i am a humanitarian first and then a hindu. if some one my religion says you have to kill people to reach god. do u know what i will do i will leave the god alone. i do not want anything to do with god who will promote hatred and killing.

Look at this hadith

Hadith - At-Tirmidhi

"On the Day of Resurrection a neck will stretch forth from Hell; it will have two eyes to see, two ears to hear, and a tongue to speak. It will say, "I have been appointed to take care of three types of people: every arrogant tyrant, every person who called on some deity other than Allaah (swt) and those who made pictures"

You know what my religion says - Rig Veda

"Ekam sat, Vipra bahuda vadanti"- God is One, theologians call It by many names

everytime i hear you make a comment 'we ruled india for 1000 years and still there are millions of hindus left". This by nomeans shows the greatness of islam, you are totally mistaken it shows the resilence of hindus in india. your 1000 year rule could never destroy our thousands year old old culture buddy. it shows the strength of my forefathers than anything. islam is nothing but its followers who are blinded in their arrogance for thinking otherwise.

You keep on saying you will show jihad in my scriptures it is funny LOL. your jihad is never going to be my jihad. pray to god that we will never adopt your jihad on you and then you will see how jihad is implemented. i do not know what you were taught in pakistan about india but educated indian muslims are sensible enough to realise where their future lies. it is with india and hindus than with muslim pakistanis.

What she said. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doug

I have grew up here in N.Ireland and been through 30 years of violence..with IRA and Loyalist terrorists killings and bombings...and one thing is for CERT....it was NEVER EVER to do with religion...it was ALL politics and that was it...never once over religious differences...I have an uncle that did time for being an IRA man..I can tell you..religion never had any part of it

and it no longer goes on over here

You hardly hear anyone hold heated debates over religion where I come from...meaning religious talks on the bible..etc...it is rare!!

just letting you know

During muslim rule India was the richest and most prosperous region on the planet until the british invaded and turned it into a poor colony and a source of raw material. Even today India is reeling from years of slavery. Please study history deeply before arriving at conclusions.

Just out of curiosity where would 200 million untouchables fit in the picture?

QUOTE (prisha @ Apr 29 2008, 08:32 PM)

this is not about hinduism and i can answer your questions. you seem to be edgy, this topic is about misconceptions on islam so i am asking questions regarding that. if you cannot answer questions you can keep your silence nobody is going to force you.

I don't really know who you are talking to, but I will reply to you anyway. Who said that this is about Hinduism? Nowhere has anyone asked a question to you about your religion... Maybe you were talking about Ozi's comments? "Hmmm, well if thats the case, lets judge hinduism and its followers, like the acts of Sati, i will leave this for you to explain to the rest." This is not really a question is it? OK, you don't need to reply to him, but that doesn't mean that it has got nothing to do with the topic. You accuse us of foolish deeds and when the tables are turned, you complain that it is off-topic etc.

QUOTE (prisha @ Apr 29 2008, 08:32 PM)

your knowledge about hinduism is from people like zakir naik. they do not hold anything. he is a laughing stock among indiam muslims with his yazid comments. only pakistanis like you are falling for him, if you want you can visit indian muslim league website for more info.

You hold more knowledge than Zakir Naik don't you? Then why don't you Enlighten us with your 'deep knowledge'? Dr. Zakir Naik is one of the most popular Muslim debater in the world, and you treat him like a lier etc. He has debated many different types of people... Christians, Jews, Atheists and most important of all, Hindus. This man has converted millions of people to Islam, and God Willing he will continue with his mission for a long time. He knows the Qur'an by heart, can quote many verses from the Bible + Vedas and much more. You know Sri Sri Ravishankar? Of course you do... He is a Hindu, just like you. He debated with Dr. Zakir Naik in front of 50,000+ people. Zakir Naik was always giving clear and convincing answers to questions and comments, but Ravishankar, on the other hand, did not ONCE talk about the topic :D! Don't believe me? Here is the whole video debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID4p-Kc41uQ.

Zakir Naik completely annihilated him, and some people even said that Ravishankar was crying by the time the discussion was finished. Here is a section from the debate where Ravishankar accepted he had made several mistakes in his recent book about Islam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojeyl6v0lNc.

Still don't believe how good Zakir Naik truly is? Watch this video in which he converted a Hindu woman LIVE on Peace TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3Rhn8yvvVA&feature=related.

QUOTE (prisha @ Apr 29 2008, 08:32 PM)

everytime i hear you make a comment 'we ruled india for 1000 years and still there are millions of hindus left". This by nomeans shows the greatness of islam, you are totally mistaken it shows the resilence of hindus in india. your 1000 year rule could never destroy our thousands year old old culture buddy. it shows the strength of my forefathers than anything. islam is nothing but its followers who are blinded in their arrogance for thinking otherwise.

