Interesting, both Humsafar and S Insaf refer to the satanic verses incidents as historical facts. Only Porus states that its authenticity has always been in dispute. Actually most Muslim scholars have always rejected the story. Is it any wonder you will never hear disucussion of this in Muslim circles, for obvious reasons, namely that it has mostly been considered fiction.
Second, withdarwing the verses seems to cast doubt on the "uncreated" character of the Quran. If verses can be added and edited then it follows that it cannot be the word of God.
Even without this alleged incident, abrogation is generally accepted by Muslims - abrogation of the actually text is accepted by the Sunni orthodoxy and abrogation of the meaning of verses is accepted by the Shia. This is unrelated to the argument about the (un)createdness of the Quran which was disputed during the era of the Mu'tazila.
You can call my father, mother, myself whatever you want, it won't hurt me because I know it's not true. I'll be angry and enraged only if it were true. Truth hurts.
That sounds cool and may be the case when it comes to your family, but in practice false rumours and defamation can hurt too. Most societies accept that freedom of expression has its limits. Should extreme racist abuse be freely permitted simply because the rest of us know it to be untrue?
If I were to write the "furan" it would be no different from the Universal Declarations of Human Rights - the UN's 1948 charter. This document is the distillation of the progress we have made as a human race. The majority of the world accepts it voluntarily; it has more adherents than all the major religions combined; significantly it was never rammed down people throats on pain of death.
The majority of the world's population would never have even read the text of the UDHR, therefore to claim it has more adherents is rather fanciful. The text is sufficiently vague that it would be impossible for anyone to disagree with it in principle and impossible to enforce - its implementation depends entirely on the whims of the political powers, e.g. Article 9 and Guantanamo Bay. The Quran and the Bible, on the other hand, are precise and elaborate when they need to be, which is why they attract specific criticism. And no, neither texts were "rammed down peoples throats on pain of death", the majority of the world's population today were born into their respective religions just as they were born as nationals of governments that decided to cook up the UDHR.
The problem with religious people is that they have a deep faith in their creed but do not have confidence in its truth.
That is the whole point. Religion is about belief, not Truth. Not that faith or belief are the exclusive domain of religious people - in fact your first post is a good example of your belief. If even the historian who first recorded it doesn't believe it to be true, what does that say about your confidence in its truth? In that respect you are no different from the "religious people" you seem to be criticising.
Most Muslims reject it because it is a threat to their faith.
Wrong. Among other reasons: it is inconsistent with the Quranic teaching that the Prophet is immune from error (at least on religious matters according to Sunni teaching); it has logical flaws; and most scholars in the past have rejected it.
Christians, Jews and Hindus have ganged up against Muslims, a backward and regressive civilization.
A civilisation is an advanced society, so there goes that oxymoron. Secondly, switch the two sides and you would get a generalisation that would quite possibly have been straight out of Bin Laden’s speeches.
This incident is mentioned in numerous early biographies of the Prophet. For example, I will quote below from Ibn Ishaq for your benefit as you may not have the book handy.
What you quoted is actually NOT in Ibn Hisham’s edition of Ibn Ishaq’s text – at least not in the original Arabic. The translator, Alfred Guillaume, has actually added this himself, quoting from al-Tabari. Whether Ibn Ishaq may have included it in his original or not (which is no longer extant), he did not accept the incident as true.
Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Muslim: It is true that the original version of Ibn Ishaq's book is no longer extant. However, Ibn Hisham has clearly mentioned that he left out those passages from Ibn Ishaq those which would offend Muslim sensibilities. What we have is a possible reconstruction of Ibn Ishaq's original work from various excerpts preserved in different later books. It is also true that the passage in question was reconstructed from Tabari who himself got it from Ibn Ishaq. Anyway, I mentioned several times above that the incident may not be true.
One larger question which we should ask is why the earliest biography of the prophet was written by a person born in 85 Hijri and not earlier by one of his contemporaries? There is intense debate in Western universities about how to reconstruct what really happened at the time of the Prophet. Traditional Muslim sources can not be always trusted as is well know that many traditions were forged and as I said before, only the chain of narrations can be verified and not always the narration itself. There is a recent collection of papers in "The Biography of Muhammad: The Issues of Sources", Harald Motzki (ed) Brill publishers, 2000 on this very topic. Of course, for Muslims, as a matter of faith, everything about the Prophet (how he ate, slept, used the toilet etc) is well known. That someone has a temerity to question this knowledge is sacrilege. Most Muslims also do not seem to understand the detached skepticism of Western scholars. No wonder they have lost their edge in the world scene, simply reduced to regurgitating old traditions and fighting centuries old battles.
