Books and Documents

Islamic Ideology (09 Feb 2019 NewAgeIslam.Com)


  • Naseer sb. would much rather waste our time calling me an apostate etc. than give straight answers. He is demeaning himself and NAI with his low level methods.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/17/2019 3:25:14 PM

  • Evasion? I have responded with an article that answers all your questions all over again that proves you a liar.
    You must be an embarrassment to your fellow apostates for having failed miserably in your determined bid to denigrate the Prophet, Allah and the Quran.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/17/2019 7:44:19 AM

  • Naseer sb. continues to use dishonest evasions and foul abuse to hide from my questions. He is truly an embarrassment for Islam.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/16/2019 1:45:30 PM

  • How can I make the blind to see or the deaf to hear or the dumb to understand GM sb? Don't you understand what your problem is?
    Anyway, the subject is covered in my article:

    Honouring the 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.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/16/2019 2:14:30 AM

  • You have not really answered those questions. All you have been doing is just  calling me an apostate in every post that you write, as if that is going to silence me. You must truly be a retard if you think so.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/15/2019 6:15:22 PM

  • GM sb is repeating the questions that I have already answered. The onus is on him to find the answers and not on me or anyone else to convince him.

    He cannot blame me or others for his apostasy.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/15/2019 3:44:45 AM

  • Naseer sb. is again running away from questions he does not want to answer by calling me an apostate and a scoundrel! Does such a liar and smearer who keeps running away from questions deserve to be called a scholar?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/14/2019 12:07:54 PM

  • And you being an apostate and a scoundrel, doubt a priori  what the Quran says. Do you have proof for what you say? There is nothing to doubt in those verses.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/14/2019 2:14:23 AM

  • So how do you explain the timing? The reason your answers are so naïve is because you accept a priori the very assumptions that are being questioned.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/13/2019 12:37:31 PM

  • Can you put my answers below your questions and tell us why you are not satisfied by them?

    No, you don't blame the compilers. You question the timing of the revelations which was immediately after the marriage. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/13/2019 3:08:06 AM

  • Naseer sb. again shows his depravity calling me an apostate instead of discussing issues. He is asking for "proof", while I am asking him to use reason and commonsense. 

    The questions are very simple:

    Does God get involved in such matters as Zainab's marriage? Does God create laws to cover even the rarest of circumstances such as a man marrying the ex-wife of his adopted son? Isn't there a simpler way to look at this whole episode that does not involve our believing everything that we are asked to believe!

    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 Messenger"? I am not putting the blame on anyone except those who compiled the Book some 20 years after the Prophet's death.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/10/2019 1:20:00 PM

  • What issue do you want to stick to? Is there any issue beyond your rejection of the verses as from Allah? Produce your proof for it if you can. Your proof cannot be what you believe. If that is the proof then my belief that these are from Allah is equally a proof. Which again leads to the fact that you reject verses of the Quran as from Allah without proof based purely on your belief which makes you an apostate. There is no other issue beyond your apostasy. Do not try to clothe your apostasy different from Rational's. It is made worse by your hypocrisy. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/9/2019 11:10:40 PM

  • Naseer sb. is carrying on with his song and dance repeating inappropriately my words to Rational, calling me an apostate and refusing to answer my  post of  2/13/2019 12:29:27 PM.
    He seems to have no idea how base and unworthy his response is. Would it not be much better to just stick to issues?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/9/2019 12:43:19 PM

  • 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   unthinking litany”.

    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.

    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".

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/9/2019 12:57:29 AM

  • Naseer sb. again has no arguments so he resumes his personal invectives and is stupid enough to think that my words to Rational actually apply to me. I fully stand by what I said to Rational and I also fully stand by my statement that Naseer sb. is just a cowardly charlatan!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/8/2019 1:30:45 PM

  • You have Yunus sb's answers six years earlier, my answers now and all the answers you can find on the internet and yet you throw dirt on the Prophet (pbuh) in the same manner Rational and Hamza did six years back for which your response then to them was:
    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".

