Banner Advertiser

Thursday, September 22, 2011

[mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?



Bangladesh is a political entity, as opposed to a cultural one. May be, Najrul Islam's Bangla Desh and Ravindranath's Sonar Bangla were cultural, and those included more than the political entity of Bangladesh; they also excluded at least the Chittagong Hill Tracts, which is a part of today's political Bangladesh.
 
Citizenship (nationality) is not cultural. I wish the secular politicians and intellectuals of Bangladesh did not start this non-sense of Bangalee nationalism in 1971-72. It was wrong to ask the CHT people to call themselves Bangalees. Again, Bangalee nationalism was not really the spirit of all movements during 1947-71, and should not have been unless if we wanted to merge with West Bengal and allowed CHT to secede from us. Fairness, respect and dignity for Bangla and the Bangalees should not be considered the same as Bangalee nationalism. Bangalee nationalism would have demanded a separate nation for the Bangalees, even if the western Pakistanis treated the Bangalees with due respect. Our real spirit was no nationalism; it was fairness, respect and dignity for us.
 
Citizenship for anyone who seeks it? It is not done anywhere in the world. All countries have their laws to govern how a non-citizen would be given citizenship.
 
I would not ask Awami League to revive the so-called Bangalee nationalism (citizenship), rather I would ask them to respect all peoples of the land with respect; much like I would not ask them to call all Bangladeshis Muslims, much like I would not ask all Indians to be known as Hindus, much like I would not desire all cultural, linguistic and ethnic groups of the United States to be called Christians or English.
 
Well, so long for now,
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] HAVOC CREATED BY JAMATI'S !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Dr. Bain's comments tells me that, in my last sarcastic comments, I did not clarify my points enough; hence confusions.
I was looking for a cultural identity for the people of Bangladesh. I explored 3 conventional identities (Bangalee, Bangladeshi, and Moderate Muslim), which have been used in the past to represent the people of Bangladesh. But, none of them seemed to encompass all people. As a result, the identity crisis still remains, and we do not know who we are.
After Bangladesh was born, our cultural identity (Jatiota) was Bangalee, and our nationality was also Banglalee. Ershad changed our nationality to Bangladeshi. The motive was to include all the people of Bangladesh, so he told us at that time. Was it really the motive? If that was true – all non-Bangalee Biharis should have been citizen by now, and Father Tim, the former Principal of Notre Dame College, would have been citizen already. If you say that our nationality is Bangladeshi - then we should grant citizenship to any permanent resident of Bangladesh, if they seek one.
In my view, it was done purposefully to defuse pre-independence secular mindset, and neutralize the Bangalee-Jatiotabadi spirit, the spirit of independence movement. As you know, Quranic verses and state religion (Islam) were also introduced in the secular constitution right around that time.
Dr. Bain, Bangalee-Jatiotabadi spirit has been the driving force behind all movements in the East Pakistan since the language movement in 1952. Even though Sheikh Mujib was not seeking independence at the beginning, but his movement was fueled by the Bangali-Jatiotabadi spirit. This is the spirit that still can unite the mjority in Bangladesh. That's why - I have been asking Awami League to revive that spirit for their sake.
 
Thanks for your comments. Love to hear from you. Don't be a stranger.
 
Jiten Roy--- 


__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] SLAVERY IS PERMITTED IN ISLAM



Sorry to inform you, Hanif the Forger has proven nothing because you can not keep proving your points right by keep forging new Lies. The Problem with these Forgers is, they do not know full details of History of Islam. The Question is, if Hzt. Omar had banned Slavery, ...
.
* ... why he himself had Slaves until he was assassinated by one?
* ... what happened to Speakers of Assyrian language in Syria and in what is presently southern Iraq?
* ... why suddenly everybody started speaking Arabic in Syria and southern Iraq if Assyrian Speakers there were not slaughtered and their Households were not enslaved?
* ... how come Sudan, N. Africa up to Iraq now speak Arabic if these lands were not colonized by Arabs after they had cleansed them with the nations that lived there?
* ... why nobody has found anybody speaking any of the languages of N. Africa since Moslim Invasion?
* ... what happened to them if they were not slaughtered and their Households were not enslaved and sold worldwide?
.

"Oh, all those people loved Islam and their Prophet so much that they stopped speaking their Mother Tongues", right?
Well, then how come no Moslims east of Iraq up to Indonesia were of the same kind?

The Reason is clear. There were not enough Arabs to keep occupation of such vast lands and slaughtering them all would have killed Economy, which would have inflicted on prosperity.

This new Forgery about Hzt. Omar has been created because in his regime from 634 to 644 A.D. Arabs had started their invasion and huge monstrous occupation of lands outside Arabian Peninsula.

Real Descendants of those Arabs themselves do not try to hide facts and they are honest. Its the lowlife half-breed Pakistanis born out of their Slave Girls, who keep forging lies shamelessly in the name of defending Islam though they are actually defending the Rapists of their Slave Ancestoral Mothers because they think, they are real Arabs though they are called 'Miskeen' by Saudis and treated as low-life in Saudi Arabia.
"MooDaaEe soosT gwaah choosT"


From: Mubashir Inayet <minayet@yahoo.com>


I think Mr Hanif has made his point  from the Qur'an and also proved it from those who love history (Hzt Omar's story). People in those days freed their slaves but we also read that some slaves chose to remain as servants with their former owners on account of their treatment.
 
Now what Muslims (or Christians or Jews) do and what their books say can and are two different things.
 
Yes, for our time and age, the credit goes to the US for banning it. Whether it was based on their faith or humanity, it does not matter.
 

From: S Turkman <turkman@sbcglobal.net>
To: hanif_mo@hotmail.com; butshikana <butshikana@gmail.com>; msa7011 <msa7011@yahoo.com>
Cc: minayet@yahoo.com; col. Ghulam yusuf <ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com>; Dr Fauq Kibriya <tahirakhan@comcast.net>; drshabbir@bellsouth.net; sabahatca@hotmail.com; Qaseem <qaseem39us@yahoo.com>; khaleq_hyd@yahoo.co.uk; humayunhere@yahoo.com; sufiyan1970@gmail.com; m.ahmad@wanadoo.fr; wyeknotusa@aol.com; iokoutlook@gmail.com; kaisrani@gmail.com; kavalec@gmail.com; khshaikh1999@gmail.com; mdshafiaga@gmail.com; msnoorani@hotmail.com; moula_87@yahoo.com; dryahyakazi@hotmail.com; Naveed <aaqib98@yahoo.com>; maanwer1@gmail.com; doctorforu123@yahoo.com; khmahmood@se.com.sa; Sajid <sajid@shusain.com>; bhai.syed2010@gmail.com; sydsadr@hotmail.com; rizasiddiqi@hotmail.com; latif.m.chaudhery@gmail.com; sikanderkk@hotmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:57:56 PM
Subject: SLAVERY IS PERMITTED IN ISLAM
You are contradicting yourself and showing your bias against Christians here instead of convincing me of anything. You claim Hitler's Genocide of Jews can not be blamed on Christianity and no credit should go to Christianity for Christians doing a Good Deed like ending Slavery in USA but Islam should get credit for having one ruler out of hundreds in 1400 years, Hzt. Omar, who had banned Slavery just temporarily and it had restarted after his death two years later again. Could you tell me, if Hzt. Omar had really banned Slavery and everything you wrote is correct, how come he had not freed his own Slave, the one, who had assassinated him with a Dagger laced with Poison?

From: MOHAMMED HANIF <hanif_mo@hotmail.com>
Dear all/ Turkman slam and salawatHazrat &l t;/ span> Omar's measures to restrict and phase out slavery 1. It is attributed to Hazrat Omar that "the children of Adam are born free and no one has right to enslave them".2. Caliph Omar also decreed that all war captives have ultimate liberty to choose their religion; whether to embrace Islam or another religion. (page 456)3. The converts however, would enjoy full rights but non-Muslim would be subject(ed) to pay jizya . (Al-Farooq page-261 by Allma Shibli Naumani - biography of Hazrat Omar). 4. No war captives to be reduced to slavery (ibid) 5. Moreover, those who were taken as slaves in battles, Hazrat Omar ordered to free them. (ibid) [In accordance with prescribed method in Sura Muhammad 47: 4]. 6. A companion of Prophet Hazrat Ans refused to adhere to Caliph's ordinance. Hazrat Omar flogged him for his disobedience and quoted verse (24:33) to hazrat Ans as an evidence of the Qur'anic injunction in his evidence. (ibid p-457) It is therefore not entirely true that no efforts was made to end slavery by Islam. People often forget that we are judging people of 7th century in our much librated society of today. Please bear in mind that slavery has changed its shape and method but it still exists in many forms and controls our lives beyond obvious imagination and recognition. I give you that not much has changed in Saudi society even today a non-Arab Muslim can not acquire Saudi nationality, have right to welfare or own business on his/her individual name even though he may be born in the Kingdom. In any business Saudi national will have more than 50% stake and kick non Arab out at will and no protection afforded by racist an dunjust state law enforcing authorities. This is blatant and clear form of riba (there may be some exceptions to the rule that I am not aware of). This is the reality but Qur'an, Muhammad and Islam cannot be held responsible for their inhumane and appalling treatment of fellow human beings. Islam and Muslims are not necessarily compatible with each other. The same way one cannot blame christianity for gassing of millions of innocent Jews by a Christian state. I used to credit Abraham  Lincoln (USA President) for emancipation of slaves but recently I saw a documentary on his life that changed my perception and from my hero he has tyurned to zero. Documentary gave credible evidence that freeing of slave wasn't economically viable for the white natives. The legislation to free black American wasn't changed on fear of God, on the basis of kindness. Een Khuda nane duhad jane burd - Aan khuda jane duhad nane duhad (Dr Iqbal) (Human master hands out bread by taking dignity away. However, God gives nan as well keeps man's dignity intact)Hanif 
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:44:14 -0700 From: turkman@sbcglobal.net
FACTS: . * Meaning of Arabic Phrase 'Right Hand Possession' = What you own free of all encumbrances. What you own 100%. Therefore, if you own a Slave it means that Slave also. * The word for Captive in Arabic used in Qoraan can not be used for Animals. Therefore, 'Captives' means, ones who have to be distributed amongst Moslims as Slaves, who participated in that war, when they were made Captives.  * A have already explained the variety of ways they can be freed in my post. 1. After Collecting Ransom. 2. Out of kindness of your Heart. 3. Paying the Owner and freeing Male Slaves if they have become Moslims. Nothing about freeing Female Slaves in Islamic Literature, Qoraan or HaDees can be found. * Its a lie that Prophet led a 'Movement to free Female Slaves'. * Not only Moslim Kings but ordinary rich also owned Slaves. You could tell by Number of Slaves one owned, his Prosperity. If one old man, lower Middle Class. If a pretty White 16 years old Female, rich because they used to cost the most. Slaves were bought and sold all the time and all of them were not Captured in war either.  

