ANSWER TO LORETTA RAJKUMAR’S VIEWS WHO SAYS MOHAMMAD ALVI MAY HAVE READ THE GITA AND VEDAS BUT CAN HE COMMENT ON THE BIBLE [Part - I]

Dear Ms. Loretta Rajkumar

 

Response to your comment had been pending since some time now. I have finally found time to respond.

 

You start your comment by saying that “God was against idol worship and He spoke to Moses; Moses was the only prophet who came face to face with the Holy God.” I agree with you that idol worship is not the desired mode of worship. Even many Hindus are against idol worship as they find no sanction for idol worship in the scriptures. But when you say God “spoke to Moses; Moses was the only prophet who came face to face with the Holy God,” you are partially correct and partially wrong. God did speak to Moses, that’s true. Old Testament as well as the Quran confirms this. But was Moses face to face with the Holy God? If you say so, that means God came to present Himself on that mountain top. Quran says it was God’s ‘tajalli’ or God’s light which was made visible to Moses. Saying Moses was face to face with God is akin to giving a form and shape to God, whereas He has none (even as per Christian view). His powers are visible in several manifest forms and the light visible to Moses was proof of God’s presence. Moses was unable to withstand even this light and fell unconscious.

 

Your claim that Moses was the only prophet who came face to face with the Holy God may be your view based on information available in the Old Testament. Quran explicitly talks of Prophet Mohammad being taken by angels to the abode of God and even talks of a distance of ‘two spears or even lesser’ between the Creator and His creation. You are requested to tell your view regarding whether Jesus got the opportunity to come face to face with the Holy God or not. I say this because you have given Jesus the status of ‘Son of God’ while you yourself are saying that none but Moses came face to face with the Holy God. Kindly tell whether the ‘Son of God’ ever had the opportunity to come face-to-face with his ‘Father’? Can you supplement your view (whatever it is) from the scriptures? If Jesus indeed came face to face with his ‘Father God’ then when did this happen? If he didn’t then you will have to agree that Moses was superior to Jesus in some attributes, which is not true and I too didn’t believe in this.

 

After this, madam, you are mentioning an altogether different subject. In nutshell, you are talking about God making extinct the great civilizations of the past including those of Phoenicia, Mesopotamia, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Egypt, etc. and ‘he didn’t ask sinful mankind like you n me to do His dirty work of killing His creations, He is God Almighty; he can’t fail, he has hosts of angels to take up His battle, not u and I nor I or Mohammad…” I agree with you fully. Man has no right to kill another human being without a reason. You are saying so because my name is Mohammad Alvi – a seemingly Muslim name – and all that you are hearing lately about Muslims through the media is their beastliness and cruelty. What I wish to tell you is that despite you hearing so much about the cruelty of Muslims who are fighting for Al-Qaida, ISIS and similar organizations, such people are still in minority. I consider all such people who are killing others in the name of Islam as having no link to Islam. Quran says clearly: “One who kills one innocent person is akin to killing the entire humanity.” This means anyone who has willingly killed one innocent person, his sin is as if he has killed the entire humanity. There is no place for savagery or brutality in true Islam. I say true Islam, because a pseudo-Islam has been propagated that endorses all such killings in the name of religion. But I must say that whatever logics these insane people give in the name of Islam for killing others, neither Prophet Mohammad’s life or teachings nor Quran endorse such treatment. Quran says: “To you your religion, to me mine.” It talks of righteousness and piety as the desired characteristics in a man. It even says that if a person sees injustice/oppression being done and remains mute witness without speaking in favour of the oppressed, his conduct is equivalent to as if he himself has committed the injustice/oppression. Is there any room for savage and brutal killing of innocents in the light of many such teachings? No! There is none. Not once during his entire life did the Prophet attacked anybody. All wars were fought in self-defence when armies marched on him. And whatever the propagandists may say against him, he did not kill one person in his life. Quran describes him as a Prophet of Benevolence, Peace and Good Conduct. And that he indeed was.

 

After saying all this, I agree that not only in this age but during all ages since the demise of Prophet Mohammad, there have been people who used Islam to their advantage. Islamic teachings were sabotaged by self-interest seekers very soon after Prophet’s death. The books that Muslims possess today give a mix of real teachings and those propagated by self-interest seekers. A vivid example of the extent to which Prophet Mohammad’s teachings were sabotaged can be seen by the brutal and savage assault by the Muslim rulers of the time, barely 50 years after Prophet’s demise, on Prophet’s family itself. All but one of the male members of the family of Prophet’s grandson and all his friends and well-wishers were brutally killed, so much so that neither the aged nor the 6-month old children were spared. The savagery of al-Qaida and ISIS fades in front of the savagery committed by the killers of Prophet Mohammad’s grandson. Truth is that when the teachings of Islam were usurped and sabotaged, the greatest price was paid by none but the Prophet’s own family which had continued to remain the torchbearer of true Islamic teachings. Consequently, Prophet’s family and descendants remained in house-arrests or imprisonment and many of them were killed either by sword or poison, by the hands of those who had usurped Islamic teachings and yet were trying to show themselves as rulers of Muslims. Therefore, when you see ISIS and al-Qaida in their present conduct, don’t blame their conduct on Islam and Prophet Mohammad but you should know that the Prophet’s family has paid the greatest price for remaining on the path taught by Prophet Mohammad and standing opposed to those who were flaunting Prophet’s teachings and showing them as true Islam.  

