Honouring the Prophet (pbuh) and Showing Gratitude
Prophet (pbuh) and Showing Gratitude
If you still cannot understand then the problem is certainly of Allah
sealing your heart because of your kufr and apostasy. If you wish to be cured
of your apostasy read:
Prevention and Cure for Apostasy
I have done all that I could to help you and you can make
a good start by thanking me for all that I have done for you. That will open up your heart to the answers and you may begin to understand.
What arguments can I use to convince someone whose "heart is sealed
and on whose eyes is a covering” - a person who is "dumb. deaf and
blind and will not return to the correct path"?
Did I claim that I have a cure for apostasy? I showed you the path to
redemption but for the arrogant fool that you are, you called it “ mullahish
The Quran asks us to leave such people alone and not engage further with
them unless they repent.
Allah has provided the others an excellent example
of how a person progressively sinks deeper and deeper into kufr until he reaches
a point of no return.
Why does GM sb think that what he said to Rational does not apply to him? Why did he do unto Rational what he does not want done unto him? I think it applies better to GM sb than it did to Rational and it is poetic justice that GM sb stands abused by himself. I wouldn't call it abuse because it is the truth.
Are you saying that I have not answered or that my answer does not
This discussion is irrelevant. The point is that you doubt verses
33:36,37 to be from Allah and more than insinuate that these are inserted by
the Prophet (in a very timely manner) when the people reacted adversely to his
marriage with his "adopted" son's divorcee.
It is for you to believe what you wish to believe and if you were only
looking for something that is not clear to you in the verses, your attitude
would have been different.
Your behaviour is that of a disbeliever and an apostate. Since your
advice to Rational is in the same context, it fits you very well. You have not
explained why you didn't ask the same question six years earlier but warded off
Rational with your vituperation.
“Someone who has left Islam should not pretend that he is seeking
answers to some questions. You are an apostate. Act like one. You have every
right to be an apostate. Join the company of other apostates and have a good
time. Your forays in this forum have had the sole purpose of being disruptive,
derisive and rude. That's why you were called "a wolf in the garb of
a sheep, a snake in the sleeve, or more".
GM sb's pride, arrogance and intense envy of me prevents him from
returning to the "straight path". He is doing it to himself. It is
not Allah who wrongs him but he who wrongs himself and then asks the stupid
question "Does Allah seal the hearts of wicked people like him?"
Nothing happens except as per the laws decreed by Allah and Allah has
decreed that one who wilfully denies the Ayats of Allah repeatedly, his heart
gets progressively sealed until he becomes "Deaf, dumb and blind who will
not return to the straight path". Allah did not compel you to repeatedly
deny the Ayats of Allah and mock them. You chose to do so. Allah made me
explain to you the Ayats that you mock at leaving you with no excuse whatsoever
for continuing to deny and mock the Ayats of Allah. Can you explain why these
questions were not raised by you six years back when the topic was discussed?
(33:56) Allah and His angels send
blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him, and
salute him with all respect.
You have shown disrespect to the Prophet (pbuh). Don't tell us now that
the above Ayat which is from the same Surah is also not from Allah. If you
believe it is from Allah, then you will repent and make amends by openly
admitting on this thread, that you made a mistake in doubting that verses
33:36,37 are from Allah and on what these verses mean.
(2:159) Those who conceal the clear
(Signs) We have sent down, and the Guidance, after We have made it clear for
the people in the Book,-on them shall be Allah´s curse, and the curse of those
entitled to curse,-
(160) Except those who repent and make
amends and openly declare (the Truth): To them I turn; for I am Oft-returning,
The above verses are an assurance from Allah of His
forgiveness provided you repent and make amends by openly declaring the truth
that all the verses in the Quran are the word of Allah, including 33:36,37. Repenting
or not repenting is your choice but the consequences will be as per the laws of
Allah and Allah has made known His laws. If you repent, you have the assurance
of Allah’s forgiveness and if you don’t then the curse of Allah and of all
those entitled to curse is on you which will sink you deeper into kufr from
which you will progressively find it more difficult to come out of.
I would like to see you change track and return to the straight path.
Every sinner steeped in his own stupidity mocks the way GM sb mocks me.
It was a marriage arranged by Allah and proved to be a happy one. When
Zaid, Zainab and the Prophet had no complaints, what is bothering GM sb?
GM sb is a morally depraved dirty old man and he sees nothing but dirt
everywhere which is why he cannot accept the simple truth that this marriage
was arranged and performed by Allah to put an end to a class of taboos. He
imagines the worst in a very innocent incident in the Prophet's life which is
why he asked all those dirty questions.
I am sure, Allah has shown him the light of the truth through my answers
but GM sb's arrogance will not allow him to accept that he made a mistake or
that I have answered all his questions. His personal animosity to me prevents
him from accepting anything I say.
Having lost every argument, it is in sheer desperation to try to win at
least one argument, that he took up this subject. Otherwise, what has this
subject to do with anything that concerns us? And why would a person who
attacked Rational with vituperation, do what Rational did? His envy of me will
destroy him completely. He must therefore refrain from asking me questions
because I cannot hep giving correct answers and his rejection of the answers through
his pride and envy will make him sink deeper and deeper into kufr.
You started off by denying, rejecting, doubting verses 4:34, 24:2,
33:36,37. Even after I have explained these and you are left without a question
unanswered, you say it has made “zilch” difference to you. You continue to deny
that the verses are revelation from Allah. You have succeeded in proving for
the benefit of all the readers of NAI the truth in the following verses of the
(2:6) As to the rejecters/deniers/doubters
(kafaru), it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them;
they will not believe.
