Dillu Ram Kausari: The Hindu Poet who Loved The Prophet

laddu,

despite your fervent wishes we're not going to chnge islam to please you so why dont you give it a rest?

Re: # 207

Zahid Saheb,

"Proselytizing" is a UNIVERSAL urge in humans - whether for following an Atkins diet or for praying to a formless God.
But , the jump from the urge to proselytize to the URGE TO KILL and commit violence is peculiar to Islam because the Prophet was ruthless in suppressing those who did not agree to considering his word as that from the formless GOD.

Further, Jesus spoke in PARABLES, so the 'fishing' thing is only a parable. But Prophet's words are not considered as parables but taken literally true. That is the difference between the treatment of Gospels and the Quran and their traditional interpretors.

As, I said , the real evil in Christian world is that joker in the funny hat called Pope and his Church that insist upon literal interpretations of the parables of the gospels.

Then , early muslims did not demolish EVERYTHING- nor did the later ones demolish everything in hindu idolator land - they ensured that the temples were DEFACED!!!

I repeat - DEFACED- so that the dhimmis are reminded of their vanquished status and keep on paying the gunda tax and are reminded of their status every time they view the DEFACED temples, idols and other symbols of their own vanquished faith!!!

Unless and until modern day muslims DENOUNCE these violent tendencies that arose because their role model in the form of prophet was NOT 'masum' but was a violent and megalomaniac man, I do not see muslims stop killing their own brothers and kafirs in the future.

Re: # 206

Laddu Sahib,

The universal mission of Christianity is to be found here which proves it’s innate urge to spread the Word of God:

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matthews 28:18-20)

“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.“ (Mark 16:15-16)

The Apostles did according to the given mission and were persecuted harshly. Later Roman Empire accepted Christianity and the Church used the newly found powers to give momentum to the mission. The Church didn’t invent that ‘soul harvesting’ as you suggest:

“And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.“ (Matthews 4:18-19)

The Church got that authority from the Gospel where we read:

“ And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.„ (Matthews 16:18-19)

Human life is to be treated as God’s Will. Fundamentally speaking no one has the right to kill other human beings. It is true that Jews and Muslims are theologically more valorous in confronting the outer evil but it is forbidden in the Islamic Law to demolish prayer houses of other faith or to deny the people of that faith to practice their religion. That’s why early Muslims didn’t demolish the statues of Pharao in Egypt and the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan and Pakistan remained a non-issue until quite recently some overly fanatics saw in those pagan practices an abuse of their own faith like some overly fanatic Hindus decided to demolish mosques in India. This misunderstanding is not shared by the majority of Muslims.

You admire Jesus for his non-violent life but he also talked about what would happen to those who don’t follow him:

“As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthews 13:40-43)

A more sensible comparison of Muhammed is with Moses who also directed his people to fight the pagans.

Zahid Saheb,

Most of hindus would whole heartedly accept Jesus as a man of peace like a hindu renunciant who is freed from Kama, Krodha, Lobha and Moha ( lust, anger, greed and wordly attachment).
Hindus have a concept of Rishi (Seer) and perhaps Jesus was one.
Jesus is hijacked by the devil of Pope and his organized Church trying to make a business out of soul harvesting like what the Dawah Islamists have done for Islam.

Comng back to Jesus - Can we call Mohammad as some one comparable to Jesus even? No way!!! Mohammad was a man who was too much into violence and in the worldly and temporal quest of loot, lust and power. The two cannot be even compared!!

finally, I have already asserted that there is NOTHING INNATE in monotheism that makes them turn into life world threatening fascistic ideologies. If you think that there is any , then you have to put an argument that makes sense.

finally, EXCEPT FOR MASADI SAHEB , despite my repeated exhortations and provocations I am yet to get a statement from any of the Islamists who can say with FULL confidence without fear of kufr that -

IT IS WRONG TO KILL IDOLATORS AND KAFIRS AND IT IS SIN TO DESTROY THE IDOLS, TEMPLES AND SYMBOLS OF OTHER RELIGIONS!!

Re: # 201

Laddu Sahib,

Well said, 'Jesu was a real Prophet'. So the prophethood of someone depends on your check and approval! So, Hinduism is all about world-weariness?

As I said earlier that your pain regarding the conquest of the pagan India by the monotheistic Muslims is understandable but not the denial of the universal mission and call the monotheistic religions have. Your soft corner for the Christian European invaders is also understandable, since they relieved you from the Muslim rule. Those were but nicer times. In the older times the other European invaders who conquered the Americas were not so nice and the pain still lingers there.

Your wish to have a friendly world where people have religious freedom and live without any threat is shared by most people including Muslims. I don't see any imminent invasion on India from any Muslim country so why this rhetoric and Cassandra cries?

You’re apparently unaware of the ongoing peace process between India and Pakistan. Your persistent distasteful remarks about the core beliefs of Islam are a relic of past and no proof of your claim in #193 that ‘Modern Hinduism has evolved and changed’. Such outbursts are certainly not contributing to the peace process in a constructive way.

Zeemax sahib,

(I would like to make a human sacrifice of you and offer you as burnt offering to your idols :)

That might get you a red card from your God.

Regards

#202 Posted by laddu,

Laddu Mian,

I would like to make a human sacrifice of you and offer you as burnt offering to your idols :)

Re: # 198

Who is denying the barbarity of the past.

Angulimal became the person by denouncing mindless violence for self aggrandization.
Ashok became great because of renunciation.
Gotum became Buddha because of renunciation.
Every Dwija is required to renounce the world in the last ashrama of his life.
Prophet was a greedy man - he looted and raped for his one fifth loot. He was a megalomaniac who turned his words into the words of God. He had established an empire of loot when he died and his siblings killed each other for that loot.

contrast this to Jesus who carried no wealth and was a real Prophet and even forgave his murderers like Socrates.

Re: # 199

"any one who finds fault with the messenger of Allah is a devil and and an infidel no matter what he may consider himself.

we would rather you wiped us all out before we would ever renounce our Beloved Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam."

