certifired_img

Books and Documents

Ijtihad, Rethinking Islam

171 - COMMENTS

  • GM sb repeats his idiotic non-solution of forcing divorce on a woman who does not want it!
    It does not matter to him that there is a good chance that such a woman will mend her ways the moment she gets proof that her man is not a wimp and can assert himself and the next step is divorce itself which she does not want.
    On what source book does he rely to say that beating is wrong under any circumstances? On what empirical evidence does he rely to say such a thing when the empirical evidence shows that CCV is both common and effective in conflict resolution in the early years of marriage?
    It is simply his whim and another political slogan. He must submit to Islam or leave it. By Naseer Ahmed - 2/8/2019 10:28:17 PM



  • Naseer sb. keeps repeating his dumb question: "What if the woman does not want a divorce, but promises to change her ways of immodest dressing (as very well described by him), but does not do anything about it even after repeated discussions and admonishments which only end in making another false promise, and is apparently only testing him on far he will go to assert himself?"

    He thinks he is asking a very clever question! He thinks that because of the scenario he has laid out, wife-beating becomes the only option available to the husband! He just cannot understand that wife-beating is not justified under any circumstances, under any scenario that he can lay out. How many times do I have to repeat that? The husband may either relax his stringent ideas about a dress code, or sue for divorce or take any other civilized action that does not include wife-beating. Why is that so difficult for Naseer sb. to understand?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/8/2019 11:25:27 AM



  • GM sb is at the end of his wits. There is no inconsistency or change in my position right from the day I first wrote an article on the subject six years back. 

        Qur’anic Wisdom: Marriage and Treatment of Women

    I have not said anything in my previous comment except point to my previous detailed comment on the subject 10 days back By Naseer Ahmed - 1/29/2019 11:07:55

     He simply has no answer to my question which I repeat below:

     What if the woman does not want a divorce, but promises to change her ways of immodest dressing (as very well described by him), but does not do anything about it even after repeated discussions and admonishments which only end in making another false promise, and is apparently only testing him on far he will go to assert himself?

     Note: Empirical evidence of CCV in all cultures shows that minor domestic violence works very well in resolving conflicts during the early years of their marriage. So, why forsake what is known to work very well and especially if the woman is refusing the divorce option even when warned about the possibility of a beating if she repeats her behavior?

    There is a chance that once she gets a beating for repeated transgressions, she may mend her ways and if she doesn’t, she should be divorced without repeating the beating. What is wrong with it? Why should the husband proceed with divorce which the woman does not want?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/8/2019 1:46:33 AM



  • Naseer sb. is painting a very false picture of what he has been saying about 4:34. Now that he has taken his new position of being against wife beating, he want us to forget that for weeks he was holding up to us the benefits of physical beating to modify the behavior of a person, specifically a wife. He is now trying to throw dust in our eyes. In the final paragraph though he again comes back to his old position supporting wife beating. I am sorry if I have thrown him in this state of confusion.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/7/2019 10:56:30 AM



  • GM sb asks “Why can't he just say that Muslim men and women should dress modestly and leave 4:34 out of the equation?

    Who brought up the discussion of verse 4:34? Not me. It was GM sb who brought it up. Having brought it up, why does he want to drop it without concluding? Because the hypocrite wants to run away having lost the argument. What I have to say on the subject is said very clearly and in detail in my comment By Naseer Ahmed - 1/29/2019 11:07:55. GM sb cannot find anything to say about it because it provides a detailed solution of how to avoid the situation that can lead to “wife-beating”,even without giving up on immodest dressing, and is therefore going around in circles, reframing what I said, and when that didn’t work, drawing idiotic conclusions!

     GM sb is still without an answer to the question: 

    What if the woman does not want a divorce, but promises to change her ways of immodest dressing (as very well described by him), but does not do anything about it even after repeated discussions and admonishments which only end in making another false promise, and is apparently only testing him on far he will go to assert himself?

     Empirical evidence of CCV in all cultures shows that minor domestic violence works very well in resolving conflicts during the early years of their marriage. So, why forsake what is known to work very well and especially if the woman is refusing the divorce option even when warned about the possibility of a beating if she repeats her behavior?

    There is a chance that once she gets a beating for repeated transgressions, she may mend her ways and if she doesn’t, she should be divorced without repeating the beating. What is wrong with it? Why should the husband proceed with divorce which the woman does not want?

     GM sb is a fanatic who can neither change his stupid opinion nor the subject and he is Quixotic in his attempts to find fault with the perfect and complete religion. Dhoondte reh jaoge.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/7/2019 12:25:23 AM



  • Naseer sb. is again implying that if a Muslima does not abide by Islamic norms of modesty, she can be beaten by her husband. Why can't he just say that Muslim men and women should dress modestly and leave 4:34 out of the equation? He wants now to pose as being against wife-beating but does not have the honesty to renounce the words, "advise them, forsake them in bed and strike them." The hypocrite!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/6/2019 11:07:41 AM



  • The most obvious implication of what I say that escapes you because of your perversity is that "Muslims should abide by Islamic norms of modesty". If they do, then there is no question of correcting by any means, and this is the situation among Muslim families. The immodesty that you argue for tolerating is unthinkable by Muslim women. So, please stop insulting Muslim men and Muslim women with your perverse arguments.

    In your family, this does not appear to be the case which is why you are arguing for loosening of the norms. Your argument and fight are for tolerating immodesty and for decriminalizing adultery which is disguised as a fight for "gender equality" and against "harsh" Hudud laws. While I can understand that living in the US, you have challenges raising children to conform with Islamic norms, and especially when parents like you have a poor understanding of Islam, the religion cannot change because of the weak among them. Muslims are meant to change the world and not get changed by it.  Accept the fact that Islam is the "perfect and complete” religion and conform to it. It cannot and will not change because of the wimps among them.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/5/2019 10:42:04 PM



  • Naseer sb.,

    I did not misquote you when I said, "The most obvious implication of your perverse argument has been: "wife-beating is a proper way to prevent a divorce." Please do not deny it." I was not quoting you at all. I was giving the "implication" of what you have been steadfastly saying.

    Moreover I said the implication of your comments was, "wife-beating is a proper way to prevent a divorce." I did not say, "wife beating is a proper way to prevent all divorces."

    I stand by my last comment.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/5/2019 1:43:26 PM



  • What you have put in quotes are your words not mine. Can there be any greater perversity? And what an idiotic thought! Are you saying that all the marriages that survive are because their husbands beat their wives?  In other words, you are saying that all the women like to dress seductively revealing their breasts and other body parts and if they are not doing so, it is because their husbands will beat them? You have a very poor opinion of Muslims women. You insult them. By Naseer Ahmed - 2/5/2019 2:57:29 AM



  • Naseer sb.,

    The most obvious implication of your perverse argument has been: "wife-beating is a proper way to prevent a divorce." Please do not deny it.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/4/2019 11:13:51 AM



  • No, I have not said that. What I have said is detailed and comprehensive. Go back to my comment By Naseer Ahmed - 1/29/2019 11:07:55 PM to see what I have said

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/3/2019 10:02:38 PM



  • Naseer sb. continues his meaningless pursuit with the stupid assertion, "You want to force divorce on a woman who does not want it."

    What Naseer sb. is really saying is that wife-beating is a proper way to prevent a divorce. How can I answer such foolishness?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/3/2019 1:14:55 PM



  • You are still without a solution and a proper answer to my question. You say what shouldn't be done but have no alternate solution. You say divorce is the solution  when the woman does not want a divorce. You want to force divorce on a woman who does not want it. Are you a misogynist? 

    The perfected and completed religion has the most complete and best answer to every question without any injustice to any party and what is best for the women. Verse 4:34 does not prevent the woman from seeking divorce and  putting her foot down on any of the measures suggested to correct her grossly deviant behaviour which is the subject of the verse.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/3/2019 12:07:21 AM



  • Naseer sb.,

    You are better at abusing people than at logic. You ask, "he wants to know whether or not it is OK to assert himself to the extent that he can beat her if lesser measures do not work? he wants to know whether or not it is OK to assert himself to the extent that he can beat her if lesser measures do not work?"

    And the right answer is "No, never!" I am sure if God got into the business of giving advice on such matters, He too would say 'No'. 4:34 is quite consistent with human thinking of the time.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/2/2019 11:14:14 AM



  • You have the tenacity of the insane to keep on and on when you have nothing left to say and  I am sure you will keep going around in circles until I call you by your proper names and then you will shout triumphantly  that you have been "abused" when in fact I only called you by your proper names. You keep repeating this game in every thread.

    Now for the response for the last time:

    If he is a wimp like you, he will put up with his wife dressing “seductively exposing her breasts and other body parts”, with or without 4:34. What if he is not a wimp and does not want to compromise on Islamic norms of modesty, and the wife does not want a divorce, and he wants to know whether or not it is OK to assert himself to the extent that he can beat her if lesser measures do not work? Verse 4:34 provides the answer to such a person.  

     You do not have an answer, but the complete and perfected religion does have an unambiguous answer. You would rather, the religion was incomplete and imperfect and did not provide the answer but that is your problem. If you are uncomfortable with your religion, seek another that you are comfortable with.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/1/2019 9:36:38 PM



  • Naseer sb. continues to pursue his nonsensical argument with the question, "what if she does not want a divorce, but promises to change her ways, but does not do anything about it"?

    Is that an occasion to beat one's wife? Would you have pursued your dogged advocacy of wife beating if it was not permitted in 4:34? So what would happen in such a case? Is the husband willing to put up with it? How strongly does he feel about it? Either one of the party relents or they part company. Why do you think wife beating is the answer?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/1/2019 1:46:46 PM



  • GM sb has still not answered the question "what if she does not want a divorce, but promises to change her ways, but does not do anything about it"?

     He wants to force divorce on such women unmindful of the consequences and disregarding that the woman herself does not want it. And, he wants us to think that he stands for the women! He disregards empirical evidence which shows that such women take the matter seriously, once the husband asserts himself to the extent required, even if that means giving her a beating. The marriage is saved, and a woman is saved from disregarding the Islamic requirement for guarding her modesty and chastity, but that is not his concern.

     I am completely against doing anything that the woman does not want to be done and must be given options. If she does not want a divorce, then she should agree to mend her behaviour, and having agreed, follow up on it. If she is testing her husband by trying to see how far he can go to assert himself, he must show that he can go as far as to give her a beating, but not repeat it. Undesirable patterns of behaviour should never repeat. If she does not change her behaviour even after a beating, he should go to the next step of arbitration to see if it helps, and if it does not, then divorce her. A Muslim husband should show zero tolerance to his wife " going in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden.There is no bar on the face or hair being uncovered.  Wimps and those who do not care about being a Muslim are excluded.

     Islam being a complete and perfect religion, provides answers to every situation and does not leave any question unanswered. A complete and perfect religion may not be to GM sb's liking. He should find an answer to his problem rather than waste everyone's time.

     Islam is what it is and will remain so. The meaning of 4:34 remains clear inspite of attempts by the wimps to use euphemisms and other devices to confuse. One of the attractions of Islam to people of other religions is precisely the fact that Islam has a clear unambiguous answer to every question. And one of the reasons why Christianity is on the decline is that it has yielded to the wimps among them. Which other religion provides an answer to the question ‘how should the people dress’? What is the meaning of modesty in dress and behaviour? What are the rights and duties of husband and wife?

     youtube.com/watch?v=WR8970UvutU

     While people are leaving other religions because these do not provide clear answers and are attracted to Islam because it has a clear answer to every question and is a complete religion, there are people like GM sb who have a problem with Islam precisely because it provides clear answers to every question. Those who are uncomfortable with the prescriptions in Islam  they should choose what suits them. There is no compulsion in religion.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/1/2019 2:22:20 AM



  • Naseer sb. again asks, “what if she does not want a divorce and is willing to mend her ways instead?”

    The question is naïve. If she does not want to change her ways and if the husband does not want to put up with her ways, he can sue for divorce whether she wants divorce or not. The main point is that wife-beating is not an option. Is that hard for you?

    Domestic violence and alcoholism do exist in Western societies but are you going to use that to justify wife beating? Your say, " Mild violence is an effective measure for conflict resolution." That is an ugly and unproven comment. Civilized countries do not use violence even for more serious crimes such as robbery, fraud or molestation. Depriving the wife of her personal dignity is not a panacea for marital discord. It just shows how steeply imbued you are in your evil dogma of gender inequality.

    You say, " if the woman puts her foot down on any kind of violencethen this is not an option." What you mean is that violence is an option if the woman is not assertive! You want weak women to be subjected to violence but you will exempt strong women from violence. Do you think at all before you write such ridiculous advice?

    You ask why I am not trying to stop violence in major world conflicts if I am against wife-beating. That is the most stupid argument you have made so far. I am against all violence, but here we are discussing 4:34. Should our holy texts permit wife beating?

    You end by saying that my condemnation of wife beating will put me in a bad position on the Day of Judgement! Aren't you ashamed to make such presumptive and mullahish arguments?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/31/2019 1:18:24 PM



  • I wonder what is that that you have been arguing about all this time? If divorce is acceptable to the woman, and she has no intention of mending her ways, then she should be divorced forthwith is what I have been saying all the time. Why go through any process then? You have no answer still to the question “what if she does not want a divorce and is willing to mend her ways instead?”

     Islam being a complete and perfect religion, however, also addresses the situation when the woman does not want a divorce and promises to mend her ways. The Islamic prescription may have prevented many divorces over the years besides ensuring that the women adhere to the Islamic norms of decency and modesty.

     Your prescription will result in increase in the number of divorces and the society will also gradually adopt the norms of the Western Society, in which 87% of the women admit to using their "erotic potential" for social and economic benefit since you want the men to be tolerant of their wives dressing seductively, revealing their breasts and other body parts.

     As far as domestic violence is concerned, the Western Society is among the worst offenders and nothing would change. In fact, domestic violence is higher among couples where the women dress to seduce and to use their "erotic potential”. This is because the trust levels are low, and infidelity is common which evokes violent reactions.  The moment a man sees his woman dress up more sexily than usual, suspicion is aroused. The stress levels among such couples are high often leading to drug and alcohol abuse. To the other causes of conflict, what gets added is infidelity, suspected infidelity, drug and alcohol abuse.

     Your prescription is therefore a prescription for more divorces, an immodest society and more domestic violence. You love your stupidity however and hate the complete and perfected religion.

     Allah has not created evil. Mild violence is an effective measure for conflict resolution. When the woman does not have a problem and would rather get struck when she steps out of line than be divorced, what is your problem? To most women, the worst cruelty that her husband can inflict on her is to even bring up the topic of divorce, and not being struck when he is angry, and she knows that he has good reason to be upset. Why do you want to thrust your stupid and unnatural values on all? You do love your hollow political slogans however!

     I have been consistent in saying from the time I first wrote an article on the subject six years ago, (Qur’anic Wisdom: Marriage and Treatment of Women),  that if the woman puts her foot down on any kind of violence, then this is not an option. Such a woman, however, will not allow issues to go unresolved and will either compromise or seek a divorce. That is the best situation to be in for both. However, not all women are equally mature.

    Why are you not equally against every kind of violence? Why are not fighting against the undeclared wars the US is fighting in a major part of the world? Why are you not fighting for gun control? Why are not fighting against the mafia whose business model is based on violence? Why are you not fighting for the closing down of all bars and brothels that are places where violent brawls break out most often?

    No, you are only against any kind of constructive violence in a domestic situation because verse 4:34 allows it! I hope you realize, that when you stand in the presence of Allah on the Day of Judgment, and try to recall your arguments and opposition to verse 4:34, how stupid you will feel about your behaviour, because all that blinds you to your stupidity here on earth, and to the Wisdom in the words of Allah, will be removed.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/30/2019 11:27:41 PM



  • Naseer sb. asks, " ‘what if divorce is not acceptable to the wife?’"

    Your question is not as clever as you think. If he is not willing to accept the way she dresses, and she is not willing to dress more conservatively, they can either quarrel everyday or either one of them can sue for divorce irrespective of whether the other spouse wants divorce or not. Wife-beating is not an option and should not even be considered.

    Your lengthy comment on the subject is meaningless because these problems arise after the marriage has taken place. The marriage contract cannot cover expectations regarding every aspect of everyday living.  Instead of saying that the husband is right and the wife is wrong, one must say their understanding of the Islamic code of dress is different. Their understanding of how much control a husband should have over his wife may also be different. How they resolve this problem or whether they call it quits will of course vary from case to case.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/30/2019 12:51:40 PM



  • Aayina,

    Islam grants both the right to divorce without assigning any reason. A woman can divorce her husband without cause and vice versa. Marriage is a legal contract at the pleasure of the parties to the contract. There are obligations and duties arising from it which must be fulfilled.

    GM sb has no problem understanding the meaning of verse 4:34.  His problem is accepting that this verse and many others are from God because these do not conform what he thinks is right. 

    GM sb holds supreme not the Quran, but the American Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human rights and various Utopian political philosophies and their political slogans and finds that Islam, grounded as it is in realism, falls short of his dreams. He lives in a make-believe world and refuses to step into the real world. He is totally blind to the harm caused by such misplaced idealism.

    His standard is not the Quran. It is a cartoonist's version of a Utopian political philosophy.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/30/2019 1:23:22 AM



  • For two NAI word(((in in Hindu tradition we say Vak yudh, it is equally consider violent))) fighter Naseer Ahmed and Gulam Mouyddin. Here is link for you which is form my tradition if it can bring sense to alt least one of you. It is form my Hindu relgion, you both are Indian need not need to go China as your paigmaber said, it's at your door step and tradition which you hate as much you can. Here is link. https://youtu.be/cWEgORIRPJo It will be better if you see whole episode, it is about who holds best Dharma knowledge. By Aayina - 1/30/2019 12:22:19 AM



  • If Muslims do not have stairght forward answer they can remain shun.

    The Question is raised for englitment of some Muslims youth who are leaving their relgion especially Pakistani, Indians Muslims are brainwashed for non-enlightment.

    What about if man does exactly same thing and women wan'ts divorce, does Quran gives right to her or it is just patriarchal like Abrhamic God choosing only make paigmaber.
    By Aayina - 1/30/2019 12:12:55 AM



  • You have not answered my question at all since my question was ‘what if divorce is not acceptable to the wife?’. Why do you pretend that you have answered when clearly you have no answer?

    I repeat an improved version of my comment of 18th January below, that gives the complete answer to the question.

    GM sb has given his understanding of verse 4:34 as follows:

    “4:34 is not about disloyalty or adultery. It is about obedience and disobedience. It is about a woman going in public places  dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden.

    I agree that verse 4:34 includes the behaviour of women that he has described so well. I must congratulate him for his correct understanding of the intent of verse 4:34. For such women, the course of action outlined in the verse holds.

