Banner Advertiser

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Re: [mukto-mona] আল্লামা শাহ শফীর কুরুচিপূর্ণ বক্তব্য -- ইসলাম ধর্মেরই অবমাননা !



Ahmed Shafi is not the lone misogynist. Since Umar bin Khattab, many of the Islamic clergy are like him.  The Taliban politics do not allow education of women and the Sharia law gives female witness half the credence of a male witness.  After the verdict of all female jury in Florida on George Zimmerman case, even I feel like supporting the subhuman creatures like Allama Ahmed Shafi!


2013/7/14 Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
 

Indeed, I agree with Ms. Nasreen's question. This dishonor is not only for women, it is for men as well.
 
In fact, I say, women's rights movements should not be for just women to execute. It is a fight that men should also join in with as much conviction. After all, all humans, both men and women, have, and will always be, born in the wombs of women. All humans would always owe more to their foremothers than to their forefathers. All religious beliefs are questionable. What is not questionable is that, while an egg and a sperm create an embryo, that embryo needs the mother's womb to survive and grow to be born as a human child.
 
Women as a group are unlike any other group for which there are equal rights movements in the world. The entire human race owes its very existence to women. It is a disgrace for the human race that they have been treating women as less than men for the entire known history.
 
No matter how long our ancestors were wrong, I would say, no honorable man can treat women in general as less than men in general.
 
As for this 'allama', I do not wish to criticize him, just like I do not criticize people like Khaleda Zia. If Bangladesh did not have too many idiots with degrees such as PhD, MA and BA, the people that are unworthy of my criticism would not be in the positions of power and importance that they are holding right now.
 
Sukhamaya Bain

=====================================
From: SyedAslam <Syed.Aslam3@gmail.com>
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 6:19 AM
Subject: [mukto-mona] আল্লামা শাহ শফীর কুরুচিপূর্ণ বক্তব্য -- ইসলাম ধর্মেরই অবমাননা !
 

13 Jul 2013   12:10:55 PM   Saturday BdST
   

অবমাননা কি পুরুষেরও নয়?

গীতি আরা নাসরীন
বাংলানিউজটোয়েন্টিফোর.কম
অবমাননা কি পুরুষেরও নয়?
হাটহাজারী মাদ্রাসার ইসলামী মহাসম্মেলনে হেফাজতে ইসলাম বাংলাদেশের আমীর শাহ আহমদ শফীর নারী-পুরুষ বিষয়ক সাম্প্রতিক কদর্য উক্তি সঙ্গত কারণেই সাইবার মাধ্যমে প্রতিক্রিয়ার ঝড় তুলেছে।
নারীর জনপরিসরে যাওয়া উচিৎ নয়, তার এ ধরনের বক্তব্যের উত্তরে রাসুল (সা.) এর স্ত্রী হযরত খাদিজা (রা.) যিনি ষষ্ঠ শতকেই একজন ব্যবসায়ী ছিলেন, স্ত্রী জয়নব (রা.) দরিদ্রের সেবায় আত্মনিয়োগ করেন, কন্যা হযরত ফাতেমা (রা.) যুদ্ধক্ষেত্রে গিয়েছিলেন – নজিরগুলো  অনেকেই স্মরণ করিয়ে দিয়েছেন।
এসবে প্রমাণ হয়, আহমদ শফী শুধু একবিংশ শতকের বাস্তবতায় নয়, ইসলাম ধর্ম অবতীর্ণ হওয়ার সময়ের চেয়েও পশ্চাৎদপদ মানসিকতার। এতখানি অজ্ঞ ও অশ্লীল মানুষের রাজনৈতিক নেতৃত্ব দেওয়া অসম্ভব, এমনকি ধর্মীয় নেতৃত্ব দেওয়াও যুক্তিযুক্ত কিনা সেটি ইসলামী ধর্মজ্ঞানসম্পন্ন মানুষকে বিবেচনা করতে অনুরোধ করছি।
আমার সীমিত জ্ঞানে জানি, কোরআন শরীফে পুরুষকেও চোখের পর্দা করতে বলা হয়েছে এবং নিজের সম্ভ্রম বজায় রাখতে বলা হয়েছে (সুরা আল নূর ২৪:৩০-৩১)। সুরা আযহাবে কুৎসা দিয়ে নারীর চরিত্রে কালিমা লেপনে স্পষ্টভাবে নিষেধ করা হয়েছে (৩৩: ৫৩-৭৩)।
যিনি পুরুষদের দৃষ্টি নত করতে না বলেন, নারী দেখলেই পুরুষের কামনার উদ্রেক হওয়া স্বাভাবিক (না হলেই 'ধ্বজভঙ্গ') বলে সম্মেলনে সবক দেন, তিনি ইসলাম ধর্মেরই অবমাননা করছেন।
যিনি নানা অশ্লীল কথায় কর্মরত বা শিক্ষারত নারীচরিত্রে কালিমা লেপন করছেন, তিনি কোরআন শরীফ-প্রদত্ত শিক্ষারও অবমাননা করছেন। প্রকৃত ধর্মজ্ঞানী মানুষ ইসলামী সম্মেলনে উপস্থিতদের এ ধরণের ভ্রান্ত শিক্ষায় উত্তেজিত করার অশুভ দিকগুলি সম্পর্কে জনসাধারণকে অবগত করবেন বলেই আমাদের প্রত্যাশা।
দুঃখের সঙ্গে বলতে হচ্ছে, সেই একেবারে ছোটবেলা থেকে আজ পর্যন্ত যতগুলো ওয়াজ শুনেছি – সেগুলোতে বেশিরভাগ সময়ই নারী-প্রসঙ্গ টেনে আনা হত, "নারী যে সব পাপের মূল' একথাটাই নানা সময়, নানাভাবে শুনতে হয়েছে। নারীকে সম্মানিত মনে হয়নি। ইসলাম ধর্ম নারীকে যে সম্মান দিয়েছে বলে অনেকের কাছে শুনতে পাই, গ্রামে-শহরে যারা ওয়াজ করছেন, তারা কতটুকু সেকথাটা বলছেন, সে'টা খতিয়ে দেখা দরকার।
পথে-ঘাটে, চায়ের দোকানে দেলাওয়ার হোসাইন সাঈদী'র ওয়াজের ক্যাসেট বাজতে শুনে আমি প্রায় বিশ বছর আগে তার অনেকগুলো ক্যাসেট কাঁটাবন থেকে কিনে শুনেছি। নানাবিধ অবমাননাকর বক্তব্যের মধ্যে তার 'ছেলা-কলা' সম্পর্কিত উদাহরণটি অনেকের জানা। হিজাব পালন না করা মেয়েদের তিনি খোসা-ছাড়ানো কলার সঙ্গে তুলনা করেছেন। ছেলা-কলা যেমন কেউ কেনে না, তেমনি পর্দাহীন নারীতে পুরুষ আকৃষ্ট হয় না--এই তার মূল কথা। তার কথার সারাৎসার হলো, 'নারী খাদ্য, পুরুষ খাদক'। নারীকে তো নয়ই, নারীর খাদক হিসেবে উপস্থিত করে পুরুষকেও যে তিনি কোনো সম্মান দেখিয়েছেন একথা বলা যাবে না।
অনেকে মনে করেন, এ ধরনের কদর্য বক্তব্য সম্বলিত বয়ানকে বিশেষ কোনো গুরুত্ব দেওয়ার দরকার নেই। এটা যারা মনে করেন, তারা বাংলাদেশের সংখ্যাগুরু মানুষের বাস্তবতাকে অস্বীকার করেন।
অসংখ্য মানুষের কাছে, এ ধরনের কদর্য বয়ানই জীবন সম্পর্কে পাওয়া প্রধানতম শিক্ষা। ধর্মীয় নেতাদের মুখ থেকে যখন নিঃসৃত হয়, তখন তারা একেই ধর্মবাণী বলে বিশ্বাস করেন। আহমেদ শফি, দেল‍াওযার হোসাইন সাঈদীর মতো এরকম আরো অনেক ধর্মীয় শিক্ষক চটুল নানা কথা বলে নারীর ধর্ষণ-নির্যাতনকে জায়েজ করেন। অস্বীকার করার কোনো উপায় নেই যে, আমাদের সমাজে প্রচলিত ধারনার সঙ্গে তা মিলে যায় বলেই, তাদের কথাগুলো আরও বিশ্বাসযোগ্য হয়ে ওঠে। 'সুরুচি'-সম্পন্ন মানুষের কাছে শফি-সাঈদীর কথাগুলো স্থুল বটে, কিন্তু নারী ধর্ষিত বা নির্যাতিত হওযার জন্য যারা নারীর পোশাককে বা আচরণকে দায়ী করেন, তারা আদতে ঘুরে ফিরে শফি-সাঈদীইর মতানুসারী।
তারা বিশ্বাস করেন, 'পুরুষের যৌনকামনা সম্পূর্ণ অনিয়ন্ত্রিত', 'পুরুষ সর্বক্ষণই কামনা-কাতর' এবং 'পুরুষ কামুকতার অযাচিত প্রকাশ হলে তার দায় পুরুষের নয়'।
সামাজিক মাধ্যমে দেখতে পাচ্ছি, অনেকে আবার আহমেদ শফির ভয়ঙ্কর বক্তব্যকে শুধু 'তেঁতুল'-কেন্দ্রিক ঠাট্টা-তামাশার বিষয় করে ফেলে, একে শুধু হালকা করেই দেখছেন না, কখনো নতুন ধরনের নিপীড়নের পরিস্থিতিও সৃষ্টি করছেন। বোঝাবার জন্য উদাহরণ দেই, সিনেমার নারী-নিপীড়নমূলক সংলাপ অনেক সময়ই পথে-ঘাটে নারীকে উত্যক্ত করার জন্য ব্যবহৃত হয়। 'একা নাকি?' 'আয় যাইগা' – এ ধরনের সংলাপ আমার নিজের কানেই শোনা। এখনকার ভুক্তভোগীরা নিশ্চয়ই নতুন উদাহরণ দিতে পারবেন। এ ধরনের টিজিং যারা করে, তারা সবাই কিন্তু 'বখাটে' নয়। অনেক তরুণই তাদের তারুণ্যের স্বাভাবিক প্রকাশ হিসেবে এ ধরনের নিপীড়নমূলক কথা বলতে শেখে। ঠিক তেমনি, সম্প্রতি ফেসবুকে সারাক্ষণ তেঁতুলের ছবি লাগানো এবং তার সঙ্গে নানা সরস সংলাপ যে কতখানি নির্যাতনমূলক তা শুধু 'তেঁতুলে' পরিণত করা নারীরাই বুঝতে পারছেন।
আহমেদ শফি শুধু নারীকেই অপমান করেন নি, পুরুষকেও করেছেন। তার কথা অনুযায়ী পুরুষ নারীদর্শনমাত্রই কামকাতর এবং লালাসিক্ত হয়। যে পুরুষ হয় না, সে যৌন-অক্ষম। আহমেদ শফির যৌনক্ষমতা নিয়ে হাসাহাসিই কি এর উত্তর? পুরুষদের পক্ষ থেকে কোনো প্রতিবাদ শুনছি না কেন?