 

There is one clarification that I wish to give. You in your writing say that ‘after Jesus’s death, 700 years later Mohammad comes and changes the whole world of thinking that he is the only messenger of god.’ This is not true. Both Mohammad and Quran endorses all the Biblical prophets from Adam till Jesus but says that Mohammad was the Prophet that even Jesus had prophesied when he advised to his trusted followers not to go with his teachings beyond the lost tribes of Israel and they would not have done so that the Promised Son of Man would arrive. As you rightly said, Mohammad was born in 570 A.D., the time that would have taken to Jesus’s followers to go with his teachings to the lost tribes of Israel. Muslims are of view that the term ‘Paraclete’ in Bible is reference to Mohammad and I have proved on several occasions that the Spirit of Truth that Jesus was repeatedly talking about was the Rooh or Holy Spirit that resulted in the birth of Divinities – the Ahlulbayt – one of whom was Mohammad. And when the Light (Noor) of Ahlulbayt came one after another in human form, it was the Spirit of Truth that had actually descended on earth because the light or spirit of 14 together comprise the Holy Spirit. Moreover, you might not be aware, Mohammad was known as the most truthful person in the whole of Arabia even before the time when he proclaimed that he had been appointed the Messenger of God. There are stories of innumerable Christians who acknowledged from their own scriptures including the teachings of Jesus that Mohammad was the last Prophet who had been prophesied not just by Jesus but by other Prophets prior to Jesus. Since Christians and Jews who acknowledged from their scriptures that Mohammad was the prophesied Prophet had embraced Islam, those who were left were those who either couldn’t recognize him or didn’t want to recognize. If you are a Christian, it shouldn’t be difficult for you to understand this because you know how the Jews denied Jesus’s divine role, despite all the miracles that he showed and all the good things that he did and preached. Those from among the Jews who identified Jesus’s link with Divinity embraced his teachings while those who didn’t continued to remain Jews and oppose Jesus’s teachings. Just as there were those who didn’t connect Jesus with Divinity, 600 years later there were still more who were not ready to connect Mohammad with Divinity.

 

Next you say that because of Islam and Mohammad’s teachings the world is in chaos… God gave the 10 commandments, because of the idol worshippers… God didn’t go and say that go and kill all unbelievers… but teach them and show love and compassion…” I have already said that Islam and Mohammad’s teachings have nothing to do with the conduct of the present day Muslims who have since long deviated from the teachings of Mohammad and the path that he was preaching. I value the 10 commandments and it has been made obligatory in Quran to respect and revere the 10 commandments given to Moses. Quran even wants Muslims to give the same weightage and value to the Ten Commandments as is given to the Quran.

 

The conduct of present day Muslims and a lot many others who preceded them is very much like the followers of Moses, who started worshipping the idol of a calf, within 40 days of Moses’ departure. When Moses returned with his 10 commandments, ‘because of the idol worshippers’, as you say, most of his followers were already worshipping the idol that they had themselves made. Would you blame Moses, his religion or his God for this deviation? Just as you will not blame Moses, his religion or his God, you are not justified if you blame Mohammad or the path that he showed or Allah – the God – for the conduct of present day ISIS, Jaish and al-Qaida members. Or in other words, just as when you see the Christian Spaniards wiping out the Aztecs from South America, you see the European Christians wiping out Indians from North America, or migrant Christians killing millions of local aborigines in Australia, the Christian US destroying two cities in Japan in a single day or the Christian Nazis driving out the Jews from mainland Europe and you don’t put the blame on Christianity or Jesus or His God, you will be unjustified if you put the blame for the conduct of ISIS, Jaish and al-Qaida on Mohammad, the path shown by him or the One God of the cosmos that the Muslims believe in.

 

Jesus indeed was a champion of righteousness and peace. He didn’t retaliate even with his persecutors. Mohammad’s conduct was no different. Bani Umayya tribe of Quraish had waged several wars on Mohammad. Several neo-Muslims were killed by them and no effort was spared by them to cut the cord of Islam in its infancy. While Mohammad was in Makkah, all kinds of torture, cruelty and humiliation were inflicted on him and his followers. Yet, we see, about 12 years after he was forced to leave Makkah, when Mohammad returned to Makkah with thousands of believers in Islam, not even a drop of blood was spilled despite the fact that he was all powerful and the Bani Umayya had no chance to even flee. General amnesty was declared. There was no forceful conversion as well. Nobody was imprisoned or tortured. There were several people who had tortured Mohammad in the past, who had inflicted humiliation on him, and had in the past tried to inflict as many damages possible on Islam and its followers, yet none was killed, imprisoned or tortured.

 

Countless other examples can be given of Mohammad’s hatred of violence and war and his total love for peace and justice to prevail. The study of lives and conduct of the true followers of Islam – the Ahlulbayt – too reveal the extent they would go to maintain peace and avert war or bloodshed. Ali would never fight with a person who was disarmed, who was with his back to him or who didn’t come to wage an attack on him. Ali even spared an enemy who had come to kill him but when he was about to be killed, spat on Ali’s face. Ali immediately let go his opponent because he didn’t want to fight him in a fit of rage. History has recorded that while Muawiya – Ali’s chief opponent who belonged to Bani Umayya tribe – used deceit as his chief weapon, Ali never resorted to the same tactics and was seen as the most upright and peace loving person even when he was fighting a war.

 

Now we come to a very crucial subject that you have raised. You say: “Can you tell me which 12 tribes does Islam belongs? As from the time God chose the 12 tribes of Israel, he accurately told Abraham to go and possess the land given to him and his descendants… and the Bible clearly states that it was Isaac the promised seed of Abraham will be the sacrifice and not Ismael.  Now that Abraham who was a Hebrew/Jewish… Sara who was a mobite woman and Hagar was an Egyptian maid, how does that link to Islam that came about 4000 years later… then why change all Jewish names to Islam, eg. Abraham Abrahim, Jacob to Yacob, Isaac to Isaak, Moses to Musa, etc…. the bible clearly says that no words must be taken from this bible or add on, those who do this will face eternal damnation, respect our holy bible as most contents was taken from the old testament by Mohammad.. Jesus didn’t come and rewrite the Bible, He came to save mankind through his death which was prophecised accurately by the prophets of Old Testament.”

 

Again, Madam, there are some points that I agree to and some that I don’t. Let us see your point of view. You say Abraham was a Hebrew/Jewish. Is it true? If Abraham was Jewish, then you will have to agree that all Christians are on the wrong. Because Jesus never said he was bringing a new religion. He always kept saying that he was merely reiterating what had been said earlier. If Abraham was Jewish, then Christians should call them as Jewish because there is no religion that Jesus brought. The answer to what you said lies in your statement alone. Truth is that Abraham was not Jewish. Abraham was propagating the path of the One Lord of the Universe; the same path that was propagated by other Prophets before and after him. It is we humans who gave the names likes Jews and Christians.