    The same applies to you today. If anything, you are abused by yourself and that is poetic justice. In the same manner, you will stand accused and condemned by yourself only on the Day of Judgment.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/8/2019 1:32:14 AM

  • Instead of responding to my comments, Naseer sb. has decided to abuse me again and call me all kinds of names, showing us again what a gutter level person he is. God has not set a seal on his heart. He has done it himself. God is too gracious and merciful to do any such thing.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/7/2019 12:13:58 PM

  • This is proof of the verse:(2:7) Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).
    The answer that I give will never satisfy you because you are a morally depraved person who rejects what the Quran says and believes in something profane.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/7/2019 3:54:45 AM

  • Naseer sb. has no satisfactory answer to the questions that I had raised so he again falls back to his cowardly "Rational" defense!
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/6/2019 2:20:47 PM

  • Are you saying that I have not answered or that my answer does not satisfy you?

     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".

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/6/2019 1:53:18 AM

  • Naseer sb.,
    You have not yet answered the questions raised in my post of  2/13/2019 12:29:27 PM. You have continued to dance around the question but never explained  why God would get actively involved in the Zainab case, or how the Prophet became a partner  when he was just a messenger in the Meccan verses.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/5/2019 12:14:04 PM

  • Which question of yours is unanswered? Why do you lie? 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/4/2019 10:49:59 PM

  • Naseer sb.,

    Instead of answering my question you have again chosen to call me an apostate. This is your cowardly and deceptive attempt to run away because you have no answer. Will you ever become a serious discussant?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/4/2019 12:20:42 PM

  • You have a problem with the Quran and not with my explanation. What you are seeking from me is to join you in your apostasy and denigration of the Prophet, Allah and the Quran. That alone is going to satisfy you.

    I must leave you with your apostasy. I have no interest in apostates. Behave like one and try not to get in my way. Go find fellow apostates on apostate websites. Heed the excellent advice you gave to Rational.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/4/2019 2:40:03 AM

  • Naseer sb., 

    It is obvious that you have no sensible answer to the questions I had raised about the Zainab verses. You keep mentioning the evasive and stupid answers you had given before. When I  suggest that a particular verse does not seem to belong in the Quran, how can you then use the same verse to refute my point? If you do not have an objectively convincing answer, please just say so.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/3/2019 1:17:40 PM

  • GM Sb,
    You write your question and my answer below to prove your point.You will never do that because my answers are perfect in every respect. They answer your questions without deviating from the literal meaning of the verses. No question of yours is left unanswered nor any part of any verse left unexplained. 

    You lie when you say my answers are "shallow". The problem is with your "belief".  You reject the verses because in your shallowness and depravity, you believe the stories spread by the detractors of the Prophet and not what the Quran says. You have said as much. Why can't you be honest enough to say that I have answered well but your problem is in believing the verses? It is your responsibility to get your understanding right. You cannot blame your rejection of the verses and your apostasy to my explanations.

    By naseer ahmed - 3/3/2019 7:41:01 AM

  • Naseer sb.,
    I have presented my views on the Zainab case at least half a dozen times. Your responses have been either shallow or abusive. Please scroll back to my several comments on the subject and try to give a serious reply, or just admit that you do not have a reply.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/1/2019 12:36:28 PM

  • GM sb says:"My logical argument was that your  response on the Zainab episode was irrelevant and flippant. What is your logical response?"
    Is calling my response "irrelevant and flippant" logical?  Can anything be more illogical, irrelevant and flippant than saying something without substantiation?
    My logical response to your comment therefore is that you have provided incontestable proof of your being "illogical, irrelevant and fippant" and proved nothing about my response
    Just try showing that my answers to your questions on the verses are irrelevant and flippant. If you could, you would have done that. You are therefore also a liar because what you say is a falsehood which you can never establish.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/1/2019 1:29:24 AM

  • Naseer sb.,
    My logical argument was that your  response on the Zainab episode was irrelevant and flippant. What is your logical response?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/28/2019 2:22:28 PM

  • Logical arguments to which logical argument of yours? What is your logical argument and stand?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/27/2019 11:47:00 PM

  • Naseer sb. is back to preaching his mullahish   unthinking litany. He has no logical arguments left.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/27/2019 1:20:16 PM

  • 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, Most Merciful.

