Europe and the Film Culture

What a stupid staff!!! On which ground Mr. Noman Siddiqi will object about the film? Film is the most potent way of expressing views. I have seen the movie in youtube. It does not promote violence against anybody or derogatory to anybody. It is collection of verses from quoran and the practical use of it in real life (video clippings from news chanels).
Why are you scared of a movie? If you have anything to say please make your own movie and post in internet....

Re: # 27

laddu mian

You are a Mullah, but a 'kafar' one.

Now please tell me about eating of sea animals; they are not required to be slaughtered? Why?

Re: # 17

tahir

Your quote:

"The Bible does say in 24:16
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death."

Interesting isn't it! There is no punishment for blasphemy against Allah in Islam I think. It is the blasphemic against the prophet that shall be lynched in Islam. Am I right?

Re: # 33
Laddu Ji, here's what I said elsewhere:

Not even a Prophet can change (not a word, mind you) what God commands. 'Sunnah Allah remains unchanged', so says the Qur'an.

Only the Hadith literature shows the Prophet in a light adored by the Orientalists and detractors of Islam!

Please compare translations to see the 'slant' and the words put into the mouth of the Prophet through narrations that have been placed higher than God's Book!

What the good 'sahabah' did privately or according to their likes and dislikes cannot ever be called 'sunnah'. And the good companions would never go against what they were taught by the Prophet as God's message!

So what really happened here? Quite a few things that we practise today are Torah-Bible based, and certainly not what the Prophets conveyed as God's Word, and certainly not Islam or the Qur'an.

Contradictory (to one another and to the Qur'an) reports exist about the same topic on the same page coming from different narrators! No wonder they all love to quote the Ahadith!

Now who can dare say the same about the Qur'an which is self-explantory, clear, without inner contradictions, and comes with the Divine Publisher's guarantee?

Satan derives its power from OUR ignorance! Take charge and stop looking at the so-called Ulema for all your answers.

Laddu Ji,
Please state whose tafseer you've read. Please read the one I recommend and you will be left with no doubts--God-willing.

You wish to know the truth I can see that. The first thing you must now do is not abuse God or the Prophets, and find answers for yourself.

Regards.

Re: # 32

"You might be surprised that I view the Hadith literature with justifiable suspicion. The Book itself does not support many things Muslims now believe!"

tahirji,

you make it appear that you have some new sort of tafsir that is radically different from the traditional ones. Do you believe that the Shahi Hadiths are "suspect" ? In that sense you may appear to be a Quranist like Tahmed or Masadi miyan.
If you want me to believe that "Quran is sufficient in itself " (as Masadi puts it) and does not contain justification to OBL's brand of Islam then I would be interested in knowing how to reconcile the literalist interpretations of Quran (even after jettissoning the hadiths ) which does not give idolators like me, who have read Quran and have rejected the message, a hope to live peacefully with the momeens.

Please enlighten me!!

regards,

Re: # 31
Laddu ji,
You might be surprised that I view the Hadith literature with justifiable suspicion. The Book itself does not support many things Muslims now believe! That is why I wish that you read the Book. I've read yours and find no cause to foam at the mouth.

Perhaps you made the wrong people your friends.

I'll give you an easy six months to finish reading. Make notes, compare them with your thoughts, cross out the wrongs, highlight the rights, and feel good--forever.

"You shall have no fear and neither will you grieve." THIS happy promise from the Creator is repeated frequently. Who are these people anyway, and where do you fit into the scheme of things? This YOU must find out.

Welcome to the journey.

Re: # 30..
tahirji
you deserve respect as a human being.
my issues are with islam and mohammad.
if you think that by reading asadis book mohammads agenda would be clear, then i will do that. but i do not think that this would correct the hadiths and the most obvious and simply criminal message of quran.anyway,
my contentions remain unanswered
.

please address them.

Re: # 23
"Sweet and Round. I am an Idolator. I love idolatory. I would like to make some good Pakistani friends who would be ready not to view a radical idolator through their Islamic View finders".

Dear sweet and round thing,

Thank you for addressing me as 'Ji', I assume you've given up disrespecting your elder brother!

