‘Bal huv qur’anum majeedun fe LAUHIM-MAHFOOZIN’

‘Bal huv qur’anum majeedun

fe LAUHIM-MAHFOOZIN’

DSM Satyarthi

‘Bal huv qur’anum majeedun
‘Nay; but this is a glorious Qur’an,
fe LAUHIM-MAHFOOZIN’
‘Inscribed on a well-guarded Tablet.’*9
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 85 Al Burooj: 21-22

Maulana Saiyad Abul Aala Maududi,rahamatullah alaihi, explains these two aayaate kareemaat from 85th Soorat ‘Al Burooj’ from ‘Al Qur’an Al Kareem’, thus:
‘*9 That is, “The writ of the Qur’an is unchangeable and imperishable. It is inscribed in the Preserved Tablet of God. which cannot he corrupted in any way Whatever is written in it, has to be fulfilled: even the whole world together cannot avert its fulfilment.’

The same claim we find in Ved, when we peruse:
‘Amee y’ r’xaa, nihitaas uchchaa, naktam dadr’shre,
kuh chid diveyuh?
ADABDHAANI VARUNASY’ VRATAANI,
vichaakashachchandramaa naktameti.’

‘These constellations, placed on high,visible by night; where do they go by day?
The laws of the Chosen One are INVIOLABLE.
The moon moves resplendent by night.’
–Ved: 1 R’g Ved: 1/24/10

Compare this Ved Mantr with:
Fala’ uqsimu bimavaaqi-innujoomi.’
‘No!*36 I swear by the positions of the stars –’
V’ innah laqasamul-lau t’aalmoon azeemun.’
‘and this is indeed a mighty oath, if only you knew –’
Innah laqur’anun kareemun,
‘That this indeed is a noble Qur’an,*37
Fe KITAABIM- MAKNOONIN.’
‘Inscribed in a well-guarded Book.’*38
Lla yamassuh’ illal-mutahharoon
‘Which none but the pure may touch.’*39
Tanzeelum mirrabil aalmeen.’
‘A revelation from the Lord of the Universe.’
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 56 Al Waqi’ah: 75-80

Let’s understand what these six aayaate kareemaat from 56th Soorat ‘Al Waqi’ah’ from ‘Al Qur’an Al Kareem’, tell us.
Maulana Saiyad Abul Aala Maududi,rahamatullah alaihi, explains these six aayaate kareemaat from 56th Soorat ‘Al Waqi’ah’ from ‘Al Qur’an Al Kareem’, thus:

‘*36 That is, “The truth is not what you seem to think it is.” Here, the use of the word /a (nay) before swearing an oath by the Qur’an’s being Allah’s Revelation by itself shows that the oath has been sworn to refute certain objections that the disbelievers wen raising with regard to the Qur’an.
*37 “The positions of the stars” : the positions and phases and orbits of the stars and planets. The oath implies that just as the system of the celestial bodies is firm and stable, so also is this Divine Word firm and stable. The same God Who has coated that system has also sent down this Word. Just as there exists perfect. consistency and harmony among the countless stars and planets found in the countless galaxies of the Universe, whereas apparently they seem to be scattered, so also this Book presents a perfectly consistent, and systematic code of life in which detailed guidance has been given, on the basis of belief, about morals, modes of worship, civilization and culture, economic and social life, law and justice, peace and war, in short, about every aspect of human life, and there is nothing out of harmony with the other, whereas this system of thought has been expressed in scattered verses and discourses given on different occasions. Then, just as the system of the heavens set and planned by God is stable and unalterable, and does not ever admit of the slightest variation, so also are the truths and instructions given , in this Book stable and unalterable: no part of these can be changed or displaced in any way.
*38 This implies the well-guarded Tablet (leuh-mahfuz). For it the word Kitab maknun has been used, which means a writing kept hidden, i.e. a writing that is inaccessible to all. The Qur’an’s having been inscribed in this well guarded Book means that before its being sent down to the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah’s peace) it lay inscribed in the Divine Writ of Destiny in which three is no possibility of any alteration or corruption taking place, for it is inaccessible to every kind of creation. The Meaning of the Qur’an.

‘Devasy’ pashy’ kaavyam, n’ mamaar, n’ jeeryati.’
‘See the wisdom of the Divine One, neither died nor grew old.’
-Ved: 4 Atharv Ved: 10/8/32

————————————————————————————–

More on Islam from DSM Sayarthi:

1. Bal huv qur’anum majeedun fe LAUHIM MAHFOOZIN

2. Innahu laquranun kareemun Fee kitabin maknoonin

3. ‘Hudallilmuttaqeen’: ‘Guidance for controllers of organs’: 2 Al Baqarah: 2

4. ‘Alaa qalbik litakoon minal-munzireen’ ‘upon your heart one of who to warn’

5. Muslimahs! Come to India. I recommend Hindu lovers for all the Muslimahs.: Khadeejah Muhammad

6. Islam according to Qur’an and Maulana Maududi rahamatullh alaihi

7. A Moment of grave thinking for the entire sophisticated Muslim Community

8. ‘SET THIS WOMAN for WELL DOER’: ‘Imaam naareem Sukr’te dadhaat’

9. ‘V’ innahu fe UMMALKITAABI ladainaa la’liyyun hakeemun’: 43/4

10. Most Present day Muslms don’t do what Huzoor(SAW) did:

11. The Muslim beauties are wooing Hindu men FASTEST

12. ‘What really matters in the sight of God’: Maulana: Maududi

13. Why did Islam face a counter revolution at Karbala?

14. Why there are differences among us?

15. No differences Please!

16. Communal Muslims discuss my Muslim wife, me and my Muslim women: Durgesh

17. Yes, I chose to marry a man from the kaafir community .: Sidrah

————————————————————————————————————

More on Hinduism from DSM Satyarthi:

1. ‘Bhoorbhuvah svah!’ ‘The Existence! The Consciousness! The Bliss!’

2.‘Devasy’ pashy’ kaavyam, n’ mamaar, n’ jeeryati.’

3. Hinduism shines

4.Ved is the eternal law book having infinite knowledge in it for human beings

5. ‘According to facts’: ‘Yaathaatathyatah’

6. ‘SET THIS WOMAN for WELL DOER’: ‘Imaam naareem Sukr’te dadhaat’

7. The Evernew Hinduism: Yaathaatathyatah: Ved 2|40|8

8. ‘How to cross death’: ‘Tamev viditvaati mr’tyumeti’: Ved2Yajurved|31|18

9. According to Hinduism: We must be polite, not coward

10.Ye yathaa maam prapadyante taanstathaiv bhajaamyaham: Lord Kr’shn

11. ‘Maachchhitthaa asmaallokaat’ ‘Be not severed from this world’: Ved

12. The mental slavery of the English-educated Indians

19. Change the Society . Don’t Surrender to it: Lesson from Life of Karn’

————————————————————————————————————

Commentary on Ved from DSM Satyarthi:

1. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

2. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 2

3. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 5| Mantr 3

4. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 5| Mantr 3

5. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 7| Mantr 5

6. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 7| Mantr 8

4. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 1

5. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 2

6. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 3

7. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 4

8. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 5

9. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 6

10. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 7

11. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 8

12.R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 9

13. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 58| Mantr 6

14. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 164| Mantr 20

15. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 164| Mantr 46

16. R’gved: Mandal 2| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

17. R’gved: Mandal 2| Sookt 12| Mantr 2

18. R’gved: Mandal 3| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

19. R’gved: Mandal 3| Sookt 6| Mantr 2

20. R’gved: Mandal 4| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

21. R’gved: Mandal 5| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

22. R’gved: Mandal 6| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

23. R’gved: Mandal 7| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

24. R’gved: Mandal 8| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

25. R’gved: Mandal 9| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

26. R’gved: Mandal 9| Sookt 63| Mantr 4-5

27. R’gved: Mandal 10| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

28. R’gved: Mandal 10| Sookt 85| Mantr 42

29. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 1| Mantr 1

30. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 1| Mantr 2

31. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 1| Mantr 3

32. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 1| Mantr 4

33. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 11| Mantr 1

34. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 13| Mantr 4

35. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 23| Mantr 3

36. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 40| Mantr8

37. Saamved: Mantr 1

38. Sāmved: Mantr 115

39. Sāmved: Mantr 641: Mahānāmnyārchik| 1

40. Sāmved: Mantr 650: Mahānāmnyārchik| 10

41. Sāmved: Mantr 651: Uttarārchik

42. Atharv Ved: Kaand 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

43.  Atharv Ved: Kānd 3| Sookt 30| Mantr 3

44. Atharv Ved: Kānd 3| Sookt 30| Mantr 4

45. Atharv Ved: Kānd 3| Sookt 30| Mantr 6

46. Atharv Ved: Kānd 4| Sookt 4| Mantr 6

47. Atharv Ved: Kānd 4| Sookt 4| Mantr 7

48. Atharv Ved: Kānd 4| Sookt 4| Mantr 8

49. Atharv Ved: Kaand 8| Sookt 1| Mantr 6

50. Atharv Ved: Kaand 14| Sookt 1| Mantr 22

51. Atharv Ved: Kaand 14| Sookt 2| Mantr 25

‘Alaa qalbik litakoon minal-munzireen’ ‘upon your heart one of who to warn’

Alaa qalbik litakoon minal-munzireen

‘Upon your heart, one of who to warn’

DSM Satyarthi

Al Qur’an Al Kareem declares:
‘V’ innahu latanzeelu rabbil-aalmeen.
‘This *118 has been revealed by the Lord of the worlds.’*119
‘Nazal bihurroohul ameenu’
‘The trustworthy Spirit *120 has come down with it’
‘ALAA QALBIK litkoon minal-munzireen.’
‘upon your heart so that you may become one of those who are to warn’
Al Qur’an Al Kareem:26 Al-Su’ara’: 192-194

Nirukt, the most ancient Vedic dictionary, available so far; states the same thing about Ved:
‘Saaxaatkr’tdharmaan’ r’shayo babhoovuh.’
‘R’shis saw ‘DHARM’ITSELF.’
Aachary’ Durg explains this sentence of Nirukt:
‘Yaih prativishishten tapasaa saaxaatkr’tah pratyaxto dr’shto DHARMAH, te ‘Saaxaatkr’tdharmaanah’.
‘Who saw DHARM itself, by going through certain austerities, they are ‘Saaxaatkr’tdharmaanah’.
Nirukt: 1 Naighantuk Kaandam: Paad 6: Khand 20

—————————————————————————————

More on Islam from DSM Sayarthi:

1. Bal huv qur’anum majeedun fe LAUHIM MAHFOOZIN

2. Innahu laquranun kareemun Fee kitabin maknoonin

3. ‘Hudallilmuttaqeen’: ‘Guidance for controllers of organs’: 2 Al Baqarah: 2

4. ‘Alaa qalbik litakoon minal-munzireen’ ‘upon your heart one of who to warn’

‘Devasý pashý kāvyam, n’ mamār, n’ jīryati.’

Devasý pashý kāvyam,

n’ mamār, n’ jīryati.

DSM Satyarthi

Ved invites the entire humankind:

‘Devasy’ pashy’ kaavyam, n’ mamaar, n’ jeeryati.’

‘See the wisdom of the Divine One, neither died nor grew old.’

-Ved: 4 Atharv Ved: 10/8/32

The same fact is stated by Ved elsewhere too, to emphasize the fact that the Ved is quite serious in its invitation:

”Amee y’ r’xaa, nihitaas uchchaa, naktam dadr’shre,
kuh chid diveyuh?
ADABDHAANI VARUNASY’ VRATAANI,
vichaakashachchandramaa naktameti.’

‘These constellations, placed on high,visible by night; where do they go by day?
The laws of the Chosen One are INVIOLABLE.
The moon moves resplendent by night.’

-Ved: 1 R’g Ved: 1/24/10

Compare this Ved Mantr with:
Fala’ uqsimu bimavaaqi-innujoomi.’
‘No!*36 I swear by the positions of the stars –’
‘V’ innah laqasamul-lau t’aalmoon azeemun.’
‘and this is indeed a mighty oath, if only you knew –’
‘Innah laqur’anun kareemun,
‘That this indeed is a noble Qur’an,*37
Fe KITAABIM- MAKNOONIN.’
‘Inscribed in a well-guarded Book.’*38
Lla yamassuh’ illal-mutahharoon
Which none but the pure may touch.’*39
Tanzeelum mirrabil aalmeen.’
‘A revelation from the Lord of the Universe.’
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 56 Al Waqi’ah: 75-80Let’s understand what these six aayaate kareemaat from 56th Soorat ‘Al Waqi’ah’ from ‘Al Qur’an Al Kareem’, tell us.
Maulana Saiyad Abul Aala Maududi,rahamatullah alaihi, explains these six aayaate kareemaat from 56th Soorat ‘Al Waqi’ah’ from ‘Al Qur’an Al Kareem’, thus:
‘*36 That is, “The truth is not what you seem to think it is.” Here, the use of the word /a (nay) before swearing an oath by the Qur’an’s being Allah’s Revelation by itself shows that the oath has been sworn to refute certain objections that the disbelievers wen raising with regard to the Qur’an.
*37 “The positions of the stars” : the positions and phases and orbits of the stars and planets. The oath implies that just as the system of the celestial bodies is firm and stable, so also is this Divine Word firm and stable. The same God Who has coated that system has also sent down this Word. Just as there exists perfect. consistency and harmony among the countless stars and planets found in the countless galaxies of the Universe, whereas apparently they seem to be scattered, so also this Book presents a perfectly consistent, and systematic code of life in which detailed guidance has been given, on the basis of belief, about morals, modes of worship, civilization and culture, economic and social life, law and justice, peace and war, in short, about every aspect of human life, and there is nothing out of harmony with the other, whereas this system of thought has been expressed in scattered verses and discourses given on different occasions. Then, just as the system of the heavens set and planned by God is stable and unalterable, and does not ever admit of the slightest variation, so also are the truths and instructions given , in this Book stable and unalterable: no part of these can be changed or displaced in any way.
*38 This implies the well-guarded Tablet (leuh-mahfuz). For it the word Kitab maknun has been used, which means a writing kept hidden, i.e. a writing that is inaccessible to all. The Qur’an’s having been inscribed in this well guarded Book means that before its being sent down to the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah’s peace) it lay inscribed in the Divine Writ of Destiny in which there is no possibility of any alteration or corruption taking place, for it is inaccessible to every kind of creation. The Meaning of the Qur’an.

*39 This is a refutation of the accusation that the disbelievers used to loud against the Qur’an. They regarded the Holy Prophet as a sorcerer and asserted that he was being inspired with the Word by the jinn and satans. An answer to it has been given at several places in the Qur’an, e.g. in Surah Ash-Shu’ara’, where it has been said: “This (lucid Book) has not beer brought down by satans, nor dces this work behove them, nor arc they able to do it. They have indeed been kept out of its hearing.” (vv. 210-212). The same theme has been expressed here, Saying:’None but the purified can touch it.” That is to say “Not to speak of its being brought down by the satans, or its being tampered within any way when it is being revealed, none but the pure angels can come anywhere near it when it is being revealed from the well-guarded Tablet (Lauh-mahfuz; : to the Prophet. ” The word mutahharin has been used for the angels in the sense that Allah has kept them free of every kind of impure feeling and desire. This same commentary of this verse has been given by Anas bin Malik, Ibn ‘Abbas, Sa’id bin Jubair,’Ikrimah, Mujahid, Qatadah, Abul ‘Aliyah, Suddi, Dahhak and Ibn Zaid, and the same also fits in with the context. For the context itself shows that after refuting the false concepts of the Makkan disbelievers about Tauhid and the Hereafter, now their false accusations against the Qur’an are being answered, and by swearing an oath by the positions of the stars, it is being stated that the Qur’an is an exalted Book, which is inscribed in the well-guarded Divine Writ, in which there is no possibility of any interference by any creation, and it is revealed to the Prophet in such a safe way that none but the pure angels can touch it.
Some commentators have taken la in this verse in the sense of prohibition, and have interpreted the verse to mean: “None who is unclean should touch it. ” Although some other commentators take la in the sense of negation and interpret the verse to mean: “None but the clean and pure touch this Book,” they express the opinion that this negation is a prohibition in the same way as the Holy Prophet‘s saying is a prohibition: “A Muslim is a brother of a Muslim: he does not treat him unjustly.” Although in it, it has been said that a Muslim does not treat the other Muslim unjustly, you it enjoins that a Muslim is not to treat the other Muslim unjustly. Likewise, although in this verse it has been state that none but the clean and pure angels touch this Book, yet it enjoins that unless a person is purified, he should not touch it.
The fact, however, is that this commentary does not conform to the context of the verse. Independent of the context, one may take this meaning from its words, but if considered in the context in which the verse occurs, one does not sec any ground for saying that “None is to touch this Book except the clean and purified people. ” For the addressees here are the disbelievers and they arc being told, as if to say:`This Book has been sent down by Allah Lord of the worlds. Therefore, your suspicion that the satans inspire the Prophet with it, is wrong. ” What could be the occasion here to emuciate the Shari’ah injunction that no one should touch it without purification? The most that one could say in this regard is that although this verse has not been sent down to enjoin this command, yet the context points out that just as only the purified (mutahharin) can touch this Book in the presence of Allah, so in the world also the people who at least believe in its being Divine Word should avoid touching it in the impure and unclean state.

