certifired_img

Books and Documents

Ijtihad, Rethinking Islam (20 Jul 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   160


  • Ha Ha lol
    What truth????
    Every spiritual truth is a personal experience of a individual....
    For a individual his own personal spiritual experience is the only truth...
    How can you claim anybody else can show us a spiritual truth....
    A person can only show material truth and its IMPOSSIBLE to show spiritual truth....
    A person can write his own spiritual experience ...
    But claim it's the only truth is absolute foolish....
    Hope you know the difference between spiritual truth and material truth... Ha Ha lol
    Make sure I get notified

    By Venugopal Bhat - 8/3/2017 1:36:45 AM



  • We must applaud Mr. Afzal for patiently explaining. Asim, if you are my neighbour, I'm sure I don't have to worry to the least.
    By Chetan Nayak - 8/3/2017 1:36:15 AM



  • @krishnendu choudhury- Please look at muslims around you, that you meet on a daily basis and let me know how many of them according to you are hardliners. I can guarantee you this, the majority of the muslims around you are like.me. the "hardliners" as you put it are a small minority. Like the Hardliners in Hinduism are a small minority but they are in power aren't they? and look what they are doing to India. The point is, don't act on what the hardliners want us to do and there will be peace. Simple.
    By Asim Afzal - 8/3/2017 1:35:52 AM



  • Deedat konpadhne ki zaroorat hsi kiya. Islam ki mustanad kitab men zikr hai ki prophet saheb chahte the ki quraish ke sardaar iman qubool kar len. Ek baar unhone laat, manat aur uzza jo quraish ki deviyan thi ki bhi taareef ki. Quraish khush ho gaye. Ki chalo jhagda khatm hua. Prophet ko galti ka ahsas hua sur is baat ko shsitan ke gale men daal di. Jab allah prophet ki hifazat karte the the prophet shaitan ki baat ksise kah gaye. Quraish to sulah chahte the ki hamare maaboodon ko bhibjagah mil jaaye. Iske liye prophet tayyar nahi hue. Jhsgda badhta gaya aur shahar chhodna pada.
    By Mohd Ansari - 8/3/2017 1:35:27 AM



  • @Jayaraman Subri- lol. No wonder you comment the way you do. Hope you find peace and an iota of intelligence in your life time
    By Asim Afzal - 8/3/2017 1:35:03 AM



  • Proof .. of " Peaceful Religion "

    By Jayaraman Subri - 8/3/2017 1:32:30 AM



  • No proof of truth has provided so far. So kafir are right not believing in so called truth.
    By Mohd Ansari - 8/3/2017 1:31:54 AM



  • Sadly because of kafirs u are using Facebook and because of true Muslims people are dying ..... I am proud being a kafir rather being part of that religion which restricts free thinking on every step
    By Aakash Dabas - 8/3/2017 1:31:28 AM



  • All non Muslims should watch "Deedat on Rushdi" for what he said about other religions beside lslam .... warning for Non Muslim theists
    By Ashiq Naik - 8/3/2017 1:31:04 AM



  • All muslims should read the satanic verses written by salman rashdi to know about koranic verses. Also you people should read 'Rangila Rashul'. And it will open thier eyes completely
    By Ashutosh Pandey - 8/3/2017 1:30:30 AM



  • @Sudhir Bharti- read the Qur'an first. Then we'll debate.
    By Asim Afzal - 8/3/2017 1:30:01 AM



  • Dear Abhilash Nambiar!

    Rape Law in Islam is NOT based on any Qur'anic ruling. The Qur'an says if a man brings a charge of adultery against his wife he must bring four witnesses to support his claim. It never talks about a rape victim bringing four witnesses. This is based on the rulings of the jurists which are collectively called Shariah Law of Islam, the word Islam denotes Muslim/ Islamic societies, not Islamic faith. If you want to enlighten yourself, kindly read this article:

    AN EPILOGUE TO THE RECENT ANTI-SHARIA LAW RALLIES ACROSS AMERICAN CITIES: The Dichotomy between Sharia Law of Islam (Islamic Law) and the Sharia of Islam

    http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/an-epilogue-to-the-recent-anti-sharia-law-rallies-across-american-cities--the-dichotomy-between-sharia-law-of-islam-(islamic-law)-and-the-sharia-of-islam/d/111595



    By muhammd yunus - 8/3/2017 1:29:56 AM



  • Can anyone show me the truth???pls show me,not tell me.Remember whatever u say is not TRUTH!
    By Sarvadaman Krishna Banerji - 8/3/2017 1:29:29 AM



  • This is pure propaganda,totally ignorant about quran. Why don't you say sultan lone , you are totally ignorant of modern ideas. Who is impressed if you say we are ignorant of islam. You deliberately try to see more meaning than is required. I bet I will explain to you whole quran. But sadly I do not understand rocket science. So both of us are ignorant in a way. But please don't tell us about moral lessons and frightening verses.
    By Bilhan Kaul - 8/3/2017 12:15:38 AM



  • I have nothing personal..and I have best freinds in Muslims..we were just discussing a topic..that's all
    By Om Prakash Pandey - 8/3/2017 12:12:42 AM



  • Forget all - we all are humans created by only ONE creator.
    Let us respect each other and WORK for peace, mutual trust & brotherhood and for better futures of our children.

    By Azhar Jameel - 8/3/2017 12:12:19 AM



  • M Sultan Jee! Then all debate ends..liberal and extrimist...both r on the same page..with Kafirs and Zehad, Sunnat..u can't take stand against extrmists
    By Om Prakash Pandey - 8/3/2017 12:08:26 AM



  • @Om Prakash Pandey ji totally ignorant about The Holy Quran. How is it man mad. It is revealed by Allah to His prophet ( pbuh ) through an angel jibrael.
    By M Sultan Lone - 8/2/2017 11:56:49 PM



  • @ Azhar Jameel A rape is proved only if there are 4 witnesses...as if rapist would rape in the presence of 4 people..... Now if you say Allah wrote this in sharia then you might be insulting him....
    By Abhilash Nambiar - 8/2/2017 11:47:04 PM



  • Aur ye jo lone wolf begunahon ko mar rahe hain na Alla-ho-Akbar karte hue..wo usi Kaafir aur Zehad ki factory se nikle hain..unko samjhate rahiye peace..wo aapko Kaafir bata k maar denge
    By Om Prakash Pandey - 8/2/2017 11:40:02 PM



  • Aatankwad ki shuruwat Afganistan me Talibaan se hui..Russia,Pakistan aur Afganistan k conflict me senaen ladtin..ye madarson se ladke kyun bheje gaye Zehad k naam pe...haan daliton aur musalmanon ko go-raksha k naam pe maara gaya..mere wall pe chale jaiyega..aaj tak ek bhi post gau-mata k liye nahi lagai balki go-rakshakon k khilaaf likhta raha hun..yahan hum ek-dusre k relegion ko superior dikhane ki koshish na karen...mera bar-bar prashn wahi hai..local conflict Zehad kaise ho jaata hai..America se bada doshi aabka wahabism hai jo Zehad k naam pe naye ladkon ko uksaata hai..
    By Om Prakash Pandey - 8/2/2017 11:39:20 PM



  • Atankwad ka jer na hum hae na hamara mulk Bharat - is ki shuraat America - Iraq war hae. Wepons of maas destruction ke naam pe pure mulk ko tabah ker dia - us ka side effect abhi tak hae
    Lekin kuch dino se jo dalit aur musalman ko kai wajah se mar kat rahe hae us se unko exploit kia ja sakta he jo hum sub aur hamare bachho ke lie kafi ghatak ho sakta he
    Quran kisi ko nahaq marne ke lie sakhti se mana kerta hae - agar kisi ko nahaq qatal ki to woh papi hae jaese us ne sari insaniat ka qatal kia ho
    Quran yeh bhi kahta hae ke agar koi kisi ek insan ka jan bachata he( hidndu/muslim/sikh/isai koi bhi ho) to woh punn ey ka kam hae jaese us ne sari insaniat ki jaan bachaya ho.
    Ab Islam me is ki gunjaish kahan hae.

    By Azhar Jameel - 8/2/2017 11:34:09 PM



  • Liberal Islmalist should come forward and explain Quran to all .We all Know it has been written During or after war and many things written Against non believers/Kafirs what ever it may be.It may be right During that period but now it require explanation from Islamist People who can explain and to whom all must believe.
    By Diptendu Prakash Misra - 8/2/2017 11:33:07 PM



  • Azgar bhai! U say Quran says this..the terrorists say that Quran says that..topic closed..Quran is holy for Muslims like others have their own..but any Holy Book is written on a certain time frame..u have travelled a lot..unless u stop telling ur fellow that Quran is a holy book but is man made..u r not going to achieve anything..positive things attracks less than negative things..and that is happening..any political conflict in Islamic countries are changed in ur Zehad vs my Zehad..onlt alla knows which Zehad is true or both r wrong
    By Om Prakash Pandey - 8/2/2017 11:26:59 PM



  • Quran say do'nt make adverse comments on other religions or on its people and make mutual trust with them for peaceful coexistance
    But as most of the peoples even in Islam are illeterate and are being exploited by others in the name of religions both in hindus & muslims and common men are suffering

    By Azhar Jameel - 8/2/2017 11:24:31 PM



  • @Azhar bhai..what I had said first is the point..no one is going to buy ur peace theory unless u r reasonable..the so called Caliphates like ISIS sells Zehad and u r also..shake the ground..or nothig could be achieved
    By Om Prakash Pandey - 8/2/2017 11:22:34 PM



  • Om P Pandey ji - Islam is a religion of peace BUT allows muslims for "jehad" when they are attacked, killed, women' are humiliated and .......OR their religious practices are in danger.
    For mulims as per QURAN real life starts ONLY after death.

    By Azhar Jameel - 8/2/2017 11:19:39 PM



  • @Syedmir Javidshah, It's blind following has actually restricted the logical thinking beyond 7th Century. It may be possible that the book was relevant and progressive during that age and primitive society. Abbasid Caliphate became golden period of Islam because of Mutazili movement or Inquisition, not due to present closeness of Mind enforced by Quran.
    By Vijay Tiwari - 8/2/2017 11:18:35 PM



  • @Om Prakash Pandey Quran is not man made it has been revealed from allah. It is unchangeable
    By Syedmir Javidshah - 8/2/2017 11:17:27 PM



  • Mr. Javidshah! then there is no topic to talk about any good things..bcoz no compromise and self-supremacy has no solutions..like ur Zehad..christians had Crusade in Bible and they were more cruel than ur terrorists..but they got civilized than any other, being a Hindu I can say it without any hesitation..and if u r not willing to compromise then there is no difference them(terrorists) and u...don't pretend to be liberal
    By Om Prakash Pandey - 8/2/2017 11:16:56 PM



  • Mr Om Prakash Pandey u r speaking the same language which jews Christians and kafirs of Arab had spoken. Once the uncle of prophet mohammed peace be upon him said(abu talib who adopted him as the prophet was an orphan )that kindly accept some thing of leadership of kafirs of mecca and make reconciliation. In return he said "if they will hand over sun in my right hand and moon in my left hand i will never comprise".
    By Syedmir Javidshah - 8/2/2017 11:16:18 PM



  • Islam is religion of peace but Muslims all over the world manipulated and exploited the Islam for their own benefits, that is why there is unrest in Muslim society.
    By Kina Bhaw Khojeko - 8/2/2017 11:12:21 PM



  • This is the mute question, why so much of confusion, misquoting and misuse of only one religion by its own followers and need a change by them alone to keep pace with the requirements of the changing times as has been done by all other religions of the world, because change is the truth and law that governs human life in the world. Those who cannot change with time are called dead !!
    By Pooran Chandra Pande - 8/1/2017 7:34:07 PM



  • Mansoor Sahab..... exactly the opposite has been done by the Muslim invaders who invaded India. Mass murder, rape of women & forcible conversion were the characteristic features of Muslim invasion. Even now Islamic terrorists do the same thing. And they are faithful followers of Muhammad, your prophet.
    By Biplab Sensarma - 8/1/2017 7:33:41 PM



  • Mr Biplab Sensarma, The Holy Qur'an states that you cannot force Islam on others. If some one is going against the path declared in Qur'an than he/she ceases to be a Muslim. Forcible conversion and alluring some one with rewards or bribe is absolutely rejected by Islam.
    By Mansoor Sahab - 8/1/2017 7:33:18 PM



  • In Pakistan & Bangladesh, the Islamic radicals openly threaten the non-Muslims to convert or die. The state also provide patronage to these fanatics.
    By Biplab Sensarma - 8/1/2017 7:27:38 PM



  • Leave East ser west .... no Muslim is forcing them to convert to Islam ..... watch documentaries "Inside Islam" - History Channel. ...... "Turning Texas Muslim"


    By Ashiq Naik - 8/1/2017 7:24:33 PM



  • @Md. Mosaib Muslims have the highest conversion rate because Islam is a proselytizing religion & Muslims force their religion on others by terrorist activities. Islam, in general, has no appeal on non-Muslims.


