He might be right.  

Chief, welcome back to the fumbly!😁

Prince posted:

In what’s likely to stir a hornet’s nest, Mufti Muhammad Ilyas of the newly-formed Muslim body Jamaat Ulama-e-Hind on Thursday said Lord Shiva was the “first prophet of Islam” and Muslims are “followers of Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism)”.

As part of a delegation of clerics that visited Ayodhya on Wednesday to garner support for a communal harmony seminar - National Qaumi Ekta Conference - to be organized by the group on February 27 in Balrampur, Ilyas told journalists, “Lord Shiva was first prophet of Islam and Muslims are followers of Sanatan Dharma.”

Facebook

He even went on to add that Muslims should have no reservation in accepting that Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati are their creators. “We are all Indians and children of Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati and there should be no reservations in accepting the truth,” he said.

Ilyas also said he is not opposed to the RSS’ idea of declaring India a Hindu nation. “The citizens of China are called Chinese. The people of Japan are called Japanese. What’s wrong in terming Hindustani as Hindus. We are not against declaring India a Hindu country,” he added.

While Muslim intellectuals rubbished Ilyasi’s statements as his personal views that is “baseless and have no proof”, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) hailed cleric’s words. The Bharatiya Janata Party too has termed it his personal comments.

“The Holy Quran asserts that every community has its prophets, but mentioning the name of (Lord) Shiva as a prophet of Muslims has no proof. We condemn and completely disagree with the comments made by Ilyasi,” Jamaat-e-Islami Hind secretary general Maulana Nusrat Ali told Firstpost.

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JuH) made it clear that Ilyasi has no association with it and none of its delegation has visited Ayodhya. “First, be clear that it is not Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind but Jamaat Ulama-e-Hind, which was formed by some maulvis (clerics) with vested interest before 2014 Lok Sabha elections with an aim to improve Narendra Modi’s image in the Muslim community. It was used for Modi’s PR theatrics before the general elections and now, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is using it to spread a false message,” said JuH chief Maulana Mehmood Madani.

 

Terming the statements “irresponsible”, JuH Secretary Maulana Neyaz Ahmad Farooqui said Ilyasi’s controversial remarks have hurt the religious sentiments of both Hindus and Muslims. “Prophet Adam was the first prophet and Prophet Mohammad was the last one. Quran has mentioned very few of them. But Lord Shiva was a Prophet has no proof in Islam. By declaring him as a messenger of Islam, he has hurt the sentiments and Muslims. On the other hand, Hindus worship Lord Shiva as their God; therefore, by calling him as a messenger of God is his disrespect,” he explained.

Maulana Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahali dubbed Ilyasi’s statements as “un-Islamic”. “It must be his personal statement. It has nothing to do with Islam. In other words, the statements are un-Islamic,” said All India Muslim Personal Law Board member Maulana Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahali.

 

Rejecting Ilyas’s remark, Mufti Mukarram Ahmed, imam of Fatehpuri mosque, said, “His statements are politically motivated. He should explain for whom he is working.”

Meanwhile, the VHP has welcomed the statements and said it is in the interest of nation. “Although we disagree with Ilyasi’s statement that Lord Shiva was a prophet as he is a God, but we welcome the cleric’s statements. Rising above religions, he has tried to unite people and take them away from self-centredness,” VHP spokesperson Vinod bansal told Firstpost.

“Why a hue and cry being raised when he (the cleric) is talking about all Indians are Hindus. The arguments he has given to establish his points are extremely logical,” he said adding that “those who oppose ‘Vande Matram’, hoist Pakistani flags in India, disrespect Amar Jawan Jyoti (a war memorial dedicated to soldiers) in Mumbai and raise voice against Batla House encounter and the execution of Afzal Guru have no right question Ilyasi”.

However, the BJP has termed Ilyasi’s statement as personal. “This is his personal comments and we don’t want to make any comment on the issue,” UP BJP President Laxminkant Bajpai told Firstpost.

Old Delhi's Daryaganj-based Jamaat is close to the RSS and the BJP and has worked for the saffron party in Kashmir to bridges with the local clergy and market Modi’s development plan for the Valley.

