Books and Documents

Islamic Ideology (21 Aug 2018 NewAgeIslam.Com)


  • Naseer sb. asks, "What is your basic belief about verse 9:5 which is the subject of discussion GM sb?"
    The verse says, "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush."
    The verse conflicts with my concept of the grandeur and majesty of Allah. Reading it in context does not make it any better. However you are free to believe it if you want to do so.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/16/2019 1:19:14 PM

  • What is your basic belief about verse 9:5 which is the subject of discussion GM sb?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/16/2019 2:24:45 AM

  • please read it as "Remembrance makes human beings peaceful and gives energy to repel instinct of violence"
    By Kaniz Fatma - 4/16/2019 1:04:07 AM

  • Every person in this world desires inner peace. But the question is “how to attain peace and happiness”?
    Peace can be attained by remembrance of God Almighty. Remembrance makes human beings peaceful and gives energy to instinct of violence.
    By Kaniz Fatma - 4/15/2019 11:52:40 PM

  • Dear Critic,
    You did not try to get what I wrote in my previous comment. The general specification of ‘Aaam’ which can’t be made specific, according to Hanafi Jurisprudence, is known as “Aam Lam yakhuss anhul Baadh/ Aaam Ghair Makhsusul Baadh”, that is, the word of which the individuals of Aaam cannot be excluded. On the contrary, Aam Makhsusul Baadh can be made specific but first by Qatii dalil and then the rest of the unspecific part of Aaam can further be made specific but this time also through zanni dalil such as Khabr-e-Wahid or Qayas.
    For example, the mushrikin in the verse is Aaam Makhsusul Baadh, out of which women, children, old and weak people or non-combatants, Dhimmi, Muahidin who want to live with peace – all are exception to this aam word. The evidences which make this word specific come from the Quran itself followed by several Ahadith.  
    According to Shafeii Jurisprudence, all words with nature of general specification can be made specific by Khabr-e-Wahid or Qayas while Hanafis say only definite evidence (Qatii Dalil) can make any Quranic word specific in its application.
    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 4/15/2019 11:33:03 PM

  • Saying that some verses are from the judgement phase and some others are from the war phase is tantamount to questioning our basic belief that God's words are for all time.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/15/2019 1:21:26 PM

  • @Ghulam Siddiqi, 
    • Then why do Hanafis say the general-word can't be made specific? 

    By Critic - 4/15/2019 11:23:08 AM

  • Verse 9:5 applied only in the past to those whose crimes are described by 9:13. It is not about fighting those who fight you but about those who had fought and lost and were no longer fighting. They were those "who had fought in  violation of their oaths and treaties, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) the Muslims" (9:13). Verse 9:5 describes the punishment for such people. 

    It simply does not apply to anyone today and is a one-time judgment from the past. The underlying principles alone are important today.

    This verse is from the judgment phase of the prophetic mission after the wars had ended and not from the war phase saying when and with whom and for what reason to fight.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/15/2019 7:31:20 AM

  • Dear Critic,
    Perhaps you have not studied Hanafi jurisprudential methodlogy. The rule of specification of General, in Hanafi jurisprudence, is not allowed by Ahadith when the demanded rules and conditions are not met.
    The Quranic words deal with ‘Aam’ (general), specific (khass), Mutlaq and Muqayyad.
    ‘Aam is classified into categories; 1) Aam khussa anhul Baadh/ Makhsusul Baadh and 2) Aaam lam yukhass anhul Baadh/Ghair Makhsusul Baadh.
    According to Hanafi jurisprudence, Aaam Khussa anhul Baadh can be made specific if any definite evidence (Qatii dalil that comes from Quran, Hadith Mashhoor and Ijma and not by Hadith of Khabr-e-Wahid) is traced. Once any Aaam word is made specific by any Qatii dalil, the rest of the unspecific part of that aaam word might be made specific even by Khabre wahid or Qayas.
    The word ‘mushrikin’ mentioned in the surah 9:5 is Aaam whose individuals have been made specific by the Qatii dalil and therefore this verse can not be applied to any Mushrik who does not fight. Furthermore, the same aam word can be further made specific by Ahadith of khabre wahid or Qayas, as in this case we see, women, children, old, etc have no ability to fight, this is why they had been excpetion to this the ruling of this verse.
    Dear Critic, with this brief concept of Hanafi classification of Aaam, you should again read my article.    
    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 4/15/2019 5:31:47 AM

  • @Ghulam Siddiqi, 
    How can you make a new definition of Aam/general word to mean specific mushrikin?
    it looks you follow hanafi but hanafis say specification of general is not allowed.

    By Critic - 4/7/2019 10:19:13 PM

    • The below comment is not mine, but some one has used it, same name as my name, I am regular comments writer and support many hatts of view, which he criticise and Gulam Mohyuddin spews same hate back
    • @Ghulam Mohiyuddin, 
    • islamobhopia is spirit of Hats off - if it goes off him how will he be alive in this world?
      By Aayina - 11/9/2018 1:02:05 AM