Gitiara-nasrinঅধ্যাপক ড. গীতি আরা নাসরীন: সাবেক চেয়ারপারসন, গণযোগাযোগ ও সাংবাদিকতা বিভাগ, ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় gitiaran@yahoo.com

 
 
বাংলাদেশ সময়: ১১৪৮ ঘণ্টা, জুলাই ১৩, ২০১৩
জেডএম/জুয়েল মাজহার, কনসালট্যান্ট এডিটর
Related:
শফীর বক্তব্য জঘন্য: শেখ হাসিনা

নিজস্ব প্রতিবেদক  বিডিনিউজ টোয়েন্টিফোর ডটকম

ওয়াজে নারীদের নিয়ে আহমদ শফীর বক্তব্যকে জঘন্য বলে আখ্যায়িত করেছেন প্রধানমন্ত্রী শেখ হাসিনা।

ANTI-WOMEN REMARKS

PM blasts Hefajat chief

Video: 

Avjøvgv kwdi eqvbÑ wKQz cÖvmw½K cÖkœ ˆmq` gvneyeyi iwk` : mv‡eK BwcwmGm, Kjvwg÷ †fv‡ii KvMR : kwbevi, 13 RyjvB 2013

http://www.bhorerkagoj.net/new/blog/2013/07/13/127244.php


11 Jul 2013   12:55:19 PM   Thursday BdST
   

নারীদের নিয়ে কুরুচিপূর্ণ বক্তব্য শফীর (ভিডিও)

নিউজ ডেস্কবাংলানিউজটোয়েন্টিফোর.কম
Video URL: 
নারীদের নিয়ে কুরুচিপূর্ণ বক্তব্য শফীর (ভিডিও)
আল্লামা শাহ আহমদ শফী
ঢাকা: হেফাজতে ইসলামের আমির আল্লামা শাহ আহমদ শফী নারীদের স্বাধীনতা, শিক্ষা ও চাকরি সম্পর্কে কুরুচিপূর্ণ, সভ্যতা ও উন্নয়ন বিরোধী মন্তব্য করেছেন। ইন্টারনেটে প্রকাশিত একটি ওয়াজ মাহফিলে ভিডিওচিত্রে তার এ ধরনের বক্তব্য পাওয়া গেছে। বর্তমান বিশ্ব যেখানে নারীদের স্বাধীনতা, স্বনির্ভরতার ওপর জোর দিচ্ছে, তিনি আছেন উল্টো পথে।

