Books and Documents

Radical Islamism and Jihad


  • Verse 2:282 is not transactional, it is advisory.  It is for the creditor to decide who he will take as witnesses and in what manner and for the women to decide if they will witness singly or jointly. This freedom to choose will remain till doomsday.  Have you done the experiment and proven that the socio-cultural conditions today are different, and all women are beyond such influence and on par with the men? Do that and then talk. And why do you want to take away the freedom from the women?


    The verse on punishment with 100 stripes for adultery proven by four eye-witnesses does not allow any lee way and must be implemented if the rule is Islamic. However, the conviction is impossible unless people indulge in the act in public view for four witnesses to emerge.  If there are only three witnesses, the charge is unproved, and the witnesses are to be punished with 80 lashes. The law actively discourages the people from accusing anyone of adultery even if it is true for fear of failing to establish the crime and getting punished instead. So, be discreet if you must, and if you do not believe in the Hereafter and therefore do not care, because proving the crime against those who are discreet is impossible. The law is a strong deterrent for those who believe in the Hereafter and for the remaining, it forces them only to be discreet. Are you trying to propagate open adultery?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/17/2018 1:15:45 AM

  • Naseer sb, now says that women are easier to confuse. If that was so, it was because of socio-cultural causes. Would God want to perpetuate such a state.

    You try to escape from that dilemma by calling such verses "transactional". But then what about 24:2 which you say must be strictly followed. It says, " The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case". Do you think it must be strictly followed?
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/16/2018 10:28:10 AM

  • Aren't you the literalist Village Mullah here? This is what ails Islamic scholarship in general. It is in the same stage as Biology was before Darwin. Even an educated doctor like GM sb cannot make a distinction between verses that:


    1. Lay down the law or rule which is to be strictly followed without deviation (example, law covering adultery)

    2. Lay down the law or rule that describes the maximum punishment with complete leeway even for pardon (Every other hudud law)

    3. The default rule in the absence of agreement (inheritance)

    4. Transactional verses which applied to the Prophet and his people from which the general principle maybe deduced

    5. Advisory (eg 2:282)



    If GM sb wishes to question the Quran's wisdom in advising taking two women to jointly witness a document, all that he is required to do is  to carry out a small experiment as follows to confirm whether the Quran is right or in error:


    Take a group of uneducated men and women and show them a small video clip and then ask them questions individually and separately. 


    Two persons will ask questions, the first one merely to make them accurately recall every detail of what they saw, and the second person will cross examine them trying to make them go back on what they said in the first instance. See how they perform. If it is confirmed that it is easier to confuse the women and make them go back on what they previously said, then the wisdom of the Quran in its advisory verse is proven.


    Repeat the experiment with two women now joining together and giving the evidence and facing the cross-examination. If they now perform as well as the men, then you have the proof that the Quran's advisory is full of wisdom. If you can prove that there is no difference between the men and women, then you are free to reject the verse.


    Till you have proven otherwise, do not let your inflated ego exceed your limited wisdom, in questioning the wisdom of the Quran.


    The fact is that there is no verse barring a woman signing in her individual capacity any legal instrument as a debtor, creditor, seller or buyer and therefore there cannot be a bar on her witnessing singly. Verse 2:282 is an advisory verse, that empowers every woman to participate at least as a witness in financial transactions when before, the uneducated housewives had no participation.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/16/2018 12:13:52 AM

  • You are going far from 2:282 in order to throw dust in our eyes. Your task is just to explain: 

    "And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her."

    Why two women in place of one man? Why is a woman more likely to err than a man?
    Stick to the issue.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/15/2018 1:13:18 PM

  • what makes you think that when even an oral contract is valid, a written contract without any witness or only with  a single witness male or female is invalid?

    All of the following are valid contracts:

    1. An oral contract
    2. A written contract with no witnesses
    3. A written contract with a single witness male or female
    4. A written contract with two witnesses male or female.