Wolfy! You can do anything you want to with your bandit, rapist hero!! We do not mind whether you shout yourself hoarse belching Allahu on the top of your voice 24X7 -
Just stay off the idolators and do not trouble us with your noise and threats of genocide!!!
Just do not think of ever

Wali sahib,

(we would rather you wiped us all out before we would ever renounce our Beloved Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.)

We kaffirooooooons/secularoooooooons/murtadoooooons/ kanjaroooooooons may or may not agree on God or Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) being his messenger or not, we do not see that as any reason for wiping out anyone who believes in Allah and the Prophet being his messenger. Or forcing them to deny their beliefs. Hopefully one day good Muslimooooooooons like you too will be able to give the same respect to us (various) ooooooooooons.

Borivilli mian,

I am not denying the bad deeds of some Hindus against other Hindus sometimes sanctified (allegedly) by religious scriptures.

(I thought Ram was the ideal Arya?)

Some Hanuds do believe that, others dont. But even if they dont, they dont get persecuted under Blasphemy Laws.

Regards

any one who finds fault with the messenger of Allah is a devil and and an infidel no matter what he may consider himself.

we would rather you wiped us all out before we would ever renounce our Beloved Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.

So u deny the actions of hindus against untouchables, dravidians, budhists and tribals? as I expected.

I thought Ram was the ideal Arya?

Borivilli mian,

Hinduism is today much more of a religion of the "Dravidians" and Adivasis than of "Aryans". The chief Gods we wroship today are all non-Aryan.

Shiva/Parvati- Dravidian God of the Indus Valley
Rama- Probably a native chieftain raised to divinity
Krishna- Imported by Semitic tribesmen.

By contrast the Aryan Gods- Indra/Agni/Mitra/Varuna are practically forgotten now.

And as far as Buddhists are concerned, we have made Buddha an avatar of Vishnu. While u guys are busy destroying his statues.

Regards

When you apologise for the actions of your ancestors against budhists, dravidians, untouchables and tribals we will apologise for any real (against fantasy)actions of our ancestors, since your actions came first you apologise first.

Finally- you all have not asserted that it is wrong to kill idolators and kafirs!!!

Can you assert the principles I asserted in 186 & 185?

You cannot because your prophet was a murderer, rapist and a bandit and you all think that is what SUNNAT is all about!!!

Your 'spirituality' in sufi/mullah Islam is all sham!!

Re: # 193

It is important for all muslims to get this absolutely wrong notion about their "masoom" Prophet and accept his short comings. He is NOT a role model for modern muslims!!! Get this falsity out of your heads and STOP professing LOVE for that fallbile man who killed , raped and looted- this blind adminration is what is turning Islam into a blood thirsty mafaiso cult!!!

Re: # 190

This Sudra thing is a thing of the past!! Modern hinduism has evolved and changed. No one can get Manu Smriti enacted- it is impossible to do!!

Yes, but all those muslims would jump up and ask for Shariat at the first opportunity and saying that it is all for the LOVE of that bandit!!!

Islam is Sunnat and what Prophet did - he killed and raped - unless muslims condemn him and his actions than try to justify with stupid logic there is no way to reform Islam!!

Re: # 189

ofcourse!!

what about the the non hindu pagans in India like the dravidians who u made dasa and the tribals whom u destroyed and what about destroying the budhists who were allover India before harshvardhana? you destroyd them all, subjugated and converted them? u didnt leave any trace of their cultures nor did u leave a majority of them unconverted unlike the muslims

you inflicted violence and a subhuman existence on the lower caste sudras you hypocrites

what about the the non hindu pagans in India like the dravidians who u made dasa and the tribals whom u destroyed and what about destroying the budhists who were allover India before harshvardhana? you destroyd them all, subjugated and converted them? u didnt leave any trace of their cultures nor did u leave a majority of them unconverted unlike the muslims

you inflicted violence and a subhuman existence on the lower caste sudras you hypocrites

so when hindus burnt muslims alive in gujraat and godhra it was wrong?

Re: # 184

"Being a Hindu you must believe in Samsara and Karma as has also been indicated and quoted by me in my previous post."

Yes, Samsara and Karma are Sanatan Satya.

But that does not let me accept violence from Adharmic people.
I would do my karma to oppose all persons with the Adharmic and Rakshasi Pravritti.

Re: # 184

"Were the pagan military campaigns any better in this regard?"

All violence done by any prophet or religious head against any other religion is condemnable.

Can you repeat that??

Re: # 184

"pagan demolition campaigns in the Jewish land and the cynical and total destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem unmentioned."

Every violence , by any one , on any another civilization, culture or its religions symbols, idols and temples is despicable.

Can you assert that??

Re: # 184

"It is forbidden in the Islamic law to attack the non-combatants."

That is completely un-true. You can tell this to some one who has not read the Quran and the Hadiths.

I find this so called 'piety' of the 'love' of Prophet Mohammad like the 'love' of Nazis towards their "Feuhrer". The deification of the prophet and his eulogizing his terror is much like the neo-nazis justifying and eulogizing Hitler by boasting that Hitler and his WW-II was ordained by the almighty and it did good to the world!!
Any sensible person - except for the Islamists - finds such a justification of the massacre, pain, destruction and genocide of WW-II (or of Hindu idolators ) a perversity and depravity of the minds of those who even contemplate about it?

Re: # 183

Dear Laddu Sahib,

It is forbidden in the Islamic law to attack the non-combatants. If those Sadhus were not taking part in the war and were merely focussing on their meditations inside their temples then it was certainly a sin to attack them. Your pain regarding India’s conquest by Muslims is understandable but that doesn’t justify your obsessive preoccupation with that part of world history leaving the pagan demolition campaigns in the Jewish land and the cynical and total destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem unmentioned.

Were the pagan military campaigns any better in this regard?

Being a Hindu you must believe in Samsara and Karma as has also been indicated and quoted by me in my previous post.

Re: # 182
what perversity of interpretation ! It was not the dharma of innocent sadhus, archaka, teenagers and millions of civilians to be slaughtered because they were idolators.

Re: # 179

Dear Laddu Sahib,

I'm not saying without any reflection that there's an innate urge in the monotheistic beliefs to subdue and overturn the false systems which deny the oneness of God. I've given you ample examples from all faiths of Abrahamic tradition both peaceful and aggresive.

