මියගිය අයිඑස් සටන්කරුවා සහ ලාංකික මුස්ලිම් සමාජය!

මියගිය අයිඑස් සටන්කරු
මියගිය අයිඑස් සටන්කරු

අයිඑස් සංවිධානයට බැඳුණු ලාංකික සටන්කාමියෙකු මියගිය පුවත ලාංකික මුස්ලිම් ජනතාව කැලඹවීමට සමත්වී ඇත. ඇත්තටම මෙම සිදුවීම බෞද්ධ අන්තවාදීන්ට නම් රසඳුනක් වී ඇත. මගේ පුද්ගලික අදහස නම් මෙය හුදකලා සිදුවීමක් බවයි. හුදකලා සිදුවීමක් යනුවෙන් මා අදහස් කලේ මෙය රටතුල සංවිධානාත්මක කල්ලියක් හරහා සිදුවු සිද්ධි දාමයක ප්‍රථිඵලයක් නොවන නිසාවෙනි. නමුත් මෙවැනි හුදකලා සිදුවීම් නැවත නැවතත් ඇතිවීමේ ඉඩකඩක් නිර්මාණය වී ඇත. මුස්ලිම් සමාජ නායකයන්ගේ වගකීම නම් එම හිදැස වසා දැමීමට ක්‍රියාකිරීමයි.

 

මා විසින් ඉහත සිදුවීම හුදකලා එකක් යැයි පැවසීමට හේතුභූතවු කරුණු දැන් පහදන්නම්. ෂර්ෆාස් නිලාම් මුහ්සින් යනු කලකට ඉහතදී මා දැනසිටි චරිතයකි. ඒ මීට වසර පහකට පමණ පෙරදීය. ඔහු මා හමුවීමට පැමිණියේ මා සිංහල බසින් ඉස්ලාම් දේශකයෙකු නිසා වන්නට ඇත. මගේ මතකයට අනුව ඔහු නිහඬ චරිතයකි. මේ සිද්ධියට පසුව මා ඔහුගේ ඥාතින් ඇමතු අවස්ථාවේදී ඔවුන් විසින්ද එය සනාථ කරන ලදී. මා ලංකාවෙන් නික්ම ගිය පසුව ඔහු පිළිබඳව කිසිදු තොරතුරක් අසන්නට නොලැබුණි. නමුත් මෙම සිදුවීමෙන් පසුව මට ඔහුගේ ඥාතීන්ගේ ලද තොරතුරු වලට අනුව ඔහු ලංකාවේ සිටි අවසාන කාලයේ ජීවත්ව තිබෙන්නේ ගලේවෙල ප්‍රදේශයේය. එහි පෞද්ගලික පාසලක විදුහල්පති ලෙස ඔහු කටයුතු කර ඇත. එම ප්‍රදේශයේ ජනතාවටද ඔහු ගුප්ත චරිතයක් සේ පෙනී ඇති බැව් මාධ්‍ය මගින් දුටුවෙමි. එයට හේතුව බොහෝ විට ඔහු සිය ලැප්ටොප් පරිඝණකය සමග කාලය ගෙවීමයි.

 

ලෝකේ මෙතෙක් බිහිවු සටන්කාමී සංවිධාන වලට වඩා අයිඑස් හි ප්‍රධාන වෙනස් කම නම් එය සමග ලෝකයේ ඕනෑම කෙනෙකුට අන්තර්ජාලය හරහා සම්බන්ධ විය හැකි වීමයි. නමුත් ඒ සඳහා මනා ඉංග්‍රීසි සහ අරාබි භාෂා පිළිබඳ දැනුමක් සහ එම සංවිධානය සමග සම්බන්ධවුවෙකුගේ රෙකමදාරුවක් අත්‍යවශ්‍යය. ෂර්ෆාස් නිලාම්ට මේ සියළුම සුදුසුකම් තිබෙන්නට කාරණා ඇත. ඔහු කලක් පකිස්ථානයේ ඉස්ලාමාබාද් විශ්වවිද්‍යාලයක ඉගෙනුම ලබා ඇති නිසා සම්බන්ධතා ඇතිකර ගැන්මටද ගැටළුවක් නොවන්නට ඇත. මේ පුද්ගලයා තම ගමන යාමට පෙර සිය ඥාතීන්ට සහ මිතුරන්ට පවසා ඇත්තේ වෙනස් වෙනස් කතාය. සමහරුන්ට පවසා තිබෙන්නේ සවුදි අරාබියට යන බවකි. තවත් අයට ඩුබායි රටට යන බව පවසා ඇත. මෙසේ ඔහු එක් එක් අයට විවිධ දේ පවසන්නට ඇත්තේ තමන් ඇත්තටම යන ගමන අන්අයට පැවසුවහොත් ඔවුන් ඉඳුරාම එයට විරෝධය දක්වන බැව් දන්නා නිසා වන්නට ඇත.

