Tehreek-e-Taliban say no peace talks anytime soon

[Always Neutral]

It is glaringly obvious the US is playing a game with us.

TTP are funded and armed by US/India/Saudi.

But staffed by the good muslims from Pakistan.

 

[SQ8]

Sir what we need to do is to extensively study Quran Tafseers Hadees and Fiqh without bias and than judge the thoughts of Fiqhs I also do this I was born in a barelvi family at least my mother was but my father he is a secular person but I studied Islam and now I call my self a salafi although a Muslim but if some one forces me to tell sect or school of thought than I say salafi because what ever salafi teaches you can find them in Quran and Hadees but I have asked several bralevis and sufis about different issues but they never quote Quran or Hadees

God knows which Sufi's and Baveilvi's have you been roaming about...
There are usool-e-tafseer.. one of them is to explain the Quran by the Quran.. I am a hanafi Sufi and I do that. If Salafism teaches you to read the Quran like a school book.. then I disagree with the idea of Salafism entirely.

 

[Zarvan]

God knows which Sufi's and Baveilvi's have you been roaming about...
There are usool-e-tafseer.. one of them is to explain the Quran by the Quran.. I am a hanafi Sufi and I do that. If Salafism teaches you to read the Quran like a school book.. then I disagree with the idea of Salafism entirely.

sir I have tested like every one sir all run away all off them and Quran and tafseer has to be read but not by acting like a philosopher but like a follower of Allah and his rasool saw and also students hadees and sunnah and than fiqh

 

[SQ8]

sir I have tested like every one sir all run away all off them and Quran and tafseer has to be read but not by acting like a philosopher but like a follower of Allah and his rasool saw and also students hadees and sunnah and than fiqh

To your ideas.. to me mine. Allah is the last judge of who will be right and who will be wrong.. I defer to his judgement for me.. not yours.

 

[Zarvan]

To your ideas.. to me mine. Allah is the last judge of who will be right and who will be wrong.. I defer to his judgement for me.. not yours.

sir this ayat is for non Muslims they can't be forced to convert sir at least know the background sir

 

[SQ8]

sir this ayat is for non Muslims they can't be forced to convert sir at least know the background sir

You do that, your salafi ideals are pure and you get the right ideas.
Salam o Alaikum.

 

[Zarvan]

You do that, your salafi ideals are pure and you get the right ideas.
Salam o Alaikum.

sir check yourself this is agreed by all sufis and salafis sir pick any tafseer

 

[SQ8]

sir check yourself this is agreed by all sufis and salafis sir pick any tafseer

Really.. Let me tell you why I used it for you.. After all you are claiming to know it all... through Tafseer.

First.. lets go to the Tafseer that I use..

Now Ill bring in Tafsir-e Kathir.. Hopefully you should have little disagreement with that.
Allah said,

﴿لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ﴾

(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.''

It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said ﴿that before Islam﴾, "When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated ﴿from Al-Madinah﴾, some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.' Allah revealed,

﴿لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ﴾

(There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.)''

Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i also recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said to a man,

«أَسْلِم»

قَالَ: إِنِّي أَجِدُنِي كَارِهًا قَالَ:

«وَإِنْ كُنْتَ كَارِهًا»

("Embrace Islam.'' The man said, "I dislike it.'' The Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.'')

First, this is an authentic Hadith, with only three narrators between Imam Ahmad and the Prophet . However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion, for the Prophet did not force that man to become Muslim. The Prophet merely invited this man to become Muslim, and he replied that he does not find himself eager to become Muslim. The Prophet said to the man that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, `for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.'

