certifired_img

Books and Documents

Debating Islam

55 - COMMENTS

  • @Vijaykumar Kapse Right By AbulKhair Zafar - 9/29/2018 10:32:07 PM



  • I humbly believe that the concept of God is beyond logic or discussion. Just have faith! By Vijaykumar Kapse - 9/29/2018 10:31:22 PM



  • Dinabandhu Nayak if you mean Quran by putative message, it is like taking a book in hands and reading only the name of the book and not kowing what is the details of the name of the book. Dear, if you believe in Allah, why don't you get His love, His company? Having read the name now please peep inside the book.Surely you will find your Allah there. By AbulKhair Zafar - 9/29/2018 10:30:32 PM



  • Abdul khalique Right By AbulKhair Zafar - 9/29/2018 10:29:58 PM



  • Abdul Khalique, Me too believe in Allah, but do not believe in His putative message. By Dinabandhu Nayak - 9/29/2018 10:29:27 PM



  • Allah is Almighty,Omniscient, omnipresent. What can one do, if one misinterpret theme?There is no confusion.In reality confusion is created with mischievous intention. By Abdul Khalique - 9/29/2018 10:28:08 PM



  • To summarise:

    The sectarian differences in beliefs have little to do with what the Quran says, and no sect displays any great degree of faithfulness to the Quran. The various sects show a great amount of religious fervour, passion and zeal in sticking to their respective positions even though these may be contradictory to the Quran. Every sect is one form of extremism or another without any regard to what the Quran says on those beliefs that make them different from the rest. I find plenty of passion and zeal and deference to the previous imams, but very little of sincerity and honesty among the scholars. When it comes to faith, they forget what truth, honesty and consistency means. They are immoral, believing the ends justify the means. In fact, this is one immoral belief that I find common to most Muslims and the belief, that the ends justify the means is the true meaning of "shirk" or polytheism.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/5/2018 2:13:48 AM



  • What do we make of the burning question at one time of the createdness or otherwise of the Quran? The debate is void of what the Quran itself has to say on the subject and the very direct evidence from it as to its createdness. The Muʿtazilah wereadvancing only philosophical arguments. They argued that “God is pure Essence, without eternal attributes, because they held that the assumption of eternal attributes in conjunction with Essence will result in a belief in multiple coeternals and violate God’s pure, unadulterated unity. God knows, wills, and acts by virtue of his Essence and not through attributes of knowledge, will, and power. Nor does he have an eternal attribute of speech, of which the Qurʾān and other earlier revelations were effects; the Qurʾān was, therefore, created in time and was not eternal.” This argument is contradictory to what the Quran itself says about Allah’s attributes and the fact that the Quran is produced by Allah. The Muʿtazilah concept of unadulterated unity of God shorn of the sophistry of philosophy, is that either He does not exist, or He is some form of static essence or only a notion like an axiom in mathematics.

     Those who argued about the uncreatedness of the Quran also ignored what the Quran itself says on the subject. They were competing with the followers of other religions who claim their scriptures to be uncreated and couldn’t allow them to get away by claiming superiority! They exhibited blind fanaticism rather than reason and therefore ignored the clear evidence from the Quran to its createdness.

    Belief in predetermination does not make any sense at any level. If everything is predetermined, why did Allah create man with distinctive and highly developed cognitive skills, sent Messengers for his guidance and Books of revelations? This belief in another form of fanaticism and extreme form of self-denial. By denying to themselves any power/agency, they think they exalt God!

    Muslim society made tremendous progress during the first three centuries which I call the period of its innocence. This war to the finish between the Muʿtazilah and the reactionary fanatics ended its golden period of innocence. The reactionary fanatics won. I blame the Muʿtazilah for getting carried away by their studies in philosophy and losing touch with the Quran. They were without doubt the atheists of their time.

    The bane of Islamic scholarship has been that is has swung between extremes but never found the Golden Mean to this day. The Sufis are also full of mumbo jumbo, with superstitious beliefs, and philosophical arguments without any basis in the Quran, and therefore of little consequence beyond their own blind followers.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/5/2018 12:10:46 AM



  • Mutazilh's  claimed that human reason, independent of revelation, was capable of discovering what is good and what is evil, although revelation corroborated the findings of reason. Human beings would, therefore, be under moral obligation to do the right even if there were no prophets and no divine revelation.

    Such a rational approach is fully consonant with modernistic thinking and can be a liberating influence from literalstic mullahism.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/4/2018 1:13:38 PM



  • Muʿtazilah 

    What is in black is from: britannica.com/topic/Islam/Islamic-thought#ref298984 and what is in red is my comment.

     “The Muʿtazilah explained away the apparently predeterministic verses of the Qurʾān as being metaphors and exhortations.”