 

You are trying to belittle the position of Hajira (Hager) when you say while Sara was a noble woman, Hajira (Hager) was an Egyptian maid. Neither the teachings of Jesus nor that of Mohammad value a man on the basis of his wealth and status. The sole criteria for measuring a person is righteousness and good deeds. When you belittle Hajira because she was a maid, you are speaking against the teachings of Jesus. Moreover, all Jews who were freed by Moses were at one point in time slaves in that very Egypt from where Hajira belonged. So, from your point of view, how can the Jews make claim of supremacy over others? Even Joseph was taken as slave and sold as slave during one phase of his life. Does this give a reason to belittle his position? Hajira’s elevated position in the eyes of the God can be seen in Genesis itself when God couldn’t see Hajira running to fetch water for his dying son and made water sprout from close to Ismael’s feet.

 

You put the blame on Muslims for changing the Jewish names to Islam, eg. Abraham to Ibrahim, Jacob to Yaqoob, Isaac to Isaak, Moses to Musa, etc. I think you have said this because of your lack of knowledge in this area. It is not Muslims who have changed names but it is the European Christians who are in the habit of changing names. When Muslims reached the shores of Spain, their fleet was being commanded by Tariq, who landed near a mountain on the Spanish coast. Muslims called that mountain ‘Jabr-ut-tariq’ or ‘mountain of Tariq’. Europeans call it Gibraltor today. Born in 721 A.D., Jabir ibn Hayyan gave so much contribution to the field of Chemistry that he is known as Father of Chemistry. Europeans call him Geber. Abu Ali Husain nicknamed Ibn-e-Sina is regarded as one of the most significant thinkers and writers of the Islamic Golden Age. Europeans call him Avicenna. Abu al-Qasim Khalaf ibn al-Abbas Al-Zahrawi is described by many as father of modern surgery. His books, originally written in Arabic, were translated in European languages and were taught to the students of medicine as recently till the last century. West call him Albucasis. These are just few examples out of the many that I can give to show that it is not the Muslims but the Western world which has changed names so that they appear less Muslim and people do not realize the contribution of Muslims to science and technology.

 

The same happened to the case of the names of Prophets of yesteryears. You are perhaps reading the English translations of your scriptures. Do you know the names that you are reading in English have not been similarly pronounced in the original Hebrew texts? Even the name of Jesus is not mentioned in Hebrew text but the pronunciation is similar to the Quranic Isa. The same is the case with Musa (and not Moses). Conclusion: if you really feel like asking questions in this regard, then you should ask the Western world why they have altered the pronunciations of the names of their own prophets.

 

The great tortures and hardships that the Christians had to face for several hundred years after Jesus, from the hands of Roman rulers, slowly led to an amalgamation of Roman beliefs and Christian teachings. Jesus was nowhere the ‘Son of God’ in early Christian teachings but he became the ‘Son of God’ with progress in time. Likewise, lot many changes were brought about in the translations of Old Testament and Bible by the later day priests to suit their advantage.

 

For instance, I can give examples from Old Testament itself which will shed light on how the Christian world replaced the name of Ismael with Isaac wherever the description of the son’s sacrifice given by Ibrahim (Abraham) is talked about in the Old Testament. I know this will come hard on your existing belief but I request you to give this a patient reading.

 

Let’s read what description Old Testament (Genesis, 22.1 onwards) says when it talks of the sacrifice given by Abraham. You will agree that Genesis talks about Isaac and not Ismael in its description. Genesis says:

 

22:1 Some time after these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!” “Here I am!” Abraham replied. 22:2 God said, “Take your son – your only son, whom you love, Isaac – and go to the land of Moriah! Offer him up there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I will indicate to you.”

22:3 Early in the morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took two of his young servants with him, along with his son Isaac. When he had cut the wood for the burnt offering, he started out for the place God had spoken to him about.

22:4 On the third day Abraham caught sight of the place in the distance. 22:5 So he said to his servants, “You two stay here with the donkey while the boy and I go up there. We will worship and then return to you.”

22:6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and put it on his son Isaac. Then he took the fire and the knife in his hand, and the two of them walked on together. 22:7 Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father?” “What is it, my son?” he replied. “Here is the fire and the wood,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” 22:8 “God will provide for himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son,” Abraham replied. The two of them continued on together.

22:9 When they came to the place God had told him about, Abraham built the altar there and arranged the wood on it. Next he tied up his son Isaac and placed him on the altar on top of the wood. 22:10 Then Abraham reached out his hand, took the knife, and prepared to slaughter his son. 22:11 But the Lord’s angel called to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!” “Here I am!” he answered. 22:12 “Do not harm the boy!” the angel said. “Do not do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God because you did not withhold your son, your only son, from me.”

22:13 Abraham looked up and saw behind him a ram caught in the bushes by its horns. So he went over and got the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place “The Lord provides.” It is said to this day, “In the mountain of the Lord provision will be made.”

22:15 The Lord’s angel called to Abraham a second time from heaven 22:16 and said, “‘I solemnly swear by my own name,’ decrees the Lord, ‘that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 22:17 I will indeed bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the strongholds of their enemies. 22:18 Because you have obeyed me, all the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants.’”

22:19 Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set out together for Beer Sheba where Abraham stayed.

 

Quran says Abraham took his elder son Ismael for sacrifice but Genesis says that he took Isaac. The prayer made by Abraham regarding his progeny’s expansion from Ismael; remaining of leadership (Imamat) even in his descendants; and about the 12 princes in the progeny is mentioned in the Quran but Old Testament is showing Abraham praying for his son Isaac and his progeny. How will you decide now, at a time when we are face to face with two contradicting versions, the real truth? How will you know who is right and who is wrong? And who altered the description by changing the names of the persons mentioned. Was it Isaac’s name that was replaced with the name of Ismael or was it Ismael’s name that was replaced with the name of Isaac? This is important because while Mohammad and the 12 princes (the 12 Imams) were born in the progeny of Ismael, the progeny of Isaac saw illustrious prophets like Jacob, David, Lot, Moses, Jesus and many more. While the prophets in the progeny of Isaac are respectful figures for all – Jews, Christians and Muslims – Mohammad who was born in the progeny of Ismael is revered only by the Muslims.