     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. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/26/2019 11:53:08 PM

  • Naseer sb.'s response on the Zainab episode is irrelevant and flippant. He tries to make up for his weak positions by attacking me personally with his slanders and smears. If he thinks he will prevail with such gutter tactics he must be very stupid indeed.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/26/2019 12:54:28 PM

  • 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.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/25/2019 11:54:37 PM

  • Naseer sb. continues to insult God when he claims that God would seal people's hearts or that He would marry a man off against that man's wishes and then send a revelation legitimizing that marriage! In order to be a good Muslim one has to have a good concept of God's majesty and grandeur. Blind belief in some dubious ayats would leave one as much in darkness and stupidity  as Naseer sb. is.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/25/2019 1:09:40 PM

  • GM sb continues to be a dumb literalist. He blames Allah for what he has done to himself through his hypocrisy. denial and rejection of Allah's Ayats.

    He proudly gloats while proclaiming that all my answers have made no difference to his perverted understanding of the verses 33:36,37! He does not see that as a clear sign that his heart is sealed. How can the blind see or the deaf hear or the dumb understand anything? He has however made a great contribution to our understanding of what it means when Allah says that He seals the heart of the wicked and how and why such people become as though they are "deaf, dumb and blind" and why such people will not return to the right path. 

    The only way for him to redeem himself is by accepting the verses 33:36,37 are from Allah along with their correct meaning and also accept all other verses that he has disputed as from Allah. He must do so publicly and through every thread on which he has blasphemed the Quran, Allah and the Prophet.

    Allah's majesty, mercy and grandeur indeed transcends the pettiness, wickedness and churlishness of the hypocrites and the apostates, if they are willing to repent and make amends. The only question is whether you are inclined to do so or whether you have indeed reached a point of no return.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/24/2019 11:43:15 PM

  • Naseer sb. is again insulting God by asserting that He would seal people's hearts! Naseer sb. has absolutely no idea of the grandeur and majesty of godhood.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/24/2019 12:44:34 PM

  • Rational was honest and not a hypocrite. You are a hypocrite.

    If Allah has sealed your heart, why will anything I say make any difference? Even the Prophets were told that they cannot convince anyone whose  heart Allah has sealed. The advice to all prophets was to stop trying to convince such people and only preach to those who pay heed. Such kafirs who were among those "who will not believe"  were the father of Ibrahim (AS), wife of Nuh (AS), one of the sons of Noah (AS), Qarun, Haman, the Pharaoh to whom Moses was sent, Abu Lahab, Abu Jahl and many more.

    My clear explanations will help those who seek understanding and since these verse were earlier ambiguous to some and no one had earlier explained them correctly, I have contributed something meaningful. The lack of proper explanation so far, could be because no tafsir on these verses do a good job of explaining these verses.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/24/2019 12:41:10 AM

  • Naseer sb.,
    Since you have no convincing explanation for  4:34, 24:2, 33:36,37, you now have to use the threats of 2:6, 7 and 2:18! You should be ashamed of yourself! 
    Rational was a self-confessed apostate. Your trying to call me one only shows your mullahish retarded mentality. You are unfit to  preach on a progressive Islamic website.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/22/2019 11:40:02 AM

  • GM sb,

    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 Quran:

     (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 they (incur).

     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".

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/22/2019 1:32:09 AM

  • Why do I need to post your questions to give my replies when I have already debunked your arguments and shown them to be ridiculous on both 4:34 and 33:36,37? Is  plain English not good enough for you? Do you just want to prolong this argument to save face? If you have any specific point that you  want to raise again about either of those verses, please feel to do so. I shall gladly repeat my answer for the nth time with the vain hope that it will get through that thick skull of yours.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/21/2019 12:41:34 PM

  • GM sb refuses to copy my question to him on verse 4:34 and post his response below because that will expose him as a fool.
    He refuses to post his questions on verses 33:36,7 and my answers below to show that my answers are "zilch".
    The pretentious, lying hypocrite and blasphemer of the Prophet (pbuh), Allah and the Quran!
    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/20/2019 10:48:18 PM

  • Naseer sb. continues to think in terms of victory and defeat. His sole aim is to look victorious in this discussion although all his arguments have been shown to be ridiculous. He does not seem to know that his explanations of 33:36,37 amount to zilch.