     Those apparently predeterministic verses are neither metaphors nor exhortations but proclaim the unchanging law of Allah. These are akin to fixing the seal of Allah after having laid down the law. For example, after having described who Allah guides to the right path and who Allah allows to stray, if Allah says “Allah guides whom He wills and allows to stray whom He wills”, Allah is putting the seal of finality to the description pre-empting all arguments of the type “why this why not that?” The Muʿtazilah failed to counter the believers in predeterminism with proper reasoning.

     They claimed that human reason, independent of revelation, was capable of discovering what is good and what is evil, although revelation corroborated the findings of reason. Human beings would, therefore, be under moral obligation to do the right even if there were no prophets and no divine revelation.

     This is where they veer towards atheism. Al-Fârâbî even cast doubts on the character of revealed religions and opines that the Prophets and the revealed religions articulate the same insights that philosophers express in their teachings. The prophets simply use the method of symbolization to make this wisdom more approachable for the ordinary people. In his opinion therefore, the Prophets were only philosophers, who used the framework of religion to make their ideas acceptable to the common man. This false notion that the prophets are only philosophers, is what made philosophy usurp moral principles from religion, without acknowledging its debt to religion, since they make no distinction between the prophets and philosophers. The fact however is that philosophy, in its entire history starting from 600 BC, has never produced a single moral principle and all the moral principles have come solely from religion. The inimitability of the Quran, and indeed every Book of revealed scriptures, is the fact that these contain knowledge that was simply not possible for human beings in foresight, but perfectly comprehensible in hindsight.

     Revelation has to be interpreted, therefore, in conformity with the dictates of rational ethics. Yet revelation is neither redundant nor passive. Its function is twofold. First, its aim is to aid humanity in choosing the right, because in the conflict between good and evil human beings often falter and make the wrong choice against their rational judgment. God, therefore, must send prophets, for he must do the best for humanity; otherwise, the demands of divine grace and mercy cannot be fulfilled. Secondly, revelation is also necessary to communicate the positive obligations of religion—e.g., prayers and fasting—which cannot be known without revelation.

    Ethics has not come from rationality but from revelations. Rational ethics is therefore nothing but applying reason to ethics from religion or rationalizing what we want to do and therefore going away from what is ethical.

    Instead of using their reason to gain the best understanding of the Quran, the Muʿtazilah are now challenging the Quran

     When, in the early 9th century, the ʿAbbāsid caliph al-Maʾmūn raised Muʿtazilism to the status of the state creed, the Muʿtazilah rationalists showed themselves to be illiberal and persecuted their opponents. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (died 855), an eminent orthodox figure and founder of one of the four orthodox schools of Islamic law, was subjected to flogging and imprisonment for his refusal to subscribe to the doctrine that the Qurʾān, the word of God, was created in time.

    Not very ethical and unnecessarily coercive behaviour on an inconsequential matter! The fact is that the Quran contains unchanging laws with which Allah created the universe and these were created alongwith Time. It also contains answers to questions people asked. The Quran openly invites people to ask questions and assures that all their question would be answered, and the best explanation given. These are verses containing “hikmat” or the best way to apply the laws or an explanation of a law, and the “Duas” which were created in time as needed. The prohibitions were revised over the four thousand period of revelations and what was prohibited earlier was made lawful in a few cases and what was not prohibited earlier was subsequently prohibited.

     The differences in the opinions have more to do with philosophy and little to do with religion and even less to do with the very clear facts as explained. To persecute somebody for such differences, is barbaric and irrational.

     The Muʿtazilah do not give a very good account of their rationality and they have their own kinks and idiosyncrasies. Had they stuck to facts and reason based entirely on the Quran, they would never have lost their ground to the obviously very untalented, bigoted lot which finally prevailed.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/4/2018 1:24:41 AM



  • The comment of Dr Rafique Anwar quoting from  Maulana Azad’s Tarjumanul Quran is illuminating. However, what Kazi Wadud Nawaz says in his article Quranic Method of Cognition of Realities

     is of more practical value. While the essential “Zaat” of Allah is beyond our complete comprehension, many of His attributes are made very clear and evident. For example, that Allah never changes His ways. Allah’s word is His will and His law. All human striving and progress are because Allah never changes his word/law. If this were not so, we would not have had any laws at all – not the laws of physics etc. if every force of nature such as gravity, behaved in an unpredictable random manner, how could we plan for gravity in our creations for our benefit? All such sub-attributes of Allah are very clear. However, we do realise that Allah is more than a sum of the parts, because the why part of Allah’s purpose is only explained from the perspective of the Creator or not at all. We can see that everything is for “just ends” and that there is a design, purpose and perfect causality and the assurance that while there is injustice on this earth, justice will find perfection in the Hereafter. We can see all of this but only if we are willing to see things from the perspective of the Creator or with full faith and belief in Him, because there are no answers to the question “why create at all?”