ওয়াজে নারীদের তিনি তুলনা করেছেন তেঁতুলের সঙ্গে। তেঁতুল দেখলে মানুষের যেমন জিভে জল আসে তেমনি নারীদের দেখলে 'দিলের মইধ্যে লালা বাইর হয়' বলে মন্তব্য করেছেন তিনি। আল্লামা শফির ওই বক্তব্য নিয়ে সোশ্যাল মিডিয়া ফেসবুকসহ নানান ব্লগে এখন সমালোচনার ঝড় বইছে। বিভিন্ন শ্রেণী-পেশার মানুষ ওই বক্তব্যের নিন্দা জানাচ্ছেন। এ বিষয়ে এরই মধ্যে নারী নেত্রীরাও প্রতিবাদ জানিয়েছেন।

শফীর মতে, নারীদের কাজ হলো আসবাবপত্রের যত্ন নেওয়া, সন্তান লালন-পালন করা, ঘরের মধ্যে থাকা। ...... 
  1. শফীর বক্তব্যের প্রতিবাদে মানববন্ধন, গ্রেফতার দাবি

    20 hours ago - কম ডেস্ক. ঢাকা: নারীদের স্বাধীনতা, শিক্ষা ও চাকরি সম্পর্কে হেফাজতে ইসলামের আমীর আল্লামা শাহ আহমদ শফীর দেওয়া কুরুচিপূর্ণ বক্তব্যের প্রতিবাদে রাজধানীতে মানববন্ধন হয়েছে।... মানববন্ধনে অংশ নিয়ে নাট্যকার রোকেয়া প্রাচী বলেন, আল্লামা শফীর মতো একজন ধর্মপ্রাণ মানুষনারীদের নিয়ে এ ধরনের বক্তব্য দিতে পারেন না।
  1. নারীদের নিয়ে কুরুচিপূর্ণ বক্তব্য শফীর - Khabor

    9 hours ago - হেফাজতে ইসলামের আমির আল্লামা শাহ আহমদ শফী নারীদের স্বাধীনতা,
  2. নারীদের নিয়ে শফীর কুরুচিপূর্ণ বক্তব্য প্রত্যারের দাবি | রাজধানী ...

    18 hours ago - নারীদের নিয়ে শফীর কুরুচিপূর্ণ বক্তব্য প্রত্যারের দাবি. বৃহস্পতিবার জাতীয় প্রেসক্লাবের সামনে এক মানববন্ধনে এ দাবি জানানো হয়। সমকাল প্রতিবেদক. হেফাজতে ইসলামীর আমির আল্লামা শাহ আহমদ শফীর দেওয়া কুরুচিপূর্ণ বক্তব্য প্রত্যাহারের দাবি জানিয়েছে 'জনতার শক্তি' নামে একটি সংগঠন ও নারীদের নিয়ে প্রকাশিত ...
  3. নারীদের নিয়ে আহমদ শফীর কুরুচিপূর্ণ কুরুচিপূর্ণ বক্তব্য প্রত্যাহারের ...

    4 hours ago - প্রতিমুহূর্ত প্রতিবেদন :: নারীদের নিয়ে হেফাজতে ইসলামের আমির আল্লামা শাহ আহমদ শফীর কুরুচিপূর্ণ মন্তব্যের প্রতিবাদে বৃহস্পতিবার দুপুরে প্রেসক্লাবের সামনে মানববন্ধন ও প্রতিবাদ সমাবেশ হয়েছে। মানববন্ধনে বক্তারা ধর্মের নামে শাহ আহমদ শফীর দেওয়া নারীর প্রতি মধ্যযুগীয় অবমাননা ও অসম্মানজনক বক্তব্যের তীব্র নিন্দা ...
  1. শিক্ষা, চাকরি ও নারীদের নিয়ে কুরুচিপূর্ণ বক্তব্য শফীর – JNnews24

    18 hours ago - নিজেস্ব প্রতিবেদক, ঢাকা : হেফাজতে ইসলামের আমির আল্লামা শাহ আহমদ শফীনারীদের স্বাধীনতা, শিক্ষা ও চাকরি সম্পর্কে কুরুচিপূর্ণ, সভ্যতা ও উন্নয়ন বিরোধী মন্তব্য করেছেন। ইন্টারনেটে প্রকাশিত একটি ওয়াজ মাহফিলে ভিডিওচিত্রে তার এ ধরনের বক্তব্য পাওয়া গেছে। বর্তমান বিশ্ব যেখানে নারীদের স্বাধীনতা, স্বনির্ভরতার ওপর ...
  2. নারীদের নিয়ে কুরুচিপূর্ণ বক্তব্য শফীর - প্রথম বার্তা

    prothombarta.com/2013/07/11/নারীদের-নিয়ে-কুরুচিপূর্ণ/
    22 hours ago - প্রথম বার্তা ডেস্ক : হেফাজতে ইসলামের আমির আল্লামা শাহ আহমদ.
  3. নারীদের নিয়ে শফীর কুরুচিপূর্ণ বক্তব্য - Amader Barisal

    22 hours ago - ডেস্ক রিপোর্ট :: হেফাজতে ইসলামের আমির আল্লামা শাহ আহমদ শফী নারীদেরস্বাধীনতা, শিক্ষা ও চাকরি সম্পর্কে কুরুচিপূর্ণ, সভ্যতা ও উন্নয়ন বিরোধী মন্তব্য করেছেন। ই.
  4. আহমদ শফীর কুরুচিপূর্ণ বক্তব্যের প্রতিবাদে রাজধানীতে মানববন্ধন ...

    19 hours ago - নারীদের স্বাধীনতা, শিক্ষা ও চাকরি সম্পর্কে হেফাজতে ইসলামের আমীর আল্লামা শাহ আহমদ শফীর দেওয়া কুরুচিপূর্ণ বক্তব্যের প্রতিবাদে রাজধানীতে মানববন্ধন হয়েছে। ... মানববন্ধনে অংশ নিয়ে নাট্যকার রোকেয়া প্রাচী বলেন, "আল্লামা শফীর মতো একজন ধর্মপ্রাণ মানুষ নারীদের নিয়েএ ধরনের বক্তব্য দিতে পারেন না। এ বক্তব্যের ...




__._,_.___


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

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')



I agree with you.  In this age of democracy, politics of the clergy should be universally banned.  When the clergy fetch votes from innocent God fearing people and spread their tentacles on Government of any country, nothing but disaster can ensue.  Clergy is inherently undemocratic and unethical.  In most countries, they are privileged.  To uproot injustice, the clergy should be discarded to the dustbin of history. That is where they belong. 


