certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islamic Ideology

31 - COMMENTS

  • No fool like an old fool to keep repeating what is answered to him in several of my comments! He will also find the answer in my article:
    Spiritual Islam Vs Bigoted Islam


    He has the bigots understanding of verse 24:2 and like any old fool, is clinging to it for dear life.

    He is beyond understanding anything - the poor old fool!
    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/13/2018 1:23:24 AM



  • The self-deluding idiot applauds  discouraging people from bringing charges against other people even if these are true. I do not know where he learned such jurisprudence! Prosecutorial trickeries are human. Forgiveness is divine. But that obviously is beyond this idiot's ken.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/12/2018 1:17:40 PM



  • The old fool completely misses the beautiful lesson from the story that even though the punishment is prescribed, the people must desist from bringing charges (casting stones in the parable) against the sinners which is brought to perfection in the Quran when it discourages people from bringing charges against other people even if these are true. Allah’s Mercy encompasses even his hudud laws. For a detailed exposition read my comment:By Naseer Ahmed - 11/5/2018 11:44:55 PM

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/12/2018 1:48:36 AM



  • Idiot Naseer sb. cannot go beyond insignificant factoids. The point is that Jesus let her go and asked her not to sin anymore. The difference between the Mosaic Law and the Roman Law has become a point since it was raised by one exegete, but that is not the original or the main message of this parable. The idiot misses the main point in an argument and finds some trivia to continue his idiotic "debate".

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/12/2018 1:19:27 AM



  • In Mosaic law the punishment was stoning to death and not 100 lashes. Does GM the idiotic windbag expect that Jesus should have stoned her to death himself and run afoul of the Roman law? What would he have achieved? Even if he thinks it was 100 lashes does he not know from a reading of 24:2 which he quotes that the punishment must be witnessed and cannot be given privately? If at all there was to be a punishment, it had to be in full sight of the assembled people.

    The old fool has lived up to the adage "no fool like an old fool!"
    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/12/2018 12:58:30 AM



  • In order to reciprocate, I shall have to start calling Naseer sb. an idiot.

    I had said, "Jesus asked her to go. He did not say that she must first get 100 lashes before she goes." This was after all the Jews had left and Jesus was alone with the woman.

    Did the idiot, Naseer sb., understand that? I do not think so.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/12/2018 12:28:34 AM



  • GM sb proves the adage "There is no fool like an old fool".

    What Jesus Christ did and did not do with the accused woman and why has been fully discussed. The old fool has not understood anything!
    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/12/2018 12:03:49 AM



  • Naseer sb. has nothing left but abusive language! Shame!

    And his remark on what Jesus said is just plain silly. Jesus asked her to go. He did not say that she must first get 100 lashes before she goes.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/11/2018 1:49:22 PM



  • What can you tell an old fool who still does not understand? And what did he expect Jesus to say? That adultery is not punishable under Roman Law and you can go back to sinning?!!! By Naseer Ahmed - 11/11/2018 1:55:35 AM



  • Since Naseer sb. has no answers he calls me "an old fool"! Should I then call him "an arrogant idiot"? But I do not want to fall to his level.

    Again he did not answer any of my specific questions. His discussion of adultery is just a jumble of words that do not lead to any clarity. 

    He forgets the last words in Jesus's parable that were uttered after the Jews had left and Jesus was left alone with the woman who had been accused of adultery. Jesus tells her, "Go and sin no more."

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/11/2018 12:10:21 AM



  • You are an ignorant old fool with little understanding. What I am writing below is what I have said before, but it went over your head.

     

    For an individual Muslim, following the Quranic law on adultery means not committing adultery. The Indian law does not compel Muslims to commit adultery. I hope you understand this much at least.

     

    The Quranic law on adultery did not apply to any other community except the Muslims. The polytheists were never punished for adultery since this is not a crime for them. On the other hand, an adulterous Muslim while being forbidden from marrying any non-adulterous person from communities in which adultery is forbidden, could marry a polytheist Arab only because adultery was common and an acceptable practice in that community. Following Islam does not require imposing its laws on other communities.