From: Kaukab Siddique <butshikana@gmail.com>
Pervezi does not know what he is talking about.
 
Slavery was forbidden  as early as Sura al-Balad [in the Makkan period]. Read it.
 
Mubascher is copying pervez who put it at a much later date, 47:4.
 
"Those whom your right hands possess"  were not slaves but CAPTIVES.
Islam teaches a great variety of ways to end captivity.
 
The Hadith of Muhammad, pbuh, shows how the Prophet, pbuh, led the movement to end the captivity of women captured in war.
The context of war is understood through Hadith. The Qur'an is not an academic book for pervezis. It is related DIRECTLY to the life of the Prophet, pbuh. documented in Hadith.
 
Muslim rulers started taking slaves because they believed  in QUR'AN ONLY and interpreted the Qur'an as they wished and not as the Prophet, pbuh, had interpreted it.
 
-------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Mohammad Asghar <msa7011@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now, we will have to understand the meaning of the Quranic terms from the "converts" to Islam!!
 
I think the classical exponents of the Quran are  now turning in their graves, if their bodies are still intact!
 
Mohammad Asghar

From: Mubashir Inayet <minayet@yahoo.com>

Islam put an end to source of slavery (captives of war) by ordering the Muslims either to free them as a goodwill gesture, or for ransom. Read 47:4
 
Jizya in Arabic, I am told, has a closer meaning to war reparations rather than a tax on Non Muslim subjects.
 
As for sex with slaves, read on:
 
SEX WITH SLAVE GIRLS by Jospeh Islam
Printer Friendly Version
Copyright © 2009 Joseph A Islam: Article last modified 30th March 2011
To get a proper understanding of this topic, one has to rely on the Quran first and foremost. Any good Muffassir (Quranic exegetic) takes this approach whether modern or classical.
The narrow interpretation of the term 'Those that your right hands possess' as slave girls (with whom you can have free sex) as is commonly understood by many Muslims is not warranted by the Quran.
To enable a truer understanding of the Quranic position , one must be willing to divorce themselves from the plethora of extra-Quranic material which not only poses theological problems but also at times stands contradictory to the Quran itself.
First and foremost, the term 'Ma malakat aymanukum' (Literally: What your right hands possesses) is not gender specific and applies to 'those that you keep in protection and honour' (which can include captives - slave girls (fatayatikum), servants etc). Note that the 'right hand' even through the Quran's own perspective has a somewhat glorified meaning (Those on the right hand - as in heaven, books of one's deeds given to the right hand etc).
Also note that rich women would have also possessed men slaves. One would not therefore conclude on the basis of the term 'Ma malakat aymanukum' the permissibility of women to engage in 'free sex' with their male slaves / captives.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE TERM
'Malakat aymanukum' which can literally be rendered as 'right hands possess' appears many times in the Quran and in a variety of contexts
Ma malakat aymanukum
What your right hands (2nd person masculine plural) possess *
(4:25; 4:36; 24:33)
Ma malakat yaminuka
What your right hands (2nd person masculine single) possess
(33:50; 33:52)
Alazeena malakat yymanukum
Those whom your right hands (2nd person masculine plural) possess *
(24:58)
Ma malakat aymanuhum
What their right hands (3rd person masculine plural) possess *
(16:71; 23:6)
Ma malakat aymanuhunna
What their right hands (3rd person feminine plural) possess
(24:31; 33:55)
* Please take note that masculine plurals can also be a reference to a group of both males and females. Therefore restricting the interpretation of the term to just 'females' is unwarranted from the Quranic Arabic.
The following points must be noted with regards to 'those that your right hands possess' from the Quran.
(1) Be good to them as you are with your parents, orphans, needy, neighbours and free them if you can
(2) Do no compel them to whoredom or force them
(3) You can only have sex with them through marriage / wedlock
(1) BE GOOD TO THEM
004:036
And serve God and do not associate any thing with Him and be good to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the neighbour of (your) kin and neighbour who is not of kin, and the companion in a journey and the wayfarer and those whom your right hands possess; surely God does not love him who is proud, boastful
(2) AND GIVE THEM THEIR RIGHT OF FREEDOM AND DO NOT COMPEL THEM TO WHOREDOM OR FORCE THEM
024:033
"Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing, give them such a deed if you know any good in them and give them from the wealth of God which He has given you. But force not your slave girls (Arabic: fatayatikum) to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them)"
Note: Those that cannot marry need to stay chaste, attempt to free those that their right hands possess and certainly not force them to sex or prostitution. However, if the poor unfortunate slave girls are forced, they will still find mercy from God, bounties which extend to all His creatures.
(3) YOU CAN ONLY HAVE SEX WITH THEM THROUGH MARRIAGE / WEDLOCK
004:025
"If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And God has full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
· It was better if one practiced self restraint. But if one couldn't marry free believing women, then the directive was given to marry from what their right hands possessed. Not for prostitution, not for lust, but for wedlock.
· Notice here that although one can 'marry' a woman from one's right hands possess, her status is not that of a 'Free believing woman' (as can be seen from the half punishment she can potentially exact for the same sin). This is the reason why women that form part of those whom your right hands possess are referred to as a separate category. However, they do not form an exception to the marital rule in terms of who is lawful for sex. See 23:6 & 70:30. In other words, they still have to be married.
· One logical question bears asking keeping in view any appetite for carnal desires. If one has wives along with many hand maidens with whom one could potentially have free sex, then what kind of sexual predator and maniac does one have to be to still commit adultery? The Quran imparts a consistent message with regards abstention from any unrighteous lust. What is the purpose of having sex with captives if it is not for lust?
004.024
"
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess"
· From this verse, it is clear that one can marry women who are already married if they constitute those from what your right hands possess (taken captive). Again, focus is on marriage, not sex for lust and they have to believing captives (Not pagans). See 4.25 above.
(Continued 004.024) "...Thus has God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers as prescribed (Arabic: faatuhunna ujurahunna faridatan); but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree mutually, there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise"
This verse makes it clear that all married women are forbidden apart from a specific exception.
Exception:
Those women who are married but have come to be captured or possessed (Ma Malakat Amanakum) are lawful are in marriage. Note this exception. But the question still remains - lawful to one in what way?
The rest of the verse clearly states that all women (including the exception - Right hands possess) have to be married (in wedlock). The legality being wedlock. Note the Arabic term: faatuhunna ujurahunna faridatan (give them their bridal due as obligation).
It is clear therefore that the intention is of wedlock not of fornication, or lust.
This seals the fate of sex with women from the category of 'right hands possess' outside marriage. These women are only lawful to one in marriage.
004.003
"If you fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice"
· Marry one if you cannot deal justly or from what your right hands possess, but still take those whom your right hands possess in marriage.
024.032
"And marry those (Arabic: wa-ankihu) among you who are single and those who are righteous among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, God will make them free from want out of His grace; and God is Ample-giving, Knowing"
070.029
"And those who guard their chastity"

070.030
"Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess (in wedlock), for (then) they are not to be blamed"
WHY DOES THE QURAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN 'MARRIED WOMEN' AND 'RIGHT HANDS POSSESS' AND CLASSIFY THEM AS SEPARATE CATEGORIES?
Women who are from the category of 'right hands possess' are not 'free' women in the same sense. They are either slaves or captures. When one takes them in marriage, all the rules of responsibility of wedlock on part of the male applies to the one he marries. However, this spouse still has reduced answerability such as her punishment in the case of 'Fahsha' (lewdness).
There remains a crucial difference between a marriage based on complete freedom of choice exacted by a 'free believer' without circumstantial influence and one based on compromises, incentives such as freedom, status and financial stability gained through a compromise marriage. These differences in choices based on free and non-free parties is clearly recognized. Hence the noted difference in answerability as well.
004:025
"And whoso is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. God knows best (concerning) your faith. Ye (proceed) one from another; so wed them by permission of their folk, and give to them their portions in kindness, they being honest, not debauched nor of loose conduct. And if when they are honourably married they commit lewdness they shall incur the half of the punishment (prescribed) for free women (in that case). This is for him among you who fears to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you. God is Forgiving, Merciful"
FINAL THOUGHTS
Scripture has never permitted men to engage in sex outside the institution of marriage whether this be from the category of free believing women, or from the category of 'right hands possess'.
 
From: S Turkman <turkman@sbcglobal.net>


Sounds like Mr. Hanif thinks, what I have written is just Heresy and not authentic Islamic Shriyah Laws that have been practiced in all Sects of Islam for centuries. He also is saying everything should be authenticated by Qoraan, when I had quoted that it was in Qoraan. I had not written that Qoraan says, sex with Female Slaves without marrying them was legal but that is also in Qoraan. Female Slaves and their Children can not inherit Assets of their Owner. This is also in Qoraan. I think, this gentleman doesn't know, even Hzt. Khadija had a Male Slave and after her Death, he was Slave of our Prophet. When he grew up, the Prophet had freed him. Hzt. Osman did not have Concubines before and after Islam? Who had killed Hzt. Omar and Hzt. Ali? Their Personal Slaves. Sounds like this man is saying Slavery was illegal in Islam and no Moslims had any Slaves, when until British had banned Slavery in Indian Sub Continent, one of my own Ancestors had more than 350 Male and Female Non Moslim Slaves. Until 1950's a few of their Descendants used to visit my Grandmother just to say 'Salam' because now they had converted to Islam. . Protection Money or 'Jiziyah' was not collected? Moslim Pirates of Algeria used to attack Ships of American Merchants, loot them and enslave Americans despite receiving a huge Protection Money or Jiziyah every year from US Government. When asked about violating the Treaty, they had wanted such a huge amount in Protection Money that US Congress had decided that building a Navy would be cheaper than that. Only sale of Americans in Moslim Slave Trade Markets and looting of their Ships was the problem that had caused birth of US Navy in 1790's. Read World History ...!