The following are the traditions that bear upon this subject:
(1) Imam Malik has related in Mu’ atta this tradition on the authority of ‘Abdullah bin Abi Bakr Muhammad bin ‘Amr bin Hazm: “The written instructions that the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) had sent to the Yarnanite chiefs by the hand of ‘Amr bin Hazm contained this instruction also: La yamass-ul Qur an a illa tahir-un. No one should touch the Qur’an except the pure one.” This same thing has been related by Abu Da’ud from Imam Zuhri in the Traditions which are immediately traced to the Holy Prophet (marasil), saying that the writing that he had seen with Abu Bakr Muhammad bin ‘Amr bin Hazm contained this instruction as well.
(2) The traditions from Hadrat ‘Ali in which he says:’Nothing prevented the Holy Prophet of AIlah from reciting the Qur’an but the state of uncleanness due to sexual intercourse.” (Abu Da’ud, Nasa’i, Tirmidhi).
(3) The tradition of Ibn ‘Umar in which he states: “The Holy Messenger of Allah said: The menstruating woman and the one who is unclean on account of sexual intercourse should not read any portion of the Qur’an. ” (Abu Da’ud. Tirmidhi).
(4) The tradition of Bukhari in which it has been said that the letter which the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) sent to Heraclius, the Roman emperor, also contained this verse of the Qur’an: Ya ahl al-Kitab-i to ‘alau ila kalimat-in sawaa’un bainana wa baina-kum …
The views that have been related from the Holy Prophet’s Companions and their immediate followers are as follows:
Salman, the Persian, saw no harm in reading the Qur’an without the ablutions, but even according to him touching the Qur’an with the hand in this state was not permissible. The same also was the view of Hadrat Sa`d bin Abi Waqqas and Hadrat ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar. And Hadrat Hasan Basri and Ibrahim Nakha’i also regarded touching the Qur’an with the hand without the ablutions as disapproved,(AI-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur an)). The same has been reported from ‘Ata’, Ta’us, Sha’bi and Qasim bin Muhammad also.(Ibn Qudamah, AI-Mughni). However, according to all of them, reading the Qur’an without touching it with the hand, or reciting it from memory, was permissible even without the ablutions.

Hadrat ‘Umar, Hadrat ‘Ali, Hadrat Hasan Basri. Hadrat Ibrahim Nakha’i and Imam Zuhri regarded reading the Qur’an in the state of uncleanness due to sexual intercourse and menstruation and bleeding after childbirth as disapproved. But Ibn ‘Abbas held the view, and the same also was his practice, that one could recite from memory the portion of the Qur’an that one usually recited as one’s daily practice. When Hadrat Sa’id bin al-Musayyab and Sa`id bin Jubair were asked about their view in this regard, they replied: “Is not the Qur’an preserved in the memory of such a person ? What then is the harm in reciting it ?” (AI-Mughni,.9l-Muhalla by IbnHazm).

The following are the viewpoints of the jurists on this subject:
The Hanafi viewpoint has been explained by Imam `Ala-‘uddin al-Kashani in his Bada I as-Sana i, thus “lust as it is not permissible to offer the Prayer without the ablutions, so also it is not permissible to touch the Qur’an without the ablutions, However, if the Qur’an is in a cast or a cover, it may be touched. ” According to some jurists, the case or cover implies the binding, and according to others, the bag or the envelope or the wrapper in which the Qur’an is kept and can also be taken out. Likewise, the books of the commentary also should not be touched without the ablutions, nor anything else in which a Qur’anic verse may have been written. However, the books of Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence) may be touched although preferably they too may not be touched without the ablutions, for they also contain Qur’anic verses as part of argument and reasoning.

Some Hanafi jurists hold the opinion that only that part of the Qur’an where the Text may have been written should not be touched without the ablutions. As for the margins there is no harm in touching it, whether they are blank or contain notes on the Text. The .correct thing, however, is that the margins also are a part of the Book and touching them amounts to touching the Book. As for reading the Qur’an, it is permissible without the ablutions. ” In Fatawa ‘Alamgiri children have been made an exception from this rule. The Qur’an can be given in the children’s hand for teaching purposes whether they are in the state of ablutions or not..
The Shafi’i viewpoint has been stated by Imam Nawaw1 in Al-Minhaj, thus, “As it is for the Prayer and the circumambulation of the Ka’bah, it is also forbidden to handle the Qur’an or to touch a leaf of it without the ablutions. Likewise, it is also forbidden w touch the binding of the Qur’an, and also a bag, or a bow containing the Qur’an, or a tablet on which a part of the Qur’an may have been written for instructional purposes. However, it is lawful to touch the baggage of a person containing the Qur’anic inscription. A child may touch the Qur’an without the ablutions, and a person without ablutions may turn over a leaf with a piece of wood, or something else, if he wants to read the Qur’an.
The Maliki position as stated in AI-Fiqh ‘alal-Madhahib al- Arbah is: They concur with the other jurists in this that the state of ablutions is a prerequisite for touching the Qur’an, but in the matter of imparting instruction in the Qur’an they make both the teacher and the taught an exception from the rule, and allow even a menstruating woman to touch the Qur’an if she is engaged in learning or teaching it. Ibn Qadamah has cited in Al-Mughni this saying of Imam Malik: Although reading the Qur’an in the state of uncleanness due to sexual intercourse is forbidden, the woman who is discharging the menses is pemitted to read it, for she would forget her recitations if prohibited from reading the Qur’an for along time. The Hanbali viewpoint as stated by Ibn Qadamah is as follows: In the state of uncleanness due to sexual intercourse and menstruation and bleeding after childbirth it is not permissible to read the Qur’an or any complete verse of it. However, it is permissible to recite bismillah, a!-hamdu-/i//ah, etc. for although these also are parts of one or the other verse, their recitation does not amount to recitation of the Qur’an. As for handling the Qur’an, it is not permissible in any case without the ablutions. However, one is not forbidden to touch a letter, or a book of Fiqh, or some other writing containing a Qur’anic verse. Likewise, one may handle even without the ablutions, something that contains the Qur’an. The state of ablutions is also no pre-requisite for .handling the books of exegesis. Furthermore, if a person who is not in the state of ablutions is required to handle the Qur’an under an immediate need, he may do so after purification with the dust (tayammum). ” AI-Fiqh `alal-Madhahib a/-`Arabah contains this ruling also of the Hanbali Fiqh: It is not right for the children to handle the Qur’an without ablutions even when receiving instruction in it, and it is the duty of their guardians to make them perform the ablutions before they give the Qur’an to them.
The Zahiri viewpoint is that reading the Qur’an and handling it is permissible under all conditions, whether one is without the ablutions, or unclean due to sexual intercourse, or even if the woman is menstruating. Ibn Hazm has discussed this question fully in AI-Muhalla (vol. 1, pp. 77-84) and given arguments for the validity of this viewpoint and has concluded that none of the conditions laid down by the jurists for reading the Qur’an and handling it, is supported by the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

—————————————————————————————

1.  Commentary on Ved

2. More On Hinduism

3. On Islam

4. On History

5. Science Fiction

6.  Creative Adult Sex in English from Durgesh

7. Durgesh in Hindi/Urdu

————————————————————————-

More on Islam from DSM Sayarthi:

1. Bal huv qur’anum majeedun fe LAUHIM MAHFOOZIN

2. Innahu laquranun kareemun Fee kitabin maknoonin

3. ‘Hudallilmuttaqeen’: ‘Guidance for controllers of organs’: 2 Al Baqarah: 2

4. ‘Alaa qalbik litakoon minal-munzireen’ ‘upon your heart one of who to warn’

5. Muslimahs! Come to India. I recommend Hindu lovers for all the Muslimahs.: Khadeejah Muhammad

6. Islam according to Qur’an and Maulana Maududi rahamatullh alaihi

7. A Moment of grave thinking for the entire sophisticated Muslim Community

8. ‘SET THIS WOMAN for WELL DOER’: ‘Imaam naareem Sukr’te dadhaat’

9. ‘V’ innahu fe UMMALKITAABI ladainaa la’liyyun hakeemun’: 43/4

10. Most Present day Muslms don’t do what Huzoor(SAW) did:

11. The Muslim beauties are wooing Hindu men FASTEST

12. ‘What really matters in the sight of God’: Maulana: Maududi

13. Why did Islam face a counter revolution at Karbala?

14. Why there are differences among us?

15. No differences Please!

16. Communal Muslims discuss my Muslim wife, me and my Muslim women: Durgesh

17. Yes, I chose to marry a man from the kaafir community .: Sidrah

18. Islam according to Ved

—————————————————————————————

More on Hinduism from DSM Satyarthi:

1. ‘Bhoorbhuvah svah!’ ‘The Existence! The Consciousness! The Bliss!’

2.‘Devasy’ pashy’ kaavyam, n’ mamaar, n’ jeeryati.’

3. Hinduism shines

4.Ved is the eternal law book having infinite knowledge in it for human beings

5. ‘According to facts’: ‘Yaathaatathyatah’

6. ‘SET THIS WOMAN for WELL DOER’: ‘Imaam naareem Sukr’te dadhaat’

7. The Evernew Hinduism: Yaathaatathyatah: Ved 2|40|8

8. ‘How to cross death’: ‘Tamev viditvaati mr’tyumeti’: Ved2Yajurved|31|18

9. According to Hinduism: We must be polite, not coward

10.Ye yathaa maam prapadyante taanstathaiv bhajaamyaham: Lord Kr’shn

11. ‘Maachchhitthaa asmaallokaat’ ‘Be not severed from this world’: Ved

12. The mental slavery of the English-educated Indians

19. Change the Society . Don’t Surrender to it: Lesson from Life of Karn’

—————————————————————————————

Commentary on Ved from DSM Satyarthi:

1. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

2. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 2

3. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 58| Mantr 6

4. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 164| Mantr 46

5. R’gved: Mandal 2| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

6. R’gved: Mandal 3| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

7. R’gved: Mandal 4| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

8. R’gved: Mandal 5| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

9. R’gved: Mandal 6| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

10. R’gved: Mandal 7| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

11. R’gved: Mandal 8| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

12. R’gved: Mandal 9| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

13. R’gved: Mandal 9| Sookt 63| Mantr 4-5

14. R’gved: Mandal 10| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

15. R’gved: Mandal 10| Sookt 85| Mantr 42

16. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 1| Mantr 1

17. Saamved: Mantr 1

18. Atharv Ved: Kaand 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

19. Atharv Ved: Kaand 14| Sookt 1| Mantr 22

20.Atharv Ved: Kaand 14| Sookt 2| Mantr 251

Islam according to Qur’an and Maulana Maududi rahamatullh alaihi

Islam according to Qur’an and

Maulana Maududi rahamatullh

alaihi

DSM Satyarthi

Alif. Lam. Mim. This is the Book: there is no doubt about it. It is guidance to Godfearing people, who believe in the unseen , establish the Salats and expend out of what We have bestowed on them; who believe in the Book We have sent down to you (i.e. the Qur’an) and in the Books sent down before you,*7 and firmly believe in the Hereafter.’

Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 1-4

In the seventh footnote, Maulana Saiyad Abul Aala Maududi, rahamatullah alaihi;  the founder of Jamaete Islami; has written:

‘The fifth requirement is that one should believe in the Books revealed by God to His Prophets in the various ages and regions of the world, in the Book revealed to Muhammad (peace be on him) as well as in those revealed to the other Prophets who preceded him.

The door of the Qur’an is closed to all those who do not consider it necessary for man to receive guidance from God.

It is also closed to those who, even if they believe in the need for such guidance, do not consider it necessary to seek it through the channel of revelation and prophethood, but would rather weave their own set of ideas and concepts and regard them as equivalent to Divine Guidance.
This door is also closed to those who believe in Divine books as such, but confine this belief to those books accepted by their forefathers, and spurn Divine Guidance revealed to anyone born beyond their own racial and national boundaries.

The Qur’an excludes all such people and is prepared to open the source of its grace only to those who believe that mankind does require Divine Guidance, who acknowledge that this guidance does not come to people individually but reaches them through Prophets and Divine Books and who are not given to racial or national chauvinism but are devotees of Truth alone, and are therefore prepared to submit to Divine Guidance wherever it be found.’

-Towards understanding the Qur’an

The same principle is repeated in Al Qur’an Al Kareem again in 43rd Soorat,‘Sooratal Zukhruf’:

‘Ha’. Mim. By the Clear Book; verily We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you may understand. Indeed it is transcribed in the Original Book with Us; *2 sublime and full of wisdom*3.’

– Al Qur’an Al Kareem:43 Az Zukhruf:1-4

In the second and third footnotes, Maulana Saiyad Abul Aala Maududi, the founder of Jamaete Islami; has written:

‘“Umm al-Kitab”: the “Original Book”: the Book from which alI the Books sent down to the Prophets have been derived.

In Surah (56)AI-Waqi`ah the same thing has been described as Kitab-um-Maknun (the hidden and preserved Book) and in Surah (85)AI-Buruj 22 as Lauh-i Mahfuz (the Preserved Tablet), that is, the Tablet whose writing cannot be effaced, which is secure from every kind of interference.

By saying that the Qur’an is inscribed in Umm al-Kitab, attention has been drawn to an important truth.

Different Books had been revealed by Allah in different ages to different Prophets for the guidance of different nations in different languages, but all these Books invited mankind to one and the same Faith: they regarded one and the same thing as the Truth; they presented one and the same criterion of good and evil; they propounded the same principles of morality and civilization; in short, they brought one and the same Din (Religion).

The reason was that their source and origin was the same, only words were different; they had the same meaning and theme which is inscribed in a Source Book with Allah, and whenever there was a need, He raised a Prophet and sent down the same meaning and subject-matter clothed in a particular diction according to the environment and occasion.

Had Allah willed to raise the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be His peace) in another nation instead of the Arabs, He would have sent down the same Qur’an in the language of that nation.

If we believe Maulana saiyad Abul aala Maududi,rahamtullah alaihi; even the door to Qur’an is not opened to abc to xyz, the changing ID idiot of Calgary Canada; Jack, Leo, Hindukush Raid, KBK, Shul, AAAA, Double AAAA, and all their vulgar scoundrel companions.
The other alternative is that these scoundrels are true, and Maulana Saiyad Abul Aala Maududi, a world known and globally respected figure; is wrong.
I reject this option outright.
You can choose what you think right.

