No announcement yet.

solution 4 the bloodshed!

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    solution 4 the bloodshed!

    Salaamz while some may have come content abt the innocent blood of muslimz being spilt others rush to the UN 4 HELP....but who were the ones who helped muhammed(saw) to establish the deen?????

    The onus today is on the people of influence and power, those from the armed forces, to realise their potential, seize the opportunity and fulfill their destiny. From a band of warring tribes 1400 yrs ago, the Ansaar of Allah rose and ignited the sands of the Arabian desert, sweeping away the false gods and oppressive regimes, and established a State mightier than the mountains. This change is required from the Ansaar of today as has always been their responsibility. For them is not contentment in being spectators but being those in the midst of the fury of war. For them is not being idle whilst the war cries are raised, but whose marching feet echo through the valleys of this world. For them is not acceptance of defeat but passionate sacrifice ending in promised victory.

    O Ansaar, will you yet remain asleep while your Ummah bleeds. O Ansaar, will you stand back while the oppressor refuses to take heed. O Ansaar, will you not realise the pledge and establish our Deen?

    O Muslims, O Ansaar, hear the words of your Rabb:

    “O you who believe! Be you Ansaar of Allah, as said Isa ibn Maryam (as) to the Hawariyeen, ‘Who are my Ansaar in the Cause of Allah?’ The Hawariyeen said ‘We are the Ansaar of Allah!’” [TMQ As-Saff: 14]


    so any suggestions or commentz???


      Ansaar, will you yet remain asleep while your Ummah bleeds. O Ansaar, will you stand back while the oppressor refuses to take heed. O Ansaar, will you not realise the pledge and establish our Deen?

      O Muslims, O Ansaar, hear the words of your Rabb:

      “O you who believe! Be you Ansaar of Allah, as said Isa ibn Maryam (as) to the Hawariyeen, ‘Who are my Ansaar in the Cause of Allah?’ The Hawariyeen said ‘We are the Ansaar of Allah!’” [TMQ As-Saff: 14]

      the all i can say is that these words are awosem


      "Philosopher, Orator, Apostle, Legislator, Conqueror of Ideas, Restorer of Rational beliefs.... The founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?"

      [This message has been edited by secret_obsession (edited May 15, 2002).]


        Originally posted by secret_obsession:
        Ansaar, will you yet remain asleep while your Ummah bleeds. O Ansaar, will you stand back while the oppressor refuses to take heed. O Ansaar, will you not realise the pledge and establish our Deen?

        O Muslims, O Ansaar, hear the words of your Rabb:

        “O you who believe! Be you Ansaar of Allah, as said Isa ibn Maryam (as) to the Hawariyeen, ‘Who are my Ansaar in the Cause of Allah?’ The Hawariyeen said ‘We are the Ansaar of Allah!’” [TMQ As-Saff: 14]

        the all i can say is that these words are awosem


        Only if the armies responded in the same way!


          Dont worry friends, just wait for the day when God comes to help. Not just muslims, but everyone.
          For he has delivered his Sermon in THe GITA

          "To Restore truthfulness, rightenousness and to punish the wrong and the guilty, I will keep on reincarnating"


            Originally posted by Victory:
            For he has delivered his Sermon in THe GITA

            Ibrahim says: Greetings of Peace to one and all

            Victory, THINK! it can be a new experience for you, since a sermon 18 chapters long in a battle field is Absurd!

            In addition a god having 16,108 wives ( not being able to maintain them) killing them all ( 16,108 plus 10 children for each wife) , cannot be trusted can he?

            A Critique on the Gita

            By H. D. Ujwal

            Reprinted from CARAVAN, May 1968
            The twenty-fourth article in Caravan Reprint Series – Volume One

            WHEN WE discuss the Gita, the thing that strikes us at the outset is that the occasion and place for preaching of the Gita was highly inappropriate for such a philosophical discourse. When armies are standing in array on the battlefield, we cannot believe that anyone could think of preaching deep philosophy – and that too at such length. One could believe that Krishna had given some advice to convince Arjun to fight; but preaching on the battlefield a philosophy extending over 18 chapters cannot be believed.

