certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islamic Ideology

51 - COMMENTS

  • Naseer sb. lies again when he accuses me of supporting " immodesty and sexual licentiousness." I did not support either. I only opposed punishment with lashings and I opposed wife-beating. Naseer sb. supports both and is trying to divert attention from his regressive views by mischaracterizing what I had said. I have explained to him several times what I had meant but he has to ignore what I said in order to assert his right to lie!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/17/2019 1:54:31 PM



  • It is you who is showing greater allegiance to 7th century Pagan Arab Society's  ethos of immodesty and sexual licentiousness.

    You are the one who is regressing to your Pagan roots.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/17/2019 3:30:17 AM



  • By defending things like a punishment of 100 lashes and wife beating, Naseer sb. shows greater allegiance to 7th century Arab ethos than to the Islam of the most gracious and the most merciful Allah! His is the most regressive voice on this website.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/16/2019 1:36:45 PM



  • Your snake in the grass “I go by my image of Allah as one who is most gracious and most merciful. I cannot imagine Him ordering 100 lashes being inflicted on any sinner” does not fool anyone. Why would Allah, the most gracious and most merciful, allow brazen acts of adultery that corrupt the entire society by leaving behind four or more witnesses, go unpunished? Why are cancerous cells destroyed by radiation or excised by surgery? Because these can kill the person if not destroyed. Likewise, open and brazen acts of adultery corrupt the entire society. You have clear evidence of this from the past as well as the present. Your advocacy is in fact for corrupting the entire Muslim society where adultery can become common place and the women dress to seduce men "go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden"
    To achieve this, you argue that verses that prevent such a thing happening, and the verses that in fact transformed  Pagan Arab licentious society into one practicing modesty and sexual rectitude are “interpolations” and not from Allah. You are a denier and rejecter of the Ayats of Allah and an apostate trying to wreck Islam from within. By Naseer Ahmed - 3/16/2019 12:48:41 AM



  • I go by my image of Allah as one who is most gracious and most merciful. I cannot imagine Him ordering 100 lashes being inflicted on any sinner.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/14/2019 12:55:44 PM



  • What is your evidence that it is an "interpolation"? By Naseer Ahmed - 3/14/2019 2:31:38 AM



  • The point is not irrelevant because you still continue to support not the divine principle in the Quran ("Do not commit adultery") but the 7th century Arab interpolation ("100 lashes")!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/13/2019 12:08:30 PM



  • GM sb's argument is disingenuous. Why did he bring up the topic of punishment for adultery in Islam when adultery is not a crime in US or in India? Why does he continue to argue if the point is irrelevant?

    The apostate attacks the Book and Islam 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/13/2019 2:24:51 AM



  • Naseer sb. is more intent on calling me a kafir than in discussing issues. That is a sign of his depravity. As I have said a dozen times, I do not think our God, who is most gracious and most merciful, would ever want any sinner to receive 100 lashes. If Naseer sb. is a strong supporter of adultery being a crime in Islam rather than a sin, is he, as an Indian citizen, personally going to administer 100 lashes to an adulterer, because no one else is going to do it? If not, why is he wasting my time with his absurd notions?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/10/2019 12:58:37 PM



  • So, you reject the Quran's ayats which criminalize adultery?
    29:47 and none but the Kafirun reject our Ayats. 
    Rejection is kufr. Your advocacy for decriminalizing adultery in Islam is so strong that you are prepared to commit kufr!
    Your arguments were not at the concept level of whether religion should have anything to do with crime. They were very specific to adultery and the punishment of 100 lashes for it. And your question was " If Naseer sb. truly believes that Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful, would ask us to give 100 lashes to another human being who has sinned...."
    If Allah has asked us to punish a proven case of adultery with 100 lashes, it is because of Allah the most gracious and merciful does not want such brazen acts of adultery that leave behind four or more witnesses to corrupt the rest of the society. Where is the scope to doubt it? 
    What you are therefore clearly advocating by your opposition to 24:2 is that people should be allowed to openly and brazenly indulge in acts of adultery that leave behind four or more witnesses.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/9/2019 10:53:28 PM



