certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islamic Q and A

147 - COMMENTS

  • @Urooj, 
    1. Allah Almighty is free from every defect or shortcoming.

    2. Everybody and everything needs Him; and He does not need anything or anybody.

    3. He is free from bearing any similarity to creations.

    4. He does not change. Just as He was possessed of His attributes in pre-eternity (Azal), so He shall remain with the same attributes forever. It is absolutely impossible [muhal] that He was something before, and then turned to become something else.

    5. He is not a body. He is free from everything that is suggestive of bodies.

    6. “He is transcendent from magnitude; one cannot say this much, this big and so forth. [He is not] tall, wide, thick, thin, little or more, countable or weighable, big or small, heavy or light.

    7. He transcends having a shape – [He is] neither wide or narrow, nor spherical or long, nor triangular or conical, nor straight or oblique nor any other shape.

    8. He transcends having extents or limits; He is not ‘unlimited’ in the sense of being [physically] spread out without a limit; that is, He transcends having any concept of magnitude. In other words, when we say He is transcendent from limits, we mean negation of imposing any limits; not the attestation of unlimited magnitude.

    9. He is not made from anything.

    10. Parts and sections cannot be conceived or considered in Him, even hypothetically.

    11. He is transcendent from directions or edges or [being on a] side. One cannot say that He is on the right or left; or front and back; similarly, [in this sense of direction] He is not above.

    12. He is not attached with anything in the creation such that He is in contact [with something].

    13. He is not detached from the creation – to mean that there is a [physical] distance between Him and His creation.

    14. He is transcendent from place and location.

    15. He transcends all conditions and necessities for bodies like standing, sitting, descending, ascending, walking, stopping etc.

    (Al-Qawahirul Al-Qahhar fi mujassmatil fujjar)
    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/21/2019 1:15:52 AM



  • Mr Austin, 
    You can find your answer while reading this article thoroughly. I have also mentioned those names who have established that the ayat is not abrogated. Please read it again.
    As for your finding it for the first time, it is your business. Why did you get late to find it for the first time? It is your fault and not mine. 
    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/21/2019 1:14:00 AM



  • No verse of the Quran is abrogated By Naseer Ahmed - 1/21/2019 12:37:26 AM



  • A man asked me,
    Does Allah have a form or formless?
    you can better give answer.
    By Urooj - 1/20/2019 9:01:08 PM



  • on which ground you can say this is not abrogated. this is also a ridiculous scholar 
    i am shocked to know that you are the first to consider it non abrogated 
    By Austin - 1/20/2019 8:13:01 PM



  • Allah is the Creator of this earth:
    إِنَّ رَبَّكُمُ اللَّهُ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ ۖ يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ ۖ مَا مِنْ شَفِيعٍ إِلَّا مِنْ بَعْدِ إِذْنِهِ ۚ ذَٰلِكُمُ اللَّهُ رَبُّكُمْ فَاعْبُدُوهُ ۚ أَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ
    Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority), regulating and governing all things. No intercessor (can plead with Him) except after His leave (hath been obtained). This is Allah your Lord; Him therefore serve ye: will ye not receive admonition?"
    اللَّهُ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ ۖ مَا لَكُمْ مِنْ دُونِهِ مِنْ وَلِيٍّ وَلَا شَفِيعٍ ۚ أَفَلَا تَتَذَكَّرُونَ
    It is Allah Who has created the heavens and the earth, and all between them, in six days, and is firmly established on the Throne (of Authority): ye have none, besides Him, to protect or intercede (for you): will ye not then receive admonition?"
    إِنَّ رَبَّكُمُ اللَّهُ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ يُغْشِي اللَّيْلَ النَّهَارَ يَطْلُبُهُ حَثِيثًا وَالشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ وَالنُّجُومَ مُسَخَّرَاتٍ بِأَمْرِهِ ۗ أَلَا لَهُ الْخَلْقُ وَالْأَمْرُ ۗ تَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ
    Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!"
    By zuma - 1/18/2019 11:16:24 PM



  • This is nice article. Thank you newageislam for sharing it with us. By Zohara Nasreen - 1/16/2019 9:04:16 AM



  •  فإن مبنى علم الشرائع والأحكام وأساس قواعد عقائد الإسلام هو علم التوحيد والصفات الموسوم بالكلام المنجي عن غياهب الشكوك وظلمات الأوهام.

    The foundation of Science of Shara’i [plural of Shariat] and Ahkam [judgments] and the basis of rules [qawaid] related to Beliefs [aqaid] of Islam is the Science of oneness [tauheed] and attributes [sifat] entitled al-Kalam which rescues [the believers] from darkness of doubts and obscurities of illusions.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/14/2019 7:14:01 AM



  • Classical Islamic scholars have absolutely no idea about what logic means. If they were logical, they would have had zero tolerance for contradictions. However, their ilm al kalam is precisely to gloss over the contradictory or false positions that they take.

    What they mean by "categorical refutation" is their empty saying "I categorically refute". They do not even have any idea about what it means to refute categorically!
    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/13/2019 12:33:41 AM



  • Thank you Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi Saheb.  By Rumish - 1/12/2019 6:31:11 PM



  • The verses below support people have to turn to Allah to seek his forgiveness:
    Chapter 4 The Women سورة النساء - An-Nisa: Verse 106
    وَاسْتَغْفِرِ اللَّهَ ۖ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا
    But seek the forgiveness of Allah; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
    Chapter 5 The Table Spread سورة المائدة - Al-Maeda: Verse 74
    أَفَلَا يَتُوبُونَ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَيَسْتَغْفِرُونَهُ ۚ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ
    Why turn they not to Allah, and seek His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
    Chapter 4 The Women سورة النساء - An-Nisa: Verse 99
    فَأُولَٰئِكَ عَسَى اللَّهُ أَنْ يَعْفُوَ عَنْهُمْ ۚ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَفُوًّا غَفُورًا
    For these, there is hope that Allah will forgive: For Allah doth blot out (sins) and forgive again and again."
    The verse below supports Allah is everywhere:
    Chapter 2 The Cow سورة البقرة - Al-Baqara: Verse 115
    وَلِلَّهِ الْمَشْرِقُ وَالْمَغْرِبُ ۚ فَأَيْنَمَا تُوَلُّوا فَثَمَّ وَجْهُ اللَّهِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ
    To Allah belong the east and the West: Whithersoever ye turn, there is the presence of Allah. For Allah is all-Pervading, all-Knowing."
    The phrase, Whithersoever ye turn, there is the presence of Allah, as mentioned in Quran 2:115 implies Allah is not only at Mecca, he is everywhere.  This is by virtue of you can find Allah wherever your face turns to since the phrase, Whithersoever ye turn...there is the presence of Allah, is mentioned in Quran 2:115.  Does Allah belong to Arab?  No, it is not true since the phrase, Allah belong the east and the west, in Quran 2:115 implies Allah belongs to all nations and that is why all nations can come to him with faith and do good deeds to paradise.
    Allah demands people to put their trust in Allah:
    Chapter 33 The Coalition سورة الأحزاب - Al-Ahzab: Verse 3
    وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ ۚ وَكَفَىٰ بِاللَّهِ وَكِيلًا
    And put thy trust in Allah, and enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs."
    The verse supports Allah lives eternally:
    Chapter 112 Absoluteness سورة الإخلاص - Al-Ikhlas: Verse 2
    اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ
    Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;"
    By zuma - 1/12/2019 3:00:09 PM



  • The verses that support Allah is the creator of all things:
    أَوَلَمْ يَرَوْا كَيْفَ يُبْدِئُ اللَّهُ الْخَلْقَ ثُمَّ يُعِيدُهُ ۚ إِنَّ ذَٰلِكَ عَلَى اللَّهِ يَسِيرٌ
    See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah."
    قُلْ سِيرُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ فَانْظُرُوا كَيْفَ بَدَأَ الْخَلْقَ ۚ ثُمَّ اللَّهُ يُنْشِئُ النَّشْأَةَ الْآخِرَةَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ
    Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things."
    The extracted verse supports Allah is the creator of human beings:
    وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَكُمْ وَمَا تَعْمَلُونَ
    "But Allah has created you and your handwork!"
    وَاللَّهُ أَنْبَتَكُمْ مِنَ الْأَرْضِ نَبَاتًا
    "'And Allah has produced you from the earth growing (gradually),"
    The verse below supports Allah is not the moon-god, but God that controls heavens and the earth:
    وَلِلَّهِ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ
    To Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth; and Allah hath power over all things."
    The extracted verse even supports Allah is the provider of food to human beings (If Allah does not provide rain, do you think food can be grown?  If Allah does not create vegetables and etc., do you think you can eat?  That is why this verse mentions he is the provider of foods for human beings):
    وَكُلُوا مِمَّا رَزَقَكُمُ اللَّهُ حَلَالًا طَيِّبًا ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ الَّذِي أَنْتُمْ بِهِ مُؤْمِنُونَ
    Eat of the things which Allah hath provided for you, lawful and good; but fear Allah, in Whom ye believe."


    By zuma - 1/12/2019 2:40:34 PM



  • The people who borrow entire thought from those whose only purpose was nothing but to destroy the basis of Islam do the same talk against Ilm al-Kalam. 
    This is not a new thing but has been categorically refuted in many ways.
     By the way people in this age in the name of using reasoning have stopped using their own faculty of reasoning.
    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/12/2019 9:00:05 AM



  • “Ilm al kalam” literally means the “science/knowledge of discourse/argumentation and was learnt/developed to debate with people of other faiths on theological matters. It has never really been a science but an art of one up-manship. People of other faiths claimed their scriptures to be “uncreated” and therefore, not be left behind, the Muslims also claimed the Quran to be uncreated ignoring all evidence to the contrary including a verse that says that the Quran is produced by Allah. Based on the assertion of the Muslims that the Quran is the word of Allah, and that the word of Allah is uncreated, the Christians easily proved the “divinity” of Jesus (pbuh) by arguing that according to the Quran, Jesus is Allah’s word and since the Muslims claim that to be uncreated, Jesus is also uncreated and therefore god/divine.

    4:171 “Messiah Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word (Kalimatuhu), which He bestowed on Mary, and a Rūḥun proceeding from Him. 

    Did the Muslims give up on their claim that the Quran/word of Allah is uncreated? No.

    Did they accept the result of the correct conclusion (although based on the false premise of uncreated word of Allah) that Jesus is god? No.

     Logically, there is no difference between saying that Allah’s word is uncreated and the position of the atheists that there is no God. If Allah’s word is uncreated, He has nothing further to say and everything is as it should be. If everything was and is as it should be, where does God fit in? He is unnecessary even as a logical construct.

     ilm al kalam has not produced anything of value and is mostly used to support taking up of false positions. The Quran is a Book that makes things clear and it does not require ilm al kalam to understand its simple direct message. However, a sound knowledge of logic gives us the confidence and conviction to defend the simple direct meaning of the Quran, faced as we are with the distortions that have crept in. It was in this context, that I exhorted pursing a study of logic rather than the art of one-upmanship and supporting of false positions which  ilm al kalam has become through misuse.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/12/2019 6:24:04 AM



  • @Rumish,

    There are a number of Quranic aayaat which imply that Allah Almighty is ‘the Creator of everything” (13:16, 39:62, 40:62). The word ‘thing’ includes every substance, accident, cause and effect that exists in each moment.

     If a human being is engaged in spiritual and empirical observation of every perceived cause and effect with the fact mentioned in the Quran that real Creator is none but Allah, he will be more beloved to Allah, provided it is for remembrance and thankfulness.  

    Hope you have got your answer. Regards!

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/12/2019 3:19:11 AM



  • @Rumish,

    Hukm ‘Aaadi (normative judgment) implies confirmation of correlating one thing with another in existence or non-existence; which is empirically substantiated by way of observing repetition of their correlation and without any influence of one of them into other, such as the satiation of food and burning with fire, so their real actor [i.e. creator of satiation and burning] is the Creator Who creates one of them in presence of another.

    Let us observe the proposition that ‘fire burns’. The act of ‘burning’ is affirmed of ‘fire’ as a normative judgment; which implies that the two are merely correlated or bound together. Every time one lights a fire, one can observe the perceived effect of burning; which is to say, a repeatedly observed phenomenon. Here we observe nothing but correlation between the two. We repeatedly find the phenomenon of ‘burning’ as conjoined to the phenomenon of ‘fire’ on the basis of empirical observation, yet we do not believe fire creates burning. The creator of all that comes into existence is none but Allah Almighty. In other words, Allah creates the fire, the burning and the correlation between the two.

    The holy Quran says, “This is the creation of Allah. So show Me what those other than Him have created. Rather, the wrongdoers are in clear error” (31:11)      

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/12/2019 3:10:47 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus, 
    You have not yet fully replied to my question. You defiend hukm aqli and missed hukm aadi
    By Rumish - 1/11/2019 3:18:51 AM



  • O I got it. Kudo to you! By Watson - 1/10/2019 3:07:15 AM



  • In English the spelling of the Arabic word [قرآن
    Quran] is done in three ways; the Quran, the Koran and the Qura’n. the best alternative for this Arabic word is Quran and not the Koran, as the Arabic letter ‘Qaaf/ق
    ’ is alternatively used into English as ‘Q’, not ‘K’.
    There are two letters in Arabic, which are thus compared with English letters; Q stands for ق
    and K stands for ك. The word Quran begins with the former letter ‘Qaaf or ق By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/10/2019 12:23:59 AM



  • These Muslims treat non-Muslims horribly in their nations. This is vice versa. The USA treats Muslims like gold compared with how Muslims treat non-Muslims in their Islamic countries!!  This is the truth that the Muslims like to hide.  The Muslims love to come into the nice Western World to enjoy it.  I can't blame them with the way some of the rulers have ruined every nation they dominate.   By Jimmy - 1/9/2019 11:55:09 PM



  • What is the difference between the Quran and Koran?  By Stewart - 1/9/2019 5:56:33 AM



  • Ms Kaniz Fatma,
    One commentator sb has asked you not to indulge into ilm al-Kalam because, he thinks, ilm al-kalam is based on the Aristotelian logic. This is completely wrong to think so, as Aristotelian theory which first rejected its own master Plato-theory was based on philosophy. Ilm al-Kalam rejects Aristotelian philosophy, in the light of Quran and Sunnah.
    Ilm al-Kalam came into existence to extract out the evidences from the Quran and Sunnah to know what sort of attribution is possible or impossible for Allah Almighty. By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/8/2019 4:11:24 AM



  • @Rumish,

    Hukm Aqli:  when aql confirms or denies any matter without depending upon repetition [takrar] and ruling of the creator [wad-e-wadi’] [i.e. without depending upon al-hukm al-a’adi and al-hukm al-shari], it is called hukm aqli.