    Course to be adopted for those who have no intention of abiding by Islamic norms

      “Muslim women” who think nothing of extra-marital sex, must marry another “Muslim” or non-Muslim who believes similarly and is tolerant of such behaviour.

    “Muslim” women who have no intention of conforming to Islamic norms of dressing outlined in verse 24:31, should demonstrate to their fiancée exactly how they like to dress and how much of their arms, breasts, legs, hips etc they like to reveal and take their approval before marriage. They should find a partner who is cool with such norms who may or may not be a “Muslim”.

     The Quran’s prohibition of marriage of a Muslim to a non-Muslim is only for those who wish to live by Islamic codes. It does not hold for adulterers and others who have no intention of living by its norms. There is absolutely no compulsion in religion.

    For those who marry expecting Islamic norms will be followed

    However, when a Muslim man marries a Muslim woman, the default expectations set are that they will abide by the Islamic norms of modesty and decency. When these are flouted and especially when a girl pretends to be a proper Islamic girl before marriage, and later “wears in public revealing dresses to seduce men”, a Muslim man must follow the course outlined in verse 4:34 and must not be a wimp.

    ·        A woman, who has no intention of honouring a rightful expectation of her husband, must seek divorce and return the Mehar and all gifts given by her husband. Else, she should correct her behaviour.

    ·        The Muslim man must divorce her without bothering about return of Mehar/gifts. Such a woman does not deserve to be part of his life.

    ·        If she is however willing to correct herself, give her reasonable opportunity. Ask her to destroy forthwith the dresses that do not conform with Islamic standards.

    ·        If after this, she returns to her former behaviour, admonish her sternly, and make it clear that you mean business. Offer her divorce once again. If she once again promises to mend her behaviour, give her another chance.

    ·        If she repeats her behaviour the third time, strike her but stop the moment she asks you to stop. The striking was because she asked for it by her behaviour which you must stop the moment, she asks you to stop. Do not do anything to her that does not have her permission. She should now choose what she wants – divorce or mending her ways. If she chooses to mend her ways, give her the chance. She now knows that you mean business and you are not a wimp. She will mend her ways. You will discover how sound and effective the advise in verse 4:34 is for Muslim men who are not wimps. After all, it is the word of Allah who understands human nature very well.

    ·        However, if she does repeat the same behaviour, then follow 4:35 and see whether involving her people in an arbitration can correct her. If not divorce her. There is no point repeating the beating. If beating has not worked the first time it is not a solution for the woman. Avoid repeating patterns in life. A solution is what breaks an undesirable pattern of behaviour

     By Naseer Ahmed - 1/18/2019 11:16:02 PM

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/29/2019 11:07:55 PM



  • I have answered your question more than once. They can use discussion, counselling, compromise or even divorce, but nobody should even think of wife beating. The verse does put women in an inferior position, starting from the very first phrase in it.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/29/2019 11:57:06 AM



  • Have you answered the question? No. I must therefore repeat the question:
    Let us go by your definition of the verse:
     “4:34 is not about disloyalty or adultery. It is about obedience and disobedience. It is about a woman going in public places  dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden.”
    You tell us how you will deal with a situation where the woman behaves as you have described, and does not want a divorce, and yet will not mend her ways while promising to do so time and again.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/28/2019 10:40:19 PM



  • Naseer sb. asks, " What if the woman does not want a divorce and the husband also does not want to forcibly divorce her out of concern for the woman because the same will be disastrous to her?"
    Is that a justification for wife beating? How can Naseer sb. make such tame arguments and then accuse me of being repetitive?
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/28/2019 11:47:35 AM



  • The question remains unanswered. If divorce was the solution, 4:34 was not required. What if the woman does not want a divorce and the husband also does not want to forcibly divorce her out of concern for the woman because the same will be disastrous to her?

    GM sb simply cannot respond without reframing the question or twisting the meaning of the verse. He has been doing just that all through this thread running into 143 comments and the windbag can continue to do so ad infinitum, and nauseum! He will just repeat himself.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/27/2019 10:50:18 PM



  • Naseer sb. asks, "Have you answered what you will do to deal with the situation?"

    What a stupid way to justify wife-beating! 
    By the way 4:34 does not refer to any highly egregious behavior. It refers to arrogance, assertiveness, seductive dress etc. You can use any method, including discussion, counselling, compromise, or, if the matter remains unresolved, even divorce. But you should not even think about beating her. If you don't beat her, would that make you a wimp? You seem to have have a poor  grasp of what manliness means.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/27/2019 12:58:07 PM



  • What a silly response. All that you are hung up on is on what you cannot do. Have you answered what you will do to deal with the situation?

    Neither the Prophet (pbuh) had any occasion to chastise his wives in this manner nor the majority of Muslims. The Muslims show their manliness in the right way and not through any kind of oppressive behaviour. A Muslim can never oppress even a slave let alone his wife. So, stop maligning Muslim manliness simply because you are a wimp.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/26/2019 11:46:47 PM



  • Naseer sb. says, "You tell us how you will deal with a situation where the woman behaves as you have described, and does not want a divorce, and yet will not mend her ways while promising to do so time and again."
    You do not deal with that situation or any other situation by beating your spouse. If you can't get that simple fact in your head, you are a lost cause.
    You said, "a little bit of violence is very effective in conflict resolution in the early years of marriage for young couples?"
    This is sheer rubbish. Did you learn about "wife training" from a dog training school? You cannot beat either an adult or a child. Even beating a child is a crime in some jurisdictions both for teachers and for parents. 
    You say, "While the Quran wants the man to play the role of protector, he can choose to play the role of pimp."
    A protector who beats you is not a protector. If your manliness is a reaction formation against your fears of being a pimp or a wimp, you are not a man.
    Since you can give no logical replies,  you use deceitful tactics like inventing "lies" in my comments when none exist. That makes you a dishonest liar.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/26/2019 1:53:17 PM



  • Your reluctance to respond to the following shows that you cannot justify not beating under the following circumstances:

     Let us go by your definition of the verse:
     “4:34 is not about disloyalty or adultery. It is about obedience and disobedience. It is about a woman going in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden.”

    You tell us how you will deal with a situation where the woman behaves as you have described, and does not want a divorce, and yet will not mend her ways while promising to do so time and again.

     You said you are a counselor. What kind of a counselor are you if you do not even know that a little bit of violence is very effective in conflict resolution in the early years of marriage for young couples? Very soon, they settle down with a good understanding of each other without any more incidents of violence. You would rather all such cases not get resolved but end in divorce by banning what is known as Common Couple Violence. 

     Verse 4:34 is not forcing the man to beat and he can allow the woman to use her "erotic capital" for social or economic benefit if that is what he wishes to do. While the Quran wants the man to play the role of protector, he can choose to play the role of pimp. Let the one who wants to play the role of protector, play it. If you are a wimp, there is no reason why everyone should become wimps.

    If you marry a woman brought up as a Muslim, then there is no problem whatsoever. So, marry a good Muslim woman and raise your children and grandchildren to be good Muslim men/women who know the meaning of modesty and the need to guard it, and the men know how to play the role of quwanuma.

     I nailed your lie

    You lie once again by calling how you yourself defined the meaning of the verse as my “gross melodramatization and exaggeration of the behavior of the woman

     When I call you a liar, it is after nailing your lie. You call me names without evidence and justification. Stop being such a wimp and a cry baby.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/25/2019 11:19:38 PM



  • Women are beaten up in all societies. Religions should never be seen as having any contributory role in this abomination. Religions, on the other hand, must pronounce a clear and unambiguous prohibition against wife beating.

    You say, " the advice is not to beat her before giving her ample opportunity to mend her behavior." It seems that a clear prohibition against spousal beating under any circumstances seems to be  beyond your imagination!

    You lie and deceive when you try to brush aside serious issues by concocting false allegations of lying against me. You should be ashamed of using such tactics.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/25/2019 12:54:19 PM



  • Why in the past, even today, in your own western society in the US, women are beaten up mercilessly, and there are shelters in every place for battered women. Common Couple Violence, which is not criminal, is indulged in by more than 50% of the couples in the US according to the studies. They do not have verse 4:34 to blame for it but themselves. In the not too distant past, Russian women and surely many other women even thought that if their husband did not beat them, it meant they didn't love them!

     Do not blame the verse for what happens in every society and every culture. Islam does not sanction type 2 violence or "Intimate terrorism" which is indulged in by a control freak. It is not only the men who are control freaks but women also, but the other problem is not reported or under reported. Men are also physically battered by their wives, but it is more common for the women to abuse their spouses psychologically. These issues are gender neutral. Do not mix up issues that have nothing to do with verse 4:34.

     Verse 4:34 has the virtue that even for the most extreme wrong that a wife can do to a husband, the advice is not to beat her before giving her ample opportunity to mend her behaviour. The verse thus restricts beating to a deliberate, willful and repeated failure "to guard her modesty and chastity in her husband’s absence". Any beating for a lesser reason is therefore ruled out. 

     You denigrate the Quran and Allah, by deliberately trying to twist the meaning of the verse to mean that it sanctions beating for any kind of disobedience.  If beating the wife was an Islamic virtue, the Prophet (pbuh) would have indulged in it and we know that he didn't even when they disobeyed him and worse, even when two of them ganged up and rebelled against him. There is no verse in the Quran on this occasion to chastise them by beating but an open offer to grant them freedom through divorce with handsome compensation.

     You deliberately twist the meaning of the verse so that you can attack it. You lie once again by calling how you yourself defined the meaning of the verse as my “gross melodramatization and exaggeration of the behavior of the woman”. Deliberate lies and straw man arguments are your staple. This behaviour makes you an arrogant, wilful, denigrator and a person without integrity. That I guess is much more than what a scoundrel means.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/25/2019 2:05:23 AM



  • Moreover I do not denigrate the Quran. You denigrate God when you ascribe such dubious verses to God. When will you stop doing it? You make up "lies" when there are no lies. You justify using words like "scoundrel" because I question your expertise on the Quran. It just makes you an arrogant fool, nothing else.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/24/2019 6:07:12 PM



  • I did not reject the clear meaning of 4:34. Even with your gross melodramatization and exaggeration of the behavior of the woman, it is still not justified to beat her. The husband has no right to beat his wife under any circumstances. 

    4:34 has over the centuries resulted in the beatings of innumerable women for any event in which she refused subordination or asserted her independence, threatening her husband's sense of being in control. Such a verse is bound to be misinterpreted and abused and it could never have been written by God.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/24/2019 11:09:03 AM



  • You rejected the clear meaning of the verse and substituted it with your understanding as follows:

    “4:34 is not about disloyalty or adultery. It is about obedience and disobedience. It is about a woman going in public places  dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden.”

     You even argued that such a woman should not be beaten. When I pointed out that this behaviour is indulged in by a woman with an intent to capitalise on her “erotic capital” for social and economic benefit based on ample evidence which I presented, and therefore a husband who allows such behaviour, and uses his wife’s erotic capital for social or economic benefit is a pimp, you developed cold feet.

    With your understanding which is a diluted version of the meaning of the verse, I endorsed beating in a situation where the woman refuses divorce, promises to mend her ways time and again, but does not do so. Such a woman is looking for proof that you are not a wimp, and can enforce a rule, and will give up the practice the moment you assert yourself in the only way that makes sense to her, because she has not responded to reason, admonishments etc. To beat her in this situation is a perfect advice and the source can be only Allah for such precise guidance.

     It is only Allah’s revelations that has transformed an adulterous society into the Islamic one, and those who follow it, will remain safe. Persons like you who are wimps and will not chastise their women for capitalizing on their “erotic capital” for social or economic benefits, will turn into pimps and their society will once again turn adulterous. You have also argued forcefully for decriminalizing adultery in Islam, and where your thinking is taking you and your society is clear.

     You are trying to be clever by reframing the question in a manner that makes beating look awful. I reject your reframing, but with the way you more correctly framed the question earlier, I have answered the question several times.

     Your reframing is a lie and departure from how you framed it earlier. You reframed because you lost the argument based on your previous framing. You are stooping to lies to denigrate the Quran. To what depths can you go to denigrate the Quran GM sb? Are you not a mischief maker and a scoundrel?  Calling a deliberate liar to denigrate the Quran a scoundrel is justified or not justified GM sb? There is no arrogance here. You have proved yourself a liar by reframing what you yourself explained as the meaning of the verse. This reframing is with the sole objective to denigrate the Quran or perhaps only to win an argument. If you can come up with a better description of your behaviour than calling you a mischief maker and a scoundrel, I will withdraw my words most humbly and apologize to you for it.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/24/2019 12:20:44 AM



  • Naseer sb., 
    That was not a definition but an exemplification of the kinds of things that 4:34 could have possibly covered. It was written to make the point that 4:34 was not about adultery or disloyalty. So instead of trying to be clever and calling me names, please respond to the question I posed in my last comment. Thank you!
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/23/2019 1:18:22 PM



  • GM sb,  You are denying your own definition! And in a previous comment you called me a liar for saying that you are pretending not to have said it! You are the best exponent of ilm al kamal that I have come across. The felicity with which you flip-flop positions without a trace of shame is remarkable.
    You respond to my question and your response itself becomes my answer to your question. Moreover, your question has been answered several times but you choose to ignore it because then you are left with nothing to say.
    You have become a troll, a stalker and a pest like one Lodha before. By Naseer Ahmed - 1/22/2019 10:00:24 PM



  • Naseer sb.,

    You are trying to evade the issue by calling that comment my "definition" of the verse. The verse is about a woman trying to be arrogant or rebellious in the eyes of the husband.  The question is (1) whether a man has a supervisory role over his wife? and (2) Whether he can beat her if admonishment does not change her behavior?

    With that in mind, please respond to the following:

     "Don't you understand that it is wrong to beat one's wife whatever the circumstance? Why is it so hard for you to see that Almighty God, the Master of the Universe, will never proceed to give such petty advice to husbands, telling them how to handle a self-assertive woman, including beating her. If you cannot differentiate between a patently human verse from a divine verse, what kind of a religious expert are you? Defending the  indefensible has become your hallmark."

    Please respond directly and briefly. Thanks.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/22/2019 12:37:58 PM



  • Let us go by your definition of the verse:
     “4:34 is not about disloyalty or adultery. It is about obedience and disobedience. It is about a woman going in public places  dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden.”
    You tell us how you will deal with a situation where the woman behaves as you have described, and does not want a divorce, and yet will not mend her ways while promising to do so time and again.
    What do you understand when I say that every verse in the Quran is the word of Allah including 4:34? By Naseer Ahmed - 1/21/2019 11:00:08 PM



  • Naseer sb. has been using deception to make 4:34 look good and he again tries to justify it and goes on to a totally irrelevant rant without directly  responding to my  question. Let me repeat it for him:

    "Don't you understand that it is wrong to beat one's wife whatever the circumstance? Why is it so hard for you to see that Almighty God, the Master of the Universe, will never proceed to give such petty advice to husbands, telling them how to handle a self-assertive woman, including beating her. If you cannot differentiate between a patently human verse from a divine verse, what kind of a religious expert are you? Defending the  indefensible has become your hallmark."

    Please be relevant and brief.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/21/2019 5:23:51 PM



  • What is your objective GM sb? Is it to win the argument by twisting the meaning of the verse or by putting words in my mouth?

     My explanations have covered every aspect of the verse from its precise meaning to a detailed explanation of how a man / woman must deal with what he/she wants in life. There is no compulsion in religion whatsoever, and the Quran provides an answer to every situation. It covers even those who wish to lead a life of adultery and does not compel the woman to put up with any demand of her husband or submit to any form of chastisement. The option of divorce is always available to her. The verse is an advisory on proper behaviour and conduct and on taking appropriate remedial measures for those who wish to live by Islamic norms.

     Every verse in the Quran is a revelation from Allah and 4:34 is not an exception. The context of verse 4:34 according to a hadith is that the Prophet was about to say in answer to a question that a Muslim man should not beat his wife but Allah ruled otherwise be revealing verse 4:34. The Prophet himself never beat his wife because there was simply no question of any of his wives “failing to guard in his absence their chastity/shame” nor does any Muslim today married to a properly raised Muslim woman has such a problem requiring him to take corrective action outlined in 4:34.

     When Allah can decree corporal punishments for other crimes/sins, why not beating as a preventative before the person goes far enough to get publicly punished with a hundred stripes, besides the much more severe punishment in the Hereafter? And why will not Allah provide guidance on the steps to be followed to prevent a divorce when the woman does not want a divorce and is willing to try and conform to the Islamic norms? Does she not deserve to be given ample opportunity? Corporal punishment has been a necessary feature of the Divine Law all through the ages for the simple reason that no moral principle made sense until after it was practiced. The empirical evidence of the difference the practice made is later contrasted with what was there before the moral principle was promulgated which then made sense in hindsight. To make people practice what did not make sense required a ruler to promulgate the rule and punish all contraventions of the rule. This is covered in my article:

    Understanding the Religion of Allah through the Ages

     What was the society like before the Quran and what changes did the Quran bring about?

     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).

     You can see the direct relevance of the precedent condition in verse 4:34 “those who fail to guard their modesty/chastity in secrecy or in the absence of their husband” to the earlier normative practice “for women in pre-Islamic Arabia to cohabit with strangers when their husbands were away on trading missions”. We know from empirical evidence what difference verses 24:31, and 4:34 made to such a society. We also know that in a society where allowing what you would like to allow or for “women to go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden”, adultery becomes common and the society goes back to the same state that prevailed in Arabia before the Quran.

     It is possible that you have no problem with such a society and you may wonder with such people “what Allah has to do with our sex lives?”  I will leave you to your questions. I have answered every question as it relates to the verse as best as I can, and this is my last comment in the thread.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/20/2019 11:03:50 PM



  • الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ وَبِمَا أَنْفَقُوا مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ ۚ فَالصَّالِحَاتُ قَانِتَاتٌ حَافِظَاتٌ لِلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ اللَّهُ ۚ وَاللَّاتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا كَبِيرًا
    Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)."
    There are two kinds of women that Quran 4:34 mentions.  The phrase, the righteous women...guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard, refers to a group of those women who obey Allah to guard in the absence of husband which Allah wants them to guard.  The phrase, Allah wants them to guard, here should refer to something that Allah wants them to avoid.  In Quran, the only evil deeds that Allah wants them to guard is adultery since the extract below condemns adultery to be evil:
    وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَا ۖ إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاءَ سَبِيلًا
    Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils). "
    The phrase, to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, in the subsequent verse should refer to Quran condemns those women who does not guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard, such as, adultery or etc.

    By zuma - 1/20/2019 7:01:49 PM



  • Does 4:34 say, “wears in public revealing dresses to seduce men”? It does not. " 

    4:34 refers to, "those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance ", "those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear," "those from whom you fear disobedience," "those from whom you fear rebellion," " (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion,"  and "those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct".