    By Biplab Sensarma - 8/1/2017 7:18:47 PM



  • @Biplab Sensarma  Even after all that why do you think that Muslim has the highest conversion rate what the people of different religion finds it so much fascinating
    By Md Mosaib - 8/1/2017 7:17:27 PM



  • My humble question to all these apologists of radical Islam is that why is it that Quran is often misquoted or misunderstood by its followers when no such thing happens in case of other holy books like Bible or Geeta & their followers ? Don't you think something must be wrong with the religion itself ? And what about the moral character of Muhammad, the founder of Islam ? Should one consider him to be great ?
    By Biplab Sensarma - 8/1/2017 7:10:12 PM



  • Two part of India called Bangladesh and Pakistan had became completely Muslim, Bangladesh is just finishing infinished business.
    India will or even any country cannot remain secular when Muslim pollution increase.

    Asim Afzal can show me place where Hindus(except poor)are living in secular setup in Muslim areas in India itself.

    Bullying majority is fulltime business all Muslims  around the world, when they live in minority.

    In India Muslims should be called as second largest majority not minority.


    By Aayina - 8/1/2017 2:08:30 AM



  • @Asim you can not change the definition of the word Kafir. Consult the commentry on quran by Moulana Yusuf Ali which is most authentic. Not everyone among Hindus are ignorant of Islamism. Read Allama Iqbal and you will get the correct notion of your Majahab.
    By Sudhir Bharti - 7/31/2017 2:40:13 AM



  • @Jatin dhanawat- It's strange how only Sanghis cowards keep talking about ghazwa e hind. 90% of the Muslims don't even know what ghazwa e hind is. I also got to know about it from some Sanghis. And you can keep dreaming about a Hindu rashtra. All the best
    By Asim Afzal - 7/31/2017 2:34:27 AM



  • @Asim Afzal, it is the Muslims who are Cowards as Spreading Terrorism is the Highest Form of Cowardice. But in Hindus, you have met the brave who have resisted the Islamic Onslaught for 1400+ years and have now Chosen to Retaliate. Sanatan has been all Accommodating but Since the like of You have Delusional Views, Know that Gazwa-E-Hind WILL NOT Materialise... For All Bigoted Muslims!
    By Jatin Dhanawat - 7/31/2017 2:33:24 AM



  • What a lovely way to debate!! Share bigoted cartoons. Lol
    By Asim Afzal - 7/31/2017 2:26:01 AM



  • @ Shyam Sundar Mishra- rejecting any book without reading it??? That's funny and sad.
    By Asim Afzal - 7/31/2017 2:20:14 AM



  • @Hanuman Vyas how does that make sense?
    After a study all our Acharyas have declared it a beginner level idea....are they all Kaffirs?


    By Shyam Sundar Mishra - 7/31/2017 2:16:36 AM



  • It means persons like myself who reject the Book based on sound philosophy.
    By Shyam Sundar Mishra - 7/31/2017 2:14:44 AM



  • @Jayaraman Subri- nothing will change. India will remain secular forever. you and your coward Sanghis can keep dreaming about turning it into a Hindu rashtra.
    By Asim Afzal - 7/31/2017 2:13:31 AM



  • Muslims in India have been taking US Hindus for granted for too LONG ..
    By Jayaraman Subri - 7/31/2017 1:56:50 AM



  • @Vijay Tiwari- good. neither are muslims
    By Asim Afzal - 7/31/2017 1:56:21 AM



  • @Sudhir Bharti- cause if you had read the Qur'an, you would have definitely known what kafir means. Anyway, I don't want to waste my time debating with the likes of you. You can continue with your propoganda. It won't make any difference. All the best.
    By Asim Afzal - 7/31/2017 1:55:55 AM



  • @Asim, how come you know that I did not read Quran? More over knowledge of Arabic is not a condition to read the book. I do know English and Hindi. The most authentic explanation of the book is by Moulana Yusuf and that is available in English.
    By Sudhir Bharti - 7/31/2017 1:45:48 AM



  • Kafir r means non believers who is not considered humans as per arabs & Muslims they can b killed maimed taxed slaved raped & can b treated as object
    By Karthikeyan Muthu Sundararajan - 7/31/2017 1:42:51 AM



  • @Sudhir Bharti- you do not know Arabic nor have you read the Qur'an. It's pretty evident with the way you have rambled on without understanding a word I have written. You can continue to live with your quarter knowledge and bigoted existence. All the best.
    By Asim Afzal - 7/31/2017 1:38:15 AM



  • Kafir is a word for him who does not belief in Islam and is a very derogatory word. Murtad is the word for the man born to muslim parents but refused to follow islam. Do not confuse between the two. Kafir is an abuse and liable to be looted humiliated and killed. Muslim does not believe in equal rights and coexistence. World wide it has shown this. One must be clear in mind while dealing with them.
    By Sudhir Bharti - 7/31/2017 1:36:23 AM



  • Non-Muslim are not interested in 72 hoors.
    By Vijay Tiwari - 7/31/2017 1:31:42 AM



  • Most of Muslims will be in hell fire with non Muslims because of sinful deeds. It not easy to achieve jannat
    By Syedmir Javidshah - 7/31/2017 1:31:13 AM



  • This claim makes Islam non-suitable for democracies & reform -_-
    By Deep Bhatnagar - 7/30/2017 10:51:36 PM



  • Seems like a claim from someone who is brainwashed into following quran from childhood & now feels the need to justify its existence
    By Biru Biswas - 7/30/2017 10:50:55 PM



  • The theory of heaven put forward by Islam shows weakness of mind that could not conceive any thing beyond senses.Man has not only reason, he has not only senses there is much in him which is beyond the senses.If any one says he has communication with God,& is mouth piece of God Almighty & no one else & that communication is fraught & fraud.If he can why not others.This is unreasonable.Bear me out Islam is not universal religion.Whole universe is governed by laws.What is anywhere must be every where is the law of nature.Air, is every where, sunshine is every where, water is every where, earth is every where.These bounties of nature are for one & all without any distinction. Shows the greatness of God.Islam is good very good for Muslims only for others (i.e for Non Muslims) it is a bane.
    By Behare Lal Dhar - 7/30/2017 10:49:31 PM



  • Naseer sb.,
    “Surely… we cannot imagine any certainty that is not tinged with doubt, or any assurance that is not assailed by some anxiety.” – John Calvin.
    May God protect you from excessive certainty.
    This will be my last post in this thread.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/30/2017 1:02:30 PM



  • GM Sb,

    An opinion should be prefaced with ‘I believe’ or ‘I think’ or ‘I feel’.

    Mathematical proofs and logical conclusions are presented as conclusions with data, reasoning, and conclusion. Mathematics and Physics also rely on axioms and postulates which are taken to be true unless we are questioning the axiom or postulates themselves. Anything that I say based on the Quran is its logically derived meaning. I hate to merely interpret or express opinions and what I say is based on a thorough analysis which should be obvious to anyone who reads my articles. It is otherwise not possible to come up with conclusions that diverge from the collective view of the scholars so often and so consistently without being proven wrong even once. I may still make an error but I put pressure on myself by not taking refuge behind safe harbours such as "God knows best" and other forms of disclaimer. Safe harbours like "God knows best" should certainly be used when one is genuinely not sure but not otherwise. I stick my neck out both with the reader and with God. So may God help me avoid mistakes and correct me immediately when I do.



    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/30/2017 2:54:52 AM



  • Dear Sunil Menon,

    You make a great point. If the real meaning of Islam is peace, the Muslims should set the standard pd peace.

    By muhammd yunus - 7/30/2017 2:15:58 AM



  • Dear Behari Lal, Look around the world today. People are killing others not because of religion but for plunder, loot, lust for political power and commercial reasons and use religion to justify their violence. Religion has been used as an ideological military resource throughout history. Muslims today are killing far more no. of Muslims - Saudi war against Yemen 14000 already dead. Iran-Iraq war, Pak Army operation in its Eastern Wing, Civil war in Algeria in the 90' each took more than a hundred thousand lives of Muslims by Muslims. Nader Shah Durrani's massacre in Delhi on March 22, 1739 is recorded as follows re wiki: "Areas of Delhi such as Chandni Chowk and Dariba Kalan, Fatehpuri, Faiz Bazar, Hauz Kazi, Johri Bazar and the Lahori, Ajmeri and Kabuli gates, all of which were densely populated by both Hindus and Muslims, were soon covered with corpses. Muslims, like Hindus, resorted to killing their women, children and themselves rather than submit to the Afsharid soldiers. Casualties It has been estimated that during the course of six hours in one day, 22 March 1739, something like 20,000 to 30,000 Indian men, women and children were slaughtered by the Afsharid troops during the massacre in the city.[8] Exact casualty figures are uncertain, as after the massacre, the bodies of the victims were simply buried in mass burial pits or cremated in grand funeral pyres without any proper record being made of the numbers cremated or buried So don't think the Muslims rulers went by religion while invading or killing others. If they really wanted to kill by religion there would have been only one religion in India - that of the invaders and that is not the case.
    By muhammd yunus - 7/30/2017 2:07:01 AM



  • Dear Aayina, The Qur'an does not prevent a person from leaving Islam and becoming atheist or joining any other faith. What kind of God will it be that is partizan to the followers of only one of its messengers. The Qur'an asks all humanity to use reason and declares: "Indeed the worst kind of all living creatures in God’s sight are the deaf and dumb, who do not use reason” (8:22).
    By muhammd yunus - 7/30/2017 1:39:36 AM



  • Dear Behari Lal Dhar,
    The answer to your question is as follows that i request you to read closely.

    In Qur’anic vocabulary, the term 'islam' is used for any religion that enjoins submission to God and a commitment to doing good to humanity (2:112, 4:125, 41:33). In other words, the Qur’an does not restrict the title muslim to the followers of the Prophet Muhammad alone. Accordingly, God promises rewards to all believers in God and the Day of Judgment – Muslims, Jews, Christians and Sabians - and of any other religion if they do good deeds (2:62, 5:69) and believe in God - that is One Supreme Creator and Sustainer of everything - rab il alamin - as the opening verse of the Qur'an mentions.

     It is also notable that the Qur’an asks we Muslims to believe in all the prophets, even if they are not mentioned in the Qur’an (4:164, 40:78) and in all previously revealed scriptures and not to make any distinction between them.
    By muhammd yunus - 7/30/2017 1:33:21 AM



  • @Shahab Uddin
    Brother there is no new age Islam.Islam is the same for all ages.The enemies of Muslims are trying to malign it.


    By Hilal Ahmad - 7/30/2017 12:35:44 AM



  • @Hilal Ahmad u r absolutely right sir but what is this new age islam humiliating the islamic theology.