 

The issue can be solved by no other means but by the use of intellect. I request you to understand the issue through use of your faculties of reason and intellect. I will give three proofs from Old Testament itself which will give an indication that it were the Christians (or Jews) who replaced the name of Ismael with that of Isaac wherever the mention of the sacrifice had been made so that people face difficulty in reaching the truth.

 

I request you to read the aforementioned description from Genesis regarding the sacrifice. Again and again, Isaac is being called the ‘only son’ whereas it may be proved from Genesis itself that Ismael was the elder brother who was taken along with his mother Hajira (Hager) and left at a far off place in a barren land. If Isaac indeed was the one who had been taken for sacrifice, why the repeated mention of ‘only son’.

 

Come, let’s use our intellect! Abraham was 86 years old when Ismael was born to Abraham and Hajira. This can be proved from Genesis itself which says:

 

 

16:15 So Hagar gave birth to Abram’s son, whom Abram named Ishmael. 16:16 (Now Abram was 86 years old when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael.)

 

Genesis 17:24 tells that Abraham was 99 years old when the Divine Order for circumcision came and Abraham not only ordered circumcision of his 13 year old son Ismael but rest of the people. The same year, the angels arrived and gave glad tidings to Sara (Abraham’s other wife) regarding the birth of a son. This proves that when Isaac was born, Ismael must have been 14 years old. Quran says that when the kid Ismael grew big enough to move around with his father, the order for sacrifice came. Naturally, it is apparent from Quran that Ismael was not a grown up youth when the sacrifice was given but had just started helping his father in his work. Isaac was born when Ismael was 14 years old, as per Genesis. The repeated stress on the term ‘only son’ in Genesis shows that originally there was the mention of Ismael, who was the only son of Abraham till he was 14, but his name was later replaced with that of Isaac.

 

Now see the second proof. The barren desert of Beer Sheba was the place where Abraham had left his wife Hajira and infant son Ismael. If you read the history of Beer Sheba, it was considered as the border outpost of the then inhabited region, beyond which there was nothing but barren desert. Clearly, Abraham had gone beyond Beer Sheba to the barren desert and left his wife and child there. Quran is of view that Hajira and Ismael were left at the place which is now called Makkah. Quran also narrates the incident of spring flowing from near the feet of Ismael and that place is still considered sacred by the Muslims. See 21.14 onwards from Genesis:

 

21:14 Early in the morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He put them on her shoulders, gave her the child, and sent her away. So she went wandering aimlessly through the wilderness of Beer Sheba. 21:15 When the water in the skin was gone, she shoved the child under one of the shrubs. 21:16 Then she went and sat down by herself across from him at quite a distance, about a bowshot away; for she thought, “I refuse to watch the child die.” So she sat across from him and wept uncontrollably.

 

The description tells that Hajira and not Sara “went wandering aimlessly through the wilderness of Beer Sheba.” The description in Genesis also talks about water coming out miraculously from close to the feet of Ismael. Thus, the description in Genesis is same as the description in Quran when it comes to water sprouting from the ground for Ismael, with the only difference that while Quran indicates the place as modern day Makkah, Genesis describes it as the ‘wilderness of Beer Sheba’.

 

I invite you to read the aforementioned description of Genesis (22.1 onwards) where the sacrifice is mentioned. The description talks about Abraham taking two of his servants and traveling for three days to reach the foot of the mountain where he was to give the sacrifice. It talks about his attempt to give sacrifice of his ‘only son’ (Isaac, as mentioned in Genesis) but ends with:

 

22:19 Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set out together for Beer Sheba where Abraham stayed.

 

This descriptions shows that Abraham was staying at Beer Sheba while 21.14 tells that Hajira with her son Ismael wandered around in the wilderness of Beer Sheeba. This too proofs that the sacrifice was given of Ismael and not of Isaac who lived somewhere near Jerusalem.

 

Now the third proof, which is more logical in nature. That this incident of sacrifice occurred with Ismael and not Isaac can be inferred from the fact that its remembrance remained in the progeny of Ismael while the progeny of Isaac retained not even a single remembrance in terms of rituals. All through history, since the time of Ismael, his progeny and followers, continued with the rituals of running between two hills (Safa and Marwah) in remembrance of Hajira’s run in search of water to and fro seven times. The ritual was retained as part of the Hajj ritual by Prophet Mohammad, perhaps because it is a living proof that the sacrifice was meant for Ismael and not for Isaac. Are these not enough reasons to prove my point of view?

 

To be continued…

 

The Real Reason and History behind Making of a Muslim Terrorist

They are apparently the greatest champions of Islam. They sport long flowing beards while commoners like me do not. They mostly wear the dresses synonymous with Islam (other than on occasion or two when they wear army or police uniform to carry forth a terror attack), while commoners like me wear Western dresses. They are the most frequent visitors to mosques, keep a copy of Quran under their arms, are seen talking of nothing but Islam and are chief votaries of Dawah (calling others to faith). This apparent relationship that they show with Islam gives all the more reasons for commoners like myself and students of Islam to seek them, talk to them on Islamic issues and follow them.

Follow them! Sad part is they are the people who give to the world the most savage and ferocious people in the name of Islamic Jihad; people who have no qualms whatsoever in pulling the trigger in the face of a child, nor hesitate in severing the head of a journalist with a dagger. These self-proclaimed champions of Islam are giving the worst name to Islam and making life difficult for all commoners like me.