One larger question which we should ask is why the earliest biography of the prophet was written by a person born in 85 Hijri and not earlier by one of his contemporaries? There is intense debate in Western universities about how to reconstruct what really happened at the time of the Prophet. Traditional Muslim sources can not be always trusted as is well know that many traditions were forged and as I said before, only the chain of narrations can be verified and not always the narration itself. There is a recent collection of papers in "The Biography of Muhammad: The Issues of Sources", Harald Motzki (ed) Brill publishers, 2000 on this very topic. Of course, for Muslims, as a matter of faith, everything about the Prophet (how he ate, slept, used the toilet etc) is well known. That someone has a temerity to question this knowledge is sacrilege. Most Muslims also do not seem to understand the detached skepticism of Western scholars. No wonder they have lost their edge in the world scene, simply reduced to regurgitating old traditions and fighting centuries old battles.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
I said that I did not have anything more to add, but actually I do.
This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses
The term Satanic Verses was coined by the historian Sir William Muir to refer to several verses alleged to have been part of an early version of the Qur'an and later expunged. The story of the verses can be read in al-Waqidi and al-Tabari's recension of Ibn Ishaq's biography of Prophet Muhammad, the Sirat Rasul Allah, which is believed to have been written 120-130 years after Muhammad's death.
This is from wikipedia too.
Muhammad ibn Ishaq (d. 768), was an Arab historian, the author of a book now known as Sirat Rasul Allah or The Life of the Apostle of God. The bulk of the work is a history of the early battles and raids that established Islam in Arabia, but the book also gives much information about the life of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam.
Ibn Ishaq lived in Medina, where he gathered the reminiscences on which he based his history. He consequently left Medina in 733, and went to Alexandria, then to Kufa and Hira, and finally to Baghdad, where the caliph Mansur provided him with the means of writing his great work.
Ibn Ishaq's work survived only as it was quoted by the later historians Ibn Hisham and Tabari. In 1955, A. Guillaume reconstructed the work and published it in English as The Life of Muhammad.
The work has been attacked by some Islamic historians as untrustworthy – particularly for its mention of the so-called "Satanic Verses". However, Ibn Ishaq himself would have been the first to insist that he was collecting oral traditions, not necessarily vouching for their truth. In some instances he gives two versions of an event, then concludes that only Allah knows which is true.
Ibn Ishaq's work is of great historical interest as the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad.
I have to say, participating on this board and discussion with you fine non-faith based folks has only helped me in increasing my faith.
This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses
The term Satanic Verses was coined by the historian Sir William Muir to refer to several verses alleged to have been part of an early version of the Qur'an and later expunged. The story of the verses can be read in al-Waqidi and al-Tabari's recension of Ibn Ishaq's biography of Prophet Muhammad, the Sirat Rasul Allah, which is believed to have been written 120-130 years after Muhammad's death.
This is from wikipedia too.
Muhammad ibn Ishaq (d. 768), was an Arab historian, the author of a book now known as Sirat Rasul Allah or The Life of the Apostle of God. The bulk of the work is a history of the early battles and raids that established Islam in Arabia, but the book also gives much information about the life of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam.
Ibn Ishaq lived in Medina, where he gathered the reminiscences on which he based his history. He consequently left Medina in 733, and went to Alexandria, then to Kufa and Hira, and finally to Baghdad, where the caliph Mansur provided him with the means of writing his great work.
Ibn Ishaq's work survived only as it was quoted by the later historians Ibn Hisham and Tabari. In 1955, A. Guillaume reconstructed the work and published it in English as The Life of Muhammad.
The work has been attacked by some Islamic historians as untrustworthy – particularly for its mention of the so-called "Satanic Verses". However, Ibn Ishaq himself would have been the first to insist that he was collecting oral traditions, not necessarily vouching for their truth. In some instances he gives two versions of an event, then concludes that only Allah knows which is true.
Ibn Ishaq's work is of great historical interest as the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad.