    His attacks against me have  become more and more personal and he has left all and any semblance to decency. His sole purpose seems to be to silence me! That will not happen.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/20/2019 12:55:08 PM

  • Six 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!

    You 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.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/19/2019 10:33:37 PM

  • Naseer sb. does not want to be questioned about his regressive and fallacious views so he calls me a stalker and several other names. Abusing me is not going to win him any points.

    He give the most inane answers to any questions asked and then claims that his answers were without a flaw! He thinks he is the best judge of his own answers. And then he keeps repeating the same silly answers again and again as if repetition will make them right!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/19/2019 9:31:10 AM

  • 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 example.

     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.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/18/2019 11:19:46 PM

  • Naseer sb.,

    You are catching at straws! When I said "nothing of value has been lost", I was referring to your lame contributions.

    If you think your explanation of the Zainab revelation explains both the timing and circumstances of the revelation, you are deluding yourself. Such contrived explanations may satisfy you but they will satisfy no one with an open mind. And since when has Allah started performing marriages?

    You say, "there is no Scripture without harsh punishments for crimes." Religions originated in ancient and medieval times which were punitive times. We live in times when death penalty is slowly disappearing from civilized countries and physical punishments are considered to be savage. The emphasis is on rehabilitation and many prisons are run like hotels.

    Your discussion of the subject in terms of collective good and individual good is silly. Liberalism and progressivism advance both the individual and the society. I do not just want myself to be progressive. I want my religion to be progressive too, unless you have purchased Islam as your private property in order to keep it medieval, in which case the progressives would not be able to do much.

     Your bringing up Rational again shows your desperation. Anyone like me who is trying to enhance rationalism, compassion and inclusivism in Islam is a grave threat to you. Your Islam depends on lashing, beating, amputations and takfirism. You bring shame to Islam!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/18/2019 1:19:56 PM

  • Your 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!”

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/9/2019 1:46:47 PM

    You say: “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 perversity.

    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.

    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)?

    Do you have any straight answers?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/17/2019 11:58:07 PM

  • Naseer sb.,
    Only a moron would think that I am running away. I am just reminding you that since you do not have any new points to make, stop wasting my time. But you will just go on parroting arguments that have been refuted umpteen times.
    Let me simplify my answers so that even you can understand them.
    Regarding 4:34, any suggestion that God would permit wife-beating or say that men are in charge of women cannot be divine.

    Regarding 24:2, any suggestion that God would command 100 lashes on a human being for adultery or for anything cannot be divine. If God's intent was to say that adultery is wrong, that is something that we all can accept. Does the government have a right to intervene when two consenting adults have sex? No, it does not. Should God punish adultery? He may do so on the Day of Judgement if He so wishes.

    Your explanation of the Zainab verse is not satisfactory to me because it does not question the timing and the circumstances of the revelation. However if you want to believe your explanation, I have no problem with that.

    You lie when you suggest that I ascribed any falsehood to our Prophet. Our Prophet was a human being and prone to human error. He could have mistaken his own honest thoughts for revelation. Or there may be another similar innocent explanation. But you would not think of any such explanation because you are engaged in a despicable mission to call others apostates. Shame on you!

    I raised 33:36,37 because it falls in the same category of being problematical as 2:282, 24:2, 4:34. You had failed miserably in trying to justify 2:282, 24:2, 4:34 and you failed again in trying to justify 33:36,37.

    Your trying to compare me with Rational is foolish and malicious. He was an enemy of Islam. I am in league with those who are trying to bring  Islam back to its roots, that is as a faith promoting righteousness, justice, moderation and peace and free from obscurantism, hate and violence.