  • Naseer sb. keeps saying that I want to decriminalize adultery in Islam even though I have told him a dozen times that I do not consider crimes to be a religious matter. Crimes are the province of governments. Religions deal with sins, not crimes. How many times do I have to repeat this?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/9/2019 1:05:32 PM



  • GM sb,
    It is you who are dishonest. Apostasy is an unforgivable sin but not a punishable crime. Likewise, polytheism is not a punishable crime but a grave sin. So, saying let adultery be considered a sin but not remain a punishable crime is an argument for decriminalizing adultery. Do I have to tell you this?
    Have you said you are for zero tolerance for women to ""go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden" ? No. you have argued for tolerating it.
    By naseer ahmed - 3/9/2019 3:17:21 AM



  • Naseer sb.,
    I have told you my views on where criminality belongs. If I had said that adultery must cease to be considered a sin in Islam then you would have a point to argue with me. Otherwise you are just hanging on to an invalid point because you have nothing sensible to offer.

    Your repeating my quote, "go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden" ad nauseum again shows your dishonest mode of discussion. You know perfectly well that I was giving you my understanding of the scope of 4:34 and not saying anything about whether such behavior is right or not. My only point was that wife beating is not okay under any circumstances and that men are not supervisors over women. You have to use such deceptive tricks because you have long lost this argument but you do not want to concede.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/6/2019 2:11:55 PM



  • Plainly, when Islam considers adultery to be a crime punishable by 100 lashes, and you argue that it is not for religion to define what a crime is, you are arguing for decriminalizing adultery in Islam. Being a hypocrite however, you camouflage your advocacy for decriminalizing adultery by asking “Do you believe that Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful, would ask us to give 100 lashes to another human being?” It is not the 100 lashes that you are against but the treating of adultery as a punishable crime in Islam. Why have you then carried on this charade of denying that you are for decriminalizing adultery in Islam? We know the effect of decriminalizing adultery. It is then practiced openly and the entire society is corrupted by it. I plainly see merit in punishing acts of adultery that are brazen enough to leave behind four or more witnesses. Why cannot people be more discreet? It is indiscretion and brazenness that is being punished and not human frailty and for such brazen acts, 100 lashes is appropriate. There cannot be any doubt that this punishment is prescribed by the most gracious and the most merciful Allah. There is nothing graceful about allowing brazen acts of adultery that corrupt others also.
    Similarly, you have advocated for husbands permitting their wives to " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden". You do not say that you are for zero tolerance of such immodesty and that a husband should divorce such a wife but not beat her.
    I am not for beating either if the woman says no to it. I am a firm believer that a man must not do anything to a woman against her will. However, if she would rather be beaten than divorced, and if all the empirical evidence tells us that minor domestic violence known as Common Couple Violence is effective in conflict resolution among young couples in the early years of their marriage, who am I or anyone to deny it? The empirical evidence only validates verse 4:34 as an excellent advice.
    Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful, is the best judge of what is right. He knows exactly when to punish, how, and by whom. If you believe in your political philosophy and not in the deen of Allah, that is  your choice. When you say that so and so verse is not from Allah, you are a denier of the Ayats of Allah and according to the Quran a Kafir. By Naseer Ahmed - 3/6/2019 1:24:32 AM



  • Naseer sb. asks, "Have you said 'let adultery be a punishable crime in Islam?"

    I have said adultery continues to be a sin in Islam. I have told you innumerable times that I consider criminality to be a matter for governments and not for religions. Will that simple statement ever get through that thick skull of yours?

