What's new

Pakistan: Christian women are considered the booty of war

LA ILAHA ILL ALLAH MUHAMMADUR RASOOL ALLAH

Who altered the Kalima.

LA means NO
ILAHA means GOD
ILL means ONLY or BUT
ALLAH means ALLAH

MUHAMMAD means MUHAMMAD
RASOOL means RASOOL (Loosely translated to MESSENGER) (OF)
ALLAH means ALLAH


Islamic exegisists have always maintained that the confession of faith, the "shahada", which is the first cornerstone of Islam is twofold and reads :

"I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His servant and messenger."

These exegisists are misleading those who claim to be Muslims, and those who claim to be Muslims are, by following these exegisists, buying hell for salvation. Hell, they should remember, is forever.

These exegisists refuse to accept the clear injunctions of the Quran and insist on reiterating their corrupted confession of faith and associating the name of Muhammad with that of God.

In fact, based exclusively on the Quran, the confession of faith as expounded by the exegisists leads to perdition, if only they knew. Iblis has so adorned their idolatry in their eyes that they are absolutely convinced of the rightness of their ways in spite of the Quran.

In the first place, God Himself lays down the confession of faith that is acceptable to Him. In Chapter 3, 'Ali-I'mran, at verse 18, God, in His infinite mercy, gives us the right confession of faith.

"God bears witness that there is no god but Him and so do the angels and those possessed of knowledge. In justice, there is no god but Him, He is the exalted, the wise."

This is the confession that God Himself bears witness to. It makes no mention of any human being Muhammad included. It must therefore stand as the confession which God sanctions for His servants and they have absolutely no right to deviate from it.

As for "...and Muhammad is His servant and His messenger." this is a statement of absolute fact. Anyone refusing to accept Muhammad as a messenger of God and the seal of His prophets falls outside the pale of Islam. The correct answer to the question 'is Muhammad a messenger of God and the last of the prophets?' is 'with certitude he is!'. It is not part of the confession of faith as dictated by God, but merely a statement of fact.

Secondly, in Chapter 2, Al-Baqara, at verse 285 God defines the believer:

"The messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord and so have the believers; each has believed in God, His angels, His scriptures and His messengers. 'We do not differentiate among His messengers' and they said 'we heard and we obeyed; we seek your forgiveness, Our Lord, and unto You is our destiny'."

Thus the believers have five attributes:

(1) they believe in God,
(2) they believe in His angels,
(3) they believe in His books,
(4) they believe in His messengers and, finally,
(5) they do not differentiate among the messengers whom they claim to believe in. Anyone who differentiates among the messengers is, ipso facto, not a believer.

These are the very words of God, uttered through the lips of His messenger Muhammad, and, moreover, they are a direct order from our creator to us.

Those who still insist that the confession of faith contains the words 'and Muhammad is His messenger' should go back to the Quran and read carefully 2:285, and more importantly they should examine their souls and seek God's guidance and His mercy.

Undoubtedly, these exegisists are motivated by their love of Muhammad and are sincere, but their sincerity is misguided. They should reflect with great care on their love of Muhammad; the Christians love Jesus at least as much as the Muslims love Muhammad, but where did this love lead? Jesus, like Muhammad, will, on the Day of Judgment, disown those who purported to love him, those whose love for him caused them to place him beside God and, unwittingly worship him.

Their love for Muhammad, if it were subordinated to the love of God, would not have caused them to lose sight of Muhammad's Lord and His words. Their love should be foremost for the message and then for the messenger. They would then have things in their correct perspective and would be rightly guided.

They argue that '..and Muhammad is His servant and His messenger' does not constitute differentiation. But it does! When did any of them ever aver in the confession of faith that '.. Saleh is His servant and messenger'? Never. In fact, any intrepid soul who would stand in public - anywhere in the so called Islamic World - and avow 'La Ilaha Illallah, Musa rasulullah' (there is no god but God and Moses is His messenger!) would at best be accused of insanity, but would more likely spend the night in hospital if not in his grave. Every day Muhammad is referred to as 'Sayidul mursaleen' (the master of those who were sent by God to guide mankind), how many of these so called believers object? This is blatant differentiation and anyone denying that should be honest with himself and truthful, in view of the gravity of the consequences.