    All the above translations leave it to the husband to decide when her behavior can be said to be "arrogant", or "rebellious" or "disloyal". He is the sole judge.

    4:34 does not refer to adultery. What I have been saying is very simple and consistent. Instead of answering you resort to pointing out "inconsistencies" which do not exist.

    By the way you have not answered my question in my last comment. Here it is again:

    "Don't you understand that it is wrong to beat one's wife whatever the circumstance? Why is it so hard for you to see that Almighty God, the Master of the Universe, will never proceed to give such petty advice to husbands, telling them how to handle a self-assertive woman, including beating her. If you cannot differentiate between a patently human verse from a divine verse, what kind of a religious expert are you? Defending the  the indefensible has become your hallmark."

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/20/2019 2:15:39 PM



  • GM Sb,
    Don't put words into my mouth. When I say “wears in public revealing dresses to seduce men” you twist that into "with her hair or face uncovered". You cannot argue against what I said and against what the verse means. You therefore resort to lies and argue against your own lies pretending these to be the truth. You can live in your world of lies and convince yourself that your lies are the truth.
    Describe how you will deal with what you described is the meaning of 4:34?
    “4:34 is not about disloyalty or adultery. It is about obedience and disobedience. It is about a woman going in public places  dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden.”
    You are left with no option but to lie and twist. Poor miserable old fool that you are and a wimp to boot! By Naseer Ahmed - 1/19/2019 9:55:00 PM



  • Naseer sb.,
    Are you suggesting that if a woman goes out of her house "with her hair or face uncovered," her husband can beat her if she does not obey his admonishment? Don't you understand that it is wrong to beat one's wife whatever the circumstance? Why is it so hard for you to see that Almighty God, the Master of the Universe, will never proceed to give such petty advice to husbands, telling them how to handle a self-assertive woman, including beating her. If you cannot differentiate between a patently human verse from a divine verse, what kind of a religious expert are you? Defending the  the indefensible has become your hallmark. 
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/19/2019 2:10:12 PM



  • GM sb has given his understanding of verse 4:34 as follows:

    “4:34 is not about disloyalty or adultery. It is about obedience and disobedience. It is about a woman going in public places  dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden.

     I agree that verse 4:34 includes the behaviour of women that he has described so well. I must congratulate him for his correct understanding of the intent of verse 4:34. For such women, the course of action outlined in the verse holds.

      “Muslim women” who think nothing of extra-marital sex, must marry another “Muslim” or non-Muslim who believes similarly and is tolerant of such behaviour.

    “Muslim” women who have no intention of conforming to Islamic norms of dressing outlined in verse 24:31, should demonstrate to their fiancée exactly how they like to dress and how much of their arms, breasts, legs, hips etc they like to reveal and take their approval before marriage. They should find a partner who is cool with such norms who may or may not be a “Muslim”.

     The Quran’s prohibition of marriage of a Muslim to a non-Muslim is only for those who wish to live by Islamic codes. It does not hold for adulterers and others who have no intention of living by its norms. There is absolutely no compulsion in religion.

     However, when a Muslim man marries a Muslim woman, the default expectations set are that they will abide by the Islamic norms of modesty and decency. When these are flouted and especially when a girl pretends to be a proper Islamic girl before marriage, and later “wears in public revealing dresses to seduce men”, a Muslim man must follow the course outlined in verse 4:34 and must not be a wimp. A woman, who has no intention of honouring a rightful expectation of her husband, must seek divorce and return the Mehar and all gifts given by her husband. Else, she should correct her behaviour. The Muslim man must divorce her without bothering about return of Mehar/gifts. Such a woman does not deserve to be part of his life. If she is however willing to correct herself, give her reasonable opportunity. Ask her to destroy forthwith the dresses that do not conform with Islamic standards. If after this, she returns to her former behaviour, admonish her sternly, and make it clear that you mean business. Offer her divorce once again. If she once again promises to mend her behaviour, give her another chance. If she repeats her behaviour the third time, strike her but stop the moment she asks you to stop. The striking was because she asked for it by her behaviour which you must stop the moment, she asks you to stop. She should now choose what she wants – divorce or mending her ways. If she chooses to mend her ways, give her the chance. She now knows that you mean business and you are not a wimp. She will mend her ways. You will discover how sound and effective the advise in verse 4:34 is for Muslim men who are not wimps. After all, it is the word of Allah who understands human nature very well.

     The wimps among Muslim men like GM sb, must endure what they cannot cure.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/18/2019 11:16:02 PM



  • Naseer sb. continues to fight his bogeymen, falsely portraying me as an agent of profligacy! This is his deceptive way of hiding his anti-women position. He keeps praising 4:34 without answering any of the points that I have been raising, and goes on to add, "The husband is charged with the responsibility of taking care of their woman and her honour," implying that women are not quite capable of doing so. Naseer sb. is living in the medieval times.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/18/2019 11:57:55 AM



  • GM sb is wasting everybody's time injecting his third-rate gender politics into a discussion of a verse from the Quran. The hypocrite who argued in this very thread for taking the best meaning, is bent upon twisting the meaning to denigrate the Quran. The full meaning, which is accurate is in my earlier comment which is reproduced below:

     Men are “qawwamuna” (guardian, protectors, caretakers ,standing guard, upholders of their dignity) over women, because God has given some more than others, and because they support them from their means, and the (fal-ṣāliḥātu ) righteous women are the truly (qānitātun)  devout ones [ God fearing ] , who guard what Allah has ordered them to be guarded  even in secrecy (lil'ghaybi) [ Allah has ordered both men and women to guard their furūjihim  or chastity/modesty/private parts in verses 23:5, 70:29), And as for those women whose “nushuz” you have reason to fear, (faʿiẓūhunna) instruct/advise/admonish them; [ next ] then leave them alone in bed; then  “hit” them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great ! [ Surah 4:34 ]

     No matter how Nushuz is translated – whether asrefractoriness', 'disobedience', 'rebellion' or ‘disloyalty’, it means the opposite of the behaviour expected of them which is to guard what Allah has ordered them to be guarded (chastity/modesty/private parts) even in secrecy or in the absence of their husbands.

      This verse is not about obedience to the husband but obedience to the commands of Allah. The husband is charged with the responsibility of taking care of their woman and her honour. Islam does not encourage a society of unfaithful women and their cuckolded husbands.

     GM sb however wants the women to be given the freedom to “ go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden” and is for decriminalizing adultery. The Quran provides a solution to such people. They are asked to marry another with similar views/practices. The Quran explicitly prohibits an adulterous person from marrying a non-adulterous person to avoid conflicts. Two adulterous persons can marry each other and do what they please. The perfected religion shows a way out to the sexual perverts as well. These men, instead of playing the role of Qawwanuma/protector, can play the role of pimp and maximize the benefits of the erotic capital of their women who like to dress seductively. I am quoting him verbatim within quotes. Is he denying it or pretending that he didn’t say it?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/18/2019 1:17:28 AM



  • Naseer sb. is wasting our time talking about my comment that I neither denied nor have I any reason to pretend that I did not say. He wants us to believe that 4:34 is about disregarding a dress code. He is not honest enough to face the reality that 4:34 is about subjugating women to the authority of men, giving men the right to admonish and even beat their wives. The very first phrase of 4:34 is, "Men are in charge of women. . . ". It is 7th century Arab thinking, not a godly command.

    He is trying to deceive readers with false bogeymen e.g. that I support seductive dresses or adultery. He has to win an argument no matter what it takes, even if he has to be deceitful or dishonest.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/17/2019 2:25:51 PM



  • Actually, it is GM sb who is telling a blatant lie. I did not say that he has “denied”. I only said that he is pretending that he did not say it which is a true description of his comment.

     I understand from GM sb’s clarification, that he may not support, but he will allow, if that is how his women wish to dress and behave. He has developed cold feet after I showed the consequences of allowing/supporting such behaviour. Good -  he has learned something and may be able to appreciate Islamic norms better now.

     However, another Muslim man, having married a Muslim woman, is well within his rights to insist that she follow the Islamic code of dress and modesty. The problem arises only where there is a conflict in the position taken. To avoid such conflicts, the Quran debars an adulterer from marrying a non-adulterous person and vice versa. Two adulterous persons can marry each other and indulge in adulterous activities discreetly. As long as they do not leave behind four eyewitnesses, they are safe even in a country which practices Islamic shariat law of punishing the adulterers with 100 stripes. In countries such as the US and India, they can be indiscreet and carry it on publicly, if they wish.

     Likewise, knowing the Islamic norms of dress code and modesty, if a girl has no intention of abiding by these, she should make this clear before marriage by dressing provocatively “with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden. If the boy has no objection and marries her, the expectations are clearly set before marriage, and there is no conflict.

     The problem arises only when a boy is expecting the girl to abide by Islamic codes and she pretends to do so, but after marriage shows her true pagan colours. The man is then within his rights to correct her behaviour or divorce her.

     The argument that verse 4:34 demeans women is fallacious. If 4:34 demeans women, then the criminal laws demean mankind. The sound and fury raised by GM sb, is sheer politics and nothing to do with logic. Allah doesn’t care for political correctness.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/16/2019 10:33:34 PM



  • Naseer sb., is lying again! When did I deny saying, "“4:34 is not about disloyalty or adultery. It is about obedience and disobedience. It is about a woman going in public places  dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden.” And I stand by what I said. Was I supporting such behavior? Of course not! I was questioning the qualifications and the objectivity of the husband to judge his wife's behavior and his right to admonish her or to beat her. It is cheap demagoguery on your part to suggest that I was supporting either adultery or economic exploitation of sexuality. You even fall to the level of bringing in polyandry in this discussion although I am sure you will have nothing to say about polygyny! You are declaiming wildly in your village mullah mode! Will you ever be able to hold an adult mature dialogue? Your sole aims seems to be to fight to death any attempts at gender equality.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/16/2019 2:00:03 PM



  • Naseer sb.,
    Since we are living in India we have to discuss laws which apply to us in India and reconcile them to what is written in the Quran.
    Regarding 24:2, yes I am against inflicting 100 lashes to the adulterer. Sex between consulting adults is not the concern of the state.
    It will be dealt with on the Day of Judgement.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/16/2019 1:40:25 PM



  • It is GM sb who is trying to throw dust in everyone's eyes and pretend that he did not say what he said. This is what he said:

     “4:34 is not about disloyalty or adultery. It is about obedience and disobedience. It is about a woman going in public places  dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden.

     Why would someone who supports his “women going in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden” and is for decriminalizing adultery, not use the erotic capital of such women for economic and social benefit and allow it to be wasted? If he uses the erotic capital, then he is a pimp and if he doesn’t, then he is a dumb ass to waste it on nothing.  The pendulum swings for the man from being the “Qawwamuna” or Protector of his woman in Islam, to becoming her pimp in adopting Pagan ways once again.

     I salute the brave Muslim women, who while living in the US and participating in public life, observe Islamic norms and modesty.  It is sad that there are on the other hand wimps like GM sb who have totally succumbed to societal pressures living in the US and are adapting their ways. The consequences of such behaviour is brought out in my previous comment.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/15/2019 10:52:12 PM



  • We are not discussing the laws in India or the US. We are discussing the law in the Quran and your argument is about Hudud laws in general and the law on adultery in particular. Why do you now pretend that you have not opposed verse 24:2 which lays down the punishment for adultery? Why are you trying to throw dust into everyone's eyes?  Are you so thick headed that you do mot understand what you yourself said? By Naseer Ahmed - 1/15/2019 10:41:41 PM



  • Naseer sb. is trying to throw dust in our eyes quoting from Western authors on   uses of sexuality in the work place. Does he really think 4:34 is about working women flirting with their male colleagues? Why is he trying to deceive us? By supporting 4:34 he is only supporting men's right to lord it over women and even to beat women. He will go to any length to support such inequality and such male dominance. The Quran for him is just a weapon to suppress women and to keep us all tied down to the 7th century. Shame!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/15/2019 2:05:53 PM



  • Naseer sb. says, 

    "Are you now saying that you are unaware that adultery is a punishable crime in Islam besides being a sin?"


    A crime in Islam is not a crime in India, but a sin in Islam is also a sin for Indian Muslims. Are you going to live in India and not follow India's laws? Why do you make such dumb arguments?


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/15/2019 1:52:17 PM



  • For GM sb, the happy Pagan days are back again!

    Prominent British Sociologist  and expert on women’s issues and employment Dr Catherine Hakim says not only is it perfectly permissible, but it’s also important for women to learn that “erotic capital” has genuine economic value and social benefits. Her new book called Honey Money: The Power Of Erotic Capital suggests that knowing how to use your sexuality is as crucial to success at work as intelligence, skill and professional qualifications. 

    Barbara Corcoran, real estate guru and an investor on ABC’s Shark Tank  said “I find running a #business in a man’s world to be a huge advantage. I wear bright colors, yank up my skirt to get attention.

     I  (Beatrice Lockhart)Use My Sexuality To Get Ahead At Work, And I Don’t Feel Bad About It

    I use my sex appeal to get ahead at work... and so does ANY woman with any sense

     Why would someone who supports his “women going in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden” and is for decriminalizing adultery, not use the erotic capital of such women for economic and social benefit and allow it to be wasted? If he uses the erotic capital, then he is a pimp and if he doesn’t, then he is a dumb ass to waste it on nothing.  The pendulum swings for the man from being the “Qawwamuna” or Protector of his woman in Islam, to becoming her pimp in adopting Pagan ways once again.

     The next stage in such a society is polyandry. While the men and the beautiful women can have all the fun, it will leave the plain Janes or the vast majority of ordinary women behind. They will have to work very hard to attract men and bribe them with gifts and money to keep them.  I don’t see the men complaining but as for the women, may God help them! 

     The Deen Al Islam is the perfected religion or what is best for all but “those who will not believe”, are deaf to all reason and turn a blind eye to the evidence and keep mouthing their dumb nonsensical arguments. This is not the first time that I have shown GM sb the contrast between his stupidity and the wisdom of the Quran

    (2:18) “Deaf, dumb, and blind, they will not return (to the path).”

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/14/2019 11:43:28 PM



  • Are you so thick headed that you do not even understand what you say?

     Below is your argument for decriminalizing adultery in Islam :

     “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.”

     Are you now saying that you are unaware that adultery is a punishable crime in Islam besides being a sin?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/14/2019 10:17:16 PM



  • As I said before, it is impossible to get anything through that thick skull of Naseer sb.

    Murder, theft and adultery are all sins but they are not all crimes. Murder and theft are crimes. Adultery is still a crime in Muslim countries. It is not a crime in India, America and many parts of the civilized world. It is a breach of contract and subject to civil suits but not subject to criminal prosecution. Is that hard for you?

    On the second point raised by you, men have always considered themselves to be the authorities on what women should wear. But those days are going, going, gone.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/14/2019 2:03:13 PM



  • GM sb is losing his mind. Let me ask him a few questions to bring him back on track.

    Is murder both sin and a punishable crime?
    Is stealing both a sin and punishable crime?

    Adultery in Islam is also both a sin and a punishable crime. The Hudud laws in Islam cover punishable crimes which are also a sin. While all crimes are sins, all sins are not necessarily punishable crimes. Is that too much for you to understand GM sb? 

    Muslim women are anything but lambs. They are truly tigresses who defy western norms and wear the hijab and not suck up to that society in the manner of wimps like yourself. 

    It is the western society that demeans their women and have turned them into sex objects. The feminists when they burned their bras, were fighting against the same society which treats them as sex objects.

    There is a continuum between the man playing the role of "qawwamuna to friend to pimp". The men who think nothing of their women dressing provocatively, and use the sexuality of their women for their benefit, are those who have turned pimps.

    The brainless wimps however consider it progress to turn into pimps.

    To you be your way and to me mine.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/13/2019 11:00:25 PM



  • Naseer sb. is now indulging in gobbledegook! He is trying to hide his devaluation of women by creating an arbitrary distinction between the assertive women of 2:34 and the Muslim women who behave like lambs! He is not really interested in the subject of status of women.

    He says, "Adultery is the second most heinous sin in Islam after polytheism and GM sb wants that it should be decriminalized! "

    He himself calls it a "sin" but he wants me to call it a "crime"! I have said several times that it is a sin but what is a crime and what is not a crime is not determined by religions but by civil society. But that will never enter his head and he will go on arguing his point without trying to understand what others are saying!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/13/2019 1:08:23 PM



  • GM sb,  The State has the  authority and duty to punish criminals after establishing their crime. Should all citizens take offense for it? All good citizens who have no intention of committing crimes, support the State. Who then opposes it? Maybe the criminals do but does anybody care about that?

     Why should then any devout Muslim woman who has no intention of “failing to guard what Allah has commanded to be guarded (modesty and chastity) in secrecy or in her husband’s absence” be offended by the measures advised to be taken against such a wife? Who is then offended? The type of women on whose behalf GM sb is arguing. To quote him those women who “ go in public places  dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden”. He should know that such women are outside the pail of Islam and directly violate verse 24:31. Why should I or any devout Muslim care for what such women and their men think about 4:34? We know they won’t like it.

    Below is GM sb’s argument for decriminalizing adultery:

     “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.”

     Adultery is the second most heinous sin in Islam after polytheism and GM sb wants that it should be decriminalized! 

     Polytheism is between man and God and is not criminalized. Adultery when practiced openly, however corrupts the entire society and is a crime against humanity. And it is punishable only when there are four eyewitnesses providing acceptable evidence which means the act is indulged in an indiscreet or flagrant manner that can corrupt society. Why should verse 2:11 to 13 then not apply to you for opposing 4:34, 24:2?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/12/2019 11:35:06 PM



  • Naseer sb. says, "Verse 4:34 contains instruction for people like you and not for the devout Muslims for whom the correct behaviour is instilled from childhood and is instinctive."

    Being an expert on Islam, he can invent any bizarre falsehood from the Book that he wants to! It is futile to have any discussion with him.

    He says, "The meaning of qawamuna is not boss but protector."
    But here we are discussing a "protector" who has the authority to admonish and beat the woman he supposedly protects!

    He again brings in adultery which has nothing to do with 4:34, and again accuses me of wanting adultery to be decriminalized when I have told him more than once that it is the Supreme Court of India which has decriminalized adultery, not me. Adultery is still a sin and I have never said anything to contradict that.

    Naseer sb. brings in 2:11 in his usual self-righteous mullahish ways. He thinks 2:11 applies to others but not to himself.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/12/2019 1:20:14 PM



  • You are being offensive about Muslim women while insinuating that they need anyone to tell them how to dress and how to behave. They don't need anyone to tell them that and as a matter of fact the wives correct their husbands in several ways. Verse 4:34 contains instruction for people like you and not for the devout Muslims for whom the correct behaviour is instilled from childhood and is instinctive.