Now, why did I post that for you if in your words the Ayah is solely for non-muslims and muslims are not take anything from it other than not trying to convert non-muslims. After all, Kufr is mentioned right after and so this Ayah or La-Ikrah Fid'een only applies to those in Kufr.
Yet even the tafseer points that it may refer to a specific act... has Imam Ibn Kathir made a mistake.. or is the section of Ayah relevant elsewhere?? I wonder..
He then introduces to what he calls an unrelated hadiath about the Prophet inviting a man to Islam even though he disliked it.. Why?
To show that the prophet did not force anyone onto a message unless he explained its possible merit. You could continue to insist that even that example is only confined to Kufr.. and otherwise Muslims are to be forced into a message without any merit because they are unworthy of being given leeway..

But as I understand what Imam Kathir has done here, and does other places.. is give references to where one section of the Ayat might be addressing a subject that is related to each other or addressing the same issue. First, the Tafseer of the Quran using Hadiath.. and then Tafseer of the Quran using references. Neither of them point to the exclusivity of it to be used only non-muslims.. nor does the Tafseer say so as you insist. Because if that was true.. then you have no right to go after a Murtad because this Ayat in its exclusivity would free the Murtad from any compulsion and you cannot say anything to them.. So either you pledge that all Murtad.. regardless of when they left Islam nor not as non-muslims and leave them alone on the basis of this ayat...Or you say that this ayat is not exclusive to be used as a reference for non-muslims. ..Make your decision.

Lets go further into the Surah. Ayah 258 of the same is also present.. which discusses the interaction between Hazrat Ibrahim and Namrood.

Interesting is it not.. that the example is not confined to Just Hazrat Ibrahim and his discussion with Namrod.. but the example stands to all Non-Muslims.. and in all debate. Now, if I follow your reasoning.. then this Ayat only deals with Hazrat Ibrahim and Namrood.. hence only he is allowed to debate with only Namrood on the Powers of Allah and the rest of us should just shut up when talking to non-Muslims.

Here is where I disagree with Ibn-Kathir.. however, unlike Maulana Maudoodi.. or other "scholars" of that kin.. I disagree in light of this tafseer with respect since I believe that Ayah was revealed clearly to show that intelligence triumphs over parroted arguments.

Now , how does this all fit in the narrative on using La-Iqra Fideen with you.(My mistake in hoping that you would focus on La Ikra fideen and not the rest of the Ayat to get what I mean as one of understanding and not myopic vision would). Your Behes Mubahis on Philosophy and understanding of the Quran on only the Hadiath and Quran is incorrect because in my view where the Quran repeatedly states "For men of understanding" it refers to people going deeper into what it means and not accepting it and then sitting on it without care. Moreover, Your very comment on the Quran not being done through philosophy or otherwise would definitely label the visionary of this nation.. also known as Allama Mohammad Iqbal whose philosophical views on the Quran are there in his poetry and his urging to the Muslims of the subcontinent to wake up were based on this view(because otherwise, most of Deoband and many others were content with the British and the Hindu ruling them as long as they could pray in the Masjid even if it meant listening to Vande Mataram every morning on the radio); as someone who had no idea of the Quran in correct terms.. and hence this whole Pakistan business too is total folly. Therefore, I recognized that you are someone who I am incapable of debating with because you refuse to acknowledge anything other than your own views and like a school boy are stuck on g=9.8m/s2 and I(sadly) lack the patience to repeat at the same level as you do. Hence, I banked on at least some understanding and brought in La-ikra fideen(sadly there is no image of it without the rest of the ayat).. to hint that there is no compulsion for you to accept my argument or for me to accept yours..and therefore I have no wish to continue this argument at this time and we part on mutual "Agree to disagree" and smile.

However, you have proven.. that you incapable of doing so because.. as I said earlier.. the "Aql-e-Kul"..ana-e-kul issue takes over.. and you require the last word.. which you did not get out of me..nor will you.
But I shall repeat.. You understand whatever you wish.. I will understand as I have..

It is MY Qabr.. and mine alone.. and so is yours.. and yours alone.. Suggest you keep your foot out of mine.. and leave it to the higher authority to judge me.. Till then.. May Allah grant us both Hadiath.. and WHOSOEVER is on the wrong path.. be brought to light.