Let me give you one more example from the Jewish history. According to the Bible they were asked by God to enter the Promised Land -- which was full of pagans. They had to fight them. For a very long time those battles continued and a large number of pagans and monotheistic Jews were killed. Later pagan Chaldeans and Assyrians ravaged the Jewish land destroying even the Temple. These fights have been part of world history and were not always initiated by monotheists. Was Muslim conquest of India more brutal than the pagan conquest of the Jewish lands? Or the Christian conquest of the Americas? An honest enquirer won’t say that.

Why grieving over the lost lives in such wars since as a Hindu believer you must’ve read these words:

“Because, death is certain for the one who is born, and birth is certain for the one who dies. Therefore, you should not lament over the inevitable. All beings, O Arjuna, are unmanifest before birth and after death. They are manifest between the birth and the death only. What is there to grieve about?” (Bhagavadgita, 2:27-28)

“You will go to heaven if killed, or you will enjoy the earth if victorious. Therefore, get up with a determination to fight, O Arjuna.” (Bhagavadgita, 2:37)

...it is for that reason that many sunni- barelvis consider allama iqbal to have been one of the saints of Allah. i.e. a wali.

for kaal and zahid:


http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/hazarnazar.htm

(shaykh haddad is lebanese and hence, by definition, not a barelvi!)

Re: # 176
do some reflection. If there was even an ounce of love muslims would not be killing kafirs, idolators and other muslims in the name of islam.

An interesting point about Iqbal is that in his prophetology we was much more of a Barelvi than anything else--his poems--especially his latter Farsi ones--are all about pining for the Prophet Muhammad and for Madina the Blessed.

What is his famous verse about if you want to defeat the Muslims take out the love of the Prophet from their hearts? Maybe echoboom sahib can remind us!

Kaal and Zahid sahib-- i think we have basically reached a point where we all agree. Love is--or should be--the driving force which enables one to follow the Quran and the Sunnah--if it doesn't it simply means that the love is not yet perfected.

The Barelvis say one must correct oneself before one tells others to correct themselves. Having said that it is not true that Barelvis are never active. The strongest support for the Pakistan movement came from the Barelvis whereas the Deobandis were strongly opposed to it! Also, the green-turbaned members of Dawate Islami (of which I am a member) are very active in doing dawah all throughout the world.

Re: # 171, 175

Dear Laddu and KaalChakra Sahib,

Laddu Sahib has once again unleashed his anger at the price of becoming irrational. In #174 for instance he said, “Islam is all about fear of the ruthless deity and his prophet”.
The core of his thought is that Islam is solely about the ‘fear’ of God or Muhammed because of his intercessory powers and love doesn’t seem to him as the fundamental element of Islamic thought.

In this regard an interesting observation might be the praying words that every Muslim speaks a number of times daily which could be translated as “In the name of God, the most Merciful and the most Beneficial”. When Muslims speak these words they are not thinking about God’s wrath but about is generosity and love which they wish. According to Islamic theology God’s characteristics of love and generosity surpass those of wrath and anger.

In your book Bhagavadgita, when prince Arjuna was morally perplexed, he was told by Krishna not to leave the fight thinking about the consequences but to do his work for him (Krishna) without thinking about the results which he called Karma Yoga.

“Do your duty to the best of your ability, O Arjuna, with your mind attached to the Lord, abandoning (worry and) attachment to the results, and remaining calm in both success and failure. The equanimity of mind is called Karma-yoga. (2.48)“

If you’ve no problem in believing that a Hindu should do selflessly what Krishna said then what’s wrong if Muslims also love their God and Prophet and try to do what would elevate them spiritually.

Re: # 1731
slavery of a dead man now waiting in netherland to send you to hell if you reject sunnat. Take away the intercessory power and all this crap would fall off.

Re: # 169
more nonsense equating (jihad to) implement sunnat as love.
Islam is all about fear of the ruthless deity and his prophet. there is no love in it.

laddu, many Muslims may not mind the 'slavehood' of Muhammad (I am making up the word slavehood instead of slavery, in order to avoid any unnecessary negative connotations.)

Re: # 165
what nonsense? love to induce certainity through slavish submission out of fear of intercessory power of mohammad?That is not love but submission. It is the certainity induced in a slave of death upon disobedience.

Zahid, we are probably looking at an entire spectrum of Islamic approaches. After all, LOVE doesn't have to be CONFRONTATIONAL; but it definitely has to be DETERMINED, whatever it's flavor. It's possible that in their dermination for Islam, brelvis are behind none.

Naqsh, did we make any progress in understanding you in # 165 and # 169? Let's hear, bro! Thanks in advance.

Re: # 165

KaalChakra, this is perfectly said by you. But that vision is more Iqbali than Brelvi. Probably naqshbandi Sahib could tell us what made the Brelvi thought so inward-looking and derailed it from the path of confronting the outer evil, which is obsessedly done by the Wahabis missing exactly that love.

Equally evil-avoiding or more correctly speaking confrontation-avoiding school of thought is the Tableeghi Jamaat. Strangely, this school is nearer to the Deobandis.

So we we basically GOT IT!

IF we do NOT confuse LOVE for inwardness, chaltahai attitude of acceptance of unIslamic errors and evils,

BUT ACTUALLY JUST THE REVERSE.

That is, even greater DRIVE to implement and enforce the Prophet's example and Allah' word,

or actually creating that impulse where it may be weak for other reasons,

THEN ISLAM IS ONE, whether it is LOVE based on simply faith based!

Naqsh, what do you say?

Dear KaalChakra and Naqshbandi Sahib,

You’ve raised a very important point. That love is indeed the driving and uniting force like the belief in the oneness of God. The Companions of the Prophet were certainly great lovers – or one should use the untranslatable Urdu term “Ashiqeen” – and that love gave them a central and visible figure to look for inspiration and guidance. But I’m unaware of any companion claiming that his beloved Prophet might be hearing him from distant places -- though God could certainly tell His Prophet what He might like.

