certifired_img

Books and Documents

Radical Islamism and Jihad

124 - COMMENTS

  • All the Prophets who gave the law were necessarily Kings or Rulers with the required political power to lay down the law as well as ensure compliance to the law. Some of the Ruler Prophets in the Judaic transition are: David, Solomon 931 BC, Ahab 852 BC, Hezekiah, Zedekiah 618-561 BC, Jehu 814 BC, Saul, Asa 870 BC, Amon of Judah 664-641 BC.  

     

    Hammurabi[a] (c. 1810 BC – c. 1750 BC) was the sixth king of the First Babylonian Dynasty, reigning from 1792 BC to 1750 BC. He brought almost all of Mesopotamia under Babylonian rule.

     

    Hammurabi is best known for having issued the Code of Hammurabi, which he claimed to have received from Shamash, the Babylonian god of justice. Unlike earlier Sumerian law codes, such as the Code of Ur-Nammu, which had focused on compensating the victim of the crime, the Law of Hammurabi was one of the first law codes to place greater emphasis on the physical punishment of the perpetrator. It prescribed specific penalties for each crime and is among the first codes to establish the presumption of innocence. Although its penalties are extremely harsh by modern standards, they were intended to limit what a wronged person was permitted to do in retribution.

     

    Hammurabi was seen by many as a god within his own lifetime. After his death, Hammurabi was revered as a great conqueror who spread civilization and forced all peoples to pay obeisance to Marduk, the national god of the Babylonians. Later, his military accomplishments became de-emphasized and his role as the ideal lawgiver became the primary aspect of his legacy. For later Mesopotamians, Hammurabi's reign became the frame of reference for all events occurring in the distant past. Even after the empire he built collapsed, he was still revered as a model ruler, and many kings across the Near East claimed him as an ancestor. Hammurabi was rediscovered by archaeologists in the late nineteenth century and has since become seen as an important figure in the history of law.

     

    Hammurabi has all the characteristics of a King who was a Prophet. Let us replace Muhammad (pbuh) in place of Hammurabi, and we may expect the historical narrative for ancient history which was forgotten but rediscovered, to read as follows.

     

    Muhammad rose from humble beginnings to declare himself a Prophet when he was forty. He was bitterly opposed and forced to migrate from his city Mecca but returned militarily triumphant some 10 years later and spread his political influence far and wide with amazing conquests in a very short period. He gave the Book the Quran which contains the law as well as the ideal way of living and founded a religion called Islam, which he claimed was not a new religion but the only religion from the first man Adam and that his mission was in continuation of the same mission of every prophet. He asked all his followers to exclusively pay obeisance to Allah, who he said was the only true god, and cease worshiping every other god they had previously worshiped along with Allah. He claimed the Book was revealed to him by Jibrail aka Gabriel who is one of the trinitrin gods in Christianity but considered only an Angel in the Quran.

     

    The Code of Hammurabi, the Law of Moses in the Torah and the Law of the Quran, contain numerous similarities, as they should if they are revelations from the same God.

     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/16/2018 5:40:34 AM



  • Good to see that he has abandoned the outrageous claim that Quranic laws on adultery are 7th century pagan Arab laws! The very thought!

     

    There is no moral principle whatsoever which is not of divine origin as well as the punishment for it. As I have brought out in several of my articles, without divine revelation of the moral way of living, the progeny of Adam would have remained “insignificant animals with no more impact on their environment than gorillas, fireflies or jellyfish”. It is religion that has transformed man who started to form elaborate structures called cultures based on common values given by religion which gave rise to civilizations.  Each of the moral principles is counter intuitive, and therefore was unavailable to man in foresight, which is why it needed divine revelation. A counter intuitive moral principle had to be implemented strictly with harsh penalties for contravention. Once these were practiced, and the utilitarian value became evident, and the willingness to live by the moral principles increased, the severity of the punishments was progressively decreased. You will therefore find, extremely harsh penalties in the past such as stoning to death, burning, tearing the body apart by pulling the limbs in different directions, drowning, strangulation etc. Which of these punishments were of human or divine origin is difficult to say, but corporal punishment has been a part of divine law and is also the punishment in the Hereafter. Whether this makes Allah merciful or cruel has been answered in my article: Was Allah Unjust in Creating Adam and Favouring His Progeny Over All His Creation?

     

     

    Even though every past religion has moved from monotheism to paganism (10:19) “Mankind was but one nation, but differed (later)”, the pagans continued to live by the moral principles within their own tribe. Theft within the tribe was theft but not stealing from someone outside of the tribe. Laws on adultery became only property rights and implemented as such. Paganism and loose sexual morals go hand in hand which is why the two most heinous crimes in Islam for a believer are (1) Associating partners with Allah which is an unforgivable sin and (2) Adultery for which the punishment cannot be reduced once the crime is established.

    The two practices that make a believer a Muslim are (1) Establishing regular prayers and (2) Spending in charity.

     

    The Prayer also helps prevent shameful deeds the most shameful being adultery 29:45 “Prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deeds”

    The seduction of Satan is through attracting man to immodest practices the most extreme being adultery.

    (7:27) O ye Children of Adam! Let not Satan seduce you, in the same manner as He got your parents out of the Garden, stripping them of their raiment, to expose their shame: for he and his tribe watch you from a position where ye cannot see them: We made the evil ones friends (only) to those without faith.

     

    It is only those without faith who are friends of Satan and easily seduced into shameful deeds, the worst being associating partners with Allah and committing adultery.

     

    Also verse 24:2 makes clear that once the sin/crime of adultery is established, there is no discretion for the judge, but to award the punishment prescribed by Allah if he believes in Allah and the Day of Judgment. A believer and a practicing Muslim cannot therefore even consider decriminalizing adultery or reducing the punishment for it. It is only one who does not believe in Allah and the Day of Judgment who can oppose the divine laws of Allah in the Quran.

     

    The path from shameful deeds to loss of faith in Allah and in the Day of Judgment, is the shortest and most direct path.

     

    For a believer, the Quran is the most reliable source of knowledge. Verse 24:3 prohibits an adulterer marrying a non-adulterous person of any monotheistic faith but permits marrying a Pagan. This is enough evidence that what Islam considers as adultery, had no criminal, legal or social consequences in Pagan society and socially acceptable.  Verse 60:12 provides further proof, in that all those who approached the Prophet for being accepted into the fold of Islam, had to swear an oath that they will not commit adultery. If the Pagan norm and punishments were the same as in Islam, there would have been no need for this.

    Quranic laws on adultery are quite different from all laws preceding it, or of what survived in practice of those laws. The Judaic and Christian laws also tend to be property rights and little else. I quote below from the very same source from which GM sb quoted:

    The Quranic concept of adultery is not just different from the Pagan concept, but also from the Biblical concept, according to below quoted scholars.

    Pagan Society – no concept of adultery – only property rights

    Schacht writes: "To the pre-Islamic Arabs, zina was  not a sin but regarded in certain circumstances as an injury to the rights of property of a fellow-tribesman." Peters, in a similar vein, remarks: "The Qur'an disapproved of the promiscuity prevailing at that time in Arabia and forbade e.g. the prostitution of slave-girls by their masters (XXIV, 33).,, Even Hodgson, describing the moral tone of the pre-Islamic Bedu, writes: "Even those who might prefer a different way of responding to life were dragged into the pattern by the voice of public opinion, urging vengeance as the most practical means of justice, and praising transient delights of drink and sex...,"

    Biblical Concept – married woman in sexual relationship with other than husband is an adulteress – man, only if in relationship with a married woman not his wife.

    Paterson: "The biblical conception of adultery is often expressed by saying that, as in Roman law, a woman could violate only her own marriage, a man only that of another. In other words, an unchaste wife was guilty of adultery, an unchaste husband was guilty of it only if he sinned along with the wife of another. If in certain cases the law took cognizance of a husband's licentiousness, it was because it involved infringement of property rights, and gave rise to a claim for damages (Ex 2216, Dt 2229)

    A married woman in the ancient world was, according to this understanding, the property of her husband and, in that sense, a theft-able object - the means being called 'adultery,' but still operating on the general principle of theft. Cook, writing on marriage, notes: "The prevailing type in the Semitic world is that wherein the woman follows the husband, who has paid a 'bride-price' (Arab. mahr, Heb. mohar) to her kin, whereby he has compensated them for the loss of her services, and has acquired the right of possessing sons who shall belong to his tribe. By this act the man has practically acquired the exclusive property-rights, and deprives the woman of disposing of her own person." Furthermore, this status as property extends to unmarried women as well, for as Cook further notes: "Under the ordinary type of marriage, known as the baal or marri age of subjection, the Semitic woman, if unmarried, is entirely under the authority of her father; if betrothed or married, of her husband. It is necessary, therefore, to observe that, if adultery is primarily an infringement of the husband's rights, seduction is no less a matter for the father of the unbetrothed virgin. "

    Understanding this ancient mindset is of great benefit in making sense of how the ancient codes deal with adultery. From this perspective it becomes very clear that a great deal of a woman's value in ancient Hebrew society revolved around her chastity, whether that of the virgin within the property considerations of her father, or that of the wife within the property considerations of her husband. It was the seducer / rapist who might impinge on the former; the adulterer on the latter. A woman's chastity and faithfulness was a precious possession, and if she was complicitous in its theft from the rightful owner, she was to pay with her life. Obviously, this conception resulted in a rather one-sided application of adultery penalties. We have seen Paterson's observation that "an unchaste bride was guilty of adultery, an unchaste husband ... only if he sinned along with the bride of another," and to this we might add Poucher's comment that "in the Israelitic as well as Romaic law, the term was confined to illicit intercourse of a married or betrothed woman with any other man than her husband." Nor did this one-sided application change in the post-biblical period, as Abrahams notes: "The law continued to regard as adultery only the intercourse of a married woman with any man other than her husband. Thus a married man was not regarded as guilty of adultery unless he had intercourse with a married woman other than his wife.

    Islamic concept – both man and woman in sexual relationship without being legally married to each other are guilty of adultery.

    It is noteworthy that the Qur'an, through its wording in Q.24:2 of "al-zaniya wa al- zani, "is in direct opposition to this ancient concept. Both the adulterer and the adulteress, it is made clear, are to be punished equally - a principle taken up by the fuqaha' and very much in evidence throughout the regulations relating to zina. Unmarried woman in sexual relationship with an unmarried man is also zina in Islam but not in any other society.