 

[Zarvan]

Really.. Let me tell you why I used it for you.. After all you are claiming to know it all... through Tafseer.

First.. lets go to the Tafseer that I use..

Now Ill bring in Tafsir-e Kathir.. Hopefully you should have little disagreement with that.
Allah said,

﴿لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ﴾

(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.''

It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said ﴿that before Islam﴾, "When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated ﴿from Al-Madinah﴾, some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.' Allah revealed,

﴿لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ﴾

(There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.)''

Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i also recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said to a man,

«أَسْلِم»

قَالَ: إِنِّي أَجِدُنِي كَارِهًا قَالَ:

«وَإِنْ كُنْتَ كَارِهًا»

("Embrace Islam.'' The man said, "I dislike it.'' The Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.'')

First, this is an authentic Hadith, with only three narrators between Imam Ahmad and the Prophet . However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion, for the Prophet did not force that man to become Muslim. The Prophet merely invited this man to become Muslim, and he replied that he does not find himself eager to become Muslim. The Prophet said to the man that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, `for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.'

Now, why did I post that for you if in your words the Ayah is solely for non-muslims and muslims are not take anything from it other than not trying to convert non-muslims. After all, Kufr is mentioned right after and so this Ayah or La-Ikrah Fid'een only applies to those in Kufr.
Yet even the tafseer points that it may refer to a specific act... has Imam Ibn Kathir made a mistake.. or is the section of Ayah relevant elsewhere?? I wonder..
He then introduces to what he calls an unrelated hadiath about the Prophet inviting a man to Islam even though he disliked it.. Why?
To show that the prophet did not force anyone onto a message unless he explained its possible merit. You could continue to insist that even that example is only confined to Kufr.. and otherwise Muslims are to be forced into a message without any merit because they are unworthy of being given leeway..

But as I understand what Imam Kathir has done here, and does other places.. is give references to where one section of the Ayat might be addressing a subject that is related to each other or addressing the same issue. First, the Tafseer of the Quran using Hadiath.. and then Tafseer of the Quran using references. Neither of them point to the exclusivity of it to be used only non-muslims.. nor does the Tafseer say so as you insist. Because if that was true.. then you have no right to go after a Murtad because this Ayat in its exclusivity would free the Murtad from any compulsion and you cannot say anything to them.. So either you pledge that all Murtad.. regardless of when they left Islam nor not as non-muslims and leave them alone on the basis of this ayat...Or you say that this ayat is not exclusive to be used as a reference for non-muslims. ..Make your decision.

Lets go further into the Surah. Ayah 258 of the same is also present.. which discusses the interaction between Hazrat Ibrahim and Namrood.

Interesting is it not.. that the example is not confined to Just Hazrat Ibrahim and his discussion with Namrod.. but the example stands to all Non-Muslims.. and in all debate. Now, if I follow your reasoning.. then this Ayat only deals with Hazrat Ibrahim and Namrood.. hence only he is allowed to debate with only Namrood on the Powers of Allah and the rest of us should just shut up when talking to non-Muslims.

Here is where I disagree with Ibn-Kathir.. however, unlike Maulana Maudoodi.. or other "scholars" of that kin.. I disagree in light of this tafseer with respect since I believe that Ayah was revealed clearly to show that intelligence triumphs over parroted arguments.