Coming to the later development of theology one observes that the same love for Muhammed which was for the Companions the source of a greater obedience and confrontation with the outer evil, became the source of inwardness as we see in the Brelvi theology. The obedience of the struggling believer of the old times appears now as the meek spiritual journey amidst evil -- though not confronting it as the Wahabis do, who not only lack exactly that love but actually scorn it.

Leaving aside that issue of outer evil one must accept that this love still helps the believer fulfil his religious duties with devotion and more importantly the promise of intercession for the eternal life is also there. Understandably this intercession could hardly be bestowed upon someone who doesn’t have love for the Messenger of God.

Zahid, # 166 is a great reading of scripture. If the quran does speak of love for the Prophet, can some use the argument made in # 165 to STRENGTHEN AND ENABLE doing Allah's bidding?

Because if we think like that THEN all the sufi arguments of getting on different and elevated "planes" and being close to Allah etc can make perfect sense!

Dear KaalChakra and Naqshbandi Sahib,

As I mentioned earlier there is at least a Christianity-inspired thread of thought here for instance Jesus is reported to have said:

“And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.” (Matthew 19:29)

“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matthew 19:20)

Certainly love for Muhammed has played and plays a central role in the Islamic spirituality where one of the stages of the spiritual elevation is called Fana fil Rasll beyond which levels come which bring the believer dramatically closer to God with the ultimate goal of communion with God Ser il Allah as has also been correctly indicated by Daniel Berk in his article.

The Brelvis believe that he is hearing them everywhere but the Deobandis with a more restricted love for him or with greater sense of rationality argue that hearing happens within a distance of 40 steps around his grave in Medina.

The question still remains: did Muhammed tell the believers to praise him in this way like Brelvis do? Muhammed never said what Jesus said:

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” (Matthew 28:18)

That gives – if one believes in the Scripture – the believer a very sound reasoning for that esteem or love for Jesus because of the hopes of redemption.

OK, I (think) I might have gotten it, how BOTH naqshbahi and zahid sahib might be making perfect sense and saying the same thing!!

A Eurkea moment. :)


LOVE for the Prophet is NOT, in the least bit, to be mistaken for being inward looking, or for pacifism, or the desire to run away from or accommodate or not confront the evil or the error!

Rather, it may be (for barlvis, if not for others) THE impulse, the justification, the support for being PROACTIVE, FORWARD LOOKING, wading right into the heart of evil and error and confronting it in the most effective manner possible!

(For brelvis, or as they see it) the function, the necessity of LOVE is to remove any doubt, confusion, hesitation, uncertainty about DOING WHAT A MUSLIM IS EXPECTED TO DO!

So there is NO DIFFERENCE in following the message or the Quran itself, but just in whether one needs - or in how much of it one needs - the LOVE of the Prophet in doing what EVERY MUSLIM IS CALLED UPON TO DO.

Nash is saying that you can't really, fully, and absolutely obediently follow the message if you don't love the messanger!

LOVE is not replacement for the message, but its strongest enabler (for some for the sufis/barelvis).

Naqsh, am I getting what you are saying?

by shaykh hisham kabbani --a lebanese muslim and not a 'barelvi':

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6193468372013621425&q =love+of+the+prophet&total=845&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=sear ch&plindex=5

I think my last post has enough proofs from the koran and the hadith and the lives of the sahaba to prove, beyond doubt, that loving the prophet is the sina qua non of islam. it IS the essence of islam--as one of my teachers said: 'ishq e rasool islam ka doosra naam hai!' and the hadiths and koranic verses and examples of the earliest muslims i have provided via qadi iyad's masterpiece prove beyond doubt that, contrary to khushk sahib's beliefs, this is not just a "Barelvi" thing but a Muslim thing. Those who do NOT love the Prophet should seriously examine their iman!

Ash-Shifa' by Qadi 'Iyad

Chapter Two of Part Two

On the Necessity of Loving the Prophet

Section 1: Concerning the necessity of loving him

Allah says, "Say: 'If your fathers or your sons or your brothers or your wives or your tribe, or any wealth you have acquired, or any business you fear may slump, or any dwelling-places which please you, are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger and fighting hard in jihad in His Way, then wait until Allah brings about His command.'" (9:25)

This is enough encouragement, advice, proof and indication of the necessity of loving him and is sufficient to show that this duty is an immensely important obligation which is the Prophet's due. Allah censures those whose property, families and children are dearer to them than Allah and His Messenger. He threatens them by adding, "Wait until Allah brings about His command." At the end of the verse He considers such people as having done wrong and informs them they are among those who are astray and not guided by Allah.

Anas reported that the Messenger of Allah said, "None of you will believe until I am more beloved to him than his children, his father and all people." (al-Bukhari, Muslim & an-Nasa'i) There is something similar from Abu Hurayra.

Anas reported that the Prophet said, "There are three things which cause anyone who takes refuge in them to experience the sweetness of belief - that Allah and His Messenger are more beloved to him than anything else; that he loves a man only for Allah; and that he dislikes the thought of reverting to disbelief as much as he would dislike being cast into the Fire." (al-Bukhari & Muslim))

'Umar ibn al-Khattab told the Prophet, "I love you more than anything except my soul which is between my two sides." The Prophet replied, "None of you will believe until I am dearer to him than his own soul." 'Umar said, "By the One who sent down the Book on you, I love you more than my soul which is between my two sides." The Prophet said, "'Umar, now you have it!" (al-Bukhari)

Sahl said, "Whoever does not think that the Messenger is his master in all states or think that he is under the dominion of the Prophet does not taste the sweetness of his Sunna because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'None of you will believe until I am dearer to him than himself.'"

Section 2: On the reward for loving the Prophet

Anas said that a man came to the Prophet and asked, "When will the Last Hour come, Messenger of Allah?" , "What have you prepared for it?" he asked? He replied, "I have not prepared a lot of prayer or fasting or charity for it, but I love Allah and His Messenger." The Prophet said, "You will be with the one you love." (al-Bukhari)

Safwan ibn Qudama said, "I emigrated to the Prophet and went to him and said, 'Messenger of Allah, give me your hand.' So he gave me his hand. I said, 'Messenger of Allah, I love you.' He said, 'A man is with the one he loves.'" (at-Tirmidhi and an-Nasa'i) 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, Abu Musa al-Ash'ari and Anas related this statement from the Prophet, and Abu Dharr also has something to the same effect.