    By Shahab Uddin - 7/30/2017 12:10:46 AM



  • Mr.Tanmoy Ghosh
    You seem to have misunderstood my point. The point is Islam has never allowed terrorism n bloodshed.Sir every verse of the Quran has a context n some people pick up a single verse from Quran n then see it out of the context.plz you must understand Quran is categorical when it comes to harming any innocent. Quran says if you kill an innocent person, it as if you have killed the whole human race.So please look at the things in their proper context.

    By Hilal Ahmad - 7/30/2017 12:08:07 AM



  • @Hilal Ahmad So, you admit that given a chance you will kill me and all hindus like me .... 😂😂
    By Tanmoy Ghosh - 7/30/2017 12:06:24 AM



  • The Quran when read seperately may not be undertstood by every reader in the first read, but do and dont of life is amply clear and explained. Many parts of Quran is revealed in direct context to the events unfolding at the time of the prophet(sa). The kafir word has been the bone of contention between the muslims and the rest of humanity. The word has been used for all non muslims by almost all muslims. It is only when common ordinary followers of Islam bègin to understand the truè meaning of this word and accept that all humans are equal in the eye of Allah the problem of exclusivity of Islam will remain.
    By Shakil Ahmed - 7/30/2017 12:05:36 AM



  • Quran is not subject to any subjective analysis. One can't interpret Quran as per his whims and fancy. Quran n Hadith are complimentary to each other. The so called liberal Muslims are the worst enemies of Islam.They are interested in that interpretation of Quran which might be acceptable to their masters in the West.Shame on these hypocrites.
    By Hilal Ahmad - 7/30/2017 12:05:01 AM



  • Religionist is unable to predict. any thing on earth. All predictions are about their nvisible products
    By Satishkumar Govind - 7/29/2017 10:43:05 PM



  • Enough is said about the 'exact' meaning of the terms in Koran. What is needed is concerted efforts among Muslims, both the extremists and the liberals to initiate a dialogue and brainstorming about how to stop terrorism. Counter accusations about Maoist terror and the so-called saffron terror will not help. If the real meaning of Islam is peace, then Muslims should set an example by observing true peace.
    By Sunil Menon - 7/29/2017 10:42:46 PM



  • New age needs new book
    New syllabus and new curriculum 
    Modernity is needed 
    Museum is the place to keep old books

    By Oshok Dubey - 7/29/2017 10:42:17 PM



  • My dear bro @Behare Lal Dhar islaam is the only religion who believe on live and let live. I don, t want say that then who is behind it bcz u will naver accept it. I will tell u a story of our pfofitt mohaamed ( s a w) one day some non muslims were came from neghbouring country to arab propfit mohammad peace be upon him took them with him and provide shelter. They were resting on our holly place MASJID nabwi they were trying to go out of masque for pryer but my beloved proffit peace be upon him took them in the masque and told them that u can wirship your god in our masque it masque for muslims and mandir for non muslims.. This was our profit mohhamad peace be upon him.. And if u want disscuss these matters come in front of us we will prove that is right which is in the quraan..
    By Mudasir Mir - 7/29/2017 10:35:35 PM



  • Main idea of holy Quran is that there can be only one religion that is Islam, there is only book that is Quran, There is one prophet that is Prophet Mohammad, but the idea is not true.No race is born to alone enjoy the world.Each one has to play ones role in a divine harmony.Most of us are born believers of a particular religion.People who do atrocities in the name of religion play only politics. The Muslim atrocities on Hindus, Jains, Buddhists & Sikhs by Muslims was incited because they were Infidels.This is the backbone of confrontation.When Islam will believe in Live & let Live all these confrontations will disappear from the globe.This is perpetrating others to follow to as to.
    By Behare Lal Dhar - 7/29/2017 10:34:42 PM



  • Why no religious scholar can predict when cyclone will hit shore while scientists can do it Religionist is marketing an invisible product for which you have to pay now and wait till death to see it hopefully and different versions of product are marketed some under threat
    By Satishkumar Govind - 7/29/2017 10:30:37 PM



  • Subhaan allha
    By Asharul Khan - 7/29/2017 10:30:14 PM



  • Vartman me jiyo bhaiyon, one should make his own religious view as education gives power to think right way.
    By Shashi Satpute - 7/29/2017 10:29:46 PM



  • on the note to Mohmmad Yunus and Ayan Hirsi Ali, that every region was having different relgion before Islam came, it's true and do not have revert to pre-Islamic ear and gods,  but than humans should have equal chance of leaving Islam and make it history.

    Human values and morality can be derived and will be changed time to time on with new changes in society.

    By Aayina - 7/29/2017 4:32:23 PM



  • Naseer sahib says, "To say that only God knows the truth is to receive the Quran with ingratitude and ingratitude to God is kufr."

    You have every right to hold that view but you should also acknowledge that other views exist. Instead of saying, "I know," perhaps you should say, "I believe".

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/29/2017 12:58:56 PM



  • Dear Mohammad Ansari,

    This is how the recording and compilation of the Qur'an and preservation of its textual integrity is recorded in my jt. publication, Essential Message of Islam:

    "The Prophet’s followers memorized the passages of revelation as it unfolded for oral preservation, while the scribes wrote them down on dry palm leaves, camel hides, paper scroll etc. When any writing material was not at hand, they inscribed them on white stone, animal bones, hardened clay, wooden tablets etc. These early records and inscriptions were then written down on sheets (suhuf),

    “Nay! The Qur’an is a message (80:11) for anyone who wants to remember (12), (retained) in honored pages (suhuf) (13), elevated and immaculate (14), (written) by the hands of scribes (15) – noble and virtuous” (80:16).

    Some of the Prophet’s companions, notably, Ibn Mas‘ud, Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b, Zayd Ibn Thabit, ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib compiled their own manuscripts (masahif). Zayd bin Thabit, the foremost among the Prophet’s scribes collated all the original sheets (suhuf) within two to three years of the Prophet's death (632). These were retained originally by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr (632-634), then by the second Caliph, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab (634-644), then by Hafsah bint ‘Umar, one of the Prophet’s widows, and finally authenticated by the special committee set up by the third Caliph, ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan (644-656).

    The personal manuscripts of the Prophet’s companions showed nominal differences in spelling, arrangement and numbering of chapters (Suras) and synonyms. Uthman's commission cross checked Hafsah's original sheets (suhuf) with each of these manuscripts as well as with the memorized litany, and arrived at a ‘singular' text, which had the concurrence of all the companions of the Prophet, and was declared authentic without doubt (mutawattir). He made five copies and sent one copy each to Egypt, Syria and other dominions of Islam. Three of the copies have survived, and modern secular research has established that except for dots and orthographic marks that were introduced later,  they are identical to what we have today.

    Historical accuracy of Qur'anic records

    As there was a gap of some twenty years between the conclusion of the Qur’anic revelation and the preparation of Uthman’s manuscripts, there remains a possibility of at least a marginal alteration or tampering in the interim period as has been voiced by some quarters. But human memory, particularly in relation to a rhythmic narration as the Qur’an is, gets indelibly engraved in the brain. It can fade over time but unlike a written record, it cannot lend itself to a partial deletion or corruption without any detection by the memorizer. In the case of the Qur’an, the huffaz (the memorizers) must have been reciting the Qur’an regularly through those 20 years as any hafiz does this very day. So, there is absolutely no likelihood for any of them to corrupt or forget any word or verse of the Qur’an.


    By muhammd yunus - 7/29/2017 4:31:05 AM



  • Dear Jayaram Subri, All the countries including the Saudi Arabia were non-Muslims before the advent of Islam. So by the logic of Hirshi Ali, they all must revert to their pre-Islamic faiths. The problem is history marches only forward and demographic changes cannot be reversed across long historical timelines. So her views have no substance.
    By muhammd yunus - 7/29/2017 3:07:07 AM



  • Dear Dhinigia,

    You seeme to have hit right at the head of the nail.

    The Qur'an is a living crusade against man's animal instincts and base desires, and since the lower instincts of man dominate him, more so in this era, 'kuch baatein jo quran mei hai wo nahi parhake kuch aur parhata hai'

    Just reflect:

    Which person on earth this day would not like to amass wealth, live in luxury, enjoy company of the young and beautiful of the opposite sex, have all the good things of life for himself or herself. Which person is not liable fall prey to the diverse defilement of mind – arrogance, selfishness, greed, gluttony, prejudice, hatred, bigotry, anger, vengeance, stinginess, fraud, self-righteousness, giving oneself to excesses, sexual freedom, and other innate passions and temptations. How many traders in a typical 3rd world country would not like to maximize profits by unethical means? How many witnesses in the court of law will refrain from giving false witness to save their accused under trial. How many men will keep their wives under divorce notice at their homes allowing them all their pre-divorce facilities? The answer in each case and and many more cases in real life - is barely few for humankind is prone to be controlled by his ego – his animal instincts and readily succumb to the innate defilements of mind. There are other moral strings that were relevant to the era of revelation that included freeing of slaves, forbiddance of adultery, arbitrary punishment, all round empowerment of women and so forth.

    The Qur'an constantly challenges man to subdue his animal instincts -  so
    kuch baatein jo quran mei hai wo nhi parhake kuch aur parhata hai
    By muhammd yunus - 7/29/2017 2:52:13 AM



  • quran is paak.. it is truth...islam means peace... but ppl in the name of islam are creating havoc, kisine islam k naam pe faida utha liya aur kisine apna dukan khol liya... kuch baatein jo quran mei hai wo nhi parhake kuch aur parhata hai... ultimately becoz of some muslims majority of muslims had to suffer.. isiliye quran khud parho aur samjho, saari mualvi same nhi hai.. kuch toh kaafir hai
    .. with love from hindu frnd

    By Dihingia Himanshu - 7/29/2017 1:43:29 AM



  • How do you explain scientifically inaccurate things in religion like flat earth. Sky as ceiling sun getting immersed in water and going to pray in night creation instead of evolution such tales are there in all religios
    By Satishkumar Govind - 7/29/2017 1:40:36 AM



  • Before he slaughters you, let me remind you that he does not  represent Islam


    By Jayaraman Subri - 7/29/2017 1:40:15 AM



  • Fifty plus Islamic Nations, 12 Plus Christian Nations but they want India to be Secular.


    By Jayaraman Subri - 7/29/2017 1:39:35 AM



  • Syria was Christian, Iran was Zoroastrian, Pakistan was Hindu and Afghanistan was Budhist......



    By Jayaraman Subri - 7/29/2017 1:39:04 AM



  • Arabs are the True Muslims....


    By Jayaramab Subri - 7/29/2017 1:38:38 AM



  • Quran is a book .. 
    Of the Arabs
    By the Arabs
    For the Arabs
    ALL .. NON Arabs who converted to Islam are Khafirs ..

    By Jayaraman Subri - 7/29/2017 1:37:47 AM



  • In a god's book,there can not be,f.ex; scientific inaccuracies
    By Shehnaz Naikk - 7/29/2017 1:37:08 AM



  • Alhamdulillah Quran is perfect. No need to interpret it according to your own wishes. One day u have to face the testimony.......
    By G Nabi Dar - 7/29/2017 1:36:40 AM



  • U are absolutely right Mohd Ansari sahib.
    By RL Jowhar - 7/29/2017 1:36:09 AM



  • We are all Indians too dating back to aeons
    By Biswadeep Das - 7/29/2017 1:35:50 AM



  • @Mohd Ansari "No comments"
    By Azhar Jameel - 7/29/2017 1:35:21 AM



  • @Azhar Jameel It can be true if we say the Quran compiled by the committee constructed by the Usman is same. The Quran was not compiled in the life of the prophet. There is bigger possibility that something went wrong with its compilation. Hz usman was charged for placing improper persons at key posts. He was murdered by Muslims. You speak a sentence and ask the audience after few minutes and you will see variations in the words and meanings of the sentence in the replay of audience. Claiming that every sahaba had a perfect memory is far fetched idea.
    By Mohd Ansari - 7/29/2017 1:34:24 AM



  • @Rohit Ghosh "We" means muslims
    By Azhar Jameel - 7/29/2017 1:34:02 AM



  • Jameel sahab, what do you mean when you say it has been preserved for more than 1500 years when we were illiterate. What do you mean by 'we'? We Indians were literate 1500 years ago.
    By Rohit Ghosh - 7/29/2017 1:32:37 AM



  • Misleading & shaitanic thinking - it has been preserved since more than 1500 yrs when we all were illeterate and at this point of time also even our combined thinking are not ultimate and as such unable to comment on what it is given in the holy book "QURAN"
    By Azhar Jameel - 7/29/2017 1:10:00 AM



  • @Zamiruddin God has given us brain we should use it and also experience the knowledge given in the Quran. Without experiencing the truth of Quran there is no point in blindly following what is written. In that case we neither believe nor disbelieve. That is a logical approach.
    By Hanuman Vyas - 7/29/2017 1:09:34 AM



  • @Zamiruddin Who gave him the right?
    The constitution. 
    He's not forcing g you to agree with him at gunpoint.