    By Aayina - 4/6/2019 4:23:47 PM

  • To Abd.
    It clearly explains what is hypocrisy in comments about the Muslims and Sultan Shahin.
    Though I will again write.
    I have seen only one non-hypocrate it was Dr Israr Ahmed, he was very clear about everything with non-Muslims. He was clear about Hindus are to be ruled or accept Islam, but he said very clearly in his speech that all Muslims were not good to Hindus, he went to extent if Hindus Kaleja had became thanda after taking revenge killing of Muslims,than we should now invite them to Islam. This can be said when you are honest , because you acknowledge truth you and your forefathers has committed gross atrocities on one community (here Hindu). but my( read Israr Ahmed) relgion is right my forefathers were doing wrong to this community.
    I will say Israr Ahmed was never saying wrong as per his understanding of Quran,and Hadits, yes it can be wrong from my prospective but he was very honest, I have listen all his lectures and still listing as for inspiration how to be honest. I see his approach is honest by even accepting own faults as well, though he want Hindus to be second class citizen if they not accept Islam, which is also very honest, person like me fight to his ideas for this understanding that we Hindus are to be considered second class citizen.
    Person like Israr Ahmed is open challanger and play by rules.
    Now let's take hypocrate Javed Ghamdhi, he says in the world now it is new norm that if one group want to dissociate themselves from one country can be done than he immediately Quotes Kashmir, but will never utter single word about Bolichistan or new Pukhtun movement, this are the hypocrates who use generic rule and play double card and double game.
    Now why I call Sultan Shahin hypocrate, if was not Indian I can understand but he is Indian, and he can easily understand Land grab( all Hindus are getting  removed form Pakistan and Bangladesh)and erosion of Hindus values done by Muslims with all tactics. He knows atrocities on Hindu Kashmiri pandits very well fact that is establish, I have never seen anything like Israr Ahmed  self condemning of Muslims for atrocities of Hindus but I can see him putting many articles and news on Rohiyngas, so I have never seen anything form Indian Muslims leadership or so called self declared moderate Shamless Muslims like Sultan Shain and his team of Article, on Hindu atrocities, though he has some good guys who have distant themselves.
    If you do not like word "Shamless" this was the word used by Sultan Shahin first to me not otherway round, so I started use and address him in similar fashion which he did to me, he had criticised me of useing his personal life, but you cannot play double game, if you  try to establish yourself in public domain by taking credentials of your personal life and than do not want to be criticised, it does not work like that, ask him he would take appreciation if I would have done or still he would have rejected.
    I can credit only for one thing that my comments are published, though couple of times they are not published.
    But In past my comment were scrambled, I had left the spaces intentionally for readers but every thing was scrambled into one big paragraph so it became hard to read, though I do not know it was intentionally or by accident I cannot accuse him or New age Islam, because  I have seen that my comments are published as it is now.
    Yes I will say Muslims are hypocrates, provokers and on retaliation play victim cards. No same is left for self crtistisim and effects of their action on others.

    By Aayina - 4/6/2019 4:09:02 PM

  • Aaayina sb, 
    You should not use such words as used in your last comment. 
    Tell me what do you mean by hypocrisy?

    By Abd - 4/6/2019 5:31:11 AM

  • Dear Critic,

    The jurists of Fiqh differ from one another on Fiqhi issues but they do not call one another Kafir on this basis. Yes, there are great differences among Hanafis, Shafeis, Malikis and Hanbalis on Furui issues related to Ilm al-Fiqh, but at the same time, they have great respect for one another. For common people these jurists have done a great help, especially for derivative rulings (Furui Masaail) related to Purification (Taharat) Ablution (Wudu), Fasting (Roza), Pilgrimage (Hajj) etc. Today’s world needs such jurists who can better resolve the newly-rising issues, as their methodologies and skills were largely appreciated by the scholars who studied them.  

    What is important to note here is that they unanimously do Takfir of those people who take position against any parts of Zaruriyat-e-Deen concerning Aqaid.

    Yes it is hard to study them comparatively but it is not beyond perception as long as one is passionate and sincere in his pursuance of learning.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 4/6/2019 5:15:55 AM

  • fiqah is beyond perception. it is full of differences on the basis of which they call each other kafir. it is hard to find out truth.
    By Critic - 3/31/2019 10:31:29 PM

  • Yes 1400 year of blood shed especially is enough to tell that those Makki verses are abrogated by Many dani verses.
    I very much history was never with blood shed, but Muslims pour the blood in name of Arabic Allah.
    Pakistan and some Indian Muslims says daily how Hindu kafir have to be finished.
    If naive tribal Muslims and wise Muslim scholars had left Islam for shake of peace, the mullas have though, of reviewing the Islam( may be even man made) world would have been better place.
    Hypocrisy of Sultan Shahin is enough why Makki verses are abrogated, if they were not than he would have written or put some article on Exodus and genocide of Kashmiri pandits even he would have written about how those Buddist from Tibet
    But Munafiq Sultan Shain use generic humanity for Rohyinga Muslims, never forget to put in news section ayhting that can be done.
    Shameless man had usesed his Hindu wife to propgated himself and his Islam, he put Questiinor with Yoginder Sikand to show how open hearted and new age Islamic he is? But litmus test that when mass Hindu massacre and exodus happen he is shun..
    By Aayina - 2/21/2019 10:41:51 PM

  • So im gonna have to respectfully disagree with the word “Islamism.” That’s one of those made up words like “Islamaphobia.” There’s no “Islamism” there’s just Islam and the various fashions in which it’s practiced. Also, that new age shit is for the birds. Trust me I tried it.
    By Cocky - 2/19/2019 8:16:13 AM

  • There is NEVER any reason to defend Islam!  The moderate Muz's have no idea what the Qur'an is about, but they've been sold on the idea that is means Peace.  They're wrong, but they'll defend their ignorance with their lives.  
    By Rockinjay - 2/19/2019 8:14:21 AM

  • Quran (Mohsin Khan translation, even mentions), "...making peace among mankind..."
    By zuma - 12/21/2018 4:16:37 PM

  • Their act in not exercising peace is against Quran (Mohsin Khan translation, that mentions), "...Make not mischief on the earth", they say: We are only peace-makers." instead of trouble-makers.
    By zuma - 12/21/2018 4:14:24 PM

  • The tashabaha (similitude) of throne has been used to say that Allah, after having created the Universe in six days, placed himself fully in control of His creation or brought the creation under his throne or under His absolute rule/control, 

    There may not be any physical throne and Allah sitting on it. All verses relating to Allah and the Heavens are necessarily among the mutashabihat verses since these speak of a reality about which we have no knowledge/experience.

    The sense of Allah being in absolute control of His creation is however unmistakably communicated and is the true meaning of this verse.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/9/2018 10:56:02 PM

  • Janab Ghaus Sb, 
    Please share with me some quotings about Istiwa alal arsh as I need them, specially from classical scholars on whom all can agree 
    I am looking for Ibn Taymiya's quoting also on this 
    Can you help me please

    By Kaniz Fatma - 12/8/2018 2:49:11 AM

  • Quoting #Qur’an’s Fighting Verses In Isolation To Promote #Violence Or Defame #Islam Amounts To Treacherous Misrepresentation Of Its Message Of #Peace And #Reconciliation

    Click the link to read more:


    By Urooj Fatma - 11/16/2018 12:34:55 AM

  • @Ghulam Mohiyuddin, 

    islamobhopia is spirit of Hats off - if it goes off him how will he be alive in this world? 