'Ali said that the Prophet took Hasan and Husayn by the hand and said, "Whoever loves me and loves these two and their father and mother will have the same degree as me on the Day of Rising." (at-Tirmidhi)

It is related that a man came to the Prophet and said, "Messenger of Allah, I love you more than my family and my possessions. I remember you and I cannot wait until I can come and look at you. I remember that I will die and you will die and I know that when you enter the Garden, you will be raised up with the Prophets. When I enter it, I will not see you." Allah then revealed, "Whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger, will be with those whom Allah has blessed: the Prophets, the men of truth, the martyrs and the righteous. And such people are the best of company!" (4:68) The Prophet called the man and recited the verses to him. (at-Tabarani)

In another hadith we find, "A man was with the Prophet, looking at him without turning away. The Prophet asked, "What is wrong with you?" He replied, "My father and mother be your ransom! I enjoy looking at you. On the Day of Rising, Allah will raise you up because of His high estimation of you!" Allah then sent down the verse mentioned above.

In the hadith of Anas, the Prophet said, "Whoever loves me will be with me in the Garden." (al-Isfahani)

Section 3: On what is related from the Salaf and the Imams about their love for the Prophet and their yearning for him

Abu Hurayra said that the Messenger of Allah said, "Those in my community with the strongest love for me are the people who will come after me. Some of them would give their family and wealth to have seen me." (Muslim and al-Bukhari) There is something similar from Abu Dharr.

The hadith of 'Umar, "I love you more than myself," has already been cited. There are similar things from other Companions.

'Amr ibn al-'As said, "There is no one I love better than the Messenger of Allah."

'Abda bint Khalid ibn Ma'dan said, "Khalid never went to bed without remembering how he yearned for the Messenger of Allah and his Companions among the Muhajirun and Ansar, and he would name them. He said, 'They are my root and branch, and my heart longs for them. I have yearned for them a long time. My Lord, hasten my being taken to You!'"

It is related that Abu Bakr said to the Prophet, "By the One who sent you with the truth, I would be happier if Abu Talib [the Prophet's uncle] were to become Muslim than if Abu Quhayfa [his own father] were to. That is because the Islam of Abu Talib would delight you more." 'Umar ibn al-Khattab told al-'Abbas, "Your becoming a Muslim is dearer to me than al-Khattab becoming a Muslim because it is dearer to the Messenger of Allah."

Ibn Ishaq said that the father, brother and husband of one of the women of the Ansar were killed in the Battle of Uhud fighting for the Messenger of Allah. She asked, "What has happened to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace?" They said, "He is as well as you would like, praise be to Allah!" She said, "Show him to me so I can look at him." When she saw him, she said, "Every affliction is as nothing now that you are safe."

'Ali ibn Abi Talib was asked, "How was your love for the Messenger of Allah?" He replied, "By Allah, we loved him more than our wealth, our sons, our fathers and our mothers, and more than cold water in a time of great thirst."

Zayd ibn Aslam said, 'Umar went out at night to observe the people and saw a lamp in a house where an old woman was teasing some wool, saying:

"The prayer of the good be upon Muhammad, may the blessed bless him!

I was standing in tears before dawn. If only I knew,when death gives us different forms,

Whether the Abode will join me to my beloved!"

She meant the Prophet. 'Umar sat down in tears.

It is related that once 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar's foot went numb. He was told, "Remember the most beloved of people to you and it will go away!" He shouted, "O Muhammad!" and the feeling returned.

When Bilal was near death, his wife called out, "O sorrow!" Bilal said, "What joy! I will meet those I love, Muhammad and his party!"

It is related that a woman said to 'A'isha, "Show me the grave of the Messenger of Allah." She showed it to her and the woman wept until she died.

When the Makkans drove Zayd ibn ad-Dathima out of the Haram to kill him, Abu Sufyan ibn Harb said to him, "I ask you by Allah, Zayd, don't you wish that Muhammad were with us now to take your place so that we could cut off his head, and you were with your family?" Zayd said, "By Allah, I would not wish Muhammad to be now in a place where even a thorn could hurt him if that was the condition for my being with my family!" Abu Sufyan remarked, "I have not seen any people who love anyone the way the Companions of Muhammad love Muhammad."

Ibn 'Abbas said, "When a woman came to the Prophet (i.e. from Makka to Madina), he made her take an oath that she had not left because of her husband's wrath or desire for a new land and that she had only left out of love for Allah and His Messenger."

Ibn 'Umar stood over Ibn az-Zubayr after he had been killed and asked for forgiveness for him and said, "By Allah, according to what I know you were someone who fasted and prayed and loved Allah and His Messenger."

the BEST book for this topic by the way is "And Muhammad is His Messenger: Veneration of the Prophet in Islamic Piety" by Prof. Anne-Marie Schimmel.

one follows the commands of the koran and the sunnah because of love of Allah and love of His Prophet! why? because perfect love demands obedience to the beloved!

zahid sahib and kaalchakra sahib,

i believe in my previous posts i have demonstrated quite clearly that what zahid sahib considers only a 'barelvi' trait -i.e. boundless love for the prophet--is not in fact a barelvi thing at all but present in all traditional muslims from the time of the companions. the reason the barelvis emphasise it so vehemently was due to the fact that in the past 150 odd years a group of muslims were born who tried to lessen the love of the prophet amongst muslims--i.e. the deobandis and the wahabis.

religion without love is dead. i answered the theological basis of it by quoting koranic verses and hadith which command us to love the prophet more than anything else but it appears zahid khusk sahib has overlooked it.

as for the omnipresence and omniscience of the prophet that also is NOT only a Barelvi belief but a Sunni belief in general and particularly emphasised by the sufis.

as for the contention by zahid sahib that such love makes muslims inward looking and too pacifist to confront evil then that is not true since this belief has--i have already shown--existed for most of islamic theological history and it doesn't seem to have prevented muslims from confronting evil. indeed, most of the conquerors of india had sufi saints in their retinue who accompanied them and the majority of people who fought in the war of independence of 1857 from the muslims were traditionalists.

i would counter that it is only since certain groups have de-emphasised the love of the prophet that muslims have reached this nadir.