            Secondly, the arguments put forth by Krishna to persuade Arjun to fight are hardly convincing. They do not refute Arjun's argument not to kill his kith and kin to win a kingdom. Arjun was right in thinking of the horrors of war and its evil consequences for gaining a worldly kingdom. Let us enumerate the arguments advanced by Krishna to convince Arjun to wage war against his cousins.

            Nature of Atman (soul)

            In the first place, Krishna explains the nature of atman. He says that atman is neither born nor does it die; it is unborn, everlasting, immutable and primeval; it is not killed, though the body is killed.

            Just as a man casts off old clothes and puts on new ones, so does atman cast off an old body and becomes united with a new one. As for the body, Krishna says that it is inherently mortal, non-permanent, destructible, and will come to an end – if not today, tomorrow or after a 100 years. As atman definitely acquires another body in accordance with its previous actions, it is not proper to lament the loss of the old body. Krishna, therefore, concludes that whether one looks at the matter from the point of view of the body or of atman, lamentation on death is foolish.

            His second argument is that Arjun is a Kshatriya and it is his duty to fight.

            The third argument given in shloka 35 of Chapter II is: "All masters of great chariots will think that you withdrew from the battle on account of fear and those by whom you are highly thought of (today) will hold you in less esteem. Also, your enemies seeing your weakness will speak much (about you) that should not be spoken. What can be more painful than that?"

            The last argument is that "if you get killed, you will go to Heaven; if victorious, you will enjoy the earth. Therefore, arise, O Arjun, determined on battle."

            Let us see by analysing how far these arguments are morally sound. As regards the first argument, if atman is immortal and the body comes to an end sooner or later, does it justify our killing other persons? It is true that the Kauravas would have died their natural death some day, but that could not be a justification for Arjun to kill them.

            No Valid Cause

            As regards the second argument of Arjun's duty as a Kshatriya to fight, does it mean that a Kshatriya should necessarily fight even when there is no valid cause for doing so? Unless the fighting is justified, a Kshatriya is certainly not required to fight other people, especially his kith and kin.

            The third argument relates to the opinion of other warriors about Arjun if he does not fight. The opinion of other people is not a valid reason for a man to fight; moral courage lies in defying such opinion if it is wrong. So this argument also fails.

            The last argument is that if Arjun is killed in battle, he will go to Heaven; and if he is victorious, he will enjoy the earth. This too is not a valid justification for one to fight. It is an encouragement for adventurers and soldiers of fortune to kill other people for the sake of land and property, but not for just and honest people to fight.

            Thus, none of the arguments is logically valid or morally sound.

            On the other hand, the, argument given by Arjun – that all the wealth of the world was not worth anything if he were to get it by killing his kinsmen – is a sound moral argument and is not refuted by the arguments advanced by Krishna. Arjun should not have yielded for the sake of worldly pleasures to commit the heinous sin of killing his kinsmen. It might be said that the Kauravas had done injustice to the Pandavas by depriving them to their kingdom of Hastinapur; therefore, the Pandavas were justified in waging war against the Kauravas.

            Position of Families

            Let us examine the position of the two families and their right of inheritance. Dhritrashtra was the elder son of Vichitravirya, and Pandu the younger one. According to the law of primogeniture, Dhritrashtra was the lawful heir to the kingdom to become the king. But since he was blind, he was considered, unfit to rule; he had to step down in favour of Pandu. The question, however, remains whether the sons of Dhritrashtra too thus lost their right to the kingdom. Dhritrashtra was disqualified from ruling, but not his sons. They had, therefore, a legitimate claim to the kingdom. Besides, the Pandavas were not the begotten sons of Pandu.

            Pandu was under a curse and did not have sexual intercourse with Kunti, the mother of the Pandavas. She got the seeds from 'gods' or men other than Pandu. Thus the sons of Kunti could not claim the kingdom from the sons of Dhritrashtra.