This version of savage and brutal Islam gained in strength when the British supported Abdul Aziz in conquering Riyadh in 1902, consolidating control over Najd by 1922, conquering Hijaz in 1925 and then finally uniting the dominions into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932. King Abdul Aziz adopted the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab (b. 1703), who was considered heretic during his lifetime by leading Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam as well by his brother Sulayman ibn Abd al-Wahhab who issued a fatwa declaring him as a heretic. As followers of this State-supported Islam grew in number, particularly when oil money began to be used to propagate it, opponents of this movement coined the term ‘Wahabi’ or ‘Wahabism’ though neither Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab nor any of the movement’s participants referred to themselves as such. It is this reason why others see them as a sect different from their own; while most Wahabis prefer calling them only Muslims. The understanding of Islam that this ‘sect’ propagates is altogether different from that of majority Sunnis and Shias. In fact, the first thing that King Abdul Aziz did, after gaining control of Saudi Arabia, was to raze to ground all the mausoleums and signs in the land, that had any relation to Ahlulbayt (Ahlulbayt is a term referring to Prophet Mohammad’s household members who have been praised and lauded in the Quran), who are otherwise held in high esteem by the majority Sunnis and Shias.

Though countries like Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have publicly distanced themselves from providing any support to terrorism or terrorists, lot many videos are available on YouTube of Sheikhs providing funds and support to terrorist organizations and even abetting in recruitments. Though it is a bitter truth that all the terrorists that the world has seen claim to be championing the cause of Wahabism, the truth is also that most Wahabis are not terrorists. Thus it is clear that one doesn’t become a terrorist by merely following the sect of Wahabism and most Wahabis are peace-loving people like majority of Muslims.

Then what is the reason that this sect alone gives to the world the greatest number of savage and brutal people, who are increasingly becoming a blot on the face of Islam? I tried to go backwards in history, beyond the time of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahab, the Ottoman Empire, the Islam propagated by rulers like the Abbasids and the Umayyads and even before, to the time immediately after Prophet Mohammad, to see when the first traits of this brutal and savage Islam are visible in Islamic history. Interestingly, we found all that is happening in today’s world in the name of Islam had been prophesied in minute detail by Prophet Mohammad during his lifetime; the prophesies are scattered in various books of traditions related to Prophet Mohammad which were published hundreds of years before the world got to know of the terror-related facet of Islam. Let us see some of Quranic and Prophet Mohammad’s prophesies and teachings and try to analyse where and to what extent the present-day Muslims have digressed from the true teachings of Islam.

As per a tradition, Prophet Mohammad prophesied that a time will come when Islam will remain only for the namesake and Quran will only remain as a ritual, their mosques will be adorned with embellishments but won’t preach Islam, their Ulema (religious heads) will be the worst of people living under the sky. Evil will emanate from these Ulema and will return to them.

Islam will remain for namesake means all acts symbolic with Islam will remain but the real spirit of those teachings will go missing. Mosques will not endear one to spirituality but will remain as embodiments of grandeur, pomp and show. Ulema (the learned) will become worldly people and will remain the chief of all evil and thereafter the evil will return to them.

A tradition related to Ibn Abbas says Prophet Mohammad said: ‘O Muslims, you will definitely adorn your mosques on the pattern of Jews and Christians.’ The same is happening. The mosques are embellished with adornments to such an extent that they are kept closed and opened only at the time of prayers. Another tradition says that when you start adorning your mosques and Quran remains for namesake, then you will get digressed from real teachings. Another tradition says that when worldly issues start being discussed in mosques instead of pursuing spiritual excellence, a real Muslim should not sit with such ‘believers’. An oft-quoted tradition says that a time will come when those sticking to true teachings of Islam will be akin to those holding fire in their hand. Another tradition tells that a time will come when the best of possessions of a Muslim will be goats that he will take to the mountains. Prophet also prophesied a time will come when evil will set in; during that time one who is sitting will be better than one who is standing (in action); one who is standing will be better than one who is walking and one who is walking will be better than one who is running. Anyone who will lift his gaze towards these evils, evil will catch him. Prophet said in those times of evil, worshipping God and nothing else will be the best deed. Prophet even said that a time will come when opponents of faith will unite and converge to kill Muslims just like people gather around food. Someone asked will we be less in numbers during that time, and the Prophet replied you will be in plenty but will be like hay that is blown up in wind. This prophesy too is coming true now when we find that adherents to all religions of the world have started seeing Muslims as the worst of all people on earth. This is contrary to the time when people adhering to other religions cherished hope that Muslims would come and conquer them so they live a better life under Muslim rule. In another tradition, Prophet said during the end times, knowledge will decrease, ignorance will rise, adultery will increase and women will become more than men. Another tradition says that during the end times, time will start passing by quickly; usury will be prevalent and person will not distinguish between earning by rightful and wrong means. Another tradition says that a time will come when monkeys will sit on pulpits of mosques (thus meaning that most ignorant persons will become the religious leaders). Prophet Mohammad also vowed in the name of God and said the world will not end until the time will come when the murderer won’t know why he was murdering and the slain won’t know why he was being slain. Somebody asked why this would happen. Prophet replied killings will increase due to prevalence of evil. The murderer and the murdered both will be on the wrong. This shows people will fight for wrong reasons; they will fight for wrong ideology, while each person will claim to be votary of peace. As per another tradition, Prophet said during end times you will find those who grazed sheep boasting of the heights of their buildings. He also said end times will come when those who walked barefoot will become the rulers. At another place he said deaf and dumb will become the rulers, which means rulers will be least bothered seeing or hearing the truth and justice and righteousness will not be their concern. At another place, he said end times will come when the authority will be handed over to people who are not suitable. And said during end times, there will be no more good people left; only worse people will remain in the end as garbage and God will not care for them. In another tradition, he said during end times, women will be naked despite wearing clothes. He also prophesied about people who will carry whips in hand and will flog people, thereby meaning that people will harm the innocent with their weapons. Prophet has even prophesied that time will come when prior to coming of Mahdi – the final messiah – the Muslims will get confined only to small region around Medina and Khyber. Upon coming of Mahdi, justice and peace will prevail and the world will see bounties like never before. Mahdi is none else but the Kalki avatar of the Hindus.

All these prophesies show Prophet Mohammad himself knew his followers would deviate. Those who blame Islam for all the waywardness among Muslims should know that Islam is far different from the conduct of those who call themselves as adherent to Islam.