    I do not need to say that women (and men) should dress modestly. Women themselves know it. The question is whether if her dress is too bold in the judgement of her husband, does he have a right to beat her. You have tried your best to obfuscate this question because you do not have the guts to say a husband should never beat his wife.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/5/2019 12:33:01 PM



  • Have you said 'let adultery be a punishable crime in Islam but you would like the punishment to be not 100 lashes but imprisonment?' No, you haven't. You have argued for decriminalizing adultery in Islam.

    Have you said that you uphold zero tolerance in Islam for women to " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden"  but would like this to be enforced without beating? No, you have argued for tolerance of such immodesty.

    Why are you trying to throw dust in our eyes now? 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/4/2019 11:36:08 PM



  • Naseer sb.'s comments are getting  dumber and dumber even after I have patiently and repeatedly tried to explain to him my positions on adultery and on husband's rights to control the behavior (e.g. dress) of their wives. If Naseer sb. truly believes that Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful, would ask us to give 100 lashes to another human being who has sinned, or that he would ask husbands to beat their wives if the wives do not follow the husbands' dictates regarding dress etc., then I have to say that he has got our religion upside down. Our Prophet and our Quran are of course important to us but the centrality of Allah in our religion must  never be undermined.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/4/2019 12:37:26 PM



  • When the Quran has prescribed punishment for adultery in this world of a 100 lashes, you must be demented to say that it is not treating adultery as a punishable crime! 
    When it is a punishable crime, any argument against it is an argument for decriminalizing unless your argument was for a different sentence in place of lashing which is not the case. So, your argument is for decriminalizing adultery in Islam. Why do you keep repeating your lie? You think it will become the truth if you repeat it a thousand times?
    Are you saying that you are also for zero tolerance for wives " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden" ?
    Or are you for tolerating such behaviour?
    Why are you trying to throw dust in everyone's eyes?
    Your hypocrisy, lies and apostasy is an interesting subject for me. The fact that you can go on and on with your lies makes you an utterly shameless person. I haven't come across such an utterly shameless person before. Knowing you has been rewarding for me. I have come to understand many of the verses of the Quran describing the hypocrites, the zalimun, mufsidun, etc. by studying your behaviour.
    When you are an apostate, what you say about any verse becomes meaningless and of no interest to me. I have kept on this discussion only to explore the limits of your depravity. This is my last comment in this thread.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/4/2019 3:14:53 AM



  • Naseer sb.,

    The Quran does not make any distinctions between crime and sin. We as citizens of a constitutional democracy should make that distinction. Moreover as intelligent Muslims, we should consider it impossible that God, the most gracious and the most merciful, would ask human beings to flog another human being who has sinned. And how can I argue for "decriminalizing adultery in Islam" when I do not consider criminalization to be the business of religions in the first place?

    You lie for the nth time when you say that I have argued for tolerating women who "go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden". I have only argued against wife beating.

    I have made these points almost a dozen times. They are simple to understand. But you seem to think that by repeatedly making the same allegations again and again you will be able to win this argument! Such dishonest techniques never work.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/3/2019 1:05:48 PM



  • Very clearly verse 24:2 treats adultery as a punishable crime in Islam and you want Islam not to treat it as a crime but only as a sin. Why do you then keep repeating your lie that you are not for decriminalizing adultery in Islam? Do you have a problem understanding the meaning of decriminalize? It means not to treat it as a crime as you have argued. You are therefore for decriminalizing adultery in Islam.
    Islam has zero tolerance for women who " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden".
    You have argued for tolerating such behaviour. Go back to your comment and see for yourself that you are arguing for tolerating it 
    Why are you trying to throw dust in everyone's eyes? My views on both the subjects are clearly spelt out in my articles:

    By naseer ahmed - 3/3/2019 7:21:32 AM



  • Naseer sb. you lie again when you allege that I want Islam to decriminalize adultery. I said adultery is a sin in Islam but criminality is the province of governments, not religions. How many times do I have to repeat that before it gets through that thick skull of yours?