(7) Allah hath set a seal on their
hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty
You being a dumb literalist also asked the question “Does Allah set a
seal on their hearts?” My answer was that Allah is describing the law of human behaviour
that He has decreed. Those who choose to heed Allah (Muttaqin) advance on the path
of guidance and those who are heedless (kafaru), progress on the path of error till they
reach a point of no return. Their state then becomes as if their hearts have been sealed.
(2:18) Deaf, dumb, and blind, they will
not return (to the path)
You confirm that you have been rendered Deaf, dumb, and blind, and will not return to the correct path. Now,
you should tell us, whether Allah did this to you or you did it to yourself.
Your attitude is of a confirmed disbeliever. If you were seeking
answers, you would have thanked me for my efforts and showed exactly what
continues to bother you and kept seeking better answers. That is not the case.
You started with rejection and denial and you continue to do so.
I will give you the same advice you gave Rational under identical
circumstances discussing the same verses 33:36,37 “Someone who has left Islam should not
pretend that he is seeking answers to some questions. You are an apostate. Act
like one. You have every right to be an apostate. Join the company of other
apostates and have a good time. Your forays in this forum have had the sole
purpose of being disruptive, derisive and rude. That's why you were called
"a wolf in the garb of a sheep, a snake in the sleeve, or more".
years back, Rational and Hamza attacked based on verses 33:36,37 and the response
to it was weak and was warded off saying that these are the “ambiguous” verses
which Allah does not want us to discuss. You warded off the attackers with your
vituperation. Now six years later, you become the attacker with the same verses
and repeating many of the questions asked by the other two earlier. Clearly, in
sheer desperation, after having lost all your arguments, you were looking for a
semblance of a victory and you thought it would be easy with these verses. Alas,
this was not to be!
were a hypocrite then and you are a hypocrite now. Nothing has changed. As a
hypocrite, you act as a friend of the Muslims when the more honest ex-Muslims
attack. At other times, you are the snake in the grass attacking disguised as a
friend. Just review what you said to Rational. Your own words apply to you
today such as “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, “venomous snake”, “apostate” etc. And
your advise to Rational to leave this site and go to the apostate sites applies
to you. In this thread, you tried to escape after attacking by saying that you
are not blaming the Prophet but the compiler 20 years later while at the same
time saying that the timing of the verses coinciding with the marriage is what
makes it suspicious! How you tie yourself up with your own contradictions! To escape the heat, you suddenly start looking
for “innocent” explanations such as the Prophet mistook his own thoughts to be
revelation from Allah! That is the most mischievous explanation as it
undermines, the Prophet (pbuh), Allah and the Book but that is precisely your objective.
The disgusting pervert that you are, you will take any meaning, but the straightforward
direct meaning of the verses as explained. You want to attack without being perceived
as an attacker. The perfect hypocrite.
Once he has lost the arguments he can pretend that the answers were "inane" or whatever. An honest person will show these were inane by pasting the question and the response which this loser cannot afford because it exposes his falsehood.
You are pathetic GM sb! You are ashamed even to copy my question
on 4:34 and post your response below it because that exposes you as a fool.
You are the one who has been stalking me and not the other way around.
It is my unassailable presentation of Islam as fundamentally and literally a religion
of peace, justice, inclusiveness and reason that upsets your nefarious plans to
destroy it by pretending to be a friend of Islam and questioning a major part
of the Quran. Your efforts do not hurt Islam. They only strengthen Islam. For
example, take the discussion on verses 33:36-38. I have stuck to the literal
meaning of the verses and answered all your questions which I can see is a
super-set of the questions that Rational and Hamza asked on the subject besides
your own. You cannot find a flaw in my answers. There isn’t a part of any verse
that I haven’t explained or any part of your question that I haven’t
answered. You are only a
disbeliever in the revelation by Allah of the verses. Now, what explains the
inability of others to come-up with an equally clear explanation of the verses?
Why are the verses that are crystal clear to me “ambiguous” to others? This is
because a veil covers either fully or partially, the eyes, ears and hearts of the people. The flaw is with the reader and not with the Quran. The Book is Kitabum
Mubeen and there are no “ambiguous” verses for those who have their ears, eyes
and heart for it. For others, it makes as much sense as their ears, eyes and heart
are open to it. It is not Allah who seals their hearts – the people do it to
themselves. Take your own example, you are a disbeliever by choice even though I
showed you how this incident is similar to Ibrahim’s (AS) “sacrifice” and the
departure from the norm in addressing the Prophet rather than the Believers on
a verse legislating the divorce process. Allah uses the prophets to teach by
By your excellent example, you have helped people
who had difficulty understanding the meaning of “those who will not believe”
understand it. Allah uses both you and me for His purpose. Your poison is
neutralized and the truth advances. The clarity to the understanding of the verses
would not have come but for your questioning. I have therefore patiently
answered all the questions of Rational before and I do so for your questions
also. I see no difference between the two except that one was honest and the
other a hypocrite. You both have the same way of arguing and running away
without closure when you know that you have lost the argument.
comment below betrays the truth. If you had thought that you were in any
position to win the ongoing discussion on 4:34, 24:2, 33:36,37 and other
verses, these would have been a significant achievement for you and not
“nothing of value”. When you have lost the discussions only then it becomes
“nothing of value”. Your bluff and bluster now do not fool anyone.