    The meaning of qawamuna is not boss but protector. So, don't twist the meaning simply because the correct meaning gives you no scope to object but only your twisted version. You are indulging in straw man arguments because Muslim men and women have no problem with verse 4:34 and you are trying to create a problem where none exists.

    You are arguing for those women who “ go in public places  dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden” and would like adultery to be decriminalized. You are trying to take  Islam back to 7th century paganism. The attraction of pagan norms is undeniable going by the number of people succumbing to it. Such people are outside the pail of Islam. So, take your arguments elsewhere and do not try to taint Islam.

    (2:11) When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only Want to make peace!"(12) Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.(13) When it is said to them: "Believe as the others believe:" They say: "Shall we believe as the fools believe?" Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but they do not know.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/11/2019 11:16:48 PM



  • Naseer sb.,
    Someone who gives you protection does not become your boss any more than someone who cooks for you becomes your boss.

    Is the wife so dumb that she does not understand Allah's command on how to dress herself. Is the husband an authority on Muslim women's dress code? If the husband can discipline his wife on matters of dress, will that not translate into his being the disciplinarian in all other matters. Is not 4:34 all about the husband's  being the lord and the master? Should not our society move to a stage in which women do not need qawwamunas?
    Are women who fight for their rights rejecting the Signs of Allah or are they rejecting the shackles of medieval Arabia?
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/11/2019 11:44:30 AM



  • It is ironical that GM sb who argued about taking the best meaning, is bent upon twisting the meaning. Once you hire a bodyguard, you subject yourself to his guidance as far as his role and your safety is concerned. If you don't, a true blood professional will quit the job. Moreover, the verse does not command obedience to the husband, but to Allah’s command to guard what Allah has commanded to be guarded. The husband has a say only if the woman fails to do so and is not amenable to correct her behaviour.

    Without the husband playing the role of “qawwamuna”, the relationship is only a live-in relationship of convenience. The marital bond also ends the moment the woman no longer considers her husband as “qawwamuna” for whatever reason. She can no longer love, respect, follow such a man. If they are still living together for convenience, it is like a live-in relationship. As long as a woman looks upon her husband as “qawwamuna”, which is contingent upon the man standing up for her and being there when needed, a pillar of strength who never lets her down, the marital bond remains strong. The woman will love, respect and follow such a husband to the end of the world if needed.

    The institution of marriage is over in the west and they only have live-in relationships of convenience for a period, even though “solemnised” by a marriage ceremony. Such people will not know marital bliss having exchanged what is best for the worst. This has been the story of man. Below is a verse that shows the ungrateful nature of man desiring not what Allah has ordained but something else instead.

    (2:61) And remember ye said: "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said: "Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!" They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/11/2019 2:04:13 AM



  • Your German friend sought your protection because she is the product of the same patriarchal acculturation which exists world wide in lesser or greater degrees. Even a man may seek protection hiring a bodyguard. Does that mean that men who hire bodyguards are on a lower footing and have lesser status and rights than their hirees? The point is protection, love, housekeeping, childrearing etc. are attributes that husbands and wives bring to a marriage and they balance each other out so that it is foolish to claim that husbands have authority over their wives.

     Granted that an equal relationship is harder to maintain than an unequal relationship because an equal relationship requires more maturity and flexibility. But as civilization advances and societies move forward, relationships too become more mature and more mutually satisfying.

    American brides, when they take the wedding vows, do not now promise to "love, cherish and obey" their husbands anymore. Instead they promise to "love and cherish".

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/10/2019 11:13:10 AM



  • This was in Frankfurt where I was consulting for a period of six weeks. On my last day, those who had worked closely with me from the Client side, decided to give me an all-night week-end party hopping from place to place to show me what week-end festivities were like. We were three single males and two single females and not boyfriend/girlfriend either. At one such place, a band was playing, and the people were dancing. A German came up towards us dancing and was making obvious advances to one of the females with us who was standing next to me. She coolly moved closer to me and asked me to put my arms around her which I did, and the man went away disappointed. What saved her from the unwanted attention from this German was someone claiming her as his or playing the role of Qawwamuna.
    The females have their own perspective on marriage and from the example I have given of an extremely independent girl both financially and otherwise, she also needed someone she could trust to falsely play the role of qawwamuna to protect her. So, where does acculturation come in? It is the same in every culture. Some cultures have deliberately destroyed the role of the husband in a marriage. Man is naturally the qawwamuna of his wife and it is detrimental to the institution of marriage to weaken this role.
    Regarding the second condition precedent, my wife asked me which woman who marries for a qawwamuna would act in that manner. In a normal marriage for the right reasons therefore, such a situation can never arise.
    Verse 4:34 however continues to be relevant going by this discussion for people such as you if the institution of marriage must be saved. The west is already considering it obsolete. By Naseer Ahmed - 1/10/2019 2:08:08 AM



  • I cannot imagine God getting involved in such domestic disputes and giving advice that is no better than what one's talkative uncle may give.

    What women say about 4:34 is a result of their acculturation. Their dependency is a learned trait.
     
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/10/2019 12:05:10 AM



  • If the all merciful and beneficent Allah had not got involved in the affairs of mankind over a period of 70,000 years through 124000 prophets, we would have remained as just another species such as the ape, gorilla or the jellyfish.
    I discussed this verse with my wife who differs with my analysis. She says that even if the wife is financially independent and even if she supports her husband financially, the husband is still the “qawwamuna”. The primary reason a woman marries is because she needs a “qawwamuna”. A married woman is far more confident and bolder while dealing and interacting with men, than she can ever be as a single woman. The married status by itself confers security and protection. She cited examples from among her friends, who married for the first time in their fifties, after they lost their parents, even though they were financially independent owning and running their business, precisely because they needed a husband as “qawwamuna”. She is of the opinion that Hazrat Khadija proposed to Muhammad (pbuh) although se was financially independent, because she needed Muhammad (pbuh) as her “qawwamuna” finding him honest and a person whom she could trust with her life, honour and wealth.
    When I asked her about western society, she said that in that society, precisely because the man does not play the role of “qawwamuna” a married woman does not enjoy any protection because of her “married” status. Marriage therefore has limited meaning in that society and if a man/woman find another that holds their interest more, they change their spouses after a period of experimentation.
    So, you get the society based on the societal norms of behaviour. Islam, the perfected and complete religion, prescribes what is best for all. By Naseer Ahmed - 1/9/2019 10:39:50 PM



  • The real "contingent precedent" is "Men are in charge of women," as per 4:34. The real question is whether the Almighty God, the beneficient and the merciful, would get involved in advising husbands on how to admonish or beat their wives who wear clothes that the husbands find too audacious.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/9/2019 1:08:56 PM



  • There is a contingent precedent to be satisfied before the husband can discipline his wife. The question is what kind of a woman would satisfy the condition precedent which is,  “fail to guard her chastity/modesty in her husband’s absence” and not heed admonishment and other measures and correct herself and remain defiant? Such a woman, if she does not want to receive a beating, should ask for a divorce instead.

    The need to appoint a “qawwamuna” or the upholder of the marital relationship, is important, and if both partners enjoy equal rights, and there is no  qawwamuna to correct when things are going wrong, any one of them misbehaving, will lead to both misbehaving and breaking down of the marital relationship as it is happening in western society. Islam appoints the husband as the “qawwamuna” or the upholder of the marital relationship, as he is most suited for the role as protector and provider, in the limited sphere of ensuring that his wife obeys Allah’s commands and guards what Allah has commanded to be guarded. Only a woman bent upon defying Allah’s commands would be bothered by this or someone like you, who think nothing of women  going in public places  dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden” and would like adultery to be decriminalized. Clearly, what you want is outside the pail of Islam and your arguing for it makes no sense. Islam is the deen of Allah and not your deen. You need to conform to the deen of Allah or place yourself outside the pail of Islam.

    The husband as  “qawwamuna” has both a duty to Allah and a right over his wife. He is answerable to Allah for protecting his wife and the relationship, without doing any injustice to his wife and without exceeding the bounds prescribed by Allah. Your slogan of equality is an empty political slogan. In any relationship involving two or more people, one of them is clearly the leader. In every other matter except the subject under discussion, the wife can be the leader/decider and most husbands do listen to their wives and are most anxious of keeping them well-pleased. On the question of guarding what Allah has commanded to be guarded, a husband cannot abdicate his duty to Allah, nor the wife show defiance without attracting the consequences.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/9/2019 2:25:03 AM



  • Naseer sb.,
    The discussion is not about false accusations. It is about the husband  being a supervisor over the wife and having the right to admonish and beat her. You are supporting 7th century Arab forms of behavior while claiming to defend Islam!
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/8/2019 2:42:44 PM



  • The question of false accusation is dealt with separately in the Quran. The accuser and the accused will have to swear by Allah that they are speaking the truth and if what they are saying is a lie, invoke the curse of Allah on themselves. If both go through this process, the  word of the accused will stand and the accuser would have failed to establish his/her accusation. This process is always available to both and a spouse falsely accused of anything can resort to it and save himself/herself. There is nothing arbitrary or one-sided in any of Allah's laws.

    Your opposition is mainly because, you want the women to have the freedom to dress provocatively exposing their skin and also for decriminalizing adultery. Your opposition is primarily to Islamic norms of behaviour. 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/8/2019 2:05:19 AM



  • Naseer sb. says, "No matter how Nushuz is translated – whether as refractoriness', 'disobedience', 'rebellion' or ‘disloyalty’, it means the opposite of the behaviour expected of them. . . "

    "Opposite" in the eyes of the husband? Is the husband a monitor and a disciplinarian for the wife? Can he admonish and beat his wife as if she was his child? Putting the husband in such a lordly position over his wife may be an Arab custom but to make it a part of Islam, which is a faith for all cultures and for all times, is untenable.

    Neither 60:12, nor adultery nor disloyalty is relevant here. The question simply is whether the inferior status of women is a permanent fixture in Islam.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/8/2019 12:10:02 AM



  •  الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ وَبِمَا أَنفَقُوا مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ ۚ فَالصَّالِحَاتُ قَانِتَاتٌ حَافِظَاتٌ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ اللَّهُ ۚ وَاللَّاتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا كَبِيرًا

     The correct translation of the verse:

     Men are “qawwamuna” (guardian, protectors, caretakers ,standing guard, upholders of their dignity) over women, because God has given some more than others, and because they support them from their means, and the (fal-ṣāliḥātu ) righteous women are the truly (qānitātun)  devout ones [ God fearing ] , who guard what Allah has ordered them to be guarded  even in secrecy (lil'ghaybi) [ Allah has ordered both men and women to guard their furūjihim  or chastity/modesty/private parts in verses 23:5, 70:29), And as for those women whose “nushuz” you have reason to fear, (faʿiẓūhunna) instruct/advise/admonish them; [ next ] then leave them alone in bed; then  “hit” them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great ! [ Surah 4:34 ]

    No matter how Nushuz is translated – whether as refractoriness', 'disobedience', 'rebellion' or ‘disloyalty’, it means the opposite of the behaviour expected of them which is to guard what Allah has ordered them to be guarded (chastity/modesty/private parts) even in secrecy or in the absence of their husbands.

     This verse is not about obedience to the husband but obedience to the commands of Allah. The husband is charged with the responsibility of taking care of their woman and her honour. Islam does not encourage a society of unfaithful women and their cuckolded husbands.

     The problem of jealous husbands and jealous wives will remain with or without verse 4:34 and must be addressed separately. As a matter of fact, the Quran does address the problem of a spouse accusing the other of adultery and how to deal with the issue when the accusation is denied and there are no three other witnesses. How does the problem of a jealous spouse get resolved in any culture?

     When Pagan women came to the Prophet and asked to be admitted into the fold of Islam, he was instructed by Allah as follows:

     (60:12) O Prophet! When believing women come to thee to take the oath of fealty to thee, that they will not associate in worship any other thing whatever with Allah, that they will not steal, that they will not commit adultery (or fornication), that they will not kill their children, that they will not utter slander, intentionally forging falsehood, and that they will not disobey thee in any just matter,- then do thou receive their fealty, and pray to Allah for the forgiveness (of their sins): for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

     The form of oath of fealty underlies the problem of a Society with loose sexual norms and it is this society which was in transition and needed the safeguards.

     The verse 4:34 however, is as relevant today as it was then, going by the fact that the society is once again becoming adulterous, and your own advocacy for decriminalizing adultery. and loosening of the Islamic norms of dress code. To quote you “It is about a woman going in public places  dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden”. Yes, that too is objectionable and exposes the woman to harm, and a Muslim husband is duty bound as a protector of his wife to correct such behaviour

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/7/2019 11:31:13 PM



  • Naseer sb.,
    Your response is flippant and not worthy of someone who claims to be an aalim.
    The question is not whether women follow the norms or not. The question is what to do if a jealous husband is overly restrictive.
    When you say, "The thought about verse 4:34 is far from the minds of the women getting married simply because verse 4:34 is not a problem for any of them," you should know that that is a patent lie.
    You should re-read my last comment and give an adequate response or admit that you do not have a response.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/7/2019 12:49:19 PM



  • There is no problem when the women themselves observe the norms and as I have said repeatedly, they do.

    The thought about verse 4:34 is far from the minds of the women getting married simply because verse 4:34 is not a problem for any of them.

    You are creating a problem out of nothing with your taking "the best meaning of the verse"! You are bent upon creating mischief.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/7/2019 2:48:20 AM



  • Naseer sb. says, "The norms of behaviour are not personal norms but Islamic norms."
    And are men the guardians of those norms? Do not women understand those norms? Can a jealous husband's requirements exceed those norms?
    The verse is not about loyalty. It is about how to make your wife obey. Of the six translations I have seen, only one uses the word 'disloyalty'. The other five use the words 'refractoriness', 'disobedience', 'rebellion' (used by 2 translators), and 'desertion'.
    Naseer sb. asks, "When a woman has no intention to be loyal, why does she not straight away seek a divorce?"
    She does not want to be disloyal. She just does not want to be an obedient puppy totally controlled by her husband.
    He asks, "If 4:34 bothers a woman, why does she not put in a clause in her marriage contract that her husband is free to divorce but not beat her?"
    Such thoughts are farthest from women's minds at the time of marriage. In any case she may not know that her husband was going to be so strict about how she dressed herself.
    The reason you give about why Jesus refused to let people stone the woman are an interpretation. The Bible gives no such reason. After the accusers left, Jesus said to the woman, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
    Adultery will of course continue to be a sin in Islam, but only national laws define crime.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/7/2019 1:30:26 AM



  • “.....Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband´s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct,......”

     The norms of behaviour are not personal norms but Islamic norms (and guard what Allah would have them guard). A girl imbibes these norms from her parents and from observing her mother's behaviour and from her society. These become instinctive and come naturally to all Muslim women, which is why I have said repeatedly, that verse 4:34 does not bother Muslim women, because their behaviour is much above these norms, and they cannot even imagine that the verse would ever apply to them. This verse had more to do with a society in transition from Pagan norms to Islamic norms.

    The verse is very much about disloyalty “As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct”

     GM sb missed out answering the following questions:

     When a woman has no intention to be loyal, why does she not straight away seek a divorce? She does not have to go through a process of correction when she has no intention to correct her behaviour.

     If 4:34 bothers a woman, why does she not put in a clause in her marriage contract that her husband is free to divorce but not beat her?

     Adultery will continue to be a sin and a crime in Islam, although under the laws of the land, it may not be possible to punish those guilty of adultery, just as Jesus (pbuh) could not punish the adulteress brought to him, because adultery was not a crime under the Pagan Roman law, which governed the land in which he and the Jews lived. GM sb chooses not to make the distinction, given as he to mischief making. He is with the Pagans on this issue.

     Moreover, there was no law for adultery in India to begin with, and what was decriminalized was essentially property rights of a husband over his wife. The wife being considered mere property without agency was not punishable, but only the man for violating the property rights of the husband. However, if this was with the husband’s permission, then there was no crime and no punishment.

     In Islam, adultery is sex between people not married to each other and is punishable. Their mutual consent, consent of their spouses, parents etc have no bearing. GM sb does not like the Islamic law on adultery and he is with the Pagans on this question.

    Why doesn't GM sb use the God given freedom to him to renounce Islam and embrace paganism when he has such affinity for their norms and such dislike for Islamic norms? .

    This discussion started with him arguing that we must take the best meaning of any verse and here he is bent upon twisting the meaning so that he can attack the twisted version and claim that it is inserted in the Quran by man! He is inconsistent and  takes whatever position suits him. The best meaning was only to argue for interpretation and against "the clear single meaning of every verse" which I was arguing for.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/6/2019 11:09:57 PM



  • Naseer sb. asks, "Why should any wife be disloyal?"
    4:34 is not about disloyalty or adultery. It is about obedience and disobedience. It is about a woman going in public places  dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden. Obedience is not something one demands from an equal. It is something one demands from a servant, a slave or a child.

    He asks, "Why shouldn’t admonishment work?"

    Instead of admonishing her he should discuss with her his ideas of how women should dress themselves and how they should behave in public. She, being an adult, may agree or disagree.

    He asks, "Why should the next step of forsaking in bed not work?"

    He is free to forsake her in bed if he chooses to be sullen. If she does not want to comply with his demands, she will hold firm.

    He asks, "Why should they allow the next step  of beating and not mend their behaviour before?"

    You can beat your horse or your slave, but not your wife  (A'isha narrated that the Prophet never struck a servant or a woman). She may decide to continue to follow her own standards or adopt her husband's standards on public behavior depending on how subjugated or self-directed she is.

    Naseer sb. says, "Dignity comes from how you behave."

    Ask an Afro-American  or an Indian Dalit or any number of housewives in India if that is true.

    When you say, "With your advocacy for decriminalizing adultery . . .", do you realize that adultery was decriminalized by the Supreme Court of India, not by me.
    It has been decriminalized by most civilized countries in the world.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/6/2019 1:56:42 PM



  • You have not answered my questions. Why are you afraid to do so? List each of my questions and give your answer to every question for all to see plainly what your answers are. Verse 4:34 comes with the clear stamp of divine perfection and is perfectly worded as shown by me while explaining it. No human can improve on its perfect wording with two condition precedents and without compelling the errant party to put up with the consequences. It sets the standards of Islamic behaviour without injustice to any party and serves to save the marriage from breaking up.

     Read again my comment By Naseer Ahmed - 1/1/2019 12:45:32 AM for a full response to all your arguments. You are only repeating yourself

    Dignity comes from how you behave. Disloyalty is not dignified behaviour. Dignified behaviour is to straight away seek divorce  when you know that you cannot be loyal.

    Dignified behaviour is when you ask for the clause to be inserted in your marriage contract that the husband is free to divorce but not beat.

    Dignity is in your own hands. This verse does not concern/bother millions of Muslim women who are beyond even contemplating such behaviour. I do not know which constituency you are representing with your political slogan of equality.