     Allah’s clear attributes are manifested in His creation which is why the Quran says:

    (18:109) Say: "If the ocean were ink (wherewith to write out) the words of my Lord, sooner would the ocean be exhausted than would the words of my Lord, even if we added another ocean like it, for its aid."

    These copious words are left for man to write by pursing the study of Allah’s creation or the Sciences. To quote from Kazi Wadud Nawaz’s article:

    “The universe with all its interconnected physical phenomena manifests divine attributes extending towards the domain of spirituality and collectively leads towards a Singular Eternal Entity, the ultimate cause of all creations. The same thing happens with Time as a Divine Attribute.  Its manifestation and impact on the evolutionary process of life and universe constitute the comprehensible domain of divine signs in the physical world well within the cognitive capacity of Science. But the scientists are getting baffled and confused on the question of the origin of time, life, consciousness and the universe. Since all these points to the essence or ‘Zaat' of the Eternal Reality, they form the incomprehensible part of divine signs ie, "Ayat-E-Mutashabihaat". Their manifestations, impact and functional strategies all might come within the range of scientific endeavour as part of "Ayat-e-Muhkamaat" but the Ultimate Truth, in the final analysis, will be beyond the reach of science.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/3/2018 1:07:50 AM



  • ISIS ka kam kyaa hai ? Koi school,asptaal,kuchh bana kr dikhayey.
    Sirf goli chalawo,Shiya ko maro,ahmediya ko maro,Hindu ko maro,Kashmir mey patharbaji krawo.
    Sab bhediya ki aulad hai.
    Kerala mey kaafiron kaa khairaat mang kr khaayey,koi fatwa nhi nikla. By U.p. Ojha - 9/2/2018 10:10:50 PM



  • Hats Off says, " mr. ghulam mohiyuddin . . . .  thinks it is stupid to discuss God. so either God is stupid or mr. mohiyuddin is smarter."

    Hats Off's facility in lying and vilification is striking! He thinks he can take any meaning out of a statement that he wants to! I do say that it is not worthwhile to try to carry out a "scholarly" discussion on a subject that we know nothing about. But to derive the meaning: "either God is stupid or mr. mohiyuddin is smarter," from what I had said shows the degree of Hats Off's mala fides and mendacity.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/2/2018 12:18:07 PM



  • it appears that mr. naseer ahmed is god.
    He is able to say everything on His behalf and just as surely as He Himself can say it.
    in other words, mr. naseer ahmed is so well versed with God and what he has in His mind, that it is legitimate to ask if mr naseer ahmed is God Himself or mr. naseer ahmed has created God.
    anything is possible for mr. naseer ahmed. from denigrating greek gods to helping God decide what he has said in his holy(?) book.
    in the meanwhile mr. ghulam mohiyuddin - the moderate-extremist thinks it is stupid to discuss God. so either God is stupid or mr. mohiyuddin is smarter - one is very interested in farishthey sui par naachneke baarey mein.
    mashallah! kya kamaal kiya! jugnu ke peechey bijlee lagaa diyaa!
    each to his own inconsequentiality.
    By hats off! - 9/2/2018 10:07:44 AM



  • Quranic Concept of God
    From the standpoint of anthropomorphism versus transcendentalism, the Quranic concept of the transcendental assumes a state of perfection, such as had not been reached before. Prior to the delivery of the Quran, the highest that the human intellect could conceive of was that one should, in the place of images, worship an unseen God. But in respect of divine attributes, no concept anywhere could invest God with any attributes other than the human. Even the Judaic concept which disallowed image-worship in any form was not free from the taint of similitude. The wrestling of God with Jacob, His appearance on Mount Sinai in the form of a flame, Moses seeing the back parts of God, the God of Moses doing a thing in recklessness and then repenting thereafter, His treatment of Israel as his favourite wife and His lament over her unfaithfulness, His feeling of pain in his intestines and the production of a hole in his heart, and so forth are the portraits of God presented by the Old Testament.
    The fact is that prior to the Quranic concept, the mind of man had not risen high enough to discard the veils of anthropomorphic Similitude's and directly behold the splendour of divine attributes. We find in the Old Testament very fine attributes applied to God along with qualities and passions intensely human. Even Christ when he desired to speak of the universal mercy of God, was obliged to employ the similitude of relationship subsisting between father and son. It was this tendency to strike Similitude's which is responsible for the raising of Christ to the position of the Son of God. But when we turn from these concepts to the Quran, we feel as if new world of thought has suddenly made its appearance before us. All the veils of anthropomorphic Similitude's are lifted, and transcendentalism glows in perfection.