 

මේ සිද්ධිය පිළිබඳව මාධ්‍ය සාකච්ඡාවකදී අමාත්‍ය රාජිත සේනාරත්න මහතා මේ පුද්ගලයා ගැන පවුලේ අය අත්අඩංගුවට ගෙන ප්‍රශ්න කරන ලෙස අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය වරයා නියම කර ඇති බව සඳහන් කර ඇත. නමුත් මා දන්නා පරිදි ඇත්ත තත්වය නම්  අත්අඩංගුවට ගැන්මට කිසිවෙකු නොමැති බවයි. මේ තැනැත්තා රටින් පිටව ගොස් තිබෙන්නේ පවුලේ සියළුම දෙනාද රැගෙනය. ඒ මේ සම්බන්ධව අසල්වැසියන් සහ ඥාතීන් දැනගතහොත් ඔවුන්ගෙන් සිය පවුල වෙත විරෝධය එල්ල වන බව දන්නා නිසාවෙන් වන්නට ඇත. මා විසින් මෙම සිදුවීම හුදකලා එකක් යැයි පවසන්නට හේතුව එයයි. මෙය ලංකාව තුල සංවිධානාත්මක කල්ලියක ගොඩනැගීමක් හෝ නැගිටීමක් නොවේ. ඒ සම්බන්ධව ඉදිරි පොලිස් පරීක්ෂණ වලදී සනාථ වනු නියතය. නමුත් මෙවැනි හුදකලා සිදුවීම් තවත් සිදුවීමේ අවධානමක් ඇති බව පිළිගත යුතු කරුණකි. එම අවධානම අපේ රටට පමණක් නොව ලොවපුරා සෑම රටකම තිබෙන තත්වයකි.

 

අද ලෝකය තුල අන්තර්ජාලය භාවිතා කිරීම පුද්ගල අයිතියක් බවට පත්වී හමාරය. අන්තර්ජාලය තුල වැටකඩොළු බැඳීම කළ නොහැක්කකි. නමුත් අන්තර්ජාලය තුලින් මිනිසුන් අන්තවාදය වෙත යාම වලක්වාලීමට සමාජ නායකයන් ප්‍රඥාවන්ත විය යුතුය. ඒ සඳහා මුස්ලිම් සමාජ නායකයන් මීට වඩා යුහුසුළු විය යුතු බව මගේ අදහසයි. එමෙන්ම අද රටතුල නිර්මාණය වී තිබෙන මුස්ලිම් විරෝධී ක්‍රියාකාරකම්ද අන්තවාදීන් නිර්මාණය කිරීමට සාධකයක් වීමේ අවධානමක් හටගෙන ඇත. රටේ පරිපාලකයන් මේ පිළිබඳව අවධානය යොමුකළ යුතුය. බෞද්ධ අන්තවාදීන් නිදැල්ලේ හැසිරෙමින්  ක්‍රියාකරමින් සිටින්නේ කෙසේ හෝ ලාංකික මුස්ලිම් සමාජයෙන් කොටසක් අන්තවාදය දෙසට තල්ලු කිරීමටයි. බෞද්ධ අන්තවාදීන්ගේ ක්‍රියාකාරීත්වය මැඩපැවැත්වීමට අවශ්‍ය නීති සම්පාදනය කර ලංකාවේ සියළුම ආකාර අන්තවාදය පරාජය කිරීම බලධාරීන්ගේ වගකීම වේ.

 

 

 

16 Comments to “මියගිය අයිඑස් සටන්කරුවා සහ ලාංකික මුස්ලිම් සමාජය!

  1. Muslims often claim that their religion orders them to only kill in self-defense.The game is to present a verse from the Quran that authorize fighting in self-defense and then disingenuously slip in the word “only” to make it appear as if Muslims are limited by this condition.

    The Quran certainly gives Muslims permission to fight in self-defense, but it is not the only condition under which they may take the lives of others. Fighting is urged in other places “until all religion is for Allah”. The faithful are told to fight unbelievers who offer resistance to Islamic rule.

    The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproved from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life. His career of violence began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved (on the part of the Muslims, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

    The very first battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

    The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it lies at the very beginning of the long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed right through the heart of America on September 11th. The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

    Muslims try to justify Muhammad’s violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in an earlier episode, in which Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger at all in their new home of Medina. They were free to get on with their lives.

    Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value even than the very lives of others. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims.

  2. @ Maria
    Thank you very much for your comment on Islamic concept of Self Defense. Islamic law allows the use of force in self-defense and in defense of those who are oppressed and unable to defend themselves. Islamic law also allows, under certain conditions, anticipatory self-defense. Only the head of a Muslim state (a ruler) is allowed to declare this operation. Most of the current so-called declarations of jihad have been issued by non-state actors, e.g. Al-Qaeda, who has no authority to declare jihad. These declarations thus have no validity under Islamic law and, indeed, Muslim states are fighting these armed groups. Islamic law imposes certain restrictions on the use of force in self-defense, i.e., military necessity, distinction, and proportionality. Accepting an offer of peace and humanity are also relevant conditions.
    “Those who invoke not, with God, any other god, nor slay such life as God has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; – and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the Penalty on the Day Of Judgement will be doubled To him, and he will dwell Therein in ignominy. (The Noble Quran, 25:68-69)”
    “But if the enemy inclines towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)”
    “God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)”
    “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (The Noble Quran, 2:256)”
    “Say, ‘The truth is from your Lord’: Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it):……(The Noble Quran, 18:29)”
    “If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then COMPEL mankind, against their will, to believe! (The Noble Quran, 10:99)”
    “Say: ‘Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and you for that placed on you. If you obey him, you shall be on right guidance. The Messenger’s duty is only to preach the clear (Message). (The Noble Quran, 24:54)”

    Please do not write things about which you have no in-depth knowledge.
    History does present a few examples when, in the days of peace, a powerful nation treated its weak neighbors in a graceful manner. The real test of character for such a nation, however, lies in its attitude towards a vanquished nation. Islam has left indelible imprints of its magnanimity both in conditions of war and peace.