Allah's help is contingent upon love of the Prophet!

zahid, were naqsh bhai to suggest (as I think he he does) that boundless love for Muhammad (and Allah) comes AFTER doing all other things that the Quran requires of a Muslim, then probably there may be less of a confusion.

So from what one gathers, sufis don't claim to supplant the Quran, but in some ways 'transcend' it or at least 'transcend' other people's understanding of it through their LOVE of Muhammad and Allah.

Anyways, naqsh is highly informed of these matters, and can best clarify. Earlier in the discussion, I had even mistaken him for a non-Muslim, but that was clearly wrong, and I apololgized to him for that.

Dear KaalChakra and Naqshbandi Sahib,


Brelvi theology’s foundation is the boundless love for Muhammed. That translates itself into such beliefs as the omniscience and omnipresence of Muhammed. This is the great dividing line between Muslims. This boundless love is Christianity-inspired with the promise of Muhammed’s intercession for the salvation of the believer. Here’s a caveat. What’s the basis of salvation? Good works of the believer according to the teachings of God conveyed by Muhammed or the believer’s boundless love for Muhammed as the messenger of God?

This notion of love or the good works as the basis of salvation has great implications in the shaping of the character of the believer. One sees clearly that Brelvi religion is inward-looking and lacks aggression that one needs for the confrontation of the outer evil, whereas the Deobandi theology is fitter for struggle due to lesser emphasis on the love for Muhammed. The other extreme school of thought is the puritanical Wahabi which almost rules out the notion of love and places the responsibility solely on the believer who could attain salvation on the basis of his good works. Clearly it belongs to the fittest struggle-theologies as endorsed by statistics.

But why boundless love? There are those who always remain within the shadow of the prophet and there are some who dare to look beyond. You might call them daredevil but their urge to get a better sense of what truth is instigates them to do just that. A direct consequence of such an investigative mindset is the disappearance of that blind and irresistible love that is the basis of Brelvi theology.

zahid, I completely understand and appreciate where you are coming from. In fact, it is a pleasure to hear people who think about these things precisely without drowning them in relatively irrelevant issues.

Don't know about laddu sahib, but I personally find your logic compelling, and have no problem with acknowledging it.

----------------

Even more interesting than that discussion is the phenomenal conversation you and naqsh are conducting. If one really believes in Islam, then there is ond message in it, not two, or five, or twenty different messages.

So how sufism fits in all this is an issue of greatest importance, not just for this world, and for the world beyond this life.

We are benefitting from the conversation you and naqsh are conducting and look forward to arriving at some greater clarity than we currently possess. Thanks, zahid.

Dear Laddu and KaalChakra Sahib,

Let me begin with a word on Laddu Sahib’s persistent protest regarding Muslim conquest of the pagan India. I mentioned repeatedly in my previous posts that the motivation behind such invasions was not solely personal gain – though that possibly gave momentum – but the innate urge of the monotheistic beliefs to spread themselves and overturn what they see as false systems. I also gave examples from Christian history both peaceful as in the case of the early Christians and aggressive as the later conquest of the Americas. I also talked about the only substantial expansive campaign in the history, the Hellenism. Here comes the character of the third monotheistic belief of Abrahmic tradition, the Jewish faith into light. When Greeks tried to install Zeus’ statues in the synagogues the monotheistic Geist of the Jewish people couldn’t tolerate that sacrilege and their revolt went into world history as the legendary Maccabean wars. Jews also revolted against the other world power the Romans. It was not merely about their land but primarily about the insult that they felt being subjugated by pagan Greeks and Romans. I urge you Laddu Sahib to consider also this while abusing Islam. Laddu Sahib is overly preoccupied with Indian history and the pain that still lingers due to the Muslim invasions and the following rule and that’s why he doesn’t talk about Christian invasions.

laddu#153:

I have the same question for you that I had for Naqsh. How many Muslims do you know who drink camel piss? So, either they are not true Muslims or it is not a part of their religion.

Re: # 152
btw you forgot the camel pis prescribed by prophet- apart from rape .

Hope zahid and naqsh will continue their discussion.

The precise role of LOVE, and its RELATIVE position, within Islam is a fascinating subject, that might mean more for everyone than the taste of gao mutra (a supposedly refreshing drink that some report enjoying immensely).

Zahid, naqsh, please continue, if you can. We rarely learn as much as from your clear thinking, which is not always exactly the same as ours. Thanks in anticipation to both.

Re: # 150
tahmed saheb
that's the way wolfy's sufi style dawah ends- either in cess or blood pool.

laddu and naqshbandi: I believe you gentlemen have brought the race to the bottom to its logical conclusion - in the pool of animal urine.

Re: # 147
wolfy, better look at your own imaan than preach about my dharma. Do you deny that drinking camel pis is not part of your sunnat?

Naqsh sahib:

"don't try to deny that drinking urine of cows is not a part of your dharma?!"

You have perhaps read more Hindu religious books than I have (which is very little), so could you please tell me which Hindu religious book says that a Hindu must drink cow's urine? Of course, I do know that many Hindus do ascribe medicinal properties to cow's urine.

I am sure you know many Hindus. How many do you know who drink cow's urine? So, either they are not following their "dharma" or it is not part of their dharma( btw, dharma does not mean "religion" as you understand it) .

On a sidenote of scientific trivia, Harvard University gives Ignoble Prizes every year for freakish inventions/discoveries. One of this year's recepient was a Japanese woman who has extracted vanilla extract from cow-dung. She demonstrated her invention and, believe it or not, the judges tasted it and found it yummy. Yuchh!

no laddu.
don't try to deny that drinking urine of cows is not a part of your dharma?!

Re: # 144
wolfy, you must be drinking camel's piss as directed by your prophet?

another sign of love khusk sahib is to love all those who love him and to hate all those who hate him.

laddu, do you drink your own piss and gaavmutra?