————————————————————————————–

More on Islam from DSM Sayarthi:

1. Bal huv qur’anum majeedun fe LAUHIM MAHFOOZIN

2. Innahu laquranun kareemun Fee kitabin maknoonin

3. ‘Hudallilmuttaqeen’: ‘Guidance for controllers of organs’: 2 Al Baqarah: 2

4. ‘Alaa qalbik litakoon minal-munzireen’ ‘upon your heart one of who to warn’

5. Muslimahs! Come to India. I recommend Hindu lovers for all the Muslimahs.: Khadeejah Muhammad

6. Islam according to Qur’an and Maulana Maududi rahamatullh alaihi

7. A Moment of grave thinking for the entire sophisticated Muslim Community

8. ‘SET THIS WOMAN for WELL DOER’: ‘Imaam naareem Sukr’te dadhaat’

9. ‘V’ innahu fe UMMALKITAABI ladainaa la’liyyun hakeemun’: 43/4

10. Most Present day Muslms don’t do what Huzoor(SAW) did:

11. The Muslim beauties are wooing Hindu men FASTEST

12. ‘What really matters in the sight of God’: Maulana: Maududi

13. Why did Islam face a counter revolution at Karbala?

14. Why there are differences among us?

15. No differences Please!

———————————————————————————————————————-

Commentary on Ved from DSM Satyarthi:

1. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

2. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 2

3. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 58| Mantr 6

4. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 164| Mantr 20

5. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 164| Mantr 46

6. R’gved: Mandal 2| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

7. R’gved: Mandal 3| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

8. R’gved: Mandal 4| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

9. R’gved: Mandal 5| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

10. R’gved: Mandal 6| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

11. R’gved: Mandal 7| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

12. R’gved: Mandal 8| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

13. R’gved: Mandal 9| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

14. R’gved: Mandal 9| Sookt 63| Mantr 4-5

15. R’gved: Mandal 10| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

16. R’gved: Mandal 10| Sookt 85| Mantr 42

17. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 1| Mantr 1

18. Saamved: Mantr 1

19. Atharv Ved: Kaand 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

20. Atharv Ved: Kaand 14| Sookt 1| Mantr 22

21.Atharv Ved: Kaand 14| Sookt 2| Mantr 25

———————————————————————————–———–

More on Ved from DSM Satyarthi:

1. ‘According to facts’: ‘Yaathaatathyatah’

2. According to Hinduism: We must be polite, not coward

3. Aheism can’t win Hinduism/Ved

4. Casteism is NOT an intgral part of Hinduism:’Samaanee prapaa sah vonnabhaagah’ ”Same drinking same share of food.’

5. Hinduism builds its society on SUKR’TS/Noble doers:’Imaam naareem Sukr’te dadhaat’

6. Hinduism is PRINCIPLES BASED , not PERSON BASED

7. One should not wish to die: Ved hates death

8. RELIGIOUS DEMOCRACY in Hinduism: Ekam sadvipra bahudhaa vadanti

9. Sanyas is not the goal of Hinduism

10. Sati tradition was an Aasur Tradition, not Vedic at all

———————————————————–

More from DSM Satyarthi:

1.  Commentary on Ved

2. More On Hinduism

3. On Islam

4. On History

5. Science Fiction

6.  Creative Adult Sex in English from Durgesh

7. Durgesh in Hindi/Urdu

 

‘V’ innahu fī UMMALKITĀBI ladainā la’liyyun ħakīmun’: 43/4

V’ innahu fī UMMALKITĀBI

ladainā la’liyyun ħakīmun: 43/4:

DSM Satyarthi

The 43rd Soorat, Soorat ‘Az-Zukhruf’ starts with the words:
‘Haa meem.1
‘Valkitaabilmubeeni’
‘By the Clear Book;’2
‘Inna ja’alnaahu qur’anan arabiyyal la’allakum ta’aqiloon.’
‘verily We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you may understand.’*3.
‘V’ innahu fe UMMALKITAABI, ladainaa, la’liyyun hakeemun’
‘Indeed it is transcribed in the Original Book with Us; *2 sublime and full of wisdom.’*4.
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 43 Az-Zukhruf:1-4

Maulana Saiyad Abul Aala Maududi,rahamatullah alaihi, explains these four aayaate kareemaat from 43rd Soorat ‘Az-Zukhruf’ from ‘Al Qur’an Al Kareem’, thus:
‘*1 The object of taking an oath by the Qur’an is to impress this fact: “We are the Author of this Book and not Muhammad (upon whom be Allah’s peace),” and the attribute of the Qur’an chosen for the oath is that it is a “lucid Book”. To swear by the Qur’an itself with its this attribute in order to impress that the Qur’an is Divine Word by itself implies this: “O people, this is an open Book before you. Read it intelligently. Its clear and un-ambiguous themes, its language and literary style, its teaching which distinguishes the truth from falsehood, all arc testifying to the fact that none but the Lord of the Universe could be its Author. ” Then the sentence:'”We have made it an Arabic Qur’an so that you may understand it.” has two meanings:(1) “It is not in any foreign tongue but in your own language; therefore, you can have no difficulty in assessing its value and worth. Had it been in a non-Arabic language, you could have offered the excuse that you could not determine its being Divine, or otherwise, for you did not understand it. But you cannot offer this excuse about this Arabic Qur’an. Its each word is clear to you: its each passage and discourse, both in language and in theme, is plain for you. Now you may see it for yourself whether this could be the word of Muhammad (upon whom be Allah’s peace) or of some other Arab.” (2) “We have sent this Book in Arabic because We are addressing the Arabs, who can only understand an Arabic Qur’an. The person who disregards this expressly rational ground for sending down the Qur’an in Arabic and regards it as the word of Muhammad (upon whom be Allah’s peace) instead of Divine Word only because Muhammad’s mother tongue is also Arabic, commits a grave injustice. ” (To understand this second meaning, please see Surah Ha-Mim As-Sajdah: 44 and its E.N.’s).

*2 “Umm al-Kitab”: the “Original Book”: the Book from which alI the Books sent down to the Prophets have been derived. In Surah AI-Waqi`ah the same thing has been described as Kitab-um-Maknun (the hidden and preserved Book) and in Surah AI-Buruj 22 as Lauh-i Mahfuz (the Preserved Tablet), that is, the Tablet whose writing cannot be effaced, which is secure from every kind of interference. By saying that the Qur’an is inscribed in Umm al-Kitab, attention has been drawn to an important truth. Different Books had been revealed by Allah in different ages to different Prophets for the guidance of different nations in different languages, but aII these Books invited mankind to one and the same Faith: they regarded one and the same thing as the Truth; they presented one and the same criterion of good and evil; they propounded the same principles of morality and civilization; in short, they brought one and the same Din (Religion). The reason was that their source and origin was the same, only words were different; they had the same meaning and theme which is inscribed in a Source Book with Allah, and whenever there was a need, He raised a Prophet and sent down the same meaning and subject-matter clothed in a particular diction according to the environment and occasion. Had Allah willed to raise the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be His peace) in another nation instead of the Arabs, He would have sent down the same Qur’an in the language of that nation. In it the meaning and content would have been expressed according to the environments and conditions of the people and land; the words would have been different and the language also different but the teaching and guidance the same basically, and it would be the same Qur’an though not the Arabic Qur’an. This same thing has been expressed in Surah Ash-Shu`ara, thus: “This (Book) has been revealed by the Lord of the worlds. The trustworthy Spirit has come down with it upon your heart so that you may become one of those who are (appointed by God) to warn (the people) in plain Arabic language; and this is also contained in the scriptures of the former peoples.” (vv. 192-196).(For explanation, see Ash-Shu`ara: 192196 and the E.N.’s on it).
*3 This sentence is related both to Kitab-i mubin and to Umm al-Kitab. Thus, it is in praise of boththe Qur’an and the Original Book from which the Qur’an has been derived. This praise is meant to impress the fact that if a person dces not recognize the true worth of this Book and dces not benefit from its wise teachings because of his own folly, it would be his own misfortune. If someone tried to degrade it and found fault with it, it would be his own meanness. It cannot become worthless on account of someone’s lack of appreciation of it, and its wisdom cannot be eclipsed by anyone’s throwing dust at it. This is by itself a glorious Book, which stands exalted by its matchless teaching, miraculous eloquence, faultless wisdom and the sublime personality of its great Author. Therefore, none can succeed in minimizing its value and worth. In verse 44 below the Quraish in particular and the Arabs in general have been told that the revelation of the Book for which they are showing such lack of appreciation had provided them a unique opportunity of honour, which if they lost, would subject them to a severe accountability before God.(Please see E.N. 39 below).

————————————————————————————–

More on Islam from DSM Sayarthi:

1. Islam according to Ved

2. Bal huv qur’anum majeedun fe LAUHIM MAHFOOZIN

3. Innahu laquranun kareemun Fee kitabin maknoonin

4. ‘Hudallilmuttaqeen’: ‘Guidance for controllers of organs’: 2 Al

Baqarah: 2

5. ‘Alaa qalbik litakoon minal-munzireen’ ‘upon your heart one of who to warn’

6. Muslimahs! Come to India. I recommend Hindu lovers for all

the Muslimahs.: Khadeejah Muhammad

7. Islam according to Qur’an and Maulana Maududi rahamatullh

alaihi

Most Present day Muslims don’t do what Huzoor(SAW) did: DSM Satyarthi

Most Present day Muslims don’t do

what Ħuzūrsaw did

DSM Satyarthi

Most Present day Muslims believe that they do what Huzoor(SAW) did.
I don’t think it true.
If it had been, the most of the humankind would have been Muslim.
They were not hating Islam, as they are hating it today.
I’ve already discussed the subject matter somewhere else:

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81

/p19#c448

Salman wrote:
<quoted text>
‘Islam does not believe in rebirth, but only resurrection and the Last Judgment Day. In contrast to Islam, Hinduism considers life in heaven and hell as temporary. A soul regains freedom forever only through self-realization.
In Islam there is no concept of Trinity. God is one and indivisible. Hinduism recognizes three highest functional aspects of God in the form of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, who are called the Three Deities (Trimurthis),depicted either as one or separate deities, who carry out the three primary functions of God’s manifestation, namely creation, preservation and destruction.
Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) set an example to crush the idols. So being a Hindu, can u do this?’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p19#c444

I replied:
‘You have enlisted here three major differences:
1. Rebirth.
2.Trinity.
3. Crushing of idols.
I will reverse them in order as I have already answered the last one but you have repeated the same nevertheless.
I am unable to understand why did you do it.
When I have already answered a question either you should show your disagreement with my answer in detail that why do you disagree with me in the matter, or accept that my answer has answered you completely.
You haven’t adopted either attitude.
Instead, you just go on and repeat your question almost word to word.
I had answered:
‘Hindu tradition differs here profoundly.
We respect what Huzoor(S) did.
He was the apostle of the God.
He did know better what he(S) was doing.
We, the normal persons; do not have any right to criticize the great revolutionist(S) of his time.
We should only try to understand what he did and why he would have done it.
Then we should follow him(S) according to Al Qur’an Al Majeed.
We do not have any right to contradict or criticize him(S).
He(S) was bestowed with Meraj. We are not.
He(S) knew more than us.
He(S)sacrificed his life fighting against evil.
Nevertheless, Hindu tradition differs here.
Mind you! I’m telling Hindu tradition! not Hinduism!
There are many persons who are adamant that every Hindu tradition is Hinduism.
I don’t.
Hindu tradition is to explain the person what the real truth is. Explain him/her everything in quite detail.

But never compel him to do anything against her/his wishes.
We convince one that idol worship is not preached in Ved.
Ved preaches Meditation.
We explain what is wrong in idol worship and what is better in meditation.
Yet, the ultimate decision rests with her/him.
We do not compel anyone to change one’s faith.
We never insist.
He/she has her/his own reasoning.
We will discuss with one for years, but will never compel.
The decision must be hers/his.
It does not mean that we criticize Huzoor(s) for His(S) crushing of idols.
No! We don’t think we have any right to.
He(S) understood more what he(S) did.

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p19#c448

Salman, Karachi, Pakistan wrote:
‘Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) didn’t have any version of Islam. He had the true Islam and he didn’t compromise on truth and kept on following Allah’s commands even though he was brutally beaten by Mushrikins but he kept on preaching Islam.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p19#c461

Salman, Karachi, Pakistan wrote further:
‘You don’t have to say sorry. Actually I like this conversation, any ways you said
“Similarly, I believe Islam is what Qur’ano ahadeese muqaddasat tell us, not what Muslims believe, do and practice”.

What Muslims do is according to Islam. There are things which they don’t practice (which is wrong) but Islam is not just a religion it is a complete code of life and as a Muslim you have to implement Islam in your life for example if you don’t offer prayers means that you are saying. that “ok I believe on Islam but I don’t want to offer prayers and I believe that offering prayers means that I m showing that I m a Muslim where as it is better to be a Muslim from Inside”.

Similarly if you don’t practice Hinduism that is also wrong if you are a Hindu.
About Namaz Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) said that “the only difference between a believer and a non-believer is Namaz”.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p18#c424

I replied AAAA:
‘You have written:
then you are a communist or you are living in a confused state, Make up your mind?’
I am unable to follow your reasoning!
Do you know what a communist is?
I am confident you don’t.
I am giving you a web address. Click it to know what a communist is first, then we will discuss on this point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist
‘or you are living in a confused state.’
No! I am not! I am quite clear! There is no confusion at all.
My mind is already made up.
‘And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad, Peace Be
Upon Him) after the right path has been shown clearly to him.’
I am neither contradicting nor opposing Huzoor(S).
‘The Jews say that the Christians have nothing and the Christians say that the Jews have nothing of it, though both read the Scripture. And those who have no knowledge of the Scripture also make similar claims. Allah will surely give His judgment on the Day of Resurrection in all the matters in which they differ.’
–Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 113
The fact is that no one has any special claim to Paradise; whoever surrenders himself to Allah in obedience and follows the Right Way, shall get his reward from his Lord: there shall be neither fear nor grief for such people.’
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 112
wala taa’saw fil-arzi mufsideen.’
Do not spread disorder on earth.’
Al Qur’an Al Majeed 2 Al Baqarah: 60.

Whenever it is said to them, “Spread not disorder on the earth”, their reply is, “We only seek to put things aright”.
–Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 11
Beware! They do spread disorder but they realize it not.’
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 12

I believe Allah knows better what is Islam than you.
Sorry to differ with you altogether in the matter.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p18#c425

Salman wrote:
‘Durgesh!
You always talk about your PhD wife but tell me does she possess more knowledge than the Ulamas who have given all of their lives in Islamic studies?’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p19#c445

He argued further:
‘You have quoted this aayat:

‘The fact is that no one has any special claim to Paradise; whoever surrenders himself to Allah in obedience and follows the Right Way, shall get his reward from his Lord: there shall be neither fear nor grief for such people.’
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 112

Surrendering in front of Allah means to obey him in the similar way which Allah had told you. And not by picking different things from different religions. Reading between the lines is always dangerous.

‘Beware! They do spread disorder but they realize it not.’
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 12

Personal interpretation of a religion just to satisfy my wants is that disorder which is being prohibited by Allah.’
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8I…

He argued to Sidrah:
‘Sidra!

You didn’t condemn the title of this thread, never showed any concerns over it and never gave your justifications which surely disgrace you as well.

It’s shocking, hurting and surprising!’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p19#c447

AAAA wrote:
‘Durgesh jabalpur wrote:

Great! Akbar was stupid for this proudy stupid Arab.’
!

‘you are calling me a stupied Arab, it. this is the job of clever people?
Anti-Christian Hate Campaigns Fuel Persecution in India
(September 25, 2007) The Washington, DC based human rights group, International Christian Concern (ICC) www.persecution.org has learned that Hindu extremist groups have actively been campaigning against Christians for close to a decade, yet there is little the government has done to check what continues to fuel India’s worst incidents of religious persecution.
Often, reporting on Christian persecution in India tends to focus on the incidents, and not the causes, of persecution. Rarely do we see the big picture – that Hindu ultra-nationalists who believe that to be Indian means to be Hindu are taking advantage of the uneducated and waging a hate-filled propaganda campaign against Christians.
Most recently, Hindu extremist groups Bajrang Dal and Hindu Jagruti Samiti distributed thousands of anti-Christian leaflets in Chitradurga district in the southern state of Karnataka last month. This campaign resulted in an incident on August 5, when at least 50 extremists attacked more than 10 workers of the Seventh Day Adventist church during the dedication of a new church in Sira area between Tumkur and Chitradurga districts. On August 16, the victimized Christian workers were arrested on charges of “forcible conversion.”
The trend of launching venomous propaganda campaigns that incite physical attacks against the Christian minority came to fore in 1998 when the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the political arm of the chief Hindu extremist organization, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), graduated from a party on the margins to a mainstream and ruling party in India.
Soon after the BJP’s accession to power, there was a spate of violence against Christians from December 25, 1998, through January 3, 1999, in the Dangs district of Gujarat state. These attacks included the killing of priests and the raping of nuns to the physical destruction of Christian schools, churches, colleges, and cemeteries. Hundreds of Christians were also forced to “reconvert” to Hinduism. The outbreak of violence in Dangs is typical of how anti-Christian violence is organized in various parts of the country.
According to a report by the Human Rights Watch,“Politics by Other Means: Attacks against Christians in India,” the extremist group Hindu Jagran Manch (HJM) obtained permission to hold a rally on December 25, 1998 in Ahwa town in the Dangs district. Over 4,000 people participated in the rally, shouting anti-Christian slogans while the police stood by and watched. After the rally, the attacks began on Christian places of worship, schools run by missionaries, and shops owned by Christians.
In another incident, Hindu villagers, with the encouragement of a village chief, gang-raped two Christian women after their families refused to denounce Christianity on May 28, 2006 in Nadia village in Bhagwanpura block in Madhya Pradesh state’s Khargone district. A fact-finding report noted,“There have been several attacks against the Christian community since 2003, but the intensity of persecutions increased since May 21, 2006, followed by a rally organized by the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram (organization for welfare of tribal people).”
Given that hate campaigns and consequent attacks polarize people along religious lines, the BJP, which portrays itself as the “protector” of Hindus, benefits politically.
ICC research noted that hate campaigns attract several local laws, and yet the media – both local and international, the state and federal governments in India as well as international organizations have a tendency to take note only of “violent incidents” while failing to address the backdrop against which such incidents takes place.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p19#c452

I said:
‘What did you expect from me when you called all my country people Stupid people?
‘you country people now akber, badshah and all that stupied people .’
Did you expect I will be glad that you have called all my country people Stupid and will announce that ‘I love you for your great love for me and my country people?
You used first this word ‘Stupid’ and now you yourself are complaining for it?
What an attitude!
Great manners!
My country people were not talking to you.
What was the context to call all my country people Stupid?
If one abuses someone, that  one should be prepared to be abused.
Instead, the entire Internet Community can appreciate my civilized reaction that I have called Stupid only you, not all your country people.
They can’t be held responsible for your attitude.
Nevertheless, I did not mean it.
It was only to show you and make you realize that you should not have done it.
I’m sorry! I don’t think you are really stupid. It were bad manners in response to your bad manners!
I am profoundly sorry that I had to resort to that attitude.
You did not leave another option for me.
Sorry again nevertheless!
Now, why have you written  that long passage?
You have not clarified it.
If you think I advocate all those inhuman activities of the so called Hindus, you are quite wrong.