    Swayed by the electrifying effects of the conquest, conquerors usually go berserk in their behavior with the conquered. Possessed with brute authority, they unleash all sorts of atrocities in the occupied territories. Emanating much before Halaku and continuing after Hitler, this is what the war literature of the world teaches and preaches. The Islamic approach to war and its aftermath eliminates the unjust use of force. Islam does not favor the maxim of ‘might is right’ prevailing in the world since time immemorial.
    It exhorts its followers not to do evil in return of evil done to them, but to do what will best repel the evil. This is because Islam acknowledges that there is no equality or comparison between good and evil. It requires that evil should be repelled or destroyed with something which is better, just as an antidote is better than poison. The Quran ordains:
    “Repel evil with that which is better…” (Al- Mu’minun: 96) Before Islam, the whole world was plunged into intractable wars, bloodshed, ferocity and animosity. Fighting was endemic in society with no ethical limits, no rules of conduct whatsoever.
    Islam could not condone such tyrannical practices which had downgraded humanity to the level of beasts. On the contrary, it advocated that in mutual ties between nations, the basic issue was that of recognition and cooperation; not war or hatred.
    Islam, as a practiced religion, does not rule out the possibility of war against a nation that is not willing to live in peace and has become a threat to the existence of the gentle nation.
    When there is no option and in the face of persecution, the believers are permitted to fight with vigor and full preparation, but not ruthlessly. Modern war is always followed by pillage, looting, debauchery and general massacre.
    Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), on the other hand, issued strict orders to the commanders of Muslim armies not to kill women, children, old and infirm men, not to cut down fruit-bearing trees and crops, or to slaughter animals whose flesh was eaten.
    Places of worship, not only mosques, but also churches, synagogues and cloisters were to be protected. Mutilate or disfigurement of the corpses of enemies was prohibited. The dwellings of unresisting citizens were to be left untouched so also the means of their sustenance.
    To that extent, Islam is opposed to the callous, yet oft-spoken doctrine: ‘All is fair in love and war.’ The Quran repudiates the propaganda that Islam was preached by force. Conversion by compulsion is not allowed. Almighty Allah proclaims: “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error…” (Al-Baqarah: 256).
    The very first injunction about war (quoted below) provides that it should be waged in self-defense and that too within the permissible limits: “And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.”(Al- Baqarah: 190)
    Only a war regulated by the above moral restraints is approved by Islam to prevent horror and violence against the innocent, against their freedom of thought and action and to ensure their honorable existence. No distinction of religion and creed has to be observed with regard to the safety and security of the citizens.
    Now, if an aggressive nation comes to terms and desists from its sinister designs, peace should be made with it and rapprochement arrived at. Rather the first nation should display categorically its desire for peace and friendship.
    As such, while we must always be prepared for the just fight lest it be forced on us, even in the midst of an armed conflict, we must always be ready for peace if there is any indication for it from the other side. There is no merit merely in a fight by itself.
    The Quran enjoins upon believers: “But if they (the enemies) incline towards peace, incline you also to it and (put your) trust in Allah. Verily He is the All-Hearer, the All-knower.” (Al-Anfal: 61)
    If the war (waged for legitimate reasons) culminates into victory, the conquerors should mete out a compassionate treatment to the defeated. There are nations which raise lofty slogans of human rights and claim to be the upholders of sublime objectives of civilization, but their behavior towards the conquered nations has been found to be extremely disgraceful, and a far cry from the norms of justice and compassion.
    There is no parallel in history to the dignified attitude displayed by the Holy Prophet on the occasion of the conquest of Makkah. His arch enemies of 11 excruciating years, who had crossed all limits in tormenting him and his companions, stood before him humiliated, heads down with shame, waiting for a befitting revenge.
    They deserved and expected the severest punishment. Yet, the Prophet (SAW) was clement to the core. He announced that he would behave with them the way Prophet Yusuf (Peace be upon him) had behaved with his cruel brothers saying:
    “…This day let no reproach be (cast) on you: Allah will forgive you, And He is the Most Merciful of those who show mercy!” (Yusuf: 92) Islam has a comprehensive set of rules to deal with the prisoners of war.
    First of all, they are to be overtaken in the actual war field. The Quran prohibits taking prisoners after the cessation of hostilities and in normal circumstances (Al-Anfal: 67 and Muhammad: 4).
    As to their subsequent treatment, the Quran offers two options – “…. Thereafter, (is the time for) either generosity (i.e. freeing them without ransom) or ransom (according to what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens…” (Muhammad: 4).
    Seventy prisoners fell to the hands of the Muslims in the battle of Badr. Some of them were released without ransom by the clemency of the Prophet and some with ransom. Those who could not afford to pay the ransom money were required to teach 10 children each for their freedom.
    History stands testimony to the bitter fact that the victorious nations let loose a reign of terror against the helpless prisoners of war. Islam strictly forbids such inhuman actions. During their captivity, the prisoners must be treated kindly. They have to be properly fed, clothed and looked after.
    The lesson learnt by the Muslims from the grand victory of Makkah was not of man’s glory but humility, not of power but of service, not an appeal to vanity but a realization of Allah’s mercy.
    You have misquoted the following verse to mean that “until all religion is for Allah”.
    “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. (The Noble Quran 2:193)”
    Please do not quote out of context to distort the Quran. Another cheap attempt to slip in your own words to Quran to mean that it sanctifies the slaughter of ‘non Muslims’ is seen in “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). Your disgraceful and shameless attempt to market your misguidance and hatred towards Islam is very deplorable. You have mischievously included Muslims included to the text directly and included non Muslims within brackets to distort the meaning.
    The Quran, the divinely revealed scripture of Islam, displays an extraordinary respect for human life: “…if anyone kills a person – unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land – it is as if he kills all mankind, while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind” (5:32). At another point, the Quran states, “…do not take the life God has made sacred, except by right. This is what He commands you to do: Perhaps you will use your reason” (6:151).
    Muhammad (peace be upon him), who Muslims revere as God’s final messenger to humanity, listed murder as one of the major sins. He warned his followers, “The first cases to be settled between people on the Day of Judgment will be those of bloodshed.” Muslims are even prohibited from indiscriminately harming animals, and have been taught by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that “there is reward in kindness to every living thing – animal or human.”