Please do me a favour because it will be very time-consuming to quote all the sources I have that will answer your questions.

The favour is THIS: please buy a local print of Dr. Muhammad Asad's THE MESSAGE OF THE QUR'AN. You need to study the Book that you so severly criticise. This translation has all the fine material to satisfy anyone's curiosity!

Asad converted at a young age, mind you. His THE ROAD TO MECCA autobiograohy is a total eye-opener! A classic, a delight for readers of good English.

If Allah wills (Bhagwaan, in your case), your answers will flow to you. I'd like to end with the assertion that if you seek guidance, you will get it, but if you seek crookedness in it, you will be utterly disappointed. THIS, is a promise from God in the opening verses of the second chapter called (don't make a face now!): THE HEIFER.

Regards.

The Rediff Interview/Harvard Professor Michael Witzel

'I am not a Hindu hater'

December 30, 2005


Professor Michael Witzel, Wales Professor of Sanskrit in the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies at Harvard University, shot off a letter to the California Board of Education on November 8 after coming to know what he described was US-based Hindu groups's attempt to have sections of school textbooks relating to information on ancient India, Hindu religion and culture altered to conform to their views.

Professor Witzel warned in the letter, co-signed, among others, by Stanley Wolpert, Professor Emeritus at the University of California at Los Angeles, a pre-eminent American specialist on Indian history, and Romila Thapar, India's most famous historian on ancient India and a recent Kluge Fellow at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC, that the textbook changes proposed by these groups would lead to an international educational scandal if accepted by California's Board of Education.

Following the letter, Professor Witzel, who has lived and taught Mimamsa philosophy in Nepal for more than five years and held many positions in the US and Germany, was retained by the Curriculum Commission along with Professor Wolpert to revisit the changes/edits approved by the ad hoc committee.

After the commission, an advisory body, decided by vote to accept only a dozen or so of the 58 recommendations made by the Witzel panel, Professor Witzel spoke to rediff India Abroad Senior Editor Suman Guha Mozumder explaining the reasons for his panel's opposition to the corrections proposed by the Hindu groups.

Why did you choose to write to the Board of Education almost at the end of the process? What issues were you and other scholars on India uncomfortable with?

It was the whole approach these two Foundations -- the Hindu Education Foundation and the Vedic Foundation -- took on the issue of textbooks. As we mentioned, the agenda of these groups proposing these changes is familiar to all specialists on Indian history who have recently won a long battle to prevent exactly these kinds of changes from finding a permanent place in history textbooks in India.

The proposed revisions are not of a scholarly but of a religious-political nature and promoted by Hindutva supporters and non-specialist academics who write on issues outside their areas of expertise.

'I am not for rewriting Hinduism'

Could you elaborate?

I must perhaps say that school textbooks are never perfect, and are always behind the curve. But now what these two Foundations have done with their proposed changes is to make the textbooks even worse for the school children of California.

Why do you think so?

The reasons are twofold.

First of all, it is a rewriting of Hinduism. Academics discuss Hinduism, among all religions, keeping in mind that there are so many diverse groups. If you read their edits, it would seem like Hinduism is a monotheistic religion, like Christianity or Judaism, with God spelt with a capital G.

It is a very narrow sectarian approach and that is being inserted into textbooks.

I have no preference, but you see there are tantriks, lingayets and others who too are Hindus, but all of them are missing (in the groups' opinion of Hinduism) and you get only one particular, sectarian and religiously-motivated point of view.

What is the second reason?

Number two is that history too has also been rewritten seriously. If you had gone to the Vedic Foundation web site, you will be happy to see that Indian civilisation is 1.9 million years old. I wonder who was around that time in India but anyway they say it is that old.

I believe you and your panel objected to as many as 58 proposals approved by the ad hoc committee. What were the main ones?

I do not know (because) there are so many. The main ones are on the side of philosophy and religion. They talk only in terms of God and cut out other gods and goddesses. Then there are many historical inaccuracies. They would say that Hinduism is just Vedic.