     

    The article from which GM sb quoted is an academic research paper submitted by a student for his MA degree. It is not from any established reputed scholar. The article labours to show the sources from which Muslim society took to the practice of stoning to death the adulterers. This is a non-Quranic practice to be found only in pre-Quranic traditions. The most obvious answer would be that this practice was copied from the Mosaic law which was what any Orientalist would say, but this student being a young research scholar, is trying to make his mark and break fresh grounds, by trying to establish non-Judeo-Christian influence. Did this practice exist among Arabs other than the Jews and the Christians? We can look to the Quran for an answer.

     

    (2:62) Those who believe (in the Qur´an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

     

    The Sabians and the Hanif were among the non-Pagan Arabs and these people may had the same laws as the Mosaic laws. The Quran makes no mention of the Hanif who followed the religion of Abraham probably because all of them had already accepted Islam and did not exist as a separate community. The Sabians were possibly a community in Yemen which also subsequently merged into Islam which is why so little is known of them.

     

    Definition of Adultery

    As far as definitions go, the meaning of both adultery and incest varies from community to community, and any definition that is not completely generic, but specific, holds good only for some people, but not all. The generic definition of adultery that holds for all people is:

    Adultery is extramarital and pre-marital sex that is considered objectionable on social, religious, moral, or legal grounds.

    There can therefore be societies that have no concept of adultery other than incest, and what is incest to one society, may not be for another. Incest is a sub-class of adultery.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/15/2018 12:48:09 AM



  • I shall let Naseer sb., wallow in his abusive and undignified verbal assaults but I shall end my participation in this thread with the assertion that cruel corporal punishments mentioned in the Quran for various offences are, in my opinion, of human origin (7th century Arab).

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/14/2018 1:27:46 PM



  • [Offensive personal remarks deleted - Editor] does not realize how stupid it is to consider something as adultery, that has neither criminal nor legal consequences but considered as a perfectly legal transaction!

    Where can this discussion go except with the conclusion that the Quranic Law on adultery has nothing to do with 7th century Arab pagan laws and in fact a complete departure in the concept of adultery itself?

    If [Offensive personal remarks deleted - Editor] has realized it, he should accept it and end it and not go on like a windbag without a leg to stand on.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/14/2018 12:00:04 AM



  • I have to again explain to [Offensive personal remarks deleted - Editor] that  even if the wife of a man with the husband’s consent has sex with another man in pagan societies it is still adultery. But that does not tell us what the laws were. The only reference to the laws is in the quotation that I posted half a dozen times. Absence of vignettes in Islam does not prove anything. Mullahs have been charging sizeable fees to carry out halala, which is, strictly speaking not even legal in Islam. 

    [Offensive personal remarks deleted - Editor] does not produce any evidence to support his assertions but keeps on asking others for more and more evidence.

    By the way, this debate is not going anywhere. How about closing it?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/13/2018 11:49:52 PM



  • What I said was very clear but beyond the understanding of [Offensive personal remarks deleted - Editor]. The difference between the meaning of adultery in Islam and in Pagan societies, is that even if the wife of a man with the husband’s consent has sex with another man, it is adultery in Islam. In Pagan society however, it is not. This is because the wife is treated as property of the husband which he may let out at his will. Only if the wife (property) is taken without his permission, that it constitutes a violation of his rights and a crime. In this, it is no different from property rights and nowhere what adultery means in Islam. Adultery as a concept, therefore does not even exist in Pagan society. Therefore, to say that the law for adultery in Islam is 7th century law of the pagan Arabs, is the height of ignorance. 

    [Offensive personal remarks deleted - Editor] however continues to argue on the subject without a basis and without evidence.

    He says: “Trying to guess from the vignettes of Arabian society what their laws and punishments for adultery were is simply stupid.” 

    Is it not for [Offensive personal remarks deleted - Editor] to provide evidence for his claim that the Quranic law on adultery is the same as the 7th century pagan Arab law? Has he done that? 

    If the Quranic law on adultery is the same as 7th century pagan Arab law, then should we not expect to find the same vignettes from Muslim society as found in 7th century Arab society ? Why do we not find it if the law has remained unchanged?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/13/2018 11:04:57 PM



  • The reason I gave the dictionary definition of "adultery" was that Naseer sb, the self-deluded moron, was trying to deceptively confuse the issue by suggesting that if adultery is considered to be a violation of  "property rights" then it is not adultery! Does that make sense to anyone? So who has lost all his marbles?

    He asks, "What is pre-Islamic?" in response to the paragraph that I had quoted. That paragraph starts with the sentence, "Determining whether stoning for adultery and hand-amputation for theft were practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia represents the first phase in exploring the origins and evolution of these penalties in Islamic law."

    Thus the study was clearly about pre-Islamic Saudi Arabia.

    The rest of Naseer sb.'s diatribe rests on Muslim claims rather than on objective facts. Only a self-deluded moron would make such an argument because there is no moron like a self-deluded moron. And Naseer sb. forgets that he has provided us only with some vignettes of pagan Arabic life. Trying to guess from that what their laws and punishments for adultery were is simply stupid.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/13/2018 1:13:02 PM



  • The day is not complete for Hats Off until he has said something bad about the Prophet! And he has to say it on a self-proclaimed progressive Muslim website!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/13/2018 12:22:45 PM



  • "The fact that there is a parallel to every belief and practice of the religion of Muhammad (pbuh) in every civilization is proof that Allah has indeed sent 124000 prophets over a period of 70,000 years to preach the very same religion, and that this religion is from Allah." - mr. naseer ahmed.

    this is not fact. it is mr. naseer ahmed's belief. AND the belief of his cohorts as well.

    two thirds of the world (who are NOT mr. naseer ahmed's cohorts) do not accept this "fact" - or "factoid".
    By hats off! - 11/13/2018 5:19:08 AM



  • The fact that there is a parallel to every belief and practice of the religion of Muhammad (pbuh) in every civilization is proof that Allah has indeed sent 124000 prophets over a period of 70,000 years to preach the very same religion, and that this religion is from Allah. By Naseer Ahmed - 11/13/2018 12:58:45 AM



  • GM: Adultery is defined as, "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his married spouse". Only a retard would not understand that.

     Nobody said adultery is rape! Poor GM Sb, he has lost all his marbles and cannot now even distinguish between rape and adultery!

     He keeps quoting repeatedly Remarkably, not only stoning and hand-amputation, but nearly the entire range of Islamic adultery and theft legislation have pre-Islamic parallels."

     What is pre-Islamic? According to the scholars, Judaism and Christianity are also pre-Islamic. According to the Quran, all the prophets sent to every nation and region were Muslim and Islam is as old as Adam. 

    41:43. Nothing is said to you that was not said to the apostles before you.

    10:37 “This Qur´an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.” (10:37)

    41:53. Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own being, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that your Lord does witness all things? 

    What are the signs that Allah will show in the furthest regions of the earth except that His religion is the same and has reached every people? There is absolutely no claim that what Muhammad (pbuh) brought was anything new but only a confirmation of what had been sent to every nation in the past. So, when Allah himself says that you will find the same Signs of Allah in the furthest regions of the earth why is it surprising that there are parallels for every belief and practice? Why am I saying all this to another Muslim who I presume does not need to be informed about the position the Quran takes and although what I have said above is straight from my article which he has read? Because GM sb is [Offensive personal remarks deleted - Editor] ! 

    The question that we are dealing with is “what were pagan Arab practices and what did they consider as adultery and the punishment for it?” Does anybody find an answer to that in what he keeps quoting? I have quoted numerous authors about pagan Arab social life from which we know that the practices that are considered adultery in Islam were socially acceptable in the pagan Arab society. Indeed, in this matter, all pagan societies are alike. So, what is the parallel between Islam and pagan Arab society as it concerns adultery?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/13/2018 12:47:34 AM



  • "In islam adultery is forbidden sex and has nothing to do with consent" mr. naseer ahmed.

    consent as a concept is unknown to islam. it's methods are more to do with imposition.

    the prophet could never understand the concept of consent. and hence the ummah has grown up without it.

    his marriage with saffiyah is a case in point. he thought that a woman in that situation could actually "consent". apparently they did not have vishkha guidelines in those days.
    By hats off! - 11/12/2018 4:58:28 PM



  • The [Offensive personal remarks deleted - Editor] says that I have no proof of the punishment in pre-Islamic Arab society for adultery although I have quoted the following paragraph several times: "An extensive survey of pre-Islamic, Near Eastern legal materials in search of parallel penalties has thus been attempted in this thesis. Remarkably, not only stoning and hand-amputation, but nearly the entire range of Islamic adultery and theft legislation have pre-Islamic parallels."

    Why does he lie so much?

    He accuses me of not distinguishing between property rights and adultery. All the instances that I had cited from Wikipedia are subsumed under the heading of "Adultery". Adultery is defined as, "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his married spouse". Only a retard would not understand that. 

    Naseer sb., [Offensive personal remarks deleted - Editor] , thinks that by keeping this dialogue going with totally inane and invalid points he will "win"! Well, he is wrong!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/12/2018 1:59:34 PM



  • Naseer sb. says, "What is common to all ancient criminal codes of every society is corporal punishment. In that sense the punishment under hudud laws is comparable with other societies."

    Thanks for saying that. The corollary is that hudud laws are of human origin.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/12/2018 1:39:23 PM



  • What is common to all ancient criminal codes of every society is corporal punishment. In that sense the punishment under hudud laws is comparable with other societies. Is corporal punishment barbaric? That I guess is GM sbs main contention and not so much the law of adultery and punishment for it in different societies. Imprisonment involves taking away a person’s freedom, confinement, chaining, sexual assault by jailers and other prisoners which is far more barbaric, but we do not get to see it as it is behind walls. Imprisonment has not proved to be a corrective nor a deterrent. Flogging with witnesses is both a deterrent and a corrective.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/12/2018 10:07:20 AM



  • Lage raho [Offensive personal remarks deleted - Editor] Ghulam Uncle Sam, lage raho even though you yourself say that you have no proof of the punishment in pre-Islamic Arab society for adultery.

    You can be clinically certified a complete idiot for not being able to distinguish between property rights and adultery and for keeping on arguing even after being informed of the difference.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/12/2018 2:17:30 AM



  • [Offensive personal remarks deleted - Editor] will continue to make idiotic comments because he just does not have the capacity to correct himself.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/12/2018 12:31:06 AM



  • [Offensive personal remarks deleted - Editor] can say anything without any evidence or basis which is why I call you a windbag!

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/12/2018 12:22:30 AM



  • Adultery may be defined differently in different cultures but the discussion is about the nature of punishment for adultery. I maintain that harsh punishments such as 100 lashes are a continuation of pre-Islamic Arabic practices. As I have said several times already I cannot imagine the Almighty, the Mreciful, the Beneficient God prescribing 100 lashes for the adulterers.