    By Aayina - 11/9/2018 1:02:05 AM

  • Hats Off's Islamophobia has reached psychotic proportions, perhaps aided and abetted by NAI!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/28/2018 2:11:17 PM

  •                                                                               On Abrogation
    As I have explained many a time, abrogation refers to replacing a moral principle in a previous scripture, by a better one in a later one. One example is replacing the principle of reciprocity with the principle of Ahsan or returning evil with good and forgiveness. There are many more examples that I can think of such as animal sacrifice which made sense when animal was your only wealth and most of what you owned. In the early period, there must have been a need for a more active communication between man and God and God conveyed His acceptance of the sacrifice by consuming the sacrificed animal with fire from Heaven. If it was not consumed, it meant that God had rejected the sacrifice. The fight between Cain and Abel was over the same issue. The sacrifice of one was accepted and of the other rejected which led to the killing of the righteous brother by the unrighteous one. Over a period, the practice changed to burnt offerings to God. The one who sacrificed, himself burnt the animal and offered it to God. This changes completely for the Ummah of Muhammad (pbuh) and God says that neither the flesh nor the blood of the animal reaches God but only your piety and we are asked to consume the flesh of the animal sacrificed. Also, the practice of sacrifice is restricted to Hajj only and even then, there is an option to fast for ten days instead of sacrificing an animal.

    Consider the following verses:

    (75:16) Move not thy tongue concerning the (Qur´an) to make haste therewith.(17) It is for Us to collect it and to promulgate it: (18) But when We have promulgated it, follow thou its recital (as promulgated): (19) Nay more, it is for Us to explain it (and make it clear):

     The prophet would anxiously recite repeatedly what was revealed to memorise being afraid that he may otherwise forget what was revealed to him. God is assuring him that there is no need to do so and it is Allah’s responsibility to ensure that the Quran is correctly collected and promulgated. And in the following verses, Allah is further putting the Prophet’s mind at rest by saying that even if he forgets a part, it will only be as Allah wills. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the Prophet will be made to forget any part and even if he does, that part can be revealed again. These verses are only to put the Prophet at ease and relieve him of the anxiety about the stupendous task.

     (87:6) By degrees shall We teach thee to declare (the Message), so thou shalt not forget,

    (7) Except as Allah wills: For He knoweth what is manifest and what is hidden.

     Abrogation simply does not refer to any verse of the Quran, and in view of Allah’s assurances in 75:18,19, there can be no doubt about the correctness of any part of the Quran or any question of omission or over inclusion or even any question of dependency on any source outside of the Quran to understand the Book.

     I consider it blasphemous to attribute anything that goes by the name of hadith qudsi or any other hadith to Allah or to the Prophet(pbuh). These are mostly stories concocted by the story tellers and are misleading and can only lead the Muslims astray and the reason for their backwardness and for their lack of understanding of the Quran.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/28/2018 3:56:30 AM

  • "it was almost always islam that annihilated the religions of most of the places they chose to plunder. persia, egypt, afghanistan, pakistan, indonesia, malaysia, turkey."

    What an ignoramus! And why did he leave out India? Indonesia and Malaysia were never invaded by any Muslim ruler. Islam was a minority religion in Egypt, Spain, present day Israel/Palestine, Syria and several other territories, for several centuries. Ironically, it was the crusades and the brutality of the crusaders that made the Jewish and Christian populations in Muslim territories to covert to Islam. The Greek orthodox and the  Roman Catholic churches treated the followers of the  eastern orthodox churches as heretics and persecuted them. Historians acknowledge that the very survival of the eastern orthodox church is because of the protection provided by Muslim rulers.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/28/2018 2:24:28 AM

  • "These rules are in no way unfair for a people who had fought to annihilate the religion of their victors."

    this is the most outrageous statement ever. 

    it was almost always islam that annihilated the religions of most of the places they chose to plunder. persia, egypt, afghanistan, pakistan, indonesia, malaysia, turkey. so why cannot those who are faced with the menace of islamic dawah act similarly to safegaurd their religion - just like the prophet did to safegaurd his invented religion? is there a single jew today in saudi arabia? a single christian? a single polytheist?

    so probably china is following this policy in xinjiang. so why not simply watch instead of constantly whining? so no blame for burma either. so why can't non-muslim nations ban dawah? dawah seeks to undermine the religion of the kuffars. so can the kuffar do whatever it takes to prevent it?

    obfuscation, lying and word jugglery are the essential features of moderate islamists.

    By hats off! - 9/27/2018 6:36:40 PM

  • this essay is very good, logical, and very convincing. it has helped me clear my doubts. 
    thnks a lot

    By Ajit Kumar - 9/27/2018 4:58:03 AM

  • Comment  on verse 9:5

    (9:5) But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Mushrikin wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

     Read in isolation, no one can act based on 9:5 because one must figure out what those forbidden months are during which one cannot act. This forces the reader to read the other verses that explain what those months are.

     (1) A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Mushrikin with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-

    (2) Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame the kafirin.

    (3) And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Mushrikin. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to the kafaru.

    (4) (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Mushrikin with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

     The preceding four verses describe the context for 9:5. The four-month period of amnesty starts from the date of announcement on the day of the Great Pilgrimage of the year of revelation of the verse. with exemptions as in 9:4, 9:6 and 9:7 for their crimes described in verse 9:8 to 9:13.

     Very clearly, 9:5 is one-time judgment on the Mushrikin of Mecca of the prophet’s times with exemptions covered by three verses and for their crimes described in seven verses. These verses cover a very specific set of people of the Prophet’s times for their specific crimes and are inapplicable to any other people.

     It amazes me that no scholar explains these transactional verses in this manner and treats them as laying down a general law! The general law must be derived which is what I have done in my article: The Principles of War from the Quran

    And the relevant portion reproduced below:

    Surah Taubah describes the judgment on the vanquished enemy. The General Principles underlying the judgment on the vanquished religious persecutors are as follows:

    1.       Let those vanquished persecutors who fought but never violated their treaties, the freedom to practice their faith and live peacefully, if they agree to become your willing subjects.

    2.       To those who were treacherous and fought in violation of their treaties, provide protection if they seek protection. Make them hear the word of God and if they still refuse to accept your religion, escort them to a safe place outside your territory.

    3.       Those who were treacherous and fought in violation of their treaty, are allowed 4 months of time in which they are free to migrate to a neighbouring country or accept the victor’s faith. Those who remain defiant at the end of the amnesty period may be killed.

    As may be seen, the rules are extremely generous. If it was a fair war without violation of treaty, the vanquished simply must accept the new political authority and become willing subjects and can live peacefully practicing his faith. The treacherous violators of treaties can also save their lives by accepting exile or the victor’s faith. These rules are in no way unfair for a people who had fought to annihilate the religion of their victors.

