Page 4

5377
  Home Page | Links  | Comments | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 | Page 10 | Page 11 | Page 12 | Page 13 | Page 14 | Page 15  


1) ISLAM, MUSLIMS, SEPARATISM & TERRORISM

2) WHY & HOW ISLAMISATION TO SECULARISATION




1) ISLAM, MUSLIMS, SEPARATISM & TERRORISM

In order to understand or explain why muslims are terrorists, one has to understand the islamic scriptures ie the quran and its tafaseer, the hadith and its sharah, and the fiqh and its tafaseel. We need to know what are the objectives stated in the scriptures for muslims to achieve in life of this world and how they are supposed to achieve them. No two muslims agree on the number of objectives or their priority order, or the way they should be achieved. This is the clear cut guidance from god and this is what people are willing to lay down their lives for. The main objective is believed to be to establish the religion or way of Allah on the earth by way of overcoming all the other religions. Now suppose this is the agreed main objective what muslims are living their lives for then the next question is, how can one then expect to coexist with them and how they are going to go about achieving it? Some say by preaching the word of god to nonmuslims in a nice way. Yes we do find statements in the quran to back this up eg 16/125 but such verses are only a few. They are out numbered by verses which encourage violence. It looks so innocent on the face of it, doesn’t it? You would think, no person in the right mind would object to that, BUT, and this is the real big but, do you who wish to preach to others accept the principle of freedom for expression yourself? Because what one person believes goes against the belief of another person hence the need for preaching and conversion. Now does word preaching not sound offensive on its own? It definitely does. The best word is educating others about oneself or ones way of life. Now if you want to educate other people to your way of thinking then you will have to accept the principle that the other people also have the right to convince you to their way of thinking as well? In other words, have you yourself the freedom you need to accept the other religion or ideology? If you don’t then you shouldn’t be allowed to preach or educate others either. If you do, then how do you explain the punishment for apostasy in islam? The penalty for any muslim who gives up islam is death and that is unanimous verdict in the books of fiqh on the basis of Ahadith.

Some states, where muslims live as a majority are called muslim states and their laws are mostly based on organised tribal islam, do not allow nonmuslims to preach their religion or ideology, should nonmuslims states put the same restrictions on the muslims in their states in protest? Or should those oppressed people turn terrorists as a protest against such treatment of them by fellow muslim countrymen? A muslim man can marry a christian or a jewish woman the while she remains as such but a muslim woman cannot do the same. Is this fair or just. It is such double standards in islam which do not allow muslims to live in peace with other people who are nonmuslims. Whereever they are they want things their and only their way. If they do not get their way they take up arms in the name of islam and start armed struggles looking for a separate state where they could practice their religion. These struggles are then supported and funded by other like minded people living in the nonmuslim counties doing well for themselves. Now suppose muslim do get their way and have their own so called islamic state, what if some muslims are no longer happy with their beliefs and wish to give up their islamic faith? Would they have the freedom to do so? The answer is, no. Then should they pick up arms and demand for an independent nonmuslim state within a muslim state, just to give the muslims taste of their own medicine? Those muslim women who are supporting their fathers, brothers, husbands and sons for creation of islamic state, do they realise what would it mean for them? Aren’t these women sheep leading themselves to slaughter house?

So one should be able to see how islamic preaching starts with nice words and ends up as an armed struggle because of islamic principle of intolerance, bullying and the terror tactics of muslims. The quran tells its followers to go and preach to people to convert them, if you are stopped from preaching then take up arms and fight till you get resistance no more. This is the principle of defensive holy war or jehad. Do Americans, Europeans or other secular democratic states spread their ideologies this way? That is to say, suppose they go in muslim states and preach secular democratic way of life to convert them but muslims stop them from doing so and these people take up arms and start wars against them till they get their way, would it be alright with muslims? Would they accept it as a just war? It will be a just war but yet these people do not do so. If any muslim state was as powerful as the west, would there be any nonmuslims anywhere on the face of the earth? These people who love freedom do not want to convert people by force rather they would educate them to enable them to see where their own interests would be better served.