I don’t.
However, I don’t know the full details.
As such, I am not a suitable person to comment on it.

If the incidences happened as you described, it is inhumane and barbaric, but my experience is that the media is generally anti Hindu in the matters.
I’m giving two links here.
If you like to go on the matter, you may click the links and can understand what I mean by it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Hinduism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Brahminism

‘or you are living in a confused state.’
No! I am not! I am quite clear! There is no confusion at all.
My mind is already made up.
‘And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad, Peace Be
Upon Him) after the right path has been shown clearly to him.’
I am neither contradicting nor opposing Huzoor(S).
‘The Jews say that the Christians have nothing and the Christians say that the Jews have nothing of it, though both read the Scripture. And those who have no knowledge of the Scripture also make similar claims. Allah will surely give His judgment on the Day of Resurrection in all the matters in which they differ.’
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 113
‘The fact is that no one has any special claim to Paradise; whoever surrenders himself to Allah in obedience and follows the Right Way, shall get his reward from his Lord: there shall be neither fear nor grief for such people.’
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 112
‘wala taa’saw fil-arzi mufsideen.’
‘Do not spread disorder on earth.’
Al Qur’an Al Majeed 2 Al Baqarah: 60.

‘Whenever it is said to them, “Spread not disorder on the earth”, their reply is, “We only seek to put things aright”.
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 11
‘Beware! They do spread disorder but they realize it not.’
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 12

I believe Allah knows better what is Islam than you.
Sorry to differ with you altogether in the matter.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p18#c425

I replied to Salman Karachi:
‘You have written:
‘What Muslims do is according to Islam.’
Here again we go around in circles.
The key question is who is Muslim?
Whether you will define a Muslim, or Allah?
Whether you will reward Jannat in Aakhirat, or Allah?
Allah says:
‘The fact is that no one has any special claim to Paradise; whoever surrenders himself to Allah in obedience and follows the Right Way, shall get his reward from his Lord: there shall be neither fear nor grief for such people.’
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2Al Baqarah:112

His certificate is more than enough for me and is above all the rest of the certificates.
I do not have  to obey Muslims or the persons who are too  proud of being so called Muslims, whether they are actually Muslims or not.
You have written:
‘as a Muslim you have to implement Islam in your life.’
How do you know I don’t?’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p18#c425

Sidrah Bombay, India said:
‘Salman wrote:
‘About Namaz Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) said that “the only difference between a believer and a non-believer is Namaz”.’

‘So in that case, you do agree that a person who observes salat is not a kaafir, right?’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p18#c427

AAAA wrote:
<quoted text>
‘The name hindu is given by a muslim you can read you counrty history if you want.in the book “discovery of india”. and one of indian writer viveknanda has also mention that name ‘hindu plays a misnoma. the actual name should be “Vedantist”. the people who lived on the other side of the river Indus are called HINDUS. that is what is your country history, so make up your mind. don’t be hypocrites and think with a open Mind.’
I replied:
Shabd Kalpdrum/Raamkosh is more ancient than the Muslims.
How a name given by a Muslim, could be included in Shabd Kalpdrum/Raamkosh?
Your claim is, therefore,  wrong.
Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru was mistaken if he

wrote that in ‘Discovery of India’.
The book is already outdated and needs updation very badly.
Anyway Shabd Kalpdrum/Raamkosh are more ancient than Muslims . AND Muslims are more ancient than Jawaharlal Nehru.’
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8I…
Moreover, I congratulated Sidrah:
‘Bravo Sidrah! Congratulations for asking the key question.’
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8I…
Salman said:
‘Neither I am criticizing you nor am I saying that I will decide that who should be awarded the ‘Jannat’. What I want to say is that for a Muslim it is necessary to leave other religion he should be only a Muslim other wise he is a communist or what ever. That’s the reason why I gave the example of Namaz.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p18#c430

Sidrah Bombay, India asked:
‘Tell me, is there any PM feature supported on this board?’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p18#c433

I replied:
‘I don’t know.However get my email address:
satyaryhi.dsm@gmail.com
You are most welcome.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p18#c436

To Salman, I replied:
‘I can’t understand whether you belong to Islam or communism.
You are telling me either tell to you what you want me to tell you or I’m a communist.
why are you trying your best to throw away a person to communism who claims to be a Muslim?
You persons do not understand what communism is even.
Please click to the link below and study carefully what communism is first. Then we can discuss properly on my being a communist or not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist

You have written:
‘it is necessary to leave other religion he should be only a Muslim other wise he is a communist or what ever.’
Which other religion, Salman Sahab?

I have already written:

‘As per Ved and Qur’an Hinduism and Islam are not two religions.
Ved is everfirst book of Islam and Qur’an is according to its claim the last book of Hinduism.

‘innallazeen aamanoo vallazeen haadoo vannasaaraa vassaabieen man aaman billaahi val yaumil aakhiri wa amil saalihan f’ lahum ajruhum ind rabbihim wa laa khaufun alaihim wa laa hum yahzanoon.’

Whether they are the ones who believe, or whether they are Jews, Christians or Saabieen, all who believe in Allah and the last day, and do righteous deeds, their reward is surely secure with their Lord; they need have no fear, nor shall they grieve.’
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 62

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p18#c438

AAAA wrote ridiculously copying me from somewhere else:
‘BTW we don’t need you certification, first you ask yourself what you are doing, you are living you life in confused state, one end you are saying you don’t believe in idol worshim at one end you are saying you believe in one god and messenger, don’t be hypocrites or else you are trying to please any muslims in this forum.
first decide yourself, islam & muslim don’t need your or anybody certificate. their is no contradiction in quran and hadith and the one who follows it strictly with stong believe are muslims. to please somebody if you are doing that and living in a confused state means thats is your problem or you are doing in wantedly, i judge a person in the light of quran and hadith & in that their is a explanation of all kind people.

Masaalama Yakhi’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p18#c434

I replied:
‘You have ridiculously written, imitating me, absolutely out of context:
‘BTW we don’t need you certification.’
I am not issuing any certificate.
You are issuing it for Sidrah, me and my wife, Saiyada Fatima PhD, in Arabic Islamic literature.
The more we are trying to avoid the unpleasant discussion, the more you are insisting to issue the certificate.
We don’t need it.
We know your type of people very well.
You created Sunni, Shia, Ahmadi, Wahabi and so on firqas expelling them out of Islam, as if Islam is your father’s property.
The people, like you, forced Akbar to abandon Islam at last and devise an altogether new religion Dine Ilahi that was the religion of state from thereon.
I don’t expect you to realize your fatal mistakes even now.
You are so convinced that the interpretations of Muslim Badshahs are only the real Islam that you are not paying any attention to the Qur’anic verses I am quoting again and again.
You are not telling, in the presence of these Aayate Kareemat, why you are right and why I am wrong.
You just avoid them and go on repeating your baseless silly accusations repetitively:
And when they are told:’Follow what Allah has revealed’, they say:’No, we shall follow what we found our forefathers practicing.’
What! Even if their forefathers lacked understanding, and right guidance?
Those who have refused to follow the way of Allah resemble cattle; when the shepherd calls them they hear nothing except shouting and crying.
They are deaf, dumb, and blind, and so they understand nothing.’
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 170 171

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p18#c439

AAAA told:
‘who is akber what is dine illahi, it is people like you and theis is one writer from india Arun shourie who always quote the things out of the context and malign islam. you can check all my post, we are arabs and we believe in only Allah and the messanger thats it. don’t try to spread fake things , you are hypocrites at one end you are hindu and the other end you are saying you believe in Allah, that’s what is said in Sahih Bukhari about the Hypocrites.”they say they are one of you when they are with you, when they are behind they will refuse it”.
i have quote everything with Ref, ok.
can you or your PHD wife Read what surah baqrah says in Versus 221. and explain it if you are not hypocrites.
And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad, Peace Be
Upon Him) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and
follows other than the believers'(Ummah/Sahaba) ways. We shall keep
him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell – what an evil
destination.(Surah An-Nisaa 4:115)
who is badshah and akbar may be they are your ideal.
our muslims Role model is Only Muhammed SAW got it.
you country people now akber, badshah and all that stupied people .
we now Khaled bin waleed, have you ever heard of him or you PHD wife? all the companians?
i now your country specially of politics .
anyways MAKE UP YOUR MIND , don’t live in confused state.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p18#c440

I replied:
‘Sorry! So, I have touched your paining nerve?
I expected so.
I wanted to bring your real identity on Internet.
I am glad I’ve succeeded.
Returning to your old ethnic pride?

That’s what you Arab people did, after martyrdom of Hazrat Ali(A).
All your old Arab ethnicity awakened and in the new disguise of Islam, you started to quarrel with each other resuming your own old dirty ethnic qabaili quarrels Islam had succeeded in postponing at last.

Under the great Khilafat of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq(R), Hazrat Umar(R), Hazrat Usman Ghani(R) and Hazrat Ali(A), you people had learned profoundly that your old dirty Arab ethnicity which was termed Jahiliyat, Ignorance, can never flourish up if the real Islam will remain in power. So you people, I mean people like you in then Arab, conspired and started to quarrel with each other, keeping aside the great Islamic brotherhood, as you are ignoring all the Aayaate Kareemat I am quoting.
The conspiracy brought, ultimately, Hazrat Myavia(A) into power ostensibly and Mal’oon Yazeed actually.
It resulted into Karbala.
Don’t throw stones on our Indian history.
Your Arabian history is also not very good.
You are priding on Huzoor(S) today while the separatists Arabs like you caused Karbala, knowingly or unknowingly it does not make any difference.
You have with all your non Islamic dirty ethnic pride have written:
‘who is akber what is dine illahi, it is people like you.’

Yes! Akbar was a people like us.
It is a great pride for me and my wife, Saiyada Fatima PhD in Arabic Islamic literature; that the people like you are comparing us with the great personality of Akbar the great.
As for Sidrah, she can speak for herself.
I have no right to speak for her.
She can respond on it herself.
But as for my wife and me are concerned, it is a great honor for us, that we are being compared with the great Mughal, Mughale Aazm Shahanshah Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar.
Thank you very much.
We are grateful to you.

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p18#c441

You have continued to write:
‘theis is one writer from india Arun shourie who always quote the things out of the context and malign islam.
It is now you who is bringing the matter out of context in discussion.
I am not going to respond it positively or otherwise.
I’m not responsible for what others of my countrypeople do.
Arun Shourie is a great writer and is fully competent to defend himself.

He does not need me to advocate him.
You have written:
‘you can check all my post, we are arabs and we believe in only Allah and the messanger thats it.’
I don’t need to.

I believe you if you say so, because it is sufficient for me to accept a person’s validity of Eiman, if one declares so.
I never go to the extent to call him hypocrite.
I, and my wife joins me in this attitude; leave these great services of Islam to the people like you.
We don’t qualify such great services.
It suits to you high ethnic Arab people.
Keep it on and separate all the persons from each other who claim to be Muslims on this pretext or another.
You are doing a great service.
Even Huzoor(S) could not do it.
There were no Shia or Sunni as long as he(S) was present on the Earth.
You have written further:
don’t try to spread fake things , you are hypocrites at one end you are hindu and the other end you are saying you believe in Allah, that’s what is said in Sahih Bukhari about the Hypocrites.”they say they are one of you when they are with you, when they are behind they will refuse it”.

How do you know what we do behind?
Are you omniscient?
We have read in Qur’ane Azeem that only Allah is omniscient.

I did not know you Arabs also share Him in this privilege!
Great!
What an Eiman!
You further write:
‘i have quote everything with Ref, ok.
can you or your PHD wife Read what surah baqrah says in Versus 221. and explain it if you are not hypocrites.’
As if you care what we explain.
Everyone can see who is hypocrite!
You have quoted:
And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad, Peace Be
Upon Him) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and
follows other than the believers'(Ummah/Sahaba) ways. We shall keep
him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell – what an evil
destination.(Surah An-Nisaa 4:115)

I have already replied it.
Let me copy paste what I had written:

”I am neither contradicting nor opposing Huzoor(S).
‘The Jews say that the Christians have nothing and the Christians say that the Jews have nothing of it, though both read the Scripture. And those who have no knowledge of the Scripture also make similar claims. Allah will surely give His judgment on the Day of Resurrection in all the matters in which they differ.’
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 113
‘The fact is that no one has any special claim to Paradise; whoever surrenders himself to Allah in obedience and follows the Right Way, shall get his reward from his Lord: there shall be neither fear nor grief for such people.’
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 112
‘wala taAAthaw fee al-ardi mufsideena’
Do not spread disorder on earth.
Al Qur’an Al Majeed 2 Al Baqarah: 60.
‘Whenever it is said to them, “Spread not disorder on the earth”, their reply is, “We only seek to put things aright”.
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 11
‘Beware! They do spread disorder but they realize it not.’
Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 12
I believe Allah knows better what is Islam than you.
Sorry to differ with you altogether in the matter.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p19#c442

‘The last part of what you have written is:
‘who is badshah and akbar may be they are your ideal.
our muslims Role model is Only Muhammed SAW got it.
you country people now akber, badshah and all that stupied people .’
‘Great! Akbar was stupid for this proudy stupid Arab.
Is he really Muslim?
Vallah aalam Vissawab!
His manners indicate otherwise!

You continued to write:
we now Khaled bin waleed, have you ever heard of him or you PHD wife? all the companians?’

See this foolish person!
He is asking whether a PhD in Arabic Islamic literature and her husband, even Hindu, have heard about Hazrat Khalid bin Valeed(R).

What an understanding!

‘i now your country specially of politics .’
How specialized knowledge you have!
Nobody, except you great Arab people, has succeeded to know this greatest secret!
‘anyways MAKE UP YOUR MIND , don’t live in confused state.’
The foolish person is himself/herself, I don’t know which, he/she is afraid of using his/her real name, confused and imposing his/her confusion on us.
Huzoor! Sarkar! Arab the great! My mind is already made up!My mind is already made up!My mind is already made up!
You have finished with:

‘don’t live in confused state.’
I am absolutely clear in my mind!I am absolutely clear in my mind!I am absolutely clear in my mind!
Thanks for the concern shown!
Hamare bhi hain meharban kaise kaise!’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p19#c443

I said:
‘What did you expect from me when you called all my country people Stupid people?
‘you country people now akber, badshah and all that stupied people .’
Did you expect I will be glad that you have called all my country people Stupid and will announce that ‘I love you for your great love for me and my country people?
You used first this word ‘Stupid’ and now you yourself are complaining for it?
What an attitude!
Great manners!
My country people were not talking to you.
What was the context to call all my country people Stupid?
If one abuses one one should be prepared to be abused.
Instead, the entire Internet Community can appreciate my civilized reaction that I have called Stupid only you, not all your country people.
They can’t be held responsible for your attitude.
Nevertheless, I did not mean it.
It was only to show you and make you realize that you should not have done it.
I’m sorry! I don’t think you are really stupid. It were bad manners in response to your bad manners!
I am profoundly sorry that I have to resort to that attitude.
You did not leave another option for me.
Sorry again nevertheless!
Now, why have you written that long passage?
You have not clarified it.
If you think I advocate all those inhuman activities of the so called Hindus, you are quite wrong. I don’t.
However, I don’t know the full details.
As such, I am not a suitable person to comment on it.
If the incidences happened as you described it is inhumane and barbaric, but my experience is that the media is generally anti Hindu in the matters.
I’m giving two links here.
If you like to go on the matter, you may click the links and can understand what I mean by it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Hinduism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Brahminism

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p19#c455

Salman wrote:
<quoted text>
We should not adopt hypocrisy and should give simple answers.
We Muslims believe what Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) did was right hence I as a Muslim will act like our Prophet (SAW) did. My question was not that how you differ with Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) instead it was can u do the same what Prophet (SAW) did?
It’s a simple Yes or No my friend!’