“By the way, flooding of
NAI's "COMMENTS" section with comments lifted from Facebook and
written by people who never visit NAI, has resulted in the disappearance of
threads that were carrying ongoing discussions between Naseer sb. and me.
Come to think of it,
nothing of value has been lost!”
Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/9/2019 1:46:47 PM
“Your explanation of the Zainab verse is not satisfactory to me because it does
not question the timing and the circumstances of the revelation.”
That is a ridiculous thing to say! My explanation
explains both the timing and circumstances of the revelation, but you fail to
understand because you have made yourself “deaf, dumb and blind”.
The verse says very clearly
that this was not an ordinary marriage, but a marriage performed by Allah “We
joined her in marriage to thee”. The Prophet merely followed what was indicated
as a duty by Allah to him 33:38. This he could do only after Zaid divorced
Zainab and the observance of all necessary formalities. The Prophet was
trying to prevent Zaid divorcing Zainab because he didn’t want to marry Zainab
and he feared the reaction of the people to such a marriage. Allah therefore
says that He has a greater right to be feared than the people. Allah also gives
the reason for making the Prophet marry the divorced wife of his adopted son.
The timing of the verse coincides with Allah marrying the Prophet to Zainab.
What is the ceremony of Nikah except the mutual acceptance of the other as
spouse and an announcement to the society of the marriage? How else can a
marriage performed by Allah become an announcement without a revelation? When
else should this verse have been revealed except after the marriage? You refuse
to understand the simple, straightforward meaning of the verses because of your
Harsh punishments have been a feature of the
Divine Law through the ages. Why this is so, is explained in my article:Understanding
the Religion of Allah through the Ages.So, when I ask you on
what source book are you relying on to say what you say about 100 lashes etc.,
it is because there is no Scripture without harsh punishments for crimes and
there is a good reason for corporal punishment. It has worked very well in
civilizing us otherwise we would have been no different from any animal. If you
think your reason/common sense is superior to the “perfect and complete
religion” then you do not need the religion. From where is your common sense derived
except from the liberal political philosophy that values individualism over the
collective? Religions are for maximizing the collective good. There is no
compulsion in religion, so if you are for individualism and therefore for tolerance
of an individual’s “right” to have sex with any consenting adult and “right” to
use his/her sexuality for social and economic gain, then leave religion and
espouse your political philosophy.
Your advocacy for decriminalizing adultery in
Islam and tolerating women " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts
or other body parts being insufficiently hidden” is a
recipe for turning Islamic society into an openly adulterous one and we know
from empirical evidence that 87% of such women openly admit that they use their
“erotic potential” for social and economic gain. That makes them sluts and
their men pimps. It is your choice to become a part of such society but
when you are trying to drag all Muslims to your level of degeneracy, then you
need to be exposed as a dangerous apostate bent on mischief mongering.
The difference between Rational and
you is that he was not a hypocrite but you are the very epitome of hypocrisy.
You are far more dangerous than Rational. You are the snake in the grass.
The difference between Rational and
you is that he was not a hypocrite but you are the very epitome of hypocrisy.
You say 24:2 is not from Allah, and
religion should have nothing to do with crimes and punishment for them
including adultery, and you also argue that adultery is not a crime against
society, but it could be violation of a civil contract if sex is with a partner
married to another. You do not therefore even accept the definition of adultery
in Islam which is sex between partners not married to each other and covers
even those who may be unmarried and do not violate any civil contract. You
reject the Islamic position that adultery is a punishable crime against society,
since an act that leaves behind four eye witnesses, corrupts the society. And
yet, you also want to say at the same time that you are not for decriminalizing
adultery in Islam. What a hypocritical lie!
You say you are not accusing the Prophet of
"falsehood" but saying "He could have mistaken his own
honest thoughts for revelation". How can thoughts that are falsely attributed
to Allah be honest? If he did that, these would have been immediately
expunged through a revelation. Why do you think that Allah would quietly watch
his Messenger insert his own thoughts as from Allah and fail to punish as
threatened by “severing the artery of his heart” (69:46)?
You say you are not accusing the Prophet of
"falsehood" but saying "
Do you have any straight answers?
Instead of running away, why don’t
you copy my question in full and give your non-answer/non-solution below and we
close the discussion on 4:34? If at all you bring this up again as you have
done after 6 years, we can start where we left off rather than repeat ourselves
all over again.
Are you saying that you are OK
with verse 24:2 and adultery remaining a punishable crime in Islam and not for
its decriminalisation in Islam?
You say “Regarding the Zainab episode, I know what the Quran says. If all
you can tell me is what the Quran says, you are wasting your time and my time.”
What else did you expect other than a
full explanation of what and why the Quran says what it has said on the
subject? Did you want like Rational to
discuss outside of the Quran and bring in the Seerah and the Ahadith and the
Islamophobic version of it? Perhaps a discussion of how the video “Innocence of
the Muslims” deals with it?
If you think the truth is outside the verses
and the verses are a falsehood inserted by the Prophet (nauzobillah), then I
wonder how you can even believe in such a prophet. Are you not then an apostate?
Your bringing up verse 33:36,37
out of the blue is proof that you had lost all other debates on verse 2:282,
24:2, 4:34 etc and in sheer desperation, you threw 33:36,37 at me because:
I had never discussed
In a previous
discussion Yunus sb gave a very unsatisfactory response that did not answer
anything. He did not even explain the verses
because to him these are “ambiguous”
You therefore thought that this topic
would leave me without answers, and you will taste a measure of some victory at
last. Alas! This was not to be and will never be.