From: ghulam yusuf <ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com>
Dear Hanif
 
Your condition your attack should only be based on the Qur'anic parameters, injunctions and within the boundry-line of the actual source of Islam.
 is just not understandable. All through history of Islamic rule (Damishq, Baghdad, Sultans of Turky and moghals of India, and elsewhere,  had hundreds of concubines. Some of their  heirs were also born out of those concunines although they later marrried them to give them legal status)  Do you think that the Halwa eating scholars of those times (like our Maulana Modoodi, sorry but perhaps he did not get enough of it) were not aware of Quranic injuctions. Or were they paid handsome amounts to declare ownership and sex with concunines as legally permitted by Quran? There will be many more who will declare it legal even today, I assure you if paid handsomely.
 
Please stick to the point and do not attach conditions to it to lengthen your argument. This is only one of the issues. There are many more which are not applicable TODAY.Our Mullahs have to change their attitude in consideration of 21st century conditions instead of adeearing to 7th century.
 
My final verdict. Muslims all over the world have been controlled by the ILLITERATE MULLAHS. That is why we have subjugated by the West. They got rid of their Mullahs 3 centuries ago. It is time we do that now.
Ghulam Yusuf  --- On Mon, 19/9/11, MOHAMMED HANIF <hanif_mo@hotmail.com> wrote:

Greetings of rehmat and salawat/ Dear Mr SU TurkmanI am astounded that a person of your intelligence talks like a mollah. I am not averse to hearing criticism on Islam but to attract my response your attack should only be based on the Qur'anic parameters, injunctions and within the boundry-line of the actual source of Islam. If you want to speculate on literature based on hearsay evidence then please refer to defenders of ahaDees. Should you have genuine issue relating to the teaching of the holy Qur'an then I am willing to join you and sincerely extend my hand to share and obtain a solution together on difficult issues. Otherwise, you and I are not on the same wave length. Alternatively please provide evidence of your postulation with Qur'anic source. I would be obliged to hear from you a logical and reasonable interaction. Regards HanifDate: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:53:44 -0700 From: turkman@sbcglobal.net
As far as I understood, Allah in Qoraan says, you are supposed to enslave people of Defeated Nations, not only good looking Females and then He says, you can free Slaves after receiving Ransom or out of kindness of your Heart. Allah never said all Slaves should be freed because purpose of enslaving them would have been dead then and the first command would have been opposed by the 2nd on this subject sounding illogical or stupid. According to HaDees, only Slaves who become Moslims are supposed to be freed and it was advised to collect Donations for freeing such Slaves if their Moslim Owner refused to free them. There is no other mention of any order to free Non Moslim Slaves in HaDees. Its false propaganda that Slavery was not allowed in Islam by some Mollaas because they know, hardly any Moslims believe in Slavery and Islam has now started sounding an Obsolete Religion because Slavery is permitted in Islam. Let me inform you other Islamic Shriyaa Laws about Slavery with Islamic Court Precedences in books of Shiryah ...! ..Islamic Shriyah Laws on Slavery: 1. A Male can have sex with his Female Slave without marrying her but a Female Slave Owner can not have sex with a Male Slave. 2. Father of a Slave Owner can have sex with his Son or Daughter's Female Slave (if she is not married) without his/her permission. 3. Husband of Female Slave Owner can have sex with his Wife's Slave without her permission because she is his or is a Slave of her Husband in practicality. 4. A Male Slave Owner's Brothers, Cousins and Uncles can have sex with his Female Slave if he permits them to have sex with her and similarly, also with his Wife's Female Slave. 5. In above Court Precedences included is case, when a Husband had not purchased or gifted the Female Slave for his Wife and she came with his Wife, when he had married her, from the Wife's rich Father's House. 6. A Husband can use his Wife's Female or and Male Slave that was gifted to her by her Family but can not sell them. Only she can sell them, if and when she wants and keep that Money. 7. No Female Slave Owner is allowed to gain anything material or non-material by letting his Father, Brothers, Cousins or Friends have sex with her because it would be same as Prostituting her out. 8. Coitus Interuptus (pulling Penis out of before ejaculating in a Slave's Body) is permissible in Islam because Women without Children fetched more money. 9. A Female Slave and or her Children can not inherit anything left by their Owner after he dies. . S U Turkman (with authentic Islamic Degree of 'Qazi Tol QzaaT')
From: MOHAMMED HANIF <hanif_mo@hotmail.com>
Dear all
My learned friends would, no doubt, be able to provide more adequate and detailed response. I have attempted a quick response to brother, Ghulam Yusuf's enquiry and hope it be some help if not answering but adding some difficult questions.
1.       I understand that slavery was permitted in Makkah society and elsewhere in the world at the time of Prophet Muhammad. The Qur'an has encouraged people to free slaves (including concubines) and take believing women in to wedlock. In Sura Muhammad (47:2-3), the Qur'an puts an end to concubine/ slavery. Prior to advent of Prophet-hood of honourable Muhammad, and revelation captives of wars were taken as slave and as a booty under the then practice had right to have sex with them was a norm.
2.       The compiler of the 'most authentic book' after the Qur'an "Sahih al-Bukhari" lived 62 years and he never married, he had slave girl (s) at his disposal and according to narration contained in al-Bukhari's own compilation it was permitted to have sexual intercourse with salve/ concubines. In fact, Imam Ismael Bukhari was a sleeping partner in a slave trade from which he received monthly profit/ income of 500 dirham.
Why traditional Muslims ferociously defend Imam Bukhari's collated version and teachings. It is understandable there is some incentive for them to lead a pious life and have play-boy animal sexual urges satisfied and at the same time remain in the fold of Islam. Imam Bukhari's exemplary life is self evident that he practiced what he preached.
3.       I have a copy of Urdu Translation of the holy Qur'an that is given as a gift to Hujjaj by the Saudi Government, it states that although slavery is currently frowned upon but if time is conducive and Islamic Shariah is implemented, having sex with slave girls would be halal/ permitted, like having sex with one's wife/ wives.
4.       Pakistan's biggest promoter of sexual perversion Sayed Maudoodi, the founder of Jam'at-e-Islami Pakistan, not only did he preached having sex with slaves was permitted but he went further and gave fatwa that slave can be sold as a commodity after 'use'. No wonder another grand Mullah (Maulana Sami'-ullah?) appeal to parliament during Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's reign that at least one slave should be permitted under the law.
Hanif

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 06:14:28 -0700 From: ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com
Mr. Irfan and all friends
 
Mr. Asghar has raised a point about concubines (Kaneez). Can you deny that in Islam it is permitted to have sex with as many concunines as you can afford. Please someone explain without side tracking the issue.
 
Once it is settled one way or the other I will have my own question about dower (Haq Mehr).
With Regards.
Ghulam Yusuf --- On Sun, 18/9/11, Mohammad Asghar <msa7011@yahoo.com> wrote:

You are more interested in seeing one with his pants down than on substantive and real issues. Are you a homosexual by any chance?
 
Mohammad Asghar
From: Faiz <tahirakhan@comcast.net>

Asghar, you were caught with your pants down and you don't feel a thing!
 
I don't think you can ever feel embarrassed. 
 
In Panjabi they say "sharm nahin te maujan hi maujan" (if you don't have shame, then do whatever you like).
 
Irfan
 
From: Mohammad Asghar [mailto:msa7011@yahoo.com]

 
There is an adage that says that if you mix a drop of lemon juice with a barrel of milk, the milk becomes unfit for human consumption.
 
Keeping this adage in mind, if we compare all the goodies you have mentioned with Allah's directive to Muhammad and his followers to have sex with their slave girls and concubines, without paying them their price (dowry), the Quran becomes an immoral book.  
 
In the light of the above fact, can any one say that it is a book of morality, if he or she has an iota of common sense in his or her head?
 
Mohammad Asghar
 
Dear Dr. Sahib, AA,
 
<<< Let the retard expect my answer when I am back in two weeks.>>>
 
As you know, people like Asghar cannot understand ANY verse of the Qur'an--Period.  This is a challenge from the Qur'an which, if someone has doubts, can EASILY be verified by examining ANY of Asghar's posts.  For example, just today he wrote: 
 
<<< The Quran is not even a book of morality. To quote the Jahil Pagans, it is a nonsensical and foolish book!>>>
 