It is a universally acknowledged teaching of Islam that one who kills one innocent person is akin to killing the entire humanity. In a charter written to his governor in Egypt, Ali (the son-in-law of Prophet who constitutes one of the 14 Ahlulbayt of Quran) wrote in clear terms how a ruler need to behave with his subjects, irrespective of their faith and religion. It is a part of history that during the time of Prophet Mohammad, a clear directive was given even during war that none of the Muslims were to kill a non-combatant, not even those who had been disarmed or were without arms to defend themselves. Charter of Medina framed by Prophet Mohammad tells how a non-Muslim has to be treated when he is a subject of a Muslim rule. Prophet’s tradition says clearly that a person is not a Muslim if someone feels threatened by his hand or tongue (thereby meaning that a Muslim would not even insult another person by tongue, leave alone strike him with hand). Another tradition tells that one is not a Muslim if anyone living up to 40 houses on each side in the neighbourhood goes to sleep without food. This tradition does not tell a Muslim has to take care of households belonging to his brothers-in-faith but talks of all neighbours and implies that a Muslim has to live in such a manner that he not only remains abreast with the condition of neighbours but also help them in their hour of need. There are several instances when members of Prophet’s household (Ahlulbayt) carried sacks of food in the wee hours of night, distributing them among the poor and downtrodden of the city. Ali, even when he was the Caliph of Islam, wore garments with innumerable stitches, ate nothing more than loaf of bread and salt and took nothing more from the treasury for his family than what the poorest of the poor were getting.

If this was spiritual side of Islam, where did the militant Islam come from which included the severing of head from torso, killing of innocent children, brutal and savage treatment of those not adhering to their version of belief?

When I went back in history I found several incidents that showed behaviour similar to that of terrorists of today, which confirmed my view that this problem is not a Wahabi problem but there are certain other factors responsible for it.

Very soon after the demise of Prophet Mohammad, we find two versions of Islam that originated. One was the spiritual Islam which was being practised by Ahlulbayt (people of Prophet’s household) and some of Prophet’s distinguished companions and the other was the militant Islam being propagated by the rulers viz. the materialistic people. These two kinds of Islam have remained in conflict during all times.

The Islam being propagated by the rulers saw to it that Muslims remain as distant as possible from the real teachings. It was in their interest to see the Muslims remain ignorant and illiterate. So much so that when Muawiya (who commenced the Umayyad rule) came to fight Ali – the Caliph – he openly said he had brought those people with him who were incapable of distinguishing between a she and he camel. Muawiya meant to say that all discourses to right teaching of Islam will fall on the deaf ears of such Muslims. A shade prior to this battle, in another war instigated by Muawiya, the ignorant Muslims were even told to eat the excreta of a camel being rode by one of Prophet’s wife who had come to fight Ali. While Quran says Islam is the religion of intellect and makes it mandatory for a Muslim to accept fundamental teachings only through intellect, it suited the rulers to keep the subjects ignorant. At times, the clergy too realized it suited them to keep the adherents ignorant. Thus we see that while Ahlulbayt tried to teach the sciences to awaken the mind (the greatest of scientists, mathematicians and philosophers of the period were students of institutions formed by the Ahlulbayt), simultaneously we see that for a very long period in history, mathematics as a subject was not taught to students in madrasas lest they learn to exercise their brain. Two types of Islam were spreading at the same time – the spiritual Islam or the Islam of the Ahlulbayt and the Islam of the rulers which was opposed to the Islam of the Ahlulbayt.

Though scattered incidents of killing in self-interest were visible prior to Muawiya, we find in Muawiya’s time a full-fledged and ruthless exercise of power wherein opponents of political rule of Muawiya were killed ruthlessly in the name of Islam. While going through Islamic history, some incidents which come to notice prior to Muawiya may include the murder of Muhammad bin Qasim – the young conqueror who had come as close to India as Sind – but was called back on the basis of a canard and killed in the most gruesome of manners. Muhammad bin Qasim is said to have been tied inside the camel’s hyde, which was set on fire. We also see incidents like Khalid bin Walid (revered to this day by ignorant Muslims with the title Saifullah or ‘Sword of Allah’) killing a person because he felt attracted to his extremely beautiful wife.

Under Muawiya’s rule, we find cold-blooded murder of innumerable companions of Prophet Mohammad, particularly those who were sympathetic or close to Prophet Mohammad’s family. These included Hajr bin Adi whose grave was dug up by Al-Qaida fighters recently in Syria. Their hatred even to this day with people who were close to Ahlulbayt reveal they still continue to have the same mind-set as Muawiya and his followers had with people of Prophet’s household.

Hajr and his companions were butchered to death near Damascus. Lot many people were crucified, their tongues taken out, they were blinded and given all kinds of tortures. The women of those killed were made slaves – a mind-set which can still be seen among Al-Qaida and ISIS fighters. Beheading was common, something that is still visible.

A most vivid example available in history is that Kharijites, a group of extremely religious minded people, who began to harbour enmity with Ali. This was a group of people who offered namaz all through the day, read Quran on regular basis, wore Islam up on their sleeves yet history recounts an incident where the same Kharijites, upon encountering a man who was traveling with his pregnant wife, not only killed the man but opened the belly of the mother with a sword, took out the child and killed him.

Tortures and brutal killing in the name of Islam continued during the time of subsequent rulers who ruled in the name of Islam. So much so that Yazid – the son of Muawiya – sent an army of 30,000 soldiers who surrounded Husain (one of the Ahlulbayt referred to in Quran; who was Prophet Mohammad’s grandson and son of Ali) and his 100-odd companions in Karbala, denied water to them and their womenfolk and children for 8 days and then on the 9^th day butchered all the men, including the 6-month old child of Husain. To those who have heard of narrations of the murder of 6-month old Ali Asghar, it shouldn’t come as surprise that terrorists killed 140-odd children in a school in Peshawar (Pakistan). Not only Ali Asghar was killed, but his head was cut off from his torso and displayed on top of a spear. The dead bodies of Husain and his companions were trampled under horse’s hoofs, their heads too severed from bodies and put up on spears for display. Husain’s head was severed from torso while he was still alive; and prostrated before God in worship. The heads were taken in a victorious march from Karbala to Kufa (in present day Iraq) and all the way to Damascus (in present day Syria). If you have seen in recent days the photographs of ISIS militants playing football with heads of dead opponents, you shouldn’t be surprised because it is the mind-set that has prevailed in all times. There are narrations available that Yazid used his stick to play with Husain’s head as it lay in tray on display. Most of the subsequent Umayyad rulers were no less ruthless and the succeeding Abbasid rulers showed they were far ahead of Umayyads in brutality and beastliness. Some of these Umayyad rulers ordered killing of people whose crime was they came to Husain’s grave to pay homage and respect.