Several attempts to contact Ilyasi failed as he did not respond to our phone calls and text messages.

https://www.firstpost.com/indi...t-islam-2111329.html

Probably gone into hiding a la Salman Rushdie and "The Satanic Verses"......

Base, yuh Rass wicked yuh kno

Religion is like politics. It always throws a curve ball at you when you least expect it.

This is quite possible, but no proof.

More RSS propaganda.

All abie ah waan phambily... Where is Chief? Please don't stress this out.

I was recently looking at some videos of the Sri Krishna Mandir at New Amsterdam...very nice construction of a mandir...impressive

The brother should clarify if he thinks Shiva that is the first prophet or if he thinks that Shiva is God.

Infact, Muslims are probably the only non-Hindu group that accommodates the belief that the personalities mentioned in Hindu scriptures can be prophets also. 

Nehru posted:

Base, yuh Rass wicked yuh kno

Vande Mataram.

Riff posted:

I was recently looking at some videos of the Sri Krishna Mandir at New Amsterdam...very nice construction of a mandir...impressive

 

I heard that wood ants eat out the old one.

The Sri Krishna Mandir at Gay Park, Greater New Amsterdam, Berbice (GINA photo)

nah bai...the old one was flooded out when the berbice river rose

GTAngler posted:

Prince posted:

In what’s likely to stir a hornet’s nest, Mufti Muhammad Ilyas of the newly-formed Muslim body Jamaat Ulama-e-Hind on Thursday said Lord Shiva was the “first prophet of Islam” and Muslims are “followers of Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism)”.

As part of a delegation of clerics that visited Ayodhya on Wednesday to garner support for a communal harmony seminar - National Qaumi Ekta Conference - to be organized by the group on February 27 in Balrampur, Ilyas told journalists, “Lord Shiva was first prophet of Islam and Muslims are followers of Sanatan Dharma.”

Facebook

He even went on to add that Muslims should have no reservation in accepting that Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati are their creators. “We are all Indians and children of Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati and there should be no reservations in accepting the truth,” he said.

Ilyas also said he is not opposed to the RSS’ idea of declaring India a Hindu nation. “The citizens of China are called Chinese. The people of Japan are called Japanese. What’s wrong in terming Hindustani as Hindus. We are not against declaring India a Hindu country,” he added.

While Muslim intellectuals rubbished Ilyasi’s statements as his personal views that is “baseless and have no proof”, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) hailed cleric’s words. The Bharatiya Janata Party too has termed it his personal comments.

“The Holy Quran asserts that every community has its prophets, but mentioning the name of (Lord) Shiva as a prophet of Muslims has no proof. We condemn and completely disagree with the comments made by Ilyasi,” Jamaat-e-Islami Hind secretary general Maulana Nusrat Ali told Firstpost.

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JuH) made it clear that Ilyasi has no association with it and none of its delegation has visited Ayodhya. “First, be clear that it is not Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind but Jamaat Ulama-e-Hind, which was formed by some maulvis (clerics) with vested interest before 2014 Lok Sabha elections with an aim to improve Narendra Modi’s image in the Muslim community. It was used for Modi’s PR theatrics before the general elections and now, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is using it to spread a false message,” said JuH chief Maulana Mehmood Madani.

 

Terming the statements “irresponsible”, JuH Secretary Maulana Neyaz Ahmad Farooqui said Ilyasi’s controversial remarks have hurt the religious sentiments of both Hindus and Muslims. “Prophet Adam was the first prophet and Prophet Mohammad was the last one. Quran has mentioned very few of them. But Lord Shiva was a Prophet has no proof in Islam. By declaring him as a messenger of Islam, he has hurt the sentiments and Muslims. On the other hand, Hindus worship Lord Shiva as their God; therefore, by calling him as a messenger of God is his disrespect,” he explained.

Maulana Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahali dubbed Ilyasi’s statements as “un-Islamic”. “It must be his personal statement. It has nothing to do with Islam. In other words, the statements are un-Islamic,” said All India Muslim Personal Law Board member Maulana Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahali.