    Female witnesses may choose to witness jointly with another female and also give testimony when asked to do so jointly consulting and helping each other. This is a license allowed to only the women witnesses. Male witnesses are not allowed to witness/testify jointly.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/15/2018 1:19:08 AM

  • The fact that oral contracts are valid is not a justification for rating a woman's testimony as having less standing than a man's testimony. You become a master in diversion when you do not have an answer!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/14/2018 11:57:10 PM

  • Your understanding is at the same level as that of a village Mullah. Even today, nobody disputes that an oral contract is valid and most small value transactions are oral. If somebody known asks another to lend him/her even Rs hundred thousand, it is rare to enter into a written contract and it remains oral and based on trust between the parties.

    The advisory nature of the verse is therefore beyond dispute. If an oral contract is valid which indisputably it is, then it stands to reason that a written contract without witnesses is also valid, so also with one witness only whether male or female etc.

    What the advisory verse therefore establishes, is that Islam allows two females to jointly witness and give testimony helping and consulting each other, without making this a legal requirement. 

    Since GM sb who has proved that he is inherently incapable of understanding despite my best efforts, this is my last response to try and explain to him. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/13/2018 5:37:36 AM

  • 2:282 is not a license.  That's why I say that those words are not divine but are a 7th century Arab elaboration of a divine injunction demanding that a contract of indebtedness must be properly documented and witnessed.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/12/2018 12:50:24 PM

  • What is your objection then to verse 2:282, which gives license only to the women but not to the men, to jointly witness or jointly give testimony consulting and helping each other?  By Naseer Ahmed - 10/12/2018 2:38:54 AM

  • I did not say anything about "doing away" with positive discrimination but that would not stop Naseer saheb's concocting it up in his mission to keep justifying gender discrimination!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/11/2018 1:49:06 PM

  • GM sb is telling us that we should do away with positive discrimination in favour of women wherever such positive discrimination exists, because doing so violates against his concept of Gender Equality! By Naseer Ahmed - 10/11/2018 1:06:44 AM

  • Gender equality means equal rights and equal protections of rights. It is a goal towards which all societies should move. Historical inequalities must not be justified with the excuse of  "Will of God"
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/10/2018 9:37:34 AM

  • Gender unsameness is a fact of life that cannot be wished away. If there is gender "inequality" in the West, it is not because their laws discriminate against the women, but because the woman is more vulnerable. The inequality exists even though the law positively discriminates in their favour.


    The 'Me too' movement by the women and the fact that such a movement by men is unimaginable, underlies the inherent inequality between the sexes, as it relates to the vulnerability against coercive sex. Any laws in this regard, will perforce favour the women, and such laws cannot themselves be made out to be reinforcing or institutionalizing gender inequality. This is exactly what GM sb is doing, when he decries the licence given by the Quran to only the women, to jointly witness and testify, consulting each other in verse 2:182.


    As far as the majesty of God is concerned and ensuring Gender Equality, then I think Allah more than compensates the women for their pains. In every culture and society, the women live longer than the men and must therefore be also happier and healthier, although their bodies are far more complex, and they bear and nurse children. Longevity is an excellent parameter to judge a better, happier and more satisfying life. 



    His other comment shows that he believes that the Quran is only for the village Mullah and not for everyone. He apparently considers himself above it and therefore dismisses it and its verses as unworthy of his conception of God. Irrespective of his attitude to the Quran, it is a Book of warnings, and I would be failing in my duty, if I did not bring to his notice, what is relevant.


    (2:85) Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.


    Apparently, the demand to change or give up a part of the Book was made even to the Prophet! There is nothing new in any of the arguments and in the types of people, and their behaviours.


    (11:12) Perchance thou mayest (feel the inclination) to give up a part of what is revealed unto thee, and thy heart feeleth straitened lest they say, "Why is not a treasure sent down unto him, or why does not an angel come down with him?" But thou art there only to warn! It is Allah that arrangeth all affairs!

    Every verse of the Quran, reflects Allah's infinite all-encompassing wisdom, and is in accordance with the principle of things and the most appropriate, right and just.  

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/9/2018 11:57:12 PM

  • By trying to defend  gender inequality on grounds of "positive discrimination" and by threatening me with the wrath of God, Naseer saheb has again reverted to being a village mullah!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/9/2018 1:20:28 PM

  • What is the Quran?


    (10:37) This Qur´an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; …..


