CURMALLY: The Hanafi law you follow demands death or subjugation of all infidels. You sinned in dining with your Hindu teacher.

Submitted by Plato (India), Oct 26, 2010 at 23:42

Curmally, you wrote to me:

>>I would like you to read your mail addressed to me prior to the last one you just sent. You will find a lot of answers to the questions you have asked me or denied having said such things. That is bad manners.<<

There are likely to be duplications. I make an effort to avoid them. Since you have told me it is bad manners I would have thought it would be the polite thing to do if you had given an example or two of what you charge me with. In their absence I will have to conclude that you are not being entirely honest with this charge.

>>If Bibi Ayesha (peace be upon her) said such a thing that a goat ate the segment of the Quran e Karim that prescribed stoning, then know the Quran e Karim as it was revealed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) was being written down in the Prophet's (peace be upon him).<<

Let me quote from the Koran:

002.106 YUSUFALI: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

This verse tells you that the Koran is not a book preserved since time began as Muslims claim. Allah kept on substituting and amending the Koran whenever He felt He had made an error with a previous verse (why else would he want to substitute or abrogate them??). Having a goat eat some verses could have Allah's stratagem to get rid of some unwanted verses from the Book preserved for all time to come.

This verse is a very convenient one Mohammed as he could change verses to suit his convenience, which he did often enough. For instance the ban on alcohol.

We all know that the Koran was written down on bits and pieces of bone, wood, palm leaf etc.

>>It was under the Third Righteous Caliph Usman Ghani (peace be upon him) that the final compilation of the Quran e Karim was done and 3 handwritten copies of this uniform Quran e Karim which was agreed upon as complete and final by the associates and friends of the Prophet (peace be upon him).<<

The handwritten copies did not have the dots and dashes which today's Korans have. They were put in later which means what we have today is not what was agreed upon by the associates and friends of the prophet. If you know your Islamic history Ibn Massoud the one with the best knowledge of the Koran according to the Prophet himself disputed Othman's Koran.

>>This was done because many of the group who were close to the Prophet (peace be upon him) were dying. So a complete Quran e Karim was available for all times.<<

How can the death of a few affect the Koran which Allah claims is protected by His own hands for all time to come.

>>As for hadiths, there are catagories of hadiths. If you read a hadith the chain of the people who are supposed to have said it , is attached and whether the hadith is a strong one or a weak one is mentioned.<<

Why are the weak ones not excised from the hadith? What is the point in keeping them and cluttering up the hadith with suspicious one? But Muslims have made good of such weak ones. I think the one about the Jewish lady tormenting the prophet and enquiring about her health when she failed to show up one day is one such (you could correct me on this if I am wrong)

>>About Hinduism-Islam syncreticism, this was and shall always be a no no. <<

Islam says "no no" to everything it considers unIslamic (actually unArab). Because Islam is an exclusivist cult considering everything and everyone not connected with Islam as outside its pale.

>>And the Partition of British India is proof of this. We are separate people having separate beliefs and we like it that way.<<

Partition is proof of the separatist tendencies among all Muslim minorities. Which country with a sizeable Muslim population does not have a separatist movement. You have also now admitted that Muslims are a separate people (however close the others are to them in culture and race Islam sunders your links with your brothers, sisters and ancestors as demanded by the Koran). The Koran says: 9:23 "O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers" (Also 3:28, 3:118 etc)

The wonder is that despite such beliefs Muslims rush to get visas to infidel countries.

>>You have your country and you can live and do as you wish in it.<<

We do not do as we wish. Not only out constitution, but also our nature forbid many things which some of us may want to do. For instance the Muslim population of India is nearly the same as that of Pakistan (so what was the big deal in creating Pakistan) and we do not persecute the minorities like you do in Pakistan which has seen a drastic reduction in their numbers whereas in India the Muslim population is growing faster than the Hindus.

>>We are happy with this arrangement.<<

I can see why you are happy. You have managed to decimate the non-believing population of your country whereas the believing population of India has increased.

>>The fact of the matter is, the Transfer of Assets that belonged to Pakistan has not taken place to date.<<

I said the major part was transferred on Gandhi's insistence. Show me it was not.