    You also lie when you allege that I want Muslims to tolerate their wives " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden". Only a stupid person would take that meaning from what I had said. I used that phrase to describe my understanding of what 4:34 was all about. I was saying that it was not about adultery.  Why do you keep misrepresenting what I had said? 

    Will you clarify for us whether you fully support inflicting 100 lashes to adulterers and wife beating for women who wear clothes that do not meet their husbands' approval?


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/1/2019 1:06:07 PM



  • Does GM sb answer anything? He only goes round and round in circles contradicting himself. GM sb is trying to throw dirt in our eyes. He is not satisfied with adultery not being a crime in the US. He wants Islam to decriminalize adultery so that Muslim society can become equally adulterous. When told that even in an Islamic country, with Islamic laws on adultery in force, people who are discreet can never get punished for adultery because to do so require four eye witnesses, he is not satisfied.  He wants the people to have the same freedom to practice free sex as in the US where they do it openly in the Offices, Parks, at Parties and in their cars with many witnesses. 

     Is 100 lashes inappropriate for public acts of adultery leaving behind four or more eye witnesses which corrupts the entire society? Why can't the adulterers do it discreetly in total privacy without witnesses? On what basis does he question Allah's law on adultery in verse 24:2 which punishes with 100 lashes only those who are indiscreet enough to do it with four or more eye-witnesses?  When he argues that 24:2 is not from Allah and that religion should have nothing to do with punishment for adultery, is he not arguing for decriminalizing adultery in Islam? Why does he deny it then? The hypocrite speaks with forked tongue.

     He has also argued for Muslims tolerating their wives " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden" . He does not want the behaviour of such women to be corrected or they be divorced.  

     GM sb is a morally depraved dirty old man who, in the name of modernity, wants to promote sexual licentiousness and immodesty  and take us back to the sexual licentiousness of pre-Quran, 7th century Pagan Arab society in which adultery was not a crime and public nudity was common. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/1/2019 3:30:39 AM



  • Naseer sb.,
    You must be deliberately blind if you did not see that your repetitive questions have been repeatedly answered. My last comment by itself is a complete answer. No one is as blind as the one who does not want to see. 
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/28/2019 2:01:06 PM



  • The hypocrite evades the question.
    Do you affirm 24:2 or are you for decriminalizing adultery in Islam?
    Do you support  your women to " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden"  The words in quotes are your own. Or are you for zero tolerance for such conduct? By Naseer Ahmed - 2/27/2019 11:21:20 PM



  • When I tell Naseer sb. the truth about himself, he feels slandered! He still continues to claim that God Almighty, the most gracious and the most merciful, would mandate lashing of human beings or that He would endorse wife beating. Such beliefs tell us a lot more about what kind of a person Naseer sb. is than about anything else.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/27/2019 2:28:11 PM



  • You are the cheap slanderer and flip flopping hypocrite :
    1.  You brought up the discussion on 24:2 which makes adultery a punishable crime in Islam and argued that it is not from Allah and that religion should have nothing to do with punishing for adultery and that it should not be treated as a crime but only as a sin.  What do you then mean now by saying that you are not for decriminalizing adultery in Islam? Are you now affirming verse 24:2?
    2. You have advocated tolerance for wives who " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden"  The words in quotes are your own. Are you now saying that Islam is right in having zero tolerance for such immodesty and that Muslim husbands should not tolerate it?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/27/2019 12:22:23 AM



  • Naseer sb.'s low level slanders and smears show his true self and disqualify him from participation in any serious dialogue on the subject of religion. He knows he is lying when he accuses me of wanting to "decriminalize adultery in Islam," and when he says that I want to allow  women to " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden"

    If the only things that he has left to offer are personal abuse and shameless lies, it means that he has been thoroughly demolished.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/26/2019 12:29:44 PM



  • GM sb is a morally depraved dirty old man who, in the name of modernity, wants to promote sexual licentiousness and immodesty by:

    1. Decriminalize adultery in Islam. He is the one who is trying to take us back to the sexual licentiousness of pre-Quran, 7th century Pagan Arab society in which adultery was not a crime and public nudity was common.  His advocacy for scrapping verse 24:2 (criminalizing adultery) is to enable Muslim society to go back to its previous state.