    In any other war where religion is not the issue, it is only treachery of the combatants alone that is punishable by death or exile. The remaining people simply must become willing subjects of the victors or may choose to migrate.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/27/2018 2:47:52 AM

  • Continuing from my previous comment, the verses which command the Muslims to fight (2:190 and 22:39,40) say “fight those who fight you”

    There is simply no Meccan verse about fighting and therefore there is no Meccan verse which is preventing the Muslims from fighting or commanding them to fight. 

    There is no Meccan verse which says, “do not fight those who fight you” or “suffer patiently those who fight you” or anything about fighting and therefore there can be no Meccan verse abrogated by 2:190 and 22:39.

    What can be said about the classical scholars who prepare a list of Meccan verses abrogated by 2:190 and 22:39? They have very loose standards of scholarship and are little better than barbarians.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/27/2018 1:36:47 AM

  • “What are the Makki Verses Which Prevented Muslims from Fighting even in defence?”

     There is no makki verse preventing the Muslims from fighting. The correct position is that there is no makki verse commanding the Muslims to fight. The Muslims were simply not in any position to fight in Mecca. They were numerically greatly inferior in Medina also and unwilling to fight but had to be motivated to fight and even tricked into fighting. The battle of Badr was such a battle in which they were tricked into fighting a vastly superior army with promises of help with three thousand angels and showing in their dreams a small enemy force. 

    (8:43) Remember in thy dream Allah showed them to thee as few: if He had shown them to thee as many, ye would surely have been discouraged, and ye would surely have disputed in (your) decision; but Allah saved (you): for He knoweth well the (secrets) of (all) hearts.

     (3:123) Allah had helped you at Badr, when ye were a contemptible little force; then fear Allah; thus May ye show your gratitude.

    (124) Remember thou saidst to the Faithful: "Is it not enough for you that Allah should help you with three thousand angels (Specially) sent down?

    (125) "Yea, - if ye remain firm, and act aright, even if the enemy should rush here on you in hot haste, your Lord would help you with five thousand angels Making a terrific onslaught.

    (126) Allah made it but a message of hope for you, and an assurance to your hearts: (in any case) there is no help except from Allah. The Exalted, the Wise:

    (127) That He might cut off a fringe of the Unbelievers or expose them to infamy, and they should then be turned back, frustrated of their purpose.

    (128) Not for thee, (but for Allah), is the decision: Whether He turn in mercy to them, or punish them; for they are indeed wrong-doers.

      Verse 3:127 and 128 make clear in the early Medinan period immediately after the battle of Badr, that only a small number of the enemy fighting “ṭarafan mina alladhīna kafarū” would be punished or disgraced, and Allah would turn in mercy towards the greater number of them although all of them are wrong-doers or zalimun. Indeed, only a couple of thousands died fighting and the rest accepted Islam.

     Verse 5:13 is a Medinian verse and is about the Jews and not about the Mushrikin. There is no command to fight the Jews. How is this verse then cited as a Meccan verse and among those the classical scholars consider as abrogated?

    The remaining verses cited in the article have nothing to do with fighting and to do with how to deal with others at the individual level while inviting them to Islam. How do the classical scholars consider them as abrogated? For example,

    (50:45) We know best what they say; and thou art not one to overawe them by force. So admonish with the Qur´an such as fear My Warning!

    So, is it OK now to overwhelm them by force if they don’t agree, and force Islam down their throats according to the classical scholars? Should we replace the verse by “ You know what they say; and thou art charged to overawe them by force. So, fight with the sword such as do not fear My Warning?” If not, then in what sense is the verse abrogated?

    Should we replace, “Repel evil with the best deeds; We well know the matters that they fabricate”. (23:96) With “Kill the fabricators of untruth?”. If not, then in what sense is the verse abrogated according to the classical scholars?

    Should we replace, “Then if they turn away, O dear Prophet, upon you is nothing but to clearly convey (the message)”. (16:82) with,  Then if they turn away, kill them, because upon you is nothing but to make them accept (the message) If not, then in what sense is the verse abrogated according to the classical scholars?

    Should we replace, “Therefore advise; indeed, you are a proclaimer of advice. (The Holy Prophet is a Remembrance from Allah.) You are not at all a guardian over them”. (88:21-22) with “Therefore compel, indeed you are a mahi or the one to compel and charged with eradicating kufr/shirk” If not, then in what sense is the verse abrogated according to the classical scholars?

     The classical scholars apparently make those substitutions in their minds because of which extremism thrives and unless we cut off such bigots completely, there is no hope.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/27/2018 12:50:49 AM

  • The article is a laudable attempt to qualify and tone down the exhortation to kill the mushrikins but this totally escapes Hats Off! I am not surprised.  
    As I have said before, I consider this verse to be an example of adventitious over-inclusion during the compilation process. But that is just my opinion.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/26/2018 10:52:42 PM

  • the rant is disgraceful, but the exhortation to kill the mushrikin everywhere is wonderfully graceful. o'reilly is an excellent publisher.

    maybe you need to get your head examined, if you actually have one that is.

    By hats off! - 9/26/2018 5:19:31 PM

  • Hats Off's frenzied rant is very much a part of his relentless hate war against Islam.  His thoughtless trashing of serious attempts to deal with thorny questions is disgraceful.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/25/2018 11:40:55 PM

  • generally it takes a lot more words when you have nothing to say. this article is a good example. typical case of saying nothing in a whole lot of words.

    how clever of this maulana fazlur rehman to teach one thing to his students but leave out that all importanat point from his magnum opus!

    this is what islam means. say one thing, mean something else, and do entirely another and still justify nonsense.

    now the white kuffars have joined in. with their guilt ridden empire building which lead to mass murders and extinction of entire races of humans. this guilt will make them defend everything these soothing "moderate" nonsense and claim that the whole world was a worthless shere of mud and rock until islam came along. this kind of scholarship is very lucrative. saudi arabia subsidizes nut cases like the doctor who said that the Qur'an is a text book of embryology. in the past, corrupt, murderous, crazed mughals used to subsidize this kind of nonsense.

    it is apparent that the Qur'an is a very difficult to understand book, due to which no two islamic scholars seem to agree on anything at all.

    to claim that it is a "clear" book is pathetic nonsense.

    abrogation is a mainstream concept and is taught in most (more that 90%) of islamic institutions including al azhar.

    so simply beating round the bush does not get you anywhere except scoring some political brownie points.

    but to imagine that non-muslims reading this excruciating article will not see through this word jugglery is willful blindness.