If it was just Vedic then many things like the worship of goddess Kali would not be part of present day Hinduism. Or they would say that the ancient sacrifices or jagnas did not involve any animal sacrifice. As if nobody knows what goes on in Kalighat (a temple in Kolkata where goats used to be sacrificed until a few years ago) or Kathmandu (capital of Nepal, the only Hindu kingdom in the world) every day.

They say the same things for the early Vedic period. There are historical inaccuracies all over the place.

I believe your panel had objections about the corrections relating to the caste system.

It is always complicated. First of all, the textbooks authors had confused caste and class although that has been corrected. But they say the caste system developed in the last few centuries or so. But the fact that the caste system was there before the British came to rule India is denied by them.

To come back to our point, what they are doing is misrepresentation of both history and religion.

Your panel also had objections on women's rights.

Young women would be happy to learn that, as the edits suggest, that their rights were different from the rights of men in India like the slave owners and slaves had. Schools children will learn that, although it contradicts what the ancient Indian texts say.

A very famous quote from Manu says 'a woman should be guarded at all stages of her life -- as a child at home by her father, as a married woman by her husband and as a widow by her son.' Thank you very much for the protection, but these things are never mentioned. Only that women and men had different rights.

The Shruti says, for example in the Satapatha Brahmana, that in war one should not kill women.

But the next sentence says one should just rob them. It shows the rights of women, but it also shows the position of women, too!

Could this be out of ignorance of history?

You know, I would agree with them as far as the ultimate cause is concerned because Hindus and others living in the US notice that their religion gets misrepresented and there is a need to correct the image. I agree with that.

But the question is how to go about it?

The intention of the Vedic Foundation and Hindu Education Foundation was good but the way they are doing it, as I said, is sectarian, narrow and historically wrong.

If they had consulted scholars in the US -- and most of them are South Asians -- then they would have got a balanced proposal.

Of course, scholars would not always agree with the religious people and the religious people would not agree with each other, but at least you would have got a balanced set of proposals.

That has not happened. Instead, you get narrow, sectarian points of views. I am hundred percent in favour of rewriting these books but not in this way.

I believe most of the recommendations made by the ad hoc committee have been upheld despite the suggestions/alterations suggested by you. Does it surprise you, given the fact that you and Professor Wolpert made suggestions?

I have several reports from that meeting from people who were present. The proceedings were incorrect. They did not follow the mandate that they had but made it up themselves. I mean the Curriculum Commission made up their own mandate. The meeting was taken over by one of the commissioners. In simple American language, it was really a mess.

This is something for the Californians to sort out. It was not done properly by this ad hoc committee and it was dominated by one commissioner who pushed for a sectarian, unhistorical narrow approach to corrections. They also did not take into account other Hindu voices, forget about us.

Do you think...

You see the main aim is to present India in the best light which is fine. They are really trying to erase things that are negative. But there are negative things. I just do not understand why does one have to do such things? Just praise what is good. But that is never done.

Why not say we (India) had early development of maths, good surgeons and good philosophy 2000 years ago, things that are factually correct?

I always get misrepresented that I am a Hindu hater, but I am not.

I hate people who misrepresent history.

Do you agree with the perception in certain quarters that it is a victory of sorts for Hindus in America?

That is a very doubtful characterisation (laughs) if you follow this particular issue. You might be angry if you know anything about history and might not be happy.


The Rediff Interviews

Halal is a barbaric animal sacrifice ritual that is done to please the blood thirsty Allah.

Animal Sacrifice is the very basis of Halal meat that momeens eat every day!!!

Therefore, reciting the name of Allah at the time of slaughter is the first condition for the meat to be Halal, Now, whoever tries to prove otherwise is ignorant and is following his own whims and desires; thereby, misleading himself and others.

SECOND CONDITION: SLAUGHTERING BY CUTTING THE THROAT

The second condition is that the animal should be slaughtered by cutting the throat, as it has been made clear in the following two Ahadith.