 

Rejecting Ilyas’s remark, Mufti Mukarram Ahmed, imam of Fatehpuri mosque, said, “His statements are politically motivated. He should explain for whom he is working.”

Meanwhile, the VHP has welcomed the statements and said it is in the interest of nation. “Although we disagree with Ilyasi’s statement that Lord Shiva was a prophet as he is a God, but we welcome the cleric’s statements. Rising above religions, he has tried to unite people and take them away from self-centredness,” VHP spokesperson Vinod bansal told Firstpost.

“Why a hue and cry being raised when he (the cleric) is talking about all Indians are Hindus. The arguments he has given to establish his points are extremely logical,” he said adding that “those who oppose ‘Vande Matram’, hoist Pakistani flags in India, disrespect Amar Jawan Jyoti (a war memorial dedicated to soldiers) in Mumbai and raise voice against Batla House encounter and the execution of Afzal Guru have no right question Ilyasi”.

However, the BJP has termed Ilyasi’s statement as personal. “This is his personal comments and we don’t want to make any comment on the issue,” UP BJP President Laxminkant Bajpai told Firstpost.

Old Delhi's Daryaganj-based Jamaat is close to the RSS and the BJP and has worked for the saffron party in Kashmir to bridges with the local clergy and market Modi’s development plan for the Valley.

Several attempts to contact Ilyasi failed as he did not respond to our phone calls and text messages.

https://www.firstpost.com/indi...t-islam-2111329.html

Probably gone into hiding a la Salman Rushdie and "The Satanic Verses"......

Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses": Excerpts of Controversial Passages

How an Indian Actor Became Prophet Muhammad’s Understudy

Gibreel Farishta, the alienated, deracinated Indian actor who’s fallen back to Earth after terrorists exploded his plane, is recuperating from the fall in one of his first bouts of psychotic delirium. He dreams “heavy-lidded towards visions of his angeling.” This is the beginning of the conjuring of Mahound, the character, based on the Prophet Muhammad, that Gibreel channels in his dreams. Keep in mind (it’s worth repeating again and again) that this is a fiction within a fiction, an intentional inversion not only of reality, but of the presumption that fiction should even be a reflection of reality:

I know; devil talk. Shaitan interrupting Gibreel.

Me?

[…] His name: a dream-name, changed by the vision. Pronounced correctly, it means he-for-whom-thanks-should-be-given, but he won’t answer to that here; nor, though he’s well aware of what they call him, to his nickname in Jahilia down below—he-who-goes-up-and-down-old-Coney.

That’s him. Mahound the businessman, climbing his hot mountain in the Hijaz. The mirage of a city shines below him in the sun.

The Satanic Verses Deal

The following passage relates the story of the so-called “deal” of the satanic verses, when Mohammed was offered by the elders of the Quraysh tribe that controlled Mecca to trade in a little bit of his monotheistic dogmatism in favor of accepting the intercession of three goddesses, Lat, Uzza and Manat. There is nothing offensive about the story in and of itself, in that it’s been debated, argued, documented and even accepted or rejected by various scholars, historians and clerics over the centuries. Some Muslims remain offended by the suggestion that the Prophet Muhammad would be involved in anything like a “deal,” or that his “revelations” would in any way have been influenced by Satan, as that deal is said to have been influenced.

Mahound sits on the edge of the well and grins. “I’ve been offered a deal.” By Abu Simbel?Khalid shouts. Unthinkable. Refuse. Faithful Bilal admonishes him: Do not lecture the Messenger. Of course, he has refused. Salman the Persian asks: What sort of deal. Mahound smiles again. “Al least one of you wants to know.” […]

“If our great God could find it in his heart to concede—he used that word, concede—that three, only three of the three hundred and sixty idols in the house are worthy of worship…”

”There is no god but God!” Bilal shouts. And his fellows join in: “Ya Allah!” Mahound looks angry. “Will the faithful hear the Messenger?” They fall silent, scuffing their feet in the dust.