    You have insinuated that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) interpolates the Quran to suit his purpose. There are lots of verses in the Quran about the physical world which the scientific community came to know only within the last century. Please do not earn your path to hell fire by allowing the inherent hatred within you to sling mud at the TRUTH

    Ibnu Mansoor

    1. ඔබගේ ප්‍රතිචාරයට ස්තුතියි! ඔබට අල්ලාහ් නිරන්තර සුවය දානය කරත්වා! ආමීන්

    2. Muslims quote verse 2:256 from the Qur’an to prove what a tolerant religion Islam is. The verse reads in part, “Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth One trick of apologists is to quote from earlier verses in the Quran to portray Islam as peaceful without mentioning that they are superceded by later, more violent verses.

      The Muslim who offers verse 2:256 may or may not know that it is from one of the earliest Suras (or chapters) from the Medinan period. It was “revealed” at a time when the Muslims had just arrived in Medina after being chased out of Mecca. They needed to stay in the good graces of the stronger tribes around them, many of which were Jewish. It was around this time, for example, that Muhammad decided to have his followers change the direction of their prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem.

      But Muslims today pray toward Mecca. The reason for this is that Muhammad issued a later command that abrogated (or nullified) the first. In fact, abrogation is a very important principle to keep in mind when interpreting the Qur’an – and verse 2:256 in particular – because later verses (in chronological terms) are said to abrogate any earlier ones that may be in contradiction (Qur’an 2:106, 16:101).

      Muhammad’s message was far closer to peace and tolerance during his early years at Mecca, when he didn’t have an army and was trying to pattern his new religion after Christianity. This changed dramatically after he attained the power to conquer, which he eventually used with impunity to bring other tribes into the Muslim fold. Contrast verse 2:256 with Suras 9 and 5, which were the last “revealed,” and it is easy to see why Islam has been anything but a religion of peace from the time of Muhammad to the present day.

      There is some evidence that verse 2:256 may not have been intended for Muslims at all, but is instead meant to be a warning to other religions concerning their treatment of Muslims. Verse 193 of the same Sura instructs Muslims to “fight with them (non-Muslims) until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah.” This reinforces the narcissistic nature of Islam, which places Muslims above non-Muslims, and applies a very different value and standard of treatment to both groups.

      Though most Muslims today reject the practice of outright forcing others into changing their religion, forced conversion has been a part of Islamic history since Muhammad first picked up a sword. As he is recorded in many places as saying, “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah…” (See Bukhari 2:25)

      Muhammad put his words into practice. When he marched into Mecca with an army, one of his very first tasks was to destroy idols at the Kaaba, which had been devoutly worshipped by the Arabs for centuries. By eliminating these objects of worship, he destroyed the religion of the people and supplanted it with his own. Later, he ordered that Jews and Christians who would not convert to Islam be expelled from Arabia. Does forcing others to choose between their homes or their faith sound like “no compulsion in religion?”

      According to Muslim historians, Muhammad eventually ordered people to attend prayers at the mosque to the point of burning alive those who didn’t comply. He also ordered that children who reached a certain age be beaten if they refused to pray.

      Interestingly, even the same contemporary Muslims who quote 2:256 usually believe in Islamic teachings that sound very much like religious compulsion. These would be the laws punishing apostasy by death (or imprisonment, for females), and the institutionalized discrimination against religious minorities under Islamic rule that is sometimes referred to as “dhimmiitude.”