I have to say, participating on this board and discussion with you fine non-faith based folks has only helped me in increasing my faith.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Humsafar,
As far as bukhari or muslim or any sunnah is concerned, it is to be accepted only if it follows the basic principles of the quran. If a sunnah contradicts the quran then it is to be rejected.
As far as bukhari or muslim or any sunnah is concerned, it is to be accepted only if it follows the basic principles of the quran. If a sunnah contradicts the quran then it is to be rejected.
-
Average Bohra
- Posts: 924
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:01 am
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Wikipedia can be edited by anybody and the site itselfs warns As anyone can edit any article, it is of course possible for biased, out of date, or incorrect information to be posted. .
It is often a good source of information, but I would not use it to prove a point.
It is often a good source of information, but I would not use it to prove a point.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Actually, I am using it to prove that you cannot prove a point using wikipedia.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
or Salman Rushdie for that matter.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Br. Anajmi: Please enlighten us as to which source of Islamic history was contemporaneous with the Prophet? Tell us also when the canonical tradition books of Bukhari et.al. were compiled and completed? Also let us know if there are any surviving written documents from the time of the Prophet which tell us of the details of his life. I am sure everyone is waiting eagerly for your reply. Maybe you can single handedly solve this vexing problem once and for all.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
A civilisation is an advanced society, so there goes that oxymoron. Secondly, switch the two sides and you would get a generalisation that would quite possibly have been straight out of Bin Laden’s speeches.
OK, let us do that:
"Muslims have ganged up against Christians, Jews and Hindus, backward and regressive civilizations."
I think that it is true that Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism are all regressive. However, it is not true that Muslims have ganged up against them. Muslims are in rage and defenceless against superior forces, which do not owe their existence to those religions, but to the ingenuity of their adherents to exploit modern science and technology often against outdated modes of their religious thinking.
Only Muslims seem to insist that all will be well with them as soon as they return to Quran and social and economic system of 6th century Arabia.
Civilizations rise and fall. They are progressive and forward looking when they rise; and backward and regressive while they are falling.
In another thread we can discuss the emerging world view of scientists and western philosophers. These are now being accepted globally. I am afraid, only in Islamic countries, they still consider the length of Prophet's hair to be more worthy of discussion.
Look at example more close to home. All new Bohra maosques have domes fashioned after 1000 year old ugly Fatimid architecture. How about coming a little closer to our time and model them on Taj Mahal or other sublime Indian and Iranian domes. No way. Regressive, I say.
OK, let us do that:
"Muslims have ganged up against Christians, Jews and Hindus, backward and regressive civilizations."
I think that it is true that Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism are all regressive. However, it is not true that Muslims have ganged up against them. Muslims are in rage and defenceless against superior forces, which do not owe their existence to those religions, but to the ingenuity of their adherents to exploit modern science and technology often against outdated modes of their religious thinking.
Only Muslims seem to insist that all will be well with them as soon as they return to Quran and social and economic system of 6th century Arabia.
Civilizations rise and fall. They are progressive and forward looking when they rise; and backward and regressive while they are falling.
In another thread we can discuss the emerging world view of scientists and western philosophers. These are now being accepted globally. I am afraid, only in Islamic countries, they still consider the length of Prophet's hair to be more worthy of discussion.
Look at example more close to home. All new Bohra maosques have domes fashioned after 1000 year old ugly Fatimid architecture. How about coming a little closer to our time and model them on Taj Mahal or other sublime Indian and Iranian domes. No way. Regressive, I say.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Muslim,
Nice post.
Nice post.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
I think that it is true that Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism are all regressive. However, it is not true that Muslims have ganged up against them.
I was illustrating the nature of generalisations that you presented were similar to what religious extremists would use, except their target would be different. Whether its true is irrelevant. Comparing entire civilisations in such simplistic terms is not useful.
Only Muslims seem to insist that all will be well with them as soon as they return to Quran and social and economic system of 6th century Arabia.
Please tell me which prominent Muslims are insisting on implementing a 6th century economic system and exactly what that would involve, bearing in mind that the Prophet didn't start preaching Islam until the 7th century.
Civilizations rise and fall. They are progressive and forward looking when they rise; and backward and regressive while they are falling.
If a "civilisation" is so regressive that it wants to return to a 6th century economic system en-masse, I doubt that it can be called a civilisation at all. You can't have it both ways.
