certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islamic Ideology

18 - COMMENTS

  • My question arose from your self-invented hypothesis that God sent subsequent revelations to people who were primed for them by earlier revelations. That clashed with your own usual description of Arab Jahhaliya. Stop coming up with such thoughtless hypothesis. You are only fooling yourself with your lame hypotheses.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/17/2019 12:43:44 PM



  • You are the one who raised the question and have the answer as to why the final revelations were sent to the Arabs and not to any other people.
    It was your question and argument  which was "null and void" and straw man. By Naseer Ahmed - 4/17/2019 12:29:48 AM



  • Naseer sb, asks, "Has GM sb proved that any people of earlier scriptures accepted later scriptures? "

    Some did and others did not. By pursuing this null and void point you are only making a fool of yourself. You invent idiotic hypotheses and then you cling to them as if they are divine injunctions!

    I call you a slavish literalist because you continue to defend verses which show God in a poor light.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/16/2019 12:59:34 PM



  • Do you know why and when GM sb calls  me a "Literalist"? When I support any verse of the Quran that he is attacking. And to make it a derogatory term, he now uses "slavish literalist". So, what is he attacking me for? For defending the entire Quran without exception and not compromising even on a single verse and conceding to him that it is doubtful or needs to be ignored. In other words, he is ridiculing me for being a complete Momin and Muslim which to him means being a “slavish literalist”. He is most definitely an apostate. who rejects many of the Ayats of the Quran. So are you with him or with me?  

     وَإِنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءُ بَعْضٍ ۖ وَاللَّهُ وَلِيُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ

    it is only Wrong-doers (that stand as) protectors, one to another: but Allah is the Protector of the Righteous.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/16/2019 1:36:28 AM



  • Has GM sb proved that any people of earlier scriptures accepted later scriptures? Did the Jews accept Jesus (pbuh) as Messiah and the Bible as revelation from God? Did the Jews and the Christians accept Muhammad (pbuh) as a Prophet and the Quran as revelation from  God? Did the Hindus in India with their own scriptures accept any other religion inspite of being ruled by Muslims and Christians for several centuries? 
    The Indonesians and the Malaysians without being conquered and ruled by Muslims easily accepted  Islam because although they had a religion, it was a foreign one and not their own.
    Facts are easily proved or disproved. GM sb is a determined denier of the truth.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/16/2019 1:10:54 AM



  • Naseer sb. argues that a new revelation never succeeded with people of the earlier scriptures. While both the Jewish scripture and the Christian scripture originated in Palestine, your argument is too stupid to spend any time on. You keep coming up with these brainless assertions that no one else would take seriously.

    You ask, "why couldn't the Arabs not get civilized," but it is you yourself who had earlier argued that the advanced scriptures could be sent because the people had developed to a point where they could grasp them because of the earlier scriptures. Try to be consistent in your arguments even if your arguments are fundamentally flawed.

    The Ahisan rule never abrogated the Golden rule. Why do you keep repeating this idiotic argument?

    And now you are trying to convince Kaniz saheba that God is as harsh and cruel as you are and asking her to defend the obviously human interpolations in the Quran which you could not defend yourself!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/15/2019 12:51:52 PM



  • The person who thinks himself best and others worst is mutakabbir and Allah does not like mutakabbir.
    How do you say it little knowledge? What you wrote is still little informative and details can be added to it. 
    By Kaniz Fatma - 4/15/2019 11:19:32 AM



  • Ms Kaniz Fatma, Do you have no comment on GM sb questioning verses 33:36,37 and saying these are not from Allah and inserted by man? And on his comment questioning its timing to save the Prophet from the adverse reaction of the people to his marriage with Zainab implying that the Prophet inserted these verses to save himself from the wrath of the people? Of course he used words such as "innocently" and imagining his own thoughts to be wahi etc.

    So what does that make the Prophet, the Quran and Allah? 

    What makes you remain silent against such onslaught against the character of the Prophet himself and allegation against the Book that it contains forgeries and against Allah that He is a helpless spectator unable to do anything about it?