Imagine someone describing the Qur'an "The Quran is not even a book of morality".  Obviously, he has not been able to see ANY of the following verses in the Qur'an:  How blind can a person be when he can't see an elephant in the closet!!!
The Glorious Qur'an says…
1. Be kind to all human beings irrespective of their religion, color, race, sex,   language, status, property, birth, profession/job and so on [17/70]
2. Talk straight, to the point, without any ambiguity or deception [33/70]
3. Choose best words to speak and say them in the best possible way [17/53, 2/83]
4. Do not shout. Speak politely keeping your voice low. [31/19]
5. Always speak the truth. Shun words that are deceitful and ostentatious [22/30]
6. Do not confound truth with falsehood [2/42]
7. Say with your mouth that what is in your heart [3/167]
8. Speak in a civilized manner in a language that is recognized by the society and is commonly used [4/5]
9. When you voice an opinion, be just, even if it is against a relative [6/152]
10. Do not be a bragging boaster [31/18]
11. Do not talk, listen or do anything vain [23/3, 28/55]
12. Do not participate in any paltry. If you pass near a futile play, then pass by   with dignity [25/72]
13. Do not verge upon any immodesty or lewdness whether surreptitious or overt [6/151].
14. If, unintentionally, any misconduct occurs by you, then correct yourself expeditiously [3/134].
15. Do not be contemptuous or arrogant with people [31/18]
16. Do not walk haughtily or with conceit [17/37, 31/18]
17. Be moderate in thy pace [31/19]
18. Walk on the earth with humility and gentleness [25/63]
19. Lower you gaze; avoid lecherous leers and salacious stares [24/30-31, 40/19].
20. If you do not have complete knowledge about anything, better keep your mouth shut. Spreading false rumors can have grave consequences [24/15-16]
21. Keep favorable view the accused until you attain sure knowledge about the matter. Consider others innocent until they are proven guilty with truthful evidence [24/12-13]
22. Ascertain the truth of any news, lest you smite someone in ignorance and afterwards repent of what you did [49/6]
23. Verify all information before making anything public; your eyes, ears, and faculty of reasoning will be questioned [17/36].
24. Keep praying, "O My Sustainer! Advance me in knowledge." [20/114]
25. The believers are but a single brotherhood. Live like members of one family, brothers and sisters unto one another [49/10].
26. Do not make ridicule others; they may be better than you [49/11]
27. Do not slander, vilify and calumniate others [49/11]
28. Repel evil with good [13/22, 28/54]; when angered, try to forgive and forget [42/37]
29. Avoid suspicion and guesswork; Do not spy on one another, nor speak ill of anyone behind their back [49/12]
30. Respond with the same greeting or better when you are greeted.  This will create feeling of peace, good will, and mutual wellness [4/86]
31. When you enter your own home or someone else's home, greet the inmates and wish them peace [24/61]
32. Do not enter houses other than your own until you have sought permission; when permitted, offer blessings of peace and prosperity [24/27]
33. Take good care of your parents and your relatives, orphans, people in need, your friends and companions, your neighbors, travelers, and people under your care and custody [4/36]
34. Do not follow up what you have given to others to afflict them with reminders of your generosity [2/262].
35. Do good for the sake of doing good; do not expect a return for your good deeds, not even thanks [76/9]
36. Help one another in doing good deeds; do not cooperate with those who spread evil [5/2]
37. Avoid all major sins and shameful deeds so you can be considered for Divine forgiveness [53/32]
38. Put your own house in order before you preach righteousness to others; fear God and practice what you preach [2/44, 66/6]
39. God is merciful to those who immediately repent and reform their conduct [6/54, 3/134]
40. God shows grace to those who are always willing to help irrespective of their own circumstances, and those who keep their anger in check [3/134]
41. Call people to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful exhortation. Reason with them most decently [16/125]
42. There is no compulsion in religion; the Right Path has been made distinct from the Wrong path 2/286; leave those alone who consider the Truth as mere vain amusement [6/70]
43. Sit not in the company of those who ridicule the Divine writ until they stop their mockery [4/140]
44. Do not be jealous of those who are blessed [4/54]
45. In your collective life, Always make rooms for others in assemblies and give due respect to all opinions [58/11]
46. Eat and drink (what is lawful) but do not be wasteful [7/31]
47. Do not squander your wealth senselessly [17/26]
48. Fulfill your promises and commitments [17/34]
49. Keep yourself clean and pure [9/108, 4/43, 5/6].
50. Dress-up in agreeable attire but remember, the best dress is the right conduct and beautiful character from inside out [7/26]
51. Stand up for justice firmly.  Remember, when it comes to doing justice, there are no parents nor relatives, nor are there any enemies to take revenge from [4/135, 5/8)
52. Do not devour the wealth and property of others unjustly, nor bribe the officials or the judges to deprive others of their possessions [2/188]
53. Remember God always; God remembers those who remember Him [2/152]
(courtesy of br. Muhammad Latif Chaudhery)
 
From: SHABBIR AHMED [mailto:drshabbir@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 7:06 PM
To: 'Mohammad Asghar'; 'Syed Ali'; qaseem39us@yahoo.com; 'BhaiSyed Hyderabadi'; 'Humayun here'; sufiyan1970@gmail.com; 'Mubashir Inayet'; Faiz
Cc: m.ahmad@wanadoo.fr; wyeknotusa@aol.com; iokoutlook@gmail.com; kaisrani@gmail.com; 'Kavalec'; ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com; khshaikh1999@gmail.com; 'Mohammad Shafi Aga'; mustafameb@yahoo.com; msnoorani@hotmail.com; moula_87@yahoo.com; dryahyakazi@hotmail.com; 'aaqib98 Faiz'; maanwer1@gmail.com; hanif_mo@hotmail.com; doctorforu123@yahoo.com; khmahmood@se.com.sa; 'Sajid Husain'; bhai.syed2010@gmail.com; 'Syed Sadruddin Hussain'; rizasiddiqi@hotmail.com; 'Latif.M. Chaudhery'; turkman@sbcglobal.net; butshikana@gmail.com; sikanderkk@hotmail.com; 'American Muslims Group'; 'IslamofAllah Group G'; 'FolknFriends Group'
Subject: For XTNs
 
Dear Captain, If Asghar is a XTN, let him tell us if Judas Iscariot fell headlong or hanged himself.
Hanged himself or fell headlong? Acts 1:18
Matthew 27:5 And he [Judas Iscariot] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. 
Let the retard expect my answer when I am back in two weeks."Accessibility is the signature of life."
Shabbir Ahmed, M.D.

www.ourbeacon.com
Please visit our user-friendly forum:
http://www.ourbeacon.com/cgi-bin/bbs60x/webbbs_config.plhttp://www.youtube.com/drshabbir2

6440 NW 53 ST
Lauderhill, FL 33319
954-746-2115

--- On Sun, 9/18/11, Faiz <tahirakhan@comcast.net> wrote:
From: Faiz <tahirakhan@comcast.net> Subject: RE: The Prophet (S) does not have the Authority to Prohibit what God has kept Lawful To: "'Mohammad Asghar'" <msa7011@yahoo.com>, "'Syed Ali'" <sabahatca@hotmail.com>, qaseem39us@yahoo.com, "'BhaiSyed Hyderabadi'" <khaleq_hyd@yahoo.co.uk>, drshabbir@bellsouth.net, "'Humayun here'" <humayunhere@yahoo.com>, sufiyan1970@gmail.com, "'Mubashir Inayet'" <minayet@yahoo.com> Cc: m.ahmad@wanadoo.fr, wyeknotusa@aol.com, iokoutlook@gmail.com, kaisrani@gmail.com, "'Kavalec'" <kavalec@gmail.com>, ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com, khshaikh1999@gmail.com, "'Mohammad Shafi Aga'" <mdshafiaga@gmail.com>, mustafameb@yahoo.com, msnoorani@hotmail.com, moula_87@yahoo.com, dryahyakazi@hotmail.com, "'aaqib98 Faiz'" <aaqib98@yahoo.com>, maanwer1@gmail.com, hanif_mo@hotmail.com, doctorforu123@yahoo.com, khmahmood@se.com.sa, "'Sajid Husain'" <sajid@shusain.com>, bhai.syed2010@gmail.com, "'Syed Sadruddin Hussain'" <sydsadr@hotmail.com>, rizasiddiqi@hotmail.com, "'Latif.M. Chaudhery'" <latif.m.chaudhery@gmail.com>, turkman@sbcglobal.net, butshikana@gmail.com, sikanderkk@hotmail.com, "'American Muslims Group'" <americanmuslimbrotherhood@yahoogroups.com>, "'IslamofAllah Group G'" <islamofallah@googlegroups.com>, "'FolknFriends Group'" <folksandfriends@yahoogroups.com> Date: Sunday, September 18, 2011, 5:38 PM
Again trying to understand the Word of Allah? This time 6:137?
 
I told you a thousand times---YOU CAN'T ANY verse of the Qur'an—not 6:137, not ANY OTHER verse!!!
 
Your brain cells are doomed!
 
Looks like this doom is now looming large on anything else you write as well.  I can see that you have stopped making sense in your "non-Qur'an" posts as well.
 
I am not sure how that is happening though….but  I am sure Allah knows what He is doing….
 
Irfan
 
From: Mohammad Asghar [mailto:msa7011@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 4:31 PM
To: Faiz; 'Syed Ali'; qaseem39us@yahoo.com; 'BhaiSyed Hyderabadi'; drshabbir@bellsouth.net; 'Humayun here'; sufiyan1970@gmail.com; 'Mubashir Inayet'
Cc: m.ahmad@wanadoo.fr; wyeknotusa@aol.com; iokoutlook@gmail.com; kaisrani@gmail.com; 'Kavalec'; ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com; khshaikh1999@gmail.com; 'Mohammad Shafi Aga'; mustafameb@yahoo.com; msnoorani@hotmail.com; moula_87@yahoo.com; dryahyakazi@hotmail.com; 'aaqib98 Faiz'; maanwer1@gmail.com; hanif_mo@hotmail.com; doctorforu123@yahoo.com; khmahmood@se.com.sa; 'Sajid Husain'; bhai.syed2010@gmail.com; 'Syed Sadruddin Hussain'; rizasiddiqi@hotmail.com; 'Latif.M. Chaudhery'; turkman@sbcglobal.net; butshikana@gmail.com; sikanderkk@hotmail.com; 'American Muslims Group'; 'IslamofAllah Group G'; 'FolknFriends Group'
Subject: Re: The Prophet (S) does not have the Authority to Prohibit what God has kept Lawful
 
"They used to bury their daughters alive/killed 16:58-59 and 81:8-9)."
 
The Pagans also used to slaughter their boys (see 6:137- the word "children" includes both boys and girls) and Allah played the role of a silent spectator!
 
Nay, He played a role in the murders, though not actively, to ensure that by slaughtering their children, the Pagans were destroying their religion!!
 