I said:

‘No! It is not a simple case of yes and no!
And if you still think it a simple case of yes and no, you have not understood what why and when Huzoor(S) did what he(S) did.
He(S) did not do it until he had won Mecca and thereby physically had changed the law of the land.
He respected the law of the land more than you so called Muslims do.
He never imposed his version of Islam on others.
He was a great personality and you are not following even his(S) shadow.
You think you follow him(S).
‘think’, not ‘follow’ really.
Until and unless he(S) did not succeed in changing the law of the land, what did he do?
He(S) followed the law of the land.
He(S) did not only differ with the law of the land, he(S) hated it immensely.

Yet, he(S) respected it to the extent that when a Muslim was captured by the then Mushrikeene Arab, and succeeded in running away from them, in spite of the fact that none of the Muslims agreed with him(S), he(S) returned the Muslim to the Mushrikeene Arab.

It was the respect of the law of the land, till it was the law of the land.
And, as soon as he(S) was capable to change it, he(S) changed it with a blow and then, THEN, he(S) crushed the idols.
So, Janab Salman Sahab! it was the seerat Sarvare Aalam(S)which won the then rotten globe.

What do you think, India was not benefited by him(S) then?
You are quite mistaken again.
According to Bhavishy’Puran, the Great Poet of Sanskr’t Mahakavi Kalidas went to Huzoor(S) and according to the same Puran, he embraced Islam.
Huzoor(S) wanted Hazrat Zainab bint Jahash(R) should not divorce his(S) slave Hazrat Zaid bin Haris, she(R) refused to agree with him(S).
What did he(S) do?
Declared her(R) out of Islam?
Said she(R) were not a Muslimah anymore,  as she refused to obey him(S)?

No! He(S) allowed her(S) what she wanted to do and married her(R) himself, even against all the criticism till now!
He did not impose his(S) version of Islam on anyone.
He preached Islam, not his(S) version of Islam.

You people claim to follow that great personalty(S).
Understand him(S) before you claim.
No! I also respect the law of the land as Huzoor(S) did.

Therefore I will never crush idols till it is prohibited in the law of the land.

Thanks for bearing with me so far!’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p19#c456

I said further:
‘No! I am not confused at all.
The difference of opinion arises because we don’t mean the same thing when we use the words already very much in use.
I believe the religion is what our divine books preach, not that we believe and practice.
When I use the word Hinduism I always mean what the Ved preaches, irrespective of what the so called Hindus believe, practice, or preach.
Their wishes are not Hinduism.
It is not my self devised definition of Hinduism.
Ved claims:
svayambhooryathatathyatoartha nvyadadhachchhashvateebhyah samabhyah

The Self Existent has constituted the values for eternal subjects forever according to facts.’

Ved:2Y: 40/8.

Manusmr’ti supports it:
‘Vedo’khilo dharmmoolam’
‘The entire Ved is the root of Dharm.’

–Manusmr’ti 2|6

‘Dharmjigyasmananam pramanam paramam Shrutih’.
‘For the persons who want to know what the Dharm is, Ved is the absolute criteria.’

–Manusmr’ti 2|13

You don’t believe it.
You believe Hinduism is what you find in the practices of the so called Hindus.
It is the fundamental difference of opinion we two have between us.

Till we have this fundamental difference, there will always be this or that differences between our discussions.
We will never agree with each other.

Similarly, I believe Islam is what Qur’ano ahadeese muqaddasat tell us, not what Muslims believe, do and practice.
You differ with me here also.
You believe Islam is what interpreted by the Muslim Badshahs or for them also.
I differ with you strongly and fundamentally.
It brings all the other differences between us about Islam and Muslims.
The difference of opinion will always be there as we differ in our fundamental definitions.

Sorry! but it is the actual truth.
Sorry to differ with you so profoundly.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p17#c418@@@

Salman said:
‘Durgesh!
My friend I just want to say that I m no one to judge any one’s Iman it is a matter which must be decided by Allah. But what I have under stood after talking to you that you believe on one God but you said that you are a Hindu at the same time; but there are some other believes in Islam which differs from Hinduism so how can you say that both the religions are same?
For example Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) crushed the idols after the conquest of Macca so being a Hindu can you do this?(Again I would say don’t get me wrong and I m not giving any Muslim king example I m giving the example of Prophet Muhammad (SAW)).’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p17#c416

I said:
‘Again the same objection that I have already answered.
When I say I am a Hindu, I do not mean that I am an Idol worshiper.
I hate idol worship.
According to Ved Eishan Param Brahm Paramatma, i.e. the God, has no idol at all.
You find an image of idol worshiper as soon as you hear the word Hindu.
That is the trouble between us.
We don’t mean same thing by the word Hindu.
The definition of Hindu is not my self devised definition.
It is written in Sanskr’t dictionaries.
Shabd Kalpdrum/Raamkosh states:
‘Hindurdushtnr’h prokto’naary’neetividooshakah
Saddharmpaalako Vidvan Shrautdharmparaayanah.’
‘A Hindu is the one who never compromise with a wicked. He abolishes the wicked policies. He practices the religion of existence. He is full of wisdom. He is efficient in Dharm as preached in Ved.’
The other definitions of Hindu also follow this dictionary meaning:
‘Hinsaya dooyate chittam yasy’ tadapi hinasti dushtan yah s’ Hindurityabhidheeyate.’
‘One whose conscience does not feel at ease at violence, but nevertheless he kills a wicked is called a Hindu.’
You do not accept these authentic definitions of a Hindu and I am adamant that these are the only authentic definitions of a Hindu.

I am Hindu according to these authentic definitions.

Whenever I claim to be Hindu I always refer to these authentic definitions, not to an idolater.
You can see yourself there is nothing to associate idolatry with Hinduism in these definitions.

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p17#c419

AAAA wrote:
<quoted text>
brother salman,
Can you ask your friend to quote a single verse or give any referance about the story he is telling about Rasool??
in the whole world the enemy of islam are manupulating and modifying the authentic islam shariah??
where did he read about this? is their any evidence??’

I replied:

‘So the hypocrite, calling hypocrite others, has not even read Seerat Sarvare Aalam(S) profoundly.
Yet, he claims that he follows him(S)!
Great! He follows the personality(S) he does not even know profoundly. And he declares others out of Islam!
Carry on!
You are exposing yourself in front of the entire Internet Community as more you are commenting on me.
Janab Salman Sahab! Have you also not studied Seerat Sarvare Aalam so profoundly?
I sympathize with all you people!
Learn what the real Islam is, before preaching it to others!’
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8I…

I continued further:
Everybody has his own version of the ideology he practices.
You have not thought of it?
Well, think now!
Why did Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq(R) nominate Hazrat Umar(R) his janasheen Khaleefa while Huzoor(S) did not do it?
Why did the entire Muslim Community then, not opposed him(R) that he(R) is not following (?) Huzoor(S)?
Tell MR.AAAA to answer it.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p20#c463

AAAA wrote:
‘brother salman,
Can you ask your friend to quote a single verse or give any referance about the story he is telling about Rasool??
in the whole world the enemy of islam are manupulating and modifying the authentic islam shariah??
where did he read about this? is their any evidence??’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p19#c458

Naturally, I smiled at it:
‘Well, the entire Internet Community must observe and notice that the hypocrite does not know even what Huzoor(s) did, when and why.
Instead of studying Seerat Sarvare Aalam(S) profoundly, he is preaching others what the Islam is and declaring others to be out of Islam.
Great!
‘Whenever it is said to them, “Spread not disorder on the earth”, their reply is, “We only seek to put things aright”.
Al Qur’ān Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 11
‘Beware! They do spread disorder but they realize it not.’
Al Qur’ān Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 12

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p20#c464

Disparately AAAA wrote:
‘what is seerat savare Alaam, can you explain, we took our islamic teaching in Madinah munawarah university , we haven’t heard of this teaching or no Mutawaah nows about this, what is this??
and the 3 versus of surah Baqarah is surely implemented for you people.
(49. 15 )
: Only those are Believers who have believed in Allah and His Messenger, and have never since doubted, but have striven with their belongings and their persons in the Cause of Allah: Such are the sincere ones.
(49.17 )
: They impress on thee as a favour that they have embraced Islam. Say, “Count not your Islam as a favour upon me: Nay, Allah has conferred a favour upon you that He has guided you to the faith, if ye be true and sincere.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p20#c465

I smiled again:
‘Still trying to save your face? You think all I reiterated never happened in the history?
Well, go through all the authentic versions of Seerat Sarvare Aalam.
All the authentic complete books on Seerat(S) contain it.
Study the great life of the Muhsine Insaniyat(S).
I promise you you will really enjoy it and it will enhance your Eiman, moreover.
Learn what the real Islam is yourself.
Don’t hear it from others.
Learn yourself.
Allah hafiz, mr.AAAA! you did not tell me your real name after all.
What is there to hide it?
Anyway, Allah hafiz!’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p20#c466

Panicked AAAA said frantically:
‘i don’t want to spoil my Iman by reading which was not taught to us from Allah & rasool.
we obey Allah & his messanger , QURAN & Hadith. thats it , the other books are for the people whose iman is not strong or for the munafikh.
as i told earlier by asking my name you want to run away from the topic, i m not interested in nowing real name too.
spread this fake knowledge of islam to those name sake muslims of your country whose iman is weak.
what is that seerat, sawareay and i don’t now what else, hahah
below ayat was released for people like you
CH:2 V:11
“WHEN WE SAYS TO THEM DON’T PLAY MISCHEIF ON EARTH, THEY SAY THEY ARE PEACE MAKERS”.
2 : 13
” When it is said to them: “Believe as the others believe:” They say: “Shall we believe as the fools believe?” Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but they do not know.
Masalaama Yakhi’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p20#c467

I laughed at him:
‘Look at him.
His Eiman is in danger if he reads Seerat Sarvare Aalam(S).
Great!
You are the unique person.
Repeating the Aayate Kareemat I quoted?
Well, children learn gradually.
Keep on to Watch my comments. You will learn more.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p20#c468

Salman briefed the idiot AAAA:
‘AAAA,

Hazrat Zainab bint Jahsh(R) was a Muslim lady of the Qur’aish aristocracy and the Prophet’s cousin. On his request, she agreed to marry his freed slave and adopted son, Zaid Bin Haris(R). However the marriage was not successful, and ended in divorce. The Prophet, peace be upon him, subsequently married Zainab.

Durgesh,
The Matter between Hazrat Zainab bint Jahsh(R) and Zaid Bin Haris(R) was their internal matter there was no question of belief or disbelief by the way she didn’t marry a non-Muslim and Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) never gave punishment to any one on lawful personal matters. Islam permits a woman to marry with her own wish but not to a non-Muslim.

Don’t forget that Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) on many occasions had said that nobody is exempt from the rule of Islam even his dear daughter Fatima(R). For instance, when a woman named Fatima was brought to him with the charges of stealing. The holy prophet ordered to cut her hand. She prayed for mercy and forgiveness for her crime. He said that even if his daughter were there, he would have ordered the same because there’s no exemption in the rules of Islam.

Yes, Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq(R) nominated Hazrat Umar(R) his janasheen or Khaleefa so what is the point? There was no alteration in the religion if he had nominated Hazrat Umar(R).’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p20#c471

I said:
‘Salman! your real name ashamed friend AAAA is causing your intelligence also to diminish.
You were brilliant till now, but see how his foolish aura is affecting you now:
You write:
‘The Matter between Hazrat Zainab bint Jahsh(R) and Zaid Bin Haris(R) was their internal matter.’
Who said it was not? who said it was an external matter?
I have written:
‘Huzoor(S) wanted Hazrat Zainab bint Jahash(R) should not divorce his(S) slave Hazrat Zaid bin Haris, she(R) refused to agree with him(S).
What did he(S) do?
Declared her(R) out of Islam?
Said she(R) were not a Muslima anymore as she(R) refused to obey him(S)?
No! He(S) allowed her(S) what she wanted to do and married her(R) himself, even against all the criticism till now!
He did not impose his(S) version of Islam on anyone.
He preached Islam, not his(S) version of Islam.
You people claim to follow that great personalty(S).
Understand him(S) before you claim.’
It is clear from the excerpt itself that it was referred to explain why you people’s attitude differs with the attitude of Huzoor(S) so profoundly.
You are adamantly forcing your personal views and the views of outdated Muslim Badshahs in the name of Islam and insisting that if they are not accepted the person you are talking with is not a Muslim.
I gave an example that Huzoor(S) allowed even to differ with him(S).
He did not announce the persons are out of Islam.
In this context, there was no question of my marriage with a Saiyad Muslim girl, Saiyada Fatima PhD.
That question is separately answered by the answer of your question about what I would do with the idols.
I have answered that I would crush them if the law of the land permits me to do it.
With this final answer it is proved that I’m not a Non Muslim as you people are barking  ab initio.
Yet, you go on again to question the validity of our marriage.
Again starting from ABCD.
This great quality of never reading the answer, and going again and again repeating your question; was not in you, before.
Your friend AAAA had this great, full of wisdom, quality right from the beginning.
Now you are also developing it.
Great!
He is not improving. You are going down.
What a progress!

The question of nomination for Khilafat was also raised to prove the point that Huzoor(S) were more democrat than even Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq(R).
You missed it.
You never missed my point before .
It is the first time.
While your friend AAAA is so full of prejudices against me that he never got my any point.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p20#c472

Salman wrote:
‘Durgesh!
I didn’t miss your point. May be I failed to convey my message, anyways the point which I was trying to convey is Yes, Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) didn’t announce that the people who don’t obey him are out of Islam but there are different type of matters for example if someone say something wrong about Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) he is out of Islam or if a Muslim woman marry a non-believer than the marriage is null and void (and I was not targeting you specifically it was an example)where as if someone steals something than you cannot say that he/she is out of Islam although it is a wrong act. The example of Hazrat Fatima (R) which I gave was because even Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) was bound to obey the Islamic law b/c it is the law of Allah.

I had seen your answer about idols. If you are a Muslim than I think you should declare it openly and if you can’t because of family and society and you are a Muslim who believes on only Allah than I m sorry for considering you a Hindu.’
He wrote further:
‘Again I am sorry if u are a Muslim and I hurt your feelings but this doesn’t mean than I am against Hindus that’s why after I m saying this after knowing that u r a Muslim no Muslim (including AAAA) is against Hinduism.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p20#c474

I said:

‘Salman! I believe you. But your friend AAAA is a cheater. He/she defends vulgarism, acts judge and expels the persons out of Islam while he does not have any deep knowledge of Islam himself. His bluff must be called off. His attitude is dangerous to the society. Sorry! if you don’t agree with me.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p20#c477

Salman said:
‘But Durgesh we need to figure out this issue .I have said that if you are a Muslim or if you were a Hindu and then you accepted Islam after that you married your wife its great. but what about a Muslim girl who is married to a Hindu guy? Their status of marriage is null and void according to Quran. isn’t it?’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p20#c478

AAAA said:
‘Brother Salman,
i can tell you the stories of many prophets here like people of Aad & samud during Saleh alaisalaam,Nuh alai salaam etc. but what i m trying to say is we have to follow shahada,
after reciting the shahada just believe in Allah and messenger thats it, A Role model for all the muslims should be only Muhammed SAW.
Allah Almighty warns the Muslims:
“O you who believe, if a wicked evildoer comes to you with a news
report, look carefully into it to verify the truth, lest you harm a
people in ignorance and afterwards feel remorseful for what you have
done.”
(Quran, 49:6)’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p20#c479

Salman replied AAAA:
‘AAAA,
I agree with you but we should answer Durgesh if he has some questions in his mind. There was a misunderstanding and I even thought that he is a Hindu but he has accepted that he is a Muslim and maybe he have some family or society problems that’s why he can’t declare openly that he is a Muslim.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p20#c480

AAAA said:
‘Durgesh jabalpur wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I invite all the so called Muslims who think they know and practice Islam better, to reply him.
As for me, I don’t think Islam also does preach violence.
It preaches violence only if there is no other way to remove inhumanity.
Well, Lord Bhagvan Ram, The Maryada Purushottam even, had to surrender to violence against Raxasas and their king Ravan.