    (17:9) Verily this Qur´an doth guide to that which is most right (suitable, stable, straight) ……

    (17:105) We sent down the (Qur´an) in Truth, and in Truth has it descended:

    (25:6) Say: "The (Qur´an) was sent down by Him who knows the mystery (that is) in the heavens and the earth…."

    (41:3) A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail;- a Qur´an in Arabic, for people who understand;-


    Those who understand

    (22:54) And that those on whom knowledge has been bestowed may learn that the (Qur´an) is the Truth from thy Lord, and that they may believe therein, and their hearts may be made humbly (open) to it: for verily Allah is the Guide of those who believe, to the Straight Way.


    Those who will not understand


    (17:45) When thou dost recite the Qur´an, We put, between thee and those who believe not in the Hereafter, a veil invisible:

    (46) And We put coverings over their hearts (and minds) lest they should understand the Qur´an, and deafness into their ears: when thou dost commemorate thy Lord and Him alone in the Qur´an, they turn on their backs, fleeing (from the Truth).


     (25:30) Then the Messenger will say: "O my Lord! Truly my people took this Qur´an for just foolish nonsense."



    The Quran is protected from any alteration:


    (69:43) (This is) a Message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds.

    (44) And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name,

    (45) We should certainly seize him by his right hand,

    (46) And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart:

    (47) Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath).

    (48) But verily this is a Message for the Allah-fearing.

    (49) And We certainly know that there are amongst you those that reject (it).

    (50) But truly (Revelation) is a cause of sorrow for the Unbelievers.

    (51) But verily it is Truth of assured certainty.


    The following applies to those who consider any part of it as false:


    (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?

    (82) And have ye made it your livelihood that ye should declare it false?



    Gender inequality exists because of which there are laws that positively discriminate to protect the interests of the women. Verse 2:182 is revealed in truth and guides to that which is most suitable, right and just as fully explained in my article:

     Is A Woman’s Testimony Worth Half That of A Man?

    You ask why men are not allowed to witness jointly consulting each other but only women. Because only women in general (not all) need such positive discrimination.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/9/2018 12:22:19 AM

  • Naseer saheb

    Are you saying that since gender inequality exists in the West also, it must be divinely ordained?

    Regarding your belief that your project is being helped by Allah, I shall leave you with that belief without any comment.

    The differences between classical scholars and neo-literalists like yourself is of no interest to me. My only purpose is to look at each verse to see if it accords with the glory and the majesty of God.  

    Your charge that my thinking is "Christian" is without any basis and is consistent with your well known trait of exalting yourself and demeaning others.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/8/2018 1:15:03 PM

  • What GM sb says is laughable. Why is there a "me too" movement by females and not by males if they are equal? He chooses to be blind and has the gall to say all others are equally blind or should be, and if they aren't, then there must be something wrong with them!

    He does not have the stuff to show either that my understanding deviates from the literal meaning or there is anything wrong with what the verse says if it means what I show its meaning to be.

    As for being Allah's assistant, yes, I am very much trying to clear the Book of Allah of all the distortions by the classical scholars and their blind followers and there is no reason to believe that such a project is not helped by Allah. There has been no question so far, for which I did not have an answer, without deviating from the literal meaning, and this is impossible, without Allah's help.

    The difference between me and others, is that I approach the Quran as sufficient by itself and others approach it as insufficient without the ahadith and numerous other sources. They can therefore never understand the Quran correctly nor are they even concerned about understanding correctly. They are happy with their distorted theology based on concocted stories. To call such people literalists, is to show how ignorant you are about the literal meaning of the Quran.

    You use the terminology of the Christians thinking the problems are similar. Your thinking is not even independent of the thinking of the Western/Christian scholars about Christianity. That is how little you understand anything. 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/8/2018 12:57:58 AM

  • Naseer sb. says, "The advice of taking two female witnesses who will jointly witness as a single witness is so that they help each other. . . ."

    Why do women need to help each other whereas men don't?

    I make no distinctions between classical scholars and neo-literalist scholars. I only approach the problematic verses with the grandeur and majesty of Almighty God in my mind and ask whether such a verse could ever have been written by Him or whether it has been adapted to suit the people of a particular time and a particular place.

    Your over-confident and condescending tone in these discussions is laughable because He has not designated you as His official assistant. You and I are equally in the dark trying to find our way.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/7/2018 1:34:14 PM

  • I have no doubt that the words of the Quran are the exact words of revelation from God and I find no need to change any word. 