    With your advocacy for decriminalizing adultery and now for taking a softer stand on disloyal behaviour, you seem determined to destroy Islamic norms of behaviour with your deceptive political slogan of equality. That is what Satan does - mislead by creating false desires. There is neither dignity nor equality in deviating from Islamic norms of behaviour. 

    (4:120) Satan makes them promises, and creates in them false desires; but Satan´s promises are nothing but deception.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/6/2019 12:25:11 AM



  • Naseer sb.,
    I did answer your questions. Since you have no response you have decided to dismiss the points that I made. A man with 7th century Arab mentality could give the same advice that 4:34 contains but in order for any advice to be considered the word of God it has to be loftier, more respectful of the dignity of women and more universally applicable.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/5/2019 12:29:26 PM



  • GM sb, You have not answered my questions because you realize how stupid your objections are.
    Your arguments are straw man arguments and have nothing to do with what the verse means. By Naseer Ahmed - 1/4/2019 11:55:18 PM



  • Naseer sb.,

    You should not take such liberties with the verses. God does not have double standards, one for the economically independent woman and another for the economically dependent woman, one for man and another for woman.

    You may as well ask your 5 questions again substituting "husband" in place of "wife".

    The very first phrase of 4:34 reflects Arab male hegemony rather than godliness: "Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other," "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other," "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other," "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another," "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others," and "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other."

    In Islam, status is not determined by sex but by the principle: 

    "The most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you." (49:13)

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/4/2019 12:50:54 PM



  • Stop babbling, Hats Off!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/4/2019 12:01:16 PM



  • thank you sir!
    but for you i would have paddled my way to a gaol in the land of opportunities, especially as i should have been a teacher in the said country to satisfy your craving for recognition.
    By hats off! - 1/4/2019 4:48:50 AM



  • GM Sb, You have failed to address my questions. Can you give straight answers?

     If a divorce was equally bad for both partners, there was no need for verse 4:34. However, in the case of a woman who is financially dependent on her husband, divorce has a devastating effect on the woman while for the husband, it may be good riddance of a disloyal wife. It is the divorce of such a disloyal wife that verse 4:34 is trying to prevent by prescribing a three-step process.

    The pertinent question which GM sb may answer is:

    1. Why should any wife be disloyal?

    2. Why shouldn’t admonishment work?

    3. Why should the next step of forsaking in bed not work?

    4. Why should they allow the next step  of beating and not mend their behaviour before?

    5. If they have no intention of being loyal, why not seek divorce straight away? It saves everyone time and effort.


    GM sb you are  free to advocate/counsel all your female clients to short circuit the process and go straight for divorce. I am sure the husbands of these women will be pleased. You are also free to ask all women to put in a clause in their marriage contracts that their husbands are free to divorce them but not beat them. All men I am sure, will be pleased by this clause. It saves them all the hassles of going through the process of trying to correct errant behaviour.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/4/2019 1:37:59 AM



  • Danda is obsolete. Several school teachers have lost their jobs for using the paddle in the U.S.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/3/2019 10:57:54 PM



  • this seems uncannily close to the saama, dhana, bhedha and dhanda as in the bhagavad geetha By hats off! - 1/3/2019 5:04:49 PM



  • So how disloyalty should be handled depends upon the economic dependence or independence of the disloyal partner?  Naseer sb.'s views reveal greater and greater perversity.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/3/2019 12:13:15 PM



  • If a divorce was equally bad for both partners, there was no need for verse 4:34. However, in the case of a woman who is financially dependent on her husband, divorce has a devastating effect on the woman while for the husband, it may be good riddance of a disloyal wife. It is the divorce of such a disloyal wife that verse 4:34 is trying to prevent by prescribing a three-step process.

    The pertinent question which GM sb may answer is:

    1. Why should any wife be disloyal?

    2. Why shouldn’t admonishment work?

    3. Why should the next step of forsaking in bed not work?

    4. Why should they allow the next of beating and not mend their behaviour before?

    5. If they have no intention of being loyal, why not seek divorce straight away? It saves everyone time and effort.

    GM sb you are  free to advocate/counsel all your female clients to short circuit the process and go straight for divorce. I am sure the husbands of these women will be pleased.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/3/2019 7:09:12 AM



  • Naseer sb. is back to using abusive language. This is what he always does when he finds himself in a tight corner.

    Khadijabi is not relevant to this discussion. Read 4:34 again. It is a generally applicable recommendation and any talk of "condition precedent" is a diversion meant to deceive and to confuse the readers.

    My argument is that 4:34 puts women in an unequal and inferior position. Naseer sb.'s strange reply is that 4:34 is about women who are unequal and  inferior to start with! Why does he make such senseless arguments which are so demeaning to women?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/3/2019 1:23:27 AM



  • Hazrat Khadija is merely an example of a "condition precedent" being satisfied in the reverse, and this example is from the life of the Prophet himself, from the 7th century. That the condition precedent could be satisfied in the reverse was therefore neither unknown nor unthinkable in the 7th century while the Quran was being revealed. The number of examples today are many more. In any case, the first/main condition not being satisfied for either husband/wife are numerous.
    That the second condition precedent would apply is unthinkable for all devout Muslims and when it does apply, the errant party must be chastised or divorced. Muslim society should have zero tolerance for such behaviour and it does have zero tolerance because of which such cases are rare. Thanks to verse 4:34 for that. The verse has served its purpose both as a preventative and as a curative.
    The ignoramus does not even understand the meaning of “condition precedent”. A condition precedent is a condition that must be satisfied before the law/rule/advisory that follows will apply. What is a condition precedent is obvious from the structure of the sentence which is of the form:
    “Statement of the condition” followed by  “therefore”
    Or of the form
    If …….. , then……….
    Clearly, the verse is neither time bound nor place bound, nor situation bound precisely because it is structured the way it is beginning with the main “condition precedent” which could apply in the reverse also or not at all when both partners are financially independent of the other. The standard of behaviour that is expected is neither time bound nor place bound.
    Everyone knows what the law of equality is. Is GM sb accusing me of inventing it? The stupidity is in GM sb’s argument of equality when the “condition precedent” describes the inequality in the situation where one party is the protector and provider for the other party. The justice is in the fact that the condition precedent could also apply in the reverse or not at all. There is therefore no injustice, and as a matter of fact positive discrimination in the case of women. This is so because, when the condition precedent is satisfied in the reverse, the man has no rights whatsoever over his wife while the wife always has rights over her husband.
    One can imagine a Muslim person having doubts and seeking clarification and after receiving such a comprehensive explanation of the verse, showing his gratitude. GM sb’s sole purpose was however to malign the Quran and his reaction at being frustrated from doing so is the same as what you may expect from Satan under similar circumstances. The level of frustration of this funny windbag can be gauged from the fact that he accuses me of both “blind literalism” and being “inventive”! By Naseer Ahmed - 1/2/2019 11:30:16 PM



  • Naseer sb. wants us to believe that his blind literalism is "logic"! Logic for him is to attribute obvious time-bound and place-bound medieval Arab thinking to God Almighty Himself!

    He believes that God would permit contamination of the Bible but not of the Quran, thus sparing Naseer sb. the trouble of making distinctions between genuine   Wahi and human productions.

    It is sheer deception to say that extremely rare exceptions such as Khadijabi transform  an obvious statement of fact into a "condition precedent". And if one is talking of punishment one is obviously talking of punishment of miscreants, not punishment of all women! Why do you make such  silly arguments?

    The most stupid argument you make is when you equate equality with the right to retaliate. Equality means equal status and equal rights. "An eye for an eye" does not give you equality. It just satisfies your lust for revenge.

    Your defense of 4:34 is full of thunder but devoid of sense and it shows your full concurrence with the  idea of women's subservience.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/2/2019 2:21:02 PM



  • Hats Off is again seething with hatred for Christianity and Islam. In fact he has nothing to offer except hate and hissing!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/2/2019 12:08:26 AM



  • The rules of logic and logical deductions are not my invention. I wouldn't have to say this but for the fact that GM sb is such an ignoramus when it comes to logical reasoning.

    You are plainly questioning several of the Quranic verses as of divine revelation and accusing the Quran of contamination with 7th century Arab material. You are therefore either accusing Allah of failing to live upto His promise of protecting and guarding His message or saying that the promise itself is a human invention and addition to the Book. If you were not such a hypocrite but a man of integrity, you would have rejected the entire Quran if you think that it contains falsehoods, but you choose to neither believe nor disbelieve like any hypocrite. When you argue against several of the verses, you are clearly saying that what you say is wiser and the more correct.

     What is a statement of fact? Is saying that the husband is the protector and provider a statement of fact? How does this become a statement of fact? Do we not have women who provide for themselves and are financially independent of their husbands? Was Hazrat Khadija (RA) not such an independent woman? As a matter of fact, in many respects, Hazrat Khadija was both a protector and provider for the Prophet (pbuh) and it was her influence, in addition to his Uncle Abu Talib’s influence, that protected him from physical harm. Verse 93:8 of the Quran is believed to refer to the Prophet’s marriage to Hazrat Kahdija when it says “ And He found thee in need, and made thee independent.” It was the marriage that made him financially strong and independent. Clearly, in the case of the Prophet himself, the first  “condition precedent” applied in the reverse but this was of the choosing of Hazrat Khadija, since the marriage proposal was made by her while Muhammad was in her employment. Not that the Prophet was dependent on her. He earned his keep while he was in employment of Hazrat Khadija and even later. He remained faithful to her  till her death and did not take another wife while she lived. This may not have been from any legal requirement but from the great respect, regard and love that he had for her as his senior, benefactor, protector, friend, philosopher and guide besides being his wife and mother of his children. So, you find no less a person than the Prophet himself fulfilling the requirements of the verse.

    “As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct” is another condition precedent. Do you think this is another statement of fact and all wives are

    You don’t even understand the law of equality! The law of equality is an eye for an eye…. and therefore it means the right to retaliate.

    Neither the Quran nor am I giving any partner the right to chastise but when conditions arise that require chastising, it is upto the partners what they decide to do and put up with. Both partners have the right to put their foot down on any form of chastisement and seek divorce. I have said this a million times, but it doesn’t get across you!

     The hollowness of your arguments has been thoroughly exposed and you have nothing meaningful to say as was bound to happen. Verse 4:34 comes with the clear stamp of divine perfection and is perfectly worded as shown by me while explaining it. No human can improve on its perfect wording with two condition precedents and without compelling the errant party to put up with the consequences. It sets the standards of Islamic behaviour without injustice to any party and also serves to save the marriage from breaking up.

    What is it that blinds you to the clear signs of divinity in the verse and makes you deaf to clear reason and dumbs you into mouthing nonsense?  Let not the following verse come true in your case and return to the straight path before it is too late.

    (2:18) “Deaf, dumb, and blind, they will not return (to the path).”

    This is my last to you on this thread.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/1/2019 11:41:53 PM



  • subjects of arabian colonialism will generally accuse others of being victims of western colonialism.

    both christianity and islam are hard core colonizing religions. their merciless evangelizing produces a stockholm syndrome where the subjects come to extol every barbaric outrage of the colonizer as desirable and every vestige of their own past as jahiliyya or pagan.

    no wonder people without single mid eastern gene in their dna will talk as if they are the descendants of the barbaric invaders. indians that convert to or revert go one step further. they become more muslim/christian than the colonizers themselves. the final result is neophytes that speak on behalf of their own god. for they know their god cannot as much as grunt a little.

    colonization is born out of a sense of hubris and arrogance from believing that everyone else's religion is false and their's alone is true. it is absolutely mind-boggling to read the followers of these religions write about "humility".

    now add the inherent inferiority of the invaded and you have the strange but common phenomena of the victims vigorously defending the perpetrators.

    so it is pathetic for the victims of one colonial excess to try and pick holes in the story of the victims of another.

    both islam as well as christianity have had grand dreams of world domination. for a short while the rest of the world was caught in this nightmare. the golden age of islam was a leaden age for the subcontinent. the glorious days of european colonization were the dark ages of the americas.

     but nothing is forever. even islam. or even christianity. or even colonization. now it is the turn of the middle eastern "refugees" to colonize europe.

    it is really an irony of fate that indians who were subdued by arabian colonialism are accusing others of being victims of european colonization.

    the final victory of any colonizer is when the subjects come to believe that their subjugation was for the better and as victims, they deserved it.

    but in the final analysis, both are victims. and both religions are constantly trying to convert, revert, or whatever from this inborn hubris of the colonizer coupled with the inferiority of the colonized mind.

    made for each other.
    By hats off! - 1/1/2019 5:36:41 PM



  • Naseer sb.,

    Please do not put words in my mouth because doing so makes you a liar. The Quran is a divinely inspired book. One must take into account an overly inclusive compilation (which occurred 20 years after the Prophet's death) as well as elaborations of the divine message to make it suitable for the population of that time and that place. Both these processes lead to inclusion of 7th century Arab material. Saying so does not mean I am claiming to be wiser than anybody but simply pointing out that we must make a distinction between wahi material and medieval Arab material. 

    Your foolishness lies in the fact that you want to blindly believe everything  you read and suspend your own judgement as if God has asked us not to use our intelligence and common sense. When a verse does not sound right, you simply invent a new meaning for it! Your methods are mendacious and dishonest.

    What you call "condition precedent" is not a "condition" at all but a statement of fact. Your comment, "a man who is dependent on his wife has no option except to live under his wife’s terms or get kicked out," cannot be derived from 4:34. You have invented it to suit your purpose. Also, when you say, "The Quran is not preventing the wife from chastising her errant husband," you are giving her a right that the Quran does not give. By the way, equality does not imply right to retaliation. Talking of "interdependence" but not talking of equality is the kind of hypocrisy which has kept women suppressed for centuries. Saying that 4:34  exemplifies  "what works best in each situation," is again your invention. You must stop such dishonest and inventive arguments. I don't think anyone is fooled by them.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/1/2019 1:40:04 PM



  • Ibn Muhammad Sb,
    Javed Ahmed Ghamidi is a moderate but very much a traditionalist and makes the same mistakes as the other traditionalists do. I have written an article based on correspondence with his associate Shehzad Saleem and the book "Playing God".
    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/1/2019 12:51:29 AM



  • GM Sb,

    The problem with you is that you refuse to understand anything. Your starting premise that the Book is the work of a 7th century human and not the word of Allah, and that you are wiser than this 7th century author of the Book, is a false premise. You will therefore always find that your objections and prescriptions are devoid of wisdom and extremely foolish. Moreover, all your views are grounded in the current values of the western civilization and its notions of political correctness. These are neither proven nor permanent nor in the best interests of the most vulnerable sections of the society.  These values are hypocritical and exploitative and perpetuate and accentuate the differences between the haves and have-nots. The western values are also exploitative of the female which is why modesty and hijab offend them so much. Even a white woman not wearing hijab but wanting to dress modestly, faces opprobrium and ostracism in that society.  The ordinary western woman is brainwashed into thinking that dressing and acting provocatively is a freedom when they are being coerced into such behaviour by the perverted norms of that society. The western woman is anything but free, and submits to the demanding norms of her sexually perverted society. This is why more western women are attracted to Islam than their men and the first thing they do on conversion is wear a hijab.

    You forget that it is the revelations alone that have given us the criterion of right and wrong without which you would still have been a “prehistoric insignificant animal with no more impact on your environment than gorillas, fireflies or jellyfish”. Therefore, show respect to the Quran and its verses. Else, you will only end up exposing your shallowness and lack of wisdom.

    I wish the people who would like to understand the Quran take a course in logic because the Quran conforms with every rule of logic, and the Book taken as whole, is logically consistent without a single contradiction.  Given this attribute of the Quran, what can be logically deduced from what is stated, is as valid as if the deduction was explicitly stated. Keep this in mind.

    General Applicability or Limited Applicability?

    The verse starts with a “condition precedent” which is “Men are the protectors and providers of their women and therefore…”. If the “condition precedent” is not satisfied, what follows does not apply.  There is a second “condition precedent”, which is the behaviour that attracts the chastisement. A verse with a “condition precedent” is not of general applicability and is only of limited applicability when the “condition precedent” is satisfied. This is simple logic. In this case, there is a main “condition precedent” and within it a second “condition precedent” that must be satisfied.

    Patriarchal or positive discrimination??

    The charge of patriarchy and inequality fall flat since it is possible to see what would happen if the “condition precedent” is satisfied in the reverse. We know that in every culture and in every society, a man who is dependent on his wife has no option except to live under his wife’s terms or get kicked out. As a matter of fact, the woman is under no obligation to maintain her husband and can straight away kick him out.  The charge of both inequality and patriarchy fall flat. The verse in fact discriminates in favour of the women in as much as it prescribes a process to be gone through, allowing the errant wife to mend her behaviour unacceptable in Islam, before proceeding to the next stage of arbitration and divorce. The woman can choose to short circuit the process and go for divorce straight away.

    Why there is no verse commanding the woman to chastise her errant husband?

    Because the Quran cannot and does not compel either the man or the woman to put up with the chastisement.

    The Quran is not preventing the wife from chastising her errant husband and as a matter of fact all wives do chastise their errant husbands. This power of the husband/wife to chastise their partner is however limited by the other partner’s tolerance for it because the Quran does not ask the guilty party to put up with the chastisement. Either partner can put their foot down in which case the other partner must put up with the behaviour or seek divorce. The divorce hurts the woman the most which is why the Quran mandates a process before seeking divorce when the woman is guilty of ill-conduct without compelling the woman to put up with the chastisement – she can choose divorce instead. The Quran does not however mandate the same process when the man is guilty because this could straight away lead to divorce which may not be what the woman wants. The woman must therefore exercise her judgment about how far she can go without jeopardising the marriage if she doesn’t want a break-up. If she doesn’t care if the there is a break-up, she can do whatever she pleases.

    Why the Law of equality is inapplicable?

    That the law of equality is inapplicable in such a relationship is obvious from the fact that a man cannot retaliate to a disloyal wife by being disloyal himself. That the relationship is of inter-dependence and of mutual rights and obligations, and not necessarily one in which the law of equality can be applied, should be clear.

    The Quran guides to what works best in each situation and in verse 4:34 is such guidance to enforce the Islamic norms of proper behaviour without jeopardising the marriage and without compulsion on any party. The advisory nature of the verse is obvious.