    2. While the Quran asks the women to cover their bosoms with a loose garment on top of whatever they are wearing, GM sb wants Muslims to allow their women to " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden"

    There is nothing modern or ancient about modesty and immodesty.  Either you are for modesty and rectitude in sexual relations or you are for immodesty and free sex. Couching his arguments as an argument for modernity and describing Islamic norms as ancient, does not fool anybody. Immodesty, nudity and sexual licentiousness was more common in ancient societies than in modern society. It is religion that transformed the ancient societies and its effect remains but is wearing out in his western society.

    The Quran informs us that it is Satan who attacks us by tempting us with immodesty. GM sb is a votary and worshiper of Satan who is trying to do the same:

     (7:27) O ye Children of Adam! Let not Satan seduce you, in the same manner as He got your parents out of the Garden, stripping them of their raiment, to expose their shame: for he and his tribe watch you from a position where ye cannot see them: We made the evil ones friends (only) to those without faith.

    GM sb is without faith and a friend of the evil one.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/25/2019 10:47:54 PM



  • Naseer sb. continues to believe that even verses that clearly reflect the thinking and customs of 7th century Arabia are still binding on us! He would be much better off being involved in some other activity rather than  carrying on with his ludicrous tafsiri.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/25/2019 1:33:32 PM



  • How this apostate and hypocrite lies!

    He won't even answer why he brought up the discussion on verse 24:2 if it is not applicable.  He brought it up to argue for decriminalizing adultery in Islam by saying that 24:2 is not from Allah but inserted by man.  What is a person who disputes many verses of the Quran as not from Allah anything but an apostate?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/25/2019 12:45:54 AM



  • Naseer sb. now claims that in order to be not called an apostate one has to keep on upholding outdated laws from 7th century Arabia and close one's eyes to the laws that one is actually living under! He has either lost his mind or he takes a perverse pleasure in calling others apostates or kafirs! Islam is not safe in the hands of such  deranged mullahs.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/24/2019 12:03:02 PM



  • Hats Off is wrong! The system is no more pathological than any other parallel system. The resistance to change too is not unique to this system.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/24/2019 11:55:36 AM



  • "24:2 is applicable neither in his country nor in my country, so what is he babbling about?"
    That is a question GM sb should ask himself. Why did he bring up the discussion on 24:2 when it is not relevant to him or to me? Having brought it up to say that it is not from Allah, the apostate has to be told that 24:2 is from Allah and will remain an integral part of the Book whether or not the State implements it. 
    For the Muttaqi, it is a reminder that it is  considered both a sin and a crime in Islam. Why does that bother the apostate/kafaru? For the Kafaru, nothing in the Book matters. 
    If GM sb says he has not left Islam, then he is a hypocrite. 
    What according to you is an apostate GM sb?
    Why do you call yourself a Muslim?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/23/2019 10:49:00 PM



  • this is true colonialism.
    the inability to understand the inequities and injustices embedded in the system that was enforced on some feckless ancestor, who probably did not even know what was being foisted on him.
    now his progeny are screaming from the rooftops the "excellence" of the very same system that was probably shoved down the throats of their ancestors.
    he is even more arabian than the bedouins.
    By hats off! - 2/23/2019 5:58:22 PM



  • Naseer sb., not having any answers, thinks that the only way left to him is to keep on repeating the lie that I have left Islam! And he does it without the slightest bit of shame!  