    This is classical definition propounded by mutakallimun [experts of ilm al-kalam]. For further details, you can go through the books,

    المعتقد المنتقد مع المستند المعتمد بناء نجاة الأبد

    حاشية الشرقاوي الشافعي على الهدهدي على أم البراهين

    حاشية الدسوقي على أم البراهين

    عمدة المريد لجوهر التوحيد المسمى (الشرح الكبير)

    الفرائد السنية في شرح المقدمة السنوسية المسماة أم البراهين

    شرح نظم عقيدة أهل السنة

    تنوير القلوب في معاملة علام الغيوب

    These Arabic books are full of dozens of examples of a ruling being Aqli. However I am giving a short description. Anything that our intellect or faculty of reasoning confirms or denies is called Hukm –e-Aqli or al-hukm al-aqli [logical ruling or law]. For the time being, such logical ruling is deemed to be purely logical [aqli] in the sense that it is not al-hukm al-a’adi (natural law) or al-hukm al-shari’ (the divine law).

    There are cases when our faculty of reasoning conforms to the fact upheld by Quran and Sunnah. We then say this ruling of the Quran ans Sunnah is also supported by our faculty of reasoning or rational approach.   

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/8/2019 2:21:46 AM



  • Many many thanks to you. 
    But there were some terms which confused me. What is hukm aqli, aadi? 
    By Rumish - 1/7/2019 10:58:54 PM



  • "How can you have a war on terrorism when war itself is terrorism?" -Howard Zinn By Kaniz Fatma - 1/7/2019 10:25:21 PM



  • @Rumish,

    While checking the proof I went through Imam Suyuti’s ‘Al-Itqan’ and then those books which were quoted by him. I wrote some of the proofs in the previous comments to you. But you should also know that knowledge of Makki or Madani verses comes from the reports of Sahaba and Tabiyeen.

    Qazi Abu Bakr al-Baqilani Al-Maliki (403 A.H) said in his book, “Al-Intisar Li al-Quran vol. 1 p. 247)”, that, for knowledge of the Makki and Madani [ayaat], one is required to turn to the memory of the holy Companions [Sahaba] and Tabiyeen, as no statement or hadith is reported to have come from the Prophet (peace be upon him) in this regard because he was not commanded [by Allah Almighty] to make a statement [that this ayat is Makki or Madani]. Nor did Allah make it among the Faraiz [obligatory acts] for the Ummah to learn this knowledge. If it is necessary for the people of knowledge to know the history of Nasikh and mansukh concerning some ayaat of the Quran, this can also be learnt by other than the nass of the Prophet [peace be upon him]. End of quote [translated from Arabic] [See Suyuti’s Itqan / Baqilani’s Intisar li al-Quran]

    Suyuti also quotes from Imam Bukhari a report from Ibn Masud who said, “By Allah other than Whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah's Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no verse revealed in Allah's Book but I know about whom it was revealed......” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.488)

    Then Suyuti quotes a number of reports to tell us as to which ayat is Makki and which ayat is Madani. This is very interesting to study the complete discussion as it might need at any time. But I think this much discussion is enough for your question.

    Regards!

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/6/2019 5:17:07 AM



  • According to the UN Refugee Agency’s annual Global Trends study, 68.5 million people had been driven from their homes across the world at the end of 2017, more people than the population of Thailand.

    “Refugees who have fled their countries to escape conflict and persecution accounted for 25.4 million. This is 2.9 million more than in 2016, also the biggest increase UNHCR has ever seen in a single year.

    “New displacement is also growing, with 16.2 million people displaced during 2017 itself, either for the first time or repeatedly. That is an average of one person displaced every two seconds. And overwhelmingly, it is developing countries that are most affected.”

    Source: The UNHCR Refugee Agency

    This is a matter of the greatest concern.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/5/2019 3:29:57 AM



  • @Naseer sb, 
    Thank you for your suggestion.
    But I am interested into Ilm al-Kalam.
    Thank you Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi sb for your answer. You can send their translation at any time.
    By Kaniz Fatma - 1/5/2019 2:36:36 AM



  • The same as the hadith verse below:
    Book #34, hadith #347, "...people buy foodstuff...and they were punished (by beating), if they tried to sell it before carrying it to their own houses."
    Without reading it with the conjunction of Quran, the above verse would mean Muslims should beat those who buy foodstuff without selling it before they enter into their own houses.  If that were so, what should Muslims eat?  None could eat anything since they had to sell the foodstuff what they had bought before they enter into their own houses and turn up all the Muslims had to starve to death.
    The above example gives the truth that hadith should never be read alone or else all Muslims will practise what not Allah intends them to practise.
    By zuma - 1/5/2019 2:34:07 AM



  • Never read hadith alone unless it has been read in conjunction with Quran.  This is by virtue of it would give falsified view in reality.  It is like reading the verse below: Book #73, hadith #233, "...sitting on a chair between the sky and the earth."  It would give a falsified view that there is a chair hanging in the air between the sky and the earth.  Where to find a physical chair between the sky and the earth?  If this has been read in conjunction of Quran, it can be the chair in paradise since Quran describes the existence of paradise.  The so-called sky and the earth who knows should also be the sky and the another earth in paradise. By zuma - 1/5/2019 2:23:38 AM



  • @Ms Kaniz Fatma

    While studying the suggested books related to Ahadith, you can also consider that some people rush into presenting Ahadith and do not hesitate to attribute words or speech to the Prophet (peace and peace be upon him) without doing any research. On the other hand there are people who consider that the whole corpus of Ahadith other than a few is “fabricated [mauzu]”. It is therefore better to keep away from both the poles of waywardness- ifrat [extremism] and tafreet [negligence] and take a middle path instead.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/4/2019 4:04:16 AM



  • Ms Kaniz Fatima,

    Ilm al-Kalam, or logical reasoning is based on the Aristotelian logic further developed by Ibn Sina, Imam Ghazali and others. This is rudimentary logic by today's standards which is evident from the works of those scholars. Their understanding of the Quran is limited by the limitations of the stage of development of this subject at that point in time. 

     Allah's Book must be studied after mastering the highest levels  of logical reasoning developed in philosophy and mathematics and nothing will be gained in following the same rudimentary rules of logic developed a thousand years before.

    The Quran is the word of Allah and not that of a 7th century scholar, and will therefore give you a different, more complete, richer  and accurate understanding when you master the highest levels of modern logical reasoning.

    I see no point in translating ancient text and reading it when you can straight away learn Aristotelian logic and all the developments in logical reasoning beyond Aristotle.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/4/2019 2:53:41 AM



  • Ms Alifa,
    There are several ways of proving that the Quran is the word of Allah. One proof is in my article:
    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/4/2019 2:12:54 AM



  • What a foolish comment by GM sb!

    The Quran does not talk about any classification and neither did I say that it did. 

    All that I say is always very original. Why would I even bother about saying what others have said? I am not the ordinary run of the mill scholar whose articles are based on a study of the existing literature on the subject. 

    As a matter of fact, what I have been saying is that Islamic scholarship suffers from a lack of proper classification and is in the same stage as Biology was before Darwin and have suggested my way of systematic study several times before.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/4/2019 1:49:15 AM



  • @Ms Kaniz Fatma,
    Some of the popular terms of Ilm al-Kalam are as follows and please give me some time to define them into English for your use. 
    Al-Kulliyaat, Al-Juziyaat , Al-Nazariyat, Al-Amaliyat, Al-Ilahiyat,  Al-Kawniyat,
    Al-Mujarradiyat, Al-Maaddiyat, Al-Awwaliyat, Al-Ukhrawiyat, Al-Alawiyat, Al-Sufliyat, Al-Mubahat, Al-Muhramiyat, Al-Ayaniat,  Al-Ibadiyat, Al-Mua’amaliyat, Al-Fardiyat, Al-Nafliyat, Al-Maqsoodiyat, Al-Tamhidiya, Al-Infiradiyat, Al-Ijtimayiat, Al-Tabiyiat.
    Each term requires explanation as the literal translation will not help you understand the way it is used in Ilm al-Kalam.
    You should not be confused when facing some of the same terms in Ilm al-Fiqh or any other branches of Islamic studies, because these terms of Ilm al-Kalam do not necessarily mean the same as is meant in Ilm al-Fiqh. By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/3/2019 11:39:50 PM



  • @Ms Kaniz Fatma,

     You can go through the following books written on Ilm al-Kalam.

    ‘Aqaid Nasafiyya’ by Sheikh Abu Hafs Amr bin Mahmood Nasafi,

    ‘Sharh Aqaid’ by Allama Saaduddin Masuood bin Umar Taftazani,

    ‘Khayali’ by Allama Ahmad bin Musa Shamsuddin Khayali

    ‘Umoor Aamma’ by Allama Meer Sayyid Sharif Jurjani

    ‘Hashiya al al-Khayali’ by Allama Abdul Hakim Fazil Siyalkoti

    ‘Sharh Meezanul Aqaaid’ by Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddis Dehlvi

    ‘Takmeelul Imaan’ by Sheikh Abdul Haq Muhaddis Dehlvi

    ‘Al-Mawaqif’ by Qazi Ad’duddin Abd Al-Rahman bin Ahmad

    ‘Sharh Mawaqif’ by Allama Zainuddin Sharif Jurjani

    ‘Sharh Maqasid’ by Allam Saaduddin Taftazanni

    ‘Sharh Mulla Jalal’ by Allama Jalaluddin Muhammad Dawani

    ‘Iqtisad Al al-Itiqad’ by Imam Ghazali

    ‘Al-Tamheed’ by Allama Abd al-Shakur Saalimi

    ‘Al-Tabras’ by Allama Abdul Aziz Parharwi

    ‘Fiqh Akbar’ by Imam Azam Abu Hanifa Numan bin Thabit

     ‘Sharh Fiqh Akbar’ by Imam Allama Mulla Ali Qari

    ‘Ramzan Afandi’ by Maulana Muhammad Ramzan Afandi

    ‘Al-Mu’tamad al-Mustanad by Ala Hazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Barelvi

    ‘Al-Mu’taqad Al-Muntaqad by Shah Fazle Rasool Badayuni

    ‘Al-Aqaid’ by Allama Sayyid Muahammad Naeemuddin Muradabadi

    ‘Bahare Shariat’ (vol. 1) by Allama Amjad Ali Qadri

    ‘Al-Musamarah’ by Allama Kamal bin Abi Sharf

     ‘Aqida al-Tahawiya’ (Arabic) by Allam Abu Jafar Ahmad bin Muhammad Tahawi Misri Hanafi

    ‘Sharh Aqida al-Tahawiya’ (Urdu) by Ghulam Husain Asim Maturidi

    ‘Aqaid w Nazariyat’(Urdu)  by Allama Abdul Hakeem Sharf Qadri

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/3/2019 11:28:21 PM



  • @Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi 
    How can you prove that the Quran is the word of God?
    By Alifa - 1/3/2019 10:19:21 PM



  • @Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi sb,
    Your answer to Alifa is good but I have a question.
    DOES the the word Quran refer to the word or meaning?
    Allah has promised to preserve the Quran but in which sense, preservation of word, or preservation of word and meaning both? By KANIZ Fatma - 1/3/2019 8:54:23 PM



  • Both of Naseeer sb.'s classifications are innovations and do not find any corroboration in the Quran.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/3/2019 12:01:42 PM



  • @Rumish,

    You asked me to present evidences for the three views that I mentioned in my previous comment, though I had given the source name. Anyway I gave you translation of the actual quoting of the first view. Now i am giving you the proof of the second view about Makki and Madani concept.

    According to the second view that I mentioned earlier, Makki verses are those that were sent down at Makka, even though after the Hijrat [at Makka]. The Madani verses are those that were sent down at Madina. The basis of classification here is the city of revelation. Thus as per this second view what was revealed during travelling is neither called Makki nor Madani.

    This second view, though not as popular as the first one discussed in the last comment, was spoken of with reference to Zarkashi’s and Suyuti’s books. One report in this regard is given below;

    Tabarani quoted in his al-Kabir from the chain of Walid bin Muslim from Ufair bin Ma’dan from Sulaym bin ‘Amir from Abu Umamah who reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “The Quran was revealed in three places: Makkah, Madinah and al-Sham.” (Tabarani) Walid said, “(al-Sham) here refers to Baytul Maqdis. Sheikh Imaduddin bin Kathir said, “but its [al-Sham] referring to Tabuk is better” I [Imam Suyuti] would say, Makkah here refers to all its precincts like the revelation at Mina, Arafat and Hudaybia, and Madinah refers to all its precincts like the revelation at Badr, Uhud and Sal’a [one of the mountains of Madinah Munawwarah, as detailed in the book Marasid al-Ittela 2/727)  [Suyuti, al-Itqan new Arabic ed. P.45)

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/3/2019 8:27:26 AM



  • @Rumish,

    The most popular one of the three views about Makki and Madani verses is that the Makki verses or ayaat are those that were revealed before Hijrah [migration]. The Madani verses are those that were sent down after Hijrat, whether at Madina or Makka, in the year of victory of Makka [Aam al-Fath] or the year of Hajjatul Wada or during travelling. The basis of classification, as per this popular view, is not the city of revelation but rather the time before or after Hijrah.