    Your campaign of lies and smears is not going to get you anywhere. I am always ready to take on all the Rationals and all the Naseers who confront me.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin Faruki - 2/17/2019 1:51:58 PM

  • GM sb,

    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:

    1.       I had never discussed these before

    2.       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 difficult."

    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".

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/10/2012 2:10:27 PM

     Rational says, "Ab to dhamkiyon par baat aagayee hai."

    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.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/7/2012 1:58:49 PM

     Rational sayws, " You know my intentions."

    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 yourself.

    You also asked, "It seems Allah was not clear on inheritance?"

    If you think that is a smart question, I have to wonder about your I.Q.

    By 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?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/7/2012 1:28:34 AM

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/17/2019 12:49:44 AM

  • Naseer sb.,
    Stop trying to evade the issues by creating a false argument on who brought up what. 
    By the way you never won the dialogue on adultery or on anything else. You lie when you make such false claims.
    Adultery has been decriminalized by the Supreme Court of India, not by me. Stop making your empty-headed assertions. God will decide how to punish the adulterers. Don't try to be God yourself.
    You lie when you say other crimes do not concern me. I have several times raised concerns regarding the nature of punishments, e.g. lashings and amputations, and I have always been against the death penalty. I have also said that all criminal, civil and personal laws must be formulated by the civil society. Your hudud laws may have had divine inspiration but that inspiration then had to pass through  7th century Arab minds before becoming laws.
    Let me remind you that you did not win the argument on 4:34. You lie when you said I had not answered your oft-repeated stupid question. I answered it several times. You were the one left without an answer. Are you just lying or does your giant ego prevent you from carefully reading my answers?
    And I do not need any source book to say that wife beating is wrong. If you use the Quran as your source book to justify wife-beating, lashing, amputations etc., what kind of a Muslim are you?
    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.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/16/2019 12:48:47 PM

  • GM sb says: "

    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.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/16/2019 12:46:50 AM

  • 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 their husbands”.

     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 himself?

     Note: 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.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/16/2019 12:26:13 AM

  • Naseer sb.,
    It is stupid to say that I am trying to decriminalize adultery in Islam when I have repeatedly said that I do not consider crimes to be the province of religions. Religions deal with sins and governments deal with crimes. I have said it half a dozen times but I am sure you are again going to come back with the same argument because it is impossible for you to end an argument.
    You say I have brought up 4:34 in several threads. 4:34 is bound to come up every time either wife-beating or the question  "Can God Almighty ever say such a thing" comes up.
    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.
    You are not a fit person to say whether I am a Muslim or not. Just stick to the issues. 

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/15/2019 1:08:52 PM

  • 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 protect himself.

     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.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/15/2019 1:58:34 AM

  • 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.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/15/2019 1:55:33 AM

  • Naseer sb.,

    One does not need a source book in order to ask commonsense questions. God  looks after the whole universe, the whole world, all its species including millions or billions of people. 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? You have an explanation which satisfies you. It does not satisfy me. I hope some day to ask some well-known aalim the same question. But you and I cannot resolve it going round and round repeating the same arguments. Thanks for your attempt.

    By the way, you can punish an adulterer with 100 stripes in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, but we in India have only one criminal code and adultery is not a crime in India. You do answer all my questions but you fail to convince me with your answers. That may be your fault or mine, but I usually end discussions not because I have lost an argument but because I see the same argument being repeated again and again ad infinitum. Don't you ever see the need to end an argument even when you do not see any possibility of a resolution?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/14/2019 12:33:57 PM

  • 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 it.

    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.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/13/2019 11:52:08 PM

  • 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 do so.

     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 believe! 

     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 Messenger"?

     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 eyes?

     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.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/13/2019 11:03:38 PM

  • Naseer sb. says, "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."

    Does God get involved in such matters? Does God create laws to cover even the rarest of circumstances such as a man marrying the ex-wife of his adopted son? Isn't there a simpler way to look at this whole episode that does not involve our believing everything that we are asked to believe!

    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 Messenger"? I am not putting the blame on anyone except those who compiled the Book some 20 years after the Prophet's death.