     

    Jesus (pbuh) is an example of a prophet who did not contravene the prevailing Roman Law when a prostitute was brought before him for judgment by mischievous people who wanted to test him. If he pronounced the judgment according to the Mosaic Law, he would have run afoul of the Roman Law and if he didn’t, the people could accuse him of being a false prophet. He simply asked the one who had never sinned to cast the first stone. He therefore passed the judgment of stoning in accordance with the Mosaic Law and yet ensured that it was not carried out. This lesson is taken to perfection in the Quran.

     

    First, the Prophet himself, when people of other communities came to him for judgment, judged them by their own laws and not by Quranic laws. The lesson from this and from the example of Jesus is even though you may be a Muslim judge, you will judge by the prevailing law.

     

    Just like Jesus (pbuh) gave a lesson to the accusers that they should not be quick to accuse and judge other people, the Quran also discourages people from bringing charges against other people even if these are true. Allah’s Mercy encompasses even his hudud laws. As an individual therefore, it is not my duty to ensure the punishment of people according to any law. I need to only ensure that I live by the tenets of my religion in my private life. Even if I was a ruler, I cannot implement Quranic laws on people who do not believe in the Quran.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/10/2018 11:13:34 PM



  • Naseer sb. asks "which question?"

    Here are the questions again:

    "
    Don't you have to live by Indian Laws? Are you going to ask Indian courts to give 100 lashes to adulterers? What is the use of believing in a law if you can't practice it? Is it necessary to believe in such archaic and inhuman laws in order to avoid going to hell? Do you really think God would make such laws?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/10/2018 3:13:48 PM



  • which question? By Naseer Ahmed - 11/9/2018 11:45:53 PM



  • Now he asks me to prove that his response is not serious when he has not answered any of my questions!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/9/2018 12:09:36 PM



  • You are the one who is giving a lame excuse for not being able to prove that my response is not serious. By Naseer Ahmed - 11/9/2018 1:32:42 AM



  • Naseer sb.,

    If you do not want to answer my questions that is okay. You do not have to find any lame excuses to explain your silence.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/8/2018 12:54:11 PM



  • GM Sb, if you are incapable of understanding, I cannot understand for you. You will have to understand for yourself. I have given you a serious answer and if it contradicts anything that I have said before, provide the evidence. If you find that it is in conformity will all that I have said on the subject, then take it seriously. Hope I have made my point clear. By Naseer Ahmed - 11/8/2018 12:12:48 AM



  • Naseer sb.,

    Will you please give serious answers to the several questions that I asked in my last post? Thank you.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/7/2018 12:29:23 PM



  • No happy Diwali, or any article on Ram. 
    Ever year when Ramzan comes its forced as festival of everybody type of articles. 
    Sick Sultan Shain of India, trying to project himself as Secluar.
    By Aayina - 11/7/2018 9:18:34 AM



  • I don't have a problem even if the Indian Courts reward the adulterers and why should it?  By Naseer Ahmed - 11/7/2018 12:24:19 AM



  • Don't you have to live by Indian Laws? Are you going to ask Indian courts to give 100 lashes to adulterers? What is the use of believing in a law if you can't practice it?

    Is it necessary to believe in such archaic and inhuman laws in order to avoid going to hell? Do you really think God would make such laws?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddingezqbh - 11/6/2018 11:52:46 PM



  • Where is the need to comment on the criminal code of any country whether Islamic, non-Islamic or secular? We are discussing an ayat of the Quran. A Muslim citizen has no need to bother about the criminal code of any country. As an individual, he only has to concern himself with following the Quran. He is also not required to charge an adulterer even in a country governed by the Islamic shariat so if the adulterers have a free run under any country's criminal code, that doesn't bother him.

    The laws of the Quran are eternal for the believing and practicing Muslims. You do not fall in the believing category. You know best whether you fall in the practicing category or not. If you do not offer ritual prayers 5 times a day, or at least affirm that you must although yo may be lax, and/or you do not spend in charity what is required in Islam, then you are not a practicing Muslim either.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/6/2018 11:24:37 PM



  • Naseer sb.,

    It is for the society to decide whether adultery is a crime or a tort and what should be the punishment for it. The laws of 7th century Arabia would of course be quite different from the laws of 21st century India. Muslims consider it to be a sin but that is no concern of the state. Sins will be punished by God Himself.