    So you asked for its proof. Please take it here.

    Imam Suyuti quotes a report that “Usman bin Saeed Al-Daarmi, with his chain of narration that reaches Yahya bin Sallam, said: “[the ayat or verse or Surah] what was revealed at Makka and what was revealed on the way to Madina before the Prophet (peace be upon him) reached Madina is Makki, and what was revealed to the Prophet [peace be upon him] during his tours and travelling after his reaching Madina is Madani” [Suyuti, al-Itqan new Arabic ed. P.45)

    This was the most popular view among the early scholars of Islam.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/3/2019 8:00:48 AM



  • @Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, 
    Can you please translate some popular terms of Ilmul Kalam in English, Kauwniyat, Juzyiat etc?
    By Kaniz Fatma - 1/3/2019 4:35:43 AM



  • @Alifa, 

    The Quran is a divine book of Allah, that was revealed to the last Prophet (peace be upon him), recorded [musbat] in masahif and copied with tawatur that there is no doubt in it.   

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/3/2019 4:22:50 AM



  • what is the definition of the Quran? By Alifa - 1/3/2019 2:40:32 AM



  • @Rumish,
    Please wait. I will have to translate that text.
    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/3/2019 2:26:39 AM



  • Ms Kaniz Fatma,

    There are a number of ahadith which apparently contradict other ahadith but if they are studied with proper methodological approach there will not be contradiction. We are dominantly missing scholars who would bother to work at that. In the second and third century this work occupied deep attention of the scholars and they wrote a number of books.

    You can go through these books that explain a number of apprarenlty contradicting ahadith in a manner that you will not find any contradiction.

    Imam Shafi, (204 A.H) (1) al-Risala (2) Ikhtilaful Hadees

    Ibn Qutaibah (276 A.H) ‘Taaweel Mukhtaliful Ahadees’

    Tahawi (321 A.H) ‘Mushkilul Aathar’

    Suyuti (911 A.H) ‘Miftahul Jannat fi al-tamassuk bi al-sunnah’

    There are many others written by modern scholars like Sheikh Muhammad Abu Shahba’s ‘difa an al-sunnah’

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/3/2019 2:24:45 AM



  • Ms Kaniz Fatma,

    It is not wrong to say what you quoted in Urdu text. This Urdu text is taken from Maktoobat-e-Mujaddid Alif Thani, vol 2, maktoob 120, p. 123.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/3/2019 2:10:59 AM



  • Any classification is for the purpose of systematic study and better understanding of the Quran. The prophetic mission of Muhammad (pbuh) can be split into three distinct phases:
    1.      1. The early teaching and the early propagation phase. This phase is covered during the first thirteen years of preaching in Mecca which resulted in a gradual build-up of hostilities by those who resisted the new faith resulting in forced migration of the Prophet and the Muslims to Medina. During this phase, the Prophet was an ordinary citizen and not a ruler and could not therefore either wage war against the enemies of the new religion nor promulgate any laws. There are therefore no verses during this phase covering the Hudud laws and no verses related to waging war. The verses cover warnings from the stories of the earlier prophets and glad tidings for the believers, description of Heaven and Hell, the virtues of patience, constancy, returning good for evil, treating parents with kindness and every other Islamic virtue.
    2.      2. In Medina, the Prophet became a ruler of all the communities and as a ruler, he was bound to wage war to protect his people and also to promulgate laws and ensure their compliance. During this period therefore we find verses relating to war and all the laws in Islam
    3.      3. The judgment phase: The Muslims defeated their main enemy the polytheists of Mecca and returned to Mecca victorious. This was followed by a short period of consolidation followed by Judgment on the vanquished people. The society also transformed from a tribal society without a central government to a centrally governed one under the Prophet. All the people under the political sovereignty of the prophet had to be made willing subjects when earlier, they did not report to any such authority and paid no taxes.
    Surah Taubah for example, covers phase 3. The judgment on the vanquished enemy and the rules for the remaining non-Muslims are covered in verses 9:1 to 9:29. The word “fight” in verse 9:5 and 9:29 does not refer to fighting an enemy on the battle field , but fighting a rebellious person within the territory governed by the Prophet. The rules of fighting in phase 2 therefore do not apply in phase 3 as these cover a judgment on the people and the requirement to make them willing subjects. One commentator, while explaining these verses was incorrectly quoting verses from phase 2.
    Place wise classification would club phase 1 and phase 3 under Meccan and phase 2 under Medinian. The pre-hijrat and the post-hijrat classification would club phase 2 and phase 3 under Medinian. Both these classifications are unsatisfactory. It is more useful to classify into the three distinct phases of the prophetic mission.
    Another classification that I use is as follows:
    1.      1. Commands – to be taken literally and obeyed
    2.      2. Advisory – provides the best guidance and advice but not a command
    3.      3. Transactional – Advice given to the Prophet based on the prevailing situation from which the underlying general principles need to be derived. The verses relating to fighting and the verses covering the judgment and consolidation in phase 3 are transactional. For example, 9:5 and 9:29 are not directly applicable to any other people but only the underlying general principles are relevant By Naseer Ahmed - 1/3/2019 1:36:16 AM



  • My question is that when I read some hadith they do not literally support other hadith. It seems contradiction but this knowledge must have been popular among scholars and they must have written some books on that.

    Could you please suggest some books on that. 
    By KANIZ Fatma - 1/3/2019 12:25:58 AM



  • @Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi sb,
    I have an Urdu text which says

    بلا شک وشُبہ سیدنا معاویہ رضی اللہ عنہ کی خطا ،  رسول اللہﷺ کی صحابیت کی برکت سے حضرت عمر بن عبدالعزیز اور حضرت اویس قرنی رحمھما اللہ کی دُرُستی  سےبہتر ہے
    I want to know is it fine to say such thing and who has said it? 
    By Kaniz Fatma - 1/3/2019 12:25:12 AM



  • @Naseer sb,
    This answer was not scientific. It simply denotes that hypocrisy is the cause of spiritual pollution.

    By Kaniz Fatma - 1/3/2019 12:21:03 AM



  • Ms Kaniz Fatima,

    The Islamic scholar did not know the answer and therefore he gave the wrong answer. The hypocrite may not get up for his fajar prayers but he continues to breathe and exhale carbon di oxide. The one who is awake for his fajar prayers actually breathes more oxygen and exhales more of carbon di oxide and therefore pollutes more.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/2/2019 11:42:18 PM



  • Thank you.
    The first is the popular view.
    But I want to learn the source in which it was said it is preferred. 
    By Rumish - 1/2/2019 11:34:37 PM



  • Ms. Kaniz Fatma,

    Muslims are in trouble today because of the new movement called ‘Islamist’ movement which has innovated unique methodology and non-traditional approach creating a rigid and non pragmatic approach and giving no way to humaneness, sanity, moderation and decorum.

    This new ‘Islamist’ movement is categorically against Islam.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/2/2019 7:27:30 AM



  • @Rumish,

    You should know that the Muslim scholars, specially the experts of usul al-tafsir, present three views of the early people about the Makki and the Madani verses. Imam Badruddin Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Zarkashi in his Arabic book “Al-Burhan Fi Ulum al-Quran vol. 1, p. 187,  and Imam Jalaluddin Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr Suyuti (911 A.H) in his Arabic book “Al-Itqan Fi Ulum al-Quran” vol.1, p.45-47 mention these three views at one place, after exploring and studying these three views scattered in various books of the past. I am presenting the summary of these three views, with reference to Zarkashi’s Al-Burhan and Suyuti’s Al-Itqan.

    1. The most popular view is that the Makki verses or ayaat are those that were revealed before Hijrah [migration]. The Madani verses are those that were sent down after Hijrat, whether at Madina or Makka, in the year of victory of Makka [Aam al-Fath] or the year of Hajjatul Wada or during travelling. The basis of classification, as per this popular view, is not the city of revelation but rather the time before or after Hijrah.

    2. The second view is that Makki verses are those that were sent down at Makka, even though after the Hijrat [at Makka]. The Madani verses are those that were sent down at Madina. The basis of classification here is the city of revelation. Thus as per this second view what was revealed during travelling is neither called Makki nor Madani.

    3. The third view is that the Makki verses or Surahs are those that were sent down to address the people of Makka are Makki and those that were sent down to address the people of Madina are Madani. This view is not supported by many.   

    The most popular view as mentioned above is the most preferred view among the scholars. But a mufassir should be cautious when exploring the early narrations regarding the ayaat or verses being Makki or Madani, as it might be the point of caution what out of three views was actually meant by the narrators when they said ‘Makki’ or ‘Madani’.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 1/2/2019 12:30:31 AM



  • I am confused to know about Makki and Madani verses. What is the meaning of the verse being Makki or Madani?  By Rumish - 1/1/2019 10:02:27 PM



  • An Islamic scholar was once asked "why is the air pure at the time of Fajar" ? The scholar answered, "Because no hypocrites get up to pray Fajar".
    Fajar is the most precious time you will have a quiet and intimate relationship with Allah Almighty. By Kaniz Fatma - 1/1/2019 3:06:17 AM



  • Ms Kaniz Fatima,
    The US has systematically used "Islamic Fundamentalism" as a political tool to achieve their political objectives. They are the inventors of this evil. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are their willing partners.
    Outside the Palestine/Israel theatre, the so called “Islamic terrorist” activity began when the “Afghan Muhajideen” who were hailed as freedom fighters by the US and the rest of the World, morphed into Al Qaeda.

    Birth of the Afghan Mujahideen

    The US led the Soviet Union into the Afghan trap by aiding the Islamic fundamentalist Mujahideen six months before the Russians made their move, knowing that "this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention".

    Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser, Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998 

    Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

    Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

    Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

    B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

    Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

    B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

    Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

    B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

    Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

    B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

    It is conceivable that without the activism of the US, the Russians may never have occupied Afghanistan and there may never have been a war.

     The Problem inherent in a ‘Solution’ involving Civilian fighters

    Wars are fought by countries under the direction and control of their government. The “Mujahideen” who fought the war to drive out the Russians were drawn from 35 countries and numbered around three hundred thousand. There was no government (in Afghanistan or in exile) to manage and control them and therefore none to take care of them after the war. They were left to fend for themselves. The US and Pakistan simply washed their hands off the problem once the war was over.

    If the US were to disband their army in Afghanistan and leave the soldiers with their arms to fend for themselves, we can expect them to behave just like the Taliban or perhaps worse.

    Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State) understood the nature of the problem very well and said while answering a question during an interview with Fox News's Greta Van Susteren: “To be fair we had helped to create the problem we are now fighting. Because when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, we had this brilliant idea, that we were gonna come to Pakistan and create a force of Mujahideen, equip them with stinger missiles and everything else to go after the Soviets inside Afghanistan…. and we were successful. The Soviets left Afghanistan and then we said great! good bye! and washed our hands off, leaving these trained people who were fanatical in Afghanistan and Pakistan, leaving them well-armed, creating a mess frankly, that at the time we really didn't recognize, we were just so happy to see the Soviet Union fall, and we thought ok fine, we're ok now, everything's going to be so much better. Now you look back, the people we're fighting today, we were supporting in the fight against the Soviets."

    The US army applies several filters in their recruitment process and a candidate who inclines to the religious right is not selected. Such people have been found to be the ones more likely to remain maladjusted after a war and indulge in senseless violence such as shooting sprees.

     In the case of the "mujahideen", normal boys were put through a process of indoctrination in religious extremism using experts from Palestine in specially set up madrassas!

     The US understood the risks very well based on their well-documented research which has become the basis of their selection policies, but didn't care and I doubt if Pakistan and Saudi Arabia anticipated the problems these fighters would create after the war.

     The Afghan Mujahideen heroes morph into “terrorists”

    The US fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union arming/training the Mujahideen. The war broke the might of the Soviet Union who suffered an ignominious defeat, leaving the US the only superpower. The US pre occupation with the communist world ended, allowing it to focus on the strategic oil rich Middle East.

    Saddam obliged by occupying Kuwait giving Bush the opportunity to enter the ME. When Saddam looked ready to withdraw from Kuwait, Bush unleashed a volley of abuses, making it impossible for Saddam to withdraw and save face, forcing a war. This was in 1991.

    The Afghan Mujahideen had offered to liberate Kuwait just as they had liberated Afghanistan from the Soviets but the Saudi monarch was afraid of the growing influence of Osama and felt insecure. He therefore invited the US to help liberate Kuwait. It would have been much cheaper and safer for the US to use the Mujahideen to drive out the Iraqis. This however did not meet their objectives for a larger role in the ME. This was the beginning of the rift between the US and the Afghan Mujahideen who now morphed into Al Qaeda.

    All the so called Islamic terrorist incidents are after the first Gulf war and the first of these incidents was on February 26, 1993 – World Trade Center bombing, in New York City. 6 killed.

     The Magnitude of the Problem

     While it should have been absolutely clear to all that it was a blunder to have used civilians to fight wars and thereafter leave them to fend for themselves, nothing has changed.

     ·       These “Mujahideens” or “terrorists” continue to be used by the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They have been used in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi and they are being used in Syria to oust Bashar al- Assad.

    ·       Pakistan has used them against India in the past and is likely to use them again once the US leaves Afghanistan and the drone attacks stop. Right now the terrorists are incensed with the army and the government of Pakistan for allowing the drone attacks and are waging a war against their own army and government.