            The Kauravas had given the Indraprastha estate to the Pandavas; but the latter lost it in a game of dice to the former. Dice-playing in those days was a recognised pastime, and the losing party was bound by the rules of the game to yield the stake. It was also in this game that the Pandavs lost Draupadi. So, when the Kauravas wanted to seize her, they were only taking the stake they had won. It may look amazing today that a wife could be wagered in a game of chance, but in those days ideas were different; otherwise how could the Pandavas put her up as a stake in the first place? Did they not know the consequences? If knowing all this, they staked her, then they themselves were to blame.

            Another striking thing is that Bhishma Pitamah, the uncle of both the Kauravas and Pandavas, was present when the Kauravas attempted to disrobe Draupadi. He did not protest or reprimand the Kauravas for their action, nor did Dronacharya, the guru of both Kauravas and Pandavas, say anything. Both of them sided with the Kauravas in the war, and not with the Pandavas. It cannot be that such highly moral persons would espouse a wrong cause. Cannot it, therefore, be that they thought the Kauravas to be in the right and the Pandavas in the wrong?

            Whatever the case may be, it cannot be said that the Kauravas had no claim to the kingdom of Hastinapur and that sheer injustice had been done to the Pandavs and they were justified in opposing it.

            Desireless Action

            The great lesson upon which special stress has been laid in the Gita is that of renunciation of the fruit of action. Now let us see if desireless action is possible.

            Desire is related to fruit. It is the fruit which motivates all our actions. Desire without activity is possible, but not activity without desire. The motivating force for all actions is the desire for fruit. If there is no desire for the fruit, naturally there can be no action.

            Now let us see how far the Pandavs and Krishna himself acted on this principle of desireless action. Did not the Pandavas, with the help of Krishna, fight with the desire to vanquish and kill their enemies? If they did not desire ardently to kill Dronacharya, why did they ask Yudhishthir to lie about the death of Dronacharya's son Ashwatthama? Why did Krishna by deceit make Jayadrath to think that the sun had set and thus put him off his guard and then shoot him with an arrow? Bhishma was killed because he would not fight Shikhandi, who was born a female and later became a man; and Arjun, sheltering himself behind Shikhandi, shot Bhishma in an unchivaIrous manner.

            Were all these actions performed in a desireless manner after renouncing, or regardless of, the fruit of their actions? Did practice follow precept? Did not Bhim hit Duryodhan below the belt? Lastly, great stress has been laid by Krishna in the early chapters of the Gita on karma. Karmayoga has been said to be superior to gyanyoga, which means a man is free to act according to his individual judgment.

            Destroyer of People

            But later on, in Chapter XI (32), Krishna says: "I am the destroyer of all people. I am immensified Kala (Death) and I have come here for destroying (these) people. Even if you are not there (that is, even if you do not do anything), all these warriors standing in the opposing armies are going to be no more (going to die). Therefore, arise, win success and conquering your enemies enjoy opulent kingdom. I have killed them in advance. Therefore, Arjun, come forward to become the nominal cause.

            "Dron, Bhishma, Jayadrath and Karna and other warriors also have been killed by me (long ago). Kill them! Do not be afraid."

            The 33rd stanza lays down the doctrine that all wicked persons die as a result of their own acts; the one who kills them is only a nominal cause; and, therefore, the killer is not to be blamed.

            Then, in Chapter XVIII / 59, Krishna says: "Your egoistic wish not to fight is futile, Prakriti (inherent nature) will compel you to do so. Being bound by action inherently natural to you, you will have to perform that which by ignorance you do not wish to perform. Arjun, Ishvar by remaining in the hearts of all beings agitates them by (His) illusion...".

            And in Chapter III / 33, it is said, "Although the atman is independent by itself, yet if one considers the ordinary affairs of the world, that is, of Prakriti, it will be seen that the atman has no control over the wheel of action which has been moving from time immemorial. All created beings conform to their inherent nature; no amount of determination is of any avail. All activities in the world are got done by God just as He wants them to be done."

            If that be so, where does the question of man doing karma arise? Then where was the need for Krishna to persuade and convince Arjun to fight and kill the Kauravas? How can the theory of Karmayoga be reconciled with the theory of predeterminism, as stated above?