On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Abul Azad <azad973@gmail.com> wrote:
 

What you have said is historical facts and logical conclusion. However, 'TRUTH, LOGIC AND RATIONAL THINKING'  has very little role in any belief system. "Child hold indoctrination (central for all religion), Belief (always blind - no such thing as 'blind belief'), fear, greed, persecution of the opponents and propaganda of millions of dedicated followers" - ALL play major roles of establishment  and maintenance of any religion.  

"Ignorance" plays another vital role.  Most people of the world are not only ignorant about other religions but also the very religion they practice.  As a result they are deceived by religious clergies and hypocrite left and right.  By not knowing the 'TRUTH , they choose "ONE VERSION" among the all different stories and teachings they are exposed/fed in their childhood and Time after. They began fantasizing following the best (version) religion on Earth! Only "A FEW" takes time to dig the history to know the truth. I think this is the truth for all religion. 

The Bible is the most read but list tested book in the history of mankind. 

 



On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
 

This Sura is actually a curse.  It is immaterial when it was revealed.  As Muslims believe, the complete Qur'an is preserved in the library of Allah, and was slowly revealed to the prophet.  My question is if Abu Lahab was such a cursed man, and the Prophet, (having been created long before the Universe) was chosen by Allah as the most favorite messenger, why did the Prophet allow the marriage of two of his daughters to two of sons of Abu Lahab.  Fact remains that Abu Lahab was a Hashemite too.  Having aspired to be the high priest of the Quaba temple, the Prophet resorted to the claim of having revelations from Gabriel at forty years age.  One had to be forty years old and belong to the Hashemite clan to lay a claim on the coveted position of the high priest.  The position was already held by Abu Lahab.  Besides, the Prophet was no match to Abu Lahab and his wife in the war of verses in the cultural events of Mecca.  Such family feud ultimately resulted into the breakup of the marriage of the daughters of the Prophet.  Those daughters were married to Uthman, one after the death of another, on later dates.

Any student of Islamic history and culture would notice that Gabriel did not come to the Prophet regularly, even Satan came at least once with revelations.  Not even Ayesha believed in Gabriel stories told by Muhammad as evidenced by Bokhari.  The verses of the 'holy Qur'an' were not compiled by the Prophet.  He did not find the need for it.  Umar convinced Abu Bakr on forming a committee to compile the verses.  The holy Qur'an  took longer to be compiled than to be revealed!

Any way, any one who believes that an all compassionate Allah found it necessary to send his best book and messenger to a community of only five thousand should have his brain checked.   


On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Abul Azad <azad973@gmail.com> wrote:
 

There is a disagreement among the earliest historians of Islam about "the timing" when Sura Lahab was revealed . Most believed that it was revealed about 3 yrs after Muhammad (SWS) started getting his revelation (613 CE). Problem with this notion is, "Is it possible that the 'ALMIGHTY' Creator curse someone  with such a strong word ('Perish' ) and he will live normal life for TEN additional years?"  

Many found it as an absurd notion. They believed that this sura was revealed sometime after the death of Abu Talib and Khadiza (3yrs before Hizrat) when Abu Lahab became the chief of Hashemi clan and  "WITHDREW" his clan PROTECTION for Muhammad.  
Muhammad enjoyed the protection of his Clan by the former chief (uncle) Abu Talib. 

 



On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
 

This idiot gives another stupid interpretation.  That 'revelation' came about when Abu Lahab, Prophet's uncle and former brother in law ( beyai), was killed during the raid of the caravan at Badr.  That idiot has not studied his religion as much as I did.  Such idiots may live in fool's heaven but are well despised by the learned members of this forum.


On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 6:46 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 

Keep Trying. ......

"Kamal Das is a certifide hate monger, who goes around and give out information without any references." - who certified me?

>>>>>>>> Anyone who read carefully know what I said.

Your idiocy knows no bounds.
There is no bad verses, eh!


>>>>>>>> YUP. But I am not forcing my opinion on you or badmouthing your faith. You do that like a desperate drowning man every week!!

A blind idiot like QR would see nothing.  Read for example, Sura CXI.  It says, " Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, and perish he!/  His wealth avails him not, neither what he has earned;/ he shall roast in a flaming fire/ and his wife, the carrier of the firewood,/ upon her neck a rope of palm fiber.??" - If Abu Lahab was such a cursed man, how did his sons marry the daughters of the "Holy Prophet"

>>>>>>>>>> Abu Lahab was prophet's (PBUH) uncle. The marriage took place before revelation came from Allah (SWT). There is nothing wrong with it.

The small Surah you mentioned was revealed ten years prior to Abu Lahab's death (Approx). It shows the spiritual power of the Qur'an. For being a consistent enemy of Islam, it was foretold, he will end up in hell and will not embrace Islam (Like most Arabs).

To prove the Qur'an false, all Abu Lahab required to do is to say, he became a Muslim by reciting the Shahada but his arrogance kept him away from Islam and proved the Qur'an's unique spiritual quality.


Maybe you ought to study the Qur'an for a change.

Shalom!





-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jul 12, 2013 7:33 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')

 
"Kamal Das is a certifide hate monger, who goes around and give out information without any references." - who certified me?  Your idiocy knows no bounds.
There is no bad verses, eh!  A blind idiot like QR would see nothing.  Read for example, Sura CXI.  It says, " Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, and perish he!/  His wealth avails him not, neither what he has earned;/ he shall roast in a flaming fire/ and his wife, the carrier of the firewood,/ upon her neck a rope of palm fiber.??" - If Abu Lahab was such a cursed man, how did his sons marry the daughters of the "Holy Prophet".


"There were plenty of times when I proved his lies." - convince your fellow members about it.  An ignoramus like you could never prove anything ever.



On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:35 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
It is apparent from your conversation that you, obviously, pick and choose good verses to follow; that's what probably 98% Muslims do as well. Thanks God, for that.


>>>>>>>>>>> There is no bad verses unless you do not have any idea about the context.

for example when late Ziaur Rahman announced independence from Pakistan, people knew it was a declaration of resistance. We had to fight. We did not have the luxury to exchange flowers or ramdan dates with fellow Pakistani (At that time it was one country) solders. So only very fanatic anti-Bangladeshi people can see that day in a negative light. Once we understand how Pak army was attempting to destroy our land and people, we can justify our resistance.

Similarly, the frequently discussed verse has context and can satisfy the most critical person when given the context.

I know my stance require a little knowledge of the Qur'an and a sense of fairness. Otherwise anyone can easily take Ramayana, Bible, Mahabharata etc and make it look ugly.

Prophet of Islam was a warrior; he introduced all those violent verses to direct his followers into the war.