    Nought is there like Him (Q: 42: 11)
    No vision taketh Him in,
    but He taketh in all vision (Q: 6: 103) 
    Say: He is God, the One only:
    God, on Whom all depend!
    He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
    And there is none like Him.(Q: 112: 1-4)

    One great twentieth century Islamic Scholar as well as Sufi Master from Kolkata, India, Hazrat Ameer Ali Chishty says in his 'Sirajul-Ma'arifat' or 'The Height of Gnosis' thus:

    Gar kahoo'N Awal, Toh Mera nah toh koyee ibtedah;
    Gar kahooN Aakhir toh mera intiha be-intiha.

    (If I say, I'm the Beginning, then it's a Beginning without any starting point;
    Again If I say, I'm the ending, then it's an ending without any finishing point.)

    We may cast insightful look into the matter that is common to the Old Testament and the Quran. Wherever the Old Testament speaks of God as having made His appearance, the Quran speaks of only the light of God having appeared, and wherever the Old Testament speaks of God as having appeared in a concrete shape, the Quran speaks of an angel of God having appeared. As an example we may look into the following passages from the Old Testament.

    And the Lord said: Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
    And it shall pass while My glory passeth by, that I will put them in a cleft of the rock and will gather thee with My hand while I pass by:
    And I will take away Mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts:
    But My face shall not be seen. (Exodus 20:23)
    And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud and stood in the door of the Tabernacle...
    My servant Mosses...
    With him will I speak, mouth to mouth, even apparently and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold. (Numbers 12: 5-8)

    The Quran interpreted the above in the following manner:

    Moses said: 'O Lord, show Thyself to me, that I may look upon Thee'. He said, 'Thou shalt not see Me: but look towards the mount.' (Q: 7: 143)

    Now, there is definitely a difference between transcendentalism and nullification. Transcendentalism let's the human mind to divest itself of every human touch in its approach to divine attributes, whereas nullification is the negation of every attribute that might be conceived of by the human mind in its application to God, resulting in vacuousness. The aim of the Quran is to present a perfect transcendental vision of God and not to initiate a process of negations. Undoubtedly, the process of Neti Neti of the Upanishads afforded a very advanced view of transcendentalism. But what was the result in practice? The Absolute Brahma had to descend into the concrete form of Ishwara to avoid nullification.
    While the process of affirmation of attributes leads to anthropomorphism, the process of negation leads to total nullification. Similarly while personification or similitude denies us the perception of Reality, the process of negation denies us the consolation of positive belief. This is why the Quran has chosen the middle path.

    If no room is left for the mind to visualize any attributes for God, simply because every attribute suggested will have some resemblance to some human attribute, transcendentalism will lead to a total denial of God. Indeed it will never generate any definite belief. Whatever one might at the end visualize of God, it will in effect be a denial of God, for, we cannot dissociate the concept of not-being from that of being, if we have to depend entirely on the negation of attributes in our approach to God.

    The belief in God is an inward demand of human nature. To raise it from the animal plane to the high plane of humanity one must necessarily have an ideal before him. But the difficulty is that we cannot raise before our mind's eye any picture of the Absolute. If we care to raise one, we can do so only by personifying positive attributes. That is why we have always tried to look at the beauty of Reality through the veil of positive attributes. The veil has been sometimes thick and sometimes thin, sometimes frightening, and sometimes attractive, but it is there all the same. It has never been lifted.

    The fact is that the beauty of Reality itself has put on no veil over it. It's our eye that does not have the talent to behold it. We wish to see it with veils put on over our eyes, and fancy that the veil is on the countenance of Reality. Man cannot catch a non-attributive concept. He therefore wants to run after an object which he can catch and possess. He desires a beauty which he can passionately love and after whom he can madly run. He desires an object of benevolence before whom he can stretch his hand of supplication, and who, however high his station, is every moment intent on looking up to him.