Some exegisists will go so far as to argue that because Muhammad is our prophet we are justified incorporating his name in the confession of faith, this positively identifies us as his followers as distinct from the followers of any other prophet, moreover, they add, God Himself prefers Muhammad over all His creatures.

This argument does not stand. The order not to discriminate is directed at the believers and was delivered through the mouth of Muhammad no less, as was the confession of faith sanctioned by God. God, at chapter 3, Ali-I'mran, verse 84, directly commands us :

"Say 'we believe in God and what was sent down to us and what was revealed to Ibraheem and Isma'eel and Iss-haq and Ya'qub and the patriarchs and what was given to Musa and I'ssa and what was given to the prophets by their Lord, we do not differentiate among any of them and we are submitters unto Him'".

As for God preferring Muhammad over all else, there is simply no basis for that in the Quran. It does not necessarily follow that being the last prophet has more significance than being the first prophet or the 'father of the prophets'. True, God does prefer certain messengers to others but He does not anywhere state that Muhammad is favoured above others. In fact, in those verses referring to God's preference, He speaks of Moses and of Jesus symbolically and mentions David by name. From this one might infer that God favours David over all the others, but then again God is not answerable to us. We were commanded not to differentiate and we are required to obey without question.

Even if God did prefer Muhammad over the other messengers, His order to us is clear and unequivocally prohibits us from differentiating among the messengers. Willful failure to obey an order of God bears terrible and irreversible consequences. Read the Quran, it makes that abundantly clear.

The exegisists have several more stock arguments, all based on the same two premises, firstly that Muhammad brought us the Quran, which is our scripture, he therefore holds a special place with us, and secondly God favours Muhammad over all His creation.

Neither of these premises justify discrimination in favour of Muhammad since that is specifically prohibited, and certainly cannot support the great calumny indulged in by all Muslims which is the changing of the confession of faith, as sanctioned by God, to include Muhammad.

God's words are neither incomplete or inaccurate, nor are they haphazard. Had He, in His infinite wisdom, wanted a confession of faith to include Muhammad, Moses, Jesus or anyone else He would have enunciated one just as clearly as that stated at chapter 3, Ali-I'mran, verse 18.

The absence of any names other than God's in the confession of faith is deliberate and not open to argument. God did not forget to include Muhammad or anyone else for that matter, nor, be He exalted, did He err. That confession of faith is perfect since it conforms with God's will as revealed in the Quran.

The stock argument that the confession of faith at 3:18 applies to God but not to us is, to say the least, disingenuous. God states that He as well as the angels and those possessed of knowledge, bear witness that there is no god but Him. Those possessed of knowledge are human, so where do the proponents of this argument wish to place us? Moreover, we would adduce our previously stated counter-argument that God's words are complete and accurate nor does He err. He does not anywhere state that it does not apply to us nor does He give us another confession of faith. The confession of faith that God Himself accepts is absolutely binding upon us and is ipso facto perfect. Only the disbeliever would find it not acceptable as is or would want to alter it in any way.

Another argument that is put forth is that discrimination as stated in 2:285 and 3:84 means failing to admit that all are messengers of God. This argument is demonstrably false since the verse speaks to the believers and defines them as believing in all the messengers. It is these same believers who already admit all the messengers who are commanded not to discriminate among them.

Finally, the strangest argument of all: "we are not discrimina-ting in favour of Muhammad, we are simply expressing our special relationship with him, he, after all, brought us the Quran without which we would be idolaters".

A special relationship with Muhammad is tantamount to preference particularly in this context. It is not possible to express preference without first expressing difference. When two things are the same one cannot say that one is better than the other since both are the same, that is, there is no difference between them. If, on the other hand, they are not the same, that is, there is a difference between them, then and only then may one say that one is better than the other. Thus differentiation must precede preference. It is therefore a nonsense to talk of a special relationship with Muhammad and at the same time deny differentiating in his favour.

We have presented evidence, based exclusively on the Quran, beyond reasonable doubt, that those who insist upon including Muhammad's name in the confession of faith are, in fact, discriminating in his favour and are therefore not believers.

What, then, are they? Again the Quran tells us. Chapter 63, Al-Munafiqoon, verse 1 states:

"When the hypocrites come to you they say 'We bear witness that you are the messenger of God' God knows that you are His messenger, and God bears witness that the hypocrites are liars."