              Originally posted by Victory:

              "YADA YADA HI DHARMASYA,

              "To Restore truthfulness, rightenousness and to punish the wrong and the guilty, I will keep on reincarnating"
              The Avatar Fiction

              By Bhaktavatsa

              Reprinted from CARAVAN, August (I), 1968
              The twenty-eighth article in Caravan Reprint Series – Volume One

              Avatars did not exist, do not exist and would not exist.

              "Yada yada hi dharmasya glanirbhavati Bharata!
              Abhyutthanamdharmasya tadatmanam srijamyadham!!
              Paritranaya sadhunam vinashya cha dushkrittam!
              Dharmasamsthapanarthaya sambhavami yuge, yuge!!"

              ("O, Bharat! whenever there is decline of righteousness and unrighteousness is on the ascendence, then I create myself. To protect the virtuous, to destroy the wicked, to establish 'dharma', I am born in every age.") (Bhagwad Gita)

              THE ABOVE words are ascribed to a supposed 'avatar' (the word 'avatar' derives from the root 'tri' with preposition 'ava', literally meaning 'descending'. Avatar means ‘incarnation’ of god). Here is the present age of unrighteousness. Why does not the 'avatar' create himself now? He did not bother to protect the Jews from Hitler. He did not descend to punish the Nazis when they perpetrated indescribable crimes and genocide. Whether the Jews and others were virtuous (sadhunam) or not, the Nazis were definitely wicked (dushkritas).

              Avatar Theory Exposed

              Were not mass extirpations by Stalin or Mao acts of 'adharma’ (wickedness)?' Yet no 'avatar' (incarnation of god) came to protect the innocent? When applied to world events, the 'avatar' theory stands exposed. Even if we confine it to India, we can hardly justify the promises made in the above two shlokas.

              In historical times, from the Macedonian invasion in 326 BC onwards, there have been raids on India. It is here that the 'avatar' theory proves meaningless. Sometimes an 'avatar' was supposed to have been born just to punish a solitary killing. But centuries of systematic raids and attacks failed to induce an 'avatar' to come to the rescue.

              If 'avatars' had come at appropriate times, there would have been no British Raj, no Pakistan, no gruesome riots or carnage during the Partition in 1947-48, no Kashmir problem, no 1965 war!

              Let us mark the irony of it. We call our country India and we call ourselves Hindus. The word 'Hindu' is derived from Sindhu. No 'avatar' has come to protect or recover the regions drained by the river Sindhu! Should not we rename the country? Should not we rename ourselves?

              Why dwell on the past? Let us come to the present. Hindu society today is infected by perverted views, chaotic values, 'adharma’, ‘anachara' and derelictions, minor or major, deliberate or ignorant. There is imperative need for rooting out these evils. Why has not any 'avatar' come forth to combat the negative and sinister forces operating at the conceptual level and the mental planes?

              That ' Dasavatar' is a mere fabrication of a fertile Brahmin brain is fairly obvious. Leaving aside the mythical five "avatars' – Matsya, Kurma, Varan, Vaman and Narsimha – there is no unanimity regarding the other five human 'avatars' – Krishna and Ram always find a place in the list. Two more are arbitrarily chosen from the list of three – Parasuram, Balaram and Buddha. And the last is Kalki 'avatar'.

              The achievements of these heroes are not at all considerable enough to justify their deification. Balaram, in Krishna's own words, 'could think of nothing but his muscles and his excellent wines' (Shantiparv, Mahabharat, Chapter 81). Parasuram could boast of nothing but extirpation of monarchs twenty one times.

              Mourning Women

              Krishna's main achievement is said to be the reduction of 'bhoobhara' (excess population) and the establishment of 'dharma' through the great Mahabharat. But that is questionable. For what was swept away by the great war was not the scum of the earth but the very flower of society. Who remained after the war: only mourning women and greedy bandits (who victimised even Krishna's people). Chaos and anarchy prevailed in the land. Can we call this 'dharmasamsthapana?'