    Surely My Lord is watchful. (Q: 89:14)
    And when My servant asks thee concerning Me, then will I be high unto him. I will answer the cry of him that crieth, when crieth unto me. (Q: 2:186)

    A nonattributive concept is negative in character. It cannot quench the human thirst. It will surely promote a philosophic outlook, but it can never become an active or living faith. This is the reason why the Quran pursues a path along which we not only get a perfect vision of the transcendental but feel competent to counter every form of anthropomorphic representation. It affirms individual attributes, one by one. But at the same time, it negates metamorphism. It says that God possesses all the attributes which man can conceive of for him. He is the Living (Hyyun), the All Powerful (Qadirun), the Creator (Khaliqun), the Merciful (Rahman ur Raheem), the All Seeing (Basirun), All Hearing (Samiyun), All Knowing (Alimun) and so on. Not merely this, but the Quran employs without any hesitation every form of figurative expression admissible in literature:
    Nay, both His hands are spread out. (Q: 5:64)
    His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth. (Q: 2:255)

    At the same time it makes it clear that nothing can be compared to God.
    Nought is like Him. (Q: 42:11)
    No vision taketh Him in. (Q: 6:103)
    So coin not Similitude's for Him. (Q: 16:74)

    His 'living' is not like our living, His 'Providence' is not like our providence, His 'seeing' or 'hearing' or ' knowing' is not like ours. The metaphor of hand is used only to denote His power and forgiveness, and that of Arsh to denote His majesty and His control. But the sense is not the same as may be formed of them in our mind in respect of their relation to human activity.

    The attitude adopted by the Quran in respect of the concept of God is the only way out. No other attitude will serve as a solution to this tangle. On the one hand, Reality is so high that the human intellect feels helpless to scale up to it. On the other, the restless urge in human nature to have a vision of this Realty is genuine enough. However much one may strive to look up, our gaze returns to us wearied. But the yearning to catch a vision of God is nevertheless intense.

    If we lean toward transcendentalism, we end in negation. If we go forward in the affirmation of attributes, we lose ourselves in anthropomorphism. Safety lies in proceeding cautiously along a middle path. We have neither to give the reins to transcendentalism, nor let affirmation slip out of our hand. Affirmation will effect a pleasing display of attributes. Transcendentalism will prevent the shadows of similitude to cloud our vision. The one will let the beauty of the Absolute appear in the glow of attributes. The other will hold back all similitude from throwing thereon its cloudy dust.

    The authors of the Upanishads went to extremes in their negation of attributes. The different schools of dialecticians among Muslims went beyond the Upanishads and rendered the problem of divine attributes highly intricate. The Jahimiya and the Batiniya denied attributes absolutely. The Mutizila, however did not deny them openly, but their leaning was decidedly towards the two groups. Imam Abul Hassan Ashari assumed a balanced attitude, as is evidenced by his Al-Ibana. But his followers indulged in extremist interpretations of attributes and complicated the issue. Imam Juini left the world saying: 'I go from this world believing the beliefs which my mother had imparted to me'. When a solution was furnished, it was furnished in the manner of the Quran. Imam Fakhruddin Razi of the school of Ashari, who took a leading part in the controversy, had ultimately to admit in his last work:
    'I employed all the methods which philosophy and dialectic had provided, but in the end I realized that these methods neither could bring solace to the weary heart nor quench the thirst of the thirsty. The best method and the nearest to reality was the method provided by the Quran. In respect of the affirmation of attributes, recite: Beneficent God is seated on the throne of heaven,--- and in the negation of Similitude's, recite: Nought there is like unto Him.--- In other words, do not lose touch with either- affirmation- or - negation. He who has had the opportunity to experience what I have experienced, will realize this truth even as I have done.' (Quoted by Maulana Azad in his 'Tarjumanul Quran, vol 1)

    Note: the write-up is based on Maulana Azad's Tarjumanul Quran:
    By Dr. Rafique Anwar - 9/2/2018 8:38:42 AM



  • Kaffir woh lannati loog hai jo loot maar karray aur ulta illzaam aus se pay lagatay hai jin loogo ko loot tay hai aur agar woh bay charay ahawaz outha ya tho yeh lootay ray aun baycharou ko ahatangwade khatay hai , kashmir pay kaffir loogo nay takath kay bal par kabzaa keya aur illzaam lagatay hai Kashmiriyou pay , yeh he hoti hai kaffironou key phachaan jo Jhoothay aur makkar hotay hai . By Qasim Kawa - 9/2/2018 3:39:58 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    God has chosen to punish those who disobey His commands and forgive/reward those who are forever mindful of His commands. There are philosophers and philosophies positing that self-interest is the highest virtue rejecting altruism and collectivism which are the core of religious morality. Such people may very well ask why should man please God rather than please himself and therefore why God should punish those who follow a different philosophy. God’s preempts such potentially endless questions with “God punishes whom He wills and forgives whom He wills” after making known His will. God’s will is His unchanging law and not His whims as you appear to have understood. There can be no system of rewards/punishment without proclaiming the law which is why God proclaims the law as His will to reward/punish as per His law/will. The Divine will means the unchanging Divine Law.

     Pre-Determination and free will

     There are many factors that are out of the control of man. He did not choose his parents, the place of his birth nor determined his form and cognitive abilities. Man did not determine the laws of Human behavior. That is determined by God as per His will. While man can control his own behavior, he has very little control over the behavior of others and his environment.  For example, he could be killed in an accident without having been at fault.