It is significant that God uses the term knows that Muhammad is His messenger. He does not use the phrase bears witness. This further reinforces the concept that it is a fact that Muhammad is God's messenger but not the confession of faith. Had it been the confession of faith God would have said "God bears witness that you are His messenger." He does not; it is the Hypocrites who bear witness that Muhammad is God's messenger whereas God knows that Muhammad is His messenger and bears witness that the Hypocrites are liars.

Some misguided people claim that the two parts of the confession of faith are in the Quran with the second part, 'Muhammad is His messenger', is stated at chapter 63, Al-Munafiqoon, verse 1.

They should read it more carefully. They will find that the phrase 'bear(s) witness' is used, in connection with Muhammad, only by the hypocrites, not by God as explained above. God does bears witness that they are liars though.

Thus if they insist on this verse to support their claim, they are in fact using the confession of faith of the hypocrites who are, by God's testimony, liars.

Only the hypocrites insist on adding a second testimony '........ and Muhammad is His messenger' to the Quranic testimony. God further describes them at 63:3 as follows:

"This is because they believed, then disbelieved. Thus their minds were blocked so they do not understand." The hypocrites are believers whose faith is tainted with disbelief. They have thus willfully destroyed their capacity to reason.

At chapter 4, An-Nissa', verse 140 God says

"...God will gather the hypocrites and the disbelievers together in Hell"

All the other verses referring to the hypocrites promise them Hell for ever.

God has spoken. He has issued His commands; they are clear and they are just. Do not discriminate among His messengers, your relationship with them notwithstanding. If you do, you are not just disobeying God's commands but you are, by definition, not a believer.

God nowhere in the Quran commands us to bear witness that Muhammad is His messenger but He does, however, command us to accept him as the messenger and to believe him and encourage and support him and follow the light that was sent down to us with him.

Finally, consider carefully the words of chapter 6, Al-An'am, verse 19

"Say, 'What testimony is of greatest import?' Say 'God's. He is witness between me and you and this Quran was inspired to me to serve as a warning to you and anyone it may reach that you bear witness that there are other gods beside God.' Say 'I do not bear witness', Say 'He is the One God and I disown those whom you associate.'"

This verse confirms that God's witness is the most weighty and God's witness, as regards the confession of faith, is clearly stated at 3:18 "God bears witness...!" Do they still insist upon changing the confession of faith that God Himself bears witness to? and do they still insist on associating others with Him?

The more you know!
 
.
Even if this woman escapes death through appeal, her life will not be the same, who knows a bigoted person will come and murder her.

I think Pakistani citizens have the right to bear arms, but she should probably move to urban city areas.
 
.
Even if this woman escapes death through appeal, her life will not be the same, who knows a bigoted person will come and murder her.

Indeed i hope ROZAN will be able to offer rehabilitation and shelter to this woman and her Family. Inshallah.
 
.
Generally it is not recommended to defend your arguments based on what a religion says. We here neither promote nor oppose any religion, except for the freedom to profess any faith of an individual's choosing, however they may want it.

But if you're going to quote the Quran, please mention the Surah and the Ayat together.

The reason I'm saying this is that the word Khatam-al-Nabiyyun, must be quoted which has been used as having multiple meanings, literally meaning Seal of the Prophets, can be understood as the final prophet or the certified best prophet.

Seal of approval type of thing. Hence there is room open for interpretation.

Of course having living in an Arabic country all my life I know the subtle nuances of Arabic words. Generally the Seal of approval type of usage would be done with the word Khaatim not Khatam and even Khaatim is used as something like this is the best, no more needed. So there is more weight to one argument over the other in my view. Linguistically speaking that is.

If I have the Quranic Ayats to support my view then I will use it ... Because the word of Allah is the biggest Law.... And When Qadiaynis are wrong in the belief and I have Quranic Ayat and Hadith to support it, I will use it to stop there Fitna..... The biggest reference for Muslims should Be Quran and Hadith, and not some Bunch of Newspapers and Website should be given the priority over Quran and Sunnah...

The Holy Prophet (SA) said that he the last Messenger of Allah . The Quran says He is last Messanger of Allah. Quran Declares in Surah Al Maida that the relgion of Islam is completed with Prophet (SA) , So who are we to doubt the fact that Hazrat Muhammad (SA) is the Last Messenger of Allah....

By the way you are saying its not recommended to use Quranic References here .. You are not saying that its not allowed to use Quranic References. So you can't stop me from it....