    All laws are for building good societies, Hudud laws for a certain age and a certain time, and Indian laws for us today. Why have you not commented on the recent ruling of the Indian Supreme Court on this subject?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/6/2018 11:45:15 AM



  • Let alone taking the best meaning, GM sb cannot even accept the best meaning when explained. Based on the worst meaning that a bigot can take, GM sb rejects verse 24:2 and recommends decriminalizing adultery but says that it is 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!

     

     

    Now compare the wisdom of the Quran with 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. 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. While the law stands, the people are prevented from bringing forward the charges.

     

    No mortal can frame such a law in which the evil is curbed without the need for the stray cases of adultery being brought for punishment. 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 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.

     

    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! GM sb is full of nonsense and a windbag.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/5/2018 11:44:55 PM



  • It is Naseer sb. who derives the worst meaning from verses 2:282 and 24:2. I, on the other hand, see them as vestiges of pre-Islamic 7th century Arab thinking.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/5/2018 12:39:28 PM



  • The difference between the best meaning and the worst meaning is brought out in the discussion on verse 2:282 and 24:2. GM sb was stuck with the worst meaning the bigot takes and I showed him what the correct meaning is. This correct meaning is easily seen to be the best meaning as well as show every other meaning to be incorrect. By Naseer Ahmed - 11/5/2018 1:12:17 AM



  • Naseer sb. says, "The single meaning is available to all."

    This is a tall claim. Even the Quran itself asks us to take the best meaning.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/5/2018 12:32:57 AM



  • The single meaning is available to all but people simply love to interpret rather than take the meaning. 

    I have shown repeatedly of how the single meaning can be derived. There is no secret. I cannot help it if people are uninterested in what the Quran says but love to take their own meaning.

    One of the tests that the Quran is the word of Allah is whether a single meaning of every verse can be derived which makes taking any other meaning clearly false. The Quran passes this test. This pre-supposes that no verse of the Quran contradicts any other verse of the Quran which indeed is the case.

    The Quran is consistent with itself but not necessarily  with the secondary literature consisting of the Ahadith, Shane-Nuzul. commentaries of the scholars and imams. 

    The Quran is best understood by itself and misunderstood when any other source is used. 

    The simple trick is to blank out every other noise and listen carefully to the Quran alone.

    Nothing can be simpler than that.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/4/2018 11:55:56 PM



  • mr. naseer ahmed is very very close to prophethood.

    just one more little grunt and he will be our next profit.
    By hats off! - 11/3/2018 6:06:12 PM



  • "There is only one meaning of every verse of the Quran."

    And that is the meaning that Naseer sb. derives!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/3/2018 12:05:43 PM



  • “why people die in religions they were born into and arguably earn damnation for choices they hardly make

    Do people who die into the religions they were born into earn damnation? Does Allah not provide a level playing field to all irrespective of the religion they are born into?  Does Allah Provide A Level Playing Field To All The People?

     

    “God and His Mercy can’t be defeated and have the last word necessitating ultimate cooling of hell and its turning to heaven and some sweetness in the terrors of hell.

    (11:106) Those who are wretched shall be in the Fire: There will be for them therein (nothing but) the heaving of sighs and sobs:

    (107) They will dwell therein for all the time that the heavens and the earth endure, except as thy Lord willeth: for thy Lord is the (sure) accomplisher of what He planneth.

    The sentence of Hell for all time is qualified by “except as thy Lord willeth” which means that it is not forever.

    While one may let his fancy go wild, there is only one meaning of every verse of the Quran and only a single truth. Allah is what Allah is and not what we may imagine. There is no room for personal gods in Islam according to his/her fancy and every believer must strive to understand Allah by His unique Attributes through a study of the Quran. 

     


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/3/2018 1:55:15 AM