     God’s tests, rewards, and punishments are only for deeds/actions over which God has given control to man and which are not subject to coercion by other people. If under threat of liquidation for your faith, you are permitted to even renounce your religion/God/Prophet without incurring God’s wrath. Allah’s guidance through Messengers and Books of revelations is only over things in which God has given man choice and the freedom to choose.

     Can we ignore any verse?

    A verse is either relevant to the question that you are asking or not relevant but never in contradiction of the relevant verses. You can therefore consider the entire Quran or the verses relevant to the question alone without going wrong. If you ignore a relevant verse, then obviously you will arrive at the wrong conclusions.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/2/2018 12:52:20 AM



  • Islam means peace not destruction
    Mr. up ojha By Shakeel Najar - 9/1/2018 11:15:03 PM



  • Shakeel Najar Then what do you do sir, fight and fight and destroy this heaven . By KB Pathak - 9/1/2018 11:14:22 PM



  • whole universe is stand by a bleaver, otherwise it will be destroyed much before By Shakeel Najar - 9/1/2018 11:13:26 PM



  • Abu Basim Khan Why Allah is beyond such debate ? When muhammad in Mecca can debate the existence of Meccan God , we can also debate Allah By Zaid Hamid - 9/1/2018 11:11:25 PM



  • @S W Imam Most atheist with name of Muslims deliberately raise such matter and get joy and laugh in their hearts when Muslims post and says their views. They want to create confusion among Muslims mass.we have to ignore such matters raised by such elements. By Abu Basim Khan - 9/1/2018 11:10:48 PM



  • Allah is beyond such debate. What I realize that our tendency and nature to raise controversy and our live to differ creates such debate. By S W Imam - 9/1/2018 11:04:28 PM



  • Abhay Kumar Why Islam fastest spreading throughout the world speacialy America &Europe? By Kaleemoddin Mouzan - 9/1/2018 11:03:46 PM



  • @Abhay Kumar What ever it is going on ,but Reality is that muslims must Live as i said above , and must show what is right Living By S Waqar A Naqvi - 9/1/2018 11:03:14 PM



  • @S Waqar A Naqvi  Yeah , we can see how peacefully islamists are living through out the globe By Abhay Kumar - 9/1/2018 11:02:37 PM



  • @S Waqar A Naqvi Totally hypothetical. By Rousan Ali - 9/1/2018 11:02:08 PM



  • Aslkum, as i understand Islam provides complete way of Life ,based on Islamic Disciplinary rules How to Live on the glob comfartably and peacefully, without creating any problems By S Waqar A Naqvi - 9/1/2018 10:29:11 PM



  • Naseer Saheb, the question is: does a human have a choice or do things happen simply because God will them to happen. The current Islamic theology of consensus is that every human action or inaction is predistined. Giving power of choice to humans would amount to limiting God's power, His almightiness. Mutazalite rationalists believed that humans do have choice. But they were defeated by ulema and persecuted and their books burnt in 9th century. Since then Muslims believe God may or maynot choose to guide them and yet punish or reward them as He wills. This is Asharite theology but it is based on Quran and Hadith. That is the problem. Quran seems to lean on the side of Jabriyya and Ashariyya, though it also supports Qadriyya and Mutazallah. What should a Muslim believe and why? Which verses of Quran should a Muslim adopt and which should he ignore or reject in working out his aqeeda? This is what our ulema have done down the ages, accept one set of verses and ignore another set. By Sultan Shahin - 9/1/2018 3:03:54 PM



  • Scholarly discussions on the topic of how God operates usually end up being as futile as discussions on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/1/2018 2:45:16 PM



  • Shahin Sb,

     Is it an unjust law of Allah that man progresses on whichever path he chooses for himself?

     If he chooses the path of evil, is Allah unjust in punishing? If he chooses righteousness, is Allah unjust in rewarding?

    It is Allah's will/law to make man progress on the path he has willfully chosen and to reward punish accordingly.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/1/2018 4:20:28 AM



  • My point Farooq is , that all this understanding is actually coming from us humans. We are attributing it to a divine power.
    Normally, instead of tackling injustice through a collective process when it is occurring, we pass it on to "a divine power".
    May be it is good, in as much as it allows us to take distance and get a more objective view, which ultimately leads to solution.
    Our subjectiveness of being in a patriarchal society, makes us assume that the divine is a HE and not a SHE or a IT
    It clearly shows, through out history, God is just a reflection/creation of human beings. Now, more and more created in the image of the dominant group of the society. By Sebbi Devaraj - 9/1/2018 2:23:15 AM