The ayat stated by me is the 40th Ayat of Surah Al Ahzab... You can see it... It uses KHAATAM AN NABIYEEN.....

Just remember one thing .. there is no room open for doubting the the fact that Holy Prophet (SA) is the Last Prophet of Allah as you have said here..... And no one will be allowed to do that.....
 
.
The reason I'm saying this is that the word Khatam-al-Nabiyyun, must be quoted which has been used as having multiple meanings, literally meaning Seal of the Prophets, can be understood as the final prophet or the certified best prophet.

.

Just for my own knowledge can you gave reference of any Islamic Book written by Islamic Scholars that says that Khatam-al-Nabiyun means the Certified Best Prophet..

I have never heard this in my life....
 
.
I think Pakistani citizens have the right to bear arms, but she should probably move to urban city areas.

What does that even mean? He is referring to some idiot holding a jurdge and killing this woman in cold blood for a senseless accusation and here you are saying Pakistanis have the right to bear arms?

What on earth are you talking about? BTW as per ATA 2001 amendment 2009 -

Article 6 - subsection B:
"6. Terrorist Act -- A person is said to commit a terrorist act if he,

(b) commits a scheduled offence, the effect of which will be, or be likely to be, to strike terror, or create a sense of fear and insecurity in the people, or any section of the people, or to adversely affect harmony among different sections of the people;

Hence brandishing arms in order to intimidate or strike fear is considered an act of terrorism. Furthermore under the recent changes to Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 brandishing of weapons in public places without due cause is also an arrestable offence.
 
.
What does that even mean? He is referring to some idiot holding a jurdge and killing this woman in cold blood for a senseless accusation and here you are saying Pakistanis have the right to bear arms?

What on earth are you talking about? BTW as per ATA 2001 amendment 2009 -

Article 6 - subsection B:
"6. Terrorist Act -- A person is said to commit a terrorist act if he,

(b) commits a scheduled offence, the effect of which will be, or be likely to be, to strike terror, or create a sense of fear and insecurity in the people, or any section of the people, or to adversely affect harmony among different sections of the people;

Hence brandishing arms in order to intimidate or strike fear is considered an act of terrorism. Furthermore under the recent changes to Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 brandishing of weapons in public places without due cause is also an arrestable offence.

:what:
I'm sorry, but is keeping a gun for self defense a terrorist act now?

What I merely meant that in this crazy country of ours, she should get a gun to protect her life, not start waving it around in public :rolleyes:.
I hope you understand that religious fanatics/extremists can't be stopped by imposing a law.
 
.
Just for my own knowledge can you gave reference of any Islamic Book written by Islamic Scholars that says that Khatam-al-Nabiyun means the Certified Best Prophet..

I have never heard this in my life....
Obviously Islamic books will not say that, but Ahmedi books say that. Check out alislam.org (an Ahmedi website) it mentions this interpretation.

In Arabic the word is Seal, now it all depends upon the usage of that the word seal. When you go for some sort of certification you get a sealed stamp - so that is the logic applied by Ahmedis, that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was that type of Seal.

The more common Islamic interpretation is that he has sealed list of Prophets and there will be no more after him. You decide on your own which one is correct.
 
.
:what:
I'm sorry, but is keeping a gun for self defense a terrorist act now?

What I merely meant that in this crazy country of ours, she should get a gun to protect her life, not start waving it around in public :rolleyes:.

Please!
We need less of a gun culture, not more.

I hope you understand that religious fanatics/extremists can't be stopped by imposing a law.

They can be stopped if the law provides equal security for all citizens. Then idiotic laws like the blasphemy law would become irrelevant even if they exist on the books.
 
.
Even if this woman escapes death through appeal, her life will not be the same, who knows a bigoted person will come and murder her.

She with family probably will get asylum in the west of US or any Christian country BUT That is not a solution.

Time to revise this law in Pakistan and also time to have strict law calling for same punishment for those who put false blames on others without any solid evidence.

Minorities in Pakistan are mostly peaceful and i do not see any justification for pressurising them by illiterate, semi-illiterate fellow Pakistanis.


If there is entire media campaign supportive a community and its negation of Khatm-e-Risalat then why there should not be support for Christians and other people of the book.
 
.
If I have the Quranic Ayats to support my view then I will use it ... Because the word of Allah is the biggest Law.... And When Qadiaynis are wrong in the belief and I have Quranic Ayat and Hadith to support it, I will use it to stop there Fitna..... The biggest reference for Muslims should Be Quran and Hadith, and not some Bunch of Newspapers and Website should be given the priority over Quran and Sunnah...