So you are telling me that Hindus will never leave their faith for another religion such as Islam? This is quite funny because only yesterday I found this: 40 Hindu families convert to slam :D.

And while we are at it, here is some more: Pete Doherty turns to Islam. This man was a drug addict etc. but with the help of Allah Almighty he can restart his life fresh, just like every other non-Muslim.

QUOTE (prisha @ Apr 29 2008, 08:32 PM)

hinduism is nothing but its followers. reformists for hinduism are born every century to reform the religion. i am a humanitarian first and then a hindu.

And this is why your religion has got so many sects. How dare you or anyone else change your religion or Holy book etc. in any way? Is the Vedas the word of God? Yes? Then why would you change it? No? Then why do you even believe in it?

QUOTE (prisha @ Apr 29 2008, 08:32 PM)

if some one my religion says you have to kill people to reach god. do u know what i will do i will leave the god alone. i do not want anything to do with god who will promote hatred and killing.

This is exactly what I am trying to tell people for the last 600+ posts! You are right, and I fully agree with you. But some people still claim that Islam is the religion which you just described (Which is not true of course).

QUOTE (prisha @ Apr 29 2008, 08:32 PM)

"Ekam sat, Vipra bahuda vadanti"- God is One, theologians call It by many names

This is exactly what Islam teaches us:

Noble Qur'an 112:1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
4. And there is none like unto Him.

As you may already know there are many more similarities between Hinduism & Islam than there are major differences, so instead of hating each other, we should love one another. This is what the Qur'an tells us all to do:

Noble Qur'an 3:64. Say: "O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah. that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).

You hold more knowledge than Zakir Naik don't you? Then why don't you Enlighten us with your 'deep knowledge'? Dr. Zakir Naik is one of the most popular Muslim debater in the world, and you treat him like a lier etc. He has debated many different types of people... Christians, Jews, Atheists and most important of all, Hindus. This man has converted millions of people to Islam, and God Willing he will continue with his mission for a long time. He knows the Qur'an by heart, can quote many verses from the Bible + Vedas and much more. You know Sri Sri Ravishankar? Of course you do... He is a Hindu, just like you. He debated with Dr. Zakir Naik in front of 50,000+ people. Zakir Naik was always giving clear and convincing answers to questions and comments, but Ravishankar, on the other hand, did not ONCE talk about the topic ! Don't believe me? Here is the whole video debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID4p-Kc41uQ.

what knowledge do you think AF zakir naik has. he is a debater as you mentioned. he debates to win and to get attention. A good debater is one who can twist the truth or present the false as the truth and woe the audience in an instance.This guy looks like he does not know quran as well as he seemed to portray to gullible audiences. i am sure you read about his comment on yazid

zakir naik said:

"the battle of karbala took place between sayidina hussein may Allah be please with him and yazid may Allah be pleased with him too"

And this so called Scholar of Islam is defending Yazid such a Traitor, Drunkard whom even Non-Muslims Curse.

http://www.myjavaserver.com/~imranjaffry/o.../ZAKIR_NAYK.WAV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es_iLfYup-U...feature=related

http://www.truveo.com/Dr-Zakir-Naik-Yazid-...R/id/2598934284

this is what he told in Peacetv

this guy whom you are praising as a scholar on hinduism first ask him if he knows about quran. just google it and see what different muslim groups are saying about zakir naik.

Look what your own paki muslims are saying about zakir

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...6-12-2003_pg3_4

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&sectio...;article=105128

Condemning the Ideology of Zakir Naik by Prof. Imam Syed B. Soharwardy 2008 (Calgary) – Eng
http://www.shiatv.net/view_video.php?viewk...6690771845bd790

AFighter are you supporting this naik person whom muslim community itself is not and he had the gall to talk about Bhagavad Gita and vedas. what a joke


Reply Of Hujatul islam Maulana Zaki Baqri to Mr.Zakir Naik. S

Salaamun Alaikum,

First thing I would like ask is that, is Mr Zakir Naik ready to do munazarah (debate) with me in this subject as he loves to do it with Hindus and Christians?

It seems he doesn’t believe in the books of Sihahe Sittah which are the most authentic books in accordance with the Sunni believe.

Following are some examples:

As per Holy Qur’an Chapter 2:44.’ATA’MUROONAN-NASA BIL-BIIRI WA TANSAUNA ANFUSAKUM WA ANTUM TATLOONAL-KITABA AFALA TA’QILOON ‘.

‘ What ! do you enjoin men to be good and neglect your awn souls while you read the Book; have you then no sense? ‘

Is Naik having no sense that he adds the word ‘ May ALLAH (S.W.T.) be pleased with him ‘ for that Yazid who was making a mockery of HOLY PROPHET (S.A.W.W.) and revealation. Naik should refer to the books of scholars from all muslim sects who have many differences in other things but in the matter of Yazid they stand united.There are unanimously accepted famous couplets of yazid.The cursed yazid was reciting these couplets while he was drunk. Just one of it is sufficient to know that Yazid was rejecting the revealation.’ MA KHABARUN JAA’A WALA WAHYUN NAZAL ‘ i.e no news came and and nothing was revealed.