    GM sb will take whatever the classical scholars have understood by these verses and will make no attempt to understand anything on his own lacking the necessary knowledge, ability and inclination. He resists all attempts to educate him. 

    He is therefore misguided by the classical scholars who make no distinction between the transactional verses (from which the underlying law/principle can be derived) and the verses that lay down the law.

    Verse 2:282 is an advice to reduce all financial transactions to writing and getting the document witnessed by two witnesses. This does not mean that oral contracts are not valid or that a document that is not witnessed is invalid or a document with only women as witnesses is invalid. The advice of taking two female witnesses who will jointly witness as a single witness is so that they help each other which means that if they are asked to give testimony, they will give a single testimony, consulting each other. This is clearly a legal concession and not a requirement, to enable people to freely accept  women as witnesses.

    Since women can own property in their single name, they are not barred from legal contracts to purchase, sell in their individual capacity or to carry on business and sign debt/credit instruments in their individual capacity and therefore there is no bar to their signing as witness in their individual capacity either. Verse 2:282 enables every woman to participate in legal transactions as witnesses, even though they may be only housewives and not familiar with business transactions.
    It is the height of foolishness to object to an enabling and empowering verse only because what the scholars did with it based on their convoluted thinking!

    The correct approach is not to attack the verse and question God, but to question the understanding of the scholars. It however suits some people, to find "reasons" to attack the Quran and reject it and therefore no amount of reasoning with them can help. They are people who simply will not change what they have misunderstood because they are looking for flaws and not for perfection, because the idea is to reject and not accept. 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/7/2018 2:04:01 AM

  • Whether the verse is transactional or not and whether the meaning you take is literal or not, the basic question is whether God Almighty would ever say such words (the eleven examples that I had cited). If the answer is no, then the question arises what could have been the divine message that has thus been adapted to make it suitable for the time and the place.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/6/2018 1:03:10 PM

  • I have never claimed to be anything but literal in taking the meaning of any verse. All that you have to do, is to show that I have differed from the literal meaning.

    9:29 is a transactional verse, and therefore not just its literal meaning, but the manner in which jizya was implemented is important. There is no disagreement on how it was implemented. The verse empowered the Prophet to collect Jizya, but rather than imposing it unilaterally on the people covered by it, the Prophet (pbuh) negotiated mutually agreeable terms with them.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/6/2018 12:49:10 AM

  • By "understanding the meaning," you mean "your understanding of the meaning," don't you?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/5/2018 12:53:42 PM

  • Have you read my article on 2:282 and 9:29? Try finding any fault with these verses after correctly understanding the meaning. By Naseer Ahmed - 10/5/2018 3:46:10 AM

  • To derive the correct meaning one must understand the underlying universal  principle and ignore the  7th century Arabian clothing.

    For example 9:29 asks us to have fraternity and solidarity with those who are peaceful and virtuous. The reference to jizyah may be ignored.

    2:282 should be taken to mean " two witnesses of either sex".

    In order to be Islamic, a principle has to be fair, just, compassionate, egalitarian, peaceful and rational. 

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/4/2018 12:46:48 PM

  • Which verse? And what is the correct meaning according to you? Can you seriously discuss even one verse? By Naseer Ahmed - 10/4/2018 12:24:39 AM

  • It is the duty of Muslims to see to it that only the correct and righteous message is derived from the Quran.

    What you call your "correct understanding" is actually very unconvincing.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/3/2018 1:22:00 PM

  • Without the Quran, there is no Islam. The religion of Allah is not subject to the whims and fancies and the  foolish thinking of people. It is arguments of people like yourself that are dismissed by " Allah does what He wills". 

    Moreover, your objections are based on your misunderstandings rather than correct understanding and stubborn refusal to correct your understanding.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/3/2018 1:27:42 AM

  • Naseer saheb,
    Your explanations notwithstanding, I hold that Islam is a much better religion than one which has to endlessly defend such regressive verses. However if you feel comfortable doing that, good luck to you.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/2/2018 12:20:47 PM

  • You seem to have the same problem that the classical scholars have – inability to distinguish between a verse that lays down the law, a verse in the form of an advice with freedom to choose one, more or none of the options, and a transactional verse concerning a particular incident which is now history.