    ·       The approximately 1000 Madrasas set up in Pakistan to indoctrinate the “Mujahideen” to wage “Jihad” continue to function with local and foreign students ensuring a steady supply of fresh “jihadis”.

    ·       The Problem however is confined mostly for the Muslim countries alone or in the country where these people reside. These people make very little impact on the rest of the World.

    ·       The Individual “Jihadis” who can strike anywhere are a different people who are more likely to be University graduates and whose motives are purely political and directly correlated with specific incidents that aggravate the grievances. A Department of Defense study in 1997 concluded that: "Historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States." Former president Jimmy Carter, some years after he left the White House, was unambiguous in his agreement with this: “We sent Marines into Lebanon and you only have to go to Lebanon, to Syria or to Jordan to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers—women and children and farmers and housewives—in those villages around Beirut...As a result of that...we became kind of a Satan in the minds of those who are deeply resentful. That is what precipitated the taking of our hostages [in Iran] and that is what has precipitated some of the terrorist attacks.” However, attacks by individual “jihadis” are extremely rare and in terms of actual loss caused, they have caused little damage. In the 13 years since 9/11 only 33 deaths in the US are attributed to such people.

     The World gets a shock

     According to the Soufan group, a very small number of 3000 westerners from Europe and North America have joined the war in Syria/Iraq. The highest number is from France numbering around 700 followed by UK numbering around 400, Belgium and Australia 250 each, Germany 270, US 70 etc. These countries are worried about what these small numbers will do after they return and are planning several measures to deal with the problem.

     If such small numbers can cause so much worry requiring elaborate measures to deal with the situation, why do these countries not worry about the thousands from Muslim countries who got involved in Afghanistan and now in Syria? If they are worried about the small number of what their own nationals may do after the war, why is it so difficult for the world to understand what half a million of such people spread across 35 countries have been doing which goes in the name of “Islamic terrorism”? These people are doing what they have been taught to do in state sponsored and supported Madrasas and it is normal behavior for them. To expect anything else from them is insanity.

     Is it not hypocrisy that while the US, UK, etc. continue to back the foreign civilian fighters in Syria and elsewhere, they are worried about the very small numbers from their own country who have got involved?

     The Solution

    It is a huge problem that must be tackled. Blaming does not help. Understanding what the problem is and how it came about is necessary to prevent more of the same and to reverse the process.

    ·       The first step is to close down those 1000 madrasas which were set up specially for the purpose of churning out “jihadis”. Although the Russians have left, not a single madrassa has been shut down or changed into a normal madrassa. Yes, the US cannot be blamed for this but only Pakistan, except that the US is aware of what is going on but will not do anything to put an end to the nonsense. Pakistan obviously intends using these people against India.

    ·       Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other countries which have the problem of terrorism from their own citizens, should absorb those who can be retrained for Army discipline into their armies. The rest should also be accounted for by imprisonment if necessary.

    ·       We should raise awareness among the general public of what has caused the problem in the first place and what needs to be done to put an end to it and count on public pressure on their governments to effectively deal with the situation and bring the problem to an end.

    As described, not even a single step has been taken to put an end to the menace of terrorism while reams have been written and lip service paid.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/28/2018 2:22:23 AM



  • Ms KF,

    I am not an expert but surely there are others who are experts and they can give you better answers. However I am trying to answer your question, “What will happen if the ISIS is successful? 

    If ISIS succeeds, it will definitely kill those who do not agree with its ideologies. This is a plain answer, but insha Allah it will not succeed with its agenda of unjust killing of civilians including Muslims and non-Muslims. 

    Muslims have defeated ISIS in many ways. Non Muslims have known that ISIS has nothing to do with the religion it claims to follow. However, unfortunately there are some Muslims and non-Muslims including Islamophobes who might be following or considering ISIS to be in full agreement with Islam. 

    The major reason for the defeat of ISIS is that Islam itself rejects ISIS on many grounds. Newageislam.com has published hundreds of articles related to the dangerous situations in case of ISIS becoming successful, in addition to the articles with regard to refuting ideologies of ISIS. Some of them are mine as follows. For the articles of other authors and scholars on the same topic, one can see the Author section of newageislam.com. Newageislam.com also welcomes those people who do not agree with its authors, scholars and articles published on this site. So here is a chance for everyone to agree or disagree with any view. If the readers have any questions and doubts, they can ask them in the comment section right down the articles. 

    1.    ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Other Islamist Terrorists are Kharijites? An Analysis of 40 Major Characteristics of Kharijites

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/106173

    2.    Radical ‘Salafi’ Ideology Of Zarqawi That Created ‘ISIS’: Muslims Must Reclaim Real, Spiritual Islam And Eliminate Radicalism

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/105537

    3.    ISIL Militants Killing Muslims in Iraq will Taste the Hellfire

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/97833 

    4.    The Terrorist Acts of ISIS Are Categorically Forbidden—Evidences from the Quran and Hadith

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/111670

    5.    Refutation Of Raymond Ibrahim’s Article Entitled ‘Islamic State Beheads, Mutilates, As The Quran Instructs’ - Part 1: Don't Ignore The Context Of Quran's Verses Or The Asbab Al-Nuzul

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/100105

    6.    Refutation of Raymond Ibrahim’s Article Entitled ‘Islamic State Beheads, Mutilates, As the Quran Instructs’ - Part 2: The Dreadful Story of Abu Jahl’s Torture of Early Muslims

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/100166

    7.    Refutation of Raymond Ibrahim’s Article ‘Islamic State Beheads, Mutilates, As the Quran Instructs’ - Part 3: Associating Terrorism With Islam Is Complete Distortion Of The Religion; Evidence from Qur’an

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/100290

    8.    The Self-Proclaimed ‘Caliphate’ of Daesh or ‘ISIS’: A Gross Distortion of the Rightly Guided Caliphate and Thus a Neo-Kharijite Organization

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/102853

    9.    ISIS: The Knife That Slaughters Islam And Muslims

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/107144

    10. Unmasking Ideological Origins of ISIS; Refutation of Its Deviant Theology Alone Can Defeat This Evil

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/107242

    11. Suicide Attacks By ISIS or Any Other Muslim Militants Are Brazenly Un-Islamic and Categorically Forbidden [Haram] Under All Circumstances: Evidence from the Quran and Hadith

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/107985

    12. Refuting ISIS’ Magazine ‘Rumiyah’ That Ignores the Context of Quran's Verses To Forcefully Justify its Atrocities

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/111524

    13. Had The Hadith Already Asked Muslims 1400 Years Ago Not To Join ISIS?

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/113142

    14. The Sixteen Quranic Verses That Counter Violent-Extremism and Terrorism

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/112752


    The following three articles also refute ISIS

    15. Did War-related Madani Verses Abrogate Makki Verses in the Sense of Not Allowing Peaceful Coexistence between Muslims and Non-Muslims?

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/116166 

    16. Has the Ayat, La Ikraha fid Deen (There is No Compulsion in Religion), been Abrogated?

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/117158

     

    17. The Misunderstood Hadith - 'I Have Been Commanded To Fight the People Until They Say There Is No God but Allah’ - misused by terrorist ideologues and Islamophobes

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/117235

     

    Regards!

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/27/2018 12:53:33 AM



  • There are many experts on this site. I request them to answer these common questions.
    What is the future of the countries that support terrorism on the basis of religion?
    What will happen if the ISIS is successful?
    Why doesn't Twitter just block ISIS from using their platform?
    Why do people in India hate the words secular and liberal?
    How did the Sufi and Bhakti movement start in India? By Kaniz Fatma - 12/26/2018 11:41:58 PM



  • The extracted hadith verses support Muslims in the past were in defensive role against the pagans instead of aggressive: Book #59, hadith #466, "...Do not abuse him as he used to defend Allah's Apostle (against the infidels)..."; Book #73, hadith #171, "..he used to defend Allah's Apostle (against the pagans)."  As the hadith verses support Muslims were defensive against the pagans, it leads Quran 2:191 (Mohsin Khan translation, to mention), "...unless they (first) fight you there...if they attack you, then kill them...". Thus, Muslims played defensive role in the past that they fought because non-Muslims first fought with them.  Quran 4:90, "(supports that they ceased in battling against the pagans if they withdrew their battle against them since it 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."
    If Quran teaches there is a compulsion for all to become Muslims, the verse in Quran 4:90 should be removed since Muslims should continue to fight until they surrender their religions instead of stop fighting when they stop battle against them.
    By zuma - 12/25/2018 4:42:58 PM



  • The extracts below show the good relationship between jews and the Prophet: Book #36, hadith #485, "...Allah's Apostle gave the land of Khaibar to the jews to work on and cultivate...the field.."; Book #44, hadith #678, "...Allah Apostle rented the land of Khaibar to the jews on the condition that they would work on it and cultivate it..." By zuma - 12/25/2018 4:27:10 PM



  • Was the Prophet biased against Jews and to call all Muslims to massacre them?  No, it is not true since the book #31, hadith #222 (mentions he even communicated with the Jews without hurting them since it mentions)...The Prophet came to Medina and saw the jews fasting on the day of Ashura.  He asked them about that.  They replied, "This is a good day, the day on which Allah rescued bani Israel from their enemy.  So Moses fasted this day."  The Prophet said, We have more claim over Moses than you." So the Prophet fasted on that day and order (the Muslims) to fast (on that day)."  Besides, the extracted hadith supports the prophet even worked with Christians and Jews: Book #36, hadith #468, "The Prophet said,...the people of the two Scriptures (i.e. jews and Christians)...and asked them, 'Who will work for me from morning till midday...?  The jews accepted and carried out the work...The Christians accepted and fulfilled the work...".  As Christians, jews and the Prophet could work hand in hand in the past, why can't Muslim extremists accept them? By zuma - 12/25/2018 4:20:43 PM



  • If Islam is for Arab imperialism instead of it is meant for all the people in this world, why should Quran 2:185 (Yusuf Ali translation, mentions), "...Quran, as a guide to mankind..."?  The reason is simply Quran 2:185 should mention Quran is a kind for Arab imperialism instead of a guide to mankind if Islam is only for Arabians.  If Islam is only meant for Arabians, why should Quran 2:243 (Yusuf Ali translation, mentions), "...Allah is full of bounty to mankind (instead of to be biased towards Arabians)..."?  If Islam were for Arabians, why should Quran 3:3, "(mentions)...He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind..."?  Any way!  Was Moses or Jesus a Jew or Arabian?  As none of them were Arabians, how could Islam be restricted to Arabians?  As none were Arabians, how could anyone consider non-Arabians as haram?  If non-Arabian were haram, Moses was haram since he was a Jew.  The same was to Jesus, a Jew, instead of an Arabian.  You, dr A. Anburaj, simply discriminate non-Arabian to be haram. By zuma - 12/25/2018 8:50:29 AM



  • If dr A. Anburaj were right that non-Arabians are haram, the author, Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, should be haram since his genealogy cannot be traced from Arab but from India. Where does Quran mention non-Arabians are haram?  Was Musa an Arabian?  No, he was not an Arabian but a Jew.  Can you condemn him to be haram as well?  If you support people from all other countries can become Muslims, then you are wrong to support non-Arabians are haram since you mention they can become Muslims.  As non-Arabians can become non-haram, it implies Quran is meant for every people in the world instead of only for those Arabians.
    By zuma - 12/25/2018 7:39:49 AM



  • Dr A. Anburaj, if only people whose genealogy can be traced from Arab people can be considered to be non-haram, none of the people from other countries who proclaim themselves to be Muslims are Muslim since they are non-Arab items.  If every non-Arabians are Haram, none of the people can become Muslims except they must be the children from Arabians.  If non-Arabians are haram, why did Prophet Muhammad and his followers go abroad Arab to convert people to Muslims.  If only the children of Arab can be non-Haram, why should Quran 5:69 (Mohsin Khan translation), "(mentions)...those who are the Jews and the sabians and the Christians - whosoever believed in Allah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."?  The reason is Jews are non-Arab items. Quran 5:69 should not promise them to paradise.
    Moses was not an Arabian and yet Quran 87:19, "(Mohsin Khan translation, mentions) The Scriptures of Ibrahim (Abraham) and Musa (moses)."  As Abraham and Musa were not Arabians, they are non-Arab items and yet the scripture accepts them, it implies dr A. Aburaj is wrong that only Arabians can be non-haram.  As Quran mentions Jews can benefit from Quran as mentioned earlier, how can the book of Quran discriminate people to be non-haram and haram and only benefit those people whose genealogy must be from Arabs?  As Quran can be for people other than Arab, people in the entire world can become Muslims.  As people from other countries other than Arab can become Muslims, non-Arabians can never be considered as haram if they become Muslims.  Besides, none of the Quran mentions people have to be Arabians in order to be considered as non-haram. By zuma - 12/25/2018 7:32:12 AM



  • Dr. A. Anburaj mentions that Islam is Arab Imperialism and Arab never recognizes non-Arab items.  That is not true since Quran never mentions Arab never recognizes non-Arab  items.  If Quran never supports non-Arab items, why should Quran 2:62, "(mentions) Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."  If it were true that Arab never recognizes non-Arab items, none of the non-Arab people who convert to Muslims were Muslims.  If it were true that Arab never recognizes non-Arab items, why should Quran 2:62 mention Jews and Christians could benefit from it?  If it were true that Arab never recognizes non-Arab items, all the Muslims in the world who were not the children of Arabians could never become Muslims.
    By zuma - 12/25/2018 7:02:47 AM



  • tHE author skillfully gloss-over and whitewash islam. Islam is Arabian imperialism. Islam never recognises Non-Arab items.Everything Non-Arabian is Haram. Ali could not convert one Jews living in Yathrip  to Islam.Hence Pr.Mohammed waged war on Yathrip  and killed most of the Jews. Yathirp is now  called  M A T H I NA. WHO CAN SAY THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN ISLAM? tHE ARTICLE IS A bundle of  lies.  By dr.A.Anburaj - 12/25/2018 6:12:22 AM



  • I respect Sufis. But today sufis are not like the sufis hazrat nizamuddin, hazrat qutubuddin, hazrat abdul qadir jilani etc.