Mohammad Asghar
 
From: Faiz <tahirakhan@comcast.net>
To: 'Syed Ali' <sabahatca@hotmail.com>; qaseem39us@yahoo.com; 'BhaiSyed Hyderabadi' <khaleq_hyd@yahoo.co.uk>; drshabbir@bellsouth.net; 'Humayun here' <humayunhere@yahoo.com>; sufiyan1970@gmail.com; 'Mubashir Inayet' <minayet@yahoo.com>
Cc: msa7011@yahoo.com; m.ahmad@wanadoo.fr; wyeknotusa@aol.com; iokoutlook@gmail.com; kaisrani@gmail.com; 'Kavalec' <kavalec@gmail.com>; ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com; khshaikh1999@gmail.com; 'Mohammad Shafi Aga' <mdshafiaga@gmail.com>; mustafameb@yahoo.com; msnoorani@hotmail.com; moula_87@yahoo.com; dryahyakazi@hotmail.com; 'aaqib98 Faiz' <aaqib98@yahoo.com>; maanwer1@gmail.com; hanif_mo@hotmail.com; doctorforu123@yahoo.com; khmahmood@se.com.sa; 'Sajid Husain' <sajid@shusain.com>; bhai.syed2010@gmail.com; 'Syed Sadruddin Hussain' <sydsadr@hotmail.com>; rizasiddiqi@hotmail.com; 'Latif.M. Chaudhery' <latif.m.chaudhery@gmail.com>; turkman@sbcglobal.net; butshikana@gmail.com; sikanderkk@hotmail.com; 'American Muslims Group' <americanmuslimbrotherhood@yahoogroups.com>; 'IslamofAllah Group G' <islamofallah@googlegroups.com>; 'FolknFriends Group' <folksandfriends@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 1:04 PM
Subject: RE: The Prophet (S) does not have the Authority to Prohibit what God has kept Lawful
Salam Syed Ali,
 
You definition is the "Ummi" is…..well…..different!
 
You claim that you have seen some Christians who read the "Book" for others to listen to and you say these "scripture-readers" call themselves "Ummis"???  You said you personally know a few of them.
 
Where can I find this information to convince myself that those 'scripture-readers' are called "Ummis"?  The Arab disbelievers are called "Jahiloon"—not "scripture-readers" in the entire Qur'an.  These A'raab are called "deaf, dumb, and blind—2:18, 2:171" and "they have eyes but cannot see, have ears but cannot hear, and minds but cannot think—7:179"!!!  They did not have wisdom (8:22, 10:42, 29:63).  They used to bury their daughters alive/killed 16:58-59 and 81:8-9). They used to believe in Al-Lat, al-Manat, and al-Uzzah, calling them "daughters of Allah—16:65, 17:40".  Have you seen a 'scripture' of Christians or Jews even mentioning these Al-Laat, al-Manat, and al-Uzzah (53:19-20)?  What "scripture" these Arabs whom you call "literate" and "scripture-readers" were reading that ordered them to kill/bury alive their female children and authorized them to worship female gods?  Please enlighten us.
 
Then at the very end, you make a lofty claim "ALLAH has blessed me with this knowledge that I shared with you,".  Here, you seem to possess some kind of Divine authority of possessing some specific knowledge that no one (implicitly) seems to have.  I had not overcome my shock to read that loud claim of yours yet, then I saw the second part of your statement "if I am wrong than it is totally my fault" which means you still have doubts that you "could" be wrong.  How can a man who is "blessed with knowledge" be in doubt?
 
Now the Prophet was an "Ummi" as per the Qur'an and Allah raised them from the nation of "Ummis"!  Looks like they were all 'scripture-readers' according to you.  How many scriptures were there if there was not one alone that Prophet and all the other "Ummis" used to read?
 
Irfan
 
 
From: Syed Ali [mailto:sabahatca@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 2:33 PM
To: qaseem39us@yahoo.com; Irfan Faiz; BhaiSyed Hyderabadi; drshabbir@bellsouth.net; Humayun here; sufiyan1970@gmail.com; Mubashir Inayet
Cc: msa7011@yahoo.com; m.ahmad@wanadoo.fr; wyeknotusa@aol.com; iokoutlook@gmail.com; kaisrani@gmail.com; Kavalec; ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com; khshaikh1999@gmail.com; Mohammad Shafi Aga; mustafameb@yahoo.com; msnoorani@hotmail.com; moula_87@yahoo.com; dryahyakazi@hotmail.com; aaqib98 Faiz; maanwer1@gmail.com; hanif_mo@hotmail.com; doctorforu123@yahoo.com; khmahmood@se.com.sa; Sajid Husain; bhai.syed2010@gmail.com; Syed Sadruddin Hussain; rizasiddiqi@hotmail.com; Latif.M. Chaudhery; turkman@sbcglobal.net; butshikana@gmail.com; sikanderkk@hotmail.com; American Muslims Group; IslamofAllah Group G; FolknFriends Group
Subject: RE: The Prophet (S) does not have the Authority to Prohibit what God has kept Lawful
 
أَعُوذُ بِٱللَّهِ مِنَ ٱلشَّيۡطَـٰنِ ٱلرَّجِيمِ
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
 اسلام علیکم ورحمۃ اللہ وبرکاتہ
Mr Mubashir,
 
It does not make any difference to me if you are Christian or were Christian before but calling Muhammad elahy salaam a gentile is blasphemy.
 
Gentile is a christian against Yahood, by the definition of it and Muhammad elahy salaam was not christian or yahoodi. He was MUSLIM, Rasool, Nabi, Ummi, Bashar, Rehmut-ul-lil-alameen. He was not a christian against jews or a heathen or a vulgur infidel or a pagan.
 
The word Ummi does not mean illiterate or unlettered either. In Arabic it is has multiple meanings that I have covered in my other paper before. alQuraan has explained the meanings of this word to its fullest and Inshaa ALLAH today, we are going to learn that.
 
Lane, has gone a bit vulgur himself in describing UMMI, but the most correct definitions he has used is one belonging to an umma. However, UMMI is the person who reads from the book and even today, orthodox christians do not touch the holy scripture and a designated priest 'Ummi' reads it for them. Not all priest can touch the book only those who are next in line to the Ummi, I saw two. The junior most took the book out of the shelf and passed it to the senior one and then he paseed it to the UMMI. In a way, UMMI is special IMAM and both words have same root in Arabic. IMAM usually lead without books in hands where UMMI leads from the book.
 
This Ummi is supposed to KNOW the book to describe it for others. Thus in 7:157 ALLAH Kareem has explained that in detail for us. Therefore, the most perfect definition of Ummi is the one who from the book orders the good and forbids the bad and states the law, and thus purifies them. This can relate to mother who does the same to her child only without using a book usually. Though, in N.America, moms do get a book to do that.
 
This definition is supported with 2:78 & 79 where Ummiyon are unaware of the book but defining it according to their own whims and desires by writing their own book and declaring it to be from ALLAH.
 
Next is 3:20 that addresses the people of the book and their leaders (ummi).
 
Next is 3:76 that confirms Ummi as the molvi/mufti whom disobedient people showed no respect just like they had no respect for ALLAH. Thus, Ummi is the one that we know as MOLVI or MUFTI these days and some people (including me) do not have any respect for them but I DO HAVE ALL THE RESPECT FOR ALLAH that they don't.
 
Next is 62:2 that tells us that Arabs were quite fond of reading and learning from the book. Unlike the claims against them to be illiterate, wild, barbaric etc. etc. alQuraan picturises them as those who had keen interest in the religion and it was a very important part of their lives. They had respect for Hujjaj and it was an honour to host them. They had Salaat and Soum and they had lots of idols to worship everyday. Therefore, not just one or two of those who were reading the book for them there were many. And then among them all there was the Rasool of ALLAH with the book of ALLAH to read upon them what was written in it and to teach them and to purify them thus inducing wisdom in them.
 
And finally, 7:158 that locks UMMI with BOOK and Rasool is ordered to declare to the people that he is the Rasool of ALLAH for all of you-- not just one particular sect following the lead of their own UMMI -- the one to whom belongs the ownership of the Skies and Earth -- not just one star or moon or night or day -- there is no God but HIM produces life and executes death. Thus, believe in HIM and HIS Rasool, The Prophet, The UMMI, the one who believes in ALLAH and HIS KALIMAAT. Follow him to become the guided ones.
 
If anyone wonders why KALIMAAT are used here then UMMI is the answer. It is the role of UMMI to decipher the code. 

ALLAH has blessed me with this knowledge that I shared with you, if I am wrong than it is totally my fault but you have to prove it from alQuraan alone. 
 
وَهَـذَا كِتَابٌ أَنزَلْنَاهُ مُبَارَكٌ فَاتَّبِعُوهُ وَاتَّقُواْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ
6:155
6:155 And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing: so follow it and be righteous, that ye may receive mercy
Syed Ali.
 
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 03:26:42 -0700
From: qaseem39us@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: The Prophet (S) does not have the Authority to Prohibit what God has kept Lawful
To: tahirakhan@comcast.net; khaleq_hyd@yahoo.co.uk; sabahatca@hotmail.com; drshabbir@bellsouth.net; humayunhere@yahoo.com; sufiyan1970@gmail.com; minayet@yahoo.com
CC: msa7011@yahoo.com; m.ahmad@wanadoo.fr; wyeknotusa@aol.com; iokoutlook@gmail.com; kaisrani@gmail.com; kavalec@gmail.com; ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com; khshaikh1999@gmail.com; mdshafiaga@gmail.com; mustafameb@yahoo.com; msnoorani@hotmail.com; moula_87@yahoo.com; dryahyakazi@hotmail.com; aaqib98@yahoo.com; maanwer1@gmail.com; hanif_mo@hotmail.com; doctorforu123@yahoo.com; khmahmood@se.com.sa; sajid@shusain.com; bhai.syed2010@gmail.com; sydsadr@hotmail.com; rizasiddiqi@hotmail.com; latif.m.chaudhery@gmail.com; turkman@sbcglobal.net; butshikana@gmail.com; sikanderkk@hotmail.com; americanmuslimbrotherhood@yahoogroups.com; islamofallah@googlegroups.com; folksandfriends@yahoogroups.com
 
Why don't you deny you are not Inayat Albert??
 
2. Anybody who denies the essentials of the Deen is a Berg-e-Hasheesh. In those days Mirza did it, so Allamah Iqbal coined this term for him that fits anybody doing the same thing any time.
 