Is naik having no sense in claiming that karbala was a political war.Is naik not inviting the wrath of ALLAH (S.W.T.) by rejecting the saying of IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.).

IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.) himself said that ‘ INNAMA KHARAJTU LITALABIL-ISLAHI FI UMMATI JADDI ‘ (Indeed I have taken a step

(I came out) for the Islah of my grandfather’s (i.e HOLY PROPHET’S) Ummah).How can Naik’s version of Islam be accepted while he rejects the authentic saying of Truthful Imam and grandson of HOLY PROPHET (S.A.W.W.)

Is Naik having no sense that IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.) was from amongst AHLULBAIT (A.S) who are purified by ALLAH (S.W.T.) and this is announced in 33:33.Sahih bukhari, sahih muslim and other source of traditions explain the great merits of AHLULBAIT (A.S.).

Hence the enemy and killer of IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.) will be none but impure and unjust as per QUR’AN.

Then where does Naik stand?

Is Naik having no sense that he is adding the words ‘ May ALLAH (S.W.T.) be pleased with him ‘ after the name of cursed yazeed who killed the leader of youths of paradise as per unanimously accepted hadith of HOLY PROPHET (S) ” AL-HASANU WAL-HUSAINU SAYYIDA SHABABI AHLIL-JANNAH .’ (The HASAN and the HUSAIN are the leader of youths of paradise).

Does Naik think that yazid was not unjust in killing AHLULBAIT (A.S.) and leader of youths of paradise.



Which verse of the Holy Qur’an justifies the oppressions done on the family of HOLY PROPHET (S.A.W.W.) in karbala.On what basis can he call the ‘ supreme sacrifice ‘ to be a political war?

Naik quotes refrences to prove his point from other books in interfaith dialogue, hence Naik is either hiding the truth about karbala if he has read or one can conclude that when it comes to discussion about Islam, AHLULBAIT (A.S.) and KARBALA, he is totally ignorant and he needs to come out of darkness about the supreme sacrifice of karbala.

Is Naik having no sense in praising the killer of IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.), who in a way killed the HOLY PROPHET (S.A.W.W.).

This is because both in sahihain and hundred of other books it is quoted from HOLY PRPHET (S.A.W.W.):’ HUSAINU MINNI WA ANA MIN HUSAIN which means HUSAIN is from ME and I am from HUSAIN’. This is not an ordinary saying explaining an ordinary relation of a grandfather and a grandson, because its the saying of that PROPHET (S.A.W.W.) for whom ALLAH (S.W.T.) has announced in Holy Qur’an ,Chapter 53:3 ‘WAMA YANTIQU ANIL-HAWA IN HUWA ILLA WAHYUN YUHA ‘ i.e He (HOLY PROPHET) doesn’t speak out of desire, it is not but revealation that is revealed .’ Hence ALLAH’s PROPHET has announced that HE (S.A.W.W.) and IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.) are related to each other through the supreme sacrifice which would the message of Islam.



So rejecting IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.) is rejecting PROPHET MUHAMMED (S.A.W.W.) and killing IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.) is killing the HOLY PROPHET (S.A.W.W.). Hence as per this true hadith, yazid actually killed HOLY PROPHET (S.A.W.W.).

Is Naik having no sense that he supports a killer while ALLAH (S.W.T.) says in HOLY QURAN Chapter 5:32 ‘ MAN QATALA NAFSAN BIGHAIRI NAFSIN AW FASADIN FIL-ARZ FAKAANNAMA QATALAN-NASA JAMEEAA ‘ which means ‘ And whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men. Now that muslims unanimously accept IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.) to be RIGHTEOUS GRANDSON OF HOLY PROPHET, IMAM, TRUTHFUL, FROM AMONG AHLULBAIT, LEADER OF YOUTHS OF PARADISE’, then all muslims have to accept that each and every move of IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.) is authenticated by HOLY QURAN and TRUE AHADITH.

Hence there is no choice left but to condemn yazid the killer of IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.).The crime of yazid as per the verse mentioned is very big in all sense , because if killing of one innocent man is like killing all men, then killing of leader of paradise is like killing all the people of paradaise.

TRUTH is that for naik there is not even one verse in QURAN nor one authentic hadith mentioning his name to guarantee paradise for him and his followers, but IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.) is not only mentioned by name and is guaranteed paradise by TRUTHFUL PROPHET (S.A.W.W), but he will also be the leader of the youths of paradise.