>>It really does not matter what Mohtandas Karamchand Gandhi did or what Pandit Jawarharlal Nehru did. Both have since passed on. a few decades ago, Why haven't the assets been transferred?<<

Why have you been flooding us with dud money? It is much, much more than what is due to you. Why do you keep sending terrorists into the country. Your connection to terror in India is known to all. These acts have cost us much more than the measly amount you mention. For instance can you calculate the cost to us of the Mumbai carnage? Have we demanded compensation from you despite it being an open and shut case?

>>Read you history and you will see that Jinnah was disillusioned because of the Motilal Nehru Report and this disillusionment ultimately led to the Partition of India.<<

What ultimately led to the partitioning /division of Pakistan in two nations? Whose two-nation theory led to it? You and I know Bengalis were disillusioned with the autocratic Punjabi rule imposed on them.

>>JInnah had asked M.K. Gandhi not to bring religion into politics when he joined the Khilafat Movement and became a leading luminary in it.. It was things like this that divided India by bringing in religion into politics and forcing the Muslims who were the largest minority in India to seek other options to united India. So don't talk of syncretic religions. Akbar made his mistake for political reasons and leave it at that.<<

Some confused thinking here. On the one hand you claim you are happy with the outcome of partition but on the other you lament the fact that Gandhi brought religion into the politics of the time and caused it. What has Akbar and syncretic religion got to do with what you say?

>>Understand, that what Saudi Arabia does, does not apply to us because we follow different schools of law. Islam has 5 schools of law as you may have noted. They follow the Hambali whilst we follow the Hanafi school.<<

The great religion taught by Allah Himself splits His followers into following different schools of law. If the Sharia itself has five different interpretations then it cannot claim to have any divine origin. The Saudis are the closest to the time and geography of your prophet so what they do will have much more substance than any other nation, especially those that do not speak Arabic or have their culture.

You have been stressing the fact that Pakistanis have adopted Hanafi laws. Do you know what Hanafi law has to say about kaffirs? Here is a short excerpt from an Egyptian newspaper on some interesting aspects of Hanafi law:

"What kind of way of thinking are we teaching our next generation, that it has the right to attack other countries in order to convert them to Islam or to [make them] pay jizya, and that if they don't - we will annihilate them down to the very last one? [That it has the right] to pillage countries and return with the loot, and [that] if it cannot transport the booty - [that it can] burn it? Can anybody imagine a member of another religion, paying jizya, in a state of subjection, to a people he does not recognize, merely because it is able to attack, to kill and to slaughter?...(2)"

'One Must Degrade Dhimmis [Non-Muslims Living in Muslims Countries]' [Degrading dhimmis is a requirement of Allah in 9:29- Plato]

"And what about after the conquest, the emigration and the taking up of residence in the conquered land alongside its non-Muslim residents, who pay the jizya? [On this matter] there are guidelines [in 'Al-Rawdh Al-Murabba Sharh Zad Al-Mustaqna' by Mansur Ibn Yunes Al-Buhuti] [through which] one can see what the position of an Al-Azhar graduate [will be] towards his [non-Muslim] brother in the [Arab] homeland: '... The [hair] on their foreheads must be cut... They are permitted to ride [mounts] other than horses, such as donkeys, without a saddle... [One] must not rise in their honor or precede them in greetings... [One] must not offer them condolences, visit them in sickness or participate in their celebrations. They are forbidden to establish new churches or to rebuild those that were destroyed... They are forbidden to build a structure higher than those belonging to Muslims... They must be forbidden to raise their voice in mourning the dead.' If a dhimmi(3) invites a Muslim to a wedding celebration, he must not go, 'because one must degrade dhimmis...'" [Curmally, you once told us you ran errands for your Hindu teacher, visited him, ate with him. So are you a follower of Hanafi law or not?? If your friendly local mosque imam hears of it you will have a fatwa allowing your blood- Plato]

'This is What is Taught at Al-Azhar ... and there are Other Things that Arouse Disgust'

"What else do these extremist curricula contain...? In 'Al-Rawdh Al-Murabba' ... we find the following legal issue concerning relations between the dhimmi and the Muslim: If someone of the People of the Book,(4) the dhimmi, avoids paying the jizya - his life and his property are permissible. If [the dhimmi] kills a Muslim, he must be killed, but if a Muslim kills him - the Muslim is not to be killed, but must pay blood money, and the blood money for [the killing of] a dhimmi is half the blood money for [the killing of] a Muslim. The height of justice.