    It is GM sb who is trying to take us backward in time to the Pagan norms prevailing before the revelation of the Quran forgetting that it is Allah who has guided mankind into following his religion and bringing about the norms of behaviour in Muslim society that have made verse 4:34 only a reminder of what it was like before the revelation of the Quran.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/1/2019 12:45:32 AM



  • A crime is an act which is prohibited by law. Sex between two consenting adults is not a crime.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/1/2019 12:32:17 AM



  • What if people in the future might comment it infringes human right to own guns.  The State has to respect human right to own guns since these devices might not be for evil.  Guns can be used for good for protection and for evil, i.e. killing.  Those who use guns to kill have to be treated as sin and not crime and must not put in the jail to be beaten.  Men and women are to be treated fairly to respect them to own guns if they wish.  That is not true in Quran.  None should own guns so as to forbid them to do evil deed, i.e. killing.  This is due to all have to be judged by Allah in the last day that all who do evil deeds will have their destiny in hell.  Create right judgment in the State to execute appropriate punishment so as to create fear to prevent people to sin so that many can have the chance to paradise.  If no punishment for all who do evil deeds, none would have the fear of it and to commit as and when they wish. By zuma - 12/31/2018 7:56:16 PM



  • Should there be a possibility to set free all who commit evil deeds, i.e. killing, adulteries and etc., from jail or to be waiting to be sentenced to them so that all of them can be treated nicely?  No beating or killing is permissible to be done by State. Let all these evil deeds to be treated as sins.  Men and women have to be treated fairly.  The State should ban beating in the jail that none of them who kill or murder or steal or etc. shall be treated unfairly.  None shall be sentenced to death since all of them shall be treated fairly.  No killing is permissible since it is cruel to kill as compared to beating.  It is what the society wants.  If that is so, many shall not have the fear to commit evil deeds, i.e. killing, adultery, stealing and etc.  All the people in the country shall create havoc in the society since none of them have the fear since no punishment has been exerted if they commit these evil deeds.  Ultimately many of them have been thrown into hell and to be burnt. By zuma - 12/31/2018 2:50:23 PM



  • Does this mean equality among all the people who commit any kind of sins, i.e. stealing; murdering; cheating money from friends; causing vandalism in the public; creating havoc in the public; burning down buildings or cars and etc., that the court should set in such a way that none of them should be treated as crime but sin?  No beating and no killing by police or governors is permitted so that people can live what they like.  All the people have to be treated as fairly.  The most we treat them that commit to evil deeds as sins and do not associate with them but we must not put them in the jail to let others to be beaten or to be killed or to be sentenced to death.  None can treat them who do evil deeds to be as crime but sins.  Men and women have to be treated equally.  Let peace to be among all.  If any commit this evil deeds, forgive them, but no beating or jailing or even put them to death.  Let their evil deeds to be treated as merely crime.  No beating, please! By zuma - 12/31/2018 2:24:56 PM



  • Naseer sb.,
    Equality means the husband who is disloyal will get the same punishment that a disloyal wife gets. Equality means that neither partner is a monitor or an authority over the other, and neither partner can beat the other partner. When you allege that I advocate that the husband can retaliate in like manner by being disloyal, you are being deceptive as well as silly because I never said or even suggested that.

    I have never said anything good about infidelity. I criticize gender inequality and women being put on a lower footing, something that does not seem to bother you. Fidelity must be maintained through mutual respect, love and a sense of commitment. Fidelity must be between two equals, not between a master and an underling.

    Adultery has been decriminalized by India's Supreme Court. It is a breach of contract and must be addressed through mature remedial steps including, if unavoidable,  divorce. But no beating, please.

    You claim to understand Islam better than I do, but you are just stuck in 7th century Arabia. Islam for me is a living dynamic religion which is good for all times.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/31/2018 9:42:43 AM



  • How do you view Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and particularly his methodology of understanding the Qurr'an, Sunnah and Hadith as detailed in his book Meezaan? Have you gone through that? Would like to know your thoughts. If you have not, you can access this book online at 
    archive.org/details/Meezaan By Ibn Muhammad - 12/31/2018 4:37:56 AM



  • Zuma sb,
    GM sb has argued for decriminalizing adultery but treating it as a sin. Now he doesn't want disloyal behaviour to be corrected either. Obviously, he either does not believe in the Hereafter or he believes that God is not bothered about these matters and these are only man-made laws which must change with the times.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/31/2018 12:19:32 AM



  • GM Sb, You neither understand Islam nor are you willing to understand. In a situation in which the wife is guilty of disloyalty, what would the law of equality require? That the husband can retaliate in like manner by being disloyal. That is not allowed in Islam. The law of equality therefore fails in this situation. Apparently, that is what you want. What you want is therefore un-Islamic and puts you out of the pale of Islam. You have been arguing for decriminalizing adultery when adultery is the second most heinous sin in Islam second only to associating partners with Allah. Apparently, you do not think much of infidelity in marital relationships and are tolerant of pre-marital and extra-marital relationships. That simply is completely out of bounds as far as Islam is concerned.

     I positively affirm verse 4:34 and its clear meaning and repeat that an overwhelming majority of Muslim men and women are not bothered by it because they will never have to resort to its provisions. The women to whom this verse would justly apply, deserve to be chastised and can instead ask for a divorce. You are OK with a divorce so what is your problem if an alternative to divorce is provided and if there are women who would prefer the alternative? You seem to be an enemy of such women just to please the ones who want the freedom to flirt and are offended by verse 4:34 because it rules out such freedom! As far as your society which is tolerant of infidelity is concerned, no one is forcing you to chastise your women when they are disloyal. You are free to live by the law of equality but should know that this behaviour falls outside the pale of Islam.  I thank Allah for verse 4:34 that enables putting across the point clearly. The verse prevents many men/women from un-Islamic behaviour and makes known to those who violate these norms that they are outside the pale of Islam.

     This discussion started with “taking the best meaning of any verse” and even in a case of a verse that is advisory,  and a word that has a range of meanings, the Quran makes it clear that taking the meaning of i’ribūhunna” as“strike/beat” is very much intended and cannot be ruled out. The Quran is a Book that makes the meaning clear and any doubt can be cleared with the help of other verses from the Quran. We establish once again, that the argument of the would-be reformists for “re-interpretation” is nonsensical, and the only argument that makes sense, is to take the meaning shorn of all interpretations of the traditionalists as well as the modernists.

     Islam is indeed a complete and perfected religion and the pity is that the would-be reformists do not even understand this simple fact even though Allah says so explicitly in verse 5:3. They will therefore drift aimlessly like jetsam. The text of the Quran will remain unchanged and its single meaning will remain ascertainable with reference to the Quran itself. The Quran is the first Book that satisfies the requirements of secured communication protecting both the text and the meaning from corruption. The question is whether you are seeking the meaning or are just seeking to interpret it your way. Those who seek to interpret rather than seek the meaning are the ones who have gone astray.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/31/2018 12:10:11 AM



  • It seems irrational that Quran does not give instruction to punish those people to commit adultery.  If that were true that Quran gives instruction that none should punish those who commit adultery, many women and men were not warned the seriousness to guard what Allah wants them to guard.  Many could seek to do evil deeds, i.e. not to guard what Allah guards to look for opposite sex partners and to commit adultery with them at the absence of their life partners since they do not feel guilty to do act contrarily against Allah's words.  Nobody warns them and nobody punishes them.  They do what they wish.  They feel happily to commit adultery since none warn them and none punish them.  Easy going.  People seek to commit adultery and have no fear since none would punish them.  Many would turn up to have their destiny to hell due to no punishment for them and they feel free to do evil deeds, i.e. purposely look for other opposite sex partners to commit adultery, they make. By zuma - 12/30/2018 2:12:39 PM



  • Naseer sb.,
    So are you going to use the Quran to perpetuate your backward views on women's status and rights? Are you going to use deceptive words such as "interdependence" in order to continue suppressing women?
    Are you now saying that a verse of obvious general applicability has suddenly become a verse of limited applicability? Are you creating your own laws of what happens  "if the relationship is reversed"? Don't you think your concept of  "dependent female partner" is antiquated and shows your own hierarchical patriarchal mindset?
    Is not the claim that 4:34 only applies to some couples and not to others your own invention? Would not a divine 4:34 which is applicable to all times simply say, "Deal with all disagreements and disputes through civilized and humane means"?
    And why do you have to be so rude to me? Is it because you can't find any sensible answers to my questions? By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/30/2018 1:28:27 PM



  • The Quran does not require to be defended. I am trying to explain to a person who is apparently devoid of understanding. The relationship between a man and his wife is of inter-dependence and not of equality. It is a relationship of mutual rights and obligations.

     Verse 4:34 has a clearly stated condition in which it applies. The condition is if the man is the provider and protector of his wife. If the relationship is reversed and the woman becomes the protector and provider for her husband, as explained in my previous comment, the man will be kicked out for being dependent alone. The Quran does not find anything wrong with that. Else, there would have been a verse covering such a situation to protect the marriage. Verse 4:34 therefore is an instance of positive discrimination trying to protect a marriage even though the dependent female partner is both disobedient and disloyal. In the absence of 4:34, the husband would divorce such a wife without a second thought. This of course applies only to those Muslims who follow their religion in matters of modesty and rules of conduct while dealing with strangers of the opposite sex.

    In a situation in which the woman is financially independent, the condition is not satisfied either way, and the verse does not apply. They are both free to live together as long as it pleases both of them and part ways when it does not.

     People like GM sb may be living according to a different set of rules. All that such people need to know is that 4:34 is an advisory and does not force them to chastise their women if they do not find the behaviour which is the subject of the verse, objectionable.

     It is GM sb’s objections to the Quran that are always hollow and nonsensical. He lacks even the wisdom to realize his limitations. He is also lacking in a knowledge of the Quran. Else, he would have known that similar questions have been asked by people even while the Quran was being revealed. Allah has created us and not the other way around. What Allah wants of us, He has made clear through His revelations in the Quran and to those who use Allah’s gift of intellect, He makes clear the meaning, purpose and the wisdom in each of Allah’s commands, general principles  and advisories.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/29/2018 11:54:19 PM



  • Naseer sb. now defends 4:34 on the grounds that the man is a provider and that if the woman was the provider, she would treat an offending husband much worse than 4:34 requires.

    These are hollow arguments. A man provides and a woman cooks, keeps house, bears children,  breast-feeds them and takes care of them. That makes them equal. Neither has a right to beat the other. If there are problems in the marriage, they should discuss them, or get outside help or get a divorce. Whatever they do, they must maintain their equality. One is not a parent and the other is not a child. One is not a boss and the other is not a servant.
     
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/29/2018 12:50:32 PM



  • Take a situation in which the woman is the provider. Will she tolerate such behaviour by the man?  She will not go through the process of admonishing first, denying sex, beating him etc. The woman will kick her man out simply for being dependent on her and not even wait for him to show disobedience or infidelity on top of dependence. Where is the inequality then? The men are being asked to be more considerate than a woman would be in a similar situation.
     As far as the misbehaviour of men is concerned, what makes you think that their women do not chastise them for bad behaviour? Or that they cannot seek justice, arbitration or divorce? It is the women who take their men to the authorities seeking justice and rarely the other way around. Men are quite often the victims of domestic physical or psychological violence, but this issue is under reported for obvious reasons.
    When Allah says that He has perfected the religion with the revelation of the Quran it means that Islam maintains the perfect balance between mutual rights and obligations. Verse 4:34 has created the right conditions for domestic peace and happiness and prevented countless divorces. It is human stupidity that raises such doubts and misgivings.
    To remind you once again, the verse does not lay down a law but is advisory in nature. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/29/2018 3:02:04 AM



  • If women feel that men should have the same punishment as women for punishment, men should follow accordingly since Quran 4:19 (Mohsin Khan translation, mentions) "...You are forbidden to inherit women against their will...".  Now women's will is to have men to receive the same punishment as them.  Men should tolerate it since Quran 4:19, "(mentions)...(men) are forbidden to inherit women against their will (since their will is to have men to have equal punishment with them) ." By zuma - 12/29/2018 1:58:58 AM



  • Naseer sb. says, " If you however you ask Muslim women their opinion about verse 4:34, they would say that if there are women who are guilty of the behaviour described in 4:34, they deserve to be chastised."

    I do not know any Muslim women who would agree with that. And what about men who behave in a manner similar to the behavior described in 4:34? Who is going to chastise them?
    By saying that accepting such gender unjust laws is essential in order to be a Muslim you are insulting Islam. Don't you want our own religion to be fair, just, rational and enlightened? Don't you want Islam to be the best that it can be?
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/28/2018 11:56:46 PM



  • When Muslim men read verse 4:34, they realize that it is inapplicable to them and their women.
     When Muslim women read 4:34, they know that it does not apply to them because their behaviour is far above the behaviour described in the verse that merits chastisement. If you however you ask Muslim women their opinion about verse 4:34, they would say that if there are women who are guilty of the behaviour described in 4:34, they deserve to be chastised, and if they do not mend their ways, they deserve to be divorced.
    So, who are offended by verse 4:34? Those that are guilty of the behaviour described in the verse and their men who allow such behaviour. What they say doesn’t matter.
    Muslim society has zero tolerance for the behaviour described in verse 4:34, and if this verse is responsible for creating such a society, then praise be to Allah for its revelation.
    There is no compulsion in religion. Those who do not like the religion of Islam are free to take a different course. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/28/2018 10:52:26 PM



  • Quran 4:34 (Yusuf Ali translation), "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means.  Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and GUARD in (husband's) absence WHAT ALLAH WOULD HAVE THEM GUARD.  As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (light): but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)."

    The phrase, guard...Allah would have them guard, as mentioned here refers to these women should have done certain evil that Allah wants them to guard in which they ignore. In the book of Quran, the only thing that Allah wants men and women to guard is adultery. Quran 17:32, (Yusuf Ali translation, mentions), "Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)."  As Quran 17:32 condemns adultery to be evil, it is an evil deed for women to have adultery with other men apart from their husbands.  As Quran 17:32 condemns adultery to be evil, adultery is considered to be impure.  Quran 8:37, "(mentions) In order that Allah may separate the impure from the pure, put the impure, one on another, heap them together, and cast them into hell.  They will be the ones to have lost." 

    As Quran 8:37 mentions Allah will cast the impure into hell, it implies Allah will cast those who commit adultery into hell due to the evil deed, i.e. adultery, that they have committed. To these women who do not guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard to avoid adultery with other men, these women have to be punished for their disloyalty and ill-conduct.  In the state, severe punishment has been exerted to them due to these women do not guard themselves what Allah has forbidden them to do, i.e. adultery. 

    The same is in Shih International translation that Quran 4:34, (has been translated as)...righteous women are devoutly obedient, GUARDING in [the husband's] absence WHAT ALLAH WOULD HAVE THEM GUARD.  But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed, and [finally], strike them...". 

    Again the phrase, what Allah would have them guard, is mentioned.  The so-called, what Allah would have them guard, here refers inevitably to adultery since the entire Quran warns women not to do evil deeds.  The destiny of evil deed is to hell.  From the Quran, the only evil deed that Quran warns women is not to commit adultery.  To these women whom men have the fear of their arrogance due to they insist to commit evil deeds, ie. adultery with other men, [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. 

    As the phrase, strike them, in this verse is only for those women who do not guard what Allah would have them guard, it implies that this verse does not apply to all other women who do not commit adultery with other men.  As this verse does not apply to those women who commit evil deed, i.e. adultery, to what Allah demands them not to do, this verse does not encourage men to beat women whenever they like. It only permits on one occasion and that is if these women are stubborn to persist to break Allah's law so as not to guard what Allah would want them to guard and that is to persist in committing adultery with other men with repentance.  Women have to discipline themselves that they have to guard what Allah would have them guard, i.e. to avoid adultery with other men since Quran mentions they who do evil deed, i.e. adultery, will have their destiny in hell. 

    As these verse only applies to those women who does not guard themselves to do thing what is forbidden by Allah, i.e. adultery, this verse does not permit men to anyhow beat women if they do not commit adultery with other men.
    By zuma - 12/28/2018 7:39:38 PM



  • Naseer sb.,
    I was not giving an interpretation of  i'ribūhunna”. If it means "wife-beating", then I cannot call it the word of God.
    You said, "There is hardly a person who does not have others who have authority over them to ensure compliance with reasonable rules." Does the husband have authority over his wife? Are not marriage partners equal?
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/28/2018 12:20:03 PM



  • The word “apologist” does not apply to me. It applies to those who would rather not translate i'ribūhunna as “strike/beat” but use euphemisms instead in order to remain politically correct. For example, Yunus sb prefers to translate it as “assert”. The problem with an open-ended “assert” is the question in what manner does one assert one’s authority to ensure compliance. You are giving too much leeway to the individual here to interpret as he wishes since there are infinite ways of asserting one’s authority to ensure compliance such as:

    ·        Deprivation of food

    ·        Solitary confinement

    ·        Shaming them

    ·        Beating them

    So, what is gained by using “assert” which includes other more demeaning forms of coercion without eliminating beating?

    You have said that according to some female Quranic scholars it can also mean "have sexual intercourse with them." Are these female Quranic scholars advocating sex as a punishment for disobedience and disloyalty which is the subject of the verse? Maybe, being chained like a slave and being sexually ravaged is their sexual fantasy. Who are these sexually perverted female Quranic scholars?

    Is the punishment more demeaning or the behaviour for which the punishment is prescribed? Why should a normal Muslim woman who will never adopt such behaviour be offended by verse 4:34? Where is the equality that you speak of? The State has the authority to punish you if you commit crimes. There is hardly a person who does not have others who have authority over them to ensure compliance with reasonable rules.

    A woman is free to include in her marriage contract a clause that her husband is free to divorce her but not free to use any form of physical violence. A Muslim male is also free to allow his women the freedom to adopt the norms of behaviour in modern western society or those that were common among the Pagan Arabs. Do not however try to force your ideas on all Muslims who are perfectly happy to live according to their religion.