TRUTH is that Naik is not from among pure AHLULBAIT (A.S), hence Naik can turn out to be impure and can always go wrong but IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.) is pure and he didn’t go wrong for a moment.

TRUTH is that Naik is not absolutely righteous but IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.) is absolutely righteous.

Because Naik is not the righteous grandson of HOLY PROPHET (S.A.W.W.) nor the PROPHET said that He is from him, hence Naik can always go astray but not IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.).

TRUTH is that Naik is not directly taught and guided by HOLY PROPHET (S.A.W.W.) hence he himself can be be misled and he can mislead others due to lack of knowledge, prejudice, evil self (nafsil-ammarah), evil deeds and whispering of satan.

But IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.) was directly taught and guided by HOLY PROPHET (S.A.W.W.) , He is the guided one and guiding others towards paradise.

TRUTH is that Naik has become a devil’s advocate by saying ‘may ALLAH (S.W.T.) be pleased with him ‘ for yazid.

IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.) the rightly guided IMAM didn’t do bay’at of cursed yazid and sacrificed his family member’s and companion’s life.



Naik is trying to hide the fact that Yazid was:

* Usurper as he was not an appointed caliph of ALLAH (S.W.T.)

* Drunkard ‘ SHARIBUL-KHUMUR ‘

* Murtad due to rejection of QURAN and revealation.

* Opreesor who oppressed HOLY PROPHET (S.A.W.W.)’s family members, women, children and some companions of HOLY PROPHET (S.A.W.W.).

* Killer of the great and pious companions of HOLY PROPHET (S.A.W.W.), righteous BANU HASHIM and IMAM HUSAIN (A.S.) the leader of youths of paradise.

Imam Hussain ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib was born on the third of Shaaban 626, at Medina - tenth of Muharram 680, at Karbala) - was the grandson of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and the son of Ali, the first Shia Imam, and the fourth Sunni Rightly Guided Caliph, and Muhammad’s daughter Fatima Zahra. Husayn ibn Ali is revered as the third Imam (Supreme Authority) by most Shi’a Muslims, and as the second Imam by the majority of Ismaili Shi’a Muslims.[1]

He was killed in the Battle of Karbala in 680.[2] The anniversary of his death is called Ashura and it is a day of mourning and religious observance for Shi’a Muslims. This day is well-known because of mourning for the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali the grandson of Muhammad, along with his family and close friends at the Battle of Karbala in the year 61 AH (680). Yazid I Ibn Muwa’via Ibn Abu Sufyan was in power then and wanted the Bay’ah (allegiance) of Husayn ibn Ali. Yazid was openly going against the teachings of Islam in public and changing the sunnah of Muhammad.[citation needed] Historians agree that if Husayn ibn Ali had not taken the stance that he did, the religion of Islam would not be what it is today.[citation needed]

After Hasan ibn Ali was born; Fatima al-Zahra bint Muhammad became pregnant with her second child. Fatima started noticing the signs that childbearing was near, but Muhammad had already foretold of Husayn ibn Ali’s birth.

On Sha’ban 3, 4 H.E., Muhammad was given news of the birth of Husayn ibn Ali. Muhammad hurried to the house of Fatimah al-Zahra his daughter and Ali ibn Abi Talib. Saffiyah bint ‘Abd al-Muttalib, Asma bint Umais, and Umm Salama were present when Husayn ibn Ali was born.

When Muhammad asked Safiyah bint ‘Abd al-Muttalib to bring him the newborn child, she said: “We have not cleaned him yet.” When Muhammad heard this, he said: “You clean him? Surely Allah the Exalted has cleaned and purified him.”

Asma bint Umais took the newborn child to him wrapped in a piece of cloth. Muhammad took him in his arms and recited the call to prayer (Adhan) into his right ear, and read the shorter version (Iqama) in his left ear. He then placed the infant in his lap and wept.

“May my father and mother be your sacrifice”, Asma bint Umais asked Muhammad, “Why are you crying?”

“Because of my son”, he replied.

“He is a newborn infant”, she said.

“O Asma”, he said, “After me, the transgressing party will kill him. May Allah never grant them my intercession.”

Then he said: “Asma, do not tell Fatima about this, for she has just given birth to him.”[3]

After Husayn ibn Ali was born, Archangel Gabriel descended to Muhammad and revealed to him to give the newborn child the name Al-Husayn. Al-Husayn is the Arabic version of the old Hebrew name Shabir, which was the name of Harun’s second son. When Gabriel descended to Muhammad, scores of angels accompanied him to congratulate and console Muhammad for Husayn ibn Ali’s birth and expected death.

Seven days after the birth Muhammad shaved Husayn ibn Ali’s head and gave the gold equivalent of the weight of his hair as charity for him.

1. ^ “al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali”. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved on 2007-10-12.

