Zionists are not the people of Torah. Read more here….
Is the prohibited tree the tree of knowledge?
Our basic instinctints, perceptions, emotions and feelings had to be “given” to us throug our first model. Through that model we keep on passing those characterestics to our next generation and so on. I copied the following Q&A from a website choosing it to be better than other “ready made” commentaries.
Question: In the lessons of the history of religions we read as follows:
What is the forbidden fruit?
As the Old Testament writes in detail and the Holy Quran says in suggestive way. (Forbidden fruit) is insight because on the basis of Quranic verses the Almighty used to call Adam and Eve and without feeling any kind of shame for their nakedness they used to reply. But after eating the forbidden fruit they began to feel ashamed of their nakedness and hid themselves.
In the past they used to see the Lord without any kind of shame. Now after eating the forbidden fruit they are feeling ashamed of their nakedness. The proof is that the condition in which they were till yesterday (nakedness), they were not able to see it and now by eating the forbidden fruit they have received insight and the forbidden tree is the tree of insight.
What did the Almighty desire?
Should man eat the forbidden fruit or not?
We should not view this problem like human stories. That the Almighty did not want that Adam should eat the forbidden fruit. Because if it had been unacceptable to Allah He would not have allowed Adam (‘a) to eat the fruit. (Because the intention of man has no value before the intention of Allah and only that comes to pass which the Almighty desires). Thus the Almighty Allah desired that man should eat this fruit. Because he could not had come into existence without eating this fruit. And it is such a plan that was arranged for by the Almighty Himself. So that man can come into existence and the man who is present now and who with the passing of times will continue to come.
1. As mentioned in the above-mentioned discussion does the forbidden fruit only constitute knowledge and insight?
Answer: We have been asked many questions regarding the points mentioned in those lessons. The above-mentioned is an example of the same. For a satisfactory reply it is necessary for us to mention a few points.
1. As we have mentioned before one clear proof of the interpolation of the present Bible is that in the story of the Creation of Adam it states unequivocally that the forbidden tree was the tree of knowledge and insight or the tree of good and evil on realization explanatory or recognition. (In all the translations of the Bible, give only one meaning. Thus according to clean words of the Bible the first and the greatest sin of man was the sin of knowledge and insight. And probably it is the reason that the church leaders in the middle used to battle against the intellectuals, scientists and writers of their time and they used to dread the spread of this sin. They used to believe that on the first day Adam (‘a) was ignorant that he was not ashamed of his nakedness but when he ate of the forbidden fruit (knowledge and intellect) or became rational being, he became a sinner and he was expelled from Paradise and the proximity of the Lord.
Without any doubt these concocted stories of the historical age. On the contrary the Holy Quran says that before setting in Paradise, Adam (‘a) possessed a vast knowledge and intellect and was to a great extent needless of the tree of knowledge and insight. So much so that he had become the teacher and instructor of the angels.
‘We taught Adam all the names’
Therefore this Adam is absolutely different from the Adam who is described by the Bible. The greatest source of this power of Adam (‘a) is knowledge and insight. And the greatest sin of that Adam is knowledge. This Adam is Adam in the proper sense and that Adam is ignorant from all aspects. This Adam was created for realization and that Adam is commanded that he should not let knowledge and insight enter his mind. In such circumstances it is really a strange thing that the logic of the Quran and the altered Bible should be considered at par.
2. According to Taurat Adam and Hawwa were nude and they did not feel any shame of their nudity. It is right but where does Quran say that both of them were naked and were not ashamed of their nakedness? Rather, on the contrary the Holy Quran clarifies that they had clothes on their bodies even before eating the forbidden fruit and this dress fell away from their bodies after eating the forbidden fruit and they became naked.
…he (Shaitan) expelled your parents from the garden, pulling off from them both their clothing that he might show them their evil inclinations…”
It is also said that:
…the Shaitan made an evil suggestion to them that he might make manifest to them what had been hidden from them of their inclinations….
On the basis of this in the 22nd verse of the same Surah it says:
…their evil inclinations became manifest to them, and they both began to cover themselves with the leaves of the garden…”
This is also in the meaning of the loss of their clothes. It does not mean that they were naked and were not aware of it.