The questions that you have raised
now with me, must have arisen in your mind even then, but you did not raise these.
On the contrary, you castigated Rational for defaming the Prophet with his questions,
going outside of the Quran and relying on the Ahadith and Seerah. Today, you stand
exactly where Rational stood before, and what you said to him applies to you. Let
me quote you on how you castigated Rational.
He (Rational) says, "Mr GM is
helping Mr Yunus in cursing tournament."
Showing up a liar and a
hypocrite like you is not cursing.
He adds, "Perhaps Mr
Yunus has hired a full time badmouth. A noble job that should be carried on to
give a proof how a good Muslim behaves in critical situation."
There is nothing noble
about your apostatic activity in this forum, so stop whining.
He asks, "why do you expect
elixir (amrit) from me?"
Nobody expects anything but snake
venom from you.
He says, "I can promise to
stop it immediately if GM saheb agrees to it. It is up to him."
Let me see you stop your
malicious and vicious activity first.
He says, " NewAgeIslam
nowhere put a condition that we should not criticize."
That's why I am criticizing you.
He says, "Only condition is
to remain within civility."
Mocking people and their beliefs
under the guise of asking questions is rude. ' By Ghulam
Mohiyuddin - 10/11/2012 2:47:27 PM
Rational says, "my questions are
Please don't exalt yourself by saying
that your questions are "difficult". They are stupid and
must be ignored. Someone who has left Islam should not pretend that he is
seeking answers to some questions. You are an apostate. Act like one. You have
every right to be an apostate. Join the company of other apostates and have a
good time. Your forays in this forum have had the sole purpose of being
disruptive, derisive and rude. That's why you were called "a wolf in
the garb of a sheep, a snake in the sleeve, or more".
Ghulam Mohiyuddin -
10/10/2012 2:10:27 PM
Rational says, "Ab to dhamkiyon par baat
The worst dhamki comes from you
when you announce that you will continue spreading your foul stink in this
forum as if it is your birthright! I see that you are trying to form an
alliance with the Hindus on this forum as if you have some well thought out
battle plans to defeat moderate/progressive Muslims. Why don't you
take your mono-maniacal fight to some mullah site since the
obscure Hadiths that you quote are probably the same ones that are
dear to mullahs.
Ghulam Mohiyuddin -
10/7/2012 1:58:49 PM
Rational sayws, " You know my
If you deny your intention to insult the prophet
with your own words or with maliciously selected quotes, it shows what a
shameless liar you are.
You say, " You don't like even Karen."
I have not criticized Karen. Why do you lie so
much? Don't you have any shame?
By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/7/2012 3:48:24 AM
Rational, in his usual pesky way asks, "Are
not they inviting anti-blasphemy laws to this site?"
You have full rights to commit blasphemy. We do not
want you hanged for your blasphemy. There are hundreds of sites where you can
commit your blasphemy. This is a gathering of people interested in promotion of
moderate and progressive Islam. For you to come here and interrupt our converstion,
make fun of serious discussants and insult our Prophet either with your words
or words selectively and maliciously picked from other sources just shows
rudeness and lack of civility. It is intolerable behavior. No religious
site would tolerate such despicable behavior.
You asked, "Why don't Muslims think we critics
are test from Allah?"
You can keep such school boyish questions to
You also asked, "It seems Allah was not clear
If you think that is a smart question, I have to wonder
about your I.Q.
Ghulam Mohiyuddin -
10/7/2012 2:37:39 AM
Rational says that he, "quoted from the Sirah
and Ahadith."Like most pesky apostates you are a liar. Your intent clearly
was to insult the Prophet on an Islamic website. Why don't you take your hate
and animus to an apostate website?
Ghulam Mohiyuddin -
10/7/2012 1:28:34 AM
Regarding the Zainab episode, you again
repeat the argument that because the verse says so it must be so. If you do not
have a better argument to offer, stop extending this thread unnecessarily."
So are you asking me to disregard what the verses of the Quran say and pay credence to the canards that are spread by the Islamophobes? Thank God! You at least agree that what I say is exactly what the Quran says.
I not only say that if the verse says so it must be so, but also say that this is not an affair of the Prophet at all, but what Allah arranged to put an end to a strong social taboo in Arab society against marrying non biologically related people we may have called father/mother, aunt/uncle, brother/sister.
For a comparison, take Ibrahim (AS) sacrifice of his son. Allah has not required such proof from any other prophet nor did he need it from Ibrahim. This event was only to demonstrate in a dramatic manner that Allah does not require such a sacrifice even from his Prophets, putting an end to child sacrifice prevalent in the society. Islamohobes however pick on this story also to malign Allah and the religion.
You are lying GM sb. You brought up discussion on verse 24:2
which is about the punishment for adultery. You lost the argument when I showed
you how stupid your prescription is which does not prevent adultery but
encourages practicing it openly as is happening in the West with everyone
knowing who is screwing whom as they have seen them in the act in the office,
at a party, in the car or in the park. Islam discourages adultery that leaves
witnesses and has put the stringent requirement of 4 eye-witnesses and
discourages the witnesses with punishment of 80 stripes if the crime is not
established with 4 witnesses. Islam also does not encourage self-confession.