    By Arif Moin - 7/29/2017 1:08:07 AM



  • If you play with Quran by giving your own fancied interoretations do not blame the Quran. Why do you call your New Age Islam? Who gsve you the right to say that? Quran is perfect because it has no two meanings to a word.
    By Zamiruddin - 7/29/2017 1:07:06 AM



  • @Asim Afzal This meaning makes sense.Thanks for explaining this.
    By Hanuman Vyas - 7/29/2017 1:06:17 AM



  • This meaning makes sense.Thanks for explaining this.
    By Hanuman Vyas - 7/29/2017 1:04:42 AM



  • Kaafir means those who have been shown the truth yet deny it either because of their own arrogance or hatred. A muslim born in a muslim family may also end up being a kafir if he/she acts like that. Merely being born in a family belonging to another religion does not make them kafir.
    By Asim Afzal - 7/29/2017 1:03:49 AM



  • The problem with the liberal Muslims is that ,they also don't go beyond Quran..The extrmists pick 'suras' from Quran...Quran is a holy book..but the theory of Allah's book is changing the naratives..why don't u come to the theory that the holy book is man made..and it can be debated an that sense..unless u come to that..u try endlessly..u can't counter those who kill people in the name of Zehad and who also inspire from Quran..may be from the wrong explanation..but the source is the same..u can't compare meduval in a desert with kabilas fighting with the 2017 world over with the same logic and totaly goverened by a Holy Book..u can worship it..but u have a practical life
    By Om Prakash Pandey - 7/29/2017 1:02:51 AM



  • Creator(Allah Almighty) can't be challenged by all his creation 
    Quran is not a ordinary book . it is book of Allah written by Allah & hence
    can't be reformed &interpretation

    By Syed Md Taufique - 7/29/2017 1:01:06 AM



  • Ages old defense of the Quran has lot its merit.
    By Mohd Ansari - 7/29/2017 1:00:26 AM



  • The problem is not with quraan but with the muslims who interpret it according to hadiths which are very much confusing and contradictory. Hadiths are the creations of non arabs like muslim and bukhari written 200 years after the demise of the prophet. Not only that no muslim try to learn the meaning of quraan instead by heart it without knowing the meaning of it.
    By Moideen Mampadan - 7/29/2017 12:59:01 AM



  • Game in the name of the Quran is played by believer and unbelievers alike. Why God the Quran could not be written in chronological order. This irrational property of the Quran made it dependent on Hadees literature. Why God word is so confusing that every person takes meaning of their likes? The prophet showed no interest in the compilation of the Quran. The Quran or Bible or any other scripture is a word of God is mere a belief not any reality. Anybody can declare that understanding of the Quran by a certain person is wrong enough to declare a kafir.
    By Mohd Ansari - 7/29/2017 12:58:36 AM



  • 100% Muslims ignorant about perfect meaning n aim of holy Quran.
    By Jagannath Rout - 7/29/2017 12:57:59 AM



  • We don't agree with this.
    Sanatan dharma is the most ancient and innumerable persons have found lasting happiness and found God through the Sanatan dharma.

    By Shyam Sundar Mishra - 7/29/2017 12:57:20 AM



  • Misleading,Islam is a divine religion which can not be changed by any body.ISIS is an Israel backed anti Muslim terrorist organisation.
    By Mohd Rafique - 7/29/2017 12:40:26 AM



  • @Iftikhar Butt, Parvaz Mohmad Not so.It doesn't stand for priesthood. It stands for invididual emancipation, with certain social and family obligations.As Moideenbhai observes, it is Hadith's which caused and created their own version which again is against versions of Quran. Again it is to be seen that interpreting authority does not vest with any authority. Quran stands for direct conversation with the reader of Quran and render of Quran I. e. Quran itself. In other religions,as per my observation, certain class assumed the role of interpreting religious texts like Bible, Geeta,to quote for instance. If there is any confusions because of assumed role of Hadith's,it is up to scholars of Islam to deal with such matters. Then why to loosely talk of Quran, bhai.
    By Ravindra Halingali - 7/29/2017 12:38:19 AM



  • @R L Jowhar I invite u once read it with translation whom u can understand. Rest u can learn good and bad.
    By Iftikhar Butt - 7/29/2017 12:30:22 AM



  • @R L Jowhar Brother have you read it, or translation version, don't say that thing perfectly without practically. Quranic language is pure Arabic as millions can read write speak Arab , It is not written in any alien language.
    By Parvaz Mohmad - 7/29/2017 12:23:11 AM



  • Quran is the perfect book to destroy the humans and humanity .No other scripture is as confusing and irrational as quran
    By RL Jowhar - 7/29/2017 12:19:57 AM



  • Well your god (Devta) seems to be a bigot ,racist n a megalomaniac .
    By Sanjay Sharda Prasad Upadhyay - 7/29/2017 12:19:36 AM



  • Then what kafir mean?
    By Manojkumar Prajapati - 7/29/2017 12:17:48 AM



  • @Ravi Every clear minded can understand it clearly, it is written in Arab, the language of millions of people, not written in any outer space language,or alien language .
    By Parvaz Mohmad - 7/29/2017 12:13:55 AM



  • Nobody understands it ! That is the problem,
    Why propagate a book which is so easily misunderstood & results in mass destruction?

    By Ravi Gadgil - 7/29/2017 12:12:11 AM



  • There is nothing like "ISIS interpretation of Quran perfectly what it is ......Anti Humanity " but the ISIS follows the Wahabi / Salafi / Takfiri version of so called Islam . Wahabism , the National Religion ( sect ) of Saudi Arabia , hardly 150 - 200 years of age .ISIS and it's likes are Patronised by Zionist Israel , Terrorist America and Funded by Saudi Arabia .
    By Maulana Khushtar Hallauri Rizvi - 7/29/2017 12:11:41 AM



  • saheb you are disturbing the hornet nest
    By Anjani Ranjan Lal Singh - 7/29/2017 12:11:16 AM



  • Understood Quran perfectly ..what..ISIS INTERPRETATION OF QURAN PERFECTLY WHAT IT IS..ANTI HUMANITY...
    By Shreedhara Kedilaya - 7/29/2017 12:02:18 AM



  • Quran is read by believers and to be understood by them.Hence not fair to bring Quran into picture while dealing with extremists.If they misquote, that is their burial. Quran has nothing to do,as per my study.
    By Ravindra Halingali - 7/28/2017 11:48:39 PM



  • ....A lot of people have done that before but find few takers.
    Try your luck Mr New Age Islamist.

    By Asim Syed - 7/28/2017 11:43:58 PM



  • If one is unable to interpret Qur'an in its true spirit , it's a failure of his/ her intellectual faculty and his seriousness about following it as a word of God.
    By Asim Syed - 7/28/2017 11:42:13 PM



  • UNDERSTAND QUORAN PERFECTLY
    By Jagannath Rout - 7/28/2017 11:33:03 PM



  • GM Sb,

     To say that only God knows the truth is to receive the Quran with ingratitude and ingratitude to God is kufr. I will not be ungrateful to God. I thank God for revealing the truth in his Kitabum Mubeen (Clear, lucid, perspicacious Book).

     Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the things ye ascribe (21:18)

     Truth stands out clear from Error (2:256) Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light.(2:257)

     Truth makes no compromises with falsehood.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/28/2017 9:36:51 PM



  • Naseersaab,
    "There is however only one truth."
    Yes, but no one knows it except God.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/28/2017 1:34:46 PM



  • Reason & logic prevails in what you say & most of the commenter s say! "According to Islamic theology, you are not a Muslim unless you recite the kalima and all non-Muslims are kafir!
    And according to the Quran, it is only the kafir who will go to hell and not all people belonging to any faith are kafir (not even all polytheists) and there are kafir among the Muslims also.
    Islamic theology is parochial, the message of the Quran is universal. 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/22/2017 12:56:48 AM"
    By Pardesi - 7/28/2017 6:10:08 AM



  • Apparently , Mr. Siddiqi, every Muslim does misunderstand the Qur'an,  only Mr. Naseer Ahmad understands it. His latest "there  is only one truth" is clear proof how dumb fundamentalism can be. 
    By Masha Allah - 7/28/2017 4:10:48 AM



  • Nobody has a monopoly on truth. The same truth is available to all. There is however only one truth. While everybody can realize the truth, apparently very few do. What may be the reason? 

    While I grant that I could be in error and another person right, this must be proved. Without evidence, I will not accept the loose opinions of others or show any respect for their apparently shallow utterances not backed by evidence.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/28/2017 3:05:22 AM



  • "The Quran Is the Perfect, Infallible Word of God, Even If All the Muslims Misunderstand It"

    Well said, but all the Muslims will never misunderstand it, In sha Allah.


    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 7/27/2017 11:19:37 PM



  • Naseersaab,
    I respect your certainty. You too should respect the questions raised by others. Nobody has the monopoly on truth.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/27/2017 12:14:48 PM