Re: # 138

He came with Allah's commandments for mankind but one of these commandments was that your faith cannot be complete unless and until your love of the Messenger is greater than your love of anything else. Thus Allah tells us that to get to Him you have to reach the Prophet first! He is the ladder to the Divine!

khushk sahib,

you are right love cannot be imposed but it is impossible for someone to be a muslim and not have at least a little bit of love for the prophet alayisalam. otherwise, why be a muslim?

how to increase this love is the question! the sages have written that it can be increased by reading the sira books about the prophet--i.e. his biographies written by reliable sources, especially the one by Qadi Ayad al Maliki called ash-Shifa. It is available in English translation now by Aisha Bewley entitled Muhammad: Messenger of Allah. Also listen to a lot of naats in his praise by people with attractive voices. Also if you send daily salawat on him by reading durood sharif everyday it will also increase your ishq. And read the Koran !

love out of fear?
That is called rape .
The fact is that islam rapes the soul of humans through its terror ,violence and fear.

Re: # 123 what has almighty to do with a rapist and a bandit. There have been so many charlatans in the history of mankind whose evilness is evident from the mayhem their cult produces .

This is the most compelling argument presented against the fraud concept called God. Watch this fully http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5216975979627863972

Re: # 137

But love can not be imposed on someone. That happens unknowingly and irresistibly. In this regard, what should the believer know in order to start loving him? Or in other words, what could grow his love in the believer's heart?

The question remains, however, what's the basis for this love besides God's injunction?

And most importantly what's the basis for God's love for him? What was the basic theological message conveyed by him? God's commandments or his own love?

He should be loved unconditionally because Allah ORDERS you to follow him and you cannot follow someone properly and willingly unless you love them.

Re: # 133

But what will save you from God's judgement and possible wrath?
Your good works according to the teachings of God conveyed by His Messenger or your boundless love for this Messenger?

Imam Busiri is only important in so far as he represents the viewpoint of the majority of traditional Sunni Muslims regarding the Prophet and his poem the Burda from which I quoted is undoubtedly the most widely read and popular poem in the history of islamic poetry till this day from morocco to maalysia!

Re: # 131

Because He created the whole of creation solely for the sake and pleasure of the Prophet. He told us this in the famous hadith qudsi: "Lawlaka, Lawlaka, ma khalaqtul aflaka". "But for you, but for you, I would not have created the heavens!" and in another version, "..khalaqtul duniya" ..created the world'.

Why? Because the Prophet is the Habib Allah. Enough hadith are evidence of that. The Prophet himself told us "I am the Habib of Allah."

About redemption:

Yes there IS redemption in Islam. You need to read a basic classical tradiotional theology text (e.g. Imam Ghazali's books). Notice the Prophet said 'until a single follower remains in Hell!" The scholars have taken this to mean that some sinful Muslims WILL go to Hell too and then they will be removed after some time from it due to the intercession of the Prophet; others will not go into Hell at all due to the intercession of the Prophet and yet others will be forgiven by Allah directly. Allah knows best.

And zahid sahib it can also be ruled out because the prophet himself said, 'do not praise me AS THE CHRISTIANS praised Jesus'. Note he did not say , 'do not praise me'. the only limit was don't go to the same extreme as the christians who attributed divinity to the blessed son of Mary! This hadith is also the basis for the verse of Imam Busiri i quoted earlier.
The Prophet also said something similar in another hadith to Hazrat Ali which meant that your example is like that of Jesus in that two groups of people will be led astray because of you: one for going to extremes in loving you and the other for going to the other extreme of hating you just as the jews were led astray for rejecting and hating Jesus whereas the christians became astray for going to extremes in loving Jesus and turned him into a god!

Re: # 129

"I will not be pleased whilst even a single follower of mine remains in Hell!"

Are you implying here redemption from sins?
What about good works then?

Dear Naqshbandi Sahib,

Please tell me why should God the creator of this universe beseech Muhammed's attention or satisfaction? He let him die like other living being and will resurrect him in the same fashion.

And why should the followers love Muhammed when he puts the emphasis on man's good works to achieve salvation.

If he wasn't divine then why should he be loved boundlessly?

What's the theological significance of Imam Busiri in this or any regard?

Since this limitless love of the Prophet is the cornerstone of Islam and has always been central in traditional Islamic circles --as opposed to modernist Muslims--what is your issue with it zahid sahib?

When the Source of both the original Bible and the Koran is the same i.e. Allah --then why be surprised at similarities in some expressions?

The only word Muslims would find problematic in what you quoted is "Son".

Allah loves ALL His Prophets and Isa alayhisalam is also a GREAT Prophet of Allah and one of his loved ones too so why wouldn't Allah say, "..in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him?" when it was the time of Isa's prophethood?

And when it was the time of the Beloved Habib's prophethood --which lasts till eternity now!--He says, "And soon your Lord shall give thee so much that you shall be pleased!"
Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq alayhisalam said that when this verse was revealed the Sahaba were never glad as at that moment because the Prophet commented, "I will not be pleased whilst even a single follower of mine remains in Hell!"

zahid sahib as i wrote in my previous post in detail the koran itself is witness that Allah seeks to please the Prophet! When that is the case and the earliest Muslims loved him to an unimaginable degree what is wrong with muslims of today following their lead?

Even if there are similarities between our love of the Habib and the love the Christians have for Jesus --whom we also love!--the DIFFERENCE is greater.

We say, "Love and praise the Prophet as much as you like--the only limit is that do not attribute divinity to him and we do NOT." Saying "Khuda chahata hai raza e Muhammad (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam)" is just a poetic but correct translation of the Koranic verse, "Wa la sawfa yu'tika Rabbuka fatarDa". It does not mean the Prophet is greater than Allah!

As Imam Busiri said, "Leave aside what the Christians say about Jesus/Apart from that praise Muhammad as much as you like!"

Samajh aayee bhai?

Re: # 126

Sorry once again, I meant "it can NOT be ruled out that early Muslims were aware of the Christian thought ..."

Dear Naqshbandi Sahib,

Thanks for bringing the Brelvi love-based ideology to the point:

"Khuda ki raza chahatay hain do aalam
Khuda chahata hai raza-e-Muhammad!"

