Bogus Revisted

Submitted by AEB (United Arab Emirates), Feb 2, 2012 at 12:14

"Our dear AFB whose Hindu ancestors were brutalized by Islam and 90M of them were killed by the Muslims that invaded India"

Okay, first of all, can you read? It's AEB, not AFB. Second, how ... did you conclude I was Pakistani? Far from it. I'll reveal my origins later. Can you tell me when were those 90 million killed, in what era, by which army, dynasty, etc? Gimme details please.

"mash'allah our dear AFB can read. So what does it say in 3Umadat al-salik about the word al-jihad ya ayuha al-falyasoof al-kabeer let me guess you have no clue right?"

Why .... would I care? Islam is not a clerical religion. We are not obliged to follow each other. A 13th century book is NOT of any relevance to my faith which originated in the 7th century. ..

"ROTFL Pakistani Arabic it is اهل الذمة ya ayuha al-jahil al-kabeer. Oh darn it i forgot you cannot read speak or write Arabic the language of your masters the Arabs right?"

Again, where did I say I was Pakistani? My native language is Arabic, and I understand several dialects of it. I've never even been in Pakistan ...

"And I'm curious and do you speak Urdu? if then you need to stick to Urdu our dear AFB whose Hindu ancestors were brutalized by Islam"

I have no Hindu ancestors and got nothing to do with Pakistan or Urdu. ...

"ROTFL Pakistani Arabic the word struggle in Arabic a language speak read or write is جد او عارك او عراك

..."

Not Pakistani. Jihad, nidal, kifah, Arabic is a beautiful language not short of synonyms. Jihad means struggle, whether you like it or not, you impostor Arabic speaker. By the way, 3araka and 3irak more literally involve fighting than jihad. The Arabic for battle is ma3raka. 3irak is battling. Way to go. You just proved how little you know of Arabic. The example you used denotes battling. Are you using a dictionary or a friend?

"A liar is he who pretends to know Arabic when he does not and a liar is he who cannor read the definition of the word الجهاد in an Arabic source of Islamic law عمدة السالك where you will also find the "to establish the religion""

So rich coming from an impostor Arabic speaker to an Arab. Again, why would a 13th century book be relevant to a religion established in the 7th century? Is something wrong with your head?

"So did you read the book before you posted our dear AFB? let me guess you did not because you cannot read Arabic right?"

Why would the views of a 13th century scholar mean more than squat to me? Is it that every book written by a Muslim zealot in Arabic is automatically considered part of Islam by your lot?

"Really? can you provide us with a reference from qamoos aw mu3jam lel lugha al-3arabiyya as in name of reference and page number? the following will not be accepted as evidence

1. My Mullah told me so

2. The moron Zakir Naik said so

3. Ambassador Akbar Zeb said so"

وجاهَدَ العدوَّ مُجاهَدة وجِهاداً: قاتله وجاهَد في سبيل الله.

والجهاد المبالغة واستفراغ الوسع في الحرب أَو اللسان أَو ما أَطاق من شيء.

We don't even use the word Mullah in the Arab world. We prefer Sheikh. I know an Emarati with the last name Mullah though. You keep proving how little you know about Arabic speakers.

Jahada the enemy means fighting him and jahada in the way of God. Jihad is listed as extravagantly spending effort in war OR tongue OR whatever. In other words, struggle. War is obviously a struggle. The only source we have that Mujahada is war to establish religion is some 13th century scholar that you insist on glorifying as if he was a Muslim Messiah. No doubt a war to establish religion can be considered a Mujahada, but to say that Mujahada, Jihad, and whatever refers ONLY to military and religious contexts is a big, fat, lie. Literally speaking, Jihad and Mujahada mean spending effort, or Juhd. I don't need some internet moron lecturing me on my own language.

"Sorry I cannot teach you Urdu because I do not speak Urdu ...

Stop your delusions you ain't no Arab"

Yup the person who doesn't know 3irak means battle (v) is telling me that.