2. ^ Gordon, 2005, pp. 144-146

3. ^ Muhammad Ibn Ismail Bukhari and Muhammad Muhsin Khan (1996). The English Translation of Sahih Al Bukhari With the Arabic Text. Al-Saadawi Publications. ISBN 1881963594

Sayings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) about Husayn ibn Ali in Sunni books

“Al-Hasan and al-Husayn are the chiefs of the youth of Paradise and Fatimah is the chief of their women.”

1. Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, p660, on the authority of Abu Sa’id and Hudhayfa

2. Sunan Ibn Majah, Introduction 8

3. al-Tabarani, on the authorities of: Umar, Ali, Jabir, Abu Hurayrah, Usamah Ibn Zaid, al-Baraa, Ibn ‘Adi, and Ibn Masud.

4. al-Kubra, by al-Nasa’i

5. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, pp 62,82, v3, pp 3,64, v5, p391

6. Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, p771, Tradition #1360

7. al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, pp 166,167

8. Hilyatul Awliyaa, by Abu Nu’aym, v5, p71

9. Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p187

10. Tuhfatul Ashraf, by Lumzi, v3, p31

11. Ibn Habban, as mentioned in al-Mawarid, pp 551,553

12. al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 3, p290

13. Mishkat al-Masabih, by Khatib al-Tabrizi, English Version, Tradition #6154

Prophet Muhammad PBUH said, “The member of my home (family members specified in other narrations as Fatima, Ali, Hasan, and Husayn) is from me and I am from Them.”

1. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v4, p172

2. Fadha’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, p772, Tradition #1361

3. al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p 177

4. Amali, by Abu Nu’aym al-Isbahani, p 64

5. al-Kuna wal Asmaa, by al-Dulabi, v1, p88

6. al-Tabarani, v3, p21

7. Adab by al-Bukhari, also al-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah, as quoted in:

8. al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 3, p291

9. Mishkat al-Masabih, by Khatib al-Tabrizi, English Version, Tradition #6160

Prophet Muhammad PBUH looked toward Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, and Husayn, and then said, “I am in war with those who will fight you, and in peace with those who are peaceful to you.”

1. Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, p699

2. Sunan Ibn Majah, v1, p52

3. Fadha’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p767, Tradition #1350

4. al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p149

5. Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p169

6. al-Kabir, by al-Tabarani, v3, p30, also in al-Awsat

7. Jami’ al-Saghir, by al-Ibani, v2, p17

8. Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v7, p137

9. Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, p144

10. Talkhis, by al-Dhahabi, v3, p149

11. Dhakha’ir al-Uqba, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, p25

12. Mishkat al-Masabih, by Khatib al-Tabrizi, English Version, Tradition #6145

Prophet Muhammad said, “He who loves al-Hasan and al-Husayn, has loved me, and he who makes them angry has made me angry.”

1. Sunan Ibn Majah,

2. al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, from Abu Hurairah

3. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, as quoted in:

4. al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 3, p292


Zakir Naik completely annihilated him, and some people even said that Ravishankar was crying by the time the discussion was finished. Here is a section from the debate where Ravishankar accepted he had made several mistakes in his recent book about Islam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojeyl6v0lNc.

I read the transcript and watched video they are concentrating on different wave lengths people like Ravishankar should know that they are talking with a debator and concentrate on that

Still don't believe how good Zakir Naik truly is? Watch this video in which he converted a Hindu woman LIVE on Peace TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3Rhn8yvvVA&feature=related.

these are done to dramatize and dont fall for these antics. every time u go to or see faith based channels or live programs you will see so many miracles happenning and do u believe all that. let me know i will send u links for these kind of things

So you are telling me that Hindus will never leave their faith for another religion such as Islam? This is quite funny because only yesterday I found this: 40 Hindu families convert to slam .

AF this conversion you are talking is happenning in Pakistan, i am surprised these people kept their religion for so long, i salute to them. they never had any option than to become muslim or get killed. that is the truth. they do not have freedom as the common serfs if they want to continue their life in their ancestral homes

And while we are at it, here is some more: Pete Doherty turns to Islam. This man was a drug addict etc. but with the help of Allah Almighty he can restart his life fresh, just like every other non-Muslim.

And this is why your religion has got so many sects. How dare you or anyone else change your religion or Holy book etc. in any way? Is the Vedas the word of God? Yes? Then why would you change it? No? Then why do you even believe in it?


what is wrong in this AF. Hindus in the first place considered their religion as a way of life. vedas are gods words. no body changed those. but lot of people did not understand them directly like your quran which had human interpretation as hadiths vedas also had human interpretations and that means individual opinions entered the holy works inadverently. as my religion is atleast 5000 years oder and india assimilated so many other cultures and knowledge from across the world peoples interpretations changed. sometimes these urned into unbearble aspects of the society, then we saw teachers and helpers of my religion being born like Adishankara, Ramanuja, Gauthama Buddha, Vardhamana Mahaveera, Chaitanya Mahprabhu etc. You say we have different sects i say we are like different rivers with ultimate goal as to reach the sea we want to reach god. as hindus our ultimate goal is to reach salvation, neither heaven nor hell for that matter. I know even in future teachers will be born in hinduism who will revolutionise to make my faith cosmic. it is our understanding, knowledge and spirutality which is going to vitalize hindu religion.