    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 eyes? Our differences are clear, so let us not keep repeating the same stuff again and again. God alone knows who is a pervert, you or me!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/13/2019 12:29:27 PM

  • Naseer sb. claims that I want to decriminalize adultery in Islam. How many times do I have to tell him that criminalization and decriminalization are not the business of religions but of governments? Does he understand anything at all?

    His understanding of 4:34 is literalist as is his understanding of the whole Quran. But my question regarding 4:34 is not about literalism. My question is whether God, the most gracious and the most merciful, would ask husbands to beat their wives under any circumstances. That is also my question about the other verses that Naseer sb. has quoted. But why does he keep repeating the same questions
     again and again and again? Are not our differences clear? Only a moron who does not understand what I have been saying would call me an apostate. If he has been certified by God to decide who are apostates, let us see that certificate. If he does not have such a certificate, he is committing a grave sin by trying to usurp the powers of God. But Naseer sb. would not understand that either!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/13/2019 12:09:21 PM

  • 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 reveal?

    That Allah 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."

    How about?

    (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 beneath Him.

    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!

     How can anyone convince this pervert bent on maligning the Prophet with invented falsehood who refuses to accept the clear meaning and explanation?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/13/2019 12:27:16 AM

  • GM sb’s lie “He keeps claiming that I want to decriminalize adultery in Islam” has been nailed.
    His lie that my understanding of verse 4:34 is literalist is nailed. He does not disagree with the meaning. He only says that it is not from Allah.
    If we are to believe GM sb, he is only honouring Allah, the Book and the Prophet by expunging verses from the Quran relating to fighting, any verse that is about kufr, all verses relating to hudud punishments, verses that define modesty/immodesty and many more. All claims in the Quran that it is protected from corruption by Allah are false according to him.
    GM sb is an apostate trying to promote apostasy on NAI. He has been singularly stalking me because unlike others, I present Islam as it is, and yet show it to be literally and fundamentally a religion of peace, pluralism, moderation, tolerance, justice and promoting the highest morality. For example, unlike others, I do not show Hell to be anything but a place of continuous great torment and yet show that it is an essential part of Allah’s mercy. He finds my presentation of Islam unassailable and his agenda of making Muslims reject their Book frustrated, which is why this apostate stalks me.
    He is a stalker who has initiated the discussion on each of the subjects and not me. I am going to present each of these topics in separate articles and nail all his lies. Let him continue from there.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/12/2019 10:26:02 PM

  • Naseer sb.,
    I fully stand by my following statement:
    “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.”
    It is not incompatible with anything that have said subsequently. I did say, as you must have noticed, that extra-marital sexual intercourse is sinful. However it is not the business of  governments which legislate civil and criminal laws.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/12/2019 1:37:06 PM

  • Naseer sb. now asserts his divine right to abuse those who criticize his views! I shall leave such activity to him.

    He again defends his support of wife-beating by hiding behind 4:34. He would not use his brains to decide whether 4:34 is human or divine. That also applies to 3:85 and for fighting as from Allah.

    He accuses me of blaming the Prophet who had nothing to do with the compilation of the Quran which took place some 20 years after the Prophet's death. And he lies when he claims that he has fully answered my questions. His answers have been very sketchy and very unsatisfactory.

    He asks what I meant when I said that he,  "wants us all to live by the ethos of 7th century Arabia!" You want us to continue living by the rules and customs of 7th century Arabia, continue gender inequality, wife-beating, patriarchy etc.

    He shamelessly accuses me of "openly and deliberately maligning the Prophet, Allah and the Book." I am raising questions about verses which dishonor the Prophet, Allah and the Book. But this seems to be beyond his  understanding. His replies can only be further insults because he has nothing else to offer.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/12/2019 1:26:55 PM

  • When we 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?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/12/2019 7:28:32 AM

  • Shahin sb,


    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?