    Naseer sb. has the habit of finding some semantic or technical detail just when he is losing an argument and then in order to buttress his argument he gets into the gutter and uses his abusive jargon without any consideration of how that makes him look.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/12/2018 12:15:12 AM



  • GM sb is unable to distinguish between what is essentially a "property" right versus adultery. The so-called Indian law on adultery was also only a "property" right wherein the wife was treated as the property of the husband without any agency of her own and if any man had sex with her without the lawful owner's permission who was her husband, the wronged husband could proceed against the offending man. Since the woman was only property taken unlawfully by a person who did not have the rights to her, she was neither held guilty nor punished.  You don't punish stolen property  do you? The SC while doing away with this law has only recognized that a woman cannot be treated as property without agency. There wasn't a law for adultery earlier, nor is there a law for adultery now.

     When we are discussing the adultery law in Islam, I presume that GM sb understands the meaning of adultery in Islam. In Islam, adultery is forbidden sex and has nothing to do with consent.

     When I asked him to look at other Pagan societies it was with full awareness of what he would find. I wanted him to find it. Now, the question to him is why is it easy to get information about the “adultery/property” law as it existed in other more ancient pagan societies which ceased to be pagan some 500 years before Islam but not about the Arab pagans? The simple answer is because even such “property” rights as found in other pagan societies did not exist among the Arab pagans.

     In any case, even the concept of adultery as it exists in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, did not exist in the pagan societies and therefore to say that the Islamic law on adultery is 7th century Arabian law is the height of ignorance. And to keep arguing on the subject and not accepting one’s mistake is proof of being a windbag full of nonsense who can keep arguing endlessly without a basis to what he is saying.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/11/2018 10:34:05 PM



  • Naseer sb.'s dishonesty is very evident in his last comment. Earlier he had asked me, "Find a law which made adultery punishable  in any pagan society (not just Arab) if you can."

    When I did produce a considerable amount of such evidence, he now says, "The pagan societies did not however have any law against consensual sex between unmarried partners"! Every time he loses a point he moves the goal-post! He sees no need for him to produce any evidence to support his untenable points, but he considers it to be his right to keep asking others for evidence and more evidence!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/11/2018 2:00:23 PM



  • Every society that has the institution of marriage has laws to protect it from infidelities. The pagan societies did not however have any law against consensual sex between unmarried partners, or consensual wife swapping or any other form of pre-marital or post-marital consensual sex which is not between married partners. 

    To say that the Quranic law on adultery is the 7th century Arabic law is the height of ignorance and to persist with this argument  without being able to produce the 7th century Arab Law makes you a windbag.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/11/2018 2:10:39 AM



  • Again Naseer sb. is using his gutter language and showing his ignorance.

    In the Greco-Roman world, there were stringent laws against adultery, but these applied to sexual intercourse with a married woman. In the early Roman Law, the jus tori belonged to the husband. It was therefore not a crime against the wife for a husband to have sex with a slave or an unmarried woman.

    In some Native American cultures, severe penalties could be imposed on an adulterous wife by her husband. In many instances she was made to endure a bodily mutilation which would, in the mind of the aggrieved husband, prevent her from ever being a temptation to other men again.[125][126] Among the Aztecs, wives caught in adultery were occasionally impaled, although the more usual punishment was to be stoned to death.[127]

    The Code of Hammurabi, a well-preserved Babylonian law code of ancient Mesopotamia, dating back to about 1772 BC, provided drowning as punishment for adultery.[128]

    Amputation of the nose – rhinotomy – was a punishment for adultery among many civilizations, including ancient India, ancient Egypt, among Greeks and Romans, and in Byzantium and among the Arabs

    In the tenth century, the Arab explorer Ibn Fadlan noted that adultery was unknown among the pagan Oghuz Turks. Ibn Fadlan writes that "adultery is unknown among them; but whomsoever they find by his conduct that he is an adulterer, they tear him in two. This comes about so: they bring together the branches of two trees, tie him to the branches and then let both trees go, so that he is torn in two."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Greco-Roman_world

    You again sing praises of Hudud laws although I have told you several times that your arguments are stupid and do not hold up to a close scrutiny.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/11/2018 12:37:12 AM



  • You are [Offensive personal remarks deleted - Editor] GM sb. Find a law which made adultery punishable  in any pagan society (not just Arab) if you can. Surely, you should be able to find the laws of the pagan Romans at least.

     What you call your main point has been demolished by showing how stupid your prescription is vis-a-vis the wisdom and Mercy in Allah's Law. 

     Compare the wisdom of the Quran and GM sb’s [Offensive personal remarks deleted - Editor].

    The hudud laws are for building a good society in which people can respect and trust each other. In the licentious West, marital infidelities are a cause of general level of distrust and suspicion between couples, psychological trauma when infidelity occurs, mental illness, and break-up of marital relations. Such relationships cause misery not only the affected couples but also to their children and the parents. It is a cause of weaker marital bonds and unhappiness in the married life. Sexual relationships prior to marriage are also a cause of forming weaker marital bonds, subsequent acts of infidelity and break-ups.

    Now consider the Quran’s prescription for it. Verse 24:2 is a great deterrent for all those who believe in Allah and the Day of Judgment. Such people protect themselves from any situation that can lead to adultery. The simplest and most effective way they use is to always be in a state of ritual purity with wudhu or ablution. They perform their wudhu whenever it is broken and are at all times in a state of wudhu which protects them from every evil and temptation.

    If a marital partner commits adultery it only results in divorce. The other partner need not and does not bring charges of adultery to get him/her punished. While the Quran makes the punishment mandatory if the guilt is established, at the same time, it also strongly discourages bringing the charge of adultery even if it be true.

    The wisdom of the Quran will be obvious to all except to the deaf, dumb and blind. The society comprising the believers in Allah and the Day of Judgment will be free from adultery without the necessity of punishing anyone even when there are stray incidents of adultery. The punishment comes in when the incidents become too many and beyond the tolerance of the society in which case the ones guilty of flagrant violations are punished to prevent their corrupting the rest of the society.

    Now compare it with GM sb’s prescription. He wants to decriminalize adultery but treat it as a sin punishable by Allah on the Day of Judgment. How does that help? Does it promote a society free of the evil? Will there be more acts of adultery or less if adultery is decriminalized? If more commit adultery then more people will be punished on the Day of Judgment. Will the punishment on the Day of Judgment be lighter or more severe than the punishment prescribed in this world? What has GM sb through his “wisdom” achieved? A society such as the one in the west where adultery is common, break-up of marriages become common, children suffer, there is great mental stress and sickness and to top it all more people are punished in the Hereafter! GM sb’s prescription is a prescription for creating a hell on this earth and for sending more people to Hell in the Hereafter!

    No mortal is capable of framing such a law in which “saanp bhi mar jaye or lathi bhi na tute”. A law framed by a mortal would have made self-confession mandatory for a believer and bringing cases of adultery and providing testimony a virtue. Every law of Allah is full of His infinite Wisdom and Mercy. A corollary from this law is that you need not bring charges of theft against a thief either but make him/her repent and mend ways. Allah through his laws teaches His creation to become forgiving, merciful and compassionate and overlook the faults of others, while providing effective deterrents to be used only in extreme cases. The deterrents serve as a measure of the seriousness and enormity of the offensive to those who believe in Allah and the Day of Judgment.

    The difference between divine wisdom and sheer stupidity of mortals is obvious and yet the mortal behaves as if he is wiser and more merciful than Allah!

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/10/2018 11:47:59 PM



  • "... was practiced only by a few, the practice could exist only if there was no law against adultery."

    utter nonsense. hall mark of the IIT trained mullahs.

    according this bizarre logic, "practices" exist only if there are no laws against them. what nonsense! IIT is not what it used to be.
    By hats off! - 11/10/2018 4:56:46 PM



  • Naseer sb.'s assertion that there were no laws against adultery in pre-Islamic Arabia is sheer nonsense. Details of such laws are difficult to find as both he and I agree. The only clear statements on the issue are the two that I had produced:

    An extensive survey of pre-Islamic, Near Eastern legal materials in search of parallel penalties has thus been attempted in this thesis. Remarkably, not only stoning and hand-amputation, but nearly the entire range of Islamic adultery and theft legislation have pre-Islamic parallels."

    "I quoted another author saying, "the Islamic judicial concepts and ideals were more or less the same which the Arabs had practiced over generations."

    But my main point remains what I started out with, namely that it is difficult to reconcile 24:2 to the glory and majesty of the Merciful and the Beneficient.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/10/2018 3:11:08 PM



  • The Muslim sources are by the way, Muslims talking about themselves before Islam. There cannot be a more reliable source.

    When you don't have access to their laws, then on what basis have you so doggedly argued that the Quranic law on adultery is 7th century Arab law?

    Even if all that is described was practiced only by a few, the practice could exist only if there was no law against adultery.

    In the US also where adultery is not a crime, all these practices exist as indeed they will, but yet not everyone is adulterous.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/9/2018 11:41:53 PM



  • All the polytheist  practices listed by Naseer sb. have been reported by Muslim writers who have an interest in maligning pre-Islamic Arabs. We do not know if they were exceptions or rules. Was an affair with a married woman an occurrence among the cultured and poetically inclined folks or was it a common occurrence among the masses? And do we have access to their actual laws and punishments for adultery or do we have to guess them from anecdotal accounts of odd behaviors?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/9/2018 12:21:56 PM



  • If the following acts/practices did not constitute adultery, can you explain how adultery was defined in this society and the punishment for it? Do you think all these acts also do not constitute adultery in Islam? On what basis do you continue to argue that the Islamic law on adultery is a pre-Islamic law? Have you lost your mind completely? Or are you just a nonsensical windbag who should be ignored completely?

     

    1. Wife swapping

    2. Sending a woman to another man for getting pregnant

    3. Pre-marital sex and experimental cohabitation, which ended in marriage if they liked each other or else they parted.

    4. Prostitution

    5. Cohabitation with strangers when their husbands were away on trading missions

    6. Casual sex which if resulted in motherhood, the father was decided by comparing the looks and features of the child with all the likely fathers who had cohabited with the woman.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/9/2018 2:08:20 AM



  • Naseer sb.,

    24:3 does not address the question that we are discussing. It makes no reference to  laws and punishments for adultery among the polytheists.

    The quotations from the Hadiths make it clear that polytheists did have precise laws on the subject of marriage and paternity but make no mention of laws and punishments for adultery.

    Yunus sahib mentions that sexual norms among the polytheists were "relaxed" in particular social contexts but that does not mean profligate sexual behavior was not punished.