Now , how does this all fit in the narrative on using La-Iqra Fideen with you.(My mistake in hoping that you would focus on La Ikra fideen and not the rest of the Ayat to get what I mean as one of understanding and not myopic vision would). Your Behes Mubahis on Philosophy and understanding of the Quran on only the Hadiath and Quran is incorrect because in my view where the Quran repeatedly states "For men of understanding" it refers to people going deeper into what it means and not accepting it and then sitting on it without care. Moreover, Your very comment on the Quran not being done through philosophy or otherwise would definitely label the visionary of this nation.. also known as Allama Mohammad Iqbal whose philosophical views on the Quran are there in his poetry and his urging to the Muslims of the subcontinent to wake up were based on this view(because otherwise, most of Deoband and many others were content with the British and the Hindu ruling them as long as they could pray in the Masjid even if it meant listening to Vande Mataram every morning on the radio); as someone who had no idea of the Quran in correct terms.. and hence this whole Pakistan business too is total folly. Therefore, I recognized that you are someone who I am incapable of debating with because you refuse to acknowledge anything other than your own views and like a school boy are stuck on g=9.8m/s2 and I(sadly) lack the patience to repeat at the same level as you do. Hence, I banked on at least some understanding and brought in La-ikra fideen(sadly there is no image of it without the rest of the ayat).. to hint that there is no compulsion for you to accept my argument or for me to accept yours..and therefore I have no wish to continue this argument at this time and we part on mutual "Agree to disagree" and smile.

However, you have proven.. that you incapable of doing so because.. as I said earlier.. the "Aql-e-Kul"..ana-e-kul issue takes over.. and you require the last word.. which you did not get out of me..nor will you.
But I shall repeat.. You understand whatever you wish.. I will understand as I have..

It is MY Qabr.. and mine alone.. and so is yours.. and yours alone.. Suggest you keep your foot out of mine.. and leave it to the higher authority to judge me.. Till then.. May Allah grant us both Hadiath.. and WHOSOEVER is on the wrong path.. be brought to light.

Sir I have read the Tafsir Ibn Kathir by the way and Sir when you are in Islamic society you have to follow Islam and it is duty of government to enforce orders of Islam Sir this ayat is mostly used by secular in completely wrong context Sir when you are Muslim or Non Muslim you are living in Islamic state you have to follow orders of Islam Non Muslims in many cases don't have to because they are not Muslims but Muslims have to Sir and those orders are clear from Quran and Sunnah and what Sahabas did as a whole and for Taliban Sir USA have started their talks and still an attack took place today at bagram killing 4 USA soldiers still they would talk to Taliban so you better talk to them other wise Pakistan can be in big trouble if USA leaves Afghanistan
And Sir for Iqbal I have read him to his poetry is no philosophical in fact if you read his poetry without looking at the name or who wrote it or without knowing that this poetry is of Iqbal first thing that would come in mind was that this work is most probably of some hard core Mullah Sir f this ayat would have been the way you are telling it HAZRAT ABU BAKAR RA would never have declared war on those who refused to gave Zakat and who became apostates

 

[niaz]

This article describes my feelings exactly.

The real threat to Islam


Aijaz Zaka Syed
Thursday, June 20, 2013
From Print Edition

Dubai eye

Some of my Pakistani friends had been offended when some time ago in an emotional piece I had the temerity to suggest that some of the greatest crimes against Islam and its followers have been committed in the land that was earned in the name of the faith. It was a situation of, in Parveen Shakir’s words, “Baat toe sach hai magar baat hai ruswai ki” (although this is the truth, it’s not good for our reputation).

Now another senseless, totally absurd atrocity has been added to the long roll of crimes perpetrated in the name of Islam against the Muslims by fellow Muslims. At least 25 people, including 14 female university students, four nurses, a medical officer and the deputy commissioner of Quetta, were killed on Saturday, June 15 when a bomb tore through a bus, followed by a suicide attack and a bloody gun battle in the Bolan Medical College hospital, where the injured students were taken for treatment.

The authorities reveal that the attack targeting the students of the region’s only all-women university was carried out by a female suicide bomber and has proudly been claimed by the banned Lashkar-e-Jhangvi.

With all those lashkars, jaishes and defenders of faith though, Pakistan hardly needs the services of Uncle Sam or assorted Indian and Zionist conspirators and saboteurs. Of course, this isn’t the first such attack and, rest assured, it will not be the last one. This conflict has already claimed more than 48,000 lives in the past few years, suggests a report by South Asia Terrorism Portal and Institute for Conflict Management.