              The Mahabharat took place about 3000 BC, according to tradition or more probably after 1000 BC according to historians. We have systematic recorded history only from about 500 BC. These centuries of political instability, obscurity and unsettled conditions are due entirely to a meaningless fratricidal war elevated to a war between 'dharma' and 'adharma'.

              Neither were the Pandavas all 'dharmic' (consider, for example, the blatant lie of Dharmaputra regarding the death of Aswathama to make Drona retire), nor were the Kauravas all 'adharmic; (Duryodhan's name was originally Suyodhan i.e., good at war.) To boost the Pandavas, Duryodhan's original name was converted deliberately to Duryodhan by addition of an unpardonable prefix 'dur' (bad).

              Accounts of later writers are always to be taken with reservation but even the carefully whitewashed and dressed-up accounts regarding Krishna do not make his part in the Mahabharat creditable. He used unedifying tactics many times. We are puzzled why a supposed divine incarnation should employ mean tricks against human beings.

              The 'Gita' may be cited as Krishna's permanent contribution to humanity. He might have expatiated on the Yogic methods to deserving disciples but he would not have flaunted them in the following manner:

              "Nanthoshthi mana divyanama vibhutinam, Parantapa!
              Esha thoodeshata: Prokotho vibhuthervistaro maya!"

              "O, Parantapa, of my divine glories there is no end. This is only a brief description by me of the extent of my powers."
              (Bhagwad Gita, Chapter 10)

              A real Yogi has the humility and reticence of a saint. It seems incredible that the same Krishna who complained with poignant humility to Narda: "This great family and clan of mine, they call me Lord, but in reality I am a veritable slave to them in the mask of their master.' (Shantiparva, Ch. 81), should make a show of his yogic achievement.

              The real absurdity is the inappropriate place where the message of the Gita was delivered. Thousands of enemy troops (who did not recognize or who did not want to recognise Krishna's greatness) could not have waited patiently for hours on the battlefield for Krishna to finish his exposition consisting of over 700 shlokas. What is bizarre about it is that down the centuries, scholars (including the supposedly critical Western and Westernised ones) have been swallowing naively the fiction of a religious exposition on the eve of a bloody battle. Surely it is an example of interpolation by Krishna's followers.


              Apologists for 'avatars' can point out the fact that great kings; like Ashoka, Harsha, Rajaraja, Krishnadevaraya, were not deified because these kings lacked something which Ram and Krishna possessed. According to their view Ram and Krishna were more than ordinary kings; they were 'Gyani' and 'Yogi' respectively.

              To revere them as saints is one thing but to magnify their importance and deify them is to betray lack of perspective. There have been greater saint-kings (like Janak) and saints than Ram and Krishna. Rightly did Swami Ramtirtha say, as he matured in spiritual sadhna, 'Ram and Krishna are in the B.A. (graduate level) class, whereas Yajnavalkya and Ashtavakra are in M.A. (post-graduate level) class' (Mystical Correspondence).

              Historical Forces

              How many of us know of the great sage Upamanyu who gave 'Sivadiksha' to Krishna? The great sage Agastya is said to have brought civilisation to the South – bringing Tamil grammar too. So prevalent is the Agastya legend that navigators in Japan still worship him as their patron saint.

              Shankarabhagvadpada (not his so-called successors who have earned political notoriety) who reconciled various schools of religious thought, organized various sects, composed 'Advaita' works and devotional songs and established spiritual centres in four or five comers in India, ranks as one of the greatest saints of all times and lands.

              It seems historical forces operated in the deification process of Ram and Krishna. The objective behind the move was to re-attract the people who had been attracted by the popular Jataka tales of Buddhism. In recent times, the attempt to deify Gandhi has failed and is not likely to succeed in future because it lacks Brahmin support.

              The Brahmins wanted to deify Akbar but, as Jadunath Sarkar points out, the Muslims would not have it. So we find that a good many factors – religious necessity, Brahmin support, absence of resistance by followers – count in the matter of avatarisation of our heroes.

