Understanding Zaat-e-Muhammad

Submitted by Wasim Ahmed (India), Jun 8, 2014 at 17:03

Respected Daniel Pipes provided a chance to the people to expose their thoughts about the religion of Islam on his Middle East Forum. Therefore we Muhammadis also joined in it and the articles published in accordance with the Muhammadi faith.

Sir 'Dhimmi No More' felt awkward. So he started interfering. I thought he is a gentleman. But he put forth the contradictory writings. On the error of Aqrab he made a fun of it. On his error الضاهر , I just neglected as unseen. 'Mehmood Gaznavi and Muhammad bin Qasim the son-in-law of Hujjaaj bin Yusuf were the attackers on Bharat', I put forth this occurrence, those attackers even massacred Muhammadis and exiled. But sir Dhimmi No More did not write at all that who attacked, on whom attacked and taken them as slave. We shown Allah from Kalmah , that we believe in this way and was informed. Even after this he always wrote 'Your Allah' and 'your Hindu ancestors'. He is making joke of it and rejecting my talks by making a reference to other nation. He is searching references to insult Muhammad, 'a part of Dictionary' which he himself sent and in that believing (KasirulKhasal-Al-Hamidah) to Muhammad.

After the death of Sallam Ahmad, Dajl doing Sahabis whatever writings they brought to insult Muhammad, we Muhammadis do not accept that Dajjali history. Even today, the declaration of Kalmah is being done through Friday Azaan. Such Allah is understood from Kalmah – then the reality of Hell and Heaven etcetera's clarification will also takes place. Kalmah should be understood as Kalmah only, do not make it Jumlah. Anybody believes zaat Allah 'as a personality' then his belief is for himself. Muhammadis are not having any connection from that belief.

With Regards,

Wasim Ahmed

Maharashtra, India

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".