Lord Bhagvan Kr’shn, also had to do the same against Kans, Duryodhan, Jarasandh, etc.
The only difference is they did not have any barbarism of Pre Islamic Arabs, as Islam had to face.
In Karbala, Yazeed Mal’oon revived that old Pre Islamic Arab barbarism.

All the later Muslim kings used it with the name of Islam.
Huzoor(S) lost his daughter’s son in Karbala.
So, he(S) was also a prey of this so called Jihad!
It was not Jihad.
It was a dirty political warfare and Islam is not responsible for it.
That, my friends! is my view.
You may discuss it, but I have a long history and Qur’ano Ahadeese Muqaddasat to support my view.’

AAAA argued desparately:
‘Can you quote us the Referance for any of the above? if its related to Islam as you are mention Islam , Islam again & again?
the below even though you understand you wont go with it i know but still, as i told earlier….
Don’t judge a car by its driver:
If you want to judge how good is the latest model of the “Mercedes” car and a person who does not know how to drive sits at the steering wheel and bangs up the car, who will you blame? The car or the driver? But naturally, the driver. To analyze how good the car is, a person should not look at the driver but see the ability and features of the car. How fast is it, what is its average fuel consumption, what are the safety measures, etc. Even if I agree for the sake of argument that the Muslims are bad, we can’t judge Islam by its followers? If you want to judge how good Islam is then judge it according to its authentic sources, i.e. the Glorious Qur’an and the Sahih Hadith.
. Judge Islam by its best follower i.e. Prophet Mohammed (pbuh):
If you practically want to check how good a car is put an expert driver behind the steering wheel. Similarly the best and the most exemplary follower of Islam by whom you can check how good Islam is, is the last and final messenger of God, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Besides Muslims, there are several honest and unbiased non-Muslim historians who have acclaimed that prophet Muhammad was the best human being. According to Michael H. Hart who wrote the book,‘The Hundred Most Influential Men in History’, the topmost position, i.e. the number one position goes to the beloved prophet of Islam, Muhammad (pbuh). There are several such examples of non-Muslims paying great tributes to the prophet, like Thomas Carlyle, La-Martine, etc
” Only those are Believers who have believed in Allah and His Messenger, and have never since doubted, but have striven with their belongings and their persons in the Cause of Allah: Such are the sincere ones”.
QURAN (49. 15 )’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p22#c508

My response:
‘Well, look at her.
She/he is unable to understand what I wrote.
What did you understand the great believer in Islam! that you want the proof of?
Whether there was no Karbala?
Was Yazeed Mal’oon not its villain?
Was Yazeed not supported by his father Hazrat Myavia(R)?
Did Hazrat Myavia(R) not claim he(R) were right?
Was he(R)not responsible for the end of Khilafate Rashida thus?
Were Hazrat Myavia(R) also a real khaleefa as Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq(R) were? as Hazrat Umar (R) were? as Hazrat Usman ghani (R) were? as Hazrat Ali (R) were?
If not, for what are you asking proof?
As you claim, you are the only true Muslim left in the world now.
All the others are Munafiqeen or liable to be expelled from Islam.
Answer him gravely.
Let’s see what the Efficient Ms/Mr AAAA has to say.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p22#c509

Salman tried to mediate:
‘The problem is people often relate freedom struggles and terrorism(they both are different things) with Islam. If you people can see that how Palestine,Kashmir,Iraq are under occupation and people used to relate their struggle with violence.
People often choose that part of the religion which suits them. Extremes on either side are harmful if we say that Yazeed was right it is false and if we say that Mughal emperor Akbar was right than it is also wrong.
We can take the example of Muhammad Bin Qasim who was forced to attach sindh but later on he proved that he was a good ruler.
About Hazrat Amir Muawiya(R) supporting Yazeed is a disputed issue and different schools of thoughts of Islam have their own view on this.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p22#c512

Further:
‘Durgesh,
I condemn the nick of that guy against India but some other Indians use vulgur language against Pakistan we should condemn them all.

Similarly as you cannot hear something against India we can’t hear any thing against Pakistan.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p22#c513

I said:
‘if we say that Yazeed was right it is false and if we say that Mughal emperor Akbar was right than it is also wrong.’
So you compare Yazeed Mal’oon with Akbar?
What are the similarities,you have found, in both of them?
Yazeed Mal’oon was a blood hound.

Akbar was a person of peace.
Yazeed destroyed the great humanistic movement of Islam, continued so far by the great martyr Kaleefas Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq(R), Hazrat Umar (R), Hazrat Usman ghani (R), and Hazrat Ali (R).
He is the villain of entire humanity.
The entire humankind must condemn Yazeed Mal’oon forever.
It was Yazeed Mal’oon who destroyed the dreams of Huzoor(S).
He revived the old Arab barbarism in the disguise of Islam.
It was the first political misuse of the name of Islam.
The later Muslim kings misutilized it again and again for their own vested dirty political interests.
Yazeed Mal’oon provided them the role model.
The case of Akbar is exactly opposite.
He hated the violence in the so called Islam.
He tried to stop Bairam Khan to kill Hemu or Hemchandr Vikramadity’ as his full name was.
Bairam Khan did not stop and killed Hemu or Hemchandr Vikramadity‘ in the name of Islam.
Akbar was shocked.
He could not imagine why it was necessary.
In his ignorance, he started to hate Islam, while he should have hated the so called Muslims of the time who were blood hounds.
None told Bairam Khan how Muhsine Insaniyat(S) forgave his(S) and even Islam’s worst enemies so far when Makka was won.
It is not highlighted ever as it does not suit the vile purposes of the transgressors.
Huzoor(S) are painted in front of non Muslims as if he(S) were also (Nauzbillah!) a blood hound like them.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p22#c515

Further:
‘I understand. And I respect your patriotism.
I condemn all the vulgarities.
However, I expect Muslims to behave more responsibly:
Do not revile those whom they invoke other than Allah, because they will revile Allah in ignorance out of spite.’
Al Qur’an Al Majeed: 6 Al An’am 108.
Will the Muslims be forgiven, for not obeying Al Qur’an Al Majeed, on the ground that the non Muslims did not obey it?
The forum is being watched internationally.
What is the character of a Muslim it depicting?
Should Muslims don’t watch themselves?
They are representative of Islam.
Should they not act more responsibly?
May Allah Rabbil Aalmeen bless all of us.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p22#c516

AAAA tried to defend himself in vain:
‘this is MR AAAA , what her or she you are using.
just you tell me one thing , what is that you are trying to proof? you believe in ALlah but you are not a muslim?
what is that you are trying to proof? this doesn’t say your are confused guy?
: Only those are Believers who have believed in Allah and His Messenger, and have never since doubted, but have striven with their belongings and their persons in the Cause of Allah: Such are the sincere ones.
QURAN (49. 15 )
QURAN : 5: 36
” As to those who reject Faith,- if they had everything on earth, and twice repeated, to give as ransom for the penalty of the Day of Judgment, it would never be accepted of them, theirs would be a grievous penalty:.
QURAN : 5: 3
”Their wish will be to get out of the Fire, but never will they get out therefrom: their penalty will be one that endures”.’
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8I…

Further:
‘Tell me one thing , which is the first month according to Islam ? what does Youmal Aashur means??

as you talk about karbala and all a lot??

CH:2 V:11

“WHEN WE SAYS TO THEM DON’T PLAY MISCHEIF ON EARTH, THEY SAY THEY ARE PEACE MAKERS”.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p22#c518

I said:
‘Answer me first. You can’t just bark anything and run away.
First, answer me and then I’ll answer your new questions.
I repeat my questions for your ready reference:
‘Well, look at her.
She/he is unable to understand what I wrote.
What did you understand the great believer in Islam! that you want the proof of?
Whether there was no Karbala?
Was Yazeed Mal’oon not its villain?
Was Yazeed not supported by his father Hazrat Myavia(R)?
Did Hazrat Myavia(R) not claim he(R) were right?
Was he(R)not responsible for the end of Khilafate Rashida thus?
Were Hazrat Myavia(R) also a real khaleefa as Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq(R) were? as Hazrat Umar (R) were? as Hazrat Usman ghani (R) were? as Hazrat Ali (R) were?
If not, for what are you asking proof?
As you claim, you are the only true Muslim left in the world now.
All the others are Munafiqeen or liable to be expelled from Islam.
Answer him gravely.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p22#c519

AAAA said:
‘you may be having knowledge about the kings , why do you want to twist things with others.
their are only 4 companians and muslims ROLE MODEL should be only Muhammed SAW thats it.
if you want i can tell you the stories like the Flow chart about all the Ibn ADAM. we are not interested in it,
bottom line believe in Allah and his messenger .
don’t make things complicated and create misconception about islam.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p22#c520
I said:
‘You are the greatest enemy of Islam and the people alike.
You don’t go to the principles. You go to history and call it Islam.
Don’t tell me what Islam is. I know more than you and I have already proved it in this very Forum.
I can understand you.
You are afraid of me.
You want to keep me out and the people alike of discussing Islam.
It brings all the munafiqeen like you in broad daylight.
I am not afraid of you.
I am not shy of my real name even like you are.
So ashamed of your real name you are that you keep it secret still now.
Why?
Are your name involved with activities dangerous to the humanity as a whole?
Is is famous for gay activities?
What is there you are so ashamed of?
You have shamelessly followed your tradition:
‘why do you want to twist things with others.’
I challenge you.
Prove what I have twisted.
The entire sophisticated Internet Society has watched you and me both.
Everything is written and recorded.
Prove me wrong in anything I have written.
It’s an open challenge to you.
I’m calling your bluff openly.
Meet it.
Go through all my 606 comments and prove me wrong if I have written something injurious to humanity.
You munafiq!
You can’t do it.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p22#c521

the things made Fard(obligatory) people take it easy on stupied things spend their life.

& over all why you are interested in it, when you are not a muslim, not want to be muslims???

REFERENCE IS VERY IMPORTANT , specially in this generation, because enemy of islams are every were & we don’t trust the words which are coming out of their mouth.

masalaama

AAAA desparately tried to save his face:
‘you know islam more then me that is the reason you are HINDU-Disbeliever i think??how diplomatic,
you follow that king what was his name some AKBER , better you follow him.
the name itself is a shirk, muhammed akber, Unawzibillah. good this is what you understand about islam, always talking about history of this sort of people and xpressing you know Islam.
very good knowledge about islam you have????’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p22#c522

I challenged the hypocrite:
‘Again running away?
What about my challenge?
Prove in my 610 comments anything injurious to humanity.
Also prove in all those 610 comments anything against Qur’ano ahadeese muqaddasat.
One more thing!
Prove in all those 610 comments of mine anything against Ved.
You can’t prove it.
So, I have everything there according to Ved, according to Qur’ano ahadeese muqaddasat, according to humanity.
Prove otherwise.
What more a person need for a happy life?’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p22#c523

AAAA said:
‘enjoying and getting pleased by the opposite sex even though its against the religion fundamental against the creator then also you go with it.
Hello.. sorry you are conversing with wrong guy.
creator the almigty is more important to us .
that doesn’t mean we are not taking about humanity , islam means peace but don’t create misconception about islam just to impress or pleased humans , i hope you understand .
thats all you cannot understand it as for that you have to be beleiver first,
QURAN (49. 15 )
: Only those are Believers who have believed in Allah and His Messenger, and have never since doubted, but have striven with their belongings and their persons in the Cause of Allah: Such are the sincere ones.
In yansurkumu Allahu fala ghaliba lakum wa-in yakhthulkum faman tha allathee yansurukum min baAAdihi waAAala Allahi falyatawakkali almu/minoona
If Allah helps you, none can overcome you: If He forsakes you, who is there, after that, that can help you? in Allah, then, Let believers put their trust.
Surah Imran :(3:160)’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p22#c524

I admitted:
‘Now, at last, we are getting somewhere with this queer person!
He/She writes:
‘enjoying and getting pleased by the opposite sex even though its against the religion fundamental against the creator then also you go with it.’
He is humiliated by opposite sex perhaps and he can’t bear any person getting pleased with the opposite sex.
It is the root cause why he is so against me.
He can’t bear my extra ordinary success with the opposite sex.
Particularly, if the opposite sex is the Muslimat.
Well, I did not rape them for your kind information.
I did not go around or behind them.
I am a professional free lance writer and I don’t despise sex as you despise it.
You despise sex because you can’t get it.
I love sex because I was always offered the same from the kind and loving opposite sex.
Yes, Muslimat.
Arab Muslimat even.
They offered it, I honored them.
I don’t know what they found in me.
I don’t know what was unique in me for them.
I always asked them.
They told me I have abnormal sex capability.
They told me I love sex while their males detest it. According to them it was the unique thing I have.
Well, they offered themselves to me and I honored them.
What should have I done?
Refused to them as Hazrat Yusuf (AS) refused to Zulekha and went to Jail?
I am not Hazrat Yusuf(AS).
I never claimed to be.
He(AS) was a great personality.
I can’t even imagine to compete with him.
I respect him(AS).
Nevertheless, I am a simple and normal man.
I do not have his(AS) approach to the almighty.
If I would have to go to jail, I don’t think there will be any dream to the rulers of the day to take me out of jail.
I am not that important to the Creator as Hazrat Yusuf (AS) were.
What do you want?
I should have gone to jail instead?
Well,I refuse.
Yes, I enjoyed and still enjoy the opposite sex offered to me by themselves.
So what?
It is our, I repeat, OUR, PERSONAL MATTER.
They wanted to enjoy sex with me.
I honored their kind and only human wishes.
Why is it crime against the Creator?
No. It was not.
I did not rape them.
They did not rape me.
What happened, happened with mutual consent.
We all enjoyed it very much.
If Creator had not approved of it, He could have stopped us, as easily as He can.
You feel humiliated because they are Muslimat.
Why should you?
You are not their guardian.
Even if you were, they are adults themselves.
They have all rights on their own bodies.
Certainly, you can’t claim that they did not have the rights you have.
And if you want religious confirmation, I have it here:
‘Udyachchhadhvamap raxo hanathemam
nareem sukr’te dadhat.’
‘Stand up! make the wicked run away beating him up. Give this woman to the man who does noble deeds.’
Ved: 4 Atharvved: Kand 14: Sookt 1: Mantr 59.’
I follow Ved. I am a Hindu. I never denied it.’

I admitted:
‘Now, at last, we are getting somewhere with this queer person!
He/She writes:
‘enjoying and getting pleased by the opposite sex even though its against the religion fundamental against the creator then also you go with it.’
He is humiliated by opposite sex perhaps and he can’t bear any person getting pleased with the opposite sex.
It is the root cause why he is so against me.
He can’t bear my extra ordinary success with the opposite sex.
Particularly, if the opposite sex is the Muslimat.
Well, I did not rape them for your kind information.
I did not go around or behind them.
I am a professional free lance writer and I don’t despise sex as you despise it.
You despise sex because you can’t get it.
I love sex because I was always offered the same from the kind and loving opposite sex.
Yes, Muslimat.
Arab Muslimat even.
They offered it, I honored them.
I don’t know what they found in me.
I don’t know what was unique in me for them.
I always asked them.
They told me I have abnormal sex capability.
They told me I love sex while their males detest it. According to them it was the unique thing I have.
Well, they offered themselves to me and I honored them.
What should have I done?
Refused to them as Hazrat Yusuf (AS) refused to Zulekha and went to Jail?
I am not Hazrat Yusuf(AS).
I never claimed to be.
He(AS) was a great personality.
I can’t even imagine to compete with him.
I respect him(AS).
Nevertheless, I am a simple and normal man.
I do not have his(AS) approach to the almighty.
If I would have to go to jail, I don’t think there will be any dream to the rulers of the day to take me out of jail.
I am not that important to the Creator as Hazrat Yusuf (AS) were.
What do you want?
I should have gone to jail instead?
Well,I refuse.
Yes, I enjoyed and still enjoy the opposite sex offered to me by themselves.
So what?
It is our, I repeat, OUR, PERSONAL MATTER.
They wanted to enjoy sex with me.
I honored their kind and only human wishes.
Why is it crime against the Creator?
No. It was not.
I did not rape them.
They did not rape me.
What happened, happened with mutual consent.
We all enjoyed it very much.
If Creator had not approved of it, He could have stopped us, as easily as He can.
You feel humiliated because they are Muslimat.
Why should you?
You are not their guardian.
Even if you were, they are adults themselves.
They have all rights on their own bodies.
Certainly, you can’t claim that they did not have the rights you have.
And if you want religious confirmation, I have it here:
‘Udyachchhadhvamap raxo hanathemam
nareem sukr’te dadhat.’
‘Stand up! make the wicked run away beating him up. Give this woman to the man who does noble deeds.’
Ved: 4 Atharvved: Kand 14: Sookt 1: Mantr 59.’
I follow Ved. I am a Hindu. I never denied it.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p22#c525

AAAA said:
‘by your comments we can make out what kind of a guy you are pleasure seekers.
as you just want SEX thats it, for that you want to utilise this and gain the trust and attack them from behind, i can make it out.
it useless conversing with you,
we go for Halaal thing not for HARAAM,
HARAAM IS you life style . as alhamdulila i m muslims i go for Halaal.
this is the difference between you & US.’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p23#c533

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p20#c480

DAK London, UK commented:
‘Mutauly consented sex should not be anyone’s business. Of course the parties invovled sshould not hurt innocent third party’s stake when they are already invovled. however, the decision is theirs.
Sex in this way is not like killing or incitement to killing. But rape should be haram, even after military conquests.
How many of elder Pakistani soldiers took part in rapes in foramer East Pakistan? How many brought to justice? Was that halal or haram?’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p23#c534

I said:
‘I copy paste what Dak has written.
You may take it as my answer to you too:
Mutauly consented sex should not be anyone’s business. Of course the parties invovled sshould not hurt innocent third party’s stake when they are already invovled. however, the decision is theirs.
Sex in this way is not like killing or incitement to killing. But rape should be haram, even after military conquests.
How many of elder Pakistani soldiers took part in rapes in foramer East Pakistan? How many brought to justice? Was that halal or haram?’