Those bent upon adultery are therefore not prevented if they are discreet and
do not do so openly that can be witnessed by 4 persons.
Your prescription to decriminalize adultery will however corrupt
the society as it has corrupted the western society. With the act being
performed without a care about being discovered, the disease will spread and
finally engulf the entire society. Every Muslim will then become guilty of the
second most heinous crime/sin in Islam
and be punished for it in the Hereafter.
So, what have you achieved by decriminalizing it? You have
succeeded in making everyone an adulterer destined to Hell Fire! Although, the
law is not in force in many countries, a Muslim knows that it is the law for
them and prevents them from engaging in it. Your argument is for decriminalizing
it in the Book itself!
Having been shown how stupid your argument was, you extended
it to all criminal laws and began arguing that religions should have nothing to
do with crimes in general and punishment for them. Who are you to say that?
Islam is what it is. You want to end the argument with denying what you yourself
have argued and said. We have exchanged more than a hundred comments
specifically on 24:2 which is about adultery across two threads.
It is quite revealing that you picked up punishment for adultery
for discussion and not punishment for any other crime. Other crimes do not
concern you except as an after-thought after losing the argument, but adultery
does. Also, why verse 4:34 bothers you is because it is a prescription for how
to deal with wives who " go in public
places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts
being insufficiently hidden” and
you want to allow such behaviour. The words in quotes are yours. The words in
the verse are “those who fail to guard their chastity/modesty in the absence of
You have argued with me on verse 4:34 six years back and
lost the argument. This time you brought it up in a different context arguing
with me that the Quran asks us to take the best meaning of any verse while I
was saying that every verse has only one meaning and the best refers to how we
practice what the verse commands. In this context, you started off the argument
by saying that the best meaning of wa-iḍ'ribūhunna in 4:34 is not “beat” but several other alternate
meanings. After discussion you agreed with me that those who translate wa-iḍ'ribūhunna
as “beat” cannot be faulted as the Quran unmistakably uses the same word to
mean “strike” in several other verses. This being an advisory verse, people are free
to take a different meaning but those who take it to mean “beat’ cannot be
faulted. You then switched to the argument “Can God Almighty ever ask us to
beat under any circumstance and therefore the verse is not from God!” God
almighty who has prescribed 100 stripes for adultery can certainly ask us to
beat as a curative for shameful behaviour that leads to adultery.
You have lost this argument a long time back unable to
answer my question but have not only kept going, but spread the argument to half
a dozen threads. I repeat the question below that has left you without an
answer ages ago but you refuse to give up.
GM sb had lost the argument 6 years back on verse 4:34
On Verse 4:34, GM sb simply does not have an answer to the following
question but keeps arguing ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The same argument was used
six years back when he debated with me on the same subject and has remained unchanged
What if the woman does not want a
divorce, but promises to change her ways of immodest dressing (“seductively exposing her breasts and
other body parts”as described by GM sb himself), but does not do anything about it even after
repeated discussions and admonishments which only end in making another false
promise, and is apparently only testing him on far he will go to assert
Empirical evidence of Common Couple Violence in all cultures shows that minor
domestic violence works very well in resolving conflicts during the early years
of marriage of young couples.
So, why forsake what
is known to work very well and especially if the woman is refusing the divorce
option even when warned about the possibility of a beating if she repeats her
behavior? There is a chance that once she gets a
beating for repeated transgressions, she may mend her ways and if she doesn’t,
she should be divorced without repeating the beating. What is wrong with it? Why should the husband proceed with divorce
which the woman does not want?
On what source book do
you rely to say that beating is wrong under any circumstances? On what
empirical evidence do you rely to say such a thing when the empirical evidence
shows that CCV is both common and effective in conflict resolution in the early
years of marriage? Is it not simply your whim and another political slogan? You
must submit to Islam or leave it. Verse 4:34 has all the attributes of
revelation from Allah.
You say: “Would
He produce a revelation to address an extremely
rare occurrence (a man marrying the ex-wife of his adopted son-in-law), and
that too at a time when his Prophet had come under criticism for undertaking
just such a marriage. What more is there to say on the subject?”
What you are saying in effect is that
the Prophet married the divorced wife of his adopted son because he desired to
do so and came under intense criticism for the marriage as it violated a strong
taboo of Arab society, and therefore the revelation of the verses to bail out
the Prophet(pbuh) from the tricky situation is “dubious” especially because of
its timing. You are not saying this is added 20 years later but by the Prophet to
You are therefore also doubting the
following verses because if these are true, then Allah should have cut off the
artery of the Prophet’s heart for claiming in Allah’s name his own invention:
69:44) And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name,
(45) We should certainly seize him by his right hand,
(46) And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart:
You are charging the Prophet with falsehood on
multiple accounts which makes the Quran to be a Book of falsehood and Allah as
helpless to prevent a false prophet to say anything in His name and get away
with it. Maybe you think there is no Allah. What is it then that makes you a
believer and a Muslim? Aren’t you an apostate?
And you debated with me on taking the best meaning
of any verse while this is not even the meaning. The meaning that comes out clearly
and directly from the verses is as I have explained. Calling people not
biologically related mother/father, uncle/aunt, brother/sister is not rare nor
the taboo on marriage based on such “relationships”. However, to be fair to
you, it is not the meaning that you are debating, but doubting that these
verses are revealed by Allah. When it is not the meaning which is in doubt but
whether these are from Allah or not, how can discussion with any Aalim help?