    The meaning of Verse 2:282 is covered in my article Is A Woman’s Testimony Worth Half That of A Man?

     The meaning of 9:29 is covered in my articles: The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) From the Qu’ran (Part 6): The People of the Book and Jiziya

     4:11 is to be taken literally and is for those who die intestate. If you don’t like it, you can write your own will which the Quran allows.

    33:4 is to be taken literally. What is that you want? That men should be allowed to divorce their wife by saying they remind them of their mother? Or that adopted children should be treated as biological children? Or that Rakhi brothers should be treated as biological siblings?

    2:65 is history and it does not matter whether the curse “"Be ye apes, despised and rejected" turned them into apes or disfigured them in some manner but that they became despised and rejected.

    33:50 is history and what Allah made lawful to the Prophet. Do you want to re-write the command or what took place in history?

    65:4 Explain how would you like to change it. Do you want to dispense with the iddat period and reintroduce triple talaq?

    4:3  What is it that you do not like – that it asks the men to marry their slave? That it allows you to marry only one? That it allows you to marry more than one?. You are free to marry none, only one, a free person, a slave or more than one upto four. How can the meaning of this verse be anything but literal?

    5:33 Verses on hudood punishments cannot be taken any other way except literally. 5:38 is to be read with 5:39. The Quran allows for lesser punishments, forgiveness if accompanied by repentance and promises to amend ways in every case except adultery, for which the punishment is 100 lashes if proved by four reliable eye witness accounts.

    4:34 is discussed in my article Qur’anic Wisdom: Marriage and Treatment of Women

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/1/2018 11:45:37 PM

  • Naseer saheb is back to his old ways of making ad hominem attacks.
    The following verses need not be taken literally: 
    9:29, 4:11 (inheritance), 2:282 (being a witness), 33:4, 2:65, 33;50, 65:4, 4:3, 5:33, 5:38, 4:34.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/1/2018 12:08:53 PM

  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin  is a windbag and a person without capacity to understand. If he had any stuff in him, he would have shown which verse of the Quran is problematic if taken literally. By Naseer Ahmed - 9/30/2018 11:59:37 PM

  • Here we have two literalists (irrespective of whether they know that they are literalists or not), one trashing the Quran, the other clinging "to a literalist defence of scripture". That is exactly why Adil Rashid's article is important.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/30/2018 12:33:00 PM

  • You are wrong Hats Off. If you have noticed, Ghaus Sb is slowly veering to my view but making an effort to reconcile what the scholars have said with his changed view. He is not saying that the Meccan verses are abrogated or supporting the abrogation theory but trying to explain why other scholars may have said what they said. He of course does not give me any credit for his changed views but says that he has arrived at these conclusions after extensive studies of his own. By Naseer Ahmed - 9/30/2018 11:37:00 AM

  • this is THE case with the Qur'an.
    why else would you be so isolated in each and everyone of your wild, improbable, faulty and illogical theories on kufr, sex slavery, jizya and your enslavement by arabian imperialism?
    you say kuffars are martians. no one agrees. you say jizya was uplifting for the dhimmi, they don't agree. you say something silly about abrogation and everyone simple ignores you.
    how trivial and inconsequential will you make yourself.
    By hats off! - 9/30/2018 8:49:50 AM

  • The extremists are neither literalists nor fundamentalists. They interpret heavily. The author is an ignoramus as far as the Quran is concerned. The Quran is literally and fundamentally against any kind of oppression and injustice and with a very broad definition of Islam and Muslim. It is a religion of Ahsan or returning evil with what is good and forgiveness and never transgressing limits even when fighting those who fight them.

    The problem with these people with western education is that they see everything through the eyes of the western civilization and Christianity.

    Literalism and fundamentalism could be  a problem with Judaism and Christianity if their their texts are literally and mindlessly violent. This is not the case with the Quran.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/29/2018 11:48:55 PM

  • "By discarding the intricacies of the metaphorical, fundamentalism clings to a literalist defence of scripture that invariably gives its arguments a reductionist, absolutist and intolerant streak."
    Very true! Excellent article.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/29/2018 12:38:47 PM