“He asks for Allah’s approval of Lat, Uzza and Manat. In return, he gives his guarantee that we will be tolerated, even officially recognized; as a mark of which I am to be elected to the council of Jahilia.

That’s the offer.”

Describing the “Revelation” of the Satanic Verses

Rushdie, of course, doesn’t stop there. The following pages, among the most moving and shattering of the novel, describe Gibreel/Mahound/Mohammed as anguished, self-doubting, sometimes doubtful, possibly even calculating as he prepares to hear the revelation enabling the “deal” of the three goddesses—what would come to be known as the satanic verses:

O my vanity I am an arrogant man, is this weakness, is it just a dream of power? Must I betray myself for a seat on the council? Is this sensible and wise or is it hollow and self-loving? I don’t even know if the Grandee is sincere. Does he know? Perhaps not even he. I am weak and he’s strong, the offer gives him many ways of ruining me. But I, too, have much to gain. The souls of the city, of the world, surely they are worth three angels? Is Allah so unbending that he will not embrace three more to save the human race?—I don’t know anything. –Should God be proud or humble, majestic or simple, yielding or un-? What kind of idea is he? What kind am I

Rushdie then describes in equally moving detail the moment of revelation itself (“no, no, nothing like an epileptic fit, it can’t be explained away that easily”) culminating in the uttering of “the Words,” the verses later to be deemed satanic, though Rushdie cleverly doesn’t have Mahound speak them just then: Mahound’s eyes open wide, he’s seeing some kind of vision, staring at it, oh, that’s right, Gibreel remembers, me.

He’s seeing me. My lips moving, being moved by. What, by whom? Don’t know, can’t say. Neverthelessm here they are, coming out of my mouth, up my throat, past my teeth: the Words.

Being God’s postman is no fun, yaar.

Butbutbut: God isn’t in this picture.

God knows whose postman I’ve been.

Spoofing the Ayatollah Khomeini

In a lesser-known controversial passage of The Satanic Verses, Rushdie does what he does best: he mercilessly spoofs figures of contemporary history. In this case, Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini—who, in 1989, decreed the sentencing Rushdie to death, along with anyone connected with the publishing and translating of the novel. It’s believed that Khomeini never read the book. Surely though, he must have caught wind of the passage portraying him as a slightly mad, child-killing Imam who launched suicide-soldiers to their death in the Iran-Iraq war:

Gibreel unsderstands that the Imam, fighting by proxy as usual, will sacrifice him as readily as he did the hill of corpses at the palace gate, that he is a suicide soldier in the service of the cleric’s cause.

The “Imam” orders Gibreel to kill Al-Lat:

Down she tumbles, Al-Lat queen of the night; crashes upside-down to earth, crushing her head to bits; and lies, a headless black angel, with her wings ripped off, by a little wicket gate in the palace gardens, all in a crumpled heap.—And Gibreel, looking away from her in horror, sees the Imam grown monstrous, lying in the palace forecourt with his mouth yawning open at the gates; as the people march through the gates he swallows them whole.

https://www.thoughtco.com/salm...tanic-verses-2353503

Rushdie must have read Homer, so much of religion is tied to Greek and Hindu Mythology. Joseph Campbell found universal truths within Hindu myths.

seignet posted:

Rushdie must have read Homer, so much of religion is tied to Greek and Hindu Mythology. Joseph Campbell found universal truths within Hindu myths.

Perhaps. It is clear from his satanic verses book that he never read the Qur’an

Who cares. If there is a God. There will only be one. No one has come from the dead to validate the claims that all these religious people says. Mankind has been brainwashed for centuries about a God and the hereafter. There is not one solid proof to back these up

Religion was created by man so that he may hold power over his fellow man.(my opinion) 

Prashad agrees with the Imam.

Ahmadiyya Muslims already see lord Shiva as a Prophet.  Jews are only 6 million people yet almost every Prophet is a Jew. I don't think that God discriminates.

seignet posted:

Rushdie must have read Homer, so much of religion is tied to Greek and Hindu Mythology. Joseph Campbell found universal truths within Hindu myths.

Someone probably heard of Pegasus and made up a story about Mohamed riding on a horse to Heaven.