"However, in addition to all this darkness and ugly tyranny, there are anecdotes. Thus, in a chapter of 'Al-Rawdh Al-Murabba' dealing with endowments, you find that it is permitted to endow [property] for the benefit of an infidel who is not an enemy or of an apostate. Why is this? [You will] enjoy this [explanation]: because it 'will not be forever, since they both will be executed shortly.

"And we wonder where terror comes from……

Endnotes:

(1) Roz Al-Youssef ( Egypt), July 10, 2004.

(2) The concept of the jizya to be paid in a state of subjection appears in Koran 9:29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, of those who are the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya in a state of subjection."

(3) A non-Muslim under Islamic rule whose life and property are protected, while living in an inferior status.

(4) A Jew or a Christian, who may be offered the choice of living under Muslim rule as dhimmis while retaining their religion. Arabia), September 26, 2004. MRI's database.

>> is the practice of Hinduism in the Northern part of India same as that which is practiced in the Southern part of Peninsula India? No there is a difference. So you should be looking at that.<<

My dear Curmally yours is a religion that requires purity, whatever that is. I have told you before Hindu worship is quite eclectic. Even in the same house the husband, wife and children all can different deities. Also people from the South could worship the same gods and follow the same rituals as the people of the North, East or West.

>>The Ahmedis or Mirzais, claim that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadian was revealed certain verses in additions to the Quran e Karim. We the majority do not accept this Proposition that is why the Qadianis or Mirzais are not considered to be non-Muslims as the prophet (peace be upon him) was the seal of all prophets and none would be coming after him.<<

Why could not Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadian (may Allah give him paradise) have received a few measely verses? After all Allah tells you that He is the Great Deceiver. Maybe He deceived Muslims into thinking that Mohammed was the last prophet. There is only one verse in the Koran which calls him the seal of prophets (the interpretation of seal is also disputed)

>>The Mirzais are citizens of Pakistan they can do as they wish and believe as they wish.<<

Not they CANNOT do as they wish. Can they stand for president or prime minister of Pakistan? Can they do dawa to spread their belief as they can in India and everywhere else in the non-Muslim world?

>>Saudi Arabia denies them entry, and that is their prerogative.<<

France bans burqas in public. It is their prerogative. Switzerland bans minarets. That is their prerogative. Danish newspapers print cartoons of the prophet of Islam that is their prerogative under their constitution. The Netherlands screens Fitna, that is their prerogative under their constitution. What do you have to say on these prerogatives. Do only Muslims have prerogatives????

>>Pakistan never claimed to be a secular state we are the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. So none but a Muslim could be a PM or a President.<<

You prevent your own natural born citizens from the highest offices in the land based on their religion. What is your problem if we give lesser rights (which we actually don't, the courts here would throw out any such legislation) to Kashmiris.

>>What is your excuse? India claims to be secular doesn't it?<<

No excuse, because we don't need one. Our democratic process has not thrown up a Muslim prime minister yet. It has come up with a prime minister from an even smaller minority, and that too form a religion which was up in arms against the country one two decades ago. It has had innumerable presidents, chief ministers, top level bureaucrats, defence services officers and people in key positions who are Muslims and Christians.

>>Did Dr Henry Kissinger ever stand up for the Presidency of the USA or was he the head of a political party that you have given him as an example?<<

This was to explain to you that there are countries where citizens, based on whether they were born in the country or not decides whether they can hold the top post. Kissinger could not become president even if he wanted to like the minorities in Islamic Pakistan or any Islamic country.

>>Has a Non Christian become the President of the USA?<<

What is the percentage of non-Christians in the USA. Their constitution does not bar any one as long as he is natural born from the presidency. In Pakistan your Islamic constitution specifically bars all infidels from normal rights due to citizens of a country. Islam only recognizes 'citizenship' of religion.

>>I have read what the BJP had to say about Mrs Sonia Gandhi's candidacy as the PM of India.<<

Many parties have many things to say about Sonia. Has that prevented her from becoming the most powerful person, bar none, in the country??

>>As for CAIR, it is the premier Muslim site in the USA and in this connection Dr. Pipe's point of view is as good as mine. He is free to like or dislike it as I am free to dislike many sites on the internet.<<

If you cannot refute the duplicity of CAIR exposed on Danielpipes don't carp about his point of view.

>>I would like very much to end this discussion which is on fatwas but we have not said a word about the subject. So no more and this is Final.<<

With Regards

Plato

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".