Thus when Quran introduced Adam it says that he was a dressed and respectable person who became naked due to disobedience. (This point is worth noting).
On the contrary the Adam introduced by the Bible was naked from the beginning like animals. So much so that he was not even ashamed of his nakedness. In spite of this clarification of the Holy Quran is it proper that such a thing should be associated with and it should be brought on par with Taurat?
3. The most interesting thing is to interpret “Don’t eat” to mean “You should eat.” Can there be greater fraud in logic? That negative should be taken as positive and evil should be considered good? If the fruit was for eating, why was it named the prohibited tree?
What is this method of interpretation and explanation of meaning. If this method is correct it would be better to judge in the same all the things that are prohibited in the Quran and it should be said that the Almighty had desired thus that this prohibited should be acted upon. And if He had not desired thus He would have prevented the people from acting upon it. We are helpless regarding our actions?
The Almighty described that we should remain free. He gave free will to men and left them on their own but side-by-side he has formulated many rules and regulations for his training.
Thus this comparison is absolutely incorrect that if Allah did not desire that Adam (‘a) should eat the prohibited fruit He would have stopped him. Because in the same way this comparison will come true for the sinners. Actually here there is a misunderstanding regarding freewill and compulsion. (Please note).
Respected readers! Whatever has been stated above, in your view is it not better that before expression such an opinion in the form of a lesson it should be shown to the experts of Islamic problems and published later so that such kinds of misunderstandings are not created.
Please ponder upon it. If a person reads this book and concluded that this tree was the tree of knowledge and wisdom and Adam and Hawwa were naked like the animals and they were not knowing this and after eating the prohibited fruit of the tree of knowledge they came to know and they hid from the sight of Allah and later as the punishment for acquiring knowledge of wisdom they were expelled from there, then who would be responsible for this belief of his?
The facts learnt from the sources of guidance is that the prohibited tree “tree of jealously and a kind of adversion.” Or there was something similar to this and Adam was involved in this. (Although it was not the jealously that could tantamount to jealously or due to it, the hands should be smeared with sins):
This statement could be explained in the way that Hazrat Adam (‘a) was informed of the condition of his descendants and he saw among them such exalted prophets who were having higher grades than him. On this juncture he desired that the position of these personalities would have been achieved by himself even though in spite of his merits he had not reached to that position. This same desire distanced him from the Paradise and that was his tree of prohibition. Though in some traditions wheat is mentioned as the prohibited tree whose prohibition had an aspect of trial.
 Surah Baqarah 2:31
 Surah Aaraf 7:27
 Surah Aaraf 7:20
 Surah Aaraf 7:22
Following post was written by a young activist in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Some people term the situation in that country “War on Islam” playing out in full swing. The victims as in almost all the cases are innocent, unarmed and non-political students and teachers from traditional Islamic educational institution called Madrasahs.
A Brief Account of the Episode: After the death of Mohammed, he was succeeded by Abu Bakr, Omar and Osman, as the Caliphs: all three were related to him by marriage alliances. Osman was not popular and was assassinated. After his death, Hazrat AlL the son-in-law of Mohammed (he was also his first cousin) who was married to the Prophet’s third daughter and the only surviving issue, Bibi Fatima Zahira, became the 4th Caliph. There was stiff opposition to Ali’s rule from Amir Moavia, a known protege of Osman. He fought with him a bitter war for 5 years and finally got him murdered in a mosque of Koofa, his mausoleum with a golden dome, stands in the nearby town of Najaf (Iraq). After the extermination of Ali, Moavia grabbed the Caliphate and converted the Islamic state into a kingdom, After his death, his notorious son Yazid became the next ruler. However, the rightful claimants of the Caliphate were the descendants of Hazrat Ali, namely, Hassan and Hussain. While Hassan abdicated his claim to the crown and later died of suspected poisoning, his younger brother Imam Hussain who was till then leading a secluded life in Medina, came out and challenged the usurper, Yazid. It was the war of attrition between the two which led to the bloodshed of Karbala (102 km south of Baghdad), on Oct. 10, 680 AD.