    24:2 is applicable neither in his country nor in my country, so what is he babbling about? Is he also going to defend penalties like amputations of arms and legs? What is he defending? Is he dead set against making Islam a rational, inclusive and civilized religion?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/22/2019 12:54:27 PM



  • GM sb,
    If in your US public acts of adultery are acceptable, then what is your problem with verse 24:2? Enjoy your freedom and practice adultery openly if you wish.
    Who has asked yo to cover up your women? Let them " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden"
    How is verse 4:34 stopping you?
    But if you question why these verses are in the Quran or argue that these are not revelations from Allah, then you are an apostate. I must then repeat the excellent advice that you yourself gave to Rational six years back.

    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 5:28:32 AM



  • Naseer sb.'s deceptiveness is evident in his last comment. He continues to be a sworn  advocate of 100 lashes and wife beating. He wants to remain blind to the fact that he is living in India where the Supreme Court has declared that private sexual activity between consenting adults is not a crime. What does he mean by supporting "adultery in Islam" if Islamic punishments cannot be implemented in his country? Is everything theoretical or hypothetical for him? And when will he wake up to the fact that women themselves can manage to dress modestly on their own and that man's supervisory role including his right to beat his wife are abhorrent things of the past. 

    Why does he try so hard to give a bad name to Islam?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/21/2019 12:02:44 PM



  • GM sb, Your lies have been nailed. You are for:
    1. Decriminalizing adultery in Islam and
    2. Husbands tolerating their wives " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden"
    You are for going back to pre-Islamic Pagan Arab licentious sexual norms.
    And you have the audacity to argue that verses that put an end to such immodesty and sexual licentiousness such as 24:2,31, 4:34 etc. are not revelation from Allah but inserted into the Quran by man! Only a votary of Satan can say such a thing.
    You are not deterred with the hard evidence from your own society of what such licentiousness leads to- a society that practices adultery openly in the offices, parks, cars and other public places  and in which the women openly admit  using their "erotic potential" for social and economic gain.
    You are morally depraved and from the religious point of view a disbeliever in the Quran, Allah and the Prophet (pbuh). By Naseer Ahmed - 2/20/2019 10:05:46 PM



  • Naseer sb. thinks that by repeating the same discredited arguments again and again and by calling me abusive names he is somehow going to "win" this round! All he is doing is making himself an insufferable bore!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/20/2019 1:09:06 PM



  • Your response is that of a hypocrite. You have failed to affirm the Quran on:

    1. Making adultery a punishable crime because you are for decriminalizing adultery in Islam.

    2. Affirm zero tolerance for wives " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden" because you are for tolerating such behaviour.

    My saying that you are for decriminalizing adultery in Islam and tolerating women who dress to seduce men is therefore correct and you are the hypocritical liar. We know from hard empirical evidence that these two factors result in a society in which the women openly admit to using their "erotic potential" for social and economic gain making them sluts and their men pimps. 

    It also results in a society which practices adultery openly leaving many witnesses and therefore corrupting everyone.


    You are trying take Islam back to the sexual licentiousness prevailing among Pagan Arabs before the revelation of the Quran. If the call from your Pagan past is so strong, join it but don't try to drag Islam and Muslim society with it.

    Muslims do not have a problem with verse 4:34 because their women abide by the Islamic norms of modesty and decency. For them verse 4:34 only defines the standard and they are fully compliant with it.

    It is a few weak Muslims like you who have not raised their children with the right Islamic virtues who have a problem of deciding whether "to beat or not to beat".  You can choose not to beat by carefully choosing spouses for your children who think alike on these subjects or advice them to seek divorce rather than beat or get beaten up. You cannot however ask all Muslims to abandon their religion or change the stance of the religion of Islam on adultery, indecency and immodesty.
    The religion of Islam cannot change for people like you. It is a religion formed by rejecting the norms that you now want to espouse.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/19/2019 11:19:31 PM



  • Naseer sb. should come out of his "as if" world and wake up to reality. If he was a judge in India and an adulterer was brought before him in court, what would he do?

    And would he ever stop supporting wife beating? 