OBL has repeatedly taken credit for 9-11. His number two man, Al-Zawahiri, has stated the same ... Hmm ... Well, you have the right to believe as you wish.

My response here in the Conspiracy thread
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2268360

Maybe you'll believe AQ's spokesman ... Take note of his response regarding not being given "credit to a bunch of men in a cave."

The Onion: '9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous' - Al Qaeda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OIXfkXEj0

MK,

Sean

I agree entirely, it was never about religion many terrorist on both sides were atheists not only that there were Protestant members of the IRA even Englishmen, though supporting the cause the majority of people in southern Ireland opposed the violence and it was well known by the English, unlike muslims who came out and danced on the streets of the UK after 9/11

The time is ripe ladies and getlemen to dispel "Misconceptions" and move forward to making this world a better place!

I decided to take your advice and do some reading, comparing British rule in India (which has much to account for) and Muslim rule in India (which also has much to account for).

Muslim rule began in 712, ending approximately in 1757 when the Birtish took over. 1757 is not exact because Britain took over different parts of India at different times. British rule lasted about 190 years while Muslim rule lasted over a thousand.

This is a vast stretch of time to be covering in a single generalization. For that, I appologize. During Muslim rule, India made some of its greatest achievements, like the invention of zero and algebra (These were Hindu inventions before Muslims took them north.). It also produced some atrocities far greater than anything the British did, like the execution of 100,000 Hindus in a single day in 1399.

So you're right, I need to do a lot more reading on the subject. I do note, however, that whenever somebody thinks I need to do more reading and I do it, I often dig up a lot of things they wish I hadn't. But, at any rate, the study puts things in perspective and is usually quite interesting. So I think it will be with India.

BTW: there's a good website on the topic at: http://www.islam-watch.org/AlamgirHussain/india.htm.
Doug

My job keeps me busy but looking at other things such as history is quite fun

One very important thing you should notice during muslim rule muslims intermixed with hindus whereas british never made any such efforts to mix but to extract every bit of profit out of india basically turning it into a dump.

This is a huge difference and tells you how lowly british considered the indians. The famous divide and rule policy was employed which turned several ethnicities against one another.

Just a warning doug if you are sincere in knowing the facts its better to use neutral and authentic resources not information based on hidden agenda of the presenter.

Doug,

Muslim rule is not golden age for india as predicted by islamic sites. both brits and muslims ruled india the main difference is muslims came conquered india, but wanted to stay in india. brits came conquered but did not want to stay in india. Muslims, as they wanted to stay in india they were determined to make india dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) but with a huge hindu population it remained dar al-Harb (the house of war). India went through lot of turmoil before also but what muslims did was unbelievable mainly due to religious differences. muslims could never visualize a population in their opinion who were idolators, polytheists, who worshipped even inanimate objects like trees and hindus were not even children of abraham. like what they did in arabia they wanted to cleanse india of its maladies and make it dar-al-islam. but what they got in india was a faith which accepted everything with open arms and agreed on everything. you will find montheistic hindus, polytheistic hindus and even atheist hindus. nothing is frowned upon. you are free to choose a god with no shape or in any form. nothing they could do made most of these hindus change their faith. they were stubborn people because they have seen many changes in their own religion happen like the rise of buddhism. Buddhism swept india where most of the india converted to Buddha's path but realised it did not work as predicted and reverted back to hinduism. so we have seen monotheism to a large extent, tried it decided did not like it as much. This was done without violence and muslims thought they could make india as islamia and did not understand why these people are not converting in droves to the so called beautiful faith. they never understood the psyche of hindus and started this claims we ruled for 1000 years and see we still left few millions of hindus. everywhere you go in india you can see broken temples, mosques built on them, villages renamed as everyone is converted to islam. there are scars which are hundreds of years old but still available in plain day light to see.

i want you to read about islamic rule from the other side too.

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tlmr/

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/index_new.htm (This is a good site put together by an indian american woman)

when Brits finally left india, muslims in india did not want to stay in india because they felt they wanted a pure islamic country and divided india into india and west pakistan, east pakistan which later became bangladesh. this did not mean muslims were not left in india. pakistan now has 2-3% hindus left after 60 years of independence where as india has 150 million muslims and the richest person in india is noe other than an indian muslim who owns Wipro Corp Azim Premji. India's most beloved President(past) is a indian muslim APJ Abdul Kalam.