    Today at many shrines as we experience Sufis are not as much expert as they should be. Whenever they are asked questions about current issues, they show their inability of addressing the problems. I also believe there might be some good and expert sufis but they do not desire fame or publicity like some Sufis who ignore Islam and speak of their opportunist will.

    I was studying an article in which one point made by Mr. Sultan Shahin looked good to me. This point addresses the modern Sufis that focusing only on positive features of Islam will not address the problem.  They will have to focus on those questions which are used by the current terror groups.

    An Appeal to Sufi Divines: Please Go Beyond Clichés Like Islam Is a Religion of Peace, Refute the Generally Accepted Core Theology Which Is Helping Jihadis Lure Our Youths to Terrorism

    By Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor, New Age Islam

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/106637

    By Kaniz Fatma - 12/25/2018 3:01:04 AM



  • Those people who support Hadith agrees with Quran should answer the following questions that I raised for them:
    a) As Book #93, Hadith #642, "(mentions)...There is none of you but has his place assigned either in hell or in Paradise...." and the word, none, in this verse does not exclude Muslims, do they support all of the Muslims can never go to Paradise?  Where does the Quran support none can have a place in paradise?
    b) As the book #93, hadith #603, "(mentions)...He will look to his right, and see nothing...and will look to his left and see nothing...will look in front of him, and see nothing but the (hell Fire) facing him...", it implies He cannot find anything that looks like paradise except hell fire.  If there is paradise, he certainly can see it.  Why does this hadith verse mention he sees nothing?  Can they derive conclusion that there is no paradise?  Where does Quran support there is no paradise?
    c) As the book #93, hadith #602 (mentions), "...O Lord, Paradise is full...", does this mean that all Muslims who believe can never have a place in paradise since the paradise is full of people and many have no choice but choose to sleep in hell since hell is not full?  Where does Quran mention paradise is full?
    c) As the book #93, hadith #575 (mentions), "...Allah commands you to take out the mission of the hell Fire from your offspring.", does this mean all the offspring of Muslims shall go to hell Fire and be burnt since this verse mentions the mission of their offspring is to hellfire?  Where does Quran mention the mission of the offspring of Muslims is to hellfire?
    d) As Book #93, hadith #541, "(has animated paradise and hell that they can quarrel with each other since it mentions)...Paradise and hell (Fire) quarrelled in the presence of their Lord...", does this verse imply paradise and hell fire have mouths and can talk to each other?  Where does Quran mention paradise and hell can quarrel with each other?  The same is in the extract: Book #78, Hadith #654, "...The hell Fire will keep on saying, 'Are there anymore (people to come)?"; Book #60, Hadith #373, "...Paradise and the Fire (hell) argue, and the Fire (hell) said..."  It seems like fairy tale that paradise and hell fire can talk.
    e) As the book #88, hadith #193 (mentions), "...None of you should point..towards his Muslim brother...Satan may...hit him...and fall into fire (hell)", does it mean Satan can hit Muslims to cause them to fall into hell fire?  Where does Quran mentions Satan can hit Muslims to cause them to fall into hell fire?
    d) As the book #76, hadith #522 (mentions), "...When anyone...dies, his destination is displayed..in the forenoon and in the afternoon, either in the (hell) fire or in paradise...", does it imply Muslims can know whether his relatives can go paradise or not by observing words that would appear to them in the forenoon or in the afternoon?  Where does Quran mention the destination of the dead will appear in the afternoon for people to identify where they can go to?
    e) As the book #76, hadith #542 (mentions), "...a bridge between Paradise and hell...", does this mean people can go to paradise and back to hell freely through the bridge?  Besides, the hell fire is not strong enough to burn down the bridge since the bridge joined between paradise and hell.  Where does Quran mention there is a bridge between paradise and hell?
    f) As the book #76, hadith #456 (mentions), "...I looked into paradise and found the majority of its dwellers were the poor people...", does this mean Quran judges people by their wealth that the rich goes to hell and the poor goes to paradise?  Where does Quran mentions the rich goes to hell and the poor to paradise?
    g) As the book #62, hadith #126 (mentions), "...I looked at the (hell) fire and saw that the majority of its residents were women.", does this mean only a few men who disbelieve in Allah can be found there?  Not only that, this verse implies men who disbelieve in Allah shall be in paradise since you can only find majority of the women in hell there.  Where does Quran mention majority of the women in hell?
    As there are discrepancies between Quran and Hadith, how can some Muslims support both teach the same?  Instead, if Muslims do not handle hadith well, strange teaching can appear among Muslims that can never be found in Quran.
    By zuma - 12/25/2018 2:00:29 AM



  • When ibn abdul wahhab said Sufism or something like that is shirk he also tried to support it from hadith and he thought his understanding of hadith is in agreement with the quran.

    When other muslims say Sufism is supported by the hadith they also say this hadith in agreement with the quran.

    The conclusion should be that there is much more to think!!

    By Kaniz Fatma - 12/24/2018 10:49:44 PM



  • It is said that only scholars can make good understanding of Islamic sources. But what about Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab who was also a scholar of Islam. He justified killing of Sufi muslims on the basis of same claims of following quran and hadith. Sufi muslims also follow quran and hadith and think they are as per quran or hadith in their issues.

    Mr. Sultan Shahin has asked a very good question in his article. He first quotes Maulana Asghar Ali Imam Mehdi Salafi who condemned suicide attack. Was this condemnation free from hypocrisy because his leader Ibn Abdul Wahhab as quoted by Shahin sb says,

     

    “Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (1703–1792), the founder of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi-Salafi creed declared all rationalist and mystic Muslims as mushrik or polytheists and thus “wajibul qatl” (deserving death). In a long discourse in Kashaful Shubhat, he explained why all Muslims despite their claim to believe in one God are polytheists whose lives and property are halal (permitted) for Wahhabi Muslims. He concluded his discourse: “… You now understand that these people's (non-Wahhabi Muslims’) accepting tauheed (oneness of God) does not make them Muslim; the fact that they expect intercession from others than God (Sufi saints) makes them liable to be killed and their property to be looted." ----- Kashaful Shubhat, p.9, Maktaba al-salafia bil Madina Munawwara, 1969 CE)”

     

    Murderous Sectarianism in Islam: Salafi Ulema Should Not Only Condemn the Massacre at Lal Shahbaz Qalandar Shrine but Also the Ideology behind It

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/110142

    By Kaniz Fatma - 12/24/2018 10:18:15 PM



  • Conclusion: Muslims should not derive any conclusion out of hadith by any verse since it might lead to false teaching unless it has been done with the help of Quran. By zuma - 12/24/2018 3:43:52 PM



  • How about book #60, hadith #469, "(that mentions)...none of you but has his place written for him in Paradise or in the hell-fire."  Those who read this hadith verse without reading it in conjunction with Quran verse might conclude none of the believers whether they are Muslims or not shall go to paradise since it mentions with the phrase, none of you but has his place written for him in Paradise.  However, if Muslims shall read the subsequent phrase, Carry on doing (good deeds)...will lead him to his destined place)" with Quran 2:28 to confirm the truth, it would conclude only those who do good deeds to paradise.
    From the above analysis, it can conclude false teaching can come out from hadith if it has not been read with conjunction with Quran.
    Thus, Muslims should not derive any Islamic teaching from hadith unless it is handled cautiously with the help of Quran.
    Many terrorists arise due to they use hadith to support their view without the help of Quran. By zuma - 12/24/2018 3:39:00 PM



  • How about book #8, hadith #438, "(that mentions)...He will be inviting them (i.e. murderers...) to Paradise...".  Without using Quran 2:28, conclusion might be derived that this hadith verse promotes Muslims to do evil deeds, i.e. killing. However, if Muslims shall read Quran 2:28 and also the phrase, they will invite him to hell-fire, it implies that book #8, hadith #438, "(would turn up to mean it condemned)... Ammar (since he delivered false message that)He will be inviting them (i.e. his murderers...to Paradise and (for his false teaching) they will invite him to hell-fire (due to his false message to encourage them to do evil deeds...".
    From the above analysis, it gives the danger to use hadith verse alone to conclude what Allah's message is for all the people.  Instead, Hadith verse has to be interpreted in conjunction with Quran so that people can benefit Islamic teaching from it. By zuma - 12/24/2018 3:20:18 PM



  • How about Book #3, Hadith #106, "(that mentions)...whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then he will surely enter the hell-fire."  This verse seems to condemn all liars to hell at a glance.  As we know, none of the Muslims never tell.  Can they conclude all Muslims go to hell since none never lie?  No, it is not true to support it.  It has to be read with Quran 2:28.  If Quran 2:28 is read with this hadith verse, it is obvious that the Prophet should have confronted with people who did evil deeds or some kinds of unpardonable sins, i.e. killing or stealing or etc.  His warning against these evil people whom he spoke to that they should not lie to him that they did not commit evil deeds since whoever or any of these evil people who deny they did evil deeds shall enter into hell.
    Thus, it is dangerous to use hadith verse to derive Islamic teaching since it can lead to false teaching without the help of Quran. By zuma - 12/24/2018 3:01:29 PM



  • Let gives another example: book #2, hadith #30, "(that mentions)...When two Muslims fight (meet each other with their swords, both the murderer as well as the murdered will go to hell-fire...".  As we know, not all Muslims who fight are evil.  Some might fight because he defends himself due to another fights with him.  Without reading Quran 2:28, one might derive conclusion from this hadith verse that Allah shall condemn even the defenders even though they do it right to defend themselves from the attack.  If that is so, all the victims who shall be attacked by other people shall have the fear in hell.  If Muslims shall read this Hadith  verse with Quran 2:28, they certainly would come to the conclusion that both of these fighters in this hadith verses should have committed some kinds of evil deed, i.e. stealing, killing or etc., prior to their fight.  Thus, this Hadith verse does not condemn all fighters whether they are defending themselves to hell.  It condemns these two because they should have committed evil deeds prior to their fight.  
    From the analysis above, it is obvious that Hadith verse should not be read alone or else it would lead to false teaching.  It should be read with Quran in order to benefit out of it. By zuma - 12/24/2018 2:46:49 PM



  • Hats Off is now quoting Hadiths to me when I have been saying for years that I hav no use for Hadiths! He will distort and lie in order to vilify progressive Muslims. Have I ever said that there is no anti-Jewish sentiment in Islam? I do say that there should be no anti-Jewish sentiment in Islam. Those two statements are quite different. Have I ever supported jiziya? I have quoted Christian and Jewish historians who have said good things about how Jews were treated under Muslim rule compared to how they were treated in European countries. That is the part in this discussion that Hats Off naturally has nothing to say about! He would lie and deceive in order to make Islam look all black and not a shade of grey as most religions. Seeing the intensity of hatred and mendacity in Hats Off's comments, I wonder what shade of grey should be assigned to atheism.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/24/2018 2:46:44 PM



  • None should interpret Hadith out of context or else the entire script turns weird.  Let examine each of the hadith verses below:
    Does Book #2, Hadith #28, "(support Allah discriminates women since it mentions)...the hell-fire...the majority of its dwellers were women..?  The subsequent phrase, They are ungrateful to their husbands, in Book #2, Hadith #28 implies the so-called majority of...women that this Hadith verse to comment on should refer to those women who might not make their husband happily.  People should know those things that women do not make husbands happily might not be evil to them since they might cause them to be angry for the food they have made or cause them to be angry due to they could have bought something unwanted things that make them unhappily or etc.  If this Hadith verse is read with Quran 2:81, it is obvious it condemns those wives who commit evil deeds, i.e. adultery with other men even though they have husbands.  Thus, the phrase, They are ungrateful to their husbands, in this Hadith verse implies it gives on all the women who are ungrateful to husbands and out of these ungrateful that the prophets saw commit evil deeds, i.e. commit adultery outside marriage.  From this verse, it is obvious that it is irrational to use the hadith verse to derive truth from it or else it would give false teaching.  Hadith verse has to be read with Quran so as to derive true meaning of the verse or else it would give false message in Hadith.  Just like Book #2, Hadith #28.  At a glance, it seems that Allah condemns all women to hell.  In reality, not all wives are ungrateful to women.  If this verse is read with Quran 2:28, it is obvious that this hadith verse gives comment only to all those ungrateful women.  Allah only condemns those ungrateful women who involves in evil deeds.  Just that to the curiosity of the Apostles in this verse, what he saw, majority ungrateful women were in hell since they committed evil deeds.
    From this verse, it is obvious that none can use Hadith verse to derive what Allah intends to say unless Muslims would interpret it with the help of Quran.  Or else, false teaching would come out from Hadith to lead people with misunderstanding.
    By zuma - 12/24/2018 2:32:52 PM



  • so mr. GM would try to brush under the carpet the sahih hadith about when the last day will come and what will happen to the jews. and of course about the gharqad tree. need i say more? islam inherited its anti-semitism from the christians and agian from the fact that the jews of the hejaz did not accept the prophet.

    see who is talking!

    your mask of moderation keeps slipping and now and then your grin is visible. whataboutism has always been your strength. and the gift never stops giving.
    By hats off! - 12/24/2018 6:35:45 AM



  • Miss KF, The real purpose of knowledge or Science of Usul al-Fiqh is to make Mujtahid qualify for applying qawaid of the usul in order to deduce practical Ahkam of Sharia from its adilla tafsiliya. Whoever gets ability of ijtihad can, through the application of the qawaid of usul, understands nusus shari [which is roughly translated as injunctions of the Quran and Sunnah] with its various types such as jali [manifest] and khafi [concealed], in addition to gaining capacity for utilizing qiyas, istihsan, istislah, istishab and other sources for learning rulings of the new-occurring issues.