    The rest of your citations show anecdotal evidence or description of behaviors in special circumstances but to assume that  laws and punishments for adultery or fornication did not exist is a stretch.

    Compare that with the precise language of the two sources that I quoted before:

    "An extensive survey of pre-Islamic, Near Eastern legal materials in search of parallel penalties has thus been attempted in this thesis. Remarkably, not only stoning and hand-amputation, but nearly the entire range of Islamic adultery and theft legislation have pre-Islamic parallels."

    "I quoted another author saying, "the Islamic judicial concepts and ideals were more or less the same which the Arabs had practiced over generations."

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/8/2018 1:50:00 PM



  • Evidence that zina  or adultery was a common practice among the polytheist Arabs and not considered a crime/sin.

    There are 5 sources that I am citing which are equally available to you.

     1. From the Quran: The following verse 24:3 itself provides the proof. Marriage of an adulterer to a non-adulterous Muslim, Christian or Jew is prohibited and allowed with only another adulterer (Muslim, Christian or Jew) or a polytheist. As far as the polytheist is concerned, there is no qualification that he/she be an adulterer simply because what the Quran considers as adultery, was socially acceptable and common among them.

    Verse 60:12 requires the prophet to take an oath from the polytheists who come to him to be admitted into the fold of Islam that among other things, they will not commit adultery.

    2. From the Hadith

    Sayyid Qutb of Egypt in his book, Milestones, published by the International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, Salimiah, Kuwait in 1978 (pp. 48, 49), has quoted the famous traditionalist, Imam Bukhari, on the institution of marriage in Arabia before Islam as follows:

    1.     The Shihab (az-Suhri) said: 'Urwah b. az-Zubayr informed him that Aishah, the wife of the Prophet (God bless and preserve him), informed him that marriage in the Jahiliyah was of four types:

    2.     1. One was the marriage of people as it is today, where a man betroths his ward or his daughter to another man, and the latter assigns a dower (bridewealth) to her and then marries her.

    3.     2. Another type was where a man said to his wife when she was purified from her menses, ‘Send to N and ask to have intercourse with him;' her husband then stays away from her and does not touch her at all until it is clear that she is pregnant from that (other) man with whom she sought intercourse.

    4.     When it is clear that she is pregnant, her husband has intercourse with her if he wants. He acts thus simply from the desire for a noble child. This type of marriage was (known as) nikah al-istibda, the marriage of seeking intercourse.

    5.     3. Another type was when a group (raht) of less than ten men used to visit the same woman and all of them had to have intercourse with her. If she became pregnant and bore a child, when some nights had passed after the birth she sent for them, and not a man of them might refuse.

    6.     When they had come together in her presence, she would say to them, ‘You (pl.) know the result of your acts; I have borne a child and he is your (sing.) child, N.' – naming whoever she will by his name. Her child is attached to him, and the man may not refuse.

    7.     4. The fourth type is when many men frequent a woman, and she does not keep herself from any who comes to her. These women are the baghaya (prostitutes). They used to set up at their doors banners forming a sign. Whoever wanted them went in to them. If one of them conceived and bore a child, they gathered together to her and summoned the physiognomists.

    8.     sThen they attached her child to the man whom they thought (the father), and the child remained attached to him and was called his son, no objection to this course being possible. When Muhammad (God bless and preserve him) came preaching the truth, he destroyed all the types of marriage of the Jahiliya except that which people practice today.

    al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy/arabia-islam#social-conditions

     3. Essential Message of Islam

    By Muhammad Yunus & Ashfaque Ullah Syed

     

    36.1.       Sexual Norms of Pre-Islamic Arabia   

    As noted earlier, it was normative for women in pre-Islamic Arabia to cohabit with strangers when their husbands were away on trading missions (Note 7/Ch. 1.1). Even otherwise, sexual norms were relaxed, and a casual encounter between the strangers of opposite sexes could readily culminate into intimate relationship, often openly promoted by women, leading to their motherhood. This created controversy in establishing paternal lines, which was decided by comparing the looks and features of a child with its likely fathers, assembled for the purpose.1 The practice, established as a social norm, absolved men-folk of all social and financial responsibilities towards the women they espoused or cohabited with and their offspring, forced women into commercial adultery, and left children born of such unions at the mercy of the society. This was in stark contradiction to the Qur’anic family laws that were designed to i) divest men of their sexual, financial and social licenses, ii) abolish adultery, iii) empower women and iv) give financial protection to women and children, as reviewed in the preceding chapters. The Qur’an therefore had to stop this practice, for which it uses a specific term, zina (25:68/Ch. 19.1; 17:32, 60:12).

     4. (Hammudah Abd al Ati, The Family Structure in Islam. American Trust Publications, 1977, p. 98-102)

    There were other types of marriage or cohabitation such as secret cohabitation, which has been frequently described in Arabic poetry. In this case, the woman only received occasional visits from the man she loved. The man often belonged to a hostile tribe and visited his lover in secret. Although the poets usually boasted of them as forbidden love affairs, the relations were usually well-known and not a cause of shame or punishment for the woman; the secrecy was simply a matter of etiquette. Marriage by exchange was another form of marriage where a man could exchange his wife or daughter for another man's wife or daughter without having to pay a dowry. Polygamy (marrying more than one wife) was also commonly practiced, not just by the Arabs but Jews and Christians as well. It is reported that a man could have as many as 100 wives. There are also indications that polyandry (marrying more than one husband) existed which had its roots in an ancient, defunct matriarchal culture. Wife-lending was a practice whereby husbands allowed their wives to live with "men of distinction" to produce noble offspring. The husband, who abstained while his wife lived with the other man, would then be socially considered the father of the child. In some tribes, service marriage was common. When a man was unable to pay the dowry, he agreed to serve the girl's father or kin for a period of time sufficient to earn the bride price. In experimental cohabitation, allowed in some tribes, men could live with young women before marriage. If they liked each other, they would enter into a marriage agreement. Otherwise, there was no commitment on either side. A man could also have as many concubines as he could afford. Keeping concubines coexisted with polygamy among the Semites for two basic reasons. Childless wives preferred their husband's living with slave girls than marrying another free woman. When the slave gave birth, the child was identified with the wife of her master. The second reason was that polygamy was costly and it was more economical to keep concubines instead. (Hammudah Abd al Ati, The Family Structure in Islam. American Trust Publications, 1977, p. 98-102)

    http://www.mwlusa.org/topics/history/herstory.html

    5. In Arabian society, marriage was far from being an institution that guaranteed family life. Although the widespread method of marriage was that a man would marry a woman who was a member of a tribe and branch equal to the man’s tribe, and that he would pay a dowry, in reality very different forms of marriage or relationships existed in society. These different marriages or relationships consisted of those in which a woman would sleep with another man with the approval of her husband in order to have a child, wife swapping, a woman would live with a man as his mistress, but would not be considered an adulteress due to her independence, a woman would concurrently being married to ten different men, temporary marriages, a son would marry his stepmother, or two sisters would marry the same man. http://www.lastprophet.info/arabia-in-the-pre-islamic-period

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/8/2018 12:38:31 AM



  • The first paper that I quoted says, "not only stoning and hand-amputation, but nearly the entire range of Islamic adultery and theft legislation have pre-Islamic parallels."
     
    I am glad you have the evidence to show that pre-Islamic Arabs had no laws and no punishments for adultery. If you share it with us I shall certainly withdraw my statement that 24:2 is a pre-Islamic Arab law.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/7/2018 12:25:58 PM



  • where do you find in what you have quoted any mention of adultery let alone that it was punishable and that too with stoning or 100 lashes?

    I have already told you to ask your friend Yunus sb who has researched on the subject and he will confirm what I said. You were always quick to write to him before and post his response. Why the reluctance now? Or have you found the answer and it doesn't suit you?

    Are you so much lacking in resourcefulness that you cannot yourself confirm what I said? I have the evidence but I was giving you a chance to retract and admit your mistake. I know that you will never do that. I just wanted to expose your dishonesty and I have done that.

    An old man like you who lies with the felicity with which you do is repulsive to say the least. And to employ your lies to malign the Quran is disgusting. 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/7/2018 12:20:41 AM



  • This is the only "evidence" that I could find:

    "An extensive survey of pre-Islamic, Near Eastern legal materials in search of parallel penalties has thus been attempted in this thesis. Remarkably, not only stoning and hand-amputation, but nearly the entire range of Islamic adultery and theft legislation have pre-Islamic parallels."

    "I quoted another author saying, "the Islamic judicial concepts and ideals were more or less the same which the Arabs had practiced over generations."

    Where did you read that pre-Isalmic Arabs had no laws on adultery and did not punish adulterers? Can you cite the source?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/6/2018 11:57:01 PM



  • What is the evidence produced? Has anybody seen it? By Naseer Ahmed - 11/6/2018 11:26:57 PM



  • Naseer sb. will not see the evidence that has been produced and will still keep on asking for more evidence as if he has already proved that adultery was not a punishable crime in pre-Islamic Arabia! How can he believe such nonsense?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/6/2018 11:35:54 AM



  • The punishment for adultery does exist in the Mosaic law and for the scholars, this is pre-Islamic.

    The question however is not whether adultery is punishable in Judaism or Christianity but was it punishable among the Arab polytheists. Has GM sb found evidence of it? He cannot obviously find evidence for what did not exist and yet the windbag goes on arguing ad-infinitum ad nauseum.

    Write to your friend Yunus sb who has done research on the subject and he will confirm that adultery was not a crime in that society and was practiced fairly freely.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/5/2018 11:28:02 PM



  • Naseer sb. now declares, "There is nothing in the literature relating to adultery or punishment for it among the pre-Islamic Arab polytheists simply because adultery was not a crime in that society."

    That is an absurd statement but is typical of Naseer sb. He makes an untenable assertion and then asks you to produce evidence to disprove his assertion when he knows how hard it is to get facts about pre-Islamic Arabia. He tried the same trick a couple of years ago asserting that humans cannot produce moral precepts and then asked me to produce evidence from pre-history of humans having produced moral precepts!

    He is not satisfied with the following two citations that I produced for his benefit:

    (1) "An extensive survey of pre-Islamic, Near Eastern legal materials in search of parallel penalties has thus been attempted in this thesis. Remarkably, not only stoning and hand-amputation, but nearly the entire range of Islamic adultery and theft legislation have pre-Islamic parallels."

    (2) "I quoted another author saying, "the Islamic judicial concepts and ideals were more or less the same which the Arabs had practiced over generations."