>>>>>>>>>>> You may call him a reluctant warrior (If you must touch war). He took all sorts of abuse (Starvation, mocking, stone trowing, all kind of physical abuse you can imagine) for 13 long years and left his city searching for peace. However his love for his followers was always greater, so when Meccans attempted to destroy Medina (And his followers), he resisted.

In my view, those verses should not be considered as part of Islam, as they were introduced only to direct army at war.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing and I do understand where you coming from (not promoting war). However Islam claims to be a complete code of life. If you actually take time to study the verse and verses around it, you will see how wonderfully human right concerns were addressed. How Muslims always tried to avoid conflict. However if a war is imposed on us, we know how to conduct ourselves.

Unfortunately, those verses were also included in the Quran by its writers without much pretext.

>>>>>>>>> They are there.

Those verses are being used now by vested interest religious groups to direct their followers to fight opponents, which could be other Muslims as well.

>>>>>>>>> This has been a problem with people of all religion and people without religion. It has nothing to do with heavenly scriptures but has to do with people like us.

Every conflict against these groups is now a fight against Islam. Don't you think - those who think Islam should not be blamed for such fights should also demand expunging those violent verses from the religious scriptures?


>>>>>>>>>> It may look at this way to people who know little about Islam. However when I watch any conference of our freedom fighters (Mostly Muslims) they do not have such issues. Most of them are practicing Muslims and proud of their contribution in our war of liberation. Because as per scripture, if someone attack our existance, God approves us to resist to protect our lives, families, businesses and faith.

When someone denies or ignores the existence of offensive verses in the scripture, he/she commits deceitful acts.

>>>>>>>>> I do not call them offensive verses but verses with instruction about warfare (Mostly chapter 8 and 9).

Thanks God, we have people like Kamal Das and Abul Azad in this forum to illuminate us with knowledge to dispel endless propaganda and misinformation in the forum.


>>>>>>>>>> Kamal Das is a certifide hate monger, who goes around and give out information without any references. Abul Azad is new, so I'll wait a bit longer to see how he operates. If you chose to get your information from the likes of Kamal Das, you will not understand Islam.

There were plenty of times when I proved his lies but you can take a horse to water, you cannot force it to drink!   ;-)

Shalom!

-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 11, 2013 5:24 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')

 
"
When a religious scripture instructs soldiers to kill infidel civilian, especially young men, and take all women as the war booty after conquering a region

>>>>>>>> first, kindly be specific which verse you are talking about. ALSO kindly read one or two verses around it. I can clearly say, ISLAM does NOT support punishing innocent civilians of any faith."


We have discussed those offensive verses ( such as lay wait for infidels to smite their head off, etc., etc.) before, and, I remember, you argued that those verses were written at the time of war, so they should be judged with proper perspectives. I agree. I am just saying those verses do exist, and there are millions of Muslims who do not care to interpret them with proper context as well; they want to use them solely for politics. And, we can't do anything about it. 
 
It is apparent from your conversation that you, obviously, pick and choose good verses to follow; that's what probably 98% Muslims do as well. Thanks God, for that.
 
Prophet of Islam was a warrior; he introduced all those violent verses to direct his followers into the war. In my view, those verses should not be considered as part of Islam, as they were introduced only to direct army at war. Unfortunately, those verses were also included in the Quran by its writers without much pretext. Those verses are being used now by vested interest religious groups to direct their followers to fight opponents, which could be other Muslims as well. Every conflict against these groups is now a fight against Islam. Don't you think - those who think Islam should not be blamed for such fights should also demand expunging those violent verses from the religious scriptures? 
 
When someone denies or ignores the existence of offensive verses in the scripture, he/she commits deceitful acts. Your reasoning and understanding fall into the level of a simple minded uneducated person, which you are not, obviously. I expect more openness and truthfulness in people, like you. Thanks God, we have people like Kamal Das and Abul Azad in this forum to illuminate us with knowledge to dispel endless propaganda and misinformation in the forum.
 
Jiten Roy


From: QR <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')

 
Q. Rahman believes there is nothing wrong in the religious scriptures. To which I say - there are many wrong instructions in all scriptures.


>>>>>>>>>> Right or wrong depends on perspective. Some parts of religion has to be taken as belief. Other parts can be verified and criticized (If needed). It is only natural you and I have some differences of opinions.

Many of those wrong instructions have been expunged from all other religions, but Islam.


>>>>>>>>>> It will be helpful if you can be specific. My faith make sense to me and I feel no compulsion to attack other religions.

When a religious scripture instructs soldiers to kill infidel civilian, especially young men, and take all women as the war booty after conquering a region

>>>>>>>> first, kindly be specific which verse you are talking about. ALSO kindly read one or two verses around it. I can clearly say, ISLAM does NOT support punishing innocent civilians of any faith.

that's a wrong instruction,I would say, no matter who gave it. No context or explanation is needed to find this out.

>>>>>>>>> It is always important to understand context. In a battle field when you are being attacked, you can defend yourself. If someone attack your family, you can defend yourself. However it is WRONG to attack innocent people for no good reason (Like the recent Iraq war).

We have seen such implementation in Bangladesh, and also in Afghanistan, when Taliban forces raided the area under the control of the Northern Alliance; Taliban initiated a mass rape there. 

>>>>>>>>>> There are many good qualities among Afghan people and there are some WRONG traditions among Afghans as well. A good example will be even 100 years ago they used to lend people money with usury/high interest attached to it. This is prohibited in Islam.

However I am not aware of mass rape. Kindly share the source of it. Since this is the first time I am hearing of this allegation.

This practice is mostly seen in the Muslim army.

>>>>>>>>>>> Actually it is seen in all army. Since you have a "Beef" against Muslims, you misquote this here. Starting from the first Gulf war (Going on recent wars) the crusade was mentioned by US army. The six day war by Israel was mentioned by the army chief.

Even a needless war in Iraq seen many example of it.

Shalom!



-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Jul 6, 2013 10:35 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')

 
Q. Rahman believes there is nothing wrong in the religious scriptures. To which I say - there are many wrong instructions in all scriptures. Many of those wrong instructions have been expunged from all other religions, but Islam.

When a religious scripture instructs soldiers to kill infidel civilian, especially young men, and take all women as the war booty after conquering a region that's a wrong instruction,I would say, no matter who gave it. No context or explanation is needed to find this out.

Many Muslim soldiers still believe in this instruction, and they try to implement it in the warfare, even in a war between two Muslim regions. We have seen such implementation in Bangladesh, and also in Afghanistan, when Taliban forces raided the area under the control of the Northern Alliance; Taliban initiated a mass rape there.  The conquerors usually legitimize the scriptural instruction by declaring captured civilians as against Islam or infidels. This practice is mostly seen in the Muslim army.
 