      Islamic law explicitly prohibits non-Muslims from sharing their faith and even includes the extortion of money from them in the form of a tax called the jizya. Those who refuse to pay this arbitrary amount are put to death. If this isn’t compulsion, then what is?

  3. @මරියා, වෙනි අයට මම ඉතා ආදරයෙන් කියන්න කෙමෙති , කවුරු කොමවා මොනවා කිවුවොත්, කොහේ මොනවා කියවුවොත්, තමන් එසූදේ දේ / කියවපු දේ හරි ද? වෙරදී ද කියා හිතා, අසා බලන්න ඊට පස්සේ ඒ දේ තමන්ගේ නමෙන් ඉදිරිපත් කරන්න. එහෙම නෙතුව අසපු පලියට නෙත්නම් කියවපු පලියට ඒ දේ තමන්ගේ නමෙන් යලි ඉදිරිපත් කරලා නිකං බාල්දු වෙන්න එපා. ඥානසාර නෙමෙති හිමි කෙනෙකුත් එහෙම කරලා තමන්ට පමණක් නොවේ තමන්ට සහයෝගය පළකරපු ජනතිපතිවරයාවත් අමාරුවේ දෙම්මා.

    මරියා තුමනී / තුමා! ඔබවිසින් කියනලද ඉහත සඳහන් දේ කොඩාක් අමූලික බොරු බව ඔබ දන්නවා ද? පොඩ්ඩක් පොත්පත් කියවලා බලන්න. මොහමඩ් (නබිතුම) ගේ චරිතය පොඩ්ඩක් කියවලා බලන්න. ඊට පස්සේ පිළිගත හෙකි චෝදනාවක් ඉදිරිපත් කරන්න. ඒ දේ ගෙන අපි ලස්සන සංවාදයක් කරමු.

    එහෙම නෙතුව බොරු, කේලම් ඉදිරිපිට වෙලාව ගත කිරීම මහා ලොකු මෝඩකමක් බව කරුණාවෙන් සලකන්න.

  4. @මරියා වෙනි අයට මම ඉතා ආදරයෙන් කියන්න කෙමෙති , කවුරු මොනවා කිවුවොත් කොහේ මොනවා කියවුවොත් තමන් එසූදේ දේ / කියවපු දේ හරි ද? වෙරදී ද කියා හිතා, අසා බලන්න ඊට පස්සේ ඒ දේ තමන්ගේ නමෙන් ඉදිරිපත් කරන්න. එහෙම නෙතුව අසපු පලියට නෙත්නම් කියවපු පලියට ඒ දේ තමන්ගේ නමෙන් යලි ඉදිරිපත් කරලා නිකං බාල්දු වෙන්න එපා. ඥානසාර නෙමෙති හිමිකෙනෙකුත් එහෙම කරලා තමන්ට පමණක් නොවේ තමන්ට සහයෝගය පළකරපු ජනපතිවරයාවත් අමාරුවේ දෙම්මා.

    මරියා තුමනී / තුමා! ඔබවිසින් කියනලද ඉහත සඳහන් දේ කොඩාක් අමූලික බොරු බව ඔබ දන්නවා ද? පොඩ්ඩක් පොත්පත් කියවලා බලන්න. මොහමඩ් (නබිතුම) ගේ චරිතය පොඩ්ඩක් කියවලා බලන්න. ඊට පස්සේ පිළිගත හෙකි චෝදනාවක් ඉදිරිපත් කරන්න. ඒ දේ ගෙන අපි ලස්සන සංවාදයක් කරමු.

    එහෙම නෙතුව බොරු, කේලම් ඉදිරිපිට වෙලාව ගත කිරීම මහා ලොකු මෝඩකමක් බව කරුණාවෙන් සලකන්න.

    IIS , අන්ත වාදය, ඒවාට සම්බන්ද බව චෝදනාවට ලක් වූ විදුහල්පතිවරයා ද යලි කථා කරමු.

  5. It is well documented that IIS was created and patronage by Western Powers and Al Qaeda was done the same. What IIS doing now and what Al Qaida did were supporting the Western/Anti Islamic diaspora although they presumed that they are serving Islam.

    The Greatest mistake made by Al Qaida was demolition of Banyan Statue in my concern. Holy Quran clearly states that do not indulge in such activities which cause bad feeling to followers of other religions.

    The people of Sri Lanka should remember / learn that Sri Lanka was never touched by any Muslim army when they were so powerful or say the superpower of the World. The relationship with Islamic Caliphate and Sri Lankan kings/Leaders were so good and splendorous. It is the same relationship continues at present too that i.e support of Pakistan Government against LTTE, support of Muslims countries in UNO and the wealth poured to Sri lanka for various reasons etc etc.

    What IIS is doing is different and what the so called principal did is different; and don’t mass up both. IIS doing what they are doing in a place which was totally destroyed by a foreign Army and their invasion was a historical mistake that finding chemical weaponries. It is totally a mess and not possible to discuss in a short Blog post.

    So it is wise to look at the past i.e Muslims/Sri Lanka relationship and the principles of Islam rather than an exceptional arena and an individual act which comes out of freedom of choice. Be wise or learn to be wise, if not so in the past.