    Naseer sb. will never concede and will continue raising points that are patently absurd.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/5/2018 12:27:21 AM



  • There is nothing in the literature relating to adultery or punishment for it among the pre-Islamic Arab polytheists simply because adultery was not a crime in that society. It is therefore not a surprise to me at all that GM Sb has failed to provide the evidence. I had suggested to him that he should consult his friend Yunus sb who has researched on the topic and post his response. He has not done that either. His behaviour shows scant regard for truth and authenticity. He can argue ad infinitum and ad nauseum even after he has realized that his position is false and indefensible. 

    I have shown how wise and merciful  is Allah's law and how stupid his prescription is and yet he loves his own stupidity and rejects the Quranic law!

    He simply lacks the grace to accept his mistake and move on.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/4/2018 11:37:40 PM



  • Naseer sb. asks, " Does anybody find anything related to adultery and punishment for it among the polytheistic pre-Islamic Arabs in what he has quoted?"

    Does Naseer sb. really believe that polytheists had no punishment for adultery? Has he read carefully what I said in my last comment?

    Naseer sb. wants us to believe that our merciful and benevolent God wants us to punish adulterers with 100 lashes! He cannot see that that such  punishments were practiced by pre-Islamic Arabs. He is the one who  attributes such laws to our merciful and benevolent God but alleges that I am the one who is in violation of Allah's laws! So what does he think of the recent ruling of India's Supreme Court? Are all our justices and judges going to end up in Hell? And how can he sing praises of the Hudud laws when he knows the impossibility of getting four witnesses?

    Let Naseer sb. believe what he wants to believe. Let me repeat that the verses which are kind,  uplifting and dignifying express the divine message. Those that are harsh and punitive represent 7th century polytheist ethos.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/3/2018 1:34:42 PM



  • It is GM sb who is being deceitful. Does anybody find anything related to adultery and punishment for it among the polytheistic pre-Islamic Arabs in what he has quoted? There is no punishment for stoning in Islam. The punishment of stoning is the Mosaic Law and not the law of the pre-Islamic Arab polytheists.

     

    “Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day” is what the verse 24:2 says. So, a judge who does not decree the prescribed punishment once the guilt is proved with 4 reliable eye-witnesses does not believe in Allah and the Day of Judgment. A person who argues for decriminalizing adultery is for not punishing any adulterer and is in far greater violation of Allah’s law on adultery and such a person cannot be a believer in Allah and the Day of Judgment. Allah has provided us with independent proof that GM sb is such a person and demonstrated the truth of this verse.

    Now compare the wisdom of the Quran and GM sb’s stupidity.

    The hudud laws are for building a good society in which people can respect and trust each other. In the licentious West, marital infidelities are a cause of general level of distrust and suspicion between couples, psychological trauma when infidelity occurs, mental illness, and break-up of marital relations. Such relationships cause misery not only the affected couples but also to their children and the parents. It is a cause of weaker marital bonds and unhappiness in the married life. Sexual relationships prior to marriage are also a cause of forming weaker marital bonds, subsequent acts of infidelity and break-ups.

    Now consider the Quran’s prescription for it. Verse 24:2 is a great deterrent for all those who believe in Allah and the Day of Judgment. Such people protect themselves from any situation that can lead to adultery. The simplest and most effective way they use is to always be in a state of ritual purity with wudhu or ablution. They perform their wudhu whenever it is broken and are at all times in a state of wudhu which protects them from every evil and temptation.

    If a marital partner commits adultery it only results in divorce. The other partner need not and does not bring charges of adultery to get him/her punished. While the Quran makes the punishment mandatory if the guilt is established, at the same time, it also strongly discourages bringing the charge of adultery even if it be true.

    The wisdom of the Quran will be obvious to all except to the deaf, dumb and blind. The society comprising the believers in Allah and the Day of Judgment will be free from adultery without the necessity of punishing anyone even when there are stray incidents of adultery. The punishment comes in when the incidents become too many and beyond the tolerance of the society in which case the ones guilty of flagrant violations are punished to prevent their corrupting the rest of the society.

     

    Now compare it with GM sb’s prescription. He wants to decriminalize adultery but treat it as a sin punishable by Allah on the Day of Judgment. How does that help? Does it promote a society free of the evil? Will there be more acts of adultery or less if adultery is decriminalized? If more commit adultery then more people will be punished on the Day of Judgment. Will the punishment on the Day of Judgment be lighter or more severe than the punishment prescribed in this world? What has GM sb through his “wisdom” achieved? A society such as the one in the west where adultery is common, break-up of marriages become common, children suffer, there is great mental stress and sickness and to top it all more people are punished in the Hereafter! GM sb’s prescription is a prescription for creating a hell on this earth and for sending more people to Hell in the Hereafter!

    No mortal is capable of framing such a law in which “saanp bhi mar jaye or lathi bhi na tute”. A law framed by a mortal would have made self-confession mandatory for a believer and bringing cases of adultery and providing testimony a virtue. Every law of Allah is full of His infinite Wisdom and Mercy. A corollary from this law is that you need not bring charges of theft against a thief either but make him/her repent and mend ways. Allah through his laws teaches His creation to become forgiving, merciful and compassionate and overlook the faults of others, while providing effective deterrents to be used only in extreme cases. The deterrents serve as a measure of the seriousness and enormity of the offense to those who believe in Allah and the Day of Judgment.

    The difference between divine wisdom and sheer stupidity of mortals is obvious and yet the mortal behaves as if he is wiser and more merciful than Allah!

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/3/2018 12:59:00 AM



  • Naseer sb. is back making the same deceitful arguments again. If he believes 100 lashes for adultery is the punishment that God ordained  for adultery he is insulting God. Instead of re-arguing the same points again and again, let me ask him to read my previous comment. Please read it slowly and carefully:

    "Naseer sb. is asking me to "prove" that the adultery laws in the Quran are 7th century Arab laws.

    "I quoted one study which said, "An extensive survey of pre-Islamic, Near Eastern legal materials in search of parallel penalties has thus been attempted in this thesis. Remarkably, not only stoning and hand-amputation, but nearly the entire range of Islamic adultery and theft legislation have pre-Islamic parallels."

    "I quoted another author saying, "the Islamic judicial concepts and ideals were more or less the same which the Arabs had practiced over generations."

    "But Naseer sb. should use his own common sense and decide whether 24:2 "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, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day," sounds to him like a 7th century Arab law or like the divine words of the Almighty Allah who is merciful and benevolent? Just study it with an open mind and be honest in your assessment."

    Naseer sb. lies shamelessly when he says that I want to legalize adultery. Why does he lie so much?

    He tries to show us the wisdom and humanity in a law which is harsh and self-contradictory and is clearly the work of Arabian jurists of that time.

    While Naseer sb. talks of 100 lashes for adultery, Jesus said, "Let him who has never sinned cast the first stone," for the same offence.

    When will you stop insulting God, Naseer sb.?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/2/2018 11:15:02 AM



  • How many lies in a single comment! While quoting the Quran, he calls it a pre-Islamic law. If it is not Islamic why is it in the Quran?. He has also failed to establish that adultery was considered a crime among pre-Islamic polytheist Arabs let alone the punishment for it being 100 lashes in that society. He repeats the lie.

     While I have dealt in detail with verse 2:282 and 24:2, he says that I have no answer! It is he who is rendered speechless with the response. This is Lie No. 3

     Where Islamic law prevails, if a case of adultery is brought to a judge and established by proper evidence of 4 eye witnesses, the judge has no discretion in the matter but to award the punishment of 100 stripes to each of the adulterers. “Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day” is what the verse says. If this is not done, the act amounts to disbelief in Allah and the Last Day. What then of GM Sb who wants to decriminalize adultery and legalize it? Can he be considered one who believes in Allah and the Last Day? The proof that he does not believe in the Day of Judgment is in his statement: “A sin is transgression of divine law and will be punished by God”. One who believes in the Day of Judgment would rather be punished here than in the Hereafter. The Proof that he is a faithful, unquestioning, blind devotee of Uncle Sam is in his unquestioning acceptance of “the official findings” while he doubts the Word and Book of Allah even after the verse in question is explained to him.

     Although I have shown how the law is full of wisdom and proof of Allah’s infinite Wisdom and Mercy, in that it prevents the believers from indulging in adultery while making it impossible to punish anyone for it, unless the act is a flagrant public display that produces 4 eye-witnesses, he persists with his ways. Decriminalizing adultery would make the Muslim society as adulterous as the Christian and Jewish societies. Punishing in the Hereafter will not make life better on this earth since many of them do not behave as if they believe in the Hereafter like GM sb. Those who truly believe  in the Hereafter, their prayer is that Allah should punish them for all their sins in this world itself and take them in death in a state purified of every sin.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/2/2018 3:41:52 AM



  • How many [Offensive personal remarks deleted - Editor] inconsistencies  in a single comment! While quoting the Quran, he calls it a pre-Islamic law. If it is not Islamic why is it in the Quran?. He has also failed to establish that adultery was considered a crime among pre-Islamic polytheist Arabs let alone the punishment for it being 100 lashes in that society. He repeats the lie.

    While I have dealt in detail with verse 2:282 and 24:2, he says that I have no answer! It is he who is rendered speechless with the response. This is Lie No. 3 Where Islamic law prevails, if a case of adultery is brought to a judge and established by proper evidence of 4 eye witnesses, the judge has no discretion in the matter but to award the punishment of 100 stripes to each of the adulterers. “Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day” is what the verse says. If this is not done, the act amounts to disbelief in Allah and the Last Day. What then of GM Sb who wants to decriminalize adultery and legalize it? Can he be considered one who believes in Allah and the Last Day? The proof that he does not believe in the Day of Judgment is in his statement: “A sin is transgression of divine law and will be punished by God”. One who believes in the Day of Judgment would rather be punished here than in the Hereafter. The Proof that he is a faithful, unquestioning, blind devotee of Uncle Sam is in his unquestioning acceptance of “the official findings” while he doubts the Word and Book of Allah even after the verse in question is explained to him.

     Although I have shown how the law is full of wisdom and proof of Allah’s infinite Wisdom and Mercy, in that it prevents the believers from indulging in adultery while making it impossible to punish anyone for it, unless the act is a flagrant public display that produces 4 eye-witnesses, he persists with his ways. Decriminalizing adultery would make the Muslim society as adulterous as the Christian and Jewish societies. Punishing in the Hereafter will not make life better on this earth since many of them do not behave as if they believe in the Hereafter like GM sb. Those who truly believe  in the Hereafter, their prayer is that Allah should punish them for all their sins in this world itself and take them in death in a state purified of every sin.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/2/2018 3:41:51 AM



  • Since Naseer sb.  has no answers he continues his despicable practice of  hurling insults at me!