  • GM Sb, I didn't leave out anything. This is what I also said:
    “The vanguard Muslims are talked about in the Quran, and their devotion and dedication in the face of the persecution they faced in Mecca for thirteen long years, makes them the purest of the pure in belief. They memorized the Quran as it was revealed. I am myself not a hafiz and not even a scholar of Arabic but if the imam makes a mistake while reciting the Quran in the tarawi prayer, I know that he has made a mistake. So, if Najid Hussain is trying to tell me, that with all the problems of reducing the Book to writing immediately, it has suffered an alteration in its transmission, then I know that it is either an ignoramus who is talking out of his hat or worse still, a mischievous scoundrel.
    And why should anyone entertain any doubt? The Quran is Kitabum Mubeen without a single contradiction and without a flaw. It is most certainly not a flat text which is why it can provide an answer to any question without ambiguity provided one can link up all the relevant verses to find an answer to the question. It is like a multi-dimensional database which can provide you all the answers if you learn how to use such a Book. The articles that we write based on the Quran are flat text. We can fill up several volumes writing articles based purely on the Quran answering questions. If the Quran was in the form of a flat text giving answers to all the possible questions that may arise, it would have been several times its present size.
    Thank God it is not such a flat text! No book written by a human being is anything like the Quran. They are all flat texts as may be expected. First time readers are therefore perplexed by the Quran not being used to such a unique Book.
    The contradictions that people talk about are the Quran's way of letting you know that you have misunderstood its message. It is when you do not see even a single contradiction or a flaw that you can be certain that you have correctly understood the whole of the Quran. There is simply no other book like it. Encryption technology has enabled us to send messages with built in checks of their integrity, which tells the receiver whether what is received is authentic, complete, and exactly as sent. The Quran is such a communication from God. It makes its meaning clear without ambiguity, and if the message is distorted in translation or in our understanding, it lets you know that the translation/understanding is doubtful, because the check of authenticity fails quite easily. Is there any other book with such built in checks? Such a reading however requires discipline and a trained ear to detect a false note.
    Muslim scholars however have a great tolerance for ambiguity, having been first taught the doubtful ahadith, and then the Quran. They are made to “interpret” the Quran in the light of the ahadith, andthe “mystical” knowledge of several “qalandars”.  No wonder that they cannot make sense of the Quran without treating many of its verses as abrogated! By doing so, they willfully suspend the built-in integrity checks provided by the Quran to gain a correct understanding and to know when the understanding is incorrect. Various groups of people such as the Ulema and people like Najid Hussain impose their imperfections onto the Quran and try to bring down the Book to their own level of stupidity”.
    Very simply, Muslim scholars have lost the ability for critical study and their theology and Madrasa education dumbs them completely. While the clear message of the Quran is universal and plural, and expects a Muslim to be perfectly logical, question and find answers based on his reading, contemplation, and reflection, the theology makes a virtue of unquestioning acceptance of not the message of the Quran, but the bigoted and jarring theology which is mostly a travesty of the message of the Quran.
    The Quran stands clear of all the imperfection around it, and its lucid message is available to anyone who seeks it as one truly bowing to Allah in Islam. The reader must however learn to ignore every other source of “misinformation” including the alleged sayings of the Prophet in the form of the compiled books of “Saheeh ahadith”.  A reader must begin the reading of the Quran by first reciting the following kalmia “There is no book except The Book”.
    People who comment on the organization of the Surahs and verses are mostly those who are uncomfortable with the Quran’s “multi-dimensional” nature which is unique.
    Placing Surah fateha first is an obvious choice. It contains a prayer and the rest of the Quran is an answer to that prayer. Can we place any surah other than surah Baqarah after that? Contrary to what people say, the best verses of a universal and plural nature are in the Medinian period and not in the Meccan period. The Meccan period consists of dire warnings of punishment to come in this world itself for those who reject faith and far more severe punishment in the Hereafter. It wasn’t for nothing that the ordinary folks felt sandwiched between the Clear Message of the unfolding revelations and their leaders who opposed the new faith with all their might and ferocity. This is what a Meccan period Surah says about such people:
    (74:49) Then what is the matter with them that they turn away from admonition?-
    (50) As if they were affrighted asses,
    (51) Fleeing from a lion!
    Chronologically surah 74 Al-Muddaththir / The Cloaked one , is the fourth surah revealed and the very first surah after Muhammad started preaching publicly. It is this Surah which commands him to start preaching publicly. The surahs were mostly revealed in parts. While the first few verses are a command to start proclaiming the message publicly, verses 49 to 51 capture the reaction of the people and clearly these verses were revealed after Muhammad had commenced preaching. The complete surah is below:
    (1) O thou wrapped up (in the mantle)!
    (2) Arise and deliver thy warning!
    (3) And thy Lord do thou magnify!
    (4) And thy garments keep free from stain!
    (5) And all abomination shun!
    (6) Nor expect, in giving, any increase (for thyself)!
    (7) But, for thy Lord´s (Cause), be patient and constant!
    (8) Finally, when the Trumpet is sounded,
    (9) That will be- that Day - a Day of Distress,-
    (10) Far from easy for those without Faith.
    (11) Leave Me alone, (to deal) with the (creature) whom I created (bare and) alone!-
    (12) To whom I granted resources in abundance,
    (13) And sons to be by his side!-
    (14) To whom I made (life) smooth and comfortable!
    (15) Yet is he greedy-that I should add (yet more);-
    (16) By no means! For to Our Signs he has been refractory!
    (17) Soon will I visit him with a mount of calamities!
    (18) For he thought and he plotted;-
    (19) And woe to him! How he plotted!-
    (20) Yea, Woe to him; How he plotted!-
    (21) Then he looked round;
    (22) Then he frowned and he scowled;
    (23) Then he turned back and was haughty;
    (24) Then said he: "This is nothing but magic, derived from of old;
    (25) "This is nothing but the word of a mortal!"
    (26) Soon will I cast him into Hell-Fire!
    (27) And what will explain to thee what Hell-Fire is?
    (28) Naught doth it permit to endure, and naught doth it leave alone!-
    (29) Darkening and changing the colour of man!
    (30) Over it are Nineteen.
    (31) And We have set none but angels as Guardians of the Fire; and We have fixed their number only as a trial for Unbelievers,- in order that the People of the Book may arrive at certainty, and the Believers may increase in Faith,- and that no doubts may be left for the People of the Book and the Believers, and that those in whose hearts is a disease and the Unbelievers may say, "What symbol doth Allah intend by this?" Thus doth Allah leave to stray whom He pleaseth, and guide whom He pleaseth: and none can know the forces of thy Lord, except He and this is no other than a warning to mankind.
    (32) Nay, verily: By the Moon,
    (33) And by the Night as it retreateth,
    (34) And by the Dawn as it shineth forth,-
    (35) This is but one of the mighty (portents),
    (36) A warning to mankind,-
    (37) To any of you that chooses to press forward, or to follow behind;-
    (38) Every soul will be (held) in pledge for its deeds.
    (39) Except the Companions of the Right Hand.
    (40) (They will be) in Gardens (of Delight): they will question each other,
    (41) And (ask) of the Sinners:
    (42) "What led you into Hell Fire?"
    (43) They will say: "We were not of those who prayed;
    (44) "Nor were we of those who fed the indigent;
    (45) "But we used to talk vanities with vain talkers;
    (46) "And we used to deny the Day of Judgment,
    (47) "Until there came to us (the Hour) that is certain."
    (48) Then will no intercession of (any) intercessors profit them.
    (49) Then what is the matter with them that they turn away from admonition?-
    (50) As if they were affrighted asses,
    (51) Fleeing from a lion!
    (52) Forsooth, each one of them wants to be given scrolls (of revelation) spread out!
    (53) By no means! But they fear not the Hereafter,
    (54) Nay, this surely is an admonition:
    (55) Let any who will, keep it in remembrance!
    (56) But none will keep it in remembrance except as Allah wills: He is the Lord of Righteousness, and the Lord of Forgiveness.
    I can’t imagine placing the Meccan revelations first. A reader will have to wade through all the dire warnings from stories of the past people and prophets and descriptions of Heaven and Hell and of the end of this world and the Day of Judgment etc before reading the first verses containing the Deen of Islam which is the basic objective of the revelation. The organization of the chapters and verses, is perfect for one who is already a Muslim and even for a non-Muslim. It is the right order for an established religion.
    The order of revelations is perfect for a new religion. The first Muslims had to have immense patience and fortitude in the face of the persecution from those who opposed the new faith. They were reassured from time to time by the stories of the past people and prophets and the fate of those who rejected the warnings and guidance and about the rewards in this world and the Hereafter for the believers. Without the Medinian period however, the Meccan period verses and Surahs would have appeared as a pack of lies (nauzubillah) just as the violent rejecters of the faith had taunted. Why should the Meccan period verses that tell the story of early struggles come first for an established religion? The Medinian period contains all the legislative verses covering all aspects of a Muslim’s life which he must learn and follow and rightly come before.
    It is however the short Meccan surahs that are recited in our prayers and therefore, a Muslim gets to hear these three times (zuhar and asr prayers are without audible recitation) a day. So while a neo Muslim starts reading the Quran, he gets to know the Deen-e-Islam quickly, he also hears the Meccan Surahs in his prayer that lift his spirits.
    No matter how the Surahs are arranged, the message remains the same because there is no abrogated verse in the Quran nor does any verse contradict another. I have arranged all the surahs in chronological order and read them in that order. The article in 6 parts on the Prophetic mission of Muhammad is based on such a reading. Such a reading does give insights which are not available if read in the order in which we find the surahs in the Quran. The biggest discovery was the repeated warnings in the Meccan Surahs from stories of past prophets and no such warning in the Medinian period but the unfolding of the warnings coming true in a unique fashion. The story of Yusuf (AS) who preached but left few followers but his people were not visited by any punishment from God presumably because all the rejecters were peaceful rejecters is found in the Meccan period. Also, of Yunus (AS) whose people accepted the faith enmasse and were therefore not visited by any punishment is also in the Meccan period. These stories are clear warnings to the people of Mecca:
    a) reject peacefully like the people of Yusuf and be spared (109:6 To the peaceful kafirin be his way)
    b) accept like the people of Yunus and receive God's blessings
    c) Reject violently like the people of Noah, Lut, Shoaib, Saleh, Moses etc and suffer the consequences like those people in the past.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/27/2017 1:49:26 AM



  • Yusuf sahib,

    The history of perfect compilation and total integrity of the Book that has been passed down to us  from generation to generation is iron-clad. It has never been questioned and in fact questioning it would have been dangerous in the past.

    Such confidence would be easy to assert for those who do not find any verses to be problematic.

    For those who cannot understand how certain verses got into our holy book, an explanation such as erroneous overinclusion is a matter of relief. They can accept such an explanation and yet keep their faith unshaken.

    I am sure some one will ask me to cite some of the problematic verses. I will not do so. I have cited them before both here and at other sites and all it does is to produce useless arguments and nothing gets resolved. Someone who does not know which verses are often cited as being problematic has no business participating in this discussion.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/27/2017 12:35:35 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiuddin Sahab,
    This is how my jt publication attempts to capture the process of recording and compilation of the Qur'an and argues about the integrity of its text [Ch. 1.6/1.7]:

    "While some of the Prophet’s companions22 compiled their own manuscripts (masahif), Zayd bin Thabit, the foremost among the Prophet’s scribes collated all the original sheets (suhuf) within two to three years of the Prophet's death (632). These were retained originally by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr (632-634), then by the second Caliph, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab (634-644), then by Hafsah bint ‘Umar, one of the Prophet’s widows, and finally authenticated by the special committee set up by the third Caliph, ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan (644-656).

    The personal manuscripts of the Prophet’s companions showed nominal differences in spelling, arrangement and numbering of chapters (Suras) and synonyms. Uthman's commission cross checked Hafsah's original sheets (suhuf) with each of these manuscripts as well as with the memorized litany, and arrived at a ‘singular' text, which had the concurrence of all the companions of the Prophet, and was declared authentic without doubt (mutawattir). Some of Uthman’s manuscripts are preserved. He made five copies and sent one copy each to Egypt, Syria and other dominions of Islam. Three of the copies have survived, and modern secular research has also established that except for dots and orthographic marks that were introduced later,23 they are identical to what we have today.24

                Historical accuracy of Qur'anic records

    As there was a gap of some twenty years between the conclusion of the Qur’anic revelation and the preparation of Uthman’s manuscripts, there remains a possibility of at least a marginal alteration or tampering in the interim period as has been voiced by some quarters. But human memory, particularly in relation to a rhythmic narration as the Qur’an is, gets indelibly engraved in the brain. It can fade over time but unlike a written record, it cannot lend itself to a partial deletion or corruption without any detection by the memorizer. In the case of the Qur’an, the huffaz (the memorizers) must have been reciting the Qur’an regularly through those 20 years as any hafiz does this very day. So there is absolutely no likelihood for any of them to corrupt or forget any word or verse of the Qur’an. The Qur’anic records of the social, moral and political setting of the revelation, and its references to contemporaneous events must be necessarily true, because its verses were recorded as well as memorized during the lifetime of the Prophet. If this were not so the very premise of the Qur'an as a book of Truth and Wisdom, as it repeatedly claims (Preface), would have been challenged in the Prophet's lifetime, and Islam would never have spread out of the townships of Medina and Mecca, let alone to the farthest corners of the Arabian peninsula, in the very limited span of the last few years of his life."


    By muhammd yunus - 7/26/2017 9:01:08 PM



  • Naseer sahib says that Najid Hussain did not say anything new but he ignores the key paragraph: "The final compilation, to a large extent, depended upon the passed down memories of the Prophet’s companions, as well as other available writings of the original verses on the pieces of shards. Prophet Muhammad never had a chance to proof-read Qur’an of today and authenticate every verse in it as the word of Allah."