Secular democratic states where individual people have maximum possible freedom will always be right in preaching their ideology to others anywhere in the world because they do not mind other people preaching their ideologies in midst of them. They do not stop anyone from freedom of expression except when people step too far in inciting breach of peace. You can convert as many people as you can to your way of thinking, no one will threaten you even with prosecution never mind blowing you up because of your beliefs. It clearly shows which political ideology is better, secular democratic or islamic theocratic. Which social structures are better multiracial, multicultural, multinational and multi colour or islamic. Muslims are in crushing poverty because of animosity with states which promote freedom, progress and prosperity. Muslim may call themselves freedom fighters but in fact they are terrorists. They are only and only terrorists because that is what their religious dogmas and doctrines are with which they are infected or are indoctrinated. The barbarity of tribal islam is obvious in various respects. For example, muslims are taught to be enemies of nonmuslims to the extent that one is ordered in the quran to cut of all ties with even with one’s own parents, siblings and children just because of their beliefs. The quran tells how to punish various crimes eg by cutting hands and feet of people. The principle used for deterrent is terror and only terror to drive the point home. Islam is not about people of different religions or ideologies living together in peace and harmony and thereby achieving progress and prosperity for themselves but it is a structure for primitive society that does not wish to move with time. In fact it is evident beyond any doubt that if one studies the quran, the hadith and fiqh it becomes obvious that islam is all about terrorism and destruction. It is true because a people who take up the arms to solve each and everyone of their problems after losing the argument how else can one explain their behaviour.

I do not quote any references in my work because I am mostly arguing about the principles that have been tried, tested and accepted by the wise people of the world. All that remains for muslims is to test their scriptures, beliefs and actions to see if they can justify them in the light of those principles. My worry is that they do not and will not accept the principles when they find them against their scriptural teachings. They discard the standard whereby you judge things rather than accepting any fault in their scriptures, beliefs or actions. So these are a people without any principles or standard whatsoever so we shouldn’t expect any quick change of mind in these people. The only thing that might cause them to change their mind is terror. The only thing they know. So is it time for civilised people to terrorise the terrorists? Perhaps a little bit. You can see the taleban and the alqaida mighty warriors of Allah how they run with tails between their legs in front of infidel soldiers. What happened to their belief about help of Allah and their wish for death in the way of Allah. No matter how bad your relationship is with your ally, a good friend will never leaves you on your own in time of such need but then it is a matter of principles. And as far as principles are concerned, muslims and their masters Muhammad and Allah have none. This is the reality of Allah and his party. It seems THE GREAT SATAN and his party are winning. What a shame. As the quran says they should die in their rage and in shame that nonmuslims have the upper hand in the land of their Allah.

2) WHY & HOW ISLAMISATION TO SECULARISATION

I have made an effort like many other thinking people to explain why it is necessary for people to change from ancient systems of governments to the modern. From authoritarian or theocratic systems to secular democratic. Everyone else in the world has rid themselves of religious supremacy save muslims. We are the only people who still take every dot of our alleged divine scriptures very seriously. However signs are there that we are increasingly becoming uncomfortable with it. This is the only reason that no muslim states in the world is a theocracy, which could be called a true islamic state. However we have become stuck and a bit confused in the middle of this process of change.

The question is how do we go about in bringing about this change to the full? Onus is on ourselves to begin with, because all people in the world brought about changes in their own societies themselves. Once these people had put their religions in their places there was no going back. How did these people manage to do this? They did it because they were not frightened to debate openly the issues which mattered in their societies. They were willing to fight back and make necessary sacrifices for their causes. So we muslims also need to do the same. In fact our work has been made a lot easier by the people of other societies. For example, a great number of us muslims is mostly living in secular states through out the world wherein we are not as much at risk as we may think we are.

What we need to begin with is an organisation that works locally and becomes national and finally international. We should create such an organisation in states wherein we are not at risk at all or very little. Once we have the membership that gives us a reasonable foundation, we should start challenging the muslim scholars of islam within such states eg USA, UK, etc etc. The advantage is that we will have an already educated generation of muslims there with whom we can expect to reason things out. Once we are able to convince these people then the road becomes clear for us to take on the muslim states themselves in the world, one by one. Moreover before we could form such an organisation, we ourselves need to be able to fund our organisation and its activities. Once we are able to do better ourselves and then turn a muslim state around as an excellent example, others will follow suit. Thereafter there will be little or no resistance to our cause. Because if we could establish ourselves and our communities within free states then we could also act as pressure groups to seek help from our governments to help us achieve freedom for our fellow muslims in muslim states.

I think there is a good chance that we can win people over because we are only trying to better their lot in life of this world. We are not out to fight them to their death and destruction that we will face stiff resistance. Our fight is simply against ignorance and oppression to keep things the way they are. We need to make clear to our fellow muslims that religion is a backward thing in general and islam in particular. We have been deceived by the ideas that islam has all the answers for everyone to all their problems spiritual and material. In my arguments I have clearly stated that it is not the case. These arguments are not about nitty gritty of things but about principles on which islam is based. I have shown how it could be proven that islamic scripture is not divine in various respects and therefore is no guidance for anyone at all. Spiritually it does not prove existence of god or prophetship of Muhammad and therefore all its claims about so called spiritual world are false.