Jiten Roy



From: Abul Azad <azad973@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 6, 2013 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')

 
"Muhammd won in the short run, but in the long run the Umayyads slaughtered his descendants---"
 >>> You are absolutely right!
Fatima died about 6months after the death of her father. He had lot of mental sufferings after  Muhammd's death,  inflicted by fellow Muslims. Within 10 days of the death of Muhammad, 'Fadak' was confiscated by 1st Caliph Abu Bakar from Fatima /Ali.  Though Mohammad himself gifted it to his daughter. Muhammad owned it as "BOOTY" from the Jews of Khayber.  Abu Bakr even did not give her chance to dry her "tears" after her father's death!
Ali did not get power till 656 CE, a long 24 yrs after the death of Muhammad!   As soon as he got in power, the 1st civil war (Fitna) between Muslims started. He had the 1st war with Ayesha (mother in law).   During his reign (656-661) he had the following wars:
  1. Battle of the Camel (between Ali and Ayesha)  - December, 656 CE
  2. Battle of Siffin  (between Ali and Muwabiya Ibne Abu Sufyan) – July, 657 C ( Kharijites break away from Ali)
  3.  Battle of Nahrawan (Kharijites defeated by Ali)  - 658 C
  4. Conquest of Egypt – 659 CE 
Ali was brutally murdered (by a poisonous dragger) by one of the Kharijii on Januarry 661 CE.  His elder son Hasan was brutally murdered by poison (conspiracy of Muawiya Ibne Abu Sufian) in 670 CE. His 2nd son Hussian Ibne Ali was brutally murdred by soldiers of Yazid bin Muawiya bin Abu Sufian in the battle of Karbala on October 680 CE.  
 Within 48 years of death of Prophet Muhammad, all of his able adult male immediate family members were brutally killed by fellow Muslims.
       


On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
 
No in depth analysis is required to understand the events of the prophet hood of Muhammad.  Prior to the claim of meeting the archangel Gabriel, Muhammad was trained by a Nestorian Monk named Sergius/Bahira on religious stories.  After such claim, in course of over ten years, he got the loyalty of not more than seventy followers from a community of over five thousand.  Even that loyalty was bought out with wealth from different sources, e.g., those of Khadija and Uthman among others.  The verses revealed in Mecca were futile effort to earn recognition.  Then he migrated to Medina where he successfully used the Christians against the Jews, looted the caravans and Jewish enclaves, and collected enough wealth to hire mercenaries for his Mecca expedition.  After 'conquering' his dreamland Mecca, he was not sure of security to live in that place and preferred to live in Medina.  Ultimately he probably got killed by his wives, Ayesha and Hafsa, as the Shiite believe. 

Islam was the result of a tribal feud between the Umayyad and the Hashemite community.  Muhammd won in the short run, but in the long run the Umayyads slaughtered his descendants.  Not even his beloved daughter, Fatima, was spared.  A few months after the death of Muhammad, Fatima was burnt down with the house she lived in by the thugs who were close associates of the Prophet.


On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Abul Azad <azad973@gmail.com> wrote:
 
"---which in the eyes of non-believers like the Quraish community was nothing more than a bunch of "rantings of a deranged mind"
>>> One may look at chapter 17, 18 and 19 of this article.
 


On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
 
This incorrigible fool, QR, does not know that the concept of nation/state grew after the French Revolution.  Earlier, a nation was properly described as kingdom. Supernatural power had to be invoked to ensure the legitimacy of the rulers.  The Prophet of Islam did not care much about his disciples forming a nation after his death.  It is well known that he did nothing to compile and preserve the holy revelations which in the eyes of non-believers like the Quraish community was nothing more than a bunch of "rantings of a deranged mind".  The quote was taken from the preface of "Muhammad and the Qur'an" - Rafiq Zakaria (p. x, l.12).


On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:09 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
Member Abul,

Any credible scholar of Islam knows batter of badr was defensive. The expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa was not a conflict but a result of treason they committed. As per treaty they should have received death penalty but the prophet gave them a lighter punishment. Later on when Banu qurayza did the same thing again, he allowed them to pick up a judge of their choice and they were punishment as per written agreement. Which is well known as the Medina Charter.

Looks like you are making up stuff as you go. Anyone who have some basic understanding of history will tell you that, you are manufacturing fiction here.

Campaign/Treaty of Hudaybiya

>>>>>>> Bunch of Muslims were going for pilgrimage when Meccans stopped them. Muslims did not get into fight but settled for a compromise and returned to Medina. How is this an attack?


. It is the so-called moderates who (knowingly or unknowingly) deceive the faithful ignorant Muslims by their lies and hypocrisy.  We must understand the very fact the prophet Muhammad was a man of 7th century and we are in the 21st.  Anyone who believes that all the teaching of Islam is mandatory [example, sharia/fighting infidels (jihad) etc] is a "fundamentalist", NO EXCEPTION!

>>>>>>>>>>>> NO where in Islam it is prescribed to attack non-violent non-Muslims. Maybe you are stuck with few texts without any knowledge of the contexts.

Secondly the term "Fundamentalist" is a negative word in context of Christianity. As per scripture of Islam, the fundamentals of Islam are sound. I do not know how long you have been a member of this forum but we have discussed a lot about fundamentals of Islam. Please feel free to read up on them.


"prophet Muhammad (PBUH) chose to forgive EVERYONE who persecuted the prophet PERSONALLY".
 >>> Not true!
Prophet Muhammad ordered to kill ten individuals on the day of conquest of Mecca even if they were found inside the Kaba. Among these ten three were female.


>>>>>>>>>> This is the problem of knowing half truths.

Kindly RE-READ what I said. I said he forgave everyone who offended him personally.( I made it in large fonts to get your attention but you missed it). 

Among these ten individuals, there were people who were inciting people to kill prophet Muhammad (PBUH). At that time, he was the head of Islamic state and any conspiracy to kill him is considered an attack on the state. Prophet forgave everyone when they tried to kill him for 13 long years. He did not fight anyone. Rather left his beloved town peacefully in search of peaceful solution. He was given permission to defend Medina when the Meccan pagans started to attack Medina to wipe out the new Islamic state.

Do realize you could have a fist fight with lawyer Obama when he was a civil rights lawyer in south side Chicago. If you even verbally threat him (The same person), it will be considered as an attack on the United States of America and you will surely end up in jail for a long time. If you found conspiring to harm the state, you will find your rear end in some prison cell without any trial (Like Guantanamo bay).

Therefore, it is important to understand what is personal and what is a crime against a state. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was duty bound to punish anyone who were inspiring people to kill him or harm city of Medina. Otherwise he forgave thousands of people who attempted to kill him, who tortured him, mocked him, insulted him, persecuted him for many years.

I am sorry to say that, you do not even understand the situation but make comments that is inaccurate.