    Najid sahib thus is implying that the process of compilation was such that things that should not have been included could have found their way in the final text.
     

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/26/2017 11:27:58 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    If completed was meant, this is how the verse would have read:

    الْيَوْمَ َأَتْمَمْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الإِسْلاَمَ دِينًا

    alyawm a'tmamtu lakum dinakum w ealaykum niemati waraditu lakum ul'Islama dinaa

    This day have I completed your religion and My favor upon you and have chosen for you Islam

    The beauty of the Quran is that even on what may appear to be a minor point, it makes its meaning clear in an unambiguous manner. And yet, we can be misled by our predisposition to take the wrong meaning! 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/26/2017 9:47:02 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

     الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا

    Translated by Yusuf Ali as “This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion”.

     akmaltu can also be translated as completed since complete is a close synonym of perfect. Mukamil in urdu can also mean perfect or complete in every respect which means perfect. Since the verse contains both akmaltu and wa-atmamtu and the latter Arabic word can only be translated as completed (urdu tamam) and not as perfect, akmaltu, I think, is used in the sense of perfection rather than completion. Else, the same Arabic word would have been used in both places or one word would have described both completion of deen and Allah’s favour. Since this is not the case, we must take akmaltu to mean perfection and not completion.

      As for completion, previous Books of revelations also were complete in so far as laying down the deen was concerned but the Quran being the last in a series of progressive revelations, replaces the earlier deen with what is better as per 2:106. This also gives the sense of perfection having been achieved, not by God but by man becoming progressively capable to receive the final message.

     Shahin Sb, in my article above, I have discussed the so called “sword” verses on their own merit and these do not contradict any other verses. I have repeatedly shown that even without considering context outside of what the Quran itself gives, the verses cannot be misunderstood if we take the correct meaning of kafaru which the Quran never uses as a synonym for Mushrik. Also, when the Quran unambiguously gives permission only to fight oppression and it does not give permission to fight “disbelief”, then where is the confusion? The war is with the Oppressor and not with the “Disbeliever”.

     The confusion is in our theology, loose translations, the satanic ahadith and poor commentary and together these make out the fight to be against “disbelief” rather than oppression. With the help of the clear unambiguous verses, I have repeatedly shown this to be a lie.

      The Quran says directly what Najid Hussian says viz  "There is a common perception among Muslims that Qur’an as a book was sent down to Prophet Muhammad by Allah. Muslim intellectuals however know, and accept, Qur’an was not brought down from heaven to the Prophet as a book that we see today, but it was the word of Allah revealed to the Prophet.”

    What we know directly from the Quran is that initially Gabriel brought the revelations and later these came directly to the Prophet. This is covered in detail in my article:

    Islam and Mysticism: Is ‘Ruh’ Soul? (Part 2)

    Najid Hussain has therefore  not said anything new about the nature of the revelation that the Quran itself does not say.

    I started off my sentence as a response to what Najid Hussain says but added details about the first revelations to give the complete story which is not in the Quran.  The additional details are not relevant to the argument about what Najid says and are by way of information only. I am sorry if this has created any confusion. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/26/2017 3:48:11 AM



  • Dear Naseer Saheb, I wish you could dwell a little more on the question why the word akmaltu (something like to be mukammil in Urdu) in Quran 5:3) can’t simply mean completion or conclusion of the religion and not perfection of the Qur'an as a book. The Qur'an uses a derivative of this word to denote completion (haulain e kamilain -- two complete years - in 2:233).

     In fact, God did not send Quran as a complete book at all. God inspired the Prophet (pbuh) with revealed messages as and when He deemed it required. Then it was compiled in book form by people who had no idea of how to compile and publish a book. This has created great deal of unnecessary confusion as the compilers decided to do away with the order in which God had sent His messages, thus giving primacy to war-time and other contextual verses revealed in later years. But this is an issue for another time and another thread.

    Another issue on which I need your help is finding out where does “the Quran itself say directly” the following, as you wrote in response to GM Saheb. Somehow, I can’t find it having been said by the holy Quran even indirectly:

     

    “The revelations started with Gabriel (AS) in cave Hira where Muhammad (pbuh) used to retire for his meditations. The first experience so unnerved Muhammad that his wife Khadija (RA) had to comfort him and cover him up with blankets to prevent his cold shivers. She assured him that because of his purity it was no evil spirit that came to him. It took a while from him to recover from this experience and to venture again into the same cave.  Khadija also took him to a cousin of hers, a Christian monk, who said that he was a prophet and wished to live long enough to witness his mission. Muhammad (pbuh) was, by every account a reluctant prophet. He was not ecstatic on being chosen to be a messenger of God but doubtful at first and fearful later. For three years, he preached only within his close family and had only three followers - his wife, Abu Bakr (RA) and his cousin Ali (RA). It took him three years to get used to the idea of being a Prophet. Once he settled into his role with conviction, it was no longer necessary for Gabriel (AS) to bring the revelations. The inspiration came to the Prophet directly.”


    By Sultan Shahin - 7/26/2017 2:07:05 AM



  • GM Sb,

    Not everybody has the same understanding of the Quran. They take the parochial readings and interpretations of their past and present scholars as correct. The only way they can reconcile such parochial readings with their moral conscience is to say that these are one time exceptions under extraordinary circumstances.

    While this works with them and their kind and makes them tolerant, it cannot work with the extremists who do not accept the one time exception argument.

    The only way is to boldly bring out the truth and negate all other readings of past scholars and imams and disown them. Thrown them all unceremoniously into the dustbin of history. Provided of course, that we can establish beyond doubt that what we say is the only meaning of the Quran and all other interpretations are clearly shown to be defective based on the Quran itself. This is both fact and possible and what I have been trying to do without support from any quarter although there are a few knowledgeable people who are convinced that what I say is the truth.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/22/2017 9:15:27 PM



  • Naseer sahib,
    The universal message of the Quran is of course sacrosanct. Many people however believe that the Quran contains both universal and non-universal messages. However we will not be able to settle that matter here.
    This will be my last comment in this thread.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/22/2017 12:16:59 PM



  • Rashid Sb,
    To bring out the difference between theology and the Quran, consider the following verse which says:
    "(2:112) “… whoever submits His whole self to Allah and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”.
    The deeds alone are important.
    According to Islamic theology, you are not a Muslim unless you recite the kalima and all non-Muslims are kafir!
    And according to the Quran, it is only the kafir who will go to hell and not all people belonging to any faith are kafir (not even all polytheists) and there are kafir among the Muslims also.
    Islamic theology is parochial, the message of the Quran is universal.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/22/2017 12:56:48 AM



  • The last sentence in the previous comment should read:

    Fighting in the cause of  the oppressed against the oppressor is always fighting in the cause of Allah. Nothing can be more universal than that. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/21/2017 11:51:35 PM



  • GM Sb,, I prefer getting down to specifics rather than arguing in general terms.

     Take Surah Taubah and the verses discussed in my article. It is a judgment on the people of Mecca who had:

    1. Driven out the Muslims from Mecca

    2. Waged battles to annihilate them.

     It is specific to the case and is a historical event. The principles that are universal however, as per the Quran or God are:

     1. Fighting is permitted/ordained to a ruler to defend against an aggressor, against the religious persecutors, and against any kind of oppression or to help an oppressed people. What is not permitted is civil war. If this was permitted, the permission to fight would have been given while the Prophet was in Mecca itself. It is incumbent on all able bodied people within the territory under the ruler's control to offer their services for the war effort. The Muslims living in enemy territory have no obligation since the commands applied only to the Muslims with the Prophet in Medina and not to the Muslims who had stayed behind in Mecca.

     2. The fighting is limited to the aggressors and the hostilities do not extend to the peaceful people even though they are a part of the same community as the enemy and living in the enemy ruler's control.

     2. On conquest, the options are a) ransom of the vanquished fighters taken prisoner b) pardon c) banishment allowing the banished to leave within a clear and comfortable period of amnesty d) killing the banished if they stay beyond the period of amnesty. Which option to exercise depends upon the severity of the crimes of the aggressor and in different situations in different battles different options were exercised.

     3. Allah will help all those who fight in the cause of the oppressed against the oppressors and will never allow the oppressors to prevail. Here the faith professed by the oppressor and the oppressed are irrelevant.

     These are extremely important universal principles that should be emphasized and not lost sight of. These principles rule out:

     a)     Aggression by non-state actors such as Al-Qaeda and other terrorist outfits

    b)     Civil war and even civil disobedience as we see in J&K and the North East

    c)      Aggression/war by an Islamic state such as Pakistan against India for Kashmir since the Muslims in Kashmir enjoy full liberty to practice their religion and are not oppressed in any manner.

     Now for the verses that makes clear that the principles are universal and eternal dating from the earliest times:

     The Quran is a message for all mankind (12:104, 38:87, 68:52,81:27etc) and not just for the followers of Muhammad (pbuh), from the Lord of all the worlds (1:2, 2:131, 6:45, 7:61, 7:67, 7:104, 10:37, 32:2, 56:80, 69:43) and not simply the Lord of the Muslims alone.

     The verse that first gave the Prophet permission to fight was:

     

    (22:39) To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-

     

    (40) (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).

     

     The Verses regarding fighting are of universal relevance

     

    Clearly the permission to fight is of universal relevance and applicable to all those:

     

    Who are expelled from their homes in defiance of right for no other reason except that they say, “our Lord is Allah (by any name)”. The universality of the application of the verse is unmistakable as 22:40 mentions the different places of worship where the name of Allah is abundantly celebrated and that it is Allah’s purpose to protect all such places by means of people who are commanded to fight against all oppression and religious persecution. That Allah can be called by any name is explicitly said in verse 20:8 and 17:110.

     

    Verses 9:111 and 2:246 also make clear that the verses relating to fighting are of universal relevance.

     

    (9:111) Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law (Torah), the Gospel, and the Qur´an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

     

    The above verse makes clear that it is incumbent on all able-bodied people to volunteer.

     

    (2:246) Hast thou not Turned thy vision to the Chiefs of the Children of Israel after Moses? they said to a prophet (who was) among them: "Appoint for us a king, that we May fight in the cause of Allah." He said: "Is it not possible, if ye were commanded to fight, that that ye will not fight?" They said: "How could we refuse to fight in the cause of Allah, seeing that we were turned out of our homes and our families?" but when they were commanded to fight, they turned back, except a small band among them. But Allah Has full knowledge of those who do wrong.

     

    Verse 2:246 makes clear that fighting can be undertaken only by a king/ruler and not by non-state actors.

     

    What is fighting in the cause of Allah?

     

    All the verses relating to fighting are for fighting in the cause of Allah. What is the meaning of fighting in the cause of Allah? It means to end religious persecution and oppression consisting of turning people out of their homes or places of worship for no other reason except their faith or hindering them from practicing their faith or torturing them for their faith. See verses 22:39, 40, 2:191 to 193, 2:217, 2:246, 4:75, 8:36-39. It also means to fight to defend any oppressed people (4:74 and 4:75)

     

     Who are the people against whom fighting is ordained?

    Fighting is not ordained against the Muslims, Christians, Jews, polytheists, idolaters, atheists or person(s) of any faith, but only against those who oppress other people no matter what the faith professed by the oppressors and the oppressed may be.

     

     (4:75) And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"

    Fighting in the cause of the oppressed is fighting in the cause of Allah. Notice that in this context the faith of the oppressor and the oppressed is irrelevant

    (76) Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.

    The true believers and the disbelievers are defined by the deed. The oppressor is the kafir (no matter what faith he professes) and those who fight in the cause of the oppressed are the believers (no matter what faith they profess). You will know them by their deeds.

    4:141 And never will Allah grant to the kafirin a way (to triumphs) over the Momineen.