"Really? so where would I find in the Qur'an ان الجهاد الكبير هوا الجهاد النفسي you will not find it but you will find the evil اقتلوا المشركين and this aya was the reason why 90M of your Hindu ancestors were killed by the Muslim invaders of India"

My ancestors were not Hindu. You find the Greater Jihad in the hadith, which I admit I don't trust too much. But I'm speaking from the perspective of tradition, and tradition is that practicing Islam in every day life is far more important and difficult than military conflict. That was referring to people who lived and died 1400 yars ago. You realize that, right? Why the double standards when dealing with Biblical genocide of Canaanites?

"Really? so where would I find جهاد السان وجهاد القلم in the Qur'an?

Oh darn it I do not translate Arabic for wannabe Arabs like you"

I was paraphrasing. I already told you I'm speaking from the point of view of the Islamic tradition, where everyday struggle far outweighs the military one. But that doesn't matter, the Qur'an doesn't say sanction indiscrimiante and incessant warfare as jihad. But tell me, why is it okay for you to quote a 13th century author, but it's not okay for me to speak about Islam outside the Qur'an? Give me one good reason.

"Really? there is such thing called جهاد اليد where would i find anything mentioned about it in the Qur'an a book that you cannot read in Arabic you tell us mr ignorant"

More time wasting. You think you're some sort of expert for knowing how to translate things into Arabic? رنك حبيبي There, in an Arabic you CAN'T understand.

"Then Jihad really means holy war right? and my evidence is what we are told in 3umdat al-salik right ... ?"

Jihad literally, means struggle. In the context of Islam, it means futhering justice in the way of Allah. Whether it's building a mosque, helping those in need, or militarily defending Islam, it's all jihad. The 7th century onwards conquests were political, and not religious. You had before us the Sassanid, Byzantine, Parthian, Roman, Macedonian, and Achaemenid empires, each with their own religious or political cults, if not both.

Please give me one good reason why should I, a Muslim, use what another Muslim said to define the whole faith for me. Give me one good reason. In Islam, fatwa and ahkam are not obligatory to follow; you can choose whatever scholarship you want, or practice ijtihad and come up with your own interpretations. We're taught to critically approach clerics and avoid mindless taqlid (which is what's happening with Salafism today, taqlid), but of course that doesn't mean you get to do as your heart desires (ex. say based on your ijtihad alcohol is halal just because you like to drink). Is that difficult to grasp? There is no unified Muslim authority we are obliged to follow but Muhammad pbuh, his sayings and his revelations. That is all.

"Really? so killing 90M of your Hindu ansetors was a good thing to "further morality and human rights"?"

They're not my ancestors but who killed them? I'm pretty sure it was Turco-Mongolic converts to Islam, who practiced genocide long before they became Muslim. So why blame their brutality on Islam?

"Oh the لا اكراه في الدين but i have a few questions for you

1. can you tell us what is سبب النزول لهذهي الاية"

I'll say it bluntly, I don't know, and I don't need to know. Islamic verses don't contradict or abrogate each other, they complement each other. The abroggation is in the ahkam extracted from the Qur'an, and not the verses themselves. Example is that the Qur'an asked us to avoid, decrease (during prayer), and finally to stop consuming alcohol. By following the third verse, you can follow all three simultaneously. On the other hand, alcohol which was okay when it was discouraged but not banned, but after the third verse its consumption was forbidden. None of the verses were abrogated but the hukm changed. Likewise, the conquest of Mecca had nothing to do with religious compulsion being universally imposed, it was a campaign similar to the Israelites in Canaan.

"2. The islamic sources tell us that اية السيف تنسخ اية لآكراه في الدين which means that your little aya has been abrogated"

Answered this.

"3. If there was really la ikrah fi al-deen then how come 90M of your Hindu ancestors were killed by your masters the Muslims?"

What do the actions of people post-Islamic relevations have to do with the intention of the original founder of Islam? paradox much? And they were not my ancestors.

"Oh the Arabic! Well you can ask one of your Arab masters to translate it for you"

I'm an Arab.

"Islamic gobbledygook"

In others words you have no refutation to the fact that Qur'anic verses refer only to specific peoples and not to specific faiths. In other words you deliberately misinterpret the scriptures to feed your bigoted agenda.