In another thread we can discuss the emerging world view of scientists and western philosophers. These are now being accepted globally. I am afraid, only in Islamic countries, they still consider the length of Prophet's hair to be more worthy of discussion.
Nonsense. The rest of humanity, the populations of South America, Africa and Asia who are neither Muslim nor "Western" - what do they discuss? Maybe you and I, being privileged enough to have access to the Internet, have the luxury of discussing Western science and philosophy, but the majority of the people in developing countries (both Muslim and non-Muslim) have the same concerns which is how to earn their living, feed their children and provide shelter. Discussing world views of scientists and philosophy becomes secondary.
Look at example more close to home. All new Bohra maosques have domes fashioned after 1000 year old ugly Fatimid architecture. How about coming a little closer to our time and model them on Taj Mahal or other sublime Indian and Iranian domes. No way. Regressive, I say.
Your subjective opinion on the purely aesthetic appeal of a dome has little relevance to how progressive a civilisation is.
I was illustrating the nature of generalisations that you presented were similar to what religious extremists would use, except their target would be different. Whether its true is irrelevant. Comparing entire civilisations in such simplistic terms is not useful.
Only Muslims seem to insist that all will be well with them as soon as they return to Quran and social and economic system of 6th century Arabia.
Please tell me which prominent Muslims are insisting on implementing a 6th century economic system and exactly what that would involve, bearing in mind that the Prophet didn't start preaching Islam until the 7th century.
Civilizations rise and fall. They are progressive and forward looking when they rise; and backward and regressive while they are falling.
If a "civilisation" is so regressive that it wants to return to a 6th century economic system en-masse, I doubt that it can be called a civilisation at all. You can't have it both ways.
In another thread we can discuss the emerging world view of scientists and western philosophers. These are now being accepted globally. I am afraid, only in Islamic countries, they still consider the length of Prophet's hair to be more worthy of discussion.
Nonsense. The rest of humanity, the populations of South America, Africa and Asia who are neither Muslim nor "Western" - what do they discuss? Maybe you and I, being privileged enough to have access to the Internet, have the luxury of discussing Western science and philosophy, but the majority of the people in developing countries (both Muslim and non-Muslim) have the same concerns which is how to earn their living, feed their children and provide shelter. Discussing world views of scientists and philosophy becomes secondary.
Look at example more close to home. All new Bohra maosques have domes fashioned after 1000 year old ugly Fatimid architecture. How about coming a little closer to our time and model them on Taj Mahal or other sublime Indian and Iranian domes. No way. Regressive, I say.
Your subjective opinion on the purely aesthetic appeal of a dome has little relevance to how progressive a civilisation is.
-
accountability
- Posts: 1640
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:01 am
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Anajmi: why were you outraged at the so called blasphemy by rushdie . why did you take upon yourself to defend the religion, for which you were not asked by the creater of all religions, Allah. in the same way i still cannot understand why so called defenders of religion(s) do make it their duty to respond with a different sort of blasphemy against humanity.
-
Average Bohra
- Posts: 924
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:01 am
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Muslim,
I am curious as to how you can justify switch the two sides and you would get a generalisation that would quite possibly have been straight out of Bin Laden’s speeches. How so ? Please elaborate...
I wouldn't venture as far as Porus to say it is true that Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism are all regressive. since this regression is balanced by secular governance (accepted by Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism) , but absent in Islam.
I am curious as to how you can justify switch the two sides and you would get a generalisation that would quite possibly have been straight out of Bin Laden’s speeches. How so ? Please elaborate...
I wouldn't venture as far as Porus to say it is true that Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism are all regressive. since this regression is balanced by secular governance (accepted by Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism) , but absent in Islam.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
accountability,
Imagine that your family is being attacked by dogs. What will you do?
Remember, your family too is Allah's creation.
If your answer is - let Allah save it, then I am glad I am not a part of your family.
Imagine that your family is being attacked by dogs. What will you do?
Remember, your family too is Allah's creation.
If your answer is - let Allah save it, then I am glad I am not a part of your family.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Hi Porous and Humsafar
You dont like the word Kafir , OK how about munafiq or hypocrite or useless actually.
Its very simple, if you say that Dai is not correct then you are not Dawoodi Bohra.
If you question the Prophet or his deeds or his judgement then essentially you are not Muslim which makes you Kafir.
After all the points you have made its surprising that you consider yourself anything else.