    Those who are the aggressors and oppressors (for example, the Pakistan army in Bangla Desh) are the kafirin and never will Allah grant to such kafirin a way to triumph over the momineen or those who fight in the cause of the oppressed which is the same as in the cause of Allah (the Indian Army).

     Islamic theology however, attaches great significance to professions of faith rather than deeds which Allah being the Lord of all people does not. For Allah, a person’s deeds are clearly more significant than empty professions of faith not backed by deeds expected of the faithful.

     The Quranic principles apply to all people. The fight is always in the cause of the oppressed against the oppressor. Nothing can be more universal than that.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/21/2017 11:39:53 PM



  • Naseer sahib,
    Your arguments to advocate your point of view are strong.
    However instead of anointing  only one view we must come to terms with the fact that a wide range of views have gained currency and credence. These include the view that each and every word in the Quran is the word of God, or that some parts of the Quran have eternal import while others are time-bound and place-bound, or that only the core principles in the Quran are divine and the rest of it is annotation or exegesis designed to illustrate and explain the core principles in the language and idiom of a particular time.

    You can be an advocate of one of those viewpoints but claiming that God Himself is saying what you have been saying is an attempt to take an unfair advantage. Hold on to what you believe but do not insult either the intelligence or the faith of those who have different viewpoints.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/21/2017 12:07:54 PM



  • Rashid Sb,  The understanding of Islam is not common among Muslims because of the way the theology took shape as a response to various defining moments. On the succession to the position of Caliph, it first spilt into Shia and Sunni Islam based on assertion/rejection of the imamate doctrine. Theology answers questions such as ‘what is Islam’, ‘who is a Muslim’ and ‘who is a kafir’

    Barbara Zollner’s note on the development of theology in Sunni Islam.

    “The dispute surrounding Kufr was the initiating moment of Sunni theological thinking. The earliest movement that defined Kufr by the sword was the Khawarij. The movement stood out through its fanaticism and egalitarianism. The Khwarij was the first movement to turn the concept of unbelief against fellow Muslims. They thus widened its application. It was part of Khwarij conviction that belief must manifest itself  through action ('Amal). It took the position that, in order to be considered Muslim, a person must actively engage in the community of the faithful. Rather than positively affirming who is Muslim it thus reversed the question, declaring anyone an unbeliever who did not belong to its particular community and share its zealous conviction. With a fanatical desire to establish an uncorrupted Muslim community, it applied Takfir, asking: 'who are those that must be driven out of the existing community, which is corrupted and impure? A shift in the meaning of Kufr thus took place which was extended to the idea of excommunication.

    The reaction against Khwarij positions on belief and unbelief sets the tone for Sunni theology. The first theological movement to reject the application of Takfir was the Murjiyya. While their theology was directed against the fanaticism of the Khwarij, it also legitimised the political system of the 'Ummayad Caliphate', which again championed this development. The name Murji'iyya derives from the verb raja meaning 'to suspend or postpone judgement. On the question of Takfir, the Murji'iyya diametrically opposed the Khwarij. While the Murji'iyya deliberated on the idea of unbelief and sin, they developed the position that anyone who declares his/her belief as a Muslim must be recognised as such and will be ultimately judged by God. According to, this principle, sin does not affect belief. A person who obviously contravenes rules as set out in the Quran and Sunna and who has therefore sinned must still be considered a Muslim. Emphasis is thus placed on inner faith, and the Murji'iyya dismissed the idea of 'Amal as a defining characteristic of a Muslim. During the dominance of Murji'ite thought, these theological principles were further elaborated and led to the first theory of belief in Sunni Islam. Although the Ummayad dynasty was eventually replaced, its protege theological movement laid the fundamental building blocks for later theological discussions.

    Not entirely endorsing the misdemeanor of a sinner, the mu’tazila took an intermediate position (manzilabaynamanzilatayn) arguing that this person is neither Muslim nor kafir. An important part of the Mu’tazilite theology is that the individual is responsible for his/her actions. It thus amended the view of the Murji’iyya insofar as it disposed of any deterministic connotations which could be read into the stance of the earlier school. Since the idea of the manzilabaynamanzilatayn does not leave the discussion on the status of sinners to the afterlife, it created an environment which furthered the development of jurisprudence and jurisdiction. Also, its emphasis on human free will allows the individual to reason consciously about good or bad; the objective is to comprehend divine law through reason. It is on these grounds that Mu’tazila is called the movement of ‘free-thinkers of Islam’. Ultimately, though, the stress on reasoning over literalist reading of revelation led them to conclude that the Qu’ran as a text is created and that Hadith is not useful as a source of interpretation. As the leading school of theology during much of the rule of the `Abbasid dynasty, the Mu’tazila was eventually superseded by an orthodox countertrend. Yet, their interpretation on free will nevertheless left its mark on subsequent theological discussions on the nature of belief, sin and unbelief.

    The orthodox traditionalism of the Ash’ariyya and the Maturdiyya constitutes the final and lasting theological development in Sunni discussions on the distinction between kufr and iman. Fairly similar in their overall approach, these two approaches represent the basis for the majority of works on Sunni ‘aqida (creed). Just how influential these theological schools are can be seen by the fact that their elaborations on essential practice and beliefs are considered to be dogma. This includes their descriptions  of the so-called five pillars of Islam or the six articles of faith, which were firmly set as framework by the Ash’ariyya and Maturdiyya. Their thelogy remains the underlying element of subsequent discussions and clearly had its impact on arguments of the major schools of law.

    The impact of the traditionalists trend and its emphasis on Hadith and Sunna led the Ash’ariyya and the Maturdiyya to oppose the Mu’tazila, particularly with regard to its views on the created ness of the Quran and the use of Hadith as the primary source for interpretation. It is noteworthy, however that the Ash’ariyya and Maturdiyya took opposing positions on the issue of belief. Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari essentially argued that belief is uncreated, since there was ‘never a state in which there was no iman and tawhid, neither before not after the creation of the world. For him the position that iman is created would contradict the principle of divine universality. Proponents of the Maturidyya among the Abu Hanifa, held, however, that belief has its locus in the individual. In this respect, the Maturidiyya were closer to the reasoning of the Mu’tazila than to the Ash’ariyya. This said, it would be unfitting to claim that all aspects of Mu’tazilite thought were dismissed. It is thus interesting to think that the idea of free will was adapted by al-ashari. He suggested a doctrine of `acquisition’ which put forward a compromise whereby the orthodox concept of God’s omnipotence could be reconciled with the idea of human responsibility. He thus argued that all acts, good or bad, originate in God and humans acquire the choice of free will from God. It is then the believer’s choice to decide. The theological rationale that the sinner is not an unbeliever also found continuation. In fact, Abu Mansur al-Maturidi further elaborated on the Mur’jiite interest in whether and to what extent ‘amal is part of defining iman. Like the Murji’iyya, the Maturidiya saw belief expressed through inner faith. But while the Murji’iyya was divided as to whether belief increases through good work and, conversely, whether it decreases through sin, the Maturidiyya clearly opted for the concept of ‘degrees of faith’ (tafadul). This idea then became another constituting element of Sunni theology and was in detail discussed by a diverse scholarly body, among them IbnHazm, al-Ghazali and IbnTaymiyya.

    Looking back on the various theological trends of early Sunni Islam, it is then fair to say that the definitions of kufr and iman took centre stage and in fact form the defining moment of Sunni theological thinking. The survey above also shows that the terms iman and kufr cannot be simply set down as clearly definable concepts. Although they are clearly antonyms, they are umbrella concepts, which were variously discussed in terms of the content of their meaning.

    Juridical considerations of what constitutes kufr were directly informed by theology. Ash’ariyya and maturidiyya delineations of ‘aqida had a direct impact on juridical thinking. Thus not only was kufr discussed in theoretical terms of sin, but the various schools of law defined it as a punishable contravention of the law. In the fiq elaborations, kufr was an umbrella concept which contained a number of more specific offences. Under its shade, there are conceptions such as apostasy (ridda), polytheism (shirk), blasphemy, (sabb Allah or sabb al-rasul), heresy (zandaqa) and hypocrisy (nifaq). Each of these concepts represents specific forms of kufr, all of them of a punishable nature. Defining these transgressions as major sins, most jurists followed with a harsh verdict. There seems to be thus a general accord  that they justify the death penalty. The underlying justification for the reasoning of the classical jurists is that hypocrites, blasphemers, heretics, and apostates made the decision to turn against God and they therefore made a decision to turn their backs not only on faith, but also on the community of Muslims. Being outside law, these sinners’ lives are not considered to be protected by law. This logic not only is the common justification for the death penalty, but also permits any member of the community the right to act within the parameters of law to kill the assumed offender.

    A thorough analysis of the relationship between sin and crime shows that not all jurists agree that major sins equate to hudud offences, i.e. offences which demand punishment because they are mentioned in the Quran. In fact, of all the sub-categories of kufr, only apostasy (ridda) is listed as a hadd. This then begs the question as to why and how Muslim jurists came to decide that other forms of kufr, such as heresy, blasphemy and hypocrisy, are liable to penalty. The issue is even more complicated by the fact that unbelief, per se, is not necessarily reprimanded, as the example of Christians and Jews illustrates. The rejection of Muhammad’s prophethood makes them kuffar even though their non-belief in itself is not a punishable crime. This sets the unbelief of Jews and Christians apart from Muslims who commit ridda, zandaqa or nifaq.

    As we have seen, the debate about different conceptions of belief and the dispute about them go back to the constitutive period of Islamic theological and juridical reasoning. While the Khwarij defined their position through excommunication of Muslims, the counter movement of the Murji’iyya and then later of the Mu’tazila and finally of the Ash’ariyya and Maturidiyya, laid the foundation for Sunni theology. Leaving aside for the moment the fundamental objection that the faith cannot actually be proven or, for that matter, challenged, the framework for ‘aqida as suggested by the Ash’ariyya and Maturidiyya sets the tone for Sunni orthodoxy. It is then interesting to see that moderate Islamists are informed by this theological orthodoxy and its prevailing system of dogmas and practices. Considering that radical and extreme Islamists have indeed much in common with the theological position of the Khawarij, the reference to conventional and accepted tenets of belief in Du’at la Qudat makes its alliance to moderation pronounced. The basis of belief is the crucial topic of dispute between moderate interpretation and that of radical and/or extremist Islamism. In fact, it marks the difference between these two modes of thought within the Islamist discourse.”

     As can be seen, all the above is inward looking and nonsensical. They are all extremists, trying to figure out the kafir among the Muslims and punish them! They are also concerned about the meaning of kufr as it relates to faith and belief alone, which is strictly a matter between the individual and God (no compulsion in religion), leaving out the kufr which constitute crime against humanity.  They are unable to make a distinction between sins in the spiritual dimension that may have punishment in the Hereafter but not in this world and crimes in the temporal world which need to be punished. Rejection of God, apostasy, blasphemy and shirk may be sins against God but these are not crimes against man and cannot be punished. Theft, murder, oppression and persecution are crimes against humanity and need to be punished or fought against.  You can also see that all the contradictions are in the theology of the Muslims and not in the Quran. These ulema are not even clear about the justification of the Prophet’s battles. Was he fighting “disbelief” or was he fighting “religious persecution”?  The answer very simply is religious persecution alone but none of the prominent ulema of any sect thinks so. The proof is in my article: The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Qu’ran (Concluding Part) Summary

     The reason why I reject the “Islamic” theology of various sects of Islam should be clear.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/21/2017 4:33:09 AM



  • GM Sb,

     If you had some familiarity with the Quran, you would know that it does not require Najid Hussain to tell us what the Quran itself says directly.