              That kings like Ram and Krishna rather than others were deified is again quite accidental and arbitrary. For they are merely archetypal heroes of Hindus, as Jesus is of his followers. Carl Gustav Jung has discussed this matter at considerable length. Archetypes are ideals, aspirations, aims, ambitions of a group of people crystallised in human form. All these heroes did not or need not actually possess the qualities, feats and achievements associated with them. These qualities were projected upon them so that they might be fit objects of worship for the common man. It so happened in India that when historical conditions demanded certain heroes who could serve as archetypes, memories of Ram and Krishna were utilised by the resourceful Brahmins in avatarising them.

              The trouble with the avatar theory and worship of 'avatars' is that the common man will deem it sacrilegious to imitate Ram or Krishna because they were divine beings in human form. The common man will thus imitate the accepted followers and worshippers of Ram and Krishna – a Guha, a Vibhishana, an Arjuna and so on. Such imitation cannot produce first-rate men.

              Justification of Sensuality

              Another grave charge against worshipping the supposed 'avatars’ is that it legalizes anthropomorphic worship. What happens usually is that it pegs down an individual's progress by giving him a false sense of satisfaction. Generally the spiritual evolution of an individual is arrested by the self-opiated smug feeling that he is being religious by worshipping fictionalised heroes.

              The average Hindu is 'not' austere. He is chronically given to relaxing, is highly sensuous, easy going and pleasure loving. In elevating certain human beings to the deity level, he has elevated these qualities too to a high level. To justify his own sensuality, the Hindu ascribed thousands of wives to Krishna, concocted stories of 'Raskrida', and lived under the self-deluded feeling that his sensuousness was after all justifiable by saying 'Alankarapriya Vishnu'.

              How many times do we note people, when told about the impropriety of some of their acts, exclaiming coolly, 'O, even an 'avatar' of Krishna's order employed human tricks. Why shouldn't I, a mere mortal?' Such rationalising is highly dangerous.

              This unwarranted mix-up and identification of human beings with God has led to unfortunate results. The Hindu gods easily fall a prey to lust, eroticism, jealousy, greed, etc. The ‘Puranas’ make loathsome reading with teeming examples of episodes where gods display human weaknesses with facile ease.

              So far we have discussed the theoretical side of the 'avatar' concept. Let us consider its practical value. Avatarists may cite a number of instances of their 'avatars' answering the 'bhaktas' prayers. They will hold that not only in India but elsewhere too, avatars have answered the supplications of the faithful. But this is just the point that goes against them.

              If different people, with different traditions, culture, symbols, concepts and rituals, in different lands have been able to realise their wishes, then the very arbitrariness of these should show immediately that images, concepts or symbols do not carry any life in themselves but serve only as props for the individual to tap his own unconscious.

              To sum up: avatars did not exist, do not exist and would not exist. Hindus have merely 'avatarised' human beings. 'Avatars' do not descend; men ascend to greatness. So every man can become great and can become something.


                You are trying to see Hinduism from an Islamic point of view and hence do not find the answers.

                What ever you have posted, are some research, which my religion allows you to do. The greatness of my religion is that it allows such research (also a drawback) as people go on doing all sorts of research and publish whatever they want.
                Only God knows what is the truth.

                Regarding, why he did'nt come to save the jews from the Nazi's, I do not know the answer, because I am not God. Only God knows best!. He surely would be knowing why he did'nt come.

                All other questions are irrelevant, as any one can question any scripture and finally the truth is that a believer will have to find the answer by himself.

                But one thing, I will have to agree with you is that, we Hindus have the bad habit of equating Guru's with God's and that is not Correct. Like Adishankara, Madhwa, Ramanuja etc. are Guru's who came upon this world to spread the message to God. To teach humanity ways to get out of this life cycle of birth's and deaths and they are not God's but deserve our highest respect for showing us the path.


                  1 thing we are talking abt how to stop muslim blood being spilt and we dont need no non muslimz tell us how to do it, we've got da quran n sunnah and thats all we need!

                  we dont need no man made solutionz or philosphies!

                  [This message has been edited by clubber lang (edited May 16, 2002).]