    By hats off! - 9/25/2018 6:19:33 PM

  • Mr. John, would you please say good bye to the idea demonstrated in your comment. Your idea is not yours but has been borrowed from the orientalists who studied Islam for a particular purpose.

    Please also see what Solomon A. Nigosian writes, “Most historians agree that modern Western thought is the direct result of the intellectual culture of Spanish Islam.” (Solomon A. Nigosian, “Islam: Its History, Teaching and Practices” p. 25) Some historians, on the other hand, disagree with what most historians agree.

    Everyone takes what suits him. I do not want to present details concerning “who borrowed what and from where”.

    Islam is practicable in every age. Please read my article above and make a valuable comment which can develop good relationship.  

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 9/25/2018 4:04:35 AM

  • The Muslims took their law from the Romans and the Jews.
    Islam is Medieval and is not practicable in the modern society.

    By A. John - 9/24/2018 11:57:23 PM

  • Hidayat, the Arabic word, literally means guidance, instruction, righteousness or the true path.

    The word hidayat is comprehensively used among the scholars. In Islamic books, it is generally divided into meanings 1) Isaal ilal Matloob and 2) Ira’at al-Tariq. The scholars of Islam unanimously agree that when hidayat is referred to God Almighty, hidayat means Isaal Ilal Matloob and when Hidayat is referred to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Quran it means Ira’at al-Tariq. In other words, when God Almighty gives hidayat, it is Isaal ilal Matloob from where it is impossible for one to go astray and when the beloved Prophet or the Quran gives hidayat it is Ira’at al-Tariq from where it is possible for one to go astray.

    Generally it is said that if hidayat in Arabic is used as ‘Muta’addi bado Mafo’ol’ and the second Mafo’ol is used without preposition ‘ila’ or ‘laam’ it is referred to the meaning ‘Isaal ilal Matloob’. But when its second mafool is used with ‘Ila’ or ‘laam’, it is referred to the second meaning i.e. ‘Ira’at al-Tariq.

    There is some technical debate over its area of application. The author of Kashshaf [Mutazilite tafsir book] has discussed it and Allama Taftazani [a classical Sunni scholar] has written a footnote on it. Technically checking the details of Allama Taftazani, there are some defects in his explanation of hidayat and it is for this reason that Qazi Baidawi [another classical Sunni scholar] has detailed in his tafsir that hidayat comprises of both 1) Isaal ilal Matloob and 2) Ira’at al-Tariq. The author of Noorul Anwar in his commentary on the book Al-Manar has covered this topic in short but comprehensive way. Besides the author of famous logical book ‘Sharh Tahzeeb’ has also discussed it in some details.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 9/23/2018 11:50:18 PM

  • What is hidayat? When God gives hidayat, is it the same hidayat that is given by his prophets or something else, as somewhere i have read it is differently used. Can anyone tell me?
    By Kaniz Fatma - 9/22/2018 2:38:08 AM

  • Please take the following also as a classical evidence,

    Ibn Faruk sests forth an Asharite view

    لله ..فوق خلقه وأن ذالك راجع إلى فوقية المنزلة والرتبة وفوقية القدرة العظمة . وأما الفوقية بالمسافة والمكان فمحال في وصفه. (مشكل، 453و 15-17)  

    God Almighty is above His creation in the sense that he is above [it] in rank, degree, power and majesty. As for his being above [it] in the spatial sense—it is impossible to describe Him thus. (Mushkil 453, 15-17)

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصدیقی - 9/5/2018 4:13:27 AM

  • @Kaniz Fatma sahiba, (comment 3)

    Mutashabihat verses including the verse of ‘istiwa’ are interpreted in accordance with muhkamat verses whose meaning is firm and clearly established. The consensus, Shehikh Ramadan al-Buti says, “in place regarding these texts is the refraining from applying to them any meaning which establishes sameness or likeness between Allah and His creatures, and the refraining from divesting their established lexical tenor. The obligatory way to proceed is either to explain these words according to their external meanings which conform with divine Transcendence above any like or partner, and this includes not explaining them as bodily appendages and other corporeal imagery.”  

    Many classical scholars preferred taweel (metaphorical interpretation) to avoid anthropomorhismic implications. For example, Imam Al-Ghazali argues, that the literal meaning of the term ‘al-istawa’ leads to corporealism which is denied by all the parties concerned; therefore it is not appropriate to be ascribed to God Almighty who is neither a body nor contingent.

    To save the people from confusion or anthropomorhism, and in reply to your question, some metaphorical meanings [taweel] are presented as logical interpretation, with reference to the book “al-qawari al-qahhar fi mujassamatil fujjar”

    1.    The term ‘istiwa’ is interpreted as connoting might or power (qahr) and dominance (ghalba). This is created and proved by the language of Arab. Since Arsh is above and highest of all creations, therefore, this was simply mentioned to mean that Allah is Mighty [qaahir] and Predominant [ghaalib] over all creations.

    2.    ‘Istiwa’ means elevation [‘uluw] which is an attribute of Allah, in the sense of rank and being the King, and not in the sense of elevation in any particular place [makaan].

    Imam Baihqi has mentioned these two meanings in his book ‘Kitab al-Asma wa al-Sifat’.

    3.    ‘Istiwa’ means intention (qasd or irada), as “thumma istiwa ala al-arsh” means “He formed an intention (qasd) towards Arsh, i.e. intention to create ‘arsh [throne]. This tawil [metaphorical interpretation] was made by a Sunni Imam Abul Hasan Ash’ari. Ismail Zarir said, “This [‘Asha’ri] view is correct”, as Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti quoted it in his book ‘al-itqan]’.