You have been losing all your debates and in
desperation, you lashed out with these verses because, I have never discussed
them before, and based upon the unsatisfactory response Yunus sb gave to Rational
on these verses and closed the discussion refusing to say anything more, you
felt this would be easy to debate. Your readings on the internet also did not prepare
you for my very simple and straightforward answer fitting perfectly the verses.
You will never get from any Aalim anything close to
what I say on any subject but that is precisely what you want. You do not want the
truth. You want the village Mullah’s viewpoint because that reinforces your own
view. You think at the village Mullah level. The difference is that the Mullah
is a believer and you are not.
You are once again trying to throw dust in people’s
eyes when your argument is clearly for decriminalizing adultery in Islam. Why
did you bring verse 24:2 at all when the question is not even relevant in the
US and India? Your argument had nothing to do with the law of any country but
the Islamic law in the Quran.
Not only do you go on and on ad infinitum ad nauseum, but across multiple threads. You are the one who has brought up 4:34 in at least six different threads!What a liar you are blaming the other for what you do!
Any argument that you lose, you can end by saying "your explanation is lame, unsatisfactory, mendacious .........or whatever" which is why this forum needs an impartial moderator preferably a non-Muslim retired judge to bring discussions to a close with a fair summarizing of what was discussed.
GM sb, on his own initiative,
brought into discussion verse 24:2 which prescribes the punishment of 100
stripes for the adulterers. I hope he understands that he was discussing a
criminal law in Islam and the punishment for it. He argued for its abolishment.
He also argued that adultery can only be a civil offence but not a criminal
one. Does that not amount to an argument for decriminalizing adultery in Islam?
Why is he trying to throw dust in our eyes?
He asks “. My question
is whether God, the most gracious and the most merciful, would ask husbands to
beat their wives under any circumstances.”
His question can also
be whether “God, the most gracious and the most merciful” would create Hell
which is also answered by me. There is no end to such questions. My question to
him is “what is the source book that he is relying on to judge the Quran?” If
such a book exists which supersedes the Quran, then we should know about
As regards the certificate for apostate, GM sb has earned it. He does not have questions about some verses on which he is seeking clarification but he is trying to spread the canard or fitna that much of the Quran is unreliable and contains not the word of Allah but insertions of man. He pays a deaf ear, turns a blind eye and his heart is sealed to all proper and correct explanation. Kafir means one who denies or rejects and by denying a considerable portion of the Quran, he has become a very open Kafir. He is trying to create his own "designer god" based on what he thinks a god should/would/shouldn't/wouldn't do and install it as The God whom we should all worship rather than the Allah of the Quran. He is not only an apostate but inciting all to apostatise.
GM sb is the one who is stalking me and has initiated all these discussions. When he loses the argument he runs away without proper closure so that he can continue to spread the same canard in another thread or at a later date. He is a mischief mongering apostate.
GM sb, What is your source book to judge the Quran by? On what basis do you say
that God should not legislate to break an existing taboo in society?
It is not as you think the rarest of rare cases. The taboo extended to
marrying those whom you have called brother/sister, uncle/aunt when they are
not biologically related. The legislation removes all these taboos. This
is a problem in other communities even today and the boys hide on Rakhi day to
avoid a Rakhi being tied on their wrist by girls who are not their sisters.
Taboos are not easy to break with simple legislation. Many of the legislative
verses are misinterpreted to continue practices that are against the clear
Message of the Quran, for example, verses relating to divorce. God in his infinite
Wisdom chooses the right method to legislate. If he chose to legislate and
create a legal precedent with the Prophet’s Sunnat, I can see why He chose to
The legislation also addresses the question of inheritance of an adopted
child. It does not inherit by default but can through a Will. The claim that
Islam is a complete religion would have been false if this important legislation
was missing. The manner in which Allah chose to legislate by simultaneously
creating a legal precedent with the Prophet marrying the divorced wife of his
adopted son, shows great wisdom.
The same wisdom we see in other verses also. For example, all the
legislative verses are addressed to “The Believers” but the verse regarding divorce
is addressed to the Prophet when the Prophet never divorced any of his wives.
The simple reason for doing so as I see it, is to prevent divorce becoming a
taboo, simply because the Prophet never divorced any of his wives. By addressing
this verse to the Prophet, Allah is saying that it would have been alright,
even if the Prophet had divorced, and there is no taboo on it.
You ask : Isn't there a simpler way to look at this whole
episode that does not involve our believing everything that we are asked to
You provide the answer and let us know what is your simple
way to look at this whole episode other than what I explained.
You ask: Isn't there a difference between, "Unless I proclaim what I receive from Allah and His
Messages," and "when a matter has been decided by Allah and His
What is the difference between "when
a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger” and people being said
they have no choice but to say "We hear and we obey" to the Messenger (24:51) and that those who resist him will be among
the most humiliated (58:20)? All these verses mean:
A decision of Allah is the Messenger’s decision. The Messenger only
conveys Allah’s decision.
A Summon by the Prophet is a summon by Allah. The Messenger is only
acting on Allah’s behalf
Any resistance to the Prophet is resistance to Allah. The Messenger is
only acting on Allah’s behalf
You say: I am not
putting the blame on anyone except those who compiled the Book some 20 years
after the Prophet's death.
GM sb is trying to throw dust in everyone’s eyes. How could anyone
have added verses that were not there in the Prophet’s times relating to his marriage
with Zainab and get away with it? The religion of Islam would have collapsed
with such falsehood. The people would have simply revolted. He is therefore blaming
the Prophet himself but acting coy under pressure.