As far as the material world is concerned, I have shown that the quran, the hadith and fiqh are no guidance at all. Not because I say so but because the scriptures do not have any local, national or international constitutional aspects clearly stated in them eg ideology its political, economic, social and cultural infrastructures or practices and their detail needed for running today’s human society. Anything you come across today, people are urged to look back for prophetic examples how it should be dealt with. The prophet dealt with things the way people of his time around him used to deal with things. That is why he kept on slavery till it went out of fashion. He married a child. He allowed men to have as many women as they wanted but not the other way round. Perhaps because he did not have a mother or sister so he did not know how he should respect women. He introduced a taxation system (ZKAH) that was not even sufficient for helping the poor never mind it being sufficient for laying down foundations for future developments. He ruled as a king and the list is endless. He not only did not encourage progress and prosperity through future developments instead he actively discouraged it. There is no example of prophet at all how people should set up what kind of government. How the government should work. What the political or other structures should be like to run the state effectively and efficiently. How people were to raise inland revenue and what they should do with it.

All such things are missing and that was the reason that as soon as he died people began to fight amongst themselves over anything and everything. Not because people wanted to fight but because he did not leave them with any clearcut and precise instructions for anything. Muslims when they saw the quran did not contain sufficient information which could help them live their life they invented hadith. The creation of hadith is a proof of their admission that the quran does not have the information that is needed for it to be a perfect guidance. Because if the quran was complete for their guidance then there was no need for hadith and if there is any need for hadith then the quran is not sufficient as a guidance. Likewise if hadith was sufficient as a guidance with the quran then fiqh has no place in guidance and if fiqh is needed then both the quran and the hadith are useless as guidance or why should there still be need for such a thing as fiqh?

Also even if we accept that all these sources are a perfect guidance for sake of argument yet the chain is as strong as its weakest link. If the quran is perfectly preserved then, is the same true for the hadith and the fiqh? If it is then why sects who disbelieve in a set of hadith and fiqh books are still considered muslims? This again is a problem because scriptures ought to be a fixed thing not to be left as a part or as a whole at mercy of people to decide its authenticity. Is everyone who writes anything in support of islam a super human being and infallible and knows exactly what is from god and what is not? Or do such muslims know mind of god that their works should be considered equally divine or divine will? Is it sufficient to believe in the name of the source to be a muslim rather than source? Shias and sunnies both claim to believe in the revelation called the quran. But the quran they each claim to believe in is different from the others. Shias and sunnies both claim to believe in hadith but the hadith they both claim to believe in are different. Both sunnies and shias claim to believe in fiqh but the fiqh they both claim to believe in are different. They both claim to believe in so called pillars of islam but the five pillars of sunni islam are different from the shia pillars of islam.

Both sunnies and shias claim to believe in imaams but the imaams they allegedly believe in are different. The shias and sunnies both claim to believe in KHILAFA but the khilafa they allegedly believe in is different. Moreover these differences did not pop up today they have been there since the death of the prophet if not since before his death, because this has been the part of tribal rivalry. As I pointed out already the quran is incomplete as a guidance, the hadith is incomplete as a guidance and so is the fiqh so what is complete or perfect islam? Muslim scholars say, the quran cannot be understood without hadith but they also say the hadith cannot be known if it is genuine unless it is in accordance with the quran. This creates a serious problem. If it is an easy thing to sort out the true and false hadith then why sunnies do not accept shia hadith and vice versa? Moreover none of the so called muhaddiseen and naqedeen (collectors, critics and categorisers of hadith) ever claimed that they have all the hadith of the prophet that were there. All we read in their works of hadith is that they left thousands of hadith out of their works because they thought they were forgeries? Were they super human beings, who could’t make mistakes and could carry out such works effectively and efficiently? Some muslim scholars also say that the differences between different sects are minor and are of no consequence, is that the case? No, it is not, for wars between sects have been many and serious. So these differences have to be worth fighting for and dying for.

My other point is that present interpreters of the quran claim that some verses of the quran were interpreted wrongly by ancient scholars because they could only and only be understood now, so how could one discard hadith, they may well have been discarded through lack of understanding of hadith scholars? Furthermore, we still find a lot of false hadith in various so called genuine works of hadith, so where does all of this leave us as regard to authenticity of the hadith works? My arguments clearly show that fiqh is not as important or genuine as the hadith and the hadith is not as important and genuine as the quran, whereas the quran needs hadith and hadith needs fiqh and vice versa, so the end result is or should be obvious that islam is not what muslims claim it to be ie a heavenly appointed way of life for all the people everywhere in the world to follow for ever. This is why secular democracy is the new world order of the day and it is the best thing available for people to live by.