Do I mean to say there is no solution to the brutal and beastly nature of Muslim terrorists as there is nothing new to what they are doing and their nature has remained one and the same during all ages? No! Have I really shown where the problem lies? Yes! If you have not noticed, I give here another prophesy of Prophet Mohammad. During his lifetime and even on his deathbed, the Prophet repeatedly said: “I am leaving behind you two things, the Quran (book) and the Ahlulbayt (people of the house, described in Quran). If you remain united with them, you will not get astray, until you come to meet me on the Spring of Kausar (in heaven).” This implied that he prophesied that Muslims would get astray the moment they leave either of the two, Quran or Ahlulbayt. This was perhaps because Quran could have been truly taught in practice by none other than Ahlulbayt. The enmity which the rulers harboured against Ahlulbayt was for this reason alone. These rulers wanted to propagate an Islam with no mention of Ahlulbayt. This Islam of the rulers not only tried to leave aside the spiritual and righteousness-seeking Islam of the Ahlulbayt but also put in place a propaganda machinery to see to it that the character of Ahlulbayt was maligned and people remain as distant from them as possible. The rulers repeatedly saw to it that not just the Ahlulbayt were tortured and killed but even their friends and well-wishers were slaughtered in the most gruesome of manners.

Thus we find that for some reason, it is the personality or nature or role of Ahlulbayt in Divine Plan because of which all enmity and savagery gets centered on them. Interestingly, while you find the most savage of all people in Islamic history were opponents of Ahlulbayt, the Wahabis are perhaps the only sect among the Muslims who give no place to Ahlulbayt whatsoever despite their repeated mention in Quran and Prophet Mohammad’s traditions. This is the reason why they have deviated to such an extent that they reveal the most ugly and reprehensible display of Islam. This is indeed the reason why while all Wahabis are not terrorists, all terrorists are Wahabis.

Even today, name of Ahlulbayt cannot be taken openly in Aal-e-Saud-ruled Arabia. The graves of members of Prophet’s household have been desecrated in modern-day Saudi Arabia and all other monuments or places having any semblance or relation to Ahlulbayt have been removed. Leaving the spiritual Islam, being shown and preached by Ahlulbayt, became the cause, as already prophesied by Prophet Mohammad, for the brutal, savage and materialistic face of Islam to emerge.

One last question: why enmity with Ahlulbayt? I have been showing in my writings there is indeed one and only one path to reach God. Ahlulbayt have been described in Prophet Mohammad’s traditions as the rope to salvation. It is they who are the Devatas of Vedas and Upanishads (they have been described as Rope and Life there as well); they are the divinities of Old Testament and it were they who were being described during all times and through all Divine Scriptures. It is they who have been given the Divine responsibility to lead and show the path to the mankind. Accounts of their lives show they were the biggest champions of peace and justice, the torchbearer of all human values and the greatest worshippers of God. They were referred to as the Ahlulbayt (People of the House) when Bayt meant Baytullah (House of God) and Muslims erroneously understood the term Ahlulbayt in Quran as ‘People of the House (of Mohammad)’ forgetting that Mohammad too had been described as one of the Ahlulbayt. While the Divinely assigned role of Ahlulbayt is to lead mankind towards its betterment and salvation, there is another power whose role is to lead us astray. It is this power who repeatedly kept working to deviate mankind from the path being shown by the Ahlulbayt. Because the power of misguidance feared people would hold on to the rope and reach the path of salvation if they realize truly the path of the Ahlulbayt. This is the reason why the most savage treatment and worst of tortures were inflicted on Ahlulbayt themselves by people who had given themselves to the beast.

NOTES ON BUDDHA AND HIS DHAMMA [PART – 10]

B.R. Ambedkar says that twice Buddha was requested by his followers to appoint a successor but every time Buddha refused. Why? Several reasons come to our mind. Firstly, he knew that his was a divinely appointed designation and it was not up to him to appoint a successor. One who appointed him would himself appoint someone else at a suitable time and place.

Or is it that Buddha knew that his disciples were not that worthy? Or can there be a possibility that unworthy but shrewd disciples had won over the hearts of the rest of the disciples. This is merely a hypothesis but there are certain indicators that made us frame this hypothesis.

B.R. Ambedkar says that Buddha carved for himself no place in his religion by laying down any conditions. This is the reason, as per him, that not much is known of the incidents of his life. But if that was so, Buddha also did not stop his followers from doing so. Why is it that his followers didn’t try to write the incidents of his life, after Buddha had passed away from amidst them?

More importantly, when the first Buddhist congregation was held soon after the death of Buddha at Rajagraha, it is explicitly written that Kasyapa presided over the congregation. Who made him the President? B.R. Ambedkar says that Buddha had clearly rejected any question of a successor. Even if a President was to be appointed, why not one from the five Parivrajakas, who were one of the first converts. Also, why not Ananda, who had the distinction of being Buddha’s personal attendant and was also alongside him when Buddha died?

What we find, on the other hand, is Kasyapa presiding over the congregation, that too in a manner that it appears that he wanted to control what was to be discussed and what not to be discussed. Kasyapa raised only two questions during the congregation, one regarding the Dhamma and the other regarding the Vinaya. B.R. Ambedkar writes that he (Kasyapa) closed the questions after Dhamma and Vinaya were told. What was the reason for closing the questions? Why were others not given a chance to speak?

See what B.R. Ambedkar has written:

“Kasyapa then should have put the third question to someone present in the congregation to record some important incidents in the life of the Buddha.

But Kasyapa did not. These were the only two questions with which he thought the Sangh was concerned.