3.Thankyou for clearing about the word Ummi as is used in Quran for Rasoolullah Sallallaho A'laihi Wa Sallam. Still you need to struggle more for the exact meaning of this word.
--- On Fri, 9/16/11, Mubashir Inayet <minayet@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Mubashir Inayet <minayet@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: The Prophet (S) does not have the Authority to Prohibit what God has kept Lawful To: "Faiz" <tahirakhan@comcast.net>, "'syed Ahmed'" <qaseem39us@yahoo.com>, "'syed abdul khaleq'" <khaleq_hyd@yahoo.co.uk>, "'Syed Ali'" <sabahatca@hotmail.com>, "drshabbir@bellsouth.net" <drshabbir@bellsouth.net>, "'Humayun here'" <humayunhere@yahoo.com>, "'BashirSufiyan'" <sufiyan1970@gmail.com> Cc: "msa7011@yahoo.com" <msa7011@yahoo.com>, "m.ahmad@wanadoo.fr" <m.ahmad@wanadoo.fr>, "wyeknotusa@aol.com" <wyeknotusa@aol.com>, "iokoutlook@gmail.com" <iokoutlook@gmail.com>, "kaisrani@gmail.com" <kaisrani@gmail.com>, "'Kavalec'" <kavalec@gmail.com>, "ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com" <ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com>, "khshaikh1999@gmail.com" <khshaikh1999@gmail.com>, "'Mohammad Shafi Aga'" <mdshafiaga@gmail.com>, "mustafameb@yahoo.com" <mustafameb@yahoo.com>, "msnoorani@hotmail.com" <msnoorani@hotmail.com>, "moula_87@yahoo.com" <moula_87@yahoo.com>, "dryahyakazi@hotmail.com" <dryahyakazi@hotmail.com>, "'aaqib98 Faiz'" <aaqib98@yahoo.com>, "maanwer1@gmail.com" <maanwer1@gmail.com>, "hanif_mo@hotmail.com" <hanif_mo@hotmail.com>, "doctorforu123@yahoo.com" <doctorforu123@yahoo.com>, "khmahmood@se.com.sa" <khmahmood@se.com.sa>, "'Sajid Husain'" <sajid@shusain.com>, "bhai.syed2010@gmail.com" <bhai.syed2010@gmail.com>, "'Syed Sadruddin Hussain'" <sydsadr@hotmail.com>, "rizasiddiqi@hotmail.com" <rizasiddiqi@hotmail.com>, "'Latif.M. Chaudhery'" <latif.m.chaudhery@gmail.com>, "turkman@sbcglobal.net" <turkman@sbcglobal.net>, "butshikana@gmail.com" <butshikana@gmail.com>, "sikanderkk@hotmail.com" <sikanderkk@hotmail.com>, "americanmuslimbrotherhood@yahoogroups.com" <americanmuslimbrotherhood@yahoogroups.com>, "islamofallah@googlegroups.com" <islamofallah@googlegroups.com>, "folksandfriends@yahoogroups.com" <folksandfriends@yahoogroups.com> Date: Friday, September 16, 2011, 10:46 PM
First of all Syed Ahmed should know that the Qur'an says don't go by conjecture.  If not sure ask a direct question and don't go beating around the bush. Say what you mean and mean what you say!!
 
Inayet Albert or Schubert or Hubert means nothing to me so why should I waste my time in responding?
 
Barg e Hasheesh was what Allama Iqbal referred to regarding Mirzah's message from Qadiyan, so I am not sure what Syed Ahmed is implying here.
 
[from my archives]:
 
The classical definition of Ummi is not illiterate. It means someone who is a gentile / who has not received scripture / does not know the law of Moses. It has nothing to do with being illiterate. The Quran actually refutes the definition of Ummi as illiterate. Also the classical dictionaries are absolutely clear what the primary meaning of Ummi which is gentile.
This article should hopefully clear up the matter God willing J
 
 
 
 
 
From: Faiz <tahirakhan@comcast.net>
To: 'syed Ahmed' <qaseem39us@yahoo.com>; 'syed abdul khaleq' <khaleq_hyd@yahoo.co.uk>; 'Syed Ali' <sabahatca@hotmail.com>; drshabbir@bellsouth.net; 'Humayun here' <humayunhere@yahoo.com>; 'BashirSufiyan' <sufiyan1970@gmail.com>; 'Mubashir Inayet' <minayet@yahoo.com>
Cc: msa7011@yahoo.com; m.ahmad@wanadoo.fr; wyeknotusa@aol.com; iokoutlook@gmail.com; kaisrani@gmail.com; 'Kavalec' <kavalec@gmail.com>; ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com; khshaikh1999@gmail.com; 'Mohammad Shafi Aga' <mdshafiaga@gmail.com>; mustafameb@yahoo.com; msnoorani@hotmail.com; moula_87@yahoo.com; dryahyakazi@hotmail.com; 'aaqib98 Faiz' <aaqib98@yahoo.com>; maanwer1@gmail.com; hanif_mo@hotmail.com; doctorforu123@yahoo.com; khmahmood@se.com.sa; 'Sajid Husain' <sajid@shusain.com>; bhai.syed2010@gmail.com; 'Syed Sadruddin Hussain' <sydsadr@hotmail.com>; rizasiddiqi@hotmail.com; 'Latif.M. Chaudhery' <latif.m.chaudhery@gmail.com>; turkman@sbcglobal.net; butshikana@gmail.com; sikanderkk@hotmail.com; americanmuslimbrotherhood@yahoogroups.com; islamofallah@googlegroups.com; folksandfriends@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 11:08:48 PM
Subject: RE: The Prophet (S) does not have the Authority to Prohibit what God has kept Lawful
Syed Ahmed, are you sure you are not on drugs?
Please check your medicine cabinet to see if everything is correctly labeled. 
You speech is incoherent, inclusive and insensibly repetitive and boring.
Please make sure you have some useful thoughts to share before you start moving your finger your key board.
 
Irfan  
 
From: syed Ahmed [mailto:qaseem39us@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 10:10 PM
To: syed abdul khaleq; Syed Ali; Irfan Faiz; drshabbir@bellsouth.net; Humayun here; BashirSufiyan; Mubashir Inayet
Cc: msa7011@yahoo.com; m.ahmad@wanadoo.fr; wyeknotusa@aol.com; iokoutlook@gmail.com; kaisrani@gmail.com; Kavalec; ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com; khshaikh1999@gmail.com; Mohammad Shafi Aga; mustafameb@yahoo.com; msnoorani@hotmail.com; moula_87@yahoo.com; dryahyakazi@hotmail.com; aaqib98 Faiz; maanwer1@gmail.com; hanif_mo@hotmail.com; doctorforu123@yahoo.com; khmahmood@se.com.sa; Sajid Husain; bhai.syed2010@gmail.com; Syed Sadruddin Hussain; rizasiddiqi@hotmail.com; Latif.M. Chaudhery; turkman@sbcglobal.net; butshikana@gmail.com; sikanderkk@hotmail.com; americanmuslimbrotherhood@yahoogroups.com; islamofallah@googlegroups.com; folksandfriends@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: The Prophet (S) does not have the Authority to Prohibit what God has kept Lawful
 
Mubashir you are a fasiq and according to 49:6 we don't believe you as you denied and belied 7:157 and became a kafir by your own intent.
 
I wrote you are Inayat Albert but you never showed your reaction, means it is correct.
 
You were fasiq fil a'qeedah before you denied 7:157 and that BERG-E-HASHEESH of Florida takes you as a momin brother, so is a multiple kafir, for taking a kafir as a momin is earning multiple kufr. SO BE HAPPY BOTH OF YOU IN WHAT YOUR EARN. 
--- On Fri, 9/16/11, Mubashir Inayet <minayet@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Mubashir Inayet <minayet@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: The Prophet (S) does not have the Authority to Prohibit what God has kept Lawful To: "syed abdul khaleq" <khaleq_hyd@yahoo.co.uk>, "Syed Ali" <sabahatca@hotmail.com>, "qaseem39us@yahoo.com" <qaseem39us@yahoo.com>, "Irfan Faiz" <tahirakhan@comcast.net>, "drshabbir@bellsouth.net" <drshabbir@bellsouth.net>, "Humayun here" <humayunhere@yahoo.com>, "BashirSufiyan" <sufiyan1970@gmail.com> Cc: "msa7011@yahoo.com" <msa7011@yahoo.com>, "m.ahmad@wanadoo.fr" <m.ahmad@wanadoo.fr>, "wyeknotusa@aol.com" <wyeknotusa@aol.com>, "iokoutlook@gmail.com" <iokoutlook@gmail.com>, "kaisrani@gmail.com" <kaisrani@gmail.com>, "Kavalec" <kavalec@gmail.com>, "ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com" <ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com>, "khshaikh1999@gmail.com" <khshaikh1999@gmail.com>, "Mohammad Shafi Aga" <mdshafiaga@gmail.com>, "mustafameb@yahoo.com" <mustafameb@yahoo.com>, "msnoorani@hotmail.com" <msnoorani@hotmail.com>, "moula_87@yahoo.com" <moula_87@yahoo.com>, "dryahyakazi@hotmail.com" <dryahyakazi@hotmail.com>, "aaqib98 Faiz" <aaqib98@yahoo.com>, "maanwer1@gmail.com" <maanwer1@gmail.com>, "hanif_mo@hotmail.com" <hanif_mo@hotmail.com>, "doctorforu123@yahoo.com" <doctorforu123@yahoo.com>, "khmahmood@se.com.sa" <khmahmood@se.com.sa>, "Sajid Husain" <sajid@shusain.com>, "bhai.syed2010@gmail.com" <bhai.syed2010@gmail.com>, "Syed Sadruddin Hussain" <sydsadr@hotmail.com>, "rizasiddiqi@hotmail.com" <rizasiddiqi@hotmail.com>, "Latif.M. Chaudhery" <latif.m.chaudhery@gmail.com>, "turkman@sbcglobal.net" <turkman@sbcglobal.net>, "butshikana@gmail.com" <butshikana@gmail.com>, "sikanderkk@hotmail.com" <sikanderkk@hotmail.com>, "americanmuslimbrotherhood@yahoogroups.com" <americanmuslimbrotherhood@yahoogroups.com>, "islamofallah@googlegroups.com" <islamofallah@googlegroups.com>, "folksandfriends@yahoogroups.com" <folksandfriends@yahoogroups.com> Date: Friday, September 16, 2011, 8:30 PM
I think Ummi needs to be defined here. Does it mean unlettered or not belonging to a people who were followers of Divine revelations. We read elsewhere that the Kuffar accused him of preaching them from something he had written down !
 