If you are not Bohras then why do you really care how Dai leads his community.
If you are not muslim then why care what Rushdie (self proclaimed atheist ) says about our Prophet.
I am concerned by what you or Rushdie say because you all directly point a finger at my beliefs.
Whats your concern or motivation??
Unless you want to prove that you know some urdu , have read some history books and can use the internet, I don't really see your point.
You dont like the word Kafir , OK how about munafiq or hypocrite or useless actually.
Its very simple, if you say that Dai is not correct then you are not Dawoodi Bohra.
If you question the Prophet or his deeds or his judgement then essentially you are not Muslim which makes you Kafir.
After all the points you have made its surprising that you consider yourself anything else.
If you are not Bohras then why do you really care how Dai leads his community.
If you are not muslim then why care what Rushdie (self proclaimed atheist ) says about our Prophet.
I am concerned by what you or Rushdie say because you all directly point a finger at my beliefs.
Whats your concern or motivation??
Unless you want to prove that you know some urdu , have read some history books and can use the internet, I don't really see your point.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Br. Kalim,Br. Anajmi: Please enlighten us as to which source of Islamic history was contemporaneous with the Prophet? Tell us also when the canonical tradition books of Bukhari et.al. were compiled and completed? Also let us know if there are any surviving written documents from the time of the Prophet which tell us of the details of his life. I am sure everyone is waiting eagerly for your reply. Maybe you can single handedly solve this vexing problem once and for all.
I will give you all that as soon as you give me a voice recording of Ibn Ishaq's biography of the prophet in his own voice. Or you can give me a video recording of satan bringing down those satanic verses or even a video recording of the prophet scratching out the satanic verses from the original quran will do.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Muslim,
My apologies. I meant 7th century. My conclusion of Muslim desire to turn the clock back is based on discussions with Muslims, not all scholars, who believe that the malaise of Muslims can be traced to the fact they are not true to their religion. They believe that they can unify ummah if they could find a way to return to the "utopia" of the 7th century Arabia, which is their Ram-Rajya.
Of course, vast majority of people would not engage in discussions of this type but will follow those that do. So those who discuss, in a sense, represent the rest.
There are many examples of civilizations that regressed, decayed and disappeared. Human beings retain some aspects of these civilizations because they share the history of past civilizations.
Incas, Aztecs, Harappa, Sumerian, Egyptian, Roman, Greek are all examples of past great civilizations. The very complex dynamics of decline and fall is the stuff of many historical treatises from Ibn Khaldun to Arnold Toynbee.
Good. i think i will study my textbooks once more.
My apologies. I meant 7th century. My conclusion of Muslim desire to turn the clock back is based on discussions with Muslims, not all scholars, who believe that the malaise of Muslims can be traced to the fact they are not true to their religion. They believe that they can unify ummah if they could find a way to return to the "utopia" of the 7th century Arabia, which is their Ram-Rajya.
Of course, vast majority of people would not engage in discussions of this type but will follow those that do. So those who discuss, in a sense, represent the rest.
There are many examples of civilizations that regressed, decayed and disappeared. Human beings retain some aspects of these civilizations because they share the history of past civilizations.
Incas, Aztecs, Harappa, Sumerian, Egyptian, Roman, Greek are all examples of past great civilizations. The very complex dynamics of decline and fall is the stuff of many historical treatises from Ibn Khaldun to Arnold Toynbee.
Good. i think i will study my textbooks once more.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
hj786,
I never said that I do not like the word kafir. I like it and I also like the word munafiq. They are very descriptive of some type of people. If you consider my posts as those coming from a kafir or munafiq, that is quite ok with me. Your calling me one of these apellations will not make any difference to me. However, a rigorous, cogent and logical argument from you may well sway me to your point of view.
My opinion in this thread is that we should not be unduly concerned to react negatively against people who attack our beliefs. Rather we should analyze our beliefs to make sure they can withstand scrutiny, and, if not, junk them. Reacting with name calling is very childish and not worthy of those who would discuss freely with others on a large number of issues.
I never said that I do not like the word kafir. I like it and I also like the word munafiq. They are very descriptive of some type of people. If you consider my posts as those coming from a kafir or munafiq, that is quite ok with me. Your calling me one of these apellations will not make any difference to me. However, a rigorous, cogent and logical argument from you may well sway me to your point of view.