In the past few years Pakistan has witnessed so much mindless violence and splurging of innocent blood in its streets, mosques, schools and hospitals that the issue now evokes little more than helpless resignation and revulsion. After a point, death becomes a dull, daily routine and lost lives mere statistics.

But indifference and aversion cannot wish away this menace, this deep sickness that has crept into Muslim lands in the past few years. Convenient and convoluted interpretations and spin cannot treat this deadly disease.

What sort of people send a young woman to blow herself up with other totally innocent, unsuspecting fellow women on the way to college with stars and dreams in their eyes? What kind of religion do they believe in and where and how did they come up with this morbid, sick interpretation of the faith? No religion sanctions killing of innocent people, especially women and children, least of all Islam. The faith I know and believe in along with more than 1.6 billion people sternly warns its followers against targeting of innocents including animals and plants even during a conflict.

What kind of holy war is this that drives people to turn on fellow believers and what divine goals do these holy warriors hope to achieve? Do they really think God will reward them for snuffing out the beautiful lives that He created? Would He shower His blessings on them for spilling the blood and guts of His children in the prime of life? Can there be a greater atrocity and outrage against the faith that so many believers led by the Prophet himself, peace be upon him, sacrificed so much to spread and strengthen?

Islam was sent down as a blessing for the whole of humanity, demolishing all false distinctions of birth, colour, gender and social status. Who would have thought that Muslims would be killed for believing in it by fellow Muslims?

According to a much quoted hadith, the Prophet is said to have warned of a period when his followers notwithstanding their extraordinary numbers would find themselves under siege everywhere. Who would have known that the Muslims would end up their own worst enemies and of their own kind?

And this isn’t a problem that is confined to Pakistan. From the killing fields of Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen to the battlefronts of Syria, Lebanon and Turkey, it is the same sickening story of the faithful being slaughtered at the hands of fellow travellers.

Groups like Al-Qaeda and the Tehreek-e-Taliban that seemingly came into being to avenge the western crimes and injustices against the faithful have killed more of their own people – an infinite number more than their intended enemy. Indeed, more believers have died at the hands of their brethren than all the recent western wars put together may have.

Remember the decade-long disastrous war between Iran and Iraq at the turn of the last century? Millions perished in the pointless clash, not to mention the mutual destruction of the two oil-producing nations under the benign gaze of the west and the rest. In Syria, what began as a people’s uprising against the long night of the Bathist tyranny has turned into a bitter, endless civil war claiming nearly 100,000 lives.

Clearly, we have a serious problem in our midst and the sooner we confronted it the better for everyone. We can go on deluding ourselves that all is well and that this is all part of a grand conspiracy to malign Islam and Muslims and do nothing. We can stand and stare while the world around us unravels and more and more impressionable minds are claimed by violent extremism with fingers inevitably being pointed at our faith.

Alternately, we could start fighting back – confronting the dark forces in our midst. The enemy within now threatens our very identity and the sweet name of the faith that continues to conquer hearts and minds against all odds. This is the only way forward if we believe in Islam’s humane teachings and care for the future of our succeeding generations.

This is not a tiny fringe that we confront anymore. What we are staring at is an extraordinary ideological and existential challenge, the kind Muslim societies have never encountered in their eventful history. This calls for an equally extraordinary response from governments, Muslim scholars, intellectuals and everyone who is concerned over this mayhem and murder in our name. Mere condemnations and denouncements from the pulpit will not do.

It is time for more effective measures to fight the scourge and present the real face and spirit of Islam – not just before the world but for the sake of our own. This is the real jihad right now.

The writer is a commentator on Middle East and South Asian affairs.Email: aijaz.syed@hotmail.com

The real threat to Islam - Aijaz Zaka Syed