    As for those who do not have ability of ijtihad, they benefit from knowledge usul to know the methods of deducing the rulings [ahkam] and takhrij of new ahkam related to the changing circumstances, depending upon the qawaid of jurists and their fatawas similar to them, comparative analysis of apparently conflicting or contradicting opinions, their evidences in several ijtihadi issues and then adopting the preponderant opinion or using the method of preferring [tarjih] the most authentic evidence in full agreement with nusus sharia [Quran and Sunnah]

    Dear KF,

    There is technical difference between the one who has ability of ijtihad and the one who does not have, as the ususl al-Fiqh benefits both of them, nevertheless the former applies the methods and deduces the rulings while the latter knows the methods, checks all arguments related to the issues and derive the best which can conform to the nusus sharia.

    As for the real purpose of ilm al-Fiqh, it applies ahkam sharia to the practices of mukallifin from among the people/believers, informing them of halal and haram. For this reason, Fiqh is the competent authority of ‘Alim, Qazi, Mufti, with the expertise of which they inform the people of hukm shari related to their actions, speeches, events and conflicts.

    All this difference does not confuse us provided we focus on understanding ilm of usul al-fiqh and ilm of fiqh.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/24/2018 4:17:28 AM



  • @Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi sb, 
    The purpose of of usul al fiqh and ilm al fiqh is very confusing to me. 
    By Kaniz Fatma - 12/23/2018 11:08:06 PM



  • Hats Off has to continue his campaign of lies and hate hence it is impossible for him to see jiziya in the context of the times and in relation to other evils then  prevalent in the world such as the treatment of the Jews in Europe or the treatment of Dalits in India. Pointing this out to him is not kosher because he will only accuse you of supporting jiziya!  This is the level of perfidy and chicanery he brings to these discussions. It is because his sole purpose is to generate hatred against Muslims and against Islam. And he has certainly found the right outlet to do it in!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/23/2018 1:08:35 PM



  • thanks for the straw man. you have now improved upon mr. NA.
    who talked of comparing the holocaust with the issue at hand? you are a mere whitewasher of atrocities. so just stick to glorifying the vile practices of religions. after all that is how you have to sabotage the kuffars.
    so why don't we discuss how the islamic marauders reduced the polytheist hindus to dust and raised mountains of the skulls of hindu idol worshipers?
    rings a bell? i am sure you have something to defend it too. you are after all a very moderate man. of moderate intelligence, moderate honesty and immoderate sense of self importance and a pathetic tendency to pontificate.
    your guilt shines through.
    By hats off! - 12/23/2018 7:05:02 AM



  • Hats Off is good at vilification and demonization of others. While jiziya and dhimmihood were evil practices, they did not amount to a holocaust or a 1000 year long unspeakable oppression of Jews in Europe. 

    Mark R. Cohen writes that despite the humiliating connotations and the financial burden, the jizya paid by Jews under Islamic rule provided a "surer guarantee of protection from non-Jewish hostility" than that possessed by Jews in the Latin West, where Jews "paid numerous and often unreasonably high and arbitrary taxes" in return for official protection, and where treatment of Jews was governed by charters which new rulers could alter at will upon accession or refuse to renew altogether. The Pact of Umar, which stipulated that Muslims must "do battle to guard" the dhimmis and "put no burden on them greater than they can bear", was not always upheld, but it remained "a steadfast cornerstone of Islamic policy" into early modern times.

    If you can't make a distinction between evil and diabolic evil, it is because you are primarily a hate propagandist taking into consideration gradations of evil weakens your hate propagation.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/23/2018 12:20:19 AM



  • first you believe that some x is a "denier of truth" (whatever nonsense that 'truth' is), then you demonize his faith, his reloigion, his existence.

    then you can undertake such a mean and intolerant view of that x such that you advice the jizya collector to cuff the dhimmi on his ear bone, or force him to one side of the road, or prevent them from repairing and constructing new places of worship.

    so are you trying to sell the concept that jizya was bad but not worse? and hence not so bad? you are the worst kind of denier of truth.
    By hats off! - 12/22/2018 8:46:54 PM



  • Ghau sb.,

    Thanks for your detailed answer. Many of us believe that apostates,  as full-fledged citizens of a secular democracy, have every right to believe or disbelieve whatever they want to. Our Quran too abhors compulsion.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/22/2018 2:03:49 PM



  • Hats Off says, "jiziya is the structural component of demonization of the kuffar."

    Not of demonization but of being an unbeliever (as opposed to being a kafir). Where is the honesty when you try to distort the truth?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/22/2018 1:55:43 PM



  • Dear KF,

    Muqallid is the one who does not have required ability to deduce Ahkam from the adilla tafsiliya. It was therefore Mutaqaddemin [the early scholars] used to use the word Faqih only for the Mujtahid. However this established notion of Faqih is no longer used in our days. Unlike the mutaqaddemin, the word Faqih is now used even for the one who is expert in understanding Fiqhi Juzyiaat, that is, this is used even for the muqallid who is lesser than the mujtahid. As for mujtahid, not only does he understand Fiqhi Juzyiaat but also deduces, as said earlier, the ahkam from the adilla tafsiliya.

    Allama (lit. the biggest scholar) is the most misused word today. Mullaji is called Allama. Mullaji was once used for the great scholars such as Mulla Jami, Mulla Hasan but now among the ordinary people this Mullaji is used for the one who, even without having expertise in Islamic teachings, just starts acting according to a Sunnah, that is, he grows his beard, wears kurta pyjama and thereby becoming our lovely Mullaji. Such mullaji feels like being a boss in front of non-mullaji but starts showing his humbleness in front of the one who is more knowledgeable than him. I have experienced that most mullaji has good intention who when being told that he has done something wrong accepts his mistake.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/22/2018 2:42:19 AM



  • Thank you for your answer. But who is Faqih? How is he different from mujtahid? It is often seen in Urdu media the use of the terms like Allama, Faqih, Mujtahid but is it adequate to use these terms for muqallid?

    By Kaniz Fatma - 12/22/2018 2:17:16 AM



  • Please read the missing words in the previous comment,

    ….succumb to their will.

    ….they can ignore at the primary stage their doubts concerning these laws and start trusting again the basic rules related to Aqaid which is solely the matter of heart and belief. This spiritual way will help understand the wisdom behind all other criminal laws.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/22/2018 1:32:49 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin sir,

    Thanks for your good words. Humbly speaking, I am not the "Alim" of that kind who for the reason of condemnation made in limelight or media circles succumb to their. As a servant of God Almighty and student of Islam, I am still researching for the causes of punishment of apostasy; one of which is possibly treason.

    What I believe spiritually for the apostates that they should come back to observe the blessings of Din of Allah. If their leaving this religion took place for the doubts concerning criminal laws of Islam, they can ignore at the primary state these laws and trust the basic Rules related to Aqaid which is solely the matter of heart and belief. They can focus on the blessings that Allah has given to His creations who believe Him after all problems and persecutions and who seek forgiveness for whatever wrong they ever did. Tauba in all cases, spiritual connection with remembrance of God, humbleness, special love towards God – all should be the focus of His slaves. Whatever worries them much should be ignored and replaced by the remembrance of God.

    'Only In the Remembrance of God Is the Solace of Hearts' (Quran13:28)

    http://www.newageislam.com/d/115476

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/22/2018 1:02:27 AM



  • Dear Zaid, 
    You have touched my  heart in which I feel every time the same message that you wrote for me.
    Please PLEASE remember me in your dua that May Allah endow us all with the necessary teachings of Islam, if not complete knowledge of Islam which was given only to the beloved Prophet [peace be upon him] 
    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/22/2018 12:34:45 AM



  • Yes boss Mr. Zuma Sohail, 
    I have read this Quranic verse and am still reading it again and again and I love this Quranic verse which says "there is no compulsion in Religion"
    Actually this article was not meant for scholars like you and Mr. Naseer.
    It was an answer to one of the common questions the list of which I have.
    Taking the mind-ability of a common reader, I did not go into details of quoting great scholars and presenting my understanding of their text in full agreement with the Quran.
    I still remember a comment once made by Mr. Muhammad Yunus whom I am missing on this site a lot that great scholars are often misunderstood. 
    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/22/2018 12:30:48 AM



  • Miss KF,

    Adilla Tafsiliya and Adilla Ijmaliya/Adilla Kulliya are terms used in Usul al-Fiqah. Both the terms cover a lengthy explanation; however the difference between them can be shortly understood as follows.

    Adilla [evidences] plural of dalil are of two types; 1) Ijmaliya/Kulliya and 2) Tafsiliya/Juzyia. First is the field of Usuliyeen and second is that of Faqih, while for the faqih it is compulsory to be well acquainted with the field of usuliyeen.

    In the experts of the first category known as usuliyeen discuss the sources of Ahkam al-Sharia [Quran, Sunnah, Ijma and Qiyas] and the Qawaid through which a mujtahid deduces practical rulings [amali ahkam] of Sharia from the Adilla tafsiliya, for example, one of the Qawaid is that Amr [command] denotes wujub [compulsory] and nahi denotes tahreem [forbiddance]. This sort of adilla is therefore the field of usuli. For example, the Quran says, اقيموا الصلوة وآتوا الزكوة so in this verse the two Arabic verbs are of Amr which denote that Namaz [salat] and Zakat are compulsory, on the basis of the rule set forth that amr denotes wujub/compulsory.

    Adilla Tafsiliya are those adilla juzyia which relate to an issue for which the verses of the Quran or Sunna have been revealed or established. For instance, the verses of the Quran “فاجتنبوا الرجس من الأوثان واجتنبوا قول الزور” denote that wathaniyat [idol worshipping] and false witnessing are forbidden. This verse is dalil tafsili for the ruling of forbidding wathaniyat and false witnessing.   

    These two sorts of adilla have necessarily covered major part of science of Usul al-Fiqh.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/21/2018 11:45:15 PM



  • Allah Almighty says, “If we had so willed, we could certainly have brought every soul its true guidance” (As-Sajdah 32:13).  The phrase, Allah...had so willed...we could...have brought every soul its true guidance, in Quran 32:13 implies every soul shall turn up to believe in Allah if Allah has the will to do it.  The phrase, Allah...had so willed...have brought every soul, in Quran 32:13 implies also those who believe in him are those whom Allah has set his will for them to believe.  As it is his will for all those who believe in him, it implies those who do not believe in him are those whom his will are not to have them to believe.  In other words, Allah does not force all the people of the world to believe in him.  If he would force all to believe, all would come to him.  This is by virtue of Quran 32:13, "(mentions if)...Allah...willed, we could certainly have brought every soul its true guidance” and yet in reality, not every soul would have true guidance to have faith in him.  As not all the souls have true guidance to have faith in him even though Quran 32:13 mentions it is his will to have all, it implies he does not force all to believe.  That has led to Quran 2:256 to conclude there is no compulsion in religion. By zuma - 12/21/2018 10:44:27 PM



  • What is difference between adilla tafsiliya and adilla ijmaliya?  By Kaniz Fatma - 12/21/2018 6:00:20 PM



  • Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, please read Quran 10:99 carefully.   This verse is a question since this verse ends with a question mark.  As it is a question, it is irrational to use it to deny his comment in Quran 2:256.  Quran 10:100, "(Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation) No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah...".  As the phrase, No soul can believe, is mentioned in Quran 10:100 with the phrase, except by the will of Allah, it implies that it is his will to have those whom He wish to be His people to believe in Him.  As it is His will to cause all the people to believe in him, it implies those who turn up not to believe in him are those whom he has rejected them.  As Allah personally rejects these people not to cause them to believe in him, it implies he does not force anyone to believe in him.  In other words, he permits free will among human beings to believe in him.  As he permits free will among them to believe, that has led him to conclude in Quran 2:256 that there is no compulsion in religion since he does not force any to believe in him.

    Thus, from the above analysis, it has come to the conclusion that he has misinterpreted it out of context.  Allah does not force any to believe or else he would have caused all to believe since Quran 10:100 mentions the reason why people believe in him is his will to cause them to be so.
    By zuma - 12/21/2018 9:12:21 AM



  • jiziya is the structural component of demonization of the kuffar. you know and i know what islam thinks of the kuffar.

    honesty is non-negotiable.
    By hats off! - 12/21/2018 6:48:39 AM



  • The author does not have knowledge of complete Islam By Zaid - 12/21/2018 5:57:50 AM



  • My comment remains unresponded. This is a strange article that says verse 2:256 is not abrogated which means that the author believes in abrogation and yet he ignores all those who have argued that the verse stands abrogated! All the verses cited in support of the verse  do not prove that it is not abrogated. Is is only rebutting each of the arguments of those who have argued that it is abrogated that can prove that it is not abrogated. To remind him, the following is what he needs to refute besides what he may know of the arguments of those who argue that it is abrogated.:

    Kanzul Iman saying in its Tafsir of 8:39 that the fighting was to go on until the Mushrikin "kufr se baaz aye aur iman laye".  This means that the fighting was to compel them to accept Islam which contradicts 2:256

    Ibn al-Arabi in his work Ahkam al-Qur'an, declares dogmatically that to compel to the truth is part of the Faith, on the authority of a hadith: "I have been commanded to fight people till they recite the declaration of faith ...", which he considers to have been derived from the Qur'anic verse: "And fight them until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah alone." (8:39; 2:193)

    I have rebutted these with my articles:

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/21/2018 2:51:44 AM



  • Jiziya is discrimination, whereas Islamophobia is demonization. The two are not comparable.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/20/2018 11:42:38 PM



  • The person obsessed with ‘this’ and ‘that’ is confined to what is known in Urdu as ‘tang nazari’ (and God knows best why such a person is unable to come out of that zeal) while unfortunately he himself thinks that others are ‘tang nazr’. That man might belong to any ‘maslak’ or ‘non-maslak’. If a person belongs to any particular maslak, he can be easily identified but what about that problem which emanates from the person who is never going to be identified as he walks on some or the other ‘maslak’ considering himself away from ‘maslak’.