My opinion in this thread is that we should not be unduly concerned to react negatively against people who attack our beliefs. Rather we should analyze our beliefs to make sure they can withstand scrutiny, and, if not, junk them. Reacting with name calling is very childish and not worthy of those who would discuss freely with others on a large number of issues.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Muslim,
I refer to satanic verses as a “controversial incidentâ€
I refer to satanic verses as a “controversial incidentâ€
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
porus,
You will need to scrutinize it some more and this time around do not rely on evidence given to you by the likes of Salman Rushdie.
You've said this same thing more than once. You are assuming that the muslim belief system is not withstanding scrutiny. Infact Islam has been the most scrutinized belief system in the history of mankind.Rather we should analyze our beliefs to make sure they can withstand scrutiny, and, if not, junk them.
You will need to scrutinize it some more and this time around do not rely on evidence given to you by the likes of Salman Rushdie.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Rushdie must have based his novel without bothering the authenticity of the story of 'Satanic verses'. His novel has symbolic narration and it is very difficult to understand by the casual readers. Many such books are written and have gone unnoticed. But 'Satanic Verses' came in light because of a ban on it especially by Ayatollah Khumeni.
Both in Iran and Iraq Shia and Sunni population is nearly fifty fifty percent. Ayatollah Khumeni immediately after coming out of exile made a mistake of attacking Iraq as Shias’ main center is in Iraq. Karbala, Najaf are in Iraq and Iranians’ emotions for them were greatly exploited to incite them for war against a Sunni rule in Iraq. It was thought that all Iranians would support him. But after the war it was realized by Ayatollah Khumeni that Iranian Sunnis were not happy with this war. The book 'Satanic verses provided him an opportunity. So to show his love the Prophet of Islam and to please Sunni Iranians and Sunni Muslims elsewhere he took such immediate harsh objection against Rushdie’s book saying that it has insulted the Prophet of Islam. So in my opinion the reason in banning ‘Satanic verses’ by Ayatollah was political rather than religious.
Both in Iran and Iraq Shia and Sunni population is nearly fifty fifty percent. Ayatollah Khumeni immediately after coming out of exile made a mistake of attacking Iraq as Shias’ main center is in Iraq. Karbala, Najaf are in Iraq and Iranians’ emotions for them were greatly exploited to incite them for war against a Sunni rule in Iraq. It was thought that all Iranians would support him. But after the war it was realized by Ayatollah Khumeni that Iranian Sunnis were not happy with this war. The book 'Satanic verses provided him an opportunity. So to show his love the Prophet of Islam and to please Sunni Iranians and Sunni Muslims elsewhere he took such immediate harsh objection against Rushdie’s book saying that it has insulted the Prophet of Islam. So in my opinion the reason in banning ‘Satanic verses’ by Ayatollah was political rather than religious.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
"Ayatollah Khumeni immediately after coming out of exile made a mistake of attacking Iraq as Shias’ main center is in Iraq".
--- Here you are wrong..
It was Saddam who started the war against Iran with the American support.
--- Here you are wrong..
It was Saddam who started the war against Iran with the American support.
-
accountability
- Posts: 1640
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:01 am
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Historically It was Saddam, who started the war at the american behest. Having said that, I agree with Brother Insaaf, that decree against Rushdie was more political than religious. Khomeni was a bigot. He crushed all those in the name of religion, who helped him fruit his revoloution, he may never have succeeded without the help of Khalqis, and socialists like Bani Sadr etc. Bani sadr the first president elect for the republic of Iran, had to flee for his life, why, not because he was corrupt or another Rushdie, simply he was not ready to move from one Shahi dictatorship to another harsher religious bigotry.
-
accountability
- Posts: 1640
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:01 am
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Anajmi
Quote: "You've said this same thing more than once. You are assuming that the muslim belief system is not withstanding scrutiny. Infact Islam has been the most scrutinized belief system in the history of mankind."
Can you please enlighten us, how, when and where.
Quote: "You've said this same thing more than once. You are assuming that the muslim belief system is not withstanding scrutiny. Infact Islam has been the most scrutinized belief system in the history of mankind."
Can you please enlighten us, how, when and where.
-
Average Bohra
- Posts: 924
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:01 am
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Insaf,
The Iranian Sunni population is only 10% and there are twice as mnay Shias in Iraq than Sunnis. Khomeini's fatwa against Rushdie was a knee jerk reaction and not as well thought out as you may believe.