Another example of similar situation will be when Bangabandhu allpowed Pakistani officers to leave around 71. This was a settlement where Pakistanis were given exemptions. If any officer still wanted to kill Bengalis, what should we have done to that idiot? Obviously you have no choice but to kill them.

Similarly those ten people were still trying destabilize the peaceful amnesty given by prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Some people were killed for their own actions. Rest of them (Who submitted without any provocation or bloodshed)  were forgiven.

Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 1, 2013 6:24 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')

 
"list more than sixty failed or successful battle (expedition /Raid),"- the number of Gazwas committed by the Prophet was more like 89 than like sixty.  Without religious bias, one would brand him as a successful bandit who used the name of almighty Allah to serve his own interest.







On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Abul Azad <azad973@gmail.com> wrote:
 
"Make your point and we can share our views" 
 As I said, the subject is very vast and beyond the scope of discussion in this forum. However, because of your insistence I am answering youclaim on June 23rd according to the written testimony/texts of those earliest Muslim historians.
"Only punished those who wanted to destroy all Muslims from the face of the earth.—"
 >>> Not true! The truth is: In the Biography of  (SWS) by pious Muslims list more than sixty failed or successful battle (expedition /Raid), undertaken by him, in last 10 years of his life in Medina (622-632 CE).  Among those conflicts only two were defensive  (The battle of Wuhud and Trench).  The lists of those conflicts are:
 Ghazwa or Maghazi (where prophet Muhammad himself participated):
 623 CE:  1.  Al –Abwa, 2.  Buwat, 3.  Al-Ushayrah
624 CE : 4. Badr (first), 5. Badr, 6.  Expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa, 7.  Al- Sawiq,.  Ghatafan9.  Bahran
625 CE10.  Ohud, 11.   Humra Al- Asad 12.  Expulsion of Banu Nadir 13.  Dhat –Al- Riqa of Nakhl, 14.  Another Badr
626 CE:  15.  Dumat –Al- Jandal16.  Banu Mustaliq of  Khuzah
627 CE: 17.  Battle of Ditch (Trench /Khandaq) , 18.  Banu Qurayza massacre, 19.  Banu Lihyan of Hudhayl20. Dhu Qarad
628 CE21. Campaign/Treaty of Hudaybiya , 22.  Khaybar   23. Wadi Al-Qura
630 CE: 24.  Conquest of Mecca, 25.  Hunayun, 26.  Al Taif
631 CE: 27.  Tabuk
Sariyyyah  (where prophet  Muhammad did not take part physically):
Thanniyyat Al-Murah,   Al Is, Al Kharran, Nakhala,   Al – Qardah,  Al-Raji,  Bir- Munah, Dhu Al Qassah,  Turabah,  Yemen,  Al-Kadid,  Fadak,  Banu Salaym,  Al Ghamrah, Qatan,  Al-Qurata of Hawazin,  Banu Murrah in Fadak,  Yumn and Jinab,  Al Jamun, Judham,  Wadi Al Qura,  Assasination of Yusayr bin Rizam in Khaybar,  Another attack in Khaybar,  Assassination of Abu Rafi  in Khaybar ,  Assassination of Kaab bin Al-Ashraf,  Assassination of Asma binte Marwan,  Attack and killing of Khalid bin Sufiyan, Mutah,  Dhat Atlah, Banu Al Anbar, Banu Murrah, Dhat Al-Salasil, Valley of Idam,  Al- Ghabah, Al Khabat."
 [Ref: Al Tabari (839-923 CE), 'Tarikh Al Rasul Waal Muluk', Vol-9, Page 1756-1760]
 "Even when the whole arabia was under the feet of Muslim (After Mecca was under Muslims) they did not take revenge, -----,"
 >>> The whole credit goes to Al-Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib (prophet's uncle) and Abu Sufiyan bin Harb.  These two men saved obvious blood shade; to know more, one needs to know what happened in the tent of Muhammad on the night before the "attack and conquest of Mecca". It is the story of "negotiation" between Muhammad and Abu Sufiyan with the help of Al-Abbas. Abu Sufian risked his life to prevent serious blood shed in this conflict; he was about to be killed by Omar ibne khattab on that night.
"prophet Muhammad (PBUH) chose to forgive EVERYONE who persecuted the prophet PERSONALLY".
 >>> Not true!
Prophet Muhammad ordered to kill ten individuals on the day of conquest of Mecca even if they were found inside the Kaba. Among these ten three were female.
 "The important thing to understand that, fundamental values of Islam remained the same".
 >>> True!
The  "fundamentalist" talks and tries to establish the "fundamental values" of Islam. It is the so-called moderates who (knowingly or unknowingly) deceive the faithful ignorant Muslims by their lies and hypocrisy.  We must understand the very fact the prophet Muhammad was a man of 7th century and we are in the 21st.  Anyone who believes that all the teaching of Islam is mandatory [example, sharia/fighting infidels (jihad) etc] is a "fundamentalist", NO EXCEPTION!
Thanks a lot Mr. QR. Please don't be offended, nothing personal!



On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 2:23 AM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
  >> I am sure you did. That's why my inference about you was, " your understanding of Islam is very primitive---",


>>>>>>>>>> It will be more useful, if you leave the petty personal attacks and get to YOUR POINT (If you have one).

Make your point and we can share our views (That is the idea of this forum/blog).

Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Abul Azad <azad973@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')

 
"I have been fortunate to spend time with many scholars of Islam (Both Muslims and non-Muslims)--"
 >> I am sure you did. That's why my inference about you was, " your understanding of Islam is very primitive---", and I advised you to learn Islam from the earliest Islamic sources to know  their "hypocrisy and biasses".  
Volume VI-IX of 'History Al-Tabari' covers the time of Prophet Muhammad. If you are too lazy for that then try to spend some time to 'blogs' where untold story of Islam  are often discussed and verify their references from the earliest Islamic sources. 
Learn by yourself, don't rely any one! 