If Kasyapa had collected the record of the Buddha’s life we would have had today a full-fledged biography of the Buddha.

Why did it not strike Kasyapa to collect the record about the Buddha’s life?

It could not be indifference. The only answer one can give is that the Buddha had carved no niche for himself in his religion.”

This statement of B.R. Ambedkar proves that the Buddha’s not carving any niche for himself in his religion were not the words of Buddha himself but conclusions drawn by B.R. Ambedkar due to his inability to cast an opinion on Kasyapa’s integrity. There are several instances where what Buddha did in private is known to us. Had there been a second person alongside Buddha, we could have thought that the other person narrated the incident. But there are narrations talking of how Buddha attain enlightenment, his throwing of food in the river Nairanja to see whether it moved upstream or downstream, what did he do to attain enlightenment, etc. that were performed exclusively in private. This shows that Buddha was not trying to hide incidents from his life from getting known. Moreover, the entire region at least was following what this erstwhile prince of Sakya was up to since Buddha took the Parivraja. Remember, that was the period when Buddha had not even attained enlightenment. If records were not kept about Buddha’s life, it was because somebody wanted that they should not be kept. Later in these notes we will give two or three incidents to prove that Kasyapa’s intentions could be doubtful.

The same is the case of naming Buddha’s teachings as a religion. Not once did Buddha say so. Also, we find that even at the time of the Congregation, Kasyapa mentions the word Dhamma meaning path, thus showing that till that time, at least, Buddha’s teachings had not been labeled as a separate religion. Is it not an irony that those very people who said that Buddha had carved no niche for himself named his religion as Buddhism but did not keep the records of the life of the propagator of their religion?

There is one more point that proves our hypothesis. Let us study the circumstances in which Kasyapa accepted Buddha’s Dhamma. When we study the same for the five Parivrajakas, Yashas and several others, we find that they had the choice of accepting or denying Buddha’s Dhamma and yet accepted it on the basis of its truth. On the other hand, Kasyapa accepted Buddha’s Dhamma under circumstances where he had no other choice of continuing with his earlier path of giving fire sacrifice.

Kasyapa was a fire worshipper and he was in fact proud of this fact. Conditions became such that the Naga king Muchalinda, who was influenced with Buddha’s teachings, was already troubling Kasyapa because of Kasyapa being a fire-worshipper when Buddha came to his ashram. Buddha desired to stay in his ashram for the night. Kasyapa raised several objections in spite of the fact that Buddha was persistently insisting. Kasyapa allowed Buddha finally to stay outside while he went off to sleep in spite of knowing that his guest (Buddha) might have been burnt up by Muchalinda. He came to look at his guest only the next morning. There he saw Muchalinda paying obeisance to Buddha. The man who had not dared to come out in the night, leaving his guest to the fate of Muchalinda, knew that it would be impossible for him to continue with his fire worship anymore. Thereafter, he invited Buddha to stay there and build an ashram.

Another point! All Buddhists would agree that it was not possible for Kasyapa to gain salvation through fire-worship. The very fact that Kasyapa accepted Buddha’s Dhamma shows that he confessed that he was on the wrong. Had he achieved salvation why would he have converted? Yet B.R. Ambedkar writes: “The fame of Uruvella Kasyapa had spread far and wide. He was known to have obtained mukti (salvation) while alive. People from faraway places came to his ashram which was located on the banks of the river Falgu.”

This incident reveals that Kasyapa’s religiosity was suspect even when he was a fire worshipper. The word had been spread that he had attained salvation and he didn’t deny it even when people came to visit his ashram. Does it not show the cunningness, shrewdness and on top of it disrespect for religion on part of Kasyapa, who was taking help of a lie to achieve fame. Moreover, religiosity had not given him courage and steadfastness. If he was on true path, why was he afraid of Muchalinda? Why did he convert?

It appears that Kasyapa used all his time-tested tactics to gain a position of respect in Buddha’s camp. We will see later that Kasyapa had a following that showed no respect to Buddha, not to speak of his teachings. The simple Bhikkus might not have seen behind his plan. But the Buddha knew and that is why he kept on insisting till his last breath that Dhamma itself is sufficient. Unfortunately, Kasyapa and some more of his type didn’t allow this to happen.

We invite you to read the row over Prophet Mohammad’s succession, given a little earlier. We are sure you will find a lot many similarities and also get to realize how a teacher’s teachings can be hijacked by a select few and given a direction of their choice.

* * * * *

Fact is that the conditions that got created after Mohammad’s departure were very similar to those that were created after Buddha. Quran tells the Quraysh that ‘had it been in your hand, you would have chosen one of the elderly from your tribe as Prophet’. Mohammad was chosen not because of his eminence in society but his eminence in front of God. These two are different. Immediately after Mohammad, people chose those who were eminent and respected among them and forgot that when they had no say in choosing of the Prophet, they should have no say in the choosing of successor as well. The same happened in the case of Buddha. He was not chosen as per people’s will but because he attained the enlightenment because of the purity and level of his self and the relation that he created of the self with the Manifest Self. But people still wanted him to name a successor. How could he when he knew that this was a Divine responsibility and came from the other end rather than men themselves choosing their leader. Despite this, all indicators showed that Buddha wanted Ananda to be his successor. On the other hand, Mohammad left no stone unturned to say that the Divine Will for caliphate was in favour of Ali. When Buddha died, his head was on Ananda’s lap and when Mohammad died, his head was on Ali’s lap. Narrations tell that even when Ananda wept inconsolably after Buddha’s death, rest of the people got involved in feast and merry making. On the other hand, even when Ali was lamenting over Mohammad’s departure and making preparations for his burial, there was a group that was fighting among itself for caliphate (read my earlier post on the subject). Buddha’s teachings got deviated when Ananda was not chosen as successor, who would have tried his best to safeguard Buddha’s true teachings, Mohammad’s teachings got deviated the day Ali was not chosen as the successor. I have been saying repeatedly that the Force of Darkness use the same time-tested methods time and again to corrupt the teachings of the true path. That is why I invite you time and again to clear doubts, if any, lest Force of Darkness will corrupt the understanding yet again.