You can argue that people should follow the Quran and Sunnah (Sunnah not necessarily translates into Hadiths, as explained by Agnostic Muslim before), but what do you mean you will stop it? Will you use force, or will you preach?

Use of force will make you wrong, and them right - by default. No one will follow you, more people will start abandoning Islam as you use more force and start accepting them. Who wants to be with crazy violent people? Of course if you used argument, logic and your Quranic references and then left it at that, and left it for people to decide on their own - and if your arguments were good, then you'll actually do a service to your kind.

But let me tell you, the way you're preaching here... It wreaks of violent tendencies and pretty much scares people. You will find no followers no matter how vehemently you keep repeating the word fitna and this n that.

The Holy Prophet (SA) said that he the last Messenger of Allah . The Quran says He is last Messanger of Allah. Quran Declares in Surah Al Maida that the relgion of Islam is completed with Prophet (SA) , So who are we to doubt the fact that Hazrat Muhammad (SA) is the Last Messenger of Allah....
Again I must remind you to use proper references when quoting the Quran.

By the way you are saying its not recommended to use Quranic References here .. You are not saying that its not allowed to use Quranic References. So you can't stop me from it....
Actually it is not allowed. The issue of Khatamun Nabiyyun is at the core of this debate. However let me tell you this debate is not about whether or not Ahmedis are right or wrong, its about letting them preach what they want in a free Pakistan.

The ayat stated by me is the 40th Ayat of Surah Al Ahzab... You can see it... It uses KHAATAM AN NABIYEEN.....

Just remember one thing .. there is no room open for doubting the the fact that Holy Prophet (SA) is the Last Prophet of Allah as you have said here..... And no one will be allowed to do that.....

Again, you can believe and try to make others believe by means of reason, logic and debate - not here - but what makes me uncomfortable is this desire of yours not to allow this. It is a defeatist insecure attitude. You're pretty much saying they are right and you're wrong so thats why your logic and debate won't work and you need to force them to believe what you believe.
 
.
Please!
We need less of a gun culture, not more.

They can be stopped if the law provides equal security for all citizens. Then idiotic laws like the blasphemy law would become irrelevant even if they exist on the books.

I agree with you.

Sadly, even if the law provides equal security for all citizens, prejudiced and bigoted people will attempt to take her life.

We need to remove the blasphemy law immediately, since the bigots tend to take refuge behind it every time.
 
.
Obviously Islamic books will not say that, but Ahmedi books say that. Check out alislam.org (an Ahmedi website) it mentions this interpretation.

In Arabic the word is Seal, now it all depends upon the usage of that the word seal. When you go for some sort of certification you get a sealed stamp - so that is the logic applied by Ahmedis, that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was that type of Seal.

The more common Islamic interpretation is that he has sealed list of Prophets and there will be no more after him
. You decide on your own which one is correct.

In my personal opinion accepting any other definition other than the one in bold parts in your post, will mean we are giving chance to everyone (irrespective of their activities) to claim prophethood (nazubillah) and you can not rule out that tomorrow if someone from TTP rises up with the same claim and call for reforms.
 
.
In my personal opinion accepting any other definition other than the one in bold parts in your post, will mean we are giving chance to everyone (irrespective of their activities) to claim prophethood (nazubillah) and you can not rule out that tomorrow if someone from TTP rises up with the same claim and call for reforms.
True, but that is freedom.
 
.
Obviously Islamic books will not say that, but Ahmedi books say that. Check out alislam.org (an Ahmedi website) it mentions this interpretation.

In Arabic the word is Seal, now it all depends upon the usage of that the word seal. When you go for some sort of certification you get a sealed stamp - so that is the logic applied by Ahmedis, that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was that type of Seal.

The more common Islamic interpretation is that he has sealed list of Prophets and there will be no more after him. You decide on your own which one is correct.

If Islamic Books are not saying about it then the Interpretation of Qadyani is Fake... If Hadith doesn't say any thing about it then this Interpretation of Qadiyanis is fake....

Moreover it came in the 19th Century and it didn't existed before .. So its Fake... This doesn't change the fact that Qadiaynis are Kafirs and the Biggest Munafiq in the Ummat of Islam....






 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Back
Top Bottom