The Iranian Sunni population is only 10% and there are twice as mnay Shias in Iraq than Sunnis. Khomeini's fatwa against Rushdie was a knee jerk reaction and not as well thought out as you may believe.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Quote from Humsafar
The Quran and Bible are outdated and simplistic relics of the past and have little relevance in today’s complex world.
__________________________________________________
Quote from Kalim
I have consistently said that secular humanism is the only solution to end this centuries old war of this religion against that. It does not seem god is so concerned about humans, so why should be bother and enforce this or that scriptural percepts? Maybe believers are fighting crusades and jihads for a being as real as Santa Clause
__________________________________________________
Quote from Porus
Kafir is one who conceals the "Truth". Many of us on this board want to get the Truth out into open and subject it to incisive analysis.
__________________________________________________
Read the above quotes from the extra ordinary analysts and realize that this board is not abt reform movement against the kothar, instead some fools who think they can analyze the most complex and hidden secrets of this creation and eventually make a difference to this world.
take a break guys...
Admin ..take a closer look , and analyze
why do u miss out in analyzing when everyone else is trying it?
The Quran and Bible are outdated and simplistic relics of the past and have little relevance in today’s complex world.
__________________________________________________
Quote from Kalim
I have consistently said that secular humanism is the only solution to end this centuries old war of this religion against that. It does not seem god is so concerned about humans, so why should be bother and enforce this or that scriptural percepts? Maybe believers are fighting crusades and jihads for a being as real as Santa Clause
__________________________________________________
Quote from Porus
Kafir is one who conceals the "Truth". Many of us on this board want to get the Truth out into open and subject it to incisive analysis.
__________________________________________________
Read the above quotes from the extra ordinary analysts and realize that this board is not abt reform movement against the kothar, instead some fools who think they can analyze the most complex and hidden secrets of this creation and eventually make a difference to this world.
take a break guys...
Admin ..take a closer look , and analyze
why do u miss out in analyzing when everyone else is trying it?
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Precisely. One mind at a time!Originally posted by Zeal:
some fools who think they can analyze the most complex and hidden secrets of this creation and eventually make a difference to this world.
Undauntingly, the quest must continue.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Humsafar,The Quran and Bible are outdated and simplistic relics of the past and have little relevance in today’s complex world.
That is a pretty stupid statement according to me. And I am not getting upset, I am very tolerant.
Here's why I think it is stupid.
When does something become outdated? When it cannot be used anymore, right? because something better is available to achieve the same result using less effort, right?
Now what is the quran teaching us?
Unity of Allah - Is that outdated?
Prophethood of Muhammed - Is that outdated?
Roza - Is that outdated?
Namaz - Is that outdated?
Hajj, zakat - Are those outdated?
Fighting in the sake of Allah - Jihad -ooooooo- is that outdated?
Marriage - now that may be according to you, not according to me. I haven't found anything more effective.
Punishment in hell - still just as effective I guess
Fun in paradise - Is that outdated?
Interest based dealings - Is that outdated?
Paying back the due of the orphan - Is that outdated?
Punishment for rape and murder - Is that outdated?
What is outdated? I am not getting upset, I am very tolerant.
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
Zeal,
Yes, just imagine these fools trying to understand the “complex and hidden secrets of creationâ€
Yes, just imagine these fools trying to understand the “complex and hidden secrets of creationâ€
Re: Satanic Versus - Question to Mr. Engineer
accounts,
Sometimes you ask really difficult questions.
During the last 1400 years, hundreds of authors have written thousands of books against Islam. Hundreds of western "scholars" have studied every ayah of the quran itself to attack Islam They have studied the quran more than you or I ever will.
Search the internet and you will find hundreds of web-site attacking Islam and quran.
And all through this the muslim population of the world has only increased. Of course some may say that that is because each muslim family has 20 kids and I say to them..... so?
Sometimes you ask really difficult questions.
During the last 1400 years, hundreds of authors have written thousands of books against Islam. Hundreds of western "scholars" have studied every ayah of the quran itself to attack Islam They have studied the quran more than you or I ever will.
Search the internet and you will find hundreds of web-site attacking Islam and quran.
And all through this the muslim population of the world has only increased. Of course some may say that that is because each muslim family has 20 kids and I say to them..... so?