The participation of the Mohyals Brahmins and more precisely that of a Dutt family living in Arabia at that time, in the holy war, is a fact of the history. They were a part of the entourage of 200 men and women, including 72 members of Hussain’s family (40 on foot and 32 on horseback), when he left Medina and made an arduous trek to Karbala, where he had a large friendly following. After 18 days, i.e. on the 2nd. day of Mohurrum, the Hussain’s caravan reached Karbala, on the bank of river Euphrates and surrounded by a hostile desert. On the 7th day of Mohurrum, all hell broke out when 30,000 strong army sent by Yazid from Mecca and other places, attacked them. 6,000 soldiers guarded the river bank to ensure that not a drop of water reached the Hussain’s thirsty innocents. By sunset of 10th (Ashoor), a Friday, all were dead including his step brother Abbas (32), his son Ali Akbar (22), daughter Skeena (4) and 6 months old infant Ali Asghar who was killed by an arrow while perched in his lap. Imam Hussain himself was slain with thirty three strokes of lances and swords by Shimr, the hatchet man of ignominious Yazid. The ruffians of Yazid, as they ran carrying the smitten head of Hussain to the castle of Koofa, were chased by Rahab. He retrieved the holy man’s head, washed it reverentially and then carried it to Damascus. According to legend, he was overtaken by Yazid’s men during his ovenight shelter on the way.
They demanded Hussain’s head from him: Rahab executed the head of one of his sons and offered to them. They shouted that it was not the Hussain’s head, then he beheaded his second son and they again yelled that it was not his. In this way Rahab executed the heads of his seven sons but did not part with the head of Imam Hussain. Later, after one year, it was buried in Karbala along with rest of his body.
The intrepid Datts rallied round Amir Mukhtar, the chief of the partisans of Imam Hussain, fought with extraordinary heroism and captured and razed the fort of Koofa, seat of Yazid’s governor, Obaidullah, the Butcher. After scoring a resounding victory on the battlefield, they beat the drums and yelled out that they had avenged the innocent blood of Hussain shed at Karbala.
It is also significant to note that even before the Karbala incident, Hazrat Ali had entrusted the public exchequer to the regiment of the valiant Datts, at the time of the Battle of Camels fought near Basra.
The above provides an impeccable evidence about tha pragmatic role played by the Datt Mohyals in the catastrophe of Karbala. There are more than a dozen ballads composed centuries ago which vividly and with great passion describe the scenario of the historic event.
Interestingly, in the Preface of his famous historical novel, titled Karbala, published in 1924 from Lucknow, Munshi Prem Chand has stated that the Hindus who fought and sacrificed their lives in the holy war of Karbala, are believed to be the descendants of Ashvathama.This clearly establishes their link with the Datts who consider Ashvathama as an ancestor of their clan.
Later on, when Sunnis let loose an orgy of vendetta on Shias and Datts, Datts returned to their motherland around 700 AD and settled at Dina Nagar, District Sialkot (vide Bandobast Report of Gujarat by Mirza Azam Beg page 422 and folk songs) and some drifted to as far as the holy Pushkar in Rajasthan. Starting from Harya Bandar (modern Basra on the bank of river Tigris) with swords in hand and beating durms, they forced their way through Syria and Asia Minor and marching onwards captured Ghazni, Balkh and Bukhara. After annexing Kandhar, they converged on Sind and crossing the Sind at Attock they entered the Punjab.
An ancestor of Rahab named Sidh Viyog Datt assumed the title of Sultan and made Arabia (old name Iraq) his home. He was a tough and tenacious fighter. He was also known as Mir Sidhani. He was a worshipper of Brahma. He was the son of the stalwart Sidh Jhoja (Vaj) who was a savant and saint and lived in Arabia (Iraq) around 600 AD.
The supporters of Hassan and Hussain honoured the Datts with the htle of ‘Hussaini Brahmin’ and treated them with great reverence in grateful recognition of the supreme sacrifices made by them in the war of Karbala. According to Jang Nama, written by Ahmed Punjabi, pages 175-176, it was ordained on the Shias to recite the name of Rahab in their daily prayer. At the time to the Karbala, fourteen hundred Hussaini Brahmins lived in Baghdad alone