  6. @ Maria,

    We are happy that you are making a visible effort in trying to be a scholar in Quranic interpretation. The readymade anti Islamic rhetoric is available in plenty in most of the ‘Islamophobia’ web sites for your assistance. Unfortunately most of your explanations are pure distortions presented in these ‘Islamophobia’ web sites. The TRUTH is completely different from what you are trying to portray. Obviously some quotations by you have head or tail as obviously you do not understand the real meaning and simply copy paste from anti Islamic website. You have quoted “Contrast verse 2:256 with Suras 9 and 5” should be quoted as Surah (or chapter) 9 verse 5. To understand verse 5 of this chapter you must read from the very beginning, that is from verse 1 to at least verse 10. If you understand English please read the verses from 1 to 10 which will for sure give the correct meaning. Verse one talks of immunity for those pagans who have signed a treaty with the Muslims. These verses are guidance for a specific incident during a specific time of history. Please read all the verses to get the complete meaning.

    1. “a (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-
    2. go ye, then, for four Months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with Shame those who reject Him.
    3. and an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the Day of the great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. if then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. and proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.
    4. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you In aught, nor aided any one against you. so fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the Righteous.
    5. but when the forbidden months are past, then Fight and slay the Pagans Wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie In wait for them In every stratagem (of war); but if They repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
    6. if one amongst the Pagans ask Thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that He may Hear the word of Allah. and then escort Him to where He can be secure. that is because They are men without knowledge.
    7. How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long As these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the Righteous.
    8. How (can there be such a league), seeing that if They get an advantage over you, They respect not In you the Ties either of kinship or of covenant? with (fair words from) their mouths They entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and Most of them are rebellious and wicked.
    9. the Signs of Allah have They sold for a miserable price, and (many) have They hindered from His way: evil indeed are the deeds They have done.
    10. In a believer They respect not the Ties either of kinship or of covenant! it is They who have transgressed all bounds”. (Quran 9 : 1-10)

    You are talking of Dhimmi population in a Muslim state. Once again it very vividly proves that you are picking up a lot from anti Muslim websites which try their best to distort to Islam. This is their profession. Please begin to think on your own and try to understand the TRUTH instead of behaving like a parrot.

    I am quoting the following from http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/05/concept-of-dhimmi-in-islam.html regarding to prove how Islam treats the Dhimmi or non Muslim population in a Muslim state.

    The concept of “Dhimmi” in Islam
    نشرت بواسطة: Waqar Akbar Cheema 8:58 PM في dhimmi , minorities , people of covenant , Umar , watt , zimmi لاتوجد تعليقات
    Many people have a misunderstanding about the concept of “dhimmi” in Islam. Some take it as intimidating label for the minorities under the Islamic rule. This certainly is not the case.
    The word actually means, “One whose responsibility has been taken” i.e. someone responsibility of the protection of whose life and property is taken by the Islamic government.
    Following is what Edward William Lane writes about the “Ahl Dhimma”;
    Edward William Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon Book I p. 976
    In Islamic literature they are also referred to as “Mu’ahid.” Dr. James Robson in an explanatory note to a Hadith says, “This is used of a member of protected communities, but it is also used of anyone who belongs to a non-Muslim community with whom a treaty of peace has been made.”(Mishkat al-Masabih vol.1p.735)
    So in short, the “Dhimmis” are the People of Covenant whom the Islamic rule pledges every kind of security and toleration.
    Prophetic narrations about “Dhmmis”:
    Allah’s Messenger, may Allah bless him, said: “If anyone wrongs a man with whom a covenant has been made, or curtails any right of his, or imposes on him more than he can bear, or takes anything from him without his ready agreement, I shall be his adversary on the day of resurrection.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 3052. Classified as Sahih by Albani)
    The Prophet, may Allah bless him, said, “Whoever killed a Mu’ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling).” (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 2930)
    Covenant of ‘Umar to the people of Jerusalem:
    The covenant of ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, is a wonderful document showing Islam’s approach to non-Muslims living in peace within Islamic rule. Following is recorded by al-Tabari;
    “In the name of Allah, the most Gracious, most Beneficent. This is covenant of peace granted by the slave of Allah, the commander of the faithful ‘Umar to the people of Jerusalem. They are granted protection for their lives, their property, their churches, and their Crosses, in whatever condition they are. All of them are granted the same protection. No one will dwell in their churches, nor will they be destroyed and nothing will be reduced of their belongings. Nothing shall be taken from their Crosses or their property. There will be no compulsion on them regarding their religion, nor will any one of them be troubled.” (Tarikh al-Tabari 2/308)
    Also it is recorded in Sahih Bukhari;
    Umar (after he was stabbed), instructed (his would-be-successor) saying, “I urge him (i.e. the new Caliph) to take care of those non-Muslims who are under the protection of Allah and His Messenger in that he should observe the convention agreed upon with them, and fight on their behalf (to secure their safety) and he should not over-tax them beyond their capability.”(Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 2824)

    PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE TRUTH INSTEAD OF THE FALSEHOOD