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p23#c539

I thanked Dak too:
‘Thank you my friend!

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p23#c540

I said further:
‘While the answer, DAK provided, is the complete answer to him, let’s analyze his comment.
This person is profoundly jealous of me because perhaps the opposite sex has rejected him entirely .
Yet, the same opposite sex is ravenous to have me to the extent that even no religious prohibition can stop them from it.
Let’s analyze why it is so.
AAA is unable to understand that some males have exceptionally abnormal sexual capabilities.
It is a fact and no fact can be argued.
A fact is a fact.
One has to accept it.
Even if it is rejected, the fact remains a fact nevertheless.
Similarly, AAAA cannot understand that there are some females who have abnormal sexual lust.(Contd.
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8I…
He must go through:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_male_sexua…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallic_symbol#I…
From his so far communal and immensely illogical posts I doubt he will ever go through these links.
However, it will help the persons interested to understand my wife, me and my female friends more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_female_sex…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersexuality
This post is for analytical purpose only.
He does not need to answer it.

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/T8IF30JQNC11F5L81/p23#c546

Challenger India responded:

Durgesh jabalpur wrote:
Sidrah Bombay, India said:
‘Salman wrote:
‘About Namaz Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) said that “the only difference between a believer and a non-believer is Namaz”.’
So in that case, you do agree that a person who observes salat is not a kaafir, right?

Who is sidrah? Who is salman? What is the background of this statement?’

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/hindu/TP2P6FRCNPV69P5ND/p3#c46

I replied:

Read original posts.
I’ve given continuous links everywhere.
Ask Salman for the statement.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/hindu/TP2P6FRCNPV69P5ND/p3#c48

Challenger was too moron to understand my post. He asked again:

Which posts? Give reference names. Mr. Salman! Who is this Salman?

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/hindu/TP2P6FRCNPV69P5ND/p3#c49

Naturally, He was ashamed of the realization that what say is stark naked TRUTH:

Most Present day Muslms don’t do what Huzoor(SAW) did.

Satyamev jayte naanr’tam.

Ultimately, Truth prevails.

‘Fabiayyi aalaai Rabbikumaa tukazzibaani’

Which of the bounties of your Lordwill you, twain, then deny?’

–Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 55 Ar-Rahman|13-77.

————————————————————————————————————————————-

More on Islam from DSM Sayarthi:

1. Bal huv qur’anum majeedun fe LAUHIM MAHFOOZIN

2. Innahu laquranun kareemun Fee kitabin maknoonin

3. ‘Hudallilmuttaqeen’: ‘Guidance for controllers of organs’: 2 Al Baqarah: 2

4. ‘Alaa qalbik litakoon minal-munzireen’ ‘upon your heart one of who to warn’

5. Muslimahs! Come to India. I recommend Hindu lovers for all the Muslimahs.: Khadeejah Muhammad

6. Islam according to Qur’an and Maulana Maududi rahamatullh alaihi

Ved: R’gved: Mandal 1: Sookt 1: Mantr 2.

2. Agnih poorvébhirr’shibhireedyo nootanairut

S’ dévān éh vaxati.

———————————————————————————————————

Agni10 is laudable by ancient R’shis11 and modern ones12. He collects dévs13 here14 appropriately15.

———————————————————————————–

10. It has been discussed quite in detail in the commentary of 1st Mantr what Eīshān ParamBrahm Parmātmā means by ‘Agni’.

It is certainly not only ‘the god of fire’ as Max Muller, Griffith, Mac Donell, H.H.Wilson, Oldenberg and Professor Louis Renou etc. have told us.

They all had apparently based their various translations of R’gved on the commentary of Āchārý Sāyañ.

Pt. Yudhishthir Meemānsak has discussed the matter somewhat in detail.

In his Hindi Essay ‘Vedārth ki Vividh Prakriyāon ki Aitihāsik Meemānsā’ ‘The Historical Analysis of different schools of translations of Ved’ he has discussed the translations of Ved before Yāgyic or Yajnic period.

It is quite natural, we can’t find Āchārý Sāyañ and his Vedārth Prakāsh discussed there.

Pt. Yudhishthir Meemānsak has found in his researches:

We can divide the vast period from the beginning to today in four parts with reference to the translations of Ved―

1.To the end of Kr’tyug.

2.Trétā to the end of Dvāpar.

3.From the beginning of Kali to the 19th Century of Vikram.

4.It starts from the 20th Century of Vikram.

The second way, we can divide it is as follows:

1.Pre- Yāgyic Period.

2.Earlier Yāgyic Period.

3.Later Yāgyic Period.

4.Modern Times.’

‘Vedic Siddhānt Meemānsā’ ‘The

Analysis of Vedic Principles’: Pt. Yudhishthir Meemānsak: Part I : 1991 AD: p.66: translation from original Hindi: Durgāshankar Mahimvat Satyarthi.

Shatpath Brāhmañ explains―

‘Brahm hyagnih’ ‘Only the Brahm is Agni’ (1|4|2|11)

Agnirvai dévānām vratpatih, étaddh vai dévā vratam charanti yatsatyam’ ‘Agni is the Lord of sacred vows of Devs. Only this the vrat, sacred vow, the Devs practice, which is true’(1|1|1|2|5)

Let’s discuss what does ‘hi’ ‘only’ mean in ‘Brahm hyagnih’ ‘Only the Brahm is Agni’ (1|4|2|11) when I myself have written in the commentary of previous mantr that ‘Agni’ does mean ‘Eishan ParamBrahm Paramatma‘ , one who obeys Him and spreads the knowledge of His Ved among His creations everywhere and to everyone, and the element of fire inherent in fire, like electricity, self respect, to be aggressive etc.

As these are at least three meanings what is meant here inShatpath Brāhmañ by ‘Brahm hyagnih’ ‘Only the Brahm is Agni’ (1|4|2|11)?

It means the ultimate original meaning of ‘Agni’ is ‘Brahm’.

The expression is like the expression ‘Satyamev Jayte’ meaning ultimately truth prevails.

It is clear therefore that from ‘Agni’Shatpath Brāhmañ means Eīshān Param Brahm Parmātmā. Though where it is clear from the context that Eīshān is not meant, the primary person referred to, is The President of entire Creations living in ‘Absolute Space’ ‘Param Vyom’. Other persons who lead others to Light are the third; Eīshān terms here ‘Agni’.

11. For ‘ancient R’shis’, the original words used by the God, are― ‘Poorvébhirr’shibhih’.

R. T. H. Griffith has commented on it:

Ancient Seers: said by Sāyañ to be Bhr’gu, Angiras, and others, the expression indicates the existence of earlier hymns.’

H. H. Wilsonhas also commented:

Ancient and Modern Sages: The term ‘Poorv’ and ‘Nootan’, ‘Former’ and ‘Recent’, applied to Rishis or Sages, are worthy of remark, as intimating the existence of  earlier teachers and older hymns.’

If they mean that entire Ved is not revealed at a time, the revelation was in installments, so that with respect of later revealed hymns, there were earlier revealed hymns also, it’s true.

It is never claimed by the persons, having deep knowledge of Hinduism, that Ved is revealed as a whole at a single time.

However, some mischievous persons have claimed that by above-mentioned comments, R. T. H. Griffith and H. H. Wilson meant, there were some hymns even prior to those of R’gved.

This is quite mischievous and motivated with ill intentions against Hindus and the Vedic Movement.

Every human being irrespective of one’s caste or creed must be anti-‘antiism’.

To have any blind anti psychosis against any person or any group of persons is not a civilized attitude at all.

If a person or a Group of persons is found to be involved in unwanted and uncalled for activities, only that particular person or only that Group of persons must be punished for its anti social activity.

It is entirely unjustified that the entire community, whichever it maybe, should be held responsible for the anti social activity that particular person or only that Group of persons has performed.

Atheism is no more a school of thoughts, considered absolutely infallible.

The pseudo confusion was created deliberately by then Soviet Union.

It provided oxygen also to the erroneous belief, then held by most of the people.

Fortunately, with the Collapse of Soviet Union and Communism this erroneous belief is also collapsing getting no oxygen for its survival from anywhere.

It is clear, therefore, that only Socialism is the only resortCommunism now has.

Communism and Socialism both are different in its means only.

As far as the target is concerned, the both are not very much different.

Communism wanted to establish a particular political and social system, which suited it for its own survival by hook or crook.

Socialism is trying to establish the same political and social system via Democracy.

Communism and Socialism both are actually atheist schools of thoughts.

With the Collapse of Communism, Socialism is desperate now.

It can be observed everywhere if one only wants to see it.

The History stands to evidence, that Communism and Socialism were related till now as an elder and younger brother.

The Communism was the elder brother and the Socialism was the younger.

The elder brother was more developed and successful.

Or, at least, it considered itself to be so.

With the end of it, Socialism is desperate feeling itself alone, and even unwanted somewhat.

It’s also feeling that its own end is not very much far away.

Moreover, with its end, the school of thought that is taking its place,  is no other else but ‘Dharm’.

Mind you, I’m not talking of Religion now.

I’m talking of Dharm.

It is something far deeper than the Religion.

Even the great Islam, which defeated Judaism and Christianity successfully once, but not Hinduism fully; now surrendering to Dharm whether it acknowledges it, or not.

Everybody knows that Dharm has proved to be more successful than Religion even.

Why is it so?

Because Dharm has meditation as their processes of Worship to help in evolution of human beings further, from where they are at that particular moment, while the Religion has Prayer.

Both Hinduism and India progressed once non stop, as they had meditation, as their process of worship.

Their meteoric non stop progress diminished in its fast speed ,only when Hindus all but practically abandoned Ved and Brahmyagy or Stavan and accepted Vedetar books and prayer as its substitutes.

Meditation is a Scientific System while the Prayer is an Emotional one.

Meditation is a masculine approach towards the Metaphysical, while the Prayer is a Feminine one.

The Meditation is an aggressive way to achieve what one wants to, while the Prayer is the submissive.

12. Nootanairut’ ‘and modern ones’.

It is clear from this Ved Mantr, thus, that if Ved is an Eternal Law Book, as it claims to be; there will be no such time when the ‘Rishis’ will not be there.

R’shi Dayanand has proved it true.

Saint Augustine has said:

‘The religion, which is called the Christianity today, was in the ancient people too.

It was continuously present from the beginning of the humankind till Lord Jesus Christ assumed human body.

The ancient religion was called the Christianity since the times of Lord Jesus Christ.’

‘Dharm ka aadi srot’: Pandit Gangaprasad Upadhyay p.18: Translated from original Hindi : DSM Satyarthi

Al Qur’an Al Kareem does also say:

‘Alif lām mīm.1

ZālikAl Kitāb Lā raib fīhi Hudallilmuttaqīn.2

Allazīn yu’minūn bilghabi v’ yuqīmūnassalāt v’ mimmā razaqnāhum yunfiqūn.3

Vallazīn yu’minūn bimā unzil ilayk v’ mā unzil min qablik v’ bil ākħirati hum yūqinūn.4′

Alif. Lam. Mim.This is the Book: there is no doubtabout it. It is guidance to Godfearing people,who believe in the unseen , establish the Salats and expend out of what We have bestowed on them; who believe in the Book We have sent down to you (i.e. the Qur’an) and in the Books sent down before you, *7 and firmly believe in the Hereafter.’

Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 1-4

In the seventh footnote, Maulana Saiyad Abul Aala Maududi, the founder of Jamaete Islami; has written:

The fifth requirement is that one should believe in the Books revealed by God to His Prophets in the various ages and regions of the world, in the Book revealed to Muhammad (peace be on him) as well as in those revealed to the other Prophets who preceded him.

The door of the Qur’an is closed to all those who do not consider it necessary for man to receive guidance from God.

It is also closed to those who, even if they believe in the need for such guidance, do not consider it necessary to seek it through the channel of revelation and prophethood, but would rather weave their own set of ideas and concepts and regard them as equivalent to Divine Guidance.
This door is also closed to those who believe in Divine books as such, but confine this belief to those books accepted by their forefathers, and spurn Divine Guidance revealed to anyone born beyond their own racial and national boundaries.

The Qur’an excludes all such people and is prepared to open the source of its grace only to those who believe that mankind does require Divine Guidance, who acknowledge that this guidance does not come to people individually but reaches them through Prophets and Divine Books and who are not given to racial or national chauvinism but are devotees of Truth alone, and are therefore prepared to submit to Divine Guidance wherever it be found.’

Towards understanding the Qur’an

The same principle is repeated in Al Qur’an Al Kareem

again in 43rd Soorat, ‘Sooratal Zukhruf’:

Ha’. Mim. By the Clear Book; verily We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you may understand. Indeed it is transcribed in the Original Book with Us; *2 sublime and full of wisdom*3.’

Al Qur’an Al Kareem:43 Az Zukhruf:1-4

In the second and third footnotes, Maulana Saiyad Abul Aala Maududi, the founder of Jamaete Islami; has written:

Umm al-Kitab“: the “Original Book“: the Book from which all the Books sent down to the Prophets have been derived.

In Surah (56)AI-Waqi`ah the same thing has been described as Kitab-um-Maknun (the hidden and preserved Book) and in Surah (85)AI-Buruj 22 as Lauh-i Mahfuz (the Preserved Tablet), that is, the Tablet whose writing cannot be effaced, which is secure from every kind of interference.

By saying that the Qur’an is inscribed in Umm al-Kitab, attention has been drawn to an important truth.

Different Books had been revealed by Allah in different ages to different Prophets for the guidance of different nations in different languages, but all these Books invited mankind to one and the same Faith: they regarded one and the same thing as the Truth; they presented one and the same criterion of good and evil; they propounded the same principles of morality and civilization; in short, they brought one and the same Din (Religion).

The reason was that their source and origin was the same, only words were different; they had the same meaning and theme which is inscribed in a Source Book with Allah, and whenever there was a need, He raised a Prophet and sent down the same meaning and subject-matter clothed in a particular diction according to the environment and occasion.

Had Allah willed to raise the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be His peace) in another nation instead of the Arabs, He would have sent down the same Qur’an in the language of that nation.

In it the meaning and content would have been expressed according to the environments and conditions of the people and land; the words would have been different and the language also different but the teaching and guidance the same basically, and it would be the same Qur’an though not the Arabic Qur’an.

This same thing has been expressed in Surah (26)Ash-Shu`ara, thus:

“This (Book) has been revealed by the Lord of the worlds. The trustworthy Spirit has come down with it upon your heart so that you may become one of those who are (appointed by God) to warn (the people) in plain Arabic language; and this is also contained in the scriptures of the former peoples.” (vv. 192-196). (For explanation, see (26)Ash-Shu`ara: 192196 and the E.N.’s on it).

  • 3 This sentence is related both to Kitab-i mubin and to Umm al-Kitab.

Thus, it is in praise of both the Qur’an and the Original Book from which the Qur’an has been derived.