  • Sebbi Devaraj from divine position. He is just and his justice is infinite encompassed by infinite knowledge. Therefore what may appear unjust to us within our limited concept of justice and limited knowledge shall actually be perfectly just in the divine perspective. By Farooq Peer - 9/1/2018 2:22:31 AM



  • Without devine there is no Human By Suraj Sayyed - 9/1/2018 2:21:46 AM



  • When you say God is just, from what position are you saying this? Human or divine? By Sebbi Devaraj - 9/1/2018 2:21:02 AM



  • If you try to understand God from human position, you are bound to fall into this confusion.God is just and merciful. What appears arbitrary to us is in fact not arbitrary but encompassed by his wisdom. His wisdom or hikmat is not visible to our understanding. God is Adl but his Adl has an infinite context of past, present and future under which it operates. This context is not visible to us, so we see some kind of arbitrariness in his actions. God is always just. By Farooq Peer - 9/1/2018 2:20:23 AM



  • If you try to understand God from human position, you are bound to fall into this confusion.God is just and merciful. What appears arbitrary to us is in fact not arbitrary but encompassed by his wisdom. His wisdom or hikmat is not visible to our understanding. God is Adl but his Adl has an infinite context of past, present and future under which it operates. This context is not visible to us, so we see some kind of arbitrariness in his actions. God is always just. By Farooq Peer - 9/1/2018 2:19:23 AM



  • A confused lot. By Easa Khan - 9/1/2018 12:04:35 AM



  • If whole Muslim ummah stand in a unit, we rule over the world in seconds, By Shakeel Najar - 9/1/2018 12:04:08 AM



  • @Mubarak Ahmad Kashmir was heaven under Raja Hari Singh rule.it was heaven till kashmiri pundits were there. Pundits were ousted and it became HELL. By U.p. Ojha - 9/1/2018 12:03:42 AM



  • @UP OJHA kashmir is hell due to indian hindu so called security for es.They r not Rakshaks but Raakshaks. By Mubarak Ahmad - 9/1/2018 12:03:06 AM



  • @U P OJHA The rest of India is no heaven for nearly 80% of people. It is hell for atleast 60 % who have no food, water, education, land, health, employment By Sebbi Devaraj - 9/1/2018 12:02:26 AM



  • @up ojha whole universe is stand by a bleaver, otherwise it will be destroyed much before By Shakeel Najar - 9/1/2018 12:01:39 AM



  • Kashmir is hell due to Muslim population,as Syriya,Afghanistan,etc are.
    Please justify.Why the Hindu kings massacred lakhs of Hindus in not only Ramayana..Bharata..Bhagavata periods??Not only that,it has been done in Modern period also.Can any one clarify here? By U.p. Ojha - 9/1/2018 12:00:39 AM



  • Why the Hindu kings massacred lakhs of Hindus in not only Ramayana..Bharata..Bhagavata periods??Not only that,it has been done in Modern period also.Can any one clarify here? By Suraj Sayyed - 8/31/2018 11:59:16 PM



  • Shahjahan Raza Khan please come to the ground and discuss everything in the present context. By Rousan Ali - 8/31/2018 11:13:04 PM



  • Shahjahan Raza Khan why only madina .treaty why not all da barbaric act done by muslim.sultan. By Jai Thakur - 8/31/2018 11:12:33 PM



  • @U P Ojha Go and read Madina treaty! By Shahjahan Raza Khan - 8/31/2018 11:12:00 PM



  • sir , be it mutazilites asharites or any other sects they have been trying to reason with the verses of quran and hadith, in accordance with the times they lived in and the problem they faced. and the phenomenon will go on becoz its the human nature to probe and pursuit. one can only judge by comparing the progress made during their respective periods and there pros and cons till now. the period of mutazallih was the best in comparision of anyother times so much progreess was made and the knowledge transferred was astonishing. after that period we havnt had any king henry 5th to patronize us , as was done by haroon rashidand mamoon rasheed.the vice like grip of ulemas and their tacit understanding with kings had damaged the progressese no ends. they have always been hand and gloves for their own selfish ends. we need another house of wisdom. By amir - 8/31/2018 1:50:24 PM



  • Dear Naseer Saheb, I think I will need more persuading to understand that in the following para you are presenting God as Just and caring and kind and Rational, and not as simply whimsical omnipotent ruler, who only cares for his own will and power, nothing else, as Ghazali and Asharis, Zahiris, Hanbalis, etc. propagate. You seem to be saying both the things in the same sentence. How can God misguide people and then punish them for their evil acts and be considered Rational, Just and Compassionate, Raheem and Kareem?  Aren't Asharis etc right in just saying he is indifferent to human plight and cares only for his will and his power to execute his will, whatever he wills. 