    A sin is transgression of divine law and will be punished by God. A crime is an act which harms another person or property and is prosecuted according to human law. By calling pre-Islamic Arab criminal laws "Hudud Laws" we have accorded them divine sanction, which is wrong. Criminal laws can be formulated only by humans although they must conform to the Quranic requirement of being just, fair, egalitarian, humane and sensible. Such laws evolve as societies evolve. Extramarital sexual intercourse violates the rights of the spouse and is a breach of contract and hence liable to civil action including divorce. Such behavior is also sinful but that is a matter between the sinner and God. 

    All of the above may sound "dirty" to Naseer sb. because his mind is closed.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/1/2018 12:26:20 PM



  • GM sb has lost his sanity. As usual, he will not cut and paste what I said but will twist what I said as anyone can see.

    What does he mean by saying that adultery is a sin but not a crime? Only crimes are covered under hudud laws and punished. So what does he recommend -decriminalizing and legalizing adultery?

    He says, I have not answered his question. I have responded to his profane and dirty understanding with a proper explanation and ended with saying that the verse is evidently divine and full of Allah's infinite Wisdom and Mercy. I have clearly rejected his dirty and profane understanding and fully endorsed the correct meaning.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/1/2018 2:25:50 AM



  • Instead of answering my question Naseer sb. proceeds to ask me questions as a diversionary tactic.

    You lie maliciously when you say that I have straddled the fence on adultery. When did I do that? Adultery is a sin but not a crime. It is also a civil wrong in that it is a breach of contract and can be grounds for divorce. 

    I asked you to read 24:2 again and decide for yourself whether those are the words of the Almighty merciful and benevolent God or the words of pre-Islamic Arab laws but you have shrewdly refused to answer that question. You don't have the guts to give an honest answer and try to escape by calling my view  "dirty understanding" Nothing is more dirty than to attribute words that are obviously not divine  to the Master of the Universe. And I do not think He goes about asking men to whip sinners when He has set aside the Day of Judgement to punish sinners for that very purpose.

    Your discussion of the adultery laws is a jumble of contradictory nonsense. You say God wants harsh punishment but then sets up conditions that make the punishment impossible and even encourages the sinner to keep the sin hidden. Such contradictory laws could have been  made only by men of that time. To think that God would make such laws is to insult God. Please stop insulting God.

    You continue to deliberately not see why, in order to be witnesses, two women are considered equal to one man. There is deliberate dishonesty in your attempt to justify it.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/1/2018 1:50:29 AM



  • GM sb has not answered what his take is on the law of adultery. Does he want adultery to be decriminalized and legalized? He is forever straddling the fence - the favorite position of a hypocrite. 

     GM Sb has a profane understanding of the Quran and is unwilling to give up his dirty understanding despite being explained in detail. The proof is his misunderstanding of verse 2:282 which has remained unchanged. He clings on to his dirty understanding because his objective is not to understand but malign the Quran.

     With the correct understanding as clearly brought out in my articles, the wisdom and mercy of Allah, become manifest. There is no doubt that every verse in the Quran is Allah's speech, full of His Wisdom and Mercy. There is no need for me to comment verse by verse.

     In my article   Spiritual Islam Vs Bigoted Islam  I have explained how the Quran makes clear the enormity of the act of adultery with the prescribed punishment for it which acts as a strong deterrent for all the believing and practicing Muslims. At the same time, the Quran actively discourages the people from bringing charges of adultery against the adulterers even if the charge is true by laying down the very strict requirement of four eye witnesses and punishing the witnesses with 80% of the punishment for the adulterers, if they fail to establish the crime. Islam does not encourage self-confession either, and if someone has indulged in the act under a cloak of darkness, the preferred option is to let the act remain hidden and seek forgiveness of Allah and repent. Allah will then let the sin remain covered and will not expose the sinner to shame even on the Day of Judgment. There is nothing but infinite wisdom and mercy in each of Allah’s verses and His Laws.

     In my article Is A Woman’s Testimony Worth Half That of A Man? I have explained that the Quran does not require the women to give separate testimony when required, but jointly, consulting and helping each other. This is an option and a privilege but not a legal requirement. Verse 2:282 is an advice to the creditor and the debtor of how best to enter into financial transactions to leave no scope for any misunderstanding or dispute and to ensure orderly conduct of business.

     “Let him who incurs the liability dictate”. The wisdom in this is apparent. The creditor is in a stronger position and can dictate terms but by making the debtor to write the instrument, the scope for such coercion, or the possibility that the debtor may later falsely allege coercion is eliminated.

     “and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (For evidence).”

    It is for the creditor to decide who the witnesses shall be because the purpose of the instrument is to secure the debt from being falsely repudiated. The signature of the debtor alone is not enough for this as he may later allege that it is a forgery. Taking two witnesses has to this day, served the purpose of protecting a debt from being falsely repudiated by the debtor claiming the signature is not his.

     The witnesses are not required to know or understand what the document is about or even read it. Their role when asked to give testimony, is to confirm their own signature on it and confirm that all the other signatories, signed it in their presence.  If the debtor takes up a position that he never took the loan and his signature is a forgery, the attorney for the debtor in his cross-examination tries to establish that the signing event never took place by making a weak witness contradict his/her own testimony or that of the other witnesses. If he does so successfully, the objective of taking witnesses is not served. The Quran therefore gives excellent advice on the manner of taking witnesses.  The objective of the verse is to ensure that justice and truth prevails. Two women helping each other and giving joint testimony makes them strong enough not to be brow beaten or confused by the badgering cross-examination.

    This is however not a legal requirement but an option and privilege and advice to the creditor. It is for the creditor not to take the advice and go for an oral contract or a written contract without witnesses or a contract with any number and sex of the witnesses. 

    Without any doubt, men and women are differently oriented while they may be equal in their abilities. No man can ever match a woman’s memory and recall as it concerns what dress or jewellery other women wore on which occasion.  No cross-examining attorney can confuse them on this subject by badgering them. This is a subject that doesn’t interest men however, and they will have very poor recall and can be easily confused and made to change what they said as they are never sure. Two men jointly may perform better but will still not be a match for one woman. Likewise, business transactions have little interest for most women and they are likely to have poor recall and get easily confused.

     The wisdom in  verse 2:282 is obvious. It strengthens the ordinary women who outnumber the worldly-wise and business savvy ones and helps them participate in business and public affairs without in any way preventing those who can go it alone from going alone.

    Each of Allah’s verse and law is full of His infinite Wisdom and Mercy.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/1/2018 12:35:57 AM



  • Naseer sb. is still refusing to answer my specific questions. He takes refuge in hurling epithets at me! That more or less defines him. Sad!

    And please do not refer me to your previous comments or your articles. That is just an excuse for not answering my questions directly.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/31/2018 11:29:04 AM



  • Who else apart from the windbag Ghulam Uncle Sam, says that I have not explained verse 24:2 in my comments before in this thread and in my article the link to which is below?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/31/2018 12:07:05 AM



  • Naseer sb. is now railing against me like a village mullah that he is just because he does not want to answer the questions I have raised. 

    His calling me a "devoted worshipper of Uncle Sam" is both idiotic and evasive.

    He accuses me of maligning some verses of the Quran when it is he who is maligning God Himself by endorsing words that are obviously not divine.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/30/2018 1:28:54 PM



  • I like "lage raho, lage raho" इंग्लिश लिपि और हिंदी बोल 

     ये ऐसा ही हे, हिंदुस्तानी बोली और मुसलमान  लुटेरों की अरबी लिपि.

    लिखावट तक तो ठीक हे लेकिन आदमी हिंदुस्तानी पर प्यार शिरफ और शिरफ अरबी पैग़म्बेरो से और पूरे जोसकी की नफ़रत इस धरती के राम की.

    इस धरती के नेक  इंसानो की ख़ूनश में लगे रहो, भाइयों लगे रहो।
    By Aayina - 10/30/2018 1:57:40 AM



  • There isn't a subject that I haven't dealt with. I have responded to  Verse 24:2 in my comments below and also dealt with it fully in my article:

    1.      Spiritual Islam Vs Bigoted Islam

    Gjulam Uncle Sam will take the bigot Mullah's position to malign Islam as he has been doing with verse 2:282.

    What I said about him is the truth. He is a devoted worshiper of Uncle Sam who will defend Uncle Sam to his last breath even when he knows that  Uncle Sam is lying.

    He will also take the bigot's view of any verse of the Quran and keep maligning it. No amount of explanation will make him correct his view.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/30/2018 1:46:10 AM



  • What a silly post! 
    Seems Naseer sb. has no intention of replying to my comment on 24:2.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/30/2018 12:45:42 AM



  • Lage raho Ghulam Uncle Sam, lage raho By Naseer Ahmed - 10/29/2018 11:58:45 PM



  • Naseer sb., wild and cheap vilification of Shyam Sunder and me reflects more on your character than on us.

    You lie when you claim that you have explained to me anything about the Quran. In fact you have not answered my last comment at all. Please do not try to throw dust in our eyes with your specious,  dishonest and rude remarks.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/29/2018 1:03:25 PM



  • What can be said about Ghulam Mohiyuddin Sb? He has blind and implicit faith in Uncle Sam and sees no defect in Dr Shyam Sunder's Report although the defects are highlighted. He tenaciously defends the lies of Uncle Sam.

    He also sees many flaws in the Quran and despite explaining to him, clings tenaciously to his defective view and keeps maligning the Quran.

    He is truly Ghulam Uncle Sam and not Ghulam Mohiyuddin without possibly realizing it himself.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/29/2018 12:49:53 AM



  • Now Hats Off has defined the Big Boys who he had said wouldn't play with me. Does he make any sense at all?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/28/2018 11:24:04 PM



  • by big boys i mean the nut cases who think a schizophrenic is their patron saint and also those who believe that someone flew on a horse ro heaven and then sat down on the right side of god. By hats off! - 10/28/2018 6:04:35 PM



  • Naseer sb. is asking me to "prove" that the adultery laws in the Quran are 7th century Arab laws.

    I quoted one study which said, "An extensive survey of pre-Islamic, Near Eastern legal materials in search of parallel penalties has thus been attempted in this thesis. Remarkably, not only stoning and hand-amputation, but nearly the entire range of Islamic adultery and theft legislation have pre-Islamic parallels."

    I quoted another author saying, "the Islamic judicial concepts and ideals were more or less the same which the Arabs had practiced over generations."

    But Naseer sb. should use his own common sense and decide whether 24:2 "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, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day," sounds to him like a 7th century Arab law or like the divine words of the Almighty Allah who is merciful and benevolent? Just study it with an open mind and be honest in your assessment.