    Sorry it is too philosophical for some but spiritual for others!

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/20/2018 11:25:32 PM



  • Unnecessary jealousy harms the jealous itself and makes him ‘sick-minded’, and ‘ignoramuses. It never affects the one who the jealousy is directed for, provided he is humbly sure of the blessing of God and thankful to Him.

    One should do at least riyadat w mujahada and seek power from God to refrain from jealousy which is the disease of heart and spirit. This short comment is meant for curing jealousy. Allah Almighty says, ويضل به كثيرا ويهدي به كثيرا

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/20/2018 11:04:18 PM



  • Sir, why do you allow these ignoramuses to write on topics they do not have proper understanding of. People concocted hadiths because they could not change the verses of the Quran but now they have another excuse the abrogation of verses so that they declare verses of not their liking abrogated though they exist in the Quran. They will decided which of the verses Muslims should not take into consideration in the daily or communal life because their maslak does not support the idea in that particluar verse.  By arshad - 12/20/2018 9:09:20 PM



  • are we paying tax because we follow/do not follow a particular religion?

    is that an argument? and do we pay taxes in "willing submission" after being subdued?

    the indian government never made me feel "subdued" while collecting taxes. neither did the government instruct the tax collecter to cuff my "ear bone". neither does it ask me to walk on one side of the road. it also does not prevent me from riding astride a horse.

    anyone who thinks jizya was an honorable thing should never crticise europe for their islamophobia, which by the way can be life saving.

    so how will the muslims feel if they are offered a choice between becoming hindus or paying a "tax"? this is the monstrosity that some "moderate" muslims will shamelessly defend. and scream murder if the veil is banned! what a bunch of hypocrites!

    if jizya "saved" minorities, why are there no minorities in most islamic countries? islam systematically colonized the lands it conquered, much like britain by imposing its religion, language, dress codes and behavior. britain did not.

    in comparison to islamic colonialism, british colonialism was vastly more benign. but then stockholm syndrome is the most common disorder in the "reverts" as well as the defenders of islamic brutality.

    if any muslim thinks that jizya is good, then discriminatiing against muslims should also be good.
    By hats off! - 12/20/2018 6:09:15 PM



  • Jiziya was light under some regimes but heavy and oppressive under other regimes.

    Dhimmis were given protection in law but in practice were treated as second class citizens with several restrictions placed on them.

    However most Christian and Jewish historians are agreed that Jews were treated much better in Muslim societies than they were treated in Europe. Even Christians preferred how they were treated by Muslim rulers than how they were treated earlier by Byzantine Greek rulers.

    I can imagine God requiring that religious minorities  be treated well, but I cannot imagine Him sanctioning jiziya taxes or second class citizenship on anyone.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/20/2018 12:52:20 PM



  • For everything we are paying taxes. Whatever we buy we pay taxes. Why do we pay? For security or something else?

    People and scholars may have different opinion but I think Jizya was not an act of oppression. Jizya, if calculated, is less than what Muslims have to pay in Zakat or taxes. Another thing to note is that Jizya was not imposed on every non-Muslim but only on those who were able to pay.   

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/20/2018 3:56:24 AM



  • GM sb,

     

    And what makes you think they were not happy to do so? I am sure the hypocrite among the Muslims would have been happy if they too were given the choice of paying jizya and escaping from paying zakat and military duty.

     

     

    “In fact, my ancestors who survived thirteen centuries under Muslim rule saw clear advantages in not being Muslim: mostly in the avoidance of military conscription. (Nassim Nicholas Taleb writing in his book “Skin in the game”)

     

     The non-Muslims who have experienced living under the Islamic rule, saw clear advantage in retaining their religion to avoid conscription for which their men of military age and ability had to pay Jizya. In later years, after the non-Muslim population had got assimilated, and conscription was sought to be made compulsory and jizya abolished, they resisted.

     

     Negotiation of the Terms of Jiziya

     

     There are several verses in the Quran that give the Prophet the mandate within which he is free to negotiate. Verse 9:29 is one such. We know from history that Jiziya was implemented by the Prophet not in terms of 9:29 but quite differently. Although no accounts are available of what transpired, it would appear that the “People of the Book” were anxious to avoid Jiziya as a punitive tax for their lack of good faith and bad behaviour during the period of the Prophet’s struggles against the main enemy of Islam and the Muslims. They therefore negotiated the terms to remove the stigma of a punitive tax for their lack of “good faith “and succeeded. The final form that Jiziya took is therefore a negotiated settlement between the two parties where both parties came out winners having achieved their objectives.

     

    Jiziya was to be levied only on males of military age for their exemption from military service. In return the state granted all people belonging to the community the status of “The Protected People” or Zimmi meaning that the state undertook the responsibility of defending them and protecting them. They also had the freedom to practice their religion unhindered.

     

    Jiziya was therefore never a one-sided imposition nor a punitive tax but “value” for money and a result of a negotiated settlement between the parties. The People of the Book came out winners and the Prophet also came out a winner having established a relationship of willing taxpaying citizens with them.

     

    Verse 9:29 also clearly applied only to the immediate addressees of the Prophet’s mission or the People in Hejaz. It is their behaviour that is described in the verse 9:29 and all other verses in the Quran. It is not a command to fight “People of the Book” who were not the immediate addressees of the Prophet just as verse 9:5 covers only the Mushrikin who fought against the Muslims and not any other people elsewhere. Verse 9:29 therefore has nothing to do with people outside the Arabian Peninsula who were not the immediate addressees of the Prophet’s mission. However, since Jiziya had taken a secular and non-punitive form even for the people covered by 9:29, the practice was continued for all conquered people subsequently. In this, it was like the tax levied by all conquerors with the vital difference that it came with a guarantee of freedom to practice their own religion, exempted their males from conscription, and guaranteed protection. Jiziya was secular because it was clearly applicable only on males of military age and for exemption from military duty and exempted women, children, old men and even monks. Had it been based on religion, there should have been no exemption for women, old men and monks.  It was non-punitive since it clearly rendered value for money in the form of guarantees of protection, freedom to practice one’s religion and exemption from military service. While all conquerors levied taxes, none gave or guaranteed anything in return to the conquered population.

     

    Jizya therefore was to the advantage of the non-Muslim population and seen as such by the people who willingly paid Jiziya to avoid conscription and resisted its abolition.

     

    “The only definition of rationality that is practically, empirically, and mathematically rigorous is 'what is rational is that which allows for survival'. Unlike modern theories by psychosophasters, it maps to the classical way of thinking. Anything that hinders one's survival at an individual, collective, tribal, or general level is, to me, irrational.” (Nassim Nicholas Taleb writing in his book “Skin in the game”)

     

     Jiziya ensured survival of other religious groups and cultures and was a rational structural solution to the problem of forced conversion to the dominant religion. Look at the travails of the Jews under Christendom or Buddhism in India to appreciate how Jiziya ensured survival of all minority religions under Islamic rule.

     

    Divine wisdom is however beyond GM sb.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/20/2018 3:41:34 AM



  • @Alifa

    I do not know exactly what is truly happening in Kashmir. I see and what you also wrote that JM of Kashmir brainwashes the Muslim youth for stone pelting.

    I suggest Muslims that they should have patience and not agree with what JM of Kashmir wants them to do. If something is going wrong, they should come out and share it with other Indians, rather than succumbing to the will of JM or Hurriyat

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/20/2018 2:44:42 AM



  • @Hats Off sb,

    You are very knowledgeable but with humble words I want to share with you that the knowledge which connects our mind, heart and soul with the remembrance of God is good.

    It is disheartening to see that people are getting knowledge to focus on disturbing others and keeping them away from the remembrance of God.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/20/2018 2:39:31 AM



  • WAT CAN BE SAID FOR THE KASHMIRI PEOPLE WHOSE FAMILIES ARE PERSECUTED, RAPED AND TORTURED. 
    UNFORTUNATELY THE INTERNET FACILITIES ARE SHUT DOWN 
    SOME JAMATE ISLAMI COME AND GIVE STONES TO THROW 
    AND THUS THE ENTIRE MEDIA START FOCUS ON STONE PELTING 
    THEY DO NOT COVER THE NEWS OF PERSECUTION AND NEWS OF BRUTAL RAPE AND HARRASMENT 
    HURRIYAT MOVE IS DANGEROUS BUT WHOELSE IS NOT DANGEROUS 
    IS THIS FREEDOM? 
    IS THIS HUMAN RIGHTS?
    IS THIS GOOD?
    WHY ENTIRE WORLD IS SILENT AND NOT ABLE TO FIND OUT TRUE TRUTH
    By Alifa - 12/20/2018 2:08:13 AM



  • There is no hide no game of hide and seek.
    It was simply thought not just only under this thread but even years ago may be with Rational that punishment of apostates must have been for the cause treason
    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/20/2018 1:47:58 AM



  • "islamic scolarship is basically talking on both sides of a proposition."

    We should weigh in on the right side of the proposition.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/20/2018 12:05:43 AM



  • mr. GGS is never going to give you any categorical response.

    islamic scolarship is basically talking on both sides of a proposition. there is freedom of religion, but at the same time punish apostates. women are a degree less than men but they are equal. we respect all religions but truth stands out clear from error.

    kindergarten children often have a vastly higher level of argument.

    he can never bring himself to condem outright the practice of punishing apostasy. because no one is clear what exactly is islam and what is unislamic. islamic argument is basically argument from expediency.

    he will hide behind mr. NA who thinks apostasy and treason are interchangeable and have the same consequences.

    so by implication islam is not a religion. it is a country. so any country can promulgate a law against treason.
    By hats off! - 12/19/2018 7:19:48 PM



  • Naseer sb.,

    You had said, "happy to pay jiziya." So naturally I asked, "How do you know?"

    Does Allah teach us to treat people of different faiths differently?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/19/2018 12:21:47 PM



  • Ghaus sb.,

    So you agree that apostasy is not a crime.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/19/2018 12:15:59 PM



  • This article says forced conversion is not permitted.

    if forced conversion is not okay then why we hear the news of forced conversion? Is it media policy or politics?

    By Raju Chauhan - 12/19/2018 1:05:03 AM



  • If we focus on blessed teachings of Islam which are useful in this world and the Hereafter, it will be more good. 
    muslims lack moral education, they do not know how to perform namaz, how to be pious, how to be good muslims. they should be trained for better future, for business, for girls empowerment, for parents empowerment, etc
    By Kaniz Fatma - 12/19/2018 12:56:39 AM



  • I too think so but may be with slight difference that reports concerning the punishment of apostasy must have been meant for treason, as this is historical fact that those who became apostates were at the same time treasonous. The reporters might have meant punishment for ‘treason’ by calling them apostates.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/19/2018 12:49:54 AM



  • How do you know they were not happy with the arrangement? Who else but Allah can teach the right way to govern and bring people under the sovereignty of the political ruler?  By Naseer Ahmed - 12/19/2018 12:22:34 AM



  • Naseer sb.,

    How do you know they were happy to pay jiziya? By the way, if such an exemption was granted by a political or military leader of that period, I would  consider it to be a reasonable arrangement, but I can't imagine God Almighty Himself imposing jiziya on anyone.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/18/2018 11:43:08 PM



  • The Quran does not criminalize apostasy. It criminalizes treason. Our fuquha equate apostasy itself with treason. The Quran doesn't and in fact considers the apostates leaving as "good riddance" because they do not add to your strength but on the other hand weaken you and spread disorder and confusion.

    (9:46) If they had intended to come out, they would certainly have made some preparation therefor; but Allah was averse to their being sent forth; so He made them lag behind, and they were told, "Sit ye among those who sit (inactive)."
    (47) If they had come out with you, they would not have added to your (strength) but only (made for) disorder, hurrying to and fro in your midst and sowing sedition among you, and there would have been some among you who would have listened to them. But Allah knoweth well those who do wrong.
    (48) Indeed they had plotted sedition before, and upset matters for thee, until,- the Truth arrived, and the Decree of Allah became manifest much to their disgust.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/18/2018 11:27:30 PM



  • ......happy to pay jiziya and escape conscription. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/18/2018 10:43:13 PM



  • The territory needs to be defended which requires that an army be maintained without which they can be conquered and fall into slavery.

    If they needed protection of life and liberty without bearing arms, they needed to pay for it. And what about zakat? 

    There are several accounts which tell us that the people were happy to pay zakat and escape conscription.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/18/2018 10:40:03 PM



  • Ghau sb. says, "My suggestion for the Muslim world is that Muslim scholars should solve the problem of such muslims leaving the religion, rather than going for punishment."

    But shouldn't you, as an aalim, give your opinion on whether apostasy should be decriminalized.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/18/2018 12:05:09 PM



  • Naseer sb.,

    Nobody should be forced to fight in a war which is sectarian. Why should polytheists fight a war in the cause of monotheism? They should be excused from fighting such a war without being subject to jaziya.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/18/2018 11:19:52 AM



  • Sultan Shahin sahib,

    You know it well. It is popular view that since the early days of Islam the Muslim ummah have held the view that Muslims are not allowed to leave the blessed religion, Islam.