This is the crossroad. It brings Muhammed at the center of this universe with even God trying to 'seek Muhammed' and to 'please Muhammed'. What's the basis of this boundless love for Muhammed? Islam is some 600 years younger than Christianity and it can be ruled out that early Muslims were aware of the Christian thought and the centrality of Jesus in their religion where we read words praising Jesus as:

"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him" (Mathews, 17:5)

Sounds familiar?

The East still does not know the mysteries of this Religion, otherwise
From Deoband, Hussain Ahmad! What a most strange person he is-
Crying from the pulpit that the (Muslim) community is from the nation!
Unaware as he is of the rank of Muhammad the Arabian
Reach, Mustafa, the Chosen One, for in this Religion 'everything is he'
If you do not reach him, everything is like Abu Lahab (i.e. satanic, evil)
- ( Iqbal, Armaghan i Hijaz, Urdu)

about the deobandis and people who would limit the love of the Prophet allama Iqbal wrote scathingly:

115. Zahid sahib it is sad that you look to an orientalist for your islam. it is not just 'Barelvis' who put the Prophet at the heart of their religion. Allah orders us in the Koran:

Say, O Muhammad, if you love Allah then follow ME (i.e. the Prophet).

And, None of you believes until Allah and His Messenger are dearer to you than your own selves!

and
Verily, we have created you (O Muhammad) with a magnificent character.

and

In the Messenger you have a most perfect example!

and

the kalimah itself is La ilaha il Allah MUHAMMAD ur Rasool Allah.

You cannot love Allah without loving the Prophet!

Were the Sahaba who used to collect the Prophet's blessed perspiration in bottles and use it as perfume 'inspired by Christianity?' Or when they used to not let even a drop of water which fell from him during wudu fall to the ground but rather catch it and rub it on their faces? Or collect his strands of hair and keep them when he had a haircut so much so that they risked their lives for one such blessed strand? Are all the incidents which show their total and complete love of the Prophet also 'inspired by Christianity'?

Yes the Prophet is the centre of our life and faith as he has been for all Muslims. There is one important difference though. We do NOT consider the blessed Habib of Allah divine like the Christians do Jesus. Yes he is Perfect and Infallible but not divine. He is still the creation and servant of Allah although he is the most perfect and best of creation. None of this is either 'Barelvi' nor new. If you read the earliest accounts of the Prophet you will see this is the case. Hassan ibn Thabit himself recited these words in front of the Beloved of Allah:

No mother has even given birth to one as perfect as you.
It is, as if, you were created according to your own desire!

and

I have not praised Muhammad with my words;
Rather, I have praised my words with Muhammad.

Was he also inspired by Christianity?! The great Imam Busiri--who lived in Egypt nearly a 1000 years before Imam Ahmad Raza Khan of Bareilly Sharif revived the Deen wrote the greatest poem of all bout Huzoor Paak when he said:

All the miracles that the other great Messenger worked by God's leave,
Were caused by the light that reached them from the light of Muhammad.
What we all know concerning him is that he is mortal human being;
But he is the best and greatest of all that God has created.
If the miracles he worked had been in proportion to his greatness,
The rotted bones would be revived when one prays, mentioning his holy name.

Ya Rasool Allah! sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam! By Allah I love Thee! May my parents be thy ransom!

(These words, May my parents be thy ransom --were used always by the Companions when they addressed the Prophet. Fidaka Abi wa Ammi Ya Rasool Allah. Was that also 'Barelvi' and Xtianity inspired?

And no we don't believe in transubstantiation. We do believe the souls of the righteous and the Prophets and the saints can travel where they please. That is also classical Sunni belief.

Iqbal himself wrote:

Abru-ye ma zi naam e Muhammad ast!

Our honour is from the name of the Prophet!

No wonder you are 'khushk' if you don't love the Prophet!
People becomes awliya BY loving the Prophet. The more you love him the closer you are to Allah.

And you foolish man, the poems of Dillu Ram are his not those of a 'Barelvi'. He was an ashiq e Rasool.

And Allah DOES seek the Prophet's pleasure! He Himself tells us so in the Koran Sharif in Sura Duha (93):

Wa la sawfa yu'tika Rabbuka fa TARDA.
And soon your Rabb shall give you so much that YOU WILL BE PLEASED.

Khuda ki raza chahatay hain do aalam
Khuda chahata hai raza-e-Muhammad!

Both the worlds wish to please God!
And God wishes that Muhammad is pleased!

Re: # 118

KaalChakra, the article is still here and is certainly worth reading. You'll find an analysis of the fundamental thought of the Brelvi and Deobandi Schools there in particular how mystical ideas paved their way into these schools of thought and their effect on followers

Re: # 116
god does not require anyone acting as his sole copy right agent. god reveals every breath . Even now as i write.

Re: # 116
god does not require anyone acting as his sole copy right agent. god reveals every breath . Even now as i write.

Re: # 116
god does not require anyone acting as his sole copy right agent. god reveals every breath . Even now as i write.

Christianity-inspired?

Zahid, I didn't read Mr. Birk's article. Did he provide any evidence to back his claim that Barelvi school was christianity inspired?

mr wolfy. Stop pretending. It goes against the glory of your allah that billions of idolators and kafirs enjoy life despite him.

Sorry, I meant is God incomplete without Muhammed?

The writer being a Brelvi doesn’t need to tell us that he places Muhammed at the center of this universe with even God admiring him as if he were not the creation of the same God who created everything. Brelvi religion very correctly diagnosed by Daniel Berk in his article on the transformation of the Punjabi man as a Christianity-inspired Islamic school of thought where Muhammed takes the place of Jesus and appears to the religious gatherings of Brelvis like transubstantiation in Christianity. The Brelvi School has never been able to give one sound reason for it’s boundless love for Muhammed which manifests itself as:

“Mahboob e Khuda,
Ma’bood e Jahan bhi hai kharidaar e Muhammad,
talabgaar e Muhammad, a seeker of Muhammad“

Is God buying Muhammed? Why should God seek Muhammed? For what purpose? Is God incomplete without God?

May be the pagan gods are preventing Allah
from preventing pleasures of this world
to those who do not believe in him!
May be Allah is just helpless in front of
those pagan gods i.e. she is not the Most
Great and all that powerful.
It is a possibility.