I just spent more than an hour replying to Prisha's comments, but my Internet broke down at the last second, when I was previewing my post :D. This means that I have start all over again tomorrow...

Contrary to what you may choose to believe

Muslims did bring India its greatest and most glorious period in history.

India and China had unique roles in the world before the rise of the western civilization.

Whereas China was considered world technological and scientific power India was considered worlds financial power.!

The main reason behind Britain meteoric rise to worlds domination was the capture and subsequent enslavement of India.

May I ask a what other periods in Indian history you would consider better?

Another Indian golden age has been attributed to Asoka.

Amen! Oops! This is a thread about Islam.

A good reason to study history is so we can avoid the mistakes of the past. A litany of who-did-what-to-whom does not help in promoting understanding unless it delivers the message that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." If we want to say how evil the British were in India, we have lots of examples to choose from; if we want to say how evil the Muslims were in India, we have 1000 years worth of material. But only by examining the incidents in detail can we determine underlying causes and practices that need to be changed.

From this point on, I will no longer concentrate on the negative aspects of Muslim rule (which I was only doing for Ozi's benefit, in the first place), but will try to take a more-positive approach. This is going to be a long project and also, low-priority, so I don't expect exciting details to surface any time soon.

I have noted one characteristic of Islamic rule: many churches and shrines belonging to other faiths have been deliberately destroyed by Islamic rulers. While lots of faiths do this, Islam added the feature of building its own mosques on the other faith's sacred sites. This occurred many times in India, but has also occurred elsewhere. The two most-famous examples are: The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem which stands on the site of the two Jewish Temples (Is it any wonder that some Jews would want to destroy it and re-build their own Temple?) and the Hagia Sophia, an Eastern Orthodox church in Istanbul that was converted to a mosque. Both of these seem like deliberate provocations to followers of the other faith, deliberate attempts to provoke war and bloodshed in the future. I suggest that this practice must end. Faiths that want respect for themselves and their places of worship, must be willing to grant it to others.

On the subject of which sources to use: neither pro-Islamic nor anti-Islamic sites are very good. Both exagerate their claims and ignor the other's. But I know how to do critical thinking and these sites usally shoot themselves in the foot, anyway. Real data is extremely difficult to forge. For example, have another person keep a tally while you pick a series of numbers, 0 to 9. Do this 200 times. If you are truly unbiased in your selection of numbers, you will have named each one about 20 times. The amount by which you miss the target value of 20 is a good estimate of your bias. And if you're biased about such a neutral thing as numbers, what are you going to be when it comes to people? Everybody has his biases and the best we can do is quantify that and compensate for it. Of all the sites posted on this thread, Prisha's seem to be the most objective. But then, I've got a lot of reading to do and these are just the beginning.

An interesting foot-note to the British occupation of India: the owner of a motel in Waldron, Arkansas, where I occasionally stay during data-collecting trips, is of Indian descent. He is taking a vacation in India this fall and has promised to get me an Indian pipe, like those used by snake charmers. I mentioned this to my pipe teacher in Wichita, Kansas, who told me that if I get the pipe, he'll teach me how to play it. I had no idea he could play an Indian pipe and I asked how he came to know this. He explained that his father was in the British army in India between 1905 and 1914 and he brought a pipe home. Maybe music can help transcend the legacy of the past.
Doug

Muslims , British solders and employees were encouraged to marry Indian women (Anglo-Indian) from 1600 onward, and if they did, a house and more wages were provided, there's still whole villages in India were the inhabitants have British second names, most stayed in India but had British citizenship.

LOL. Firstly my origins are from Kashmir, the part under indian rule, you know the part, which indian forces govern. the part fighting to be free, like it always was, before islam, and during hindu reign too. Yet we have no independance. The indian forces make children, women, and the elderly, stand in icy cold water of the mountains in harsh winters, when they cannot get the freedom fighters, instead they take out their retribution on the vunerable kashmiri, even your own goverment does not allow independant human rights groups in that region. Thats a different argument.

As for Dr Zakir Naik, you think he is a laughing stock amongst indian muslims, i think you meant indian hindus, who are turning to islam more than ever before, after revelation of what the vedas actually contain, and the bhagvat Gita, the most widely read scripture, but the vedas are the most sacred. My education does not come directly from him, but my own studies, academic studies and pandits. Remember Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, your leading hindu scholar/Pandit etc, who had a live debate with him, and was left speechless. Would you like a link.

The hadith you quote and then followed by verse from the Veda, is right. God is one, infact if you researched your veda more, it goes in more detail and also point out what Baghwan thinks of those who do worhsip others and create idols. You say theologans have different names for this god, fine, like Vishnu etc, re-incarnations or manifestation of the one true god, this is the hindu theologan claim, emerging from Pantheism, believing god is manifested in everything. Yet the vedas dont teach this and if you know the vedas say worship one god, why is it you have thousands and one family may have different gods to serve different purposes, you go against your own teachings.