This praise is meant to impress the fact that if a person does not recognize the true worth of this Book and does not benefit from its wise teachings because of his own folly, it would be his own misfortune.

If someone tried to degrade it and found fault with it, it would be his own meanness.

It cannot become worthless on account of someone’s lack of appreciation of it, and its wisdom cannot be eclipsed by anyone’s throwing dust at it.

This is by itself a glorious Book, which stands exalted by its matchless teaching, miraculous eloquence, faultless wisdom and the sublime personality of its great Author. Therefore, none can succeed in minimizing its value and worth.

In verse 44 below the Quraish in particular and the Arabs in general have been told that the revelation of the Book for which they are showing such lack of appreciation had provided them a unique opportunity of honour, which if they lost, would subject them to a severe accountability before God. (Please see E.N. 39 below).’

Towards understanding the Qur’an

Lord Bhagvan Manu has also said, almost the same thing in Manu Smr’ti:

‘Etaddeshprasootasy’ sakaashaadagrjanmanah,

Svam svam charitram shixeran pr’thivyaam sarvmaanavaah.’

‘All the followers of Manu have educated their own characters, on the earth, with the grace of their earlier births on the land, (India).

―Manu Smr’ti: 1|139

When it is the Truth, we haven’t another alternative, except to accept, that there are not two ‘Dharm’ in the Multiverse, neither three, nor four, nor more so.

Dharm is also ONLY ONE, in the same manner, as the God, Eīshān Param Brahm Parmatma, Allah; Himself is.

And, when it is the Truth, all we Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. have to reconsider whether our behavior with each other is perfect.

When we criticize Ved, actually we don’t criticize Ved alone; we criticize Al Qur’an Al Kareem and Bible too, as well.

When we criticize Bible, actually we don’t criticize Bible alone; we criticize Ved and Al Qur’an Al Kareem too, as well.

When we criticize Al Qur’an Al Kareem, actually we don’t criticize Al Qur’an Al Kareem alone; we criticize Ved and Bible too, as well.

If we ONLY understand, this FACT, our behavior with each other will be quite different from that today.

As far as Ved is concerned, R.T. H. Griffith, H.H. Wilson, Friedrich Max Muller, W.D. Whitney; none had the goal to produce Ved, in its true form, in the languages it was produced by them.

They were not devoted to Ved, neither impartial even.

They were devoted to the Evolution Theory and to keep British rule then in India.

Thomas Babington Macaulay has clearly stated:

It is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.[5]

Wikipedia

They were interested in Ved, because they wanted to prove the Evolution Theory, through Ved and to rule then Indians.

It was natural for them, therefore, to close their eyes from every fact that contradicted the Evolution Theory and their vested sinister interest.

It can be easily seen, thus, that it was not a scientific approach at all.

There was scientific approach if the facts discovered, did not contradict the Evolution Theory and their vested sinister interest.

The scientific approach was abandoned, if the facts found, contradicted the Evolution Theory and their vested sinister interest.

We have to remember it, while we refer to the translations of Ved, by these gentlemen.

However, even they could not find any book written before Ved.

They did not agree that Ved was revealed in the beginning of the Creations/ Multiverse.

Even then, they had to agree that Ved is the Everfirst Book written anywhere.

Now, if the Evolution Theory was entirely correct, as it was produced in those days, it was necessary that Ved should not preach MONOTHEISM.

The problem was, that Ved not only preached MONOTHEISM, it preached PANENTHEISMas well.

The proper way to understand Ved is to understand it, first, not as to contradict itself.

Ved presented itself as an answer to Gayatri Mantr.

Naturally, Ved must have been interpreted, at least, according to Gayatri Mantr.

But, it was not done.

Ved was deliberately interpreted according to Sāyañ Bhāshý.

They said that the only Complete Commentary on Ved available, is Sāyañ Bhāshý, the Commentary of Āchārý Sāyañ.

Though, even the Commentary of Āchārý Sāyañ is not available, completely, on Atharv Ved.

The earlier Commentaries on Ved were Samhitas, Shakhas, and the Brahman Granths.

But, the difference in these Commentaries on Ved and the Sāyañ Bhāshý, was that the Sāyañ Bhāshý was in the sequence of the Mantrs, while these earlier Commentaries on Ved were not in that particular sequence.

Yet, they were, and are; Commentaries on Ved.

It was made the critical difference, and Sāyañ Bhāshý was selected to interpret Ved, as the most authentic source.

It can be seen that the decision was wrong and heavily biased.

Sāyañ Bhāshý, as already has been said, was not representing Ved in its original form.

It was deliberately written to justify the rituals found, in those days, in then Hindu Society.

Hindu Society was termed authentic, to serve their vested sinister political purposes, and even the Samhitas, Shakhas, and the Brahman Granths were interpreted according to the rituals found in it, in Sāyañ Bhāshý, as well as the Ved itself, as if Hindus should NOT follow Ved, THE VED should follow the Hindus.

Nonsense!

Hindus are not revealed by the God.

The Ved is reveled by Him.

Actual Hinduism of Ved is, therefore, not found in Sāyañ Bhāshý, and therefore, not in its western translations too.

Not only this, there was another situation too, of the Hindu Society, in the British Regime, that also did help the then westerners.

In the days of the British Empire, the Hindu Society thought that the Samhitas, Shakhas, and the Brahman Granths were also Ved.

Ridiculous! Yet true.

Moreover, it was not from the days of the British Empire.

It was as old as the days of Akbar the Great.

Akbar wanted to reconstruct India, according to Ved.

Alas, it was not possible.

Normal Hindus, nowadays, think that the Muslims of those days were obstacles in it.

Certainly NOT.

They are quite mistaken.

Not only the Muslims of those days, were obstacles in the reconstruction of India by Akbar the Great, the Hindus of those days were also obstacles in it.

It was the main reason, Akbar the Great had to devise a new religion Dine Ilahi.

The then British Empire and the other westerners, devoted to the Evolution Theory, rather than to Ved, enjoyed every benefit of this idiosyncrasy of the then foolish Hindus.

They also rejected to accept that the Samhitas, Shakhas, and the Brahman Granths were Commentaries on Ved, NOT VED itself.

It was useful to them as a political, diplomatic policy,THEN.

They accepted, Sāyañ Bhāshý was the only authentic Commentary on Ved, available then.

Nevertheless, their problem was not solved fully.

Āchārý Sāyañ were requested to justify the then rituals, found in the contemporary Hindu Society, NOT to refuse to accept the TRUE FORM of Ved.

Therefore, Sāyañ Bhāshý contains the TRUE FORM of Ved also in even so many of Ved Mantrs’ commentaries of Āchārý Sāyañ.

13.  ‘S’ dévān éh vaxati

Who are these ‘Devs’ whom this ‘Agni’ collects here properly?

The persons who have divine attributes, and do divine deeds, of course.

Ved/Hinduism wants to build a human society that is based on principles.

It does not want to build a communal society that call itself ‘Hindu’, and work for the progress of those so called Hindus only.

Ved, and therefore Hinduism; wants to build a society of ‘Sukr’ts’/NOBLE DOERS only.

Moreover, it does not want the persons, who are wicked, even to flourish:

‘Vinaashaay’ ch’ DUSHKR’TAAM’.

‘And to destroy the wicked/evil doers.’

Shrimad Bhagavad Geetaa: 4| 8

And why does Ved wants to collect these ‘Devs’ here appropriately?

Ut devaa avhitam devaa unnayathaa punah,

utaagashchakrusham devaa devaa jeevayathaa punah.’

‘Divine ones! Divine ones!
raise up the downtrodden.
And, Divine ones! Divine ones! Make him to live again, who hath done evil.’
-Ved: 4 Atharv Ved: 4/13/1
Utaagashchakrusham devaa devaa jeevyathaa punah.’
‘And, Divine ones! Divine ones! Make him to live again, who hath done evil.’
-Ved: 4 Atharv Ved: 4/13/1
tells us that a person dies because of his/her evil doings.

There is another Mantr also that confirms this very conclusion:
Vidyaam chaavidyaanch yastadvedobhayagvong sah,
Avidyayaa mr’tyum teertvaa vidyayaamr’tamashnute.’

‘Science and nescience, who knows the both simultaneously; by nescience crossing the death, by science, he obtains the eternity.’
–Ved2 Yajurved|40|14

‘Avidyayaa mr’tyum teertvaa vidyayaamr’tamashnute.’
‘By nescience crossing the death, by science, he obtains the eternity.’

Thus, it also defines the ‘AAGAH”EVIL’.
It’s nothing else except NESCIENCE.
So, Ved tell us, not to resort to NESCIENCE so that we can live long, and ultimately can WIN OVER DEATH too.
We can’t do it, if we don’t work at all:
‘Kurvanneveh karmaani’
‘Only Doing works here.’

Saint Augustine of Hippo, hasn’t preached anything else when he preached:
“Love the sinner and hate the sin” (Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum)(Opera Omnia, vol II. col. 962, letter 211.), literally “With love for mankind and hatred of sins “[30]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hip…

There are some questions from some persons on the subject, since it was written.

I received the questions through E-mail.

I reproduce them here along with the answers for the benefit of all.

‘there is a question 1what meaning of aagah in vedik sanskrit .

‘Aagah’ in Vedic Sanskr’t means ’sin/crime/nescience’.

2.after a long time a man hates sinner not his/her evil doings like ravan ,laden how we descrease hates to him.
It is not necessary to decrease the hate for him.
Actually we hate him for his sins.
If he hadn’t sinned we haven’t hated him ever.
So, practically, it’s enough if we understand the PRINCIPLE of —
Ut devaa avhitam devaa unnyathaa punah,
Utaagashchakrusham devaa devaa jeevyathaa punah.’
‘Divine ones! Divine ones!
raise up the downtrodden.
And, Divine ones! Divine ones! Make him to live again, who hath done evil.’
-Ved: 4 Atharv Ved: 4/13/1
and ACT ACCORDINGLY.

We can’t raise any downtrodden till we don’t hate him.
Lord Ram did not send Laxman to Ravan, when Ravan was dying, to learn politics from him, hating Ravan.
He killed Ravan.
But this single action from him, tells us, that he did not kill him because he hated him.
He killed Ravan, because he had to punish him.
It was actually death sentence to Ravan, because he dishonored an Ammulkaynat, Khadeejah Alkitab.
Lord Ram could not forgive Ravan for it.
Only, Ammulkaynat, Khadeejah Alkitab could forgive him.
She did not.
Hence the death sentence was administered ultimately.

3 how much time should be given to descrease their sins i mean what is the last limit of his/her when will we punish them.

Lord Ram sent Pavan Putr and Angad to Ravan to explain  the situation.
We have to do the same and give proper time to understand as Lord Ram did to Ravan.
It depends on practical situations to determine the length of time necessary.
It may differ from situations to situations.

Write again, if you have still some questions.

14.Ih‘. In the movement of Ved/ Hinduism:

‘Imaam naareem Sukr’te dadhaat.’

‘Kr’n’vanto vishvamaaryam.

15.Aa‘. Never use the means, harmful to humanity, for it.

R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 3

——————————————————————————————

More Commentary on Ved from DSM Satyarthi:

1. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

2. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 2

3.R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 3

4. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 5| Mantr 3

5. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 5| Mantr 3

6. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 7| Mantr 5

7. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 7| Mantr 8

8. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 1

9. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 2

10. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 3

11. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 4

12. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 5

13. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 6

14. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 7

15. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 8

16.R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 19| Mantr 9

17. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 58| Mantr 6

18. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 164| Mantr 20

19. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 164| Mantr 46

20. R’gved: Mandal 2| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

21 R’gved: Mandal 3| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

22. R’gved: Mandal 3| Sookt 6| Mantr 2

23. R’gved: Mandal 4| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

24. R’gved: Mandal 5| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

25. R’gved: Mandal 6| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

26. R’gved: Mandal 7| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

27. R’gved: Mandal 8| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

28. R’gved: Mandal 9| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

29. R’gved: Mandal 9| Sookt 63| Mantr 4-5

30. R’gved: Mandal 10| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

31. R’gved: Mandal 10| Sookt 85| Mantr 42

32. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 1| Mantr 1

33. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 1| Mantr 2

34. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 1| Mantr 3

35. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 1| Mantr 4

36. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 11| Mantr 1

37. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 13| Mantr 4

38. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 23| Mantr 3

39. Yajurved: Adhyaay’ 40| Mantr8

40. Saamved: Mantr 1

41. Sāmved: Mantr 115

42. Sāmved: Mantr 641: Mahānāmnyārchik| 1

43. Sāmved: Mantr 650: Mahānāmnyārchik| 10

44. Sāmved: Mantr 651: Uttarārchik

45. Atharv Ved: Kaand 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

46.  Atharv Ved: Kānd 3| Sookt 30| Mantr 3

47. Atharv Ved: Kānd 3| Sookt 30| Mantr 4

48. Atharv Ved: Kānd 3| Sookt 30| Mantr 6

49. Atharv Ved: Kānd 4| Sookt 4| Mantr 6

50. Atharv Ved: Kānd 4| Sookt 4| Mantr 7

51. Atharv Ved: Kānd 4| Sookt 4| Mantr 8

52.  Atharv Ved: Kaand 8| Sookt 1| Mantr 6

53. Atharv Ved: Kaand 14| Sookt 1| Mantr 22

54.Atharv Ved: Kaand 14| Sookt 2| Mantr 25

———————————————————————————–

More on Ved from DSM Satyarthi:

1. ‘According to facts’: ‘Yaathaatathyatah’

2. According to Hinduism: We must be polite, not coward

3. Aheism can’t win Hinduism/Ved

4. Casteism is NOT an intgral part of Hinduism:’Samaanee prapaa sah vonnabhaagah’ ”Same drinking same share of food.’

5. Hinduism builds its society on SUKR’TS/Noble doers:’Imaam naareem Sukr’te dadhaat’

6. Hinduism is PRINCIPLES BASED , not PERSON BASED

7. One should not wish to die: Ved hates death

8. RELIGIOUS DEMOCRACY in Hinduism: Ekam sadvipra bahudhaa vadanti

9. Sanyas is not the goal of Hinduism

10. Sati tradition was an Aasur Tradition, not Vedic at all

——————————————————————

More on Hinduism from DSM Satyarthi:

1. ‘Bhoorbhuvah svah!’ ‘The Existence! The Consciousness! The Bliss!’

2.‘Devasy’ pashy’ kaavyam, n’ mamaar, n’ jeeryati.’

3. Hinduism shines

4.Ved is the eternal law book having infinite knowledge in it for human beings

5. ‘According to facts’: ‘Yaathaatathyatah’

6. ‘SET THIS WOMAN for WELL DOER’: ‘Imaam naareem Sukr’te dadhaat’

7. The Evernew Hinduism: Yaathaatathyatah: Ved 2|40|8

8. ‘How to cross death’: ‘Tamev viditvaati mr’tyumeti’: Ved2Yajurved|31|18

9. According to Hinduism: We must be polite, not coward

10.Ye yathaa maam prapadyante taanstathaiv bhajaamyaham: Lord Kr’shn

11. ‘Maachchhitthaa asmaallokaat’ ‘Be not severed from this world’: Ved

12. The mental slavery of the English-educated Indians

——————————————————————————————————————–-

More on Islam from DSM Sayarthi:

1. Bal huv qur’anum majeedun fe LAUHIM MAHFOOZIN

2. Innahu laquranun kareemun Fee kitabin maknoonin

3. ‘Hudallilmuttaqeen’: ‘Guidance for controllers of organs’: 2 Al Baqarah: 2

4. ‘Alaa qalbik litakoon minal-munzireen’ ‘upon your heart one of who to warn’

5. Muslimahs! Come to India. I recommend Hindu lovers for all the Muslimahs.: Khadeejah Muhammad

6. Islam according to Qur’an and Maulana Maududi rahamatullh alaihi

7. A Moment of grave thinking for the entire sophisticated Muslim Community

8. ‘SET THIS WOMAN for WELL DOER’: ‘Imaam naareem Sukr’te dadhaat’

9. ‘V’ innahu fe UMMALKITAABI ladainaa la’liyyun hakeemun’: 43/4

10. Most Present day Muslms don’t do what Huzoor(SAW) did:

11. The Muslim beauties are wooing Hindu men FASTEST

12. ‘What really matters in the sight of God’: Maulana: Maududi

13. Why did Islam face a counter revolution at Karbala?

14. Why there are differences among us?

15. No differences Please!

16. Communal Muslims discuss my Muslim wife, me and my Muslim women: Durgesh