You say: What I am saying is very clear. Do you think by
repeating your lame answer again and again, you will throw dust in people's
Show me what is lame? Show it by your very robust account of
what you think happened. Remove the dust from people’s eyes and make them see
the truth. Don’t run away like a coward having failed in your attempt to create
a fitna by throwing dirt on the Prophet’s
character, Allah and the Quran. This topic must be taken to proper closure.
Is There Anything that is sketchy/unexplained?
(33:37) Behold! Thou didst say to one
who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: "Retain thou (in
wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah." But thou didst hide in thy heart that
which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is
more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his
marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage
to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers
in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the
latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with
them. And Allah´s command must be fulfilled.
It has been
made clear several times that what the Prophet
concealed in his heart was Allah’s indication to the Prophet to marry Zainab after
Zayd divorced her. He hid this because:
1. He had no desire to marry Zainab
2. He feared that once Zayd divorced Zainab
he would have to marry her as per Allah’s command. He feared the reaction of the people to such
a marriage in view of the strong taboo against such marriages. Since the
marriage would become incumbent on him once Zayd divorced Zainab, he was trying
to prevent the divorce by counselling to Zayd "Retain thou (in
wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah."
What was it that Allah was about to
intended to promulgate a law allowing marriage to the divorced wife of an
adopted son and establish a legal precedent by marrying the Prophet to Zainab
after she was divorced and after the necessary formalities of iddat etc.
Is 33:36 Special?
As regards the
verse: (33:36) It is not fitting for a
Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His
Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah
and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.
There is not
one, but 66 other verses which say the same thing. If GM sb is not satisfied
with: (72:23) "Unless I proclaim what I
receive from Allah and His Messages: for any that disobey Allah and His
Messenger,- for them is Hell: they shall dwell therein for ever."
(24:51) The answer of the
Believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger, in order that He may judge
between them, is no other than this: they say, "We hear and we obey":
it is such as these that will attain felicity.
(58:20) Those who resist
Allah and His Messenger will be among those most humiliated.
There are 66
other similar verses and all of them well-timed. The verses do not elevate the
Messenger to become a partner in Allah’s godhead but a partner in the
revelation process to communicate and establish Allah’s deen. The accusation
that the Prophet has become a partner of Allah in his godhead would be true in
the limited context of his marriage to Zainab, if the Prophet himself made up the
law allowing his marriage to the divorced wife of his adopted son which is not
the case. The Prophet married Zainab as a duty to Allah (33:38)
Why is GM sb unsatisfied with the
very clear meaning and explanation?
The clue is
in his following statements/questions which reveal his thinking:
Why else would Allah send
a timely message permitting a man to marry his adopted son's ex-wife? Anyone
who understands the attributes of Allah would consider such actions to be
Why did a revelation saying that it is
okay to marry the ex-wife of one's adopted son become necessary at that time?
Did the revelation come to justify just one marriage in the whole wide world?
How come the revelation was known to the Prophet before it was revealed. In
33:36the Prophet is elevated to the position of being an associate of God
e.g., "when Allah and His Messenger have
decided a matter," and, "whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has
certainly strayed into clear error," when 3:144 clearly says, "Muhammad is no more than a messenger."
He is ignoring the clear
meaning and explanation because in his mind, Allah did not reveal the verses,
and it was put in there by the Prophet and in doing so, he elevated himself to
the position of partner of Allah. Why does he repeatedly ask “what did the Prophet
hide in his heart that Allah was about to reveal” is because he does not think the answer is to
be found in the verse. In his perverted mind, he must be thinking that the
Prophet hid in his heart his desire to marry Zainab!
anyone convince this pervert bent on maligning the Prophet with invented
falsehood who refuses to accept the clear meaning and explanation?
do not have hudud laws, why did GM sb bring up the discussion on the punishment
for it in Islam (verse 24:2)? Only to argue that it is not from Allah but pre-Islamic
7th century Arab law and must be abolished. This is what he said:
Below is his argument for
decriminalizing adultery in Islam :
“By calling pre-Islamic Arab criminal
laws "Hudud Laws" we have accorded them divine sanction, which is
wrong. Criminal laws can be formulated only by humans although they must
conform to the Quranic requirement of being just, fair, egalitarian, humane and
sensible. Such laws evolve as societies evolve. Extramarital sexual intercourse
violates the rights of the spouse and is a breach of contract and hence liable
to civil action including divorce. Such behavior is also sinful but that is a
matter between the sinner and God.”
Is he not arguing for abolition of hudud laws in general and the
punishment for adultery in particular? Is that not an argument for decriminalizing
adultery in Islam? Why does he lie then and deny what he has clearly said? Moreover,
there is no breach of contract when the adulterers are unmarried, or the act is
with the consent of the spouses of the adulterers like in the case of wife
swapping. He is taking us back to pre-Islamic norms.
He has argued passionately for the decriminalization of adultery in
Islam and permitting wives to " go in public
places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts
being insufficiently hidden” which is why he wants us to
accept that verse 24:2, 24:31, 4:34 are not from Allah but inserted by man and
if you do not agree, then you are a supporter of wife beating!
The truth is 87% of women in the US who dress in this manner admit
to using their “erotic potential” for social and economic benefit making them
sluts. If their husbands do not take advantage, they are dumb asses and if they
do, then they are pimps. Is GM sb then not trying to turn Muslim society into a
society of sluts and pimps? Is he not a wimp?