    He can hold his backward views if he wants to, but he should stop preaching such views to others.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/19/2019 9:15:32 AM



  • You can nail my lies GM sb by saying that you are not for decriminalizing adultery in Islam and that you uphold verse 24:2 which prescribes the punishment for the crime although, in practice, it will apply only where Islamic shariat laws are in force and not in the US or India. What is important is that every Muslim must know, what according to the Islamic law, the punishment is, so that a devout Muslim can act as if the law is in force and avoid such heinous crimes/sins. Will you do that? No, because you are a hypocrite and a liar and you are for decriminalizing adultery in Islam.

    Verse 4:34 has a remedy for wives who dress indecently. You oppose it and argue for tolerance of such behaviour if she is strong-willed, independent, and bent upon having her way. What is your remedy to the problem? While the tolerance level of the religion of Islam for such indecency and immodesty in dressing is zero, your tolerance level is very high to the extent yo advocate putting up with it. So, who is the hypocritical liar here?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/18/2019 10:19:10 PM



  • Naseer sb. keeps lying about and distorting my earlier comments. He lives in a country where the highest court has said that private sexual acts  between two consulting adults is not a crime, but he keeps accusing me of trying to "decriminalize" adultery in Islam!

    He says I am for "husbands allowing their wives to " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden". Only a moron or a liar  would accuse me of being "for" it. What he  would not say is that he has been misusing what I had said for the sole purpose of justifying wife beating. Should such a liar and smearer deserve to participate in any serious debates?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/18/2019 1:49:34 PM



  • Moral rectitude for GM sb the dumb literalist sometimes and a rejecter at other times is turning Muslim society into a society of sluts and pimps.
    He advocates decriminlaizing adultery in Islam because "the state has no right to punish two adults engaged in consensual sex" even if they do so openly leaving behind four or more witnesses.
    He is for husbands allowing their wives to " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden” By Naseer Ahmed - 2/18/2019 1:31:51 AM



  • Hats Off is wrong. Islam provides a structure on which a theology of moral rectitude, justice and brotherhood can be built, but only if the unthinking literalists get out of the way.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/17/2019 11:19:56 PM



  • men create gods in their own image. lusty, ruthless, cruel and dim witted.

    islam was never a religion of peace. islam actually means submission. its very survival depended upon the wars of ridda. once you are into islam you can never leave. so they had to slaughter all those who reverted after the death of the prophet.

    islam is about subjugating kuffar looting their money and taking their women for sex slaves.
    By hats off! - 2/17/2019 4:44:41 PM



  • Naseer sb.'s participation in discussions is based on one  caveat:  "Agree with me or leave Islam"! Islam is his private jagir.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin Faruki - 2/17/2019 12:42:05 PM



  • The atheists have been trying to destroy Islam and every other  religion all along. The hypocrites are doing it their own way. This has been a constant struggle.

    The simple question is whether Islam is fundamentally and literally a religion of peace, tolerance, and justice. If the answer is yes, then the religion is not to be blamed but ourselves for using our autonomy for evil rather than for good. Use it for good instead. Stop blaming God or religion.

    If you think the religion is fundamentally and literally flawed, then leave it.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/17/2019 1:18:21 AM



  • Hats Off has reached a major milestone in accepting that he does not and cannot understand God. My hearty congratulations to him. He must therefore not speak on a subject that he does not know. By Naseer Ahmed - 2/17/2019 1:09:12 AM



  • anyone who claims to understand allah is either putting himself on par with god severely semantically challenged.
    if what is created by god claims to understand god, it is time for the medicines.
    millions who made this false claim have come and gone. millions of others too will.
    By hats off! - 2/16/2019 4:07:25 PM



  • The Mutazilla or the Rationalists were right when they said the Quran is created according to and is defined by its historical context and must therefore change with the times. What they said made sense. Hence they were silenced. If they had succeeded, the world of Islam today would not have been a graveyard of hate, coercion, intolerance, violence, authoritarianism, ignorance and blind faith.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/16/2019 12:08:34 PM