    4.    ‘Istiwa’ means completion of work i.e. He Almighty completed series of creation on Arsh (throne). There is nothing outside Arsh; whatever has been created and whatever will be created in the world and Hereafter is not outside the boundry of Arsh as it encompasses all creations. The better exegetical interpreation [tafsir] of the Quran is what is done by the Quran itself. Istiwa in the meaning of ‘completion’ is mentioned in the Quran. Allah Almighty says,

    “And when he reached his maturity and complete strength [istawa]......” (28:14)  

    Allah Almighty also says,

    “...Their trait is mentioned in the Injeel; like a cultivation that sprouted its shoot, then strengthened it, then thickened and then stood firm [fa-i-stawa] upon its stem...” (48:29). In this verse ‘istiwa’ refers to the state of completion [halat-e-kamal]. This tawil [metaphorical interpretation] was quoted by Ibn Hajar Asqalani from Abul Hasan Ali b. Khalf Ibn Battal. This is the speech of Imam Abu Tahir Qazwini as mentioned in Siraj al-Uqul and quoted in the book ‘Al-Yawaqeet’ authored by Abdul Wahhab Sha’rani.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصدیقی - 9/5/2018 3:54:14 AM

  • You have mentioned some good points in your comments.But the terms “istiwa alal arsh” are used for different meanings. It would be better if you could explain all the meanings of “istiwa alal arsh” with authentic evidence. In addition to that, please tell me which meaning is accepted in classical Islamic study  

    By Kaniz Fatma - 9/3/2018 10:04:58 AM

  • Comment- 2  

    “It is He Who has sent down to you (O beloved Prophet Mohammed – peace and blessings be upon him) this Book (the Qur’an) containing the verses which are muhkamat (verses that have a clear meaning)– they are the core of the Book – and other verses the meanings of which are indistinct; those in whose hearts is deviation pursue the verses having indistinct meanings, in order to cause turmoil and seeking its (wrongful) interpretation; and only Allah knows its proper interpretation; and those having sound knowledge say, “We believe in it, all of it is from our Lord”; and none accept guidance except the men of understanding. (3:7)

    The author of Muwadhih al-Quran writes in the commentary of this verse, “Allah Almighty says He has revealed some verses whose meaning is not clear. So those who are astray interpret them by their mind and those who have sound knowledge interpret them by way of those verses which are the core of the Book [i.e. muhkamat verses]. They try to understand them in line with the muhkamat verses. However if they are unable to do so, they leave this matter up to Allah, thinking that Allah alone knows best and that it is enough for us only to believe in that case. (Muwaddih al-Quran by Shah Abdul Qadir, p.62)

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصدیقی - 9/3/2018 3:03:46 AM

  • @KF Tanzeehi Aqaid that I wrote in my previous comment with reference to the book “Qawariul Qahhar...” are countless in the same book. These fifteen [creeds] mentioned in the previous comments were quoted as per needs. In addition to them, all other issues [related to creeds] originate from the first three creeds [out of 15 creeds] and the origin of all origins is the first creed which is implication and summary of all Tanzihi creeds. Their evidence is those Quranic Ayaat which described glorification [tasbeeh] and sanctification [taqdees] of Allah Almighty, His eternity, perfection, purity, independency and that He is unmatched. The aayaat-e-tasbeeh [i.e. Quranic verses which refer to glorification of Allah] themselves are multiple in number. Allah the Most High says, “It is Allah, except Whom there is no God; the King, the Pure, the Giver of Peace, the Bestower of Safety, the Protector, the Most Honourable, the Compeller, the Proud; Purity is to Allah from all what they ascribe as partners (to Him)!” (Quran 59:23). Allah Almighty says, “Allah is Independent (Unwanting) of the entire creation!” (Quran 3:97). Allah Almighty says, “To Allah only belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and in the earth; indeed Allah only is the Absolute, the Most Praiseworthy.” (Quran 31-26) Allah Almighty says, “The Maker of the heavens and the earth; He has created pairs for you from yourselves and pairs from the animals; He spreads your generation; nothing is like Him; and He only is the All Hearing, the All Seeing.” (Quran 42:11)  Allah Almighty says, “Lord of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them – therefore worship Him and be firm in His worship; do you know any other of the same name as His?” (Quran 19:65) Allah Almighty says, ““And there is none equal to Him.” (Quran 112:4)

    There are hundreds of aayat relating to these issues. These aayaat are muhkammat. They are Umm al-Kitab [i.e. the core of the Book. There is neither hiddenness [khafa’] nor ambiguousness [ijmal], nor difficulty or abstruseness [ishkaal] in their meaning. Whatever meanings come from their clear [sareeh] words; it is categorically essential to believe them, without making any sort of changing, specification and taaweel [in these clear meanings]. 

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصدیقی - 8/29/2018 5:16:11 AM

  • The evidence from the Quran that “the tashabaha” cannot be taken literally are several verses. Consider the following verse:

    (2:74) Thenceforth were your hearts hardened: They became like a rock and even worse in hardness. For among rocks there are some from which rivers gush forth; others there are which when split asunder send forth water; and others which sink for fear of Allah. And Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.

    The heart muscle always remains soft and in no case becomes as hard as a rock. It can be easily cut with a surgeon’s knife.

     There are more such verses such as Ayat -al Nur 24:35 from which it is clear that the verse cannot be taken literally.

     The Quran says in Surah Ikhlas that “There is none like unto Him”. If there is none like unto Him, then all description of Him can be only using “tashabaha” or similitudes and we should avoid taking it literally.

     So, the books that try to describe Him are also conjecture. We can get some idea of how Allah can see everything, record everything, be everywhere, and be in a position to intervene instantaneously, from the possibilities of modern technology covering surveillance, monitoring and response systems.

     Allah has created a Universe that He can control and necessary mechanisms/agents for it such as angels. An angel may not also be what we imagine from the description in the Quran. The Quran uses terms that we can understand. Angels may not necessarily have wings, but they can move on the land and through space.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/29/2018 12:33:37 AM

  • @Siddiqi Sahib,
    It would be very helpful if you could provide evidence from the Quran for what you wrote in your comment. 

    By Kaniz Fatma - 8/28/2018 10:10:12 PM

  • @Kaniz Fatma,

    Truly Islam does not accept the faith of anthromophormism. However some sects rely on literal interpretation of Mutashabihat verses and ahadith to claim their anthromophormist faith.

    The following statements are a summary of the book “Al-Qawahirul Al-Qahhar fi mujassmatil fujjar”. In this book Alahazrat the author of the book has discussed, in exemplary scholastic details, fifteen creeds of Ahlus Sunnah. The book was written by Alahazrat originally into Urdu and then translated into Arabic by his great grandson Allama Akhtar Raza khan Azhari.