    "(35:8) Is he, then, to whom the evil of his conduct is alluring, so that he looks upon it as good, (equal to the righteous)? For Allah leaves to stray whom He wills, and guides whom He wills. So, let not thy soul go out in (vainly) sighing after them: for Allah knows well all that they do!

     "There is nothing whimsical about “Allah leaving to stray whom He wills” as He has described clearly that it is His will to allow those who are fond of their evil deeds and look upon them as good, to stray. That is Allah’s unchanging law and His will and will not change by your sighs, misgivings or arguments. These are of no account against what Allah has decreed as His law. Understand Allah’s will/law and submit to it."

    By Sultan Shahin - 8/31/2018 9:36:12 AM



  • Islam d its followers tooooo rigid for any discussion . They do not give right to anyone to exist . By Arun Sharma - 8/31/2018 12:08:10 AM



  • Unless Islam respects other faith,it is barbaric and animal behaviour. By U.p. Ojha - 8/30/2018 11:36:11 PM



  • Shahin Sb,

     I do not ignore the verses quoted by the Asharite/Hanbali  or by the Mutazilla to arrive at my understanding. Consider the following verse:

     Shahin Sb,

      I do not ignore the verses quoted by the Asharite/Hanbali  or by the Mutazilla to arrive at my understanding. Consider the following verse:

     (35:8) Is he, then, to whom the evil of his conduct is alluring, so that he looks upon it as good, (equal to the righteous)? For Allah leaves to stray whom He wills, and guides whom He wills. So, let not thy soul go out in (vainly) sighing after them: for Allah knows well all that they do!

     There is nothing whimsical about “Allah leaving to stray whom He wills” as He has described clearly that it is His will to allow those who are fond of their evil deeds and look upon them as good, to stray. That is Allah’s unchanging law and His will and will not change by your sighs, misgivings or arguments. These are of no account against what Allah has decreed as His law. Understand Allah’s will/law and submit to it.

     Psychology confirms that we progress on whatever path that we have chosen unless we try to change our ways. To do that, Allah has provided us the criterion of right and wrong through His Book and gave us the necessary moral equipment which is the cognitive dissonance that we experience when our action is not in conformity with what we believe to be right. This is also called conscience.

     (4:31) If ye (but) eschew the most heinous of the things which ye are forbidden to do, We shall expel out of you all the evil in you, and admit you to a gate of great honour.

    (6:54) When those come to thee who believe in Our signs, Say: "Peace be on you: Your Lord hath inscribed for Himself (the rule of) mercy: verily, if any of you did evil in ignorance, and thereafter repented, and amend (his conduct), lo! He is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

     (6:12) Say: "To whom belongeth all that is in the heavens and on earth?" Say: "To Allah. He hath inscribed for Himself (the rule of) Mercy. That He will gather you together for the Day of Judgment, there is no doubt whatever. It is they who have lost their moral conscience (through their own wilful neglect), that will not believe.

     Allah makes amply clear His will/law of what kind of behaviour will be forgiven and what kind of behaviour will lead to painful chastisement in the Hereafter. This does not show His indifference but His mercy. He leaves you in no doubt about anything. The people of Taqwa are those who respond to the impulse for good and resist the impulse for evil and it is these people who will be successful. The people who respond to the impulse of evil and resist the impulse for good, eventually lose the promptings of their moral conscience completely.

     The past scholars may have been sincere but as you have described, they dealt with a part of the Quran ignoring the other and came to different conclusions when these parts are to be read together and complement each other and do not contradict each other.

     All past scholarship is highly impressionistic and not analytical and heavily influenced by other cultures, religions and philosophy. As recently as fifty years back, we did not even have an indexed Quran for carrying out a methodical study! Sincerity is not enough to arrive at the right conclusions. It requires a dispassionate analytical approach. The fact is that the Book is read with “religious fervour” (emotional attachment to pre-conceived notions of what constitutes the religion) rather than in a cool analytical fashion to discover what it says. We should learn to read/listen to the Quran each time as if we have never read/ heard it before to gain the correct understanding. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/30/2018 1:10:59 AM



  • This article is very informative and brainstorming. 
    Thank you Sultan Shahin sahib for this wonderful piece. 
    By Kaniz Fatma - 8/29/2018 11:04:46 PM



  • Like Mutazillah, I too value rationality and reject the Hadiths. If the Quran is read with an open and critical mind, the other sources become unnecessary.
    Scholarly  pontifications about the nature of God are derivative and unhelpful. A common layman's understanding of God and His omnipotence, omniscience, kindness and justness does not need any further bookish elaborations.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/29/2018 1:33:50 PM