    YOU HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION REGARDING JIZYA QUOTED FROM THE SAME WEBSITE

    The reality of “Jizya”
    نشرت بواسطة: Waqar Akbar Cheema 3:51 AM في dhimmi , jizya , poll-tax 4 تعليقات
    Along with the concept of “Dhimmi” the idea of Jizya is also greatly misunderstood. Orientalists like Welhausen and Beker have been in the lead to mislead people on these issues and the missionary Islamophobes simply buy their blatant lies. Let’s dig into it.
    What is Jizya?
    Allah Almighty says in the Qur’an;
    “… until they pay jizyah with their own hands while they are subdued.” (9:29)
    As to the words “they are subdued” al-Shafii’, the Imam, explains that it means, “Islamic rulings are enforced on them.” (Kitabul Umm 4/219)
    Classical Muslim lexicographer Ragheb Isfahani writes about Jizya: “A tax that is levied on Dhimmis and it is so named because it is in return for the protection they are guaranteed.” (Mufradat al-Qur’an 1/204)
    The purpose of Jizya:
    For ensuring the protection of Dhimmis:
    The purpose of this taxation is to make the non-Muslims support the government under which they are living and being protected from all sorts of aggression. In the prime time of Islamic civilization if the Muslims could not protect the dhimmis they did not levy Jizya tax on them. Following examples testifies to this;
    “… in a treaty made by Khalid with some town in the neighborhood of Hirah, he writes; ‘If we protect you, then Jizya is due to us; but we do not, then it is not.’” (Thomas Arnold, The Preaching of Islam, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York 1913 p.61)
    After the Muslims had captured Hims (Emesa) and taken the Jizya as agreed in the agreement signed when the Muslims entered the city, it was learnt that Roman Emperor Heraclius was advancing with a large army. Abu ‘Ubaida, may Allah be pleased with him, who was the Muslim commander on the Syrian front, ordered all the dues taken as Jizya to be returned to the people of the city. According to Baladhuri the people of the city were told,
    “We are not able to defend you anymore and now you have complete authority over your matters.” (Futuh al-Baldan 1/162)
    Al-Azdi narrates the same with the following wording;
    “We have returned your wealth back to you because we detest taking your wealth and then failing to protect your land. We are moving to another area and have called upon our brethren, and then we will fight our enemy. If Allah helps us defeat them we shall fulfill our covenant with you except that you yourselves do not like it then.” (Futuh al-Sham ed. William N. Lees published by Baptist Mission Culcutta, 1854 pp. 137-138)
    Al-Baladhuri quotes the response of the people of Hims;
    “Verily your rule and justice is dearer to us than the tyranny and oppression in which we used to live.” (Futuh al-Baldan 1/162)
    And al-Azdi quotes their even more emphatic reaction to the Muslim way of dealing. They said;
    “May God again make you ruler over us and may God’s curse be upon the Byzantines who used to rule over us. By the Lord, had it been they, they would have never returned us anything; instead they would have ceased all they could from our possessions.” (Futuh al-Sham p. 138)
    Montesquiei also highlights how the Muslim treatment of masses was far better than what preceded them under the Byzantine Greeks. He writes;
    “It was this excess of taxes that occasioned the prodigious facility with which the Mahometans carried on their conquests. Instead of a continual series of extortions devised by the subtle avarice of the Greek emperors, the people were subjected to a simple tribute which was paid and collected with ease. Thus they were far happier in obeying a barbarous nation than a corrupt government, in which they suffered every inconvenience of lost liberty, with all the horror of present slavery.” (The Spirit of Laws, Book 13. Emphasis mine)
    However mark his inherent hatred in the words “barbarous nation” and “horror of present slavery” which does not fit into the historical account that he gives but perhaps goes fine with his prejudices.
    As a compensation for exemption from military services:
    It is also a compensation for exemption from any kind of military service. As al-Alusi writes it is so because otherwise when required it is obligatory upon every citizen of the state to help the state in the war. (see Tafsir Ruh al-M’ani 7/204 under Qur’an 9:29)
    (Infact this seems to be a more valid reason because it was not levied on women and the old as they were not expected to give any operational military assistance.)
    Sir Thomas Arnold writes;
    “… when any Christian people served in the Muslim army, they were exempted from the payment of this tax. Such was the case with the tribe of al-Jurajima, a Christian tribe in the neighborhood of Antioch who made peace with the Muslims, promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay jizyah and should receive their proper share of the booty. When the Arab conquests were pushed to the north of Persia in A.H. 22, a similar agreement was made with a frontier tribe, which was exempted from the payment of jizyah in consideration of military service.
    We find similar instances of remission of jizyah in the case of Christian who served in the army or navy under the Turkish rule. For example, the inhabitants of Megaris, a community of Albanian Christians were exempted from the payment of this tax on condition that they furnished a body of armed men to guard the passes over Mounts Cithaeron and Geranea …. The Christians who served as pioneers of the advance-guard of the Turkish army, repairing the roads and bridges, were likewise exempt from tribute and received grants of land quit of all taxation; and the Christian inhabitants of Hydra paid no direct taxes to the Sultan, but furnished instead a contingent of 250 able-bodied seamen to the Turkish fleet, who were supported out of the local treasury.” (The Preaching of Islam pp.61-62)
    Who all are required to pay Jizya?
    The Jizya is only upon capable males. Imam Ibn Qayyim writes;
    “There is no Jizya on the kids, women and the insane. This is the view of the four imams. Ibn Munzar said, ‘I do not know anyone to have differed with them.’ Abu Muhammad ibn Qudama said in al-Mughni, ‘We do not know of any difference of opinion among the learned on this issue.” (Ahkam Ahl Zimma 1/14)
    “And there is no Jizya upon the aged, one suffering from chronic disease, the blind, and the patient who has no hope of recovery and has despaired of his health, even if they have enough.” (Ahkam Ahl Zimma 1/16)
    One important incident quoted by Imam Abu Yusuf needs special mention;
    ‘Umar bin Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, passed by the door of a people’s dwelling. There was beggar there saying, “Extremely old person with blind eyesight [needs help!”] He [‘Umar] got hold of him from behind and asked, “Which community of the People of Book you belong to?” He said, “I am a Jew.” He asked, “What brought you to this condition that I see?” He said, “The demand of Jizya, the needs and the old age.” ‘Umar got hold of his hand and brought him to his place helped him a little and then called for the custodian of Baytul Mal and said, “Take a look at his suffering. By Allah this is not justice on our part that we extract from them in their youth and leave them helpless in their old age! … He exempted him from Jizya and similarly the likes of him. (Kitabul Kharaj 1/139)
    Orientalist, Thomas Armold puts it as;
    “The tax was to be levied only on able-bodied males, and not on women or children. The poor who were dependent for their livelihood on alms and the aged poor who were incapable of work were also specially excepted, as also the blind, the lame, the incurables and the insane, unless they happened to be men of wealth; this same condition applied to priests and monks, who were exempt if dependent on the arms of the rich, but had to pay it if they were well-to-do and lived in comfort. The collectors of the jizyah were particularly instructed to show leniency, and refrain from all harsh treatment or the infliction of corporal punishment, in case of non-payment.” (The Preaching of Islam p.60)
    Is it an extra burden on the minorities?
    Some accuse that it is an extra burden upon the minorities. This is a childish allegations. Let’s analyze who has more monetary obligation in an Islamic setup, a Muslim or a non-Muslim.
    Muslims pay Zakah which is 2.5% of the yearly savings. Non-Muslims are to pay maximum 48 Dinars annually.
    Just like poor Muslims non-Muslims are also not required to pay Jizya.
    Muslim women are not exempted from Zakah, non-Muslim women are.
    Zakah does not take away the military services that the state may ask for, Jizya frees one from all that.
    Then how come Jizya is considered a great burden? Infact financially Islam puts more “burden” on Muslim citizen of the state than on the non-Muslims.
    Conclusion:
    Jizya is a small tax levied on the Dhimmis in return for the protection that the Islamic state gives them without asking them for any military services that might be demanded of Muslim citizen. It is levied on able-bodied males only and is quite less than Zakah which is obligatory for every Muslim. Women, children and the aged are exempted and so are the poor and some other classes. Muslim history shows Muslims always stood for their commitments that gave them the right to demand Jizya.
    As to the false assertions of the likes of Welhausen and Beker about Muslims using Jizya and other taxes as tools for winning proselytes or using these as devices to plunder the wealth of the non-Muslims, Daniel C. Dennet Jr.’s book “Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam” is a wonderful rebuttal. I shall present the salient points from his book in a future post insha’Allah!