    Arabic Text:

    1.    الله تعالى منزه من كل عيب ونقصان

    2.    كل يحتاج إليه ولا يحتاج سبحانه وتعالى إلى شيء أصلا في شيء بأي حهة

    3.    منزه عن مشابهة الخلق

    4.    لا يتطرق إليه التغير هو الآن كما كان في الأزل ولا يزال كما كان إلى الأبد، ولا يجوز أبدا أن يكون أولا في طور ثم يتطور إلى حالة أخرى

    5.    ليس بجسم ولا علاقة لشيء جسماني بذاته تعالى

    6.    لا يعرض له المقدار حتى يقال "إنه بقدر كذا كذا" لا طويل ولا عريض ، ولا ذو جرم ولا سخين، ولا رقيق ولا كثير ولا قليل وفي العد والوزن لا كبير ولا صغير ولا ثقيل ولا خفيف

    7.    هو منزه عن الشكل لا منبسط ولا منقبض ولا مدور ولا طويل ولا مثلث ولا مربع ولا مستقيم ولا منحرف، وليس ب صورة غير ما ذكر

    8.    منزه عن حد وطرف ونهاية وليس بغير المحدود على معنى أن يكون منبسطا لا إلى غاية، بل المراد أنه منزه عن المقدار وغيره من جميع الأعراض، المهم أن قولنا "ليس بمحدود" لنفي الحد وليس لإثبات المقدار إلى نهاية

    9.    لم يتكون من شيء

    10.                       لا يمكن فرض الأجزاء أوا لحصص في ذاته تعالى

    11.                       منزه عن الجهة والطرف كما لا يجوز أن نقول: هو عن اليمين أو الشمال أو تحت، كذالك لا يقال: هو "قدام أو وراء أو فوق" على معنى الجهة

    12.                       لا يجوز أن يتصل بمخلوق ويكون متعلقا به

    13.                       ولا يفارق مخلوقا بحيث يكون بينه تعالى وبين المخلوق مسافة فاصلة

    14.                       لا يفتقر للمكان ولا للمحلل

    15.                       منزه عن القيام والقعود والنزول والصعود والحركة والسكون وغيرها من سائر عوارض الجسم والجسمانيات    

    English Translation:

    1. Allah Almighty is free from every defect or shortcoming.

    2. Everybody and everything needs Him; and He does not need anything or anybody.

    3. He is free from bearing any similarity to creations.

    4. He does not change. Just as He was possessed of His attributes in pre-eternity (Azal), so He shall remain with the same attributes forever. It is absolutely impossible [muhal] that He was something before, and then turned to become something else.

    5. He is not a body. He is free from everything that is suggestive of bodies.

    6. “He is transcendent from magnitude; one cannot say this much, this big and so forth. [He is not] tall, wide, thick, thin, little or more, countable or weighable, big or small, heavy or light.

    7. He transcends having a shape – [He is] neither wide or narrow, nor spherical or long, nor triangular or conical, nor straight or oblique nor any other shape.

    8. He transcends having extents or limits; He is not ‘unlimited’ in the sense of being [physically] spread out without a limit; that is, He transcends having any concept of magnitude. In other words, when we say He is transcendent from limits, we mean negation of imposing any limits; not the attestation of unlimited magnitude.

    9. He is not made from anything.

    10. Parts and sections cannot be conceived or considered in Him, even hypothetically.

    11. He is transcendent from directions or edges or [being on a] side. One cannot say that He is on the right or left; or front and back; similarly, [in this sense of direction] He is not above.

    12. He is not attached with anything in the creation such that He is in contact [with something].

    13. He is not detached from the creation – to mean that there is a [physical] distance between Him and His creation.

    14. He is transcendent from place and location.

    15. He transcends all conditions and necessities for bodies like standing, sitting, descending, ascending, walking, stopping etc.

    (Al-Qawahirul Al-Qahhar fi mujassmatil fujjar)

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 8/28/2018 5:48:48 AM

  • The article is very scholastic.

    But what about those who prove the faith of anthropomorphism on the basis of literal interpretations of some mutashabihat verses and ahadith? As far as I know Islam does not accept the faith of anthropomorphism.

    By Kaniz Fatma - 8/27/2018 11:20:07 PM

  • How bullshit is that God favours Muslims.
    For non-Muslim readers do not get deluded by this article writers here are questions that this scholars on new age Islam will answer.
    Non-Muslims should question this litmus test of this Arabic pious Allah:
    Question 1:
    Why God is ready to punish violent or mischief((I have never understood what is mischief)) non-Muslim living in minority  by the hand of Islamic ruler or Islamic law!!!
    Why God will punish Muslim who is harassing minority peace living non-Muslims in paradise.
    A person with cheating intensions can have different laws for same actions and situations to support different communities to suit their agenda.
    This are very simple questions and answer but you will even someone attempt on this website they will give long complicated argument or answer.
    Real God cannot cheat to his subjects but Allah of Arab is different, he created three different and distinct creed that has killed lots of humans for unseen God.
    I am delighted that Allah of Arab had not born like Hindu god, imaganie what would have happen.

    By Aayina - 8/25/2018 5:23:14 PM

  • Stop deluding other relgion followers and yourself Ghulam siddique, Muslim and Islam is complete pakage against every relgion and abusing their own ancestorical routes once they convert, the article from your community man  Khled Ahmed is enough to tell, link is below, your typical skull cape photo is enough to tell, I am not against any clothing but I am against  of political message sent to every other community, and I am even more against when it is manufactured identity. A Indian Muslim of two centuries ago was not more alienated like current one with Indian routres.

    I do consider that current Hindu clothing is nothing but adoption of western culture(((A Christian culture hiding under the pseudo name)))imperialism, who make fun of their ancestory like Muslims they only diffrence is that Muslim are busy in adopting Arabic imperialism and Hindus are western, this non-Muslims countries where Islam was not their has became a party plot where Abrhahmic faiths came and play their political and absoulatley demanding and surrendering game.

    Surrender not to God, Avtars and messenger's moral message but imperialism of this Abhrahmic faiths.

    Indian's as human breed will bleed in coming days if locals won't disowned this, Indian breed as peace living breed will became history like it had became in Pakistan.


    By Aayina - 8/25/2018 2:22:23 PM

  • @Zamiruddin Sa'ab do you live in Syria or Palestine that you making such nonsense comment, please come to earth what is happening there is not related to living in another country/area be a responsible citizen and act like.

    By Sarcastic - 8/25/2018 12:50:21 AM

  • Agar sitam aur zulm hoo to kiya hehaad zaroorree nahee. Look around Dear New Age enthusiast what is happenibg to Muslims. By the way are you b kind and cant see what is happening in Palestine, Syria etc that you preach caution and quote Islam shamelessly.
    By Zamiruddin - 8/25/2018 12:46:00 AM

  • 4th and final comment in continuation of the previous 3. All 4 comments are to be read together. 

    So, what do we make of this penchant for interpretation? Why is every scholar interpreting? People love to give their own meaning and hate being told in very precise terms. They want control over what they would like to believe which is why, they interpret the Quran rather than take what it says. They have also built an alternate body of literature based on concocted stories of what the Prophet said which they use this to “interpret”. What is the net effect?