Yajurveda
The following verses from the Yajurveda echo a similar concept of God:

1.

"na tasya pratima asti
"There is no image of Him."
[Yajurveda 32:3]5
2.

"shudhama poapvidham"
"He is bodyless and pure."
[Yajurveda 40:8]6
3.

"Andhatama pravishanti ye asambhuti mupaste"
"They enter darkness, those who worship the natural elements" (Air, Water, Fire, etc.). "They sink deeper in darkness, those who worship sambhuti."
[Yajurveda 40:9]7

Sambhuti means created things, for example table, chair, idol, etc.
4.

The Yajurveda contains the following prayer:
"Lead us to the good path and remove the sin that makes us stray and wander."
[Yajurveda 40:16]8

5[Yajurveda by Devi Chand M.A. page 377]

6[Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Giffith page 538]

7[Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Giffith page 538]

8[Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Griffith page 541]


"Ma cid anyad vi sansata sakhayo ma rishanyata"
"O friends, do not worship anybody but Him, the Divine One. Praise Him alone."
[Rigveda 8:1:1]10

"Devasya samituk parishtutih"
"Verily, great is the glory of the Divine Creator."
[Rigveda 5:1:81]11

See what I mean, this just scratching the surface, just like the fact that muhammed, directly or indirectly is mentioned over a 100 times in your scriptures etc. Prophecising islam and muhammed.

Now as for jihad. Jihad in Islam mean to strive or struggle literally. Lets see what the Bhagvad Gita says about striving. There are infact 1000s of verse about fighting in mahabarat, which is basiclly talkig about a fued between 5 brothers of the Pandivs against the 100 or so of Koravs, maybe these name i have got wrong. Anyway Arjun says to Lord krishan in Baghvad gita chapter 1, verses 42-46, that I would prefer to die unarmed than fighting my cousins. In reply Lord krishan says to Arjun in Baghvad Gita Chapter 2 verses 2-3, " how could such an impotent, or impure thought come to your mind. How could you let such a thought come in your mind, it will prevent you from getting to heavens. He further says in Ch.2 V 31-33, its a duty of a shatriya to fight, if not its a sin and you will not goto heaven. Now imagine if i did, what you do, and most others too. And I took this out of context and said the Hindu scriptures make it mandotary to kill your own relatives, this would be devilish, dont you think. Well Im not like that, therefore i understand the context, which is simply Kirshan is saying fight, regardless of who they are , if they stand for falsehood, tranny etc, you have to fight. Now when it comes to islam, you adopt a different approach, you see you should know your own scriptures before quoting others out of context etc.

As for the rule for a 1000 years, during that rule, if your claims are correct that islam prescribes to convert by the sword, then there would be no hindu in India, yet you are the majority, your places of worship would be destroyed yet the oldest temples still stand. The fact india is more hindu than muslim is witness to the fact islam was not spread by the sword.

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (India's Prime Minsiter 1947-64) in ‘The Discovery of India,’ 1946, p. 218, 225.

“The coming of Islam and of a considerable number of people from outside with different ways of living and thought affected these beliefs and structure. A foreign conquest, with all its evils, has one advantage: it widens the mental horizon of the people and compels them to look out of their shells. They realize that the world is a much bigger and a more variegated place than they had imagined. So the Afghan conquest had affected India and many changes had taken place. Even more so the Moghals, who were far more cultured and advanced in the ways of living than the Afghans, brought changes to India. In particular, they introduced the refinements for which Iran was famous.”

Thats just one example of a leading indian hindu, and what he thinks.

Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Presidential Address to the Fifty-fifth Session of the Indian Congress, Jaipur, 1948.

“(The Muslims had) enriched our culture, strengthened our administration, and brought near distant parts of the country... It (the Muslim Period) touched deeply the social life and the literature of the land.”

I assume this this enough.

Ozi.




i was not aware you lived in Ireland for such long time. Now lets see, you say it was political, it probably was, but let me give you an example of media bias agaisnt islam. Palestinians are fighting a political cause, yet their actions are grouped as Islamic terrorism, Iraqis fighting occupation is classed the same, Kashmiri fighting are classed the same by the indians, Chechnyans are classed the same. yet around the world you have other exterme groups who never get catogrised by the faith of majority in that group only Islam is labelled so.

I think you dont realise is this, that you dont even know your own scripture well. The leading translators and pandits have different opinions to you. Like some others who debated with me on this issue were left speechless, mentioning no names on UM. But I tell you what since you said its not about hinduism this thread, lets create one, you do that. I will meet you there and put everything straight for you, using reliable leading academics and translations and most of all Pandits, the latter you know how important they are amongst you. I could not be bothered to do a lengthy post, but I will suggest you read my earlier response to you.