Mubashir
 
From: syed abdul khaleq <khaleq_hyd@yahoo.co.uk>
To: Syed Ali <sabahatca@hotmail.com>; "qaseem39us@yahoo.com" <qaseem39us@yahoo.com>; Mubashir Inayet <minayet@yahoo.com>; Irfan Faiz <tahirakhan@comcast.net>; "drshabbir@bellsouth.net" <drshabbir@bellsouth.net>; Humayun here <humayunhere@yahoo.com>
Cc: "msa7011@yahoo.com" <msa7011@yahoo.com>; "m.ahmad@wanadoo.fr" <m.ahmad@wanadoo.fr>; "wyeknotusa@aol.com" <wyeknotusa@aol.com>; "iokoutlook@gmail.com" <iokoutlook@gmail.com>; "kaisrani@gmail.com" <kaisrani@gmail.com>; Kavalec <kavalec@gmail.com>; "ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com" <ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com>; "khshaikh1999@gmail.com" <khshaikh1999@gmail.com>; Mohammad Shafi Aga <mdshafiaga@gmail.com>; "mustafameb@yahoo.com" <mustafameb@yahoo.com>; "msnoorani@hotmail.com" <msnoorani@hotmail.com>; "moula_87@yahoo.com" <moula_87@yahoo.com>; "dryahyakazi@hotmail.com" <dryahyakazi@hotmail.com>; aaqib98 Faiz <aaqib98@yahoo.com>; "maanwer1@gmail.com" <maanwer1@gmail.com>; "hanif_mo@hotmail.com" <hanif_mo@hotmail.com>; "doctorforu123@yahoo.com" <doctorforu123@yahoo.com>; "khmahmood@se.com.sa" <khmahmood@se.com.sa>; Sajid Husain <sajid@shusain.com>; "bhai.syed2010@gmail.com" <bhai.syed2010@gmail.com>; Syed Sadruddin Hussain <sydsadr@hotmail.com>; "rizasiddiqi@hotmail.com" <rizasiddiqi@hotmail.com>; Latif.M. Chaudhery <latif.m.chaudhery@gmail.com>; "turkman@sbcglobal.net" <turkman@sbcglobal.net>; "butshikana@gmail.com" <butshikana@gmail.com>; "sikanderkk@hotmail.com" <sikanderkk@hotmail.com>; "americanmuslimbrotherhood@yahoogroups.com" <americanmuslimbrotherhood@yahoogroups.com>; "islamofallah@googlegroups.com" <islamofallah@googlegroups.com>; "folksandfriends@yahoogroups.com" <folksandfriends@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 5:26:37 PM
Subject: Re: The Prophet (S) does not have the Authority to Prohibit what God has kept Lawful
 
Dear All, Lets analyse the ayat. 
 
Allah says in the Holy Quran Chapter 7 Surah Aaraf verse 157-158:"Those who follow the Messenger  (SAW), the Prophet who can neither read nor write whom they find written with them in the Torah and the Injeel." This  ayah indicates that the people fulfilling the conditions, referred to in the previous ayah, are  those who follow the unlettered Prophet  (SAW). So this  ayah gives the  description of the distinct qualities of the Holy Prophet  (SAW). He is referred  to as the unlettered Prophet  (SAW) i.e. because the people of Arab were  generally incapable of reading and writing. He never had any opportunity to  learn how to read and write for upto forty years of his life, but then Allah  (SWT) gave him great wisdom and knowledge and in such a linguistic  style and diction that none in the world can produce a match for it i.e. the Qur'an. Another attribute of the Prophet mentioned in this ayah is that they shall find him written in the  Torah and the Injeel. All of the previous Prophets mentioned him to their people and commanded them to follow him.
 
Then Allah  (SWT) said:  "He commands them to do good and forbids them from evil. He makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits them from what is bad." This is the description of the Prophet  (SAW) in previous Books. Among them is his attribute of commanding what is good and forbidding what  is evil. Also he has been described as having the attribute of making pure things lawful for the people and impure things as unlawful.
 
Then it is said:  "He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the fetters that were upon them." i.e. he abrogated all previous injunctions by Allah's will, which were burdensome on  the followers and replaced them with a lenient and easy religion.  "So those who believe in him, honor him, help him, and follow the light which has been sent down with him, it is they who will be successful." i.e. those who respect and honor Prophet Muhammad  (SAW), follow his commandments, help him by helping in his mission, and follow the commandments of the Holy Qur'an are the ones who will achieve success in this world and in the Hereafter. Thus, in other words, this ayah indicates that the eternal salvation is dependent on the obedience of the Holy Qur'an and the Prophet's Sunnah. This has to be the obedience  in the true sense i.e. having the utmost love and respect for the Prophet (SAW). That is to say one should have as much love and reverence for him as to make this obedience dearest to him.
 
And Allah Alone Knows Best and He is the Only Source of Strength.
 
Rest already been explained by brother Humayun - Jazakallah Khayr.
 
May Allah guide us all to the Siraat al-Mustaqeem
 
Your Brother In Islam,
 
From: Syed Ali <sabahatca@hotmail.com>
أَعُوذُ بِٱللَّهِ مِنَ ٱلشَّيۡطَـٰنِ ٱلرَّجِيمِ
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
 اسلام علیکم ورحمۃ اللہ وبرکاتہDear Molvi Humayun,   Why ALLAH Kareem has given you blind eyes??? This question can baffle us all until we read Qur'an and finds that ALLAH did not do it, you did it to yourself and ALLAH only put the seal upon you. But as long as, ALLAH is keeping you alive you have a chance to repent and correct.   Now, for alAraaf, 157, your blind eyes and dark heart has totally ignored the addresses in the ayat and just like a dumb monkey you have jumped up to find a proof of your SHIRK. Read the ayat again and see that Rasool was declaring Halal and Haram for those who had Torat and Injeel and they had overburdened themselves upto their necks with their own HALAL and HARAM, just like you people are doing since the demise of Muhammad elahy salaam, and it was done according to the commands of ALLAH revealed upon him as alQuraan. In this ayat alQuraan is referred as Noor and those from the holders of Torat and Injeel who became believers along with Muhammad elahy salaam and helped Muhammad elahy salaam and FOLLOWED alQuraan they are those who are successful.    This is not authorization rather introduction and authority remained with ALLAH alone. ALLAH taala closed this door with the completion of alQuraan upon Muhammad elahy salaam and shutting the door of Nabbuwwat after him. But you guys, can not live without altering Islam just like Yahood o Nasara and you transferred the Nabbuwwat to Bukhari and Muslim et al.   First Yahood split into two when they had this debate about Musa elahy salaam's WAHI Matlu and Ghair Matlu. And you guys are just following their steps.   Why ALLAH is not enough for you????


وَهَـذَا كِتَابٌ أَنزَلْنَاهُ مُبَارَكٌ فَاتَّبِعُوهُ وَاتَّقُواْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ
6:1556:155 And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing: so follow it and be righteous, that ye may receive mercy
Syed Ali.  
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 06:57:07 -0700 From: qaseem39us@yahoo.com Subject: Re: The Prophet (S) does not have the Authority to Prohibit what God has kept Lawful To: minayet@yahoo.com; tahirakhan@comcast.net; drshabbir@bellsouth.net; humayunhere@yahoo.com CC: sabahatca@hotmail.com; msa7011@yahoo.com; m.ahmad@wanadoo.fr; wyeknotusa@aol.com; iokoutlook@gmail.com; kaisrani@gmail.com; kavalec@gmail.com; ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com; khshaikh1999@gmail.com; khaleq_hyd@yahoo.co.uk; mdshafiaga@gmail.com; mustafameb@yahoo.com; msnoorani@hotmail.com; moula_87@yahoo.com; dryahyakazi@hotmail.com; aaqib98@yahoo.com; maanwer1@gmail.com; hanif_mo@hotmail.com; doctorforu123@yahoo.com; khmahmood@se.com.sa; sajid@shusain.com; bhai.syed2010@gmail.com; sydsadr@hotmail.com; rizasiddiqi@hotmail.com; latif.m.chaudhery@gmail.com; turkman@sbcglobal.net; butshikana@gmail.com; sikanderkk@hotmail.com
 
Brother Humayun Assalamua'laikum,
 
Jazakallaho khyr al jaza for refuting BERG-E-HASHEESH Ghamdi and Berg-e-filfil Inayat Albert through 7:157 to prove beyond doubt that Rasoolullah Sallallaho A'laihi Wa sallam has the AUTHORITY to declare what is halal and what is haram PERIOD.
 
When Allah Subhanahu mentions Rasoolullah Sallallaho A'laihi wa Sallam having IKHTIYAAR on declaring the useful things as HALAL and harmful things as HARAM, who are these 'minims' to deny His AUTHORITY from Allah??
--- On Fri, 9/16/11, Humayun Rasheed <humayunhere@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Humayun Rasheed <humayunhere@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: The Prophet (S) does not have the Authority to Prohibit what God has kept Lawful To: "Mubashir Inayet" <minayet@yahoo.com>, "Faiz" <tahirakhan@comcast.net>, "'syed Ahmed'" <qaseem39us@yahoo.com>, "'SHABBIR AHMED'" <drshabbir@bellsouth.net> Cc: "'Syed Ali'" <sabahatca@hotmail.com>, "'Mohammad Asghar'" <msa7011@yahoo.com>, "'maqbool ahmad'" <m.ahmad@wanadoo.fr>, "'Major( R).Kausar Salam Shaikh'" <wyeknotusa@aol.com>, "'Imran Owais Kazmi'" <iokoutlook@gmail.com>, "'Hussain Kaisrani'" <kaisrani@gmail.com>, "'G.Waleed Kavalec'" <kavalec@gmail.com>, "'col. Ghulam yusuf'" <ghulam_yusuf@yahoo.com>, "'Asan Deen'" <khshaikh1999@gmail.com>, "'khaleq hyd'" <khaleq_hyd@yahoo.co.uk>, "'Mohammad Shafi Aga'" <mdshafiaga@gmail.com>, "mustafameb@yahoo.com" <mustafameb@yahoo.com>, "msnoorani@hotmail.com" <msnoorani@hotmail.com>, "'moula 87'" <moula_87@yahoo.com>, "dryahyakazi@hotmail.com" <dryahyakazi@hotmail.com>, "'aaqib98 Faiz'" <aaqib98@yahoo.com>, "maanwer1@gmail.com" <maanwer1@gmail.com>, "'hanif mo'" <hanif_mo@hotmail.com>, "doctorforu123@yahoo.com" <doctorforu123@yahoo.com>, "khmahmood@se.com.sa" <khmahmood@se.com.sa>, "sajid@shusain.com" <sajid@shusain.com>, "'bhai syed2010'" <bhai.syed2010@gmail.com>, "sydsadr@hotmail.com" <sydsadr@hotmail.com>, "'Brig Riza Siddiqui'" <rizasiddiqi@hotmail.com>, "'Muhammad Latif Chaudhery'" <latif.m.chaudhery@gmail.com>, "'S Turkman'" <turkman@sbcglobal.net>, "butshikana@gmail.com" <butshikana@gmail.com>, "'Gen SIKANDER HAYAT'" <sikanderkk@hotmail.com> Date: Friday, September 16, 2011, 6:37 AM
Mr. Mubashir, if you could use a little of brain you may not reach to the conclusion you drawn.
 