    By naseer ahmed - 2/12/2019 4:45:52 AM

  • GM sb, lies again. I said we agree on the meaning of verse 4:34 and while he says this verse is not from Allah and inserted by man, I show the wisdom of Allah in the very precise wording with two condition precedents. If he accuses me of supporting wife beating, then Allah and the Prophet stand accused as the primary party with the rest of the Muslims who believe in this verse as the secondary party.
    So, he denies verse 4:34, he denies 3:85 and he denies the verses regarding fighting as from Allah.
    He continues to character assassinate the Prophet. Will he reproduce his questions and my answers to prove that all his dirty allegations against the Prophet have not been fully answered? The liar and coward that he is, he never will.
    Can he explain what he means by "He wants us all to live by the ethos of 7th century Arabia!"
    A lot has been said on each of the subjects and contrary to what he says, it is of great value as it fully answers all reservations that any person can have on these questions. I will reproduce each of these debates in the form of an article and then he can continue where we left off. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/11/2019 11:03:39 PM

  • Shahin sb, you are blind to the abuses of others and your own abuses.

    And why is wimp an abusive word and not mendacious for example?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/11/2019 10:46:21 PM

  • Naseer sb. keeps repeating the same misstatements that I have tried to correct a dozen times! He keeps supporting wife-beating and yet claims he agrees with me on 4:34! He keeps claiming that I want to decriminalize adultery in Islam,  even after I have told him several times that criminal behavior is the province of governments and sins come under religions. He seems to be dreaming that we too have hudood laws like they have in Pakistan.
    He does not understand the difference between calling the President of India the "supreme commander" and calling any religion the supreme religion! 
    His attempt to make 3:85 more palatable will not impress anyone.
    He continues to believe that the Almighty God Himself would urge men to kill other men.
    He claims to have fully explained the Zainab episode, when he has not done anything of the kind.
    He is untruthful when he says that I consider the Quran to be "nothing but a codification of the ethos of 7th Century Arabia." There may be some verses that  fit such a description but the Quran as a whole is the word of God.
    Poor Naseer sb. has to resort to calling me names because he seems to have been rendered helpless.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/11/2019 5:32:40 PM

  • 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. 

    My problem, 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 this. 

    Please forgive me for having hurt you.

    By Sultan Shahin - 2/11/2019 7:14:37 AM

  • So, to be a liberal one must be a wimp. Or one who is not a wimp is not a liberal. What exactly do you mean Shahin sb?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/11/2019 4:23:06 AM

  • 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 a supremacist!

     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 name.

     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.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/10/2019 11:11:49 PM

  • Hindutva ideologues also call liberal Hindus 'wimps.'
    By Sultan Shahin - 2/10/2019 9:57:51 PM

  • Naseer sb. is back with his mendacious claims of winning, something a true exegete will never do. What I did show is that he is a  literalist who blindly supports practices such as wife-beating, gender inequality, supremacism in relation to other faiths, attributing to God Almighty petty actions such as converting some Jews to apes and swine, asking men to kill, and coming up with revelations in a timely fashion to support a marriage that had already taken place. He wants us all to live by the ethos of 7th century Arabia!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/10/2019 11:49:15 AM

  • I am glad that GM sb realizes he had nothing of value to say and that he is a windbag full of nonsense. He was finding it difficult to hang on having lost every argument and is apparently relieved. Hopefully, he has learnt his lesson and will stop maligning the Quran, the Prophet and Allah.

    Christianity is losing ground precisely because it has been taken over by the wimps.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/9/2019 9:39:16 PM

  • Even the Irish Catholic sermons, which used to be full of hellfire and brimstones, have been cleansed and have become paeans of love.
    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!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/9/2019 1:46:47 PM

  • 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 ointment:

    (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 his sin.

    (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 wander round!

    (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?

    Sheer nonsense.

    (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.

    Our capacity 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.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/9/2019 8:18:27 AM

  • because hell is an imaginary place, it does not matter how bad or how good a place it is to hang in for eternity.
    "no matter. never mind" variously attributed to mr. bertarnd russels's mother and other.
    when you want control, you devise religion. when you do not want to be accountable to other humans, you need religion. if you want to legitimize every base and sublime desire you might harbor you need religion.
    there is no truth and acknowledgment of some non existent truth does not arise.
    word soup and semantic roast.

    By hats off! - 2/9/2019 6:17:32 AM