...

"What atrocities? so did Pagan Arabs and Persians and the Byzantines killed 90M Hindus too and did they crash planes in big buildings and in the process killed many innocent people"

Pagan Arabs, some Hindus today, buried their daughters alive. The Persians persecuted Christian Arabs of Iraq. The Byzantines persecuted Christians that disagreed with them.

9/11 was nothing compared to Desert Storm and the 12 year embargo on Iraq. Should we say Christianity is evil because of Bush's little Crusade?

Muslim Arabs didn't kill millions of Hindus. Our worst crimes are the African slave trade, South Sudan, and Iraqi Kurdistan. Arabs even after Islam have quite the clean history if compared to Christian Europeans for example.

"Your Allah tells you to terrorize us infidels in اية الارهاب and to kill as in اية السيف and to fight us kuffar in اية الجزية and Allah is supposed to get 1/5 of the loot collected from us kuffar so the question now is how do we get to Allah his share of the loot? Do you have his e-mail address?"

Same context as Israelis and Canaanites. You're a hypocrite for singling out Islam.

"Three out of four of al-khulafa' al-rashiduun were killed by other Muslims! right? so much for islam the religion of peace"

Actually Omar was killed by a Zoroastrian. The other two were only killed because they refused to defend themselves. Correlation is not causation. An argument could be made that they were killed in spite of Islam, not because of. Peacefulness of religions is decided on by people.

"For the readers: Our dear AFB whose Hindu ancestors were brutalized by islam is saying that if other religions can be violent so what is wrong with Islam being a violent religion too? Right our dear AFB whose Hindu ancestors were brutalized by islam?"

For he readers: note that Mr. Bogus has ignored what I said about Ummayads and Abbasids. Note that he's been calling me a Pakistani the whole time, indicating clear racism on his part (stereotyping).

Dear Bogus, I am an Algerian. Paternally, my tribe's ancestor arrived from Mecca sometime in the 14th century to the Maghreb, and my descendence goes to the Hassan or Hussein.

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/66621_1632437900514_1523646399_1532203_4570450_n.jpg

Since you pride yourself in reading Arabic, here's my ancestor's ancestry.

The forefather of my personal family fled after killing a few Ottoman Turks. Futhermore, my great grandfather allegedly arrived from Yemen according to my aunts. And of course, maternally for several of my male ancestors, there's large amounts of Amazigh ancestries. I'm Arab by nationality, culture, and language, and racially I'm mixed between Arab and Amazigh. I'm proud of both.

However, Amazigh nationalists list my tribe as a Kutama tribe. Makes sense, since our province is where the Kutama originated from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutama

We kicked out the Arabs from Africa, conquered Syria and Hejaz, and built Cairo ourselves. We were Ismaeli Shias, and when our governors reverted to Sunni Islam, we unleashed Bedouin tribes on them and Arabized North Africa. The Amazigh were Arabized by fellow Amazigh. At some point fundamentalist Sunni Amazigh reconverted North Africa into Sunni.

As early as the eighth century, Turkish, Amazigh, and Persian secessionist dynasties had already stripped Arabs of their control over everything short of Syria, Iraq and Arabia. The stereotype that Arabs conquered everyone is a joke. Non-Arab converts to Islam played gigantic roles, such as the Mongols and their atrocities in India. We Amazigh had converted to Arian Christianity just to piss off the Byzantines, and when Arabs liberated us, we conquered Andalus for them. But when they became racist to us, we converted to Ismaeli Islam just to piss them off as well, and put some Arab Imam as our puppet Caliph, while Kutama military tribesmen ran the Caliphate. By the ninth century, the Arab control of non-Arab lands had already ended, except maybe Ummayad Andalus.

I specialize in history; Arab, Semitic, and Amazigh history to be precise. I don't care what other Muslims did, as it doesn't concern us. You can falsify Pakistani history all you want; I'm no expert on them, so I can't comment. But don't go blaming Muslims for what one single ethnicity of us did.

---

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".