     They worship only one deity, but that deity is not Allah, because His commands have been replaced by the interpretations.

    They do not follow Muhammad (pbuh) either, but a caricature of him which they have assiduously built by concocting the ahadith.

    And they think that reciting the Kalima will deliver them! The Muslims follow the whims of their various imams and not the Deen of Allah.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/23/2018 2:22:32 AM

  • The principles of interpretation.

     First, let us question why the Quran needs to be interpreted. Whose speech requires to be interpreted? We know that we need to interpret the speech of:

    1. A Child who has not yet learned to speak well.

    2. An imbecile

    3. Another category of speech or writing that is interpreted is poetry and literature.

     We never try to interpret the speech of sane intelligent honourable persons but take them on their word.

     The Quran informs us that it is not poetry nor is it the word of an imbecile or mad man but the word of a most honourable messenger of Allah. It therefore does not require to be interpreted but taken on its word or its most direct literal meaning. What of the Mutashabihat verses? These also do not require interpretation but knowing which of the words have been used as a metaphor, which is also never in doubt.

     (68:2) Thou art not, by the Grace of thy Lord, mad or possessed.

    (36:69) We have not instructed the (Prophet) in Poetry, nor is it meet for him: this is no less than a Message and a Qur´an making things clear:

    (81:19) Verily this is the word of a most honourable Messenger,

    (20) Endued with Power, with rank before the Lord of the Throne,

    (21) With authority there, (and) faithful to his trust.

    (22) And (O people!) your companion is not one possessed;

     (56:77) That this is indeed a qur´an Most Honourable,

    (78) In Book well-guarded,

    (79) Which none shall touch but those who are clean:

    (80) A Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds.

    (81) Is it such a Message that ye would hold in light esteem?

     Understanding the Message, and deriving the eternal principles from it, is not interpretation. It is simply making a systematic study of the Quran. Most of Islamic scholarship however lacks in systematic study and abounds in interpretations!

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/23/2018 12:44:08 AM

  • Continuing from my previous comment, let us look at the questions the author asks:
    1)    did the “sword verse” 9:5 really abrogate verses of peace and forbearance? 2) Who are the Mushrikin mentioned in the Verse 9:5? 3)  What are the Makki Verses Which Prevented Muslims from Figitng even in defence? 4) What is actually meant when some scholars say the verse 9:5 abrogated verses of peace and forbearance?
    The right questions are:
    What were the conditions and circumstances of the Muslims during the Meccan period? What was the right behaviour for those conditions prescribed by the Quran. Did the prescribed behaviour produce the right outcomes?  Was there any alternate behaviour that would have better served the Muslims? What would have happened if the Muslims had acted during the Meccan period as per the commands of Allah during the Medinian period? Was there any injustice to any people in the prescribed behaviour?
    A similar analysis can be carried out for the Medinian period. It must be also borne in mind that each command that deals with appropriate behaviour with the other is either:
    a)       based on specific circumstances
    b)      independent of circumstances and an eternal principle or law.
    Such an analysis yields the following answers:
    1.       The eternal unchanging principles that cannot be compromised by any circumstance.
    2.       The eternal unchanging principles of war.
    3.       The eternal unchanging principles of justice
    4.       The eternal unchanging principles of moral living
    5.       Nature of God and man’s relationship with God
    These are covered in my articles:

    The Principles of War from the Quran

    The Importance of Rendering Justice in Islam

    Deen-e-Islam or the Moral Way of Living in Islam

    The Role Models in the Quran

    The Quran, Islamic Theology, Philosophy And The Sciences - What Is God And How Do We Go About Trying To Know God Better? (Part 1)

    The Quran, Islamic Theology, Philosophy and the Sciences – On Soul and the Creation of Man (Part 2)

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/22/2018 11:44:01 PM

  • The Quran must be understood and taught as a set of principles appropriate for dealing with the given 'nature of things' which would enable  us to make informed choices and judgments as we would then know, with a high degree of certainty, the likely outcomes of our actions in a given set of circumstances, and avoid information overload. Prior to Charles Darwin, biology was a mass of unrelated facts about nature. Darwin tied them together in three principles of evolution: 1. Random genetic variation, 2. Struggle for existence and 3. Natural selection.  We do not need to know every detail today, and a mere sample is necessary to understand the universal principles and make sense of the world of biology.

    The mixing up of verses from the Meccan and Medinian period is symptomatic of inability to make a distinction between what is appropriate behavior for different situations. The Meccan period verses teach appropriate behavior when living as a dispersed, politically weak, minority. The Muslims were in the same situation as Jesus was, and the message is similar to what the Bible teaches and equally free of legislative verses since Muhammad (pbuh) had no political power to promulgate laws and ensure compliance. Since living as a minority is, and will remain the condition of Muslims in several countries, how can the Meccan verses be treated as abrogated?

    The Medinian period teaches how to use political and military power for ensuring justice and ending oppression. The clear principles of war, treaties, treatment of the vanquished are covered in this period. Where is the question of putting up with torture and persecution when you have political and military power? And where is the question of violent resistance when you can be easily annihilated? Moreover, the verses regarding war and punishment are for the ruler and not for the common man for whom the verses of restraint, forbearance and forgiveness apply at all times. The appropriate treatment for kidney stones could be taking medicine or surgery depending on several factors such as the size of the stones, the age and medical condition of the patient etc. Nobody argues that the two treatments contradict each other. Why is it then so difficult to understand that the Meccan and Medinian verses are for different situations and they neither contradict each other nor abrogate the other?

    The principles covering the relationship between spouses is similarly governed by the ‘nature of things’ and the need to maintain balance of power without endangering the marriage since divorce is more harmful to the interests of the woman than to the man.

    When understood in terms of appropriate principles based on the ‘nature of things’, we have a means for understanding and refining especially when the ‘nature of things’ is not constant but changing.

    The bane of Islamic scholarship is that it still struggles as the biologists did prior to Darwin. For every question they deal with overload of information much of which is irrelevant to the question and therefore end up tying themselves in knots.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/21/2018 9:46:23 PM

  • What do our common sense and conscience tell us? Do they tell us that peaceful co-existence is right and killing in the name of religion is wrong? If so, then the verses that support that thesis are genuine. Verses that negate that thesis must be either abrogated or ignored.

    Classical Islamic scholars may have different opinions on the subject, but we must go by what our common sense and our conscience dictate.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/21/2018 12:14:16 PM