    It might not be the case of more troubling issue in the early days of Islam than in our days but since so many sects are there among Muslim community and you know well that these sects call one another apostates. So this will not be an easy task to categorically decide the fate of a Muslim by calling him apostate and the result will be the fitna and mutual-killing all around the Muslim world, as we already are seeing, let alone talking about the one who publicly leaves the religion.

    In this age many have left this blessed religion for which they themselves will be accountable to God.

    The problem is not one sided; those who have left the religion are not restricted to their own life and work but rather they are abusing the religion and its personalities and it seems they have vowed to destruct the religion. This method is also justified under the guise of ‘freedom of speech’.

    No one should be shocked at the time when they leave the religion they cry for freedom of religion and at the same time they do not want others to remain with their own religion under the same right of freedom of religion. Every time they can be seen discussing the “shortcoming” of the religion under the slogan of freedom of speech but when others discuss their shortcoming they start showing their anger.

    Those who are leaving this blessed religion are deprived in my opinion and what can be further said more than that. What can be more the matter of deprivation than their leaving this blessed religion?

    My suggestion for the Muslim world is that Muslim scholars should solve the problem of such muslims leaving the religion, rather than going for punishment.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/18/2018 9:38:12 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus Saheb, you say "This is the basic Islamic principle upon which the idea of non-compulsion is built, guaranteeing religious freedom for all non-Muslims...."

    Does this mean that while there may be some freedom of religion for non-Muslims in Islam, there is none for Muslims? Once someone is born as a Muslim, he doesn't have the freedom to choose his religion, or change it or leave religion altogether as many Muslims are doing in the present environment. Something like 20 per cent of youths in Turkey, for instance, have chosen to become Desists; they believe in God but not in the prophethood of Mohammad (saw). Are they free to do so, or will some Turkish ulema start calling for them being killed as apostates are supposed to be killed?

    In short, does the la ikraha fid Deen, if not abrogated, apply to Muslims too?

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/18/2018 8:51:29 AM



  • Things are clear now. The Arabic lines quoted in my previous comment imply that there are conflicting reports about Ahkam Al-Quran being the book of Ibn Arabi Abu Bakr Maliki or of others. Some validate attribution of this book to him while others do not. Some say this is the work of Abdur Razzaq Al-Qashani but was mistakenly attributed to Ibn Arabi Maliki as a result of his popularity. Sheikh Muhammad Abduhu also holds the same view. It is this reason that some biographers do not mention Ahkam al-Quran as the book of Ibn Arabi Maliki but some others including the publishers do.

    No matter who is the actual author of this book, I will search for the original quote in its Arabic version and I think it must have been under the subject of La Ikraha Fid din.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/18/2018 8:17:52 AM



  • Naseer Saheb, you are right, there are two ibn-e-Arabis. One Mohiyuddin and another Abu Bakr. Mohiyuddin is the mystic Ibn-e-Arabi who is considered Sheikhul Akbar. 

    But the quote you had given originally was from Abu Bakr ibn-al-Arabi whose book is called Ahkam al-Quran. So there indeed was some misunderstanding, when you said: "Ibn al-Arabi in his work Ahkam al-Qur'an, declares dogmatically that to compel to the truth is part of the Faith, on the authority of a hadith: "I have been commanded to fight people till they recite the declaration of faith ...", which he considers to have been derived from the Qur'anic verse: "And fight them until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah alone." (8:39; 2:193).…" You obviously assumed that this quote was from the famous mystic Sheikhul Akbar Mohiyuddin Ibn-e-Arabi, though that's not the case. 

    By Sultan Shahin - 12/18/2018 7:47:18 AM



  • The tafsir by Muhiyddin Muhammad Ibn Arabi is simply called "Tafsir Ibn Arabi". 

    The tafsir by Abu Bakr Ibn al-'Arabi is called "Ahkam ul Quran.

    I have not made any mistake in quoting or correct attribution.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/18/2018 4:54:04 AM



  • Please have a look at this which talks about reality of Tafsir attributed to Ibn Arabi Abu Bakr. There are conflicting reports. Anyway, the tafsir of Ibn Arabi that I have on my desktop is different from this one and can be downloaded through the given link below:

    حقيقة التفسير المنسوب لابن عربي:

    هذا التفسير الذي ينسب إلى أبي بكر محي الدين محمد بن علي بن أحمد بن عبد الله الحاتمي الطائي الأندلسي المعروف بابن عربي، وبعض الناس يصدق نسبته إليه ويعتقد أنه من عمل ابن عربي نفسه وبعض آخر لا يصدق هذه النسبة ويرى أنه من عمل عبد الرازق القاشاني، وتنما نسب إلى ابن عربي ترويجا له، نظرا لشهرة ابن عربي، وممن يرى هذا الرأي الأخير الأستاذ الإمام الشيخ محمد عبده عليه رحمة الله، فقد نقل عنه تلميذه المرحوم الشيخ محمد رشيد رضا في مقدمة تفسيره أنه قال بعد ما تكلم عن التفسير الإشاري: "وقد اشتبه على الناس فيه كلام الباطنية بكلام الصوفية، ومن ذلك التفسير الذي ينسبونه للشيخ الأكبر محي الدين بن عربي، وإنما هو القاشاني الباطني الشهير، وفيه من النزعات ما يتبرأ عنه دين الله وكتابه العزيز، تفسير المنار ج1 ص 18.

    https://archive.org/details/Tafsiribnarabi/page/n11

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/18/2018 3:59:10 AM



  • Ahkam al-Quran 4 Volumes - Hardcover – 2008

    by Ibn al-Arabi. Abu Bakr

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ahkam-al-Quran-4-Volumes/dp/B00DTAQPE8

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/18/2018 3:19:04 AM



  • Naseer sb,

    How have you come to know that I am “apparently mistaking one for the other”? From where have you learnt that Ahkam al-Quran belongs to Ibn Arabi Maliki and not to Mohiyuddin Ibn Arabi? May be from Wikipedia?

    With humble words, I request you to correct your information and accept that Ahkam al-Quran is a book of Tafsir written by Mohiyuddin Ibn Arabi – A great Sufi Master as well as theologian. I have read this tafsir and still have on my desktop in Arabic.

    Ibn Arabi Maliki was also a mystic and theologian did not write Ahkam al-Quran. He is reported to have written hundreds of books but only some of them are considered authentic.

    Regards!

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/18/2018 1:51:02 AM



  • There are two different Ibn Al-Arabi. Ghaus sb is apparently mistaking one for the other. 


    The Maliki scholar who wrote ahkam ul Quran

    Abu Bakr Ibn al-'Arabi (born 468/1076, died 543/1148) was a "Andalusian Malikite qadi"

    He was born in Seville Al-Andalus, a region of Spain which became a center of great civilization, particularly generated by non-Arab, non-Muslim influences.

     

    The Sufi

    Ibn ʿArabi (26 July 1165 – 16 November 1240), full name Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibnʿArabī al-Ḥātimī aṭ-Ṭāʾī, was an Andalusian Muslim scholar, mystic, poet, and philosopher, whose works have grown to be very influential beyond the Muslim world. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/18/2018 1:29:59 AM



  • Ghaus Sb,

    If you have the original quote him and tell us what he says.

    If you say Ibn-Arabi didn't say it, leave him and respond to others who have. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/18/2018 12:49:05 AM



  • GM sb,

    Ask those people whether they would have preferred paying zakat and compulsory military duty for all able bodied males instead of Jiziya and get back to me with the response. By Naseer Ahmed - 12/18/2018 12:45:07 AM



  • @Naseer sb,

    You did not quote the original text of Ibn Arabi from Ahkam Al-Quran.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/18/2018 12:34:18 AM



  • Naseer sb. says, "says that the polytheists who were not guilty of any wrongdoing and covered by 9:4 had the right to retain their faith and become Jiziya paying citizens as per 9:29."

    Why can't they become full citizens paying just the same taxes that everybody else pays? Naseer sb. thinks he is very liberal because he does not want to impose the death penalty on them. Not imposing the death penalty on people who are innocent to start with is hardly an example of great magnanimity.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/18/2018 12:04:03 AM



  • Ghaus Sb,

    Ibn Al-Arabi is not the only one who quotes the cited hadith to say that the polytheists had no option but to accept Islam or death nor is he the only scholar to equate fitna with shirk to say that the war was until fitna=shirk was eliminated.
     
    I find myself the only person who says that the polytheists who were not guilty of any wrongdoing and covered by 9:4 had the right to retain their faith and become Jiziya paying citizens as per 9:29. The consensus of scholars including the moderates such as Javed Ghamidi, Maulana Waheeduddin Khan and the traditionalists like al-Shabi, al-Hasan, Qatadah and al-Dahhaq say that 9:29 did not apply to the polytheists and after their treaties ended, they could remain only as Muslims or face death. This amounts to both oppression and coercion because under the law, they did not deserve the death penalty nor does the Quran justify such a penalty for them as it does for those covered by 9:5.

    The polytheists covered by 9:5 were deserving of the death punishment for their crimes described in 9:13. They were given three choices 1) Accept Islam and remain 2) Migrate during the four month amnesty period to a neighbouring country 3) death at the end of the amnesty period if they remain without having accepted Islam. There is therefore no coercion in Verse 9:5 since the death sentence is just and the options are generous which enable them to save their life and even retain their faith if they so wish.

     No compulsions in religion is therefore violated if:

    1. The polytheists not guilty of any wrongdoing and covered by 9:4 were to be killed if they did not accept Islam and chose to remain
    2. If the fighting was to end polytheism (fitna=shirk) and not to end the religious persecution.

    To assert that "There is no compulsion in religion" was not violated by the Prophet (pbuh), it is essential to reject those who equate fitna with shirk and those who deny that 9:29 applied to the polytheists as well. 

    An article which asserts that 2:256 is not abrogated, must necessarily refute the contrary opinions of the prominent scholars without which it is a meaningless assertion.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/17/2018 11:28:52 PM



  • Naseer sb,

    You must have got wrong understanding from Ibn Arabi’s Ahkam al-Quran.

    Have you studied Ahkam al-Quran properly or simply copied its translation from anywhere?

    Ibn Arabi was more a spiritual personality than a simply theologian.

    I still remember his tafsir that I read some years ago – the very spiritual tafsir when he explained the verse “fight in the cause of Allah” to mean fighting against Satan [evils inspired by devils] and Nafs [baser self].

    Please show me the original quote from his Ahkam al-Quran.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 12/17/2018 10:43:54 PM



  • From the title of the article, it is clear that the author believes in abrogation of verses of the Quran but has reason to believe that verse 2:256 is not abrogated. Citing other verses in support of 2:256 reinforces the message of verse 2:256 but does not prove that it is not abrogated.  

     

    Those who believe in abrogation of verse 2:256, such as Ibn Arabi argue as follows:

     

    Ibn al-Arabi in his work Ahkam al-Qur'an, declares dogmatically that to compel to the truth is part of the Faith, on the authority of a hadith: "I have been commanded to fight people till they recite the declaration of faith ...", which he considers to have been derived from the Qur'anic verse: "And fight them until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah alone." (8:39; 2:193)

    Another construction ... confines the verse to the People of the Scriptures who submitted to the Muslims and agreed to pay Jizyah (poll-tax) but excludes the polytheists from its scope. In the case of the latter, only two alternatives are said to be open - Islam or the sword - on the authority of al-Shabi, al-Hasan, Qatadah and al-Dahhaq. 

    How does GGS reject/refute  Ibn-Arabi and others who argue that 2:256 is abrogated?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/17/2018 1:27:15 AM



  • We should say, "There shall be no compulsion in   religion," and stop there. Quoting the rest of 2:256 and 2:257 dilutes the message. When Almighty God Himself is presented as calling one course the right course and the other course the wrong course, calls those who do not follow Allah "allies of Taghut", who "are the companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein," that might come across to some mushriks as a kind of "compulsion". We, as good Muslims, should know which part of the message is divine and which part is an elaboration.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 12/14/2018 11:27:33 AM



  • This verse means that the teachings of Islam are very clear and the proof and evidence of its soundness are so clear and definitive that there is no need for compulsion. Ibn Juzayy (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “There is no compulsion in religion” means: the religion of Islam is very clear and its proof of its soundness is self-evident, so there is no need to compel anyone to enter this religion. Rather anyone who has sound understanding will enter it of his own accord, without compulsion. This is indicated by the words, “Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path” [al -Baqarah 2:256] (at-Tasheel, p. 135)

    By Kaniz Fatma - 12/14/2018 9:45:41 AM



  • "Forced belief is not sincere belief. As we have already seen in the above passages that Islamic faith is not related to outward physical response, but rather it relates to the heart. This is one of the reasons that Allah Almighty says, “The messenger’s duty is but to proclaim the message.” (5:99). Allah Almighty says, “If we had so willed, we could certainly have brought every soul its true guidance” (As-Sajdah 32:13). Since the Quran has distinguished guidance from error, as mentioned in the verse 2:256, it is now up to the will of people whether to believe or disbelieve. So it is for the reasons discussed above the Ayat 2:256 can’t be called ‘abrogated’."
    Excellent lines!
    By Kaniz Fatma - 12/14/2018 4:46:33 AM



  • Good. So, you also reject Ibn-Arabi, Shah Wali ullah and all other scholars who either take a differnt view or equivocate? And you also reject the hadith that says that the prophet said that he was commanded to fight until there was no more disbelief? And you also reject the tasfir which says the war was to be waged until they "kufr se baaz aye aur iman laye"?

    And you also agree that the muhrikin covered by 9:4 had the right to retain their faith and become jiziya paying citizens as per 9:29?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 12/14/2018 4:27:35 AM