     Allah did indeed perfect His religion and complete it in the Quran and every verse of the Quran is proof of it.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/28/2018 2:02:34 AM



  • Though Naseer sb. means well, he has unwittingly become an apologist for 4:34. The advice given in that verse can in fact be the advice given by any sensible and respected elder of that time. Words of divine origin however should be valid for all times and all places. They would affirm equal status of men and women and would condemn any spousal beating. A divine message does not have to address  all possible situations. Statements to the effect that all are equal in the eyes of God and that we should treat each other with respect should be enough for the wise.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/27/2018 1:26:22 PM



  • Women have to obey their husbands since Quran 4:34 (Mohsin Khan translation, mentions), "...the righteous women are devoutly obedience (to Allah and to their husbands)...". By zuma - 12/27/2018 3:14:07 AM



  • Where does Quran support women need not to obey their husbands?  Can women have adultery with other men by not listening to their husbands and secretly having affair with them?  Anyway, Quran 24:3 forbids married women to have adultery with other men.  The extracts below support Quran promotes mutual agreement between men and women instead of adhering to oneself, i.e. only listening to women or only listening to men: Quran 2:232 (Mohsin Khan translation), "...they mutually agree on reasonable basis..."; Quran 2:233, "...by mutual consent...";  Quran 4:24, "agree mutually..."; Quran 4:29, "...by mutual consent..."
    By zuma - 12/27/2018 2:50:13 AM



  • Quran 2:240 (Mohsin Khan translation, mentions), "...it is honourable (i.e.lawful marriage)...".  As Quran treats lawful marriage to be honourable, it demands Muslims to treat lawful marriage as honourable and should not treat marriage as changing clothing.  Change as you wish.  Instead, men and women have to respect lawful marriage.
    By zuma - 12/27/2018 2:31:26 AM



  • Regarding to marriage and divorce and how Muslim men should treat women depend.  If majority of women accept the divorce as what Quran mentions, it deems fine.  However, the society changes.  Would women in this society not agree with what the Quran mentions pertaining to divorce?  Quran 4:19 (Mohsin Khan translation, supports the alternative since it mentions)...You are forbidden to inherit women against their will (if majority of the women' will in this modern days feel that their divorce should not be in this way or in other way, let it be)."  The reason is simple Quran 4:19, "(demands men to respect women that) You are forbidden to inherit (or to marry or to have your wives) women against their will...".  Thus, it is not compulsion for women to follow exactly the rule of divorce in Quran since society changes.  Men should respect women to have the changes.  Remember!  Quran 4:19, "(mentions)...You are forbidden to inherit women against their will...".  Respect women so as to inherit them.  The same as some Muslims might abuse women to beat them since Quran mentions it.  However, Quran demands men not to be things against their will.  Do you think women will set their will to have men to be beaten after their marriage? By zuma - 12/27/2018 1:55:37 AM



  • Naseer Ahmed mentions: "A woman’s testimony is not worth half of that of a man’s testimony. The Quran allows women the privilege and option of witnessing and testifying jointly consulting each other. This is not a legal requirement but an option and a privilege." If the word, women, in Quran 4:19 has to refer to your mother, Quran 4:90 (Mohsin Khan translation, mentions)...You are forbidden to inherit women (or to allow your mother to be your mother) (to be) against their will..(if their will is to have you to respect them to get the rational portion for them...)." If the word, women, in Quran 4:19, "(has to refer to your wife then)...You are forbidden to inherit (or to treat your wife to be your wife) (to be) against their will (if their will is for you to treat them fairly...". If the word, women, in Quran 4:19, "(has to refer to your daughters, then) You are forbidden to inherit women (or treat them to be your daughters) (to be) against their will (if their will is to have fair share and fair treatment the same as their brothers)...". It is obvious that Quran 4:19 demands Muslim men to treat women well and to respect their will instead of against their will. If Quran 4:19 demands Muslim men to respect women and not to do things against their will, it is wrong for men to force women to do things they do not like, such as, forcing their daughters to marry men they do not like. By zuma - 12/27/2018 1:33:53 AM



  • What is moral is that which produces the maximum good for the weakest section of the society. Anything that hinders what is good for the weakest section of society is immoral.

    The financially independent women are in no way affected by verse 4:34. They need not put up with any of the demands of their husbands since divorce does not affect them more than it affects their husband. They can expect and demand equality in all respects.

     A vast majority of the Muslim women do not behave in a manner that requires their husbands to resort to any of the measures outlined in verse 4:34. They are both conscious and observant of their role and responsibilities. Therefore I said that verse 4:34 was for the society transitioning from Pagan norms to Islamic norms.

     Verse 4:34 is to correct those women who err seriously enough to merit a divorce, but who will be devastated if divorced. The verse does not give the husband more power than he needs to fulfil his responsibility and obligations under the contract of marriage.

     Corporal punishment has been a feature of the divine law all through the ages and has proved effective in making the people practice Allah's religion. The revelations through the ages proves that Allah is very much interested in promoting the well-being of mankind. Allah is not as you imagine "sitting in His lofty pedestal" unconcerned about us.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/27/2018 1:23:04 AM



  • Naseer Ahmed mentions in the scripture above that"The polytheists (Mushrikin) who had not fought against the Muslims in violation of their treaty had a right to retain their faith and become jiziya paying citizens." This statement seems a little contradiction against Quran 4:90. This is my explanation: Quran 4:90, "(mentions) if they...offer you peace (or to have peace treaty with you), then Allah has opened no way for you against them." For instance, if Quran demands the polytheists (Mushrikin) who had not fought against the Muslims in violation of their treaty had a right to retain their faith to pay jizyah, Quran 4:90 (Moshin Khan translation, should mention)...if they...offer you peace, then Allah (shall continue to)..open...for you against them (until they pay jizyah).". As Quran 4:90, "(mentions)...if they...offer you peace, then Allah has opened no way for you against them (to force them to pay jizyah to them).", it implies jizyah is no compulsion for those polytheists to cease battle with Muslims. By zuma - 12/27/2018 1:15:37 AM



  • Naseer Ahmed mentions Islam does not justify any other cause for fighting – not even fighting to end disbelief. If Quran 4:90, "(supports people fight is to end disbelief, why should this verse mentions) if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allah has opened no way for you against them."? Instead, Quran 4:90 should mention they should continue to fight to end disbelief even if they withdraw from you and fight not and offer you peace and that Allah will open way for Muslims to be against them. As Quran 4:90 mention to call Muslims to stop fighting when non-Muslims stop, it implies Quran does not demand fighting to end disbelief. By zuma - 12/27/2018 1:00:30 AM



  • Some might condemn Quran to contain there is a mistake in Quran since why Quran 9:29 demands jizyah and yet Quran 4:90 does not demand it. The reason is simple that non-Muslims during the era of Islam were violent and they were the ones who Quran 2:191 (Mohsin Khan translation), "...(first) fight you (Muslims)...if they attack you, then kill them..". As non-Muslims during the era of Muslims were violent, it caused Quran 9:29 to impose jizyah to force them to cease battle. If they did not cease battle, they had to pay jizyah to Muslims for the damages that they caused to them. However, Quran 4:90 (Moshin Khan translation), "...if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allah has opened no way for you against them." As Allah has opened no way for you to be against them if they cease fighting, it is irrational for Muslims to be still against them to collect jizyah from them. Thus, the whole story was vivid in the past that the reason why Quran 9:29 to impose jizyah was non-Muslims continued battled with Muslims to cause many damages that they had and Muslims demanded them to compensate the cost that they had lost during the battle with them. However, Allah has opened no way for Muslims to be against them if they withdraw their battle against them since their cease in battle would lighten their cost in reconstruction of the whole cities as a result of the damages that caused by non-Muslims. As non-Muslims did not battle against Muslims, jizyah is not compulsion for non-Muslims. By zuma - 12/27/2018 12:53:58 AM



  • Naseer Ahmed, You should not have the fear to defend your truth if your truth is strongly ground in Quran. By zuma - 12/27/2018 12:34:53 AM



  • What Naseer Ahmed commented in the above article seems rationally since he mentions :
    "Jizya as implemented by the Prophet (pbuh), was not a religious requirement under Islam, but a negotiated agreement between the parties. It was value for money."  
    My reasoning is simply that even though Quran 9:29 (Mohsin Khan translation, mentions), "Fight against those who (1) believe not not in Allah....those acknowledge not the religion of truth...Islam..., until they pay jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdue.", yet Quran 4:90 does not enforce jizyah to be a must to non-Muslim fighters.  If Quran 4:90, (Mohsin Khan translation, would enforce it to make it a compulsion for them to be jizyah, it should not mention)...if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allah has opened no way for you against them."  Instead, Quran 4:90 should mention if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, ignore them until they pay jizyah then stop fighting with them.  As Quran 4:90 does not enforce jizya upon the pagans to pay jizyah, it is rational for Naseer Ahmed to conclude there is no compulsion for jizyah.
    By zuma - 12/27/2018 12:31:22 AM



  • Naseer sb.,

    Do you really believe God advises us from His lofty pedestal to strike our wives when other measures have failed? I can't imagine God giving such advice. Can you? I think I have a much higher regard for the Quran than you seem to have.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/27/2018 12:13:58 AM



  • People like GM sb and the reformists with an inferiority complex about Islam, spread only confusion. Let us analyse the meaning of “iḍ'ribūhunna” in verse 4:34. Let us for argument’s sake agree that the word has a range of meanings and “beating” is only one of them. Can we then say that a translation of the verse in which the word is translated as “beating” or equivalent is incorrect? No, we cannot, because the Quran uses the word to mean “strike” in several verses such as:

    2:60 And [recall] when Moses prayed for water for his people, so We said, "Strike (id’rib) with your staff the stone."

    2:73 So, We said, "Strike (i'ribūhu)  the slain man with part of it." 

    8:12 [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] (fa-i'ribū) upon the necks and strike (wa-i'ribū) from them every fingertip."

    So, if Allah did not want us to take its meaning as “beating” or “striking”, He would have not used this word, but a more appropriate word, and if there was no appropriate word, then a full description of what was intended. So, there goes the argument for taking an alternative meaning.

    Having said that, let us analyse the verse: (4:34) Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband´s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

    1. Men have a responsibility to protect their women and this responsibility comes with the right to lay down the rules and have these obeyed to ensure that their women are not exposed unduly to known dangers or to situations that make their protection difficult.

    2. The wife has an obligation to obey her husband who is her protector (even the President of the US has no option but to follow what his personal security would have him follow)

    3. The verse is attempting to bring about reconciliation in a situation where there is a conflict and prevent divorce. The husband undeniably has the upper hand merely on account of being in the position of “provider and protector” and in a situation where the wife is financially dependent upon the husband, divorce hurts her very much. This is what the verse is trying to prevent.

    4. Even in the US today, Common Couple Violence (CCV) as the term suggests, is common, and recognized as an effective mechanism for conflict resolution among young couples in the initial years of their marriage. They eventually settle down with a better understanding of each other. In later years, CCV either does not recur or becomes rare.

    5. There is no compulsion for the woman to follow the rules laid down by her husband. Divorce is always an option.

    6. In today’s world, the women are independent and may not need any protection and may therefore not submit to their husbands which is fine. There is no compulsion. We may simply have more divorces which is also fine.

    7. Moreover, this verse is only an advisory verse and no man will be punished for not following the outlined course in the given situation. The Prophet never beat any of his wives but then they were all obedient to him and observed the required decorum.  

    8. The verse and its meaning are however clear and that will not change. The Quran is a Book of guidance for those who pay heed. There is no compulsion in religion.

    9. What we do not need is for the hypocrites to play havoc with the meaning of the Quran. These people are slaves of the western civilization and its notions of what is politically correct and unashamedly playing to the gallery.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/26/2018 11:42:48 PM



  • GM sb concludes that my explanation is "inventive and false" without telling us which part is inventive and which part is false. He is the one who is lying. He is frustrated because his repeated attempts to malign the Quran by saying that it is not the word of Allah have failed miserably as they surely will.

    (21:18) Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us).

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/26/2018 10:25:40 PM



  • How to treat women bad?  Quran 4:19, "...(mentions) You are forbidden to inherit women against their will...".  Muslim men can say they have the right to beat their wives and to exercise violence against them.  However, women have the choice not to inherit them or to divorce them since Quran 4:19 (Moshin Khan translation, mentions), "...You are forbidden to inherit women against their will...".  If Muslim men would maltreat their wives, they have the right to divorce them accordingly to Quran 4:19.  This is by virtue of they cannot use force to inherit them that is against their will not to have them to be husbands.  In order to build a good relationship with them and to ensure their wives' will is always to have them to be their husbands, they must not maltreat them.  Give them respect so that their will is always to have them to be their husbands.  Isn't it good to both of them?  Husbands treat their wives good in order to win their favour to have them to be in their will for them to be their husbands forever.  
    Can husbands force their wives to give mahr to them?  Certainly not!  This is due to again Quran 4:19, "..You are forbidden to inherit women against their will.." if their will is not to give mahr to them to treat them as transacted goods.
    By zuma - 12/26/2018 9:06:56 PM



  • Naseer sb.'s explanation of 4:34 is obviously inventive and false. What he is doing is a lot worse than "interpretation". He is coming up with lawyerly defenses for a verse which is derogatory to women. He does not have the courage to say that God, the beneficent and merciful, could not have said such words, and that words of human origin have crept into the Quran because of faulty compilation which took place some twenty years after the Prophet's death.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/26/2018 1:10:47 PM



  • Verse 4:34 is for a society that is transitioning from the Pagan norms in which the women freely associated with other men and had sexual relations with them in the absence of their husbands and its subject is therefore “… and guard in (the husband´s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct…….”. There were still some women who did not observe the restraints imposed by Islam to avoid situations in which sexual liaison with men other than their husbands can occur. It is such women who had to be brought under control or divorced. Once the Islamic norms of behaviour took roots, verse 4:34 has become redundant, and any woman who resorts to such behaviour is divorced without further ado. No one who faces disobedience and loose conduct of his wife in his absence, goes through the steps outlined in verse 4:34, since the expected behaviour is well-established and any deliberate/wilful misconduct results straight away in divorce.
    There is no punishment in the Hereafter for bypassing verse 4:34 and divorcing a wife who wilfully disregards reasonable restraints imposed by Islam since in Islam, neither the man nor the woman needs a reason for divorce. There is no compulsion in Islam to remain married until death do the couple apart.
    The advisory nature of the verse is obvious and does not have to come with a tag saying it is advisory. I am not aware of any exegete who follows my methodology of systematic study of the Quran.
    Islamic scholarship continues to be in the state Biology was before Darwin. Prior to Charles Darwin, biology was a mass of unrelated facts about nature. Darwin tied them together in three principles of evolution: 1. Random genetic variation, 2. Struggle for existence and 3. Natural selection.  We do not need to know every detail today, and a mere sample is necessary to understand the universal principles and make sense of the world of biology. The bane of Islamic scholarship is that it still struggles as the biologists did prior to Darwin and it would help if they made the clear distinction between:
    1. Verses that are transactional from which the underlying principles need to be derived
    2. Verses that are advisory in nature
    3. Verses that are the commands to be followed.
    It is the lack of a proper methodology that results in taking transactional verses such as 9:5 as an eternal command and an eternal command such as in verse 2:256 to which the Shan-e-Nuzul or the context of revelation is applied, making it transactional! By Naseer Ahmed - 12/25/2018 11:57:05 PM



  • An "advisory" from God Almighty is equivalent to a command. The Quran itself does not define words like  "advisory" or "command" and it also does not define the difference between them. These are the inventions of the exegetes.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/25/2018 11:52:55 AM



  • The correct understanding of verse 4:34 is covered in my article: 

     Qur’anic Wisdom: Marriage and Treatment of Women

    This is another advisory verse (and not a command of Allah) on the best way to deal with a wife guilty of disloyalty and ill-conduct. The measures suggested are admonishment, forsaking in bed and wa-iḍ'ribūhunna. Since it is an advisory verse and not a command of Allah, it is permissible to take any steps, and in any order, and even steps not mentioned in the verse which are not otherwise forbidden, to ensure that the marriage survives.  Iḍ'ribūhunna  is unmistakably the final clear warning/step  before initiating divorce/arbitration proceedings discussed in the next verse. Many women even today would prefer a slap to being threatened with divorce and Common Couple Violence (CCV) to settle differences in the initial years of marriage, is common in all cultures and in every strata of society and has proved to be effective in conflict resolution. The Qur’an is not a Book of political correctness and does not rule out taking iḍ'ribūhunna to mean striking, but  as I said, this being an advisory verse, you are free to take the advise or follow another legitimate course.

     What needs to be kept in mind is that the wife can put her foot down on any step/measure taken by the husband, in which case, he is left with no alternative but to desist from that step or seek divorce.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/25/2018 1:48:14 AM



  • Naseer sb.,
    Let me quote from IslamicCity:
    "Arabic is a language whose words can have multiple, sometimes contradictory, meanings, so how one chooses to render a particular word from Arabic to English has a lot to do with one's biases or prejudice. Take the following example from Sura 4:34, which has long been interpreted as allowing husbands to beat their wives: "As for those women who might rebel against you, admonish them, abandon them in their beds, and strike them (adribuhunna)." The problem, as a number of female Quranic scholars have noted, is that adribuhunnacan also mean "turn away from them." It can even mean "have sexual intercourse with them." Obviously, which definition the translator chooses will be colored by whatever his or her preconceived notions are about a husband's authority. The new crop of Quran translators are brushing aside centuries of traditionalist, male-dominated, and often misogynistic clerical interpretations in favor of a more contemporary, more individualized, and often more gender-friendly approach to the Quran. In the process, they are not only reshaping the way Islam's holy book is read; they are reinterpreting the way Islam itself is being understood in the modern world." By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/25/2018 12:16:50 AM



  • GM Sb,

    Why don't you employ my technique to prove your point? Quote one Word/Command of Allah, the meaning of which is not clear  and requires taking the best meaning? The best of any command is in the manner in which it is obeyed.

    "Be kind to parents" has only one meaning but in practicing it, it can range from - not being unkind, to being fully responsive to all their physical, emotional, and financial needs and comforts. There are infinite variations in the practice.
     
    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/24/2018 10:21:47 PM



  • To say that "Follow the best thereof" means "obey in the best possible manner" is a stretch. To use other verses to get a desired meaning out of a particular verse is a technique that Naseer sb. follows, but it is misleading and can be deceptive.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/24/2018 2:32:16 PM



  • Here are a few of the commands of Allah. The commands are very clear. Excellence can therefore be only on how one practices the command.

    Worship only God: Take not with Allah another object of worship; (Quran 17:22)


    Salat and Charity:

     (7:170) As to those who hold fast by the Book and establish regular prayer,- never shall We suffer the reward of the righteous to perish.

     (there is a world of difference between mere compliance and excellence in performing salat and holding fast by the Book.

    Charity

    (3:92) By no means shall ye attain righteousness unless ye give (freely) of that which ye love; and whatever ye give, of a truth Allah knoweth it well.

                                                                                      

    Be Honest and Fair In One's Interactions: Give full measure when ye measure, and weigh with a balance that is straight: that is the most fitting and the most advantageous in the final determination. (Quran 17:35)

     (55:9) So establish weight with justice and fall not short in the balance.

    (One example of excellence practiced by Merchants who do not wish to violate this command of Allah is that although the Department of weights and measures allows a tolerance of say minus 0.2%, they calibrate their scales/weights to err on the plus side (say +.1%) always giving the customer more but never less.

    Be Kind, Honourable And Humble To One's Parents:

     

     Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents. (Quran 17:23)

     

    Care For Orphaned Children:

     Come not nigh to the orphan's property except to improve it, until he attains the age of full strength...(Quran 17:34)

     

    Repel Evil with Good and Forgiveness:

     

    41:34 Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and you was hatred become as it were your friend and intimate!