On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:11 AM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
Mr. Rahman, Let me correct you, "I have no blog and I am not the writer of the article of the link I provided". If you have any questions about those article, please make your "comment"  directly in the comment section of those articles. 
>>>>>>>> will do. At the same time, the arguments made in those blogs and links provided are without logic but shows a visible discomfort and ignorance of Islam. I only tried to point those out in my last post. I have been fortunate to spend time with many scholars of Islam (Both Muslims and non-Muslims). I am aware of differences but I also knows fundamentally Islam is sound. I agree that, subject is vast but if you study the life of the last prophet (PBUH), you will see Islam was very liberating and compassionate. prophet (PBUH) only punished people who fought against Muslim umma and forgave everyone who wanted to harm him personally. Which says a lot about this man and how Islam was established. Shalom!
-----Original Message----- From: Abul Azad <azad973@gmail.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 1:10 pm Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')   Mr. Rahman, Let me correct you, "I have no blog and I am not the writer of the article of the link I provided". If you have any questions about those article, please make your "comment"  directly in the comment section of those articles.   Mr. Rahman, I have the chance to read many of your comments about Islam. It appears to me that your understanding of Islam is very primitive for the fact that the comment you make is very often argued by a stereotype sets of "words (that you mentioned)" in every mosques around the globe by al kinds of Clergies. If you really believe that "religion" is an essential part of your life, please try to learn it from the EARLIEST POSSIBLE SOURCES before it become contaminated by thousands of dedicated hands who tried to shape "Islam" according to their own way. Few of those earliest sources are: A) The Life of Muhammad — A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's (704-768 CE) Sirat Rasul Allah – A. GUILLAUME, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1955 B) The History of Al-Tabari (838-923 CE) – "Tarikh al-rasul wa'l –muluk", Translated and annoted by W. Montogomery Watt and M.V. McDonald (University of Edinburg), State University of New Yok press 1987. C) Ketab al-Maghazi- by  Al-Waqidi (748-822 CE), Ed Marseden Jones, London 1966. Obviously the subject is very vast and beyond the scope of discussion in this forum. You will be surprised knowing the "differences" what is said in those text and what we hear from our Clergies.    On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:23 AM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:   member Abul, I read your blogs and links and I am not sure which parts of Islam you have problem with? When a group of people establish a state, they have to bring down laws, punishments and processes. This is true for any country anywhere in the world. In our beloved Bangladesh, we saw a lot of violence in post liberation Bangladesh. One member of Mukto-mona even said (In last few days) that, post liberation Bangladesh saw more minority property confiscated than Pakistan era. Regardless of your ideology, it is utter idiotic to expect once you have a functioning state, you will not have codified laws to protect innocent civilians and the state itself against attacking enemies. If a state could functioned without laws and punishment, the US could have run the whole country with candy bars instead of trillions of dollars in defense, police, jails (The largest in the world) etc. The important thing to understand that, fundamental values of Islam remained the same. That did not change with time. Even when the whole arabia was under the feet of Muslim (After Mecca was under Muslims) they did not take revenge, prophet Muhammad (PBUH) chose to forgive EVERYONE who persecuted the prophet PERSONALLY. During the whole life of prophet Muhammad (PBUH), he forgave every personal offender. Only punished those who wanted to destroy all Muslims from the face of the earth. I think it is a very compassionate and noble approach. Shalom! -----Original Message----- From: Abul Azad <azad973@gmail.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 9:07 pm Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')   Mr. Roy, You are welcome! I believe that the problem with these people is a "LESSER ONE"!  Not only because they are fewer in number but also we identify them easily by their speech and action. They have no hesitancy declaring clearly and truthfully from where do they get the inspiration (Quran/Sira and Hadit).  Is there any ambiguity of Dr. Firoz kamal's article about the message he tries to 'feed us'? Is there any doubt about his intention and root of his inspiration? The greater problem is with "us", the so-called moderates.  Religious hypocrites always deceive us by their "PICK AND CHOOSE"  verses/hadits/sira (biography of the prophet) according to "THEIR" convenience.  These hypocrites continue keep the moderate Muslims in darkness mainly by two tactics (knowingly or unknowingly):  1.  By  "NOT MENTIONING" that many of the tolerant/peaceful  "Meccan" verses are abrogated by more violent "Medina Verses".  In Islam, it is called 'nasikh' and 'mansukh. (http://www.sunnipath.com/library/books/B0040P0021.aspx). http://www.amarblog.com/valomanus/posts/166422 http://www.amarblog.com/valomanus/posts/166530 2.  Whenever any of this  "jihadi" does any atrocities or killing innocent people, these hypocrites always "STAND UP" and declare:  "IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM".   This is going on, and on, and on, and on --.  They sang this song again and again and again whenever any Terrorist incidence happens anywhere in this planet; and "we" the moderate dance with their songs. We forget the very fact that "We" can utter this song millions and billions of time and stay in a stage of "DENIAL" and continue blaming "THESE PEOPLE" forever!  It never solves the problem.  If we do not even acknowledge, identify and understand a "PROBLEM" how can we think of solving it?  We are always find reason to "blame others" and in no time label others as "Islam hater" if he/she criticize my "HOLY FAITH".    When we continue believing that "FAITH IS A VIRTUE", where is the moral ground of prohibiting others to practice "ANY FAITH' one may hold?  If my "faith" is a virtue (according to "my" understanding of my holy scripture/text/ learning etc), why not yours?  Is it because you are not in agreement with that of mine?   Is it not Hypocrisy?  Professor Richard Dawkins nicely argued in this video how these terrorists get their support from the moderates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT1DL7cIdjk On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:   Thank you, Mr. Azad. Amazing documentary portrait of Jihad, a must see documentary. Jiten Roy  From: Abul Azad <azad973@gmail.com> To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')   That was Tareque Masud's "Run way"- (link below).  But, that was "ONLY" a movie!  The real life events are in Shahriar Kabir's documentary: "Portrait of Jihad."  PORTRAIT OF JIHAD - A documentary by Shahriar Kabir - 57mins http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B9LiuIZAI5c Tareque Masud's Run way- full movie -90 mins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WDVMHTBjDM On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:   Have you watched the movie by Tarek Masud which some one posted on this forum a couple of weeks ago?  Sent from my iPhone On Jun 21, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:   It is a good one; quite funny too. From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com> To: Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:57 PM Subject: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')     This for that demented sinner, that fierce 'dhalim' from the age of Jahiliya == F. M. Kamal Subject: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')  *BLOW UP DADDY!* Daddy? Yes, son. Are we going to have a war with India? Perhaps. Oh, goody. We will thrash them, right? Like we did in 1857! It wasn't in 1857, son. Oh, okay. But whom did we thrash in 1857? The British, son… And the Hindus too, right? Well… Did Quaid-i-Azam fight in that war along with Muhammad bin Qasim and Imran Khan? No, son. The Quaid and Imran were born much later and Muhammad bin Qasim died many years before. Then who ruled Pakistan in those days? There was no Pakistan in those days, son. But there was always a Pakistan! It has been there for 5,000 years! Who have you been talking to, son? No one. I've just been watching TV. It figures. Daddy, why are all these people against us Arabs? Arabs? But we aren't Arabs, son. Of course we are because our ancestors were Arabs! No, son. Our ancestors were of the subcontinental stock. Sub-what? Never mind.You seem to like wars, son. Yes. I like to watch them on TV. But real wars are fought outside the TV, son. Really? How is that possible? What sort of a war is that? Never mind. Daddy, you look worried. Of course, I am, you little warmongering punk!

...

[Message clipped]  


...

[Message clipped]  




__._,_.___


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

__,_._,___