1. Abu Hurrairah (ra) narrated that the beloved Prophet (saws) once sent Budail bin Waraqah (ra) to Mina to announce and inform the pilgrims to slaughter their animals at the neck. (Dar Qutni. p. 544)

2. Abdullah bin Abbas (ra), Umar (ra) and Ali (ra) have all narrated that the Prophet (saws) instructed them to slaughter the animal at the neck. (Bukhari)

How and where should the neck be cut has been explained as well. Look at this Hadith:

1. Rafi bin Khudaij (ra) narrated that I asked the Prophet (saws) about slaughtering the animal: he (saws) replied, "That slaughtering the animal with any sharp object (with the exception of nail and teeth) makes it Halal." (Ibn Abi Shaibah, Zaila'i)

The word (Awdaaj) in this Hadith means the two blood vessels, the oesophagus and the windpipe. Out of these four, at least three must be cut for the animal to be Halal for consumption.

How Halal is animal sacrifice ritual that pleases Allah-

FIRST CONDITION: TO RECITE THE NAME OF ALLAH:

Similarly, according to the Holy Quran an animal slaughtered without reciting the Takbir (the Name of Allah) is also forbidden as stated in Quran:

“ And do not eat the flesh of an animal over which Allah’s name has not been mentioned at the time of Slaughter; this is indeed sinful. The Satan puts doubts and objections into the minds of their friends, so that they should dispute with you, but if you obey them , you are surely Mushriks.” (6-121)

It follows from this verse that it is essential to say the Takbir (reciting the name of Allah) when slaughtering the animal. If the Takbir was not recited, the meat becomes forbidden for consumption.

Imam Raghib Asfahani has mentioned seven verses from the Holy Quran in support of reciting the Takbir when slaughtering an animal for consumption.

1. “ So eat of that (flesh of the animal) over which Allah’s name has been mentioned, if you truly believe in His Revelations”. (6:118)

In this verse Allah clearly commanded us not to consume the animal upon which the Takbir was not recited at the time of slaughtering. It is; therefore, abundantly clear that if we believe in the Holy Quran, we must not eat of an animal that has not been slaughtered in the name of Allah.

2. “Why should you not eat of that over which Allah’s names has been mentioned, when he has already given you explicit knowledge of those things which He has forbidden for you except in a case of extreme helplessness? And surely many people lead others astray by following their own desires without any knowledge. Indeed your Lord best knows the transgressors.” (6:119)

In this verse Allah has once again made it very clear that those who eat the meat of animals not slaughtered in the name of Allah are ignorant, following their desires blindly.

3. “And do not eat the flesh of the animal over which Allah’s name has not been mentioned at the time of slaughter; this is indeed sinful..” (6:121)

In this verse it is clearly stated once again that the animal which has not been slaughtered in the name of Allah is forbidden for eating, and to do so is a great sin. It is further stated in the same verse:

“ And certainly, the Shayatin (devils) do inspire their friends (from mankind) to dispute with you, and if you obey them [by making al-Maitah (a dead animal) legal by eating it], then you would indeed be Mushrikun (polytheists);” [because they (devils and their friends) made lawful to you to eat which Allah has made unlawful to eat and you obeyed them by considering it lawful to eat, and by doing so you worshipped them; and to worship others besides Allah is polytheism]

Clearly Allah has warned us that Satan will inspire their friends in fabricating arguments and excuses to make Halal what Allah has made Haram for us. Obviously, these friends of Satan would be the ones who follow their own desires without knowledge. If we follow them, Allah says we would become Mushriks, because we associated these people with Allah in giving us commands.

4. “That they may witness the benefits made available for them, and mention the name of Allah on the appointed days over the cattle he has provided them”. (22:28)

In this verse where Allah has ordered us to sacrifice the animal, He has once again reminded us not to forget to mention the name of Allah when sacrificing the animal.

5. “And for every nation We have prescribed a way of sacrifice so that they should pronounce the name of Allah over the cattle which he has provided for them”. (22:34)

In this verse Allah has informed us of a very important fact, that He made it compulsory for the previous Ummahs as well to recite His name when slaughtering the animal. Therefore, it is also compulsory for the Jews and the Christians to recite the name of Allah when they slaughter an animal for consumption. This is whey we have been allowed to eat the meat of an animal slaughtered by the people of the Divine Books. This issue is discussed in more details in the next section.