On what basis does GM sb characterize those who believe 4:34 as a
revelation from Allah as supporters of wife-beating? When he turns a discussion
into a personal attack, why shouldn’t he be called a wimp for arguing the verse
is not from God?
Is he seeking clarifications to doubts respectfully? No, he is openly
and deliberately maligning the Prophet, Allah and the Book. How can you then call
this an intra-Muslim discussion?
What according to you is an apostate? Why is GM sb, a deliberate maligner
of the Quran, and the Prophet not an apostate according to you?
What I mean,
Naseer Saheb, is that, extremists, bigots, communalists, exclusivists and
fundamentalists in all religions use terms like 'wimp' for moderate,
progressive, peaceful, inclusivists among their religionists.
I had not come across this word being used for
liberal Muslims, even though there is no dearth of aggressive people among
Muslim fundamentalist bigots. So the credit for enriching intra-Muslim debates
with some choicest abuses goes to you, unless I am grossly mistaken and others
too have used such abusive language.
Naseer Saheb, is that all my life (I am 69 now), I have associated scholarship
with humility. This is the message I get from Islamic literature too. I cannot
call you ignorant either. A scholar using such abusive language is something I
just don't understand. I am not angry. I am bewildered. I have ben bewildered,
perplexed for quite some time. And I know that I am not alone in feeling like
Please forgive me for
having hurt you.
GM sb says: “What I did show is that he
is a literalist who blindly supports practices such as wife-beating,” He
is a liar. GM sb does not disagree with the meaning of verse 4:34. We both
agree on the meaning and I have even accepted his interpretation of the
behaviour that is sought to be corrected. His argument is not about interpretation
but saying that 4:34 (wife repeatedly guilty of not protecting her chastity and
modesty in the absence of husband to be corrected with a beating if all other
measures fail, or divorced) and 24:2 (punishment for adultery) is not from
Allah but put in there by a human being. GM sb has argued for decriminalizing
adultery in Islam and for Muslim husbands allowing their wives to tolerate them
even if their strong-willed independent wives insist on “going in public
places dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with
breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden.”
GM sb is unable to make a distinction
between supreme, supremacy and supremacism. Going by his stupid arguments, the
President of India, who is the “supreme commander of the armed forces”, must also
Verse 3:85 that says “If anyone desires
a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of
him;” is supremacism for him even after I explained to him that Islam has a broader
meaning and includes people of all faiths who submit to the One God by any
He does not think that Allah would
ordain fighting. All verses relating to fighting are therefore put in by man!
The list of verses that he disputes is very long. It includes all verse about
fighting, verses that are about kufr, kafir, zulm, zalim etc.
He thinks the verses 33:36.37 about the
Prophet(pbuh) marriage to Zainab are “dubious” even after these are explained fully
to him and he is left with nothing to say. He has alleged by implication that
the Prophet put these in there!
He thinks the Quran is nothing but a
codification of the ethos of 7th Century Arabia and not a “perfected
and completed” deen!
In this windbag’s opinion, we
must let him off when he attacks the Quran, Allah and the character of the
Prophet (pbuh). We must not call this person by the proper description applicable to him of either ex-Muslim or apostate. If we do that, he screams. He is a hypocrite pretending to be a Muslim. He is a snake in the grass.
If there was no Hell would the world have been a better place? Allah is
the epitome of morality or what maximizes good. Hell is also a part of His Mercy therefore without which there would have been more oppression, injustice
and misery in this world. The description of Hell Fire in the Quran is that it
is a great continuous torment.
(4:56) The Kafaru, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as
their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that
they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
If the warning of Punishment in Hell
wasn’t a Mercy, Allah wouldn’t have said:
(55:37) When the sky is rent asunder, and it becomes red like
(38) Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
(39) On that Day no question will be asked of man or Jinn as to
(40) Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
(41) (For) the sinners will be known by their marks: and they will
be seized by their forelocks and their feet.
(42) Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
(43) This is the Hell which the Sinners deny:
(44) In its midst and in the midst of boiling hot water will they
(45) Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
“ Ashraf Ali
Thanwi has remarked that for believers hell is like a bath in rather hot water
that helps to remove tightly adhered dirt. Isn’t it remarkable that the root
word for Azab means a sweet thing?”
(2:80) And they say: "The Fire
shall not touch us but for a few numbered days:" Say: "Have ye taken
a promise from Allah, for He never breaks His promise? or is it that ye say of
Allah what ye do not know?"
So, why is
the author trying to make Hell look like a pleasant vacation? Will that help
decrease evil in the world? What cause do such articles serve except promote
evil? There is no need to be an apologist for Allah creating Hell. Try to
fathom the Wisdom and Mercy behind it.
for both good and evil is dependent upon the autonomy or free will that Allah
has granted us. Without autonomy, we would have been like animals without
choice for either good or evil and lived in accordance with our instincts. There
would have been no need for either Heaven or Hell then. The question then is:
Was Allah Unjust in Creating Adam and Favouring His
Progeny Over All His Creation?
If you want to
make Hell less painful, then Heaven becomes less pleasant and our autonomy
decreases. Allah finds the perfect balance. Why question Allah’s wisdom? Why
not focus on doing things that will take us to Heaven and avoid Hell? In any
case, do not go against Allah’s Book in your description of what Hell is like relying on dubious sources and authors. It amounts to denial of Allah’s Ayats.