     

    Sanctity Of Human Life

     

    Nor take life – which Allah has made sacred – except for just cause. (Quran 17:33)

     

    Freeing of Slaves:

     

    (9:60) Zakat money collected by the state can be used to free slaves

     

    (2:177) It is righteousness to spend of your substance, out of love for Him for the ransom of slaves;

     

    (24:33) ....And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you

     

    Free a slave for the expiration of sins such as: 1. Wrongful divorce (58:3) 2 Violating of oath 5:89 3) Killing by mistake (4:92)

     

    Free men and women are encouraged to marry a slave 4:3, 4:25

     

    Do Not Commit Adultery: Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils). (Quran 17:32)

     

    Keep One's Promises: ...fulfill (every) engagement [i.e. promise/covenant], for (every) engagement will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning). (Quran 17:34)


    Humility:  Nor walk on the earth with insolence: for thou canst not rend the earth asunder, nor reach the mountains in height. (Quran 17:37)

    Modesty: Say to the believing men and women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. (24:30)

     

     Freedom of Conscience

     

    (2:256) Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

     

    Peace with non-aggressors, kindness towards them, and just dealing

    (60:8) Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly (Taburruhum) and justly (Tuqsitu) with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.


    On Truth:    

     

    (39:32) who, then, doth more wrong than one who utters a lie concerning Allah, and rejects the Truth (Bil-id'qi) when it comes to him; is there not in Hell an abode for blasphemers?

    (33) And he who brings the Truth (Bil-id'qi) and he who confirms (wa Saddaqa) (and supports) it - such are the men who do right.

    (34) They shall have all that they wish for, in the presence of their Lord: such is the reward of those who do good:

    (35) So that Allah will turn off from them (even) the worst in their deeds and give them their reward according to the best of what they have done.


    There is no command of Allah that is unclear requiring interpretation or taking the best meaning. Excellence is only in how one chooses to practice.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/24/2018 1:03:30 AM



  • "Then follow the best thereof," does not translate into "obey in the best possible manner." It means, "follow the best meaning thereof". Your "non-interpretation" is in fact an interpretation, but it is the wrong interpretation.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/22/2018 1:45:46 PM



  • The best and the correct meaning of the verse is:

    Those who obey whatever Allah commands in the best possible manner are the one's who receive Allah's guidance and use Allah's gift of understanding.

    As I have said before, the correct meaning is also the best meaning. 

    Allah's commands are muhkamat verses of clear established meaning which do not require to be interpreted. See verse 3:7
    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/22/2018 4:18:56 AM



  • "Follow the best thereof" implies that one has to first determine what can be considered the "best" understanding of it and then to follow that best understanding. Those who do it "are
     the men of understanding".

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/22/2018 12:07:46 AM



  • (39:17) Those who eschew Evil,- and fall not into its worship,- and turn to Allah (in repentance),- for them is Good News: so announce the Good News to My Servants,-

    (18) Literal meaning: Those who they listen (to) the Word, then follow the best thereof, those (are) they whom Allah has guided them, and those are [they] the men of understanding.

     

    Verse 39:17 is about eschewing evil. All evil is to be eschewed – not just what is most evil.

    Verse 39:18 is about doing what Allah has commanded us to do and here we are asked to obey it in the best possible manner which makes sense as there is a world of difference between the best way to do something and mere compliance. Following are more than 40 translations of the verse. All of them with a few exceptions, take the Arabic word ahsanhu, to refer to excellence in practice of Allah’s Word/Command. Yusuf Ali is among the three exceptions who takes it as referring to the meaning, but they put meaning in parenthesis clearly showing that they have deviated from the literal meaning of the verse.

    Ali Ünal : Who, when they hear speech, follow the best of it (in the best way possible, and even seek what is better and straighter). Those are the ones whom God has guided, and those are the ones who are people of discernment.               

    Dr. Munir Munshey:Those who heed the advice, and implement its best features are the ones whom Allah has guided! Such are the sensible ones!        

    Abdul Hye: those who listen to the Word (to worship Allah) and follow the best thereof. Such are the ones whom Allah has guided and such are the people of understanding.

    Ahmed Raza Khan (Barelvi)                         Who listen to the word attentively and follow the best thereof. It is they whom Allah has guided and it is they who possess wisdom.         

    Amatul Rahman Omar                   Who listen to the word (of advice) and follow the best (injunction productive of the best results) thereof. It is they whom Allah has guided and it is they who are endowed with pure and clear understanding.

     

    Asad: who listen [closely] to all that is said, and follow the best of it: [for] it is they whom God has graced with His guidance, and it is they who are [truly] endowed with insight!

    Yusuf Ali (Saudi Rev. 1985) Those who listen to the Word, and follow the best (meaning) in it: those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones endued with understanding.       zoom

    Pickthall: Who hear advice and follow the best thereof. Such are those whom Allah guideth, and such are men of understanding.

    Shakir: Those who listen to the word, then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding.

    Wahiduddin Khan: who listen to what is said and follow what is best in it. These are the ones God has guided; these are the people endowed with understanding.

    T B Irving: who listen to the Statement and follow the best in it. Those are the ones whom God has guided; those are prudent persons.

    Mustaffa Khattab: those who listen to what is said and follow the best of it. These are the ones ˹rightly˺ guided by Allah, and these are ˹truly˺ the people of reason.

    The Study Quran: who listen to the Word, then follow what is most beautiful of it. It is they whom God has guided; it is they who are the possessors of intellect.

     [The Monotheist Group] (2011 Edition)/: The ones who listen to what is being said, and then follow the best of it. These are the ones whom God has guided, and these are the ones who possess intelligence.       

    Abdel Haleem:   who listen to what is said and follow what is best. These are the ones God has guided; these are the people of understanding.            

    Abdul Majid Daryabadi: Who hearken Unto the word and follow that which is the exceLlent there of. These are they whom Allah hath guided, and those are men of understanding. 

    Ahmed Ali: Those who listen to the Word and then follow the best it contains, are the ones who have been guided by God, and are men of wisdom.    

    Aisha Bewley: Those who listen well to what is said and follow the best of it, they are the ones whom Allah has guided, they are the people of intelligence.         

    Ali Quli Qara'i:   who listen to the word [of Allah] and follow the best [sense] of it. They are the ones whom Allah has guided, and it is they who possess intellect.        

    Hamid S. Aziz:Those who listen to the Word (or advice) then follow the best (meaning) of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding.        

    Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali:     Who listen to the Saying (and) so closely follow the fairest of it. Those are they whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones endowed with intellects.           

    Muhammad Taqi Usmani: who listen to what is said, then, follow the best of it. Those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones who possess understanding.       

    Shabbir Ahmed: Who listen to what is said and follow what is best. And they truly listen to the Word and see what is best applicable in a given situation. Such are those whom Allah guides, and they are the ones who grow in understanding.

    Syed Vickar Ahamed:Those who listen to the Word, and follow the best (meaning) in it: Those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones blessed with understanding.    

    Umm Muhammad (Sahih International): Who listen to speech and follow the best of it. Those are the ones Allah has guided, and those are people of understanding.

    Dr. Kamal Omar                those who listen to Al-Qawl (‘The Statement’. This is an attribute for Allah’s Al-Kitab); then they adopt the better of it — they are those whom Allah has guided; and they: they are possessors of understanding and intellect .    

    Talal A. Itani (new translation)                   Those who listen to the Word, and follow the best of it. These are they whom God has guided. These are they who possess intellect.   

    Maududi: to those who pay heed to what is said and follow the best of it. They are the ones whom Allah has guided to the Right Way; they are the ones endowed with understanding.

    Ali Bakhtiari Nejad                          those who listen to the word and follow the best of it. They are those whom God guided them, and they are people of understanding (reasonable people).             

    A.L. Bilal Muhammad et al (2018)                             Those who listen to the word, and adhere to the best of it. Those are the ones who God has guided, and those are the ones endowed with understanding.      

    [The Monotheist Group] (2013 Edition)                 The ones who listen to what is being said, and then follow the best of it. These are the ones whom God has guided, and these are the ones who possess intelligence.  

    Mohammad Shafi                           Those who pay heed to the Word [Qur'aan] and follow the the good guidance thereof. Those are the ones whom Allah has guided. And those are the ones endowed with insight.           

     

    Faridul Haque                   Those who heed attentively and follow the best from it; it is these whom Allah has guided, and it is these who have intelligence.     

    Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah                             who listen to the Words and follow what is finest of it. These are they whom Allah has guided. They are those of understanding.         

    Maulana Muhammad Ali                              Who listen to the Word, then follow the best of it. Such are they whom Allah has guided, and such are the men of understanding.       

    Sher Ali                Who listen to the Word and follow the best thereof. It is they whom ALLAH has guided, and it is they who are really endowed with understanding.     

    Dr. Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri                  Those who listen attentively to what is said, then follow the best in it, it is they whom Allah has given guidance, and it is they who have wisdom.    

    Muhsin Khan & Muhammad al-Hilali                       Those who listen to the Word (good advice La ilaha ill-Allah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah) and Islamic Monotheism, etc.) and follow the best thereof (i.e. worship Allah Alone, repent to Him and avoid Taghoot, etc.) those are (the ones) whom Allah has guided and those are men of understanding (like Zaid bin Amr bin Nufail, Salman Al-Farisi and Aboo Dhar Al-Ghifaree). (Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, Vol. 12, P. 244)      

     

    Edward Henry Palmer                   who listen to the word and follow the best thereof; they it is whom God guides, and they it is who are endowed with minds.

    George Sale                       who hearken unto my word, and follow that which is most excellent therein: These are they whom God directeth, and these are men of understanding.         

    John Medows Rodwell                  who hearken to my word and follow its excellence. These are they whom God guideth, and these are men of insight.   

    N J Dawood (2014)                          who listen to precepts and follow what is best in them. It is these whom God has guided; it is these that are of good sense possessed.       

     

    Sayyid Qutb                       who listen carefully to what is said and follow the best of it. These are the ones whom God has graced with His guidance, and these are the ones endowed with insight.        

    Ahmed Hulusi                   They are (my servants) who listen to the word of Truth and follow the best (most protective) of it... Those are the ones Allah has guided to the reality and those are the ones with intellects capable of contemplation!

    Al-muntakhab fi tafsir al-Qur'an al-Karim                              My worshippers who listen to the discourse and choose with deliberation the best course to follow as of forgiveness in lieu of retaliation. These are they who have the world all before them and Providence their guide and it is these who apprehend virtue as well as the voice from heaven. 

    Mir Aneesuddin                who hear a statement then follow the best of it, those are the persons whom Allah has guided and those are the persons who understand.       

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/21/2018 10:24:49 PM



  • Now Naseer sb. is "interpreting", nay even distorting the meaning of, 39:18 to suit his purposes! The Islamic Foundation explains "Follow the best of it" with the words:

    "This verse can have two meanings:

    (1) That they do not follow every voice but ponder over what every man says and accept only what is right and true.

    "(2) That they do not try to give a false meaning to what they hear but adopt its good and righteous aspects."


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/21/2018 11:20:05 AM



  • Moreover, the meaning of verse 39:18 is not as GM sb understands it which is based on how Yunus sb has interpreted it and argued in this forum. The "best" in 39:18 does not refer to the meaning of the verse/command but the manner in which the command is practiced.

      (39:18) Those who listen to the Word, and follow the best thereof: those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones endued with understanding.

    For example, the command to spend in charity can be obeyed in a variety of ways but the best way to do so is:

     Charity with kindness and without waste - three virtues that go together and if separated can become a vice. Imagine charity with harshness or insulting behavior. Imagine giving less than what is needed. It doesn’t serve the purpose. Imagine boastful waste.

     The difference in the correct meaning of the verse and the incorrect interpretation of Yunus sb can be easily seen. How can Allah say that His Book makes everything clear and yet ask us to take the best-meaning allowing people to take whatever they think is best? Allah does not grant such license, and neither is it necessary as Allah is capable of communicating clearly without ambiguity making the single meaning clear.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/21/2018 2:10:45 AM



  • "The single correct meaning will always prove to be the best meaning full of wisdom while every other interpretation will be found to be defective."

    That is a matter of opinion. It is highly arbitrary.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/20/2018 1:05:18 PM



  • The point has already been covered. The single correct meaning is the one which proves all other interpretations to be incorrect. The single correct meaning will always prove to be the best meaning full of wisdom while every other interpretation will be found to be defective.. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/20/2018 4:17:07 AM



  • that is a good one. By hats off! - 12/19/2018 7:12:01 PM



  • Naseer sb.,

    If it requires no interpretation, why does the Quran say, "follow the best meaning in it " 39:18.

    Why create unnecessary disputes with those who draw a different meaning from a particular verse than you do? You may understand it in your way and let others understand it in their ways. God knows best. 

    A more important and meaningful task is to distinguish between what is of everlasting value and what is obsolete.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/19/2018 12:57:05 PM



  • The analogy of the text book used is limited to the fact that:

    1. It defines all key words used 
    2. Does not require interpretation
    3. Purpose is to impart clear knowledge without ambiguity.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/19/2018 12:29:17 AM



  • A textbook is a book used as a standard source of information on a particular subject. 'Standard source' means the author has surveyed the literature in the field and included information which is supported by empirical studies or by reputable authorities on the subject.  Textbooks stand ready to revise or rewrite some material in subsequent editions in order to stay up to date. People can disagree with what is written in textbooks and can suggest changes without being called apostates. Besides the above, there are several other differences between the Quran and textbooks.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/19/2018 12:01:46 AM



  • The Quran is indeed a very clear Book, easy to understand, without crookedness, consistent with itself, without a contradiction, and a Book that makes the meanings of the keywords it uses clear just like any text book on any subject would make clear the meanings of keywords used in that subject/book.   By Naseer Ahmed - 12/18/2018 11:15:32 PM



  • The question of interpretation would arise only when the text is not clear. For you to take one such interpretation and call it "the clear meaning" is deceptive. The Quran is not a textbook.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/18/2018 11:25:15 AM



  • Does anybody talk about interpreting a text book no matter on what subject? Why do we not talk about interpreting text books? If it is clear why text books do not need to be interpreted, why is it not clear that the Quran is such a book which needs to be understood like any text book but not interpreted? By Naseer Ahmed - 12/18/2018 12:54:42 AM



  • Naseer sb. plays with words like "interpretation" and "meaning" in order to keep himself from understanding what the progressive Muslims are saying. He wants to stay in his cocoon, undisturbed by the debates in the progressive Muslim community.
     
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/17/2018 11:50:35 PM



  • I have no interest in interpretations. I am only concerned with the meaning. I have my methodology to ascertain the correct meaning of every verse in conformity with the complete Quran and its holistic message. I find the meaning to be as relevant today as it was before and will always be.

    The traditionalists are not literalists. They do not care for the meaning either and interpret the Quran in accordance with the ahadith and the Shan-e-Nuzul and deviate from the literal meaning.

     
    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/17/2018 10:50:23 PM



  • Naseer sb.,

    Read Abdullah Saeed's "Reading the Qur'an in the Twenty-First Century: A Contextualist Approach," and, "Interpreting the Qur'an: Towards a Contemporary Approach," and Ebrahim Moosa's "Islam in the Modern World".

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/17/2018 1:32:35 PM



  • When somebody talks of a methodology without using the same and showing us the results, what is he except another windbag academician? Can GM Sb produce an example of the specific output of  Abdulla Saeed and Ebrahim Moosa interpreting the Quran as per their methodology? 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/16/2018 11:36:16 PM



  • Naseer sb.'s comment on Professor Moosa, Abdullah Saeed and other reformists is thoughtless and undignified. They have defined a crucial problem for our generation because they care for Islam. 

    For Naseer sb. to say, "If they had seriously tried understanding the Quran and writing on various subjects, they may have come to the same conclusion as I do," is sheer self-aggrandizement and unworthy of any scholar.

    There is profound wisdom in what Yunus saheb, Professor Moosa and Abdulla Saeed say even if they do not always agree with one another.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/14/2018 10:50:19 AM



  • Ms Kaniz Fatima,

    You have quoted Yunus now and Saeed earlier. What Yunus says is the opposite of what Saeed says and i agree with what Yunus says and disagree with Saeed. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/14/2018 4:09:32 AM



  • The likes of Professor Moosa, Abdullah Saeed and other reformists scholars have never attempted what they prescribe. Is there any example of Professor Moosa or 
    any other reformists scholar writing on any subject based on the Quran, demonstrating their methodology?  If they had seriously tried understanding the Quran and writing on various subjects, they may have come to the same conclusion as I do. There are very few who practice what they preach and therefore do not know how worthless is what they preach.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/14/2018 1:44:16 AM



  • Mr Muhammd Yunus writes it well, “The Qur’anic paradigms are eternal, free from any addition or alteration since the revelation that was preserved orally as well as in various indigenous writing materials (suhuf, 80:11-16). It lays a great emphasis on the ‘constants’ of life – how a human being should behave regardless of time and era. Thus, it encompasses a broad spectrum of universal paradigms - justice, liberty, equity, good deeds, good neighborly and inter-faith relations, sharing of wealth with the poor, eradication of slavery, deliverance of women from various entrenched taboos, conjugal oppression and dehumanization; good business ethics, fair payment for goods and services, financial support to the needy, use of intellect, striving for excellence – to cite some major examples.”

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/5714

    By Kaniz Fatma - 12/13/2018 11:17:52 PM



  • By the way, I am not saying that the traditionalists are right and Naseer sb. is wrong. I am saying that neither of them is addressing the problem that needs to be addressed. I mean the problem of relevance to our times.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/13/2018 2:31:56 PM



  • "The Qur’an was given in a specific context, within the framework of a worldview that was appropriate to first/seventh-century Arabia, and in a language and symbolism that its audience understood." Abdullah Saeed.

    "The Qur’an was given in a specific context, within the framework of a worldview that was appropriate to first/seventh-century Arabia, and in a language and symbolism that its audience understood." Abdullah Saeed.

     

    That is the truth that stares us in the face. To deny it is to deny reality.

     

    The concept of "“perfected and complete religion” from Muhammad (pbuh)" is flawed because it implies that Judaism and Christianity are imperfect and incomplete. Anyone who believes that is a supremacist by definition.


    When the context is so heavily laden with the ethos of the times that eternal principles become obscure, one has to pry and recover the eternal principles and to understand them fully in the modern context. Eternal principles do not change with the times but they have to be sought through the plethora of contextual material.


    If the Quran is "taken on its word or its most direct literal meaning," that too is interpretation. Claiming "what I say is direct meaning and what others say is interpretation" is hubris.

     

    When Naseer sb. asserts that what the traditionalists say are "misinterpretations" and what he says is "direct literal meaning", we must understand that it is only a claim and no one else supports that claim.

     

    No religion can be produced by a Book. When the message from the Book finds resonance in the heart of man, a religion is born. Man thus is central to the process. He should remain central and active to make sure that his religion remains rational, consistent and completely relevant.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/13/2018 2:23:17 PM