     The revelations started with Gabriel (AS) in cave Hira where Muhammad (pbuh) used to retire for his meditations. The first experience so unnerved Muhammad that his wife Khadija (RA) had to comfort him and cover him up with blankets to prevent his cold shivers. She assured him that because of his purity it was no evil spirit that came to him. It took awhile from him to recover from this experience and to venture again into the same cave.  Khadija also took him to a cousin of hers, a Christian monk, who said that he was a prophet and wished to live long enough to witness his mission. Muhammad (pbuh) was, by every account a reluctant prophet. He was not ecstatic on being chosen to be a messenger of God but doubtful at first and fearful later. For three years, he preached only within his close family and had only three followers - his wife, Abu Bakr (RA) and his cousin Ali (RA). It took him three years to get used to the idea of being a Prophet. Once he settled into his role with conviction, it was no longer necessary for Gabriel (AS) to bring the revelations. The inspiration came to the Prophet directly.

    The vanguard Muslims are talked about in the Quran, and their devotion and dedication in the face of the persecution they faced in Mecca for thirteen long years, makes them the purest of the pure in belief.. They memorized the Quran as it was revealed. I am myself not a hafiz and not even a scholar of Arabic but if the imam makes a mistake while reciting the Quran in the tarawi prayer, I know that he has made a mistake. So, if Najid Hussain is trying to tell me, that with all the problems of reducing the Book to writing immediately, it has suffered an alteration in its transmission, then I know that it is either an ignoramus who is talking out of his hat or worse still, a mischievous scoundrel.

     And why should anyone entertain any doubt? The Quran is Kitabum Mubeen without a single contradiction and without a flaw. It is most certainly not a flat text which is why it can provide an answer to any question without ambiguity provided one can link up all the relevant verses to find an answer to the question. It is like a multi-dimensional database which can provide you all the answers if you learn how to use such a Book. The articles that we write based on the Quran are flat text. We can fill up several volumes writing articles based purely on the Quran answering questions. If the Quran was in the form of a flat text giving answers to all the possible questions that may arise, it would have been several times its present size. Thank God it is not such a flat text! No book written by a human being is anything like the Quran. They are all flat texts as may be expected. First time readers are therefore perplexed by the Quran not being used to such a unique Book. The contradictions that people talk about are the Quran's way of letting you know that you have misunderstood its message. It is when you do not see even a single contradiction or a flaw that you can be certain that you have correctly understood the whole of the Quran. There is simply no other book like it. Encryption technology has enabled us to send messages with built in checks of their integrity, which tells the receiver whether what is received is authentic, complete, and exactly as sent. The Quran is such a communication from God. It makes its meaning clear without ambiguity, and if the message is distorted in translation or in our understanding, it lets you know that the translation/understanding is doubtful, because the check of authenticity fails quite easily. Is there any other book with such built in checks? Such a reading however requires discipline and a trained ear to detect a false note.

     Muslim scholars however have a great tolerance for ambiguity, having been first taught the doubtful ahadith, and then the Quran. They are made to “interpret” the Quran in the light of the ahadith, and the “mystical” knowledge of several “qalandars”.  No wonder that they cannot make sense of the Quran without treating many of its verses as abrogated! By doing so, they willfully suspend the built-in integrity checks provided by the Quran to gain a correct understanding and to know when the understanding is incorrect. Various groups of people such as the Ulema and people like Najid Hussain impose their imperfections onto the Quran and try to bring down the Book to their own level of stupidity.

     The Quran stands clear of all the imperfection around it, and its clear message is available to anyone who seeks it as one truly bowing to Allah in Islam. The reader must however learn to ignore every other source of “misinformation” including the alleged sayings of the Prophet in the form of the compiled books of “Saheeh ahadith”.  A reader must begin the reading of the Quran by first reciting the following kalmia “There is no book except The Book”.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/20/2017 11:43:24 PM



  • Koran – living thrugh 1400 years : It is surviving through the fear of sword – remove Islamic threats, the book will vanish in no time. Al Beruni mentions that unlike Hindus, Muslims kill for religion.

    Koran : Few things :

    1. No one understands it because it is not in chronological order. Take any 5th standard book and jumble it – u cannot understand what it wants to convey. Same is the case with Koran – that is why muslims without understanding it, cull one or two verses in support of their preconceived biases – be it moderates or hardliners. (to have Koran in chronological order – email me at motorint (at) gmail (dot) com)

     

    2. Koran itself says that it is a clear book reveled to make people understand it in their own language(13 times) – and now if they r now able to do it - means that book itself is at fault.

     

    3. There are repeated jewish stories around 13 times around Koran – which one can expect if it is a work of human being spread over 23 years – well God is not supposed to make such silly mistakes.

    4. Koran says that it is Allah that makes one non-believer – and then punishes him for unbelief by putting him in hell for ever – does it make any logical sense?


    Muslims cannot defend Islam or Koran so they do indulge in following :

    Five Pillars on which Islam is standing at the moment are :

    1. Out of context - take any barbaric verse of Koran and the muslim will say that it is out of context – its meaning is misinterpreted or mistranslated and one should read the verse prior and after to this verse to understand it fully.

    2. Weak or false Hadith : Take any evil hadith from Bokhari or any other writer - and muslims will defend that this is not authentic hadiths.

    3. Similar evil verses are in other religious books.

    4. There are 1.5 billion muslims in world and all cannot be wrong

    5. Abuse and then violence

     

    Naseer Ahmed has just done jugglery of words – trying to convince himself of the infallibility of Koran -  the logic that he only can understand. Fact is Koran is a work of human being and it does contain problematic verses that are sectarian in nature.
    By Raman - 7/20/2017 11:35:35 PM



  • Yunus sahib, your point is well taken.

    Hats Off's antipathy to progressive Muslims is so bitter that it seems to have driven him bonkers.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/20/2017 11:12:07 PM



  • Naseer Saheb, I need help!

    “Islamic theology is mostly un-Islamic and needs extensive reform of a fundamental nature. It is full of utter nonsense.”

    If by ‘Islamic theology’ you mean a particular (insular) form of Religion or religious science ; that is, Church based, elite Clergy operated and blindly followed by people who call themselves Muslims then I would agree with you that “it is full of utter nonsense” and “un-Islamic”. Therefore, I would not name it “Islamic theology”. However semantics aside, I think I get what to mean and therefore agree with you.

    To my understanding “Islamic” is Quranic – not withstanding interpretations – and “Religion” is un-Islamic, and do not like to juxtapose them!


    By Rashid Samnakay - 7/20/2017 11:01:54 PM



  • let mr. najid hussain write that same article on NAI. you will have mr. naseer ahmed, mr. muhammad yunus and other IIT trained Quranic experts as well as the ordinary madrassa trained exegetes tearing mr. najid to pieces. not his article mind you!

    mr.ghulam mohiyuddin of course with his "luke-warm" faith heated up by embarrassment will type out yet another of his inane one-liners that say niether this or that, but appear to be deep and propfound.

    it takes all kinds.

    By hats off! - 7/20/2017 8:51:31 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiuddin Sahab,

    It is reassuring that your quoted excerpt is consistent with the detail presented in Chapter 1 of my jt publication. However a key element is not highlighted. For want of paper and consequently absence of the culture of recording things in writing, the pre-Islamic Arabs preserved all important things in memory. Thus the Qur'an was not only recorded in whatever writing material was handy, but also memorized. So Uthman's commission relied heavily on the memorized Qur'an - the Qur'an that we listen to on the U-Tube.

    In one word, the Qur'an is an oral revelation whose tone obviously changed with the change in the circumstances of the revelation. It is not a book per se. It is a divine writ, the essence of which lies in its clearly stated verses that the Muslims are commanded to heed (3:7). It also carries divine protection against any corruption and even the Prophet is warned not to yield to the pressure of the Meccans and make any alteration in it.

    May I request you to take another look at chapters 1.4-1.6 for a heads up on the theme.



    By muhammd yunus - 7/20/2017 7:53:59 PM



  • A soon to be published article in IndiaLife by Najid Hussain says:

    "There is a common perception among Muslims that Qur’an as a book was sent down to Prophet Muhammad by Allah. Muslim intellectuals however know, and accept, Qur’an was not brought down from heaven to the Prophet as a book that we see today, but it was the word of Allah revealed to the Prophet. That divine revelations continued over two decades, during which time, as and when the revelations arrived, the verses were recited by the Prophet, and memorized or written down on pieces of leaves, rocks, cloth, or leather, by his companions. Paper was not even around at that time, as the Chinese invented it two hundred years later.
    At the time of Prophet’s death, Qur’an was not collated as a single volume. It took several decades after the death of the Prophet, well into the period of the second Caliph Umar, when Qur’an finally came into existence in the form that we see today.
    The final compilation, to a large extent, depended upon the passed down memories of the Prophet’s companions, as well as other available writings of the original verses on the pieces of shards. Prophet Muhammad never had a chance to proof-read Qur’an of today and authenticate every verse in it as the word of Allah.
    It is possible that a majority of Muslims will find it hard to accept this analysis – not because it lacks  logic or reason, but because it hurts their sentiments that someone should cast aspersions on their holy book.
    This analysis, however, is not to belittle Qur’an, or cast doubts on its message. Qur’an, without doubt, is a remarkable book that has guided and shaped the lives of billions of people over centuries, through faith and creed, and will continue to do so for generations.
    This is just to open up our minds as believers, and welcome meaningful independent reasoning in Islam, so that our beliefs are logical, reasonable, gender just, and fair."

    This is a sensible view on how the Book took its present shape. Expressing such a view would have been fatal in the past.  Such a view permits us to expand on what is good and to downplay what seems adventitious. It should be welcomed by those who care for Islam. Unfortunately it will be rejected.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/20/2017 12:34:07 PM



  • Dear Naseer Ahmed,

    You have produced a really scholarly piece to dismiss Radwan's arguments to make changes in the Qur'an to remove contradictions and anomalies. I found this suggestion and a few propositions in his article so outrageous that I thought no matter what I write to defend the Qur'an will not register in the mind of one who proposes to make alterations to the Qur'an.

    However, to unburden my conscience, I wrote this to Sulatn Shahin Sb:

    "While Radwan correctly notes that all past reform movements have been retrogressive, he blames the Qur'an for this and not the reformers.

    He blames all misinterpretation of the Qur'anic message to the Qur'an.

    He inserts the following statement in his otherwise well written article thereby blaming the Qur'an for the stagnation of knowledge and ossification of religious thoughts in Islam:

      The tyranny of the text has prevailed over every attempt at a renaissance—even the dream of a renaissance—so that all efforts to produce one came to nothing, and all of our hopes of achieving a plan for a renaissance are dashed. Instead, we have seen that the Salafis, the fundamentalists, the bloodthirsty and the regressive have all conspired to throttle the tentative breaths of any renaissance, and disabled all initiatives that might lead to one.

    Thus in the same breath he is blaming the text as well as "Salafis, the fundamentalists, the bloodthirsty and the regressive" lot.

    Though scholarly in Arabic he mistranslates the word 'akmaltu' in 5:3 as 'perfected' wheres it should be 'completed' and on the basis of this mis-translation he challenges the Qur'an to be an imperfect book. The Qur'an never claimed to be a text book - so any question of perfection does not arise. It simply claims to be a fount of guidance and its principles or tenets of guidance are noble indeed.
    If this is the state of progressive Islamic scholarship, where do we go?

      
    I had also put the following comment under another thread that further exposes the cognitive dissonance of Radwan:

    As regards any suggestion to make any alteration in the Qur'an, not one single Muslim who believes the Qur'an to be divine will accept the proposition bearing in mind the Qur'an's claim to preservation of its integrity (6:115, 15:9, 85:21) and its following  warning to the Prophet:

    “If he (Muhammad) attributed to Us any false speech (69:44), We would seize him by the right hand (45), then We would sever his aorta (46) and none of you could prevent it (69:47).

      "Moreover any suggestion that the Qur'an was composed by the Prophet and or his companions and so can be tampered by humans today is patently absurd"
    and reminds one of the Qur'anic warning: 'arid 'anil jahileen.


    By muhammd yunus - 7/20/2017 6:52:44 AM