    Ibnu Mansoor

  7. උඹට අවුලක් කියල හිතන එ්ව උඹට අවුලක් නෑ.
    අපිට අවුලක් නම් උඹට මාර අවුලක්. අනේ මැට්ටො. තෝ ලෝකය ගැන මොනවද දන්නෙ, තොපි ගෙරිමස් කන බල්ලොනෙ. දාපංකො උබේ බ්ලොග් එකේ කාන්ට්ගැන විමර්ශණාත්මක ලිපියක්වත්. ………….

    1. ඔබගේ කමෙන්ටුවෙ ඉතිරි හරිය සභ්‍යත්වයෙන් තොරවු වදන් නිසා කපා හැරියෙමි.ගෙරිමස් කන්නේ බල්ලන් පමණක් යැයි පවසන්නේ දුපත් මානසිකත්වයේ සිටින තණකොල බුදින හරක් විය යුතුය. ඔබ කාන්ට් ගැන ලියන්න. මම ඒකට විචාරයක් ඉදිරිපත් කරන්නම්

  8. Anvar

    Tho salli walata aagama paawadeela thawa enawada Thambinta kade yanna..

    Tho kohoma keewathw edak nah,..

    Thambiya Anthawaddi Waadi Waadimai

    1. කිසිම දහමක අන්තවාදයක් නැත. කිසිදු ශාස්තෘවරයෙක් අන්තවාදයක් දේශනා කර නැත. අන්තවාදය තිබෙන්නේ දහම අදහන්නන් අතරය. එනිදසුනක් ලෙස නානසාර යනු බෞද්ධයන් අතර සිටින අතිශය අන්තවාදියෙකි. එයට බුද්ධාගම පලි නැත.

  9. I am regret & very unfortunate born as Muslim..

    Teaching going on & soon i will be converted to Catholicism..

    that is the Religion of Peace

Comments are closed.