Can you read the last words in your quoted narration?
It is saying 'I am not making a thing unlawful that Allah(saw) has made lawful'.
Can you show me where is this thing made Halal in Quran? It is proved Halal from Hadith.
 
Understand difference between two things;
1- Rasool(saw) makes things halal which Allah(swt) makes haram, and vice versa.
2- Rasool(saw) tells the things halal and haram which is in accordance of Allah(swt)'s order.
Narration is enough proof that Halal/Haram are not mentioned only in Quran, but Rasool(saw) himself sometimes tell a thing that it is Halal or Haram, otherwise he must say that "I can't make a thing Haram which is made Halal in Quran" or any words of this concept. These words of narration are proof that Rasool(saw) time to time clerify the things which are Halal and Haram with the order of Allah(swt) no matter it is written in Quran or not. Sahabah(ra) also had the belief that Rasool(saw) tells Halal and Haram which are not mentioned in Quran (as it is clear from start of narration). It was not their personal thinking, see what Quran ordering;
الَّذينَ يَتَّبِعونَ الرَّسولَ النَّبِىَّ الأُمِّىَّ الَّذى يَجِدونَهُ مَكتوبًا عِندَهُم فِى التَّورىٰةِ وَالإِنجيلِ يَأمُرُهُم بِالمَعروفِ وَيَنهىٰهُم عَنِ المُنكَرِ وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ الطَّيِّبـٰتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيهِمُ الخَبـٰئِثَ وَيَضَعُ عَنهُم إِصرَهُم وَالأَغلـٰلَ الَّتى كانَت عَلَيهِم ۚ فَالَّذينَ ءامَنوا بِهِ وَعَزَّروهُ وَنَصَروهُ وَاتَّبَعُوا النّورَ الَّذى أُنزِلَ مَعَهُ ۙ أُولـٰئِكَ هُمُ المُفلِحونَ  - الأعراف - 157
 
Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful.
 
وہ جو (محمد) رسول (الله) کی جو نبی اُمی ہیں پیروی کرتے ہیں جن (کے اوصاف) کو وہ اپنے ہاں تورات اور انجیل میں لکھا ہوا پاتے ہیں۔ وہ انہیں نیک کام کا حکم دیتے ہیں اور برے کام سے روکتے ہیں۔ اور پاک چیزوں کو ان کے لیے حلال کرتے ہیں اور ناپاک چیزوں کو ان پر حرام ٹہراتے ہیں اور ان پر سے بوجھ اور طوق جو ان (کے سر) پر (اور گلے میں) تھے اتارتے ہیں۔ تو جو لوگ ان پر ایمان لائے اور ان کی رفاقت کی اور انہیں مدد دی۔ اور جو نور ان کے ساتھ نازل ہوا ہے اس کی پیروی کی۔ وہی مراد پانے والے ہیں
 
I call you towards the foot steps of Sahabah(ra), students of Rasool(saw), who understand Rasool(saw) and order of Allah(swt) more then anyone else.
 
Moreover, Muslims also saved this minor detail that which thing is halal and which is halal but disliked at certain occasion.
This detail worthy in Hadith rather then Quran because Quran is book of law not a book to mentioned minor details of each existing thing one by one.
 
Try to use wisdom rather then denial.
 
-Humayun.
From: Mubashir Inayet <minayet@yahoo.com>To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 11:48 PMSubject: The Prophet (S) does not have the Authority to Prohibit what God has kept Lawful
The Prophet (sws) does not have the Authority to Prohibit what God has kept Lawful
Hadith & SunnahMoiz Amjad
روي أنه قال أبو سعيد: لم نعد أن فتحت خيبر فوقعنا أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في تلك البقلة الثوم والناس جياع فأكلنا منها أكلا شديدا ثم رحنا إلى المسجد فوجد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الريج فقال: من أكل من هذه الشجرة الخبيثة شيئا فلا يقربنا في المسجد فقال الناس: حرمت حرمت. فبلغ ذاك النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: أيها الناس إنه ليس بي تحريم ما أحل الله لي ولكنها شجرة أكره ريحها.
It is narrated that Abū Sa'īd al-Khudrī said: "We had not made any preparations when Khyber was conquered. So we – the companions of the Prophet (sws) – came upon this plantation – i.e. garlic. People were extremely hungry. So we had our fill [from it] and came to the mosque. The Prophet (sws) sensed its odour and said: Whoever eats anything of this vicious tree must not come near us in the mosque. Hearing this, people started telling each other: 'It is prohibited, it is prohibited.' When this reached the Prophet (sws), he said: 'O People, I do not have authority to prohibit anything that God has kept lawful for me1. [It is not prohibited,] but, in fact, it is only a tree, the odour of which I detest.'"
 
Notes on the Text of the Narrative
 
This narrative or a part of it with some variations has been reported in Muslim (no. 565), Abū Dā'ūd (no. 3823), Ahmad ibn Hanbal (nos. 11099, 11600, 11822 and 23572), Ibn Khuzaymah (No. 1667), Bayhaqī (no. 4838 and 4839), Ibn Hibbān (no. 2085), Abū Ya'lā (no. 1195). The preferred text is taken from Muslim (no. 565).
 
In some narratives, as in Bayhaqī (no. 4839), the words وقعنا في تلك البقلة (we came upon this plantation) have been reported as وقمنا في تلك البقلة (we stood in this plantation).
 
In some narratives, as in Ahmad ibn Hanbal (no. 11600), the demonstrative pronoun تلك in the words في تلك البقلة (in this plantation) have been reported synonymously as تيك .
 
In some narratives, as in Abū Ya'lā (no. 1195), the words في تلك البقلة الثوم (in this plantation – that is, garlic) have been reported as في تلك البقلة الثوم والبصل (in this plantation – that is garlic and onion).
 
In some narratives, as in Ahmad ibn Hanbal (no. 11099), the words والناس جياع (and the people were very hungry) have synonymously been reported as وناس جياع .
 
In some narratives, as in Ibn Khuzaymah (no. 1667), the words ثم رحنا إلى المسجد (then we came to this mosque) have been narrated as ثم قمنا إلى المسجد (then we prepared for the mosque); while in some narratives, as in Abū Ya'lā (no. 1195), these words have been reported as فرجعنا إلى المسجد (then we returned to the mosque).
 
In some narratives, as in Ahmad ibn Hanbal (no. 11600), the words فقال الناس (then the people said) have synonymously been reported as فقال ناس .
 
In some narratives, as in Ahmad ibn Hanbal (no. 11099), the words إنه ليس بي تحريم ما أحل الله (I do not have authority to prohibit anything that God has allowed) have been reported as إنه ليس لي تحريم ما أحل الله (it is not for me to disallow anything that God has allowed).
 
In some narratives, as in Ibn Khuzaymah (no. 1667), the following words have been added to the saying of the Prophet (sws) وإنه يأتيني من الملائكة فأكره أن يشموا ريحها (and angels come to me and I do not want them to smell this odour).
 
Some narratives, as for instance, Abū Dā'ūd (no. 3823) have given the same subject matter in a slightly different manner, as follows:
روي أنه ذكر عند رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الثوم البصل. قيل يا رسول الله وأشد ذلك كله الثوم أفتحرمه؟ فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: كلوه. ومن أكله منكم فلا يقرب هذا المسجد حتى يذهب ريحه منه.
It is narrated that garlic and onion were mentioned in front of the Prophet (sws). It was said: "O Prophet, garlic is the strongest among these in its odour. Do you prohibit eating it?" The Prophet (sws) said: "Eat it. However, whoever among you eats of it should not come near us in the mosque, till the time that its odour subsides."
 
In some narratives, as in Bayhaqī (no. 4838), the words حتى يذهب ريحه منه (till the time its odour subsides) have been reported as حتى يذهب عنه ريحه منه (till the time that its odour subsides from him).
 
In some other narratives, as for instance in Ahmad ibn Hanbal (no. 11822), it is reported:
 
روي أن أبا سعيد الخدري قال: إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم نهى الكراث والبصل والثوم فقلنا: أحرام هو؟ قال: لا. ولكن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم نهى عنه.
'It is narrated that Abū Sa'īd al-Khudrī said: "The Prophet (sws) stopped us from [eating] leek, onion and garlic." People asked: "Is it prohibited?" Abū Sa'īd al-Khudrī replied: "No, but the Prophet (sws) stopped us from [eating] it."
 
While in another narrative, as in Ahmad ibn Hanbal (no. 23572), the same subject matter has been reported in a different context, as follows:
روي أن أبا أيوب الأنصاري قال: كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا أتي بطعام أكل منه وبعث بفضله إلي. وأنه بعث يوما بقصعة لم يأكل منها شيئا. فيها ثوم. فسألته أحرام هو؟ قال: لا ولكني أكرهه من أجل ريحه. فقال: إني أكره ما كرهت.
It is narrated that Abū Ayyūb al-Ansāri said: "When any food was brought to the Prophet, he ate from it and sent to me anything that was left. One day, he sent me a basin from which he had not eaten anything. There was garlic in it. I asked him: 'Is it prohibited?' He replied: 'No, but I don't like it due to its odour.' Abū Ayyūb said: I too dislike what you do not like."
(This write-up is prepared by the Hadīth Cell of Jāved Ahmad Ghāmidī which includes Moiz Amjad, Izhār Ahmad, Muhammad Aslam Najmi and Kaukab Shehzad)
 
 
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___