6. "And We have included the camels (dedicated for sacrifice) among the Symbols of Allah, for there is much good for you in them. Therefore, mention the name of Allah over them when they are drawn up in lines (for sacrifice)." (22:36)

In this verse too, Allah impressed the need of reciting His name, when animals are slaughtered to offer sacrifice. Ordinarily a butcher slaughters an animal tor consumption, but during the Hajj season every one has to slaughter his own animal. This is why Allah is emphasising and reminding us not to forget reciting His name at the time of slaughter.

7. "They ask you what has been made lawful for them. Say, all the good and pure things have been made lawful for you. You may also eat of what the hunting animals, which you have trained lo hunt in accordance with the knowledge Allah has given you, catch and hold for you. You should, however, mention Allah's name over it and fear (to violate the Law of) Allah, for Allah is swift at reckoning." (5:4)

Re: # 21
Great post, however, progress will take off once again once alternative renewable fuels can be harnessed.

Muslims need to grow the fuck up.

... Any more than hindu according to Kali and vedas manu ,Manu simriti etc etc.or christians by the bible or the jews by the Torah



Therefore, the Koran must be understood as an amalgamation of 2 forms of content: The message alleged to be from God to Muhammad in order to pass on to humankind. The other element are stories or passages relating to Muhammad's prophetic activity, as well as God's advice directly on Muhammad's prophetic activity.

To reiterate& quote from my earlier post

"Islam is very loose and easily feigned religion ..Any body can call himself Mousavi or Atta or Even Osama orAyman These are peope are not of religion but" Political crazy "...

Any crime is not commited by hindu ,christian jew or Muslim but by CRIMINALS .It would be like Americas Policy on Christians b/c majority of American are christians,not withstanding the fact that that rt.wing americans are quite UNCHRISTIANS

How can you attribute these destructive peoles as directive in Qoran...Any body is entitled to theorise cause and effect relation ship to a particuler incident .If you ask the terrorist some of them like to be called 'Free Dom fighters'not that i think there ways and interpretation are correct .If you say the religion of Criminal or incident of person is caused by or due to there RELIGION then there are much more incidents should be attributed to non islamic chritians in particular as they were coloniser all over the world.But again i DONT think it was there religion drove them to it
but economics or political carzyness just as fight of communism ,native Americans against Anglosaxon ,ireland against england ,Ltte against NonTamils ,Naxalites .We dont equate that to Religion.The 9/11 terrorists were not madarssa pupil,Madarsas have been the only school in india before independence and peole like Rajender Prasada,prem Chand first had only that avenue of any educatin
of course now it is primary schools .Take a look around be it Israel, palestine ,iraq ,Waziristan ,Afganistan even American dont believe they are result of any "theolgy" but fight within there areas with non citizens of that area be it Iraq Palestine Afganistan Waziristan

tahir ji,

I have my verses ready for you. Here we are not into 'interpretation' of some verses or any mis-translations for the purpose of taquiyya to the rest of the world.

you have failed to refute my submissions that -

1. Halal Ritual is a form of animal scarifice that is horrible and torturous to the animal which pleases the blood thirsty Allah -

" Say, " I do not find in the revelations given to me any food that is prohibited for any eater except: (1) carrion, (2) running blood, (3) the meat of pigs, for it is contaminated, and (4) the meat of animals blasphemously dedicated to other than God." If one is forced (to eat these), without being deliberate or malicious, then your Lord is Forgiver, Most Merciful. (6:145)"

clearly as per (4) the meat has to be "dedicated to Allah only" .

2. Hajj Qurbani-

Allah gets pleased with the salughter of animals that is done in his name -
[22:36] The animal offerings are among the rites decreed by GOD for your own good.* You shall mention GOD's name on them while they are standing in line. Once they are offered for sacrifice, you shall eat therefrom and feed the poor and the needy. This is why we subdued them for you, that you may show your appreciation.

I will come to the Human Sacrifices part in the next post.gotto go for dinner.