    Naseer sb. says, "the Quran has been preserved by Hafiz all through history." I agree. What they have preserved is what was compiled 20 years after the Prophet's death. We do however have to distinguish between what are divine words and what are explanatory words of a helpful human of the 7th century.

    Neither Shyam Sunder nor I can be called  blind believers in Uncle Sam but you certainly are very free with your aspersions and mud slinging in the service of your false beliefs.
     
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/28/2018 12:42:04 PM



  • Who are the big boys of Hats Off's imagination? Does his juvenile and hateful trolling qualify him as  big boy?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/28/2018 12:07:47 PM



  • being the fifth grader that you are no wonder you are hanging around a lot with them.

    anyway the big boys won't play with you.
    By hats off! - 10/28/2018 4:39:50 AM



  • This is what you said, "The adultery laws which he calls "Islamic Laws" are actually 7th century Arab laws."

     This was my response: The adultery laws in the Quran are neither 7th century Arabian laws nor the Mosaic law. All the laws in the Quran, whether they pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance or hudud, are uniquely Quranic laws and have no resemblance whatsoever, with prevailing Arabian laws.

    Now provide the proof that the Quranic law on adultery is 7th century Arab law.The windbag that you are, you will keep going around in circles and never answer the question.

    Allah promises in the Quran protection against any change. For GM sb what the Quran says is of no value nor the proof that Muslims of every sect agree on the text of the Quran, nor the fact that the Quran has been preserved by Hafiz all through history and anytime and in any place, three Hafiz can together, reliably reproduce the exact text without a mistake.

    What Shyam Sunder merely asserts ignoring his own acknowledged facts he blindly believes because he is a firm believer in Uncle Sam. But Allah and the Quran, he has many doubts.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/28/2018 1:44:42 AM



  • Your question is silly. Pagans did not follow Mosaic Laws, but the laws of different communities in the region affected each other. By asking such questions you are just trying to save face and prolong the discussion unnecessarily.

    You say, "The Quran is protected against any change." That is just an unsupported assertion. Such assertions have no value.
     
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/28/2018 1:27:46 AM



  • My question is very specific

    "Is GM sb trying to say that the pre-Islamic Arabs who were not Christians or Jews, practiced Mosaic laws?"

    He has not answered the question. He is so dumb that the very fact that I ask about people other than Jews and Christians means that Jews and Christians existed.

    The Quran is protected against any change. Even the followers of other faiths do not make a similar claim about their Book. It is GM sb who is making a fool of himself 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/28/2018 1:14:57 AM



  • How come Naseer sb. is so ignorant? Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia was a mix of polytheism, Christianity, Judaism, and Iranian religions. Arab polytheism, the dominant belief system, was based on the belief in deities and other supernatural beings such as djinn. Gods and goddesses were worshipped at local shrines, such as the Kaaba in Mecca.

    Is he now saying that "support of the"  Bible and the Torah is discontinued? Does he know what he is saying?

    He says that the Quran is alone Allah's responsibility to preserve. And he has the gall to say that is not supremacism! He is however large-hearted enough to grant that the Christians, the Jews, the Buddhists are all on the right path if they strictly follow their own Books. Isn't he talking out of both sides of his mouth?

    Would it not be advisable for him to stop here rather than continue to make a spectacle of himself?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/28/2018 12:48:48 AM



  • Hats Off thinks this is his opportunity to make another salvo in his relentless hate war against Islam. I have seen better remarks from 5th graders.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/27/2018 11:45:08 PM



  • Is GM sb trying to say that the pre-Islamic Arabs who were not Christians or Jews, practiced Mosaic laws? Incredible! What an ignoramus! Muhammad Yunus sb has done research on pre-Islamic period and he will confirm what I have said. Write to him as you have done several times before and post his response.

    When a new version of software is released, support of the earlier versions is discontinued. It doesn't mean that the older versions have to be discontinued or no longer useful. You can continue using them and they will deliver results.

     The charge of supremacism sticks only if Islam is barred to others. Since Islam is open to all, there is no supremacism in saying that the last Testament is alone Allah's responsibility to preserve. The writing down and preservation of the earlier books never received attention because as I said, at any given time, there was a prophet among the people to guide them and the nature of revelations was in keeping with the times and also limited by the development of civilization and meant to be superseded. Being politically correct and being truthful are not one and the same. Sacrificing truth for political correctness is hypocrisy.

     Yes, the Christians, the Jews, the Buddhists are all on the right path if they strictly follow their own Books.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/27/2018 11:40:44 PM



  • islam is just judaism v.3. christianity was judaism v.2

    both spring from the very barabaric abraham who thought nothing of decapitating his own son on the basis of auditory hallucination. its a pity we did not have ect or haloperidol in those days.

    only perverts can hold such a man up as a patriarch prophet.

    no wonder caravan raiding merged seamlessly into early islam.
    By hats off! - 10/27/2018 5:14:26 PM



  • Naseer sb. has no proof to support his claims so all that he can do is call me names.

    The McGill Collection has one 2005 thesis by Walter Young which says, "Determining whether stoning for adultery and hand-amputation for theft were practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia represents the first phase in exploring the origins and evolution of these penalties in Islamic law. Should both punishments prove to predate Islam, then it would appear the Qur'an broke with stoning and confirmed amputation of the hand. An extensive survey of pre-Islamic, Near Eastern legal materials in search of parallel penalties has thus been attempted in this thesis. Remarkably, not only stoning and hand-amputation, but nearly the entire range of Islamic adultery and theft legislation have pre-Islamic parallels. The nature of these parallels, however, does not conform to the paradigm of 'borrowing' from 'foreign' sources. Rather, Arab customary law---a major contributor to Islamic law in general---appears to have diverged from an ancient Semitic 'common source' once shared with other Near Eastern cultural entities. Most major elements of Islamic criminal law, including stoning and hand-amputation, therefore represent the culmination of an ancient Semitic common law."

    Emil Tynan in his book "Histoire De L'Organisation judiciare En Pays D'Islam" holds that the Islamic judicial concepts and ideals were more or less the same which the Arabs had practiced over generations."

    Naseer sb.s assertion that the Torah and the Bible are only of historical interest and it is the Quran which alone needs to be preserved and protected by Allah is shocking and is contrary to the generally taught Islamic belief that we should respect the Holy Books of the Jews and the Christians. Naseer sb..s statement is the most blatant assertion of supremacism that I have heard in a long time!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/27/2018 1:22:37 PM



  • You made the charge, that the laws in the Quran are 7th century Arabian laws. The burden of proof is on you. You have no proof. As I said before, you are only a windbag with infinite capacity for loose nonsensical talk and with little capacity to understand anything.

    Allah's revelations started with the "Cognitive Revolution" or with the birth of Adam, an estimated seventy thousand years ago. There were an estimated  124000 prophets during this period or roughly 60 prophets spread across the earth upto the coming of Jesus Christ. The language "Aramaic" of the pen-ultimate prophet Jesus, is also a dead language and what is available is only by way of translations. 

    The progressive revelations took mankind up the  scale of civilization progressively. The past revelations therefore are only of historical interest and it is the last Testament which alone needs to be preserved and protected by Allah.

    The rest are left to man to preserve as best as they can but the last one is Allah's own responsibility to preserve the text.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/26/2018 11:50:03 PM



  • Naseer sb. asks, "Are you seriously suggesting that Raven's test is a test of who can be a reliable witness?"

    It is a stupid question. Tests can only measure over-all intellectual or aptitude levels. The Raven's Test measures  a person's reasoning ability i.e. the capacity to reason and solve problems. Which extra-special mental faculty do you think is required to be a good witness? Aren't you being just deliberately obstreperous in order to continue this ludicrous argument?

    You brought up your absurd and fabricated story that in seventh century Arabia, adultery was very common and neither considered a crime nor a sin! So the burden of providing the proof rests solely on you. You cannot escape that responsibility by making idiotic jokes about "progressives". 

    I have posted the link to the final NIST Report in another discussion. Read it to your heart's content. If you have any further questions, please address them to Mr. Shyam Sunder. I have the least bit of interest in conspiracy theories.

    I have no conspiracy theories about the Quran. I just see that some verses in it  conflict with my idea of the grandeur of the Almighty and I consider the fact  that the Book was compiled 20 years after the death of our Prophet. You asked, "Do you think He (Allah) is powerless to ensure accurate transmission, recording and preservation of His last and final Testament?" He is powerful enough to do anything he wants to do but remember that He says in the Quran that the Jews and the Christians changed the message that He had given them. Does that show Him to be powerless? Of course not!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/26/2018 12:16:00 PM



  • Are you seriously suggesting that Raven's test is a test of who can be a reliable witness? GM sb repeats himself unnecessarily. My description of what the Raven's test is and isn't is accurate. The women do very well in repetitive tasks and it doesn't require Raven's test to prove that. And nobody ever said that they lack intelligence.

    The fact that you will not cut and paste what I said to prove your point means it is you who is lying.

     So, what do you think were the sexual norms in pre-Islamic Arabia? That the offenders were punished with 100 stripes? Produce your proof. The sexual norms in pre-Islamic Arabia were as "progressive" as they are in the "progressive" west today. Now, I understand what you mean by calling yourself a "progressive" Muslim and why you think the Quranic punishment of 100 stripes is "uncivilized". Well it certainly isn't "progressive" by your definition of progress.

     The final NIST report acknowledges free fall through 8 storeys or for 2.5 secs. Do you find an explanation for it in the Report? Do you find any of the supporters of the Official Lie dealing with this uncomfortable fact of free fall for 2.5 secs? 

    They all produce a lot of noise to support the Official Lie but will not address the evidence that tells the true story of what happened.

     Now, you have your own conspiracy theory of how the Quran was corrupted with "clearly human and situational assertions". A man who cannot understand a simple verse 2:282 judges the Quran! What do you think of Allah? Do you think He is powerless to ensure accurate transmission, recording and preservation of His last and final Testament?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/26/2018 4:13:49 AM



  • Naseer sb. is so desperate to prove the inferiority of women as witnesses that he is willing to pontificate on things he knows nothing about! As I said before Raven's Test  is used to measure abstract reasoning and is regarded as a non-verbal estimate of fluid intelligence (i.e. the capacity to reason and solve novel problems, independent of any knowledge from the past).  It is designed to measure the test taker's reasoning ability. He has only confused himself by bringing up its application in Asperger's syndrome which, while valid, does not in any way  detract from the value of the test as a measure of a person's reasoning ability. Nasser sb. is looking for a test that would tell us who would make a better witness! A test that measures a person's reasoning ability is not good enough for him!

    Now he declares that I do not understand 2:282. By that he means that if I do not accept the claim that one man's testimony is equal to the testimony of two women I must have defective understanding! He hides behind that excuse in order not to give his explanation of 8:12, 2:191-193, 2:216, 3:56, 9:5. We have seen such tricks before!

    He has come up with the absurd claim that in seventh century Arabia, adultery was very common and neither considered a crime nor a sin! Does he have any proof for that unbelievable and fabricated assertion?

    The final NIST report of November 2008 clearly states that it did not find any evidence of a blast event or controlled collapse. It blamed the collapse on fire coming down from floors above the fifth floor. Please do not misquote official reports to mislead us in your wrong-headed pursuit of a thoroughly rejected conspiracy theory.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/25/2018 1:43:04 PM



  • Ghulam Mohiyudin sb  must copy paste what I said to prove his point, but he cannot do that because what he says is his distorted version of what I said and a lie.

     Raven’s Progressive test is a test of being good at repetitive tasks and good at improving in those repetitive tasks without getting bored. Those suffering from Asperger’s syndrome are pre-disposed towards doing repetitive tasks without getting bored and therefore do better. Those who do well in the Arts and Sciences are not only those who are extremely talented but also those with average talent but who can apply themselves to their chosen field single mindedly.  One can do poorly in Raven’s test if one gets quickly bored and yet be extremely talented, creative and intelligent. Whatever Raven’s test maybe, it is not a test of who makes a better witness.

     There is no verse of the Quran or subject that I have not discussed. He cannot even understand a simple verse 2:282 and wants me to waste my time discussing other verses! Why would I do that with someone who treats the Quran with such disdain? 

     In seventh century Arabia, adultery was very common and neither considered a crime nor a sin. The adultery laws in the Quran are neither 7th century Arabian laws nor the Mosaic law. All the laws in the Quran, whether they pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance or hudud, are uniquely Quranic laws and have no resemblance whatsoever, with prevailing Arabian laws.

     There is no need to go beyond the NIST report to come to the right conclusions. However, either school level physics is beyond GM sb, or for him even the laws of physics are part of the conspiracy theory since these expose Uncle Sam’s lies!

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/24/2018 11:46:23 PM



  • Naseer sb. is talking rubbish when he criticizes Raven's Test which  is used to measure abstract reasoning and is regarded as a non-verbal estimate of fluid intelligence (i.e. the capacity to reason and solve novel problems, independent of any knowledge from the past.) His mentioning studies on Asperger's Syndrome to support his argument is foolish as it actually refutes his reasoning.  Asperger himself  contended, in his original paper, that the traits of this disorder were in fact necessary for high achievement in the arts and sciences. Logical reasoning ability is a premise for conducting scientific research, and in fact there have been some outstanding scientists who were the cases of Asperger’s disorder.

    Anyone who read his earlier comment would know that Naseer sb. is lying when he tries to deny that he had not questioned my being a Muslim. Why is it difficult for him to be honest in a discussion like this one?

    He has also made up the story that the collapse of the buildings on 9/11 defies laws pf physics. No reputed scientist has said that. But Naseer sb. has his own conspiracy theory scientists to keep this stupid argument going!

    The adultery laws which he calls "Islamic Laws" are actually 7th century Arab laws. I wish he would stop insulting God by attributing to Him such inhuman practices.

    Naseer sb. claims there are no problematic verses. Let him contort himself trying to explain 8:12, 2:191-193, 2:216, 3:56, 9:5.

    A compilation made 20 years after the Prophet's death, a compilation that the Prophet never read, edited or corrected can still contain divinely inspired words, but lazy and over-awed mullahs like Naseer sb. will never take the trouble to separate those words from what are clearly human and situational assertions.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/24/2018 1:30:53 PM



  • GM sb lies when he says that I called him a non-Muslim. He is upset because I showed him up to be a buffoon in his own profession, trying to argue that Raven’s progressive test proves that women make as reliable witnesses as men.

     GM: Naseer sb. now says that questioning his idiotic conspiracy theories about 9/11 is tantamount to questioning God. Does he think he himself is God? 

     He is lying here also. What I said was: From another discussion, we know that Ghulam M has greater belief in Uncle Sam than in the laws of Physics or the laws of Allah. This is a statement of fact. Anyone who believes that a miracle defying the laws of physics is more believable than accepting that the Government is lying about not using controlled demolition to bring down the buildings at free fall speed, has more faith in Uncle Sam than in the Laws of Allah.

     Let GM sb clarify his position on the Islamic law on punishment for proven case of adultery. This is what he said:

    ….the punishment of flogging for adulterers and fornicators with 100 stripes, a type of punishment which has been long abolished in all civilized countries…. India's Supreme Court has recently decriminalized extra-marital sex which leaves only the option of civil redress e.g. divorce.

     Do you think it (law of adultery) must be strictly followed?

    You are willing to accept even verses that advocate killing, maiming, discriminating against women etc. as genuine words of God! (It is a different matter that what GM says about the verses is a lie. There are no such verses)

    A compilation made 20 years after the Prophet's death by unsophisticated people cannot be the basis of Islam.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/24/2018 12:17:16 AM



  • Naseer sb. now says that questioning his idiotic conspiracy theories about 9/11 is tantamount to questioning God. Does he think he himself is God? 

    He makes wild accusations about me  "judging" the Quran from a Western point of view. He tries to present me as being pro-adultery. Is he just a liar? Probably not. It is just that he thinks exactly like a village mullah and will call anyone who does not agree with him a non-Muslim. We have all encountered such self-righteous zealots. There is no civil way to talk with them.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/23/2018 3:01:38 PM



  • What Ghulam Mohiyuddin sb is trying to tell us is that Allah has failed to provide humanity with a reliable Book of His revelations even through the last of His prophets and in His last Testament. The verses that guarantee the protection of the Book against any change are therefore either put in by humans or extravagant claims made by God that He could not keep! Why does he then worship such a god? Maybe he does not.

    The most important and bare minimum practices that make a person Muslim are:

    1. Establishing regular prayers

    2. Zakat and Sadqah or spending freely in charity

    The two most heinous crimes for a believer are:

    3. Associating partners with Allah (unforgivable)

    4. Adultery (forgiven if punished according to the Islamic law, else to be decided by Allah on the Day of Judgment)

    About the first two items I don’t know where he stands but we know about the last 2. From another discussion, we know that he has greater belief in Uncle Sam than in the laws of Physics or the laws of Allah.

    He judges the Quran, by the current thinking of Western Civilization, which he apparently considers superior to the religion of Islam. Adultery must therefore be legalized and not punished according to him.

    He is a male feminist and this class is even more extreme than the female feminists. To him equality means sameness! Why then does he not insist that we should do away with separate competitions for men and women in sports and athletics? Why even in games that do not require physical superiority such as chess, bridge etc., do we have separate competition for men and women?

     

    He is a doctor and a licensed psychological counselor and should therefore know that Raven’s tests prove nothing as far as the subject of the discussion is concerned. A 2007 study provided evidence that individuals with Asperger syndrome, a high-functioning autism spectrum disorder, score higher than other individuals on Raven's tests. People with Asperger syndrome have problems in social communication and social interaction, and exhibit restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests or activities. Raven’s progressive test is a test of progressive increase in difficulty, but otherwise repetitive, and apparently easier for those with Asperger syndrome as it suits their disposition. So, if females do as well as the men or even better than the males in the Raven’s progressive test, it only means that they are as good or better than men in repetitive tasks. It says nothing about whether they make equally good witnesses as men. The farcical discussion that GM sb can carry on ad infinitum ad nauseum is unbelievable! He is without a trace of shame about the lack of substance in whatever he says.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/23/2018 2:02:07 AM



  • A compilation made 20 years after the Prophet's death by unsophisticated people cannot be the basis of Islam. One has to analyze it to find true divine guidance in it and to separate it from human efforts to make it suitable for a particular time and a particular place.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/22/2018 11:24:00 AM



  • I did not find a single verse that advocates killing, maiming and discrimination against women. If anyone finds anything objectionable in the Quran despite their best efforts to understand correctly, they should leave Islam. Their lack of understanding despite someone’s best efforts to explain is an indicator that they have left Islam and Islam has left them. There is no compulsion in religion.

     

     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/22/2018 1:35:14 AM



  • I say about some verses that the Almighty God, the most gracious and the most merciful, could not possibly have said them and that they are time-appropriate human modifications of the divine message rather than the divine message itself. You are willing to accept even verses that advocate killing, maiming, discriminating against women etc. as genuine words of God! Is that what you really think of God?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/20/2018 1:28:37 PM



  • And you obviously expect Allah to reward you for pointing out His "mistakes" in the Quran and asking the people to revise the Quran in accordance with your great wisdom!


    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/19/2018 11:12:56 PM



  • Naseer sb. assumes that in this discussion Allah is on his side! A little foresight would make it clear to him  that what he has been saying  is in the long run a much worse insinuation against the Quran than what I have been saying.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/19/2018 12:58:37 PM



  • I have tried my best to make GM understand. 

    GM sb is however bent on insinuating against the Quran. The matter is now between him and Allah.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/18/2018 11:24:24 PM



  • Naseer saheb is still trying to present the degradation of women as a privileged dispensation for women. Is he deceptive or just feeble-minded?

    His insinuation that  women are less able to recall details and more amenable to influence is without any supportable basis but he habitually pulls such falsities out of his hat.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/18/2018 12:49:22 PM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin Sb is bent upon denying women the option of witnessing jointly.

    His feeble mind is unable to comprehend that an option is a privilege which one may use or not use.

    His feeble mind is also unable to comprehend that Raven's test does not prove/disprove whether women are better able to recall details and less amenable to influence.

    We do not need the results Raven's test to know how many educated males are also  illogical and have very low comprehension. Ghulam Mohiyuddin provides the proof by his inability to understand a single verse.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/17/2018 11:24:59 PM



  • Naseer Saheb's conviction that women are not on par with man is very revealing and shocking. James Flynn, the famed intelligence researcher, compared men and women on the Raven's Progressive Matrices test,
     a test of abstract, logical reasoning. He concluded that women  certainly equaled men, and perhaps were slightly above."

    Instead of discussing the punishment of flogging for adulterers and fornicators with 100 stripes, a type of punishment which has been long abolished in all civilized countries, Naseer sb. gets lost in the difficulties of finding witnesses! That's how he evades discussion of real issues! India's Supreme Court has recently decriminalized extra-marital sex which leaves only the option of civil redress e.g. divorce.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/17/2018 12:40:32 PM



  • 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