    Which hadith supports your silence? Would you like to stand with GM sb on the Day of Judgment as an abettor through your silence?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/15/2019 10:26:45 AM



  • Ms Kaniz Fatima,

    A little learning is dangerous. The enemies of Islam were not safe from the sword of the Prophet/Muslims. Verse 9:5 and 9:29 were revealed after all the battles had ended and complete victory gained over the people. These announce the punishment on the guilty. 

    The criminals are to be punished and Allah commands firmness against the enemies of Islam.

    Yes, the people should be safe from any injustice or slander by a Muslim but a Muslim must be firm with the slanderers and enemies of Islam.

    You are a silent a silent observer to open denial and rejection of the Ayats of Allah in the Quran. Is that because of the hadith?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/15/2019 6:14:18 AM



  • One definition of Muslims is given by a Hadith as, "Muslim is one from whose hands and tongue the people are safe." By Kaniz Fatma - 4/15/2019 5:14:02 AM



  • Whereas I have given examples to show that a new revelation never succeeded with people of the earlier scriptures, can GM sb give one counter example to show that it did? Just because no one has noticed this phenomenon before and mentioned it, does it make it "not fact"?  
    Now, without the Indians adopting either Islam or Christianity, haven't Christian and Islamic values and morality permeated Indian society? So, why couldn't the Arabs not get civilized even though they had not yet received a prophet or revelation and be ready to receive the "perfected and complete Deen"?
    Is no compulsion the only distinguishing feature?  What about the rule of Ahsan abrogating the "Golden Rule"?  There are many more changes and the Quran refers to  "releasing the people of the earlier scriptures from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them" (7:157).
    Isn't GM sb a shameless and determined denier of the truth?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/15/2019 3:39:51 AM



  • is sex slavery and cutting off hands and legs from the opposite sides a civilizing effect of islam? By hats off! - 4/13/2019 6:39:52 PM



  • Naseer sb.'s ability to tell outlandish lies is in full display here. He calls himself a "complete Momin" and calls me an apostate! Such false egotism and such shameless takfirism makes me wonder what kind of a Muslim he is!

    Naseer sb. does not have enough sense to know that religion is only one of various factors that civilized mankind.

    Now he says, "The Arabs were civilized by association with other people," but he  forgets that when describing the backwardness of Jahhaliya! He says they were capable of receiving the perfect deen, although he has argued several times before that God sent more advanced messages to people only after they had developed to a stage where they could understand the advanced messages.  He now says a new revelation has never succeeded with people of the Book. This is his brand new invention that I have never heard before either from him or from anyone else. He keeps inventing new "facts" to suit his need to buttress his failing arguments!

    He has never explained how these messages were more advanced except to quote the non-compulsion verse which itself is contradicted in other parts of the Quran.

    In other words, Naseer sb. has strung the "more advanced revelation" theory and the primacy of the "non-compulsion" verse into a neat Hollywood style storyline that can be called Naseer sb.'s own original contribution! It is a part of his ego trip! 

    In reality Islam is a simple exhortation to people to be peaceful, righteous, pious and virtuous. But such simple and honest understanding of Islam would not satisfy Naseer sb.'s pseudo-scholarly ambitions!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/13/2019 1:03:58 PM



  • GM sb has invented terms such as:
    "Literalist" to mean one who completely and literally follows the Quran.
    That was not enough for him and to make it a derogatory term, he now uses "slavish literalist" to mean one who faithfully and completely follows all of the Quran.
    The nerve of the apostate to ridicule a complete Momin and a complete Muslim thus!
    And what is he? A  slave of Uncle Sam who will support the lies of the US but deny the truth of Islam.
    It is he who lies in his comment by once again indulging in straw man arguments. What I say is both logical and factual.
    1. Religion has civilized mankind
    2. Prophets were sent to all regions and people before the last prophet was sent to the Arabs. 
    3. The Arabs were civilized by association with other people but without scriptures of their own or their own prophet.
    4. Islam pitchforked them on the scale civilization while before, they were behind every other civilization. This does not mean that they were incapable of receiving the "perfect and complete Deen"
    Why did  Allah not send the last Prophet to other people who were more civilized? Because, every people with scriptures have rejected what came later. For example, the Jews rejected many later prophets and even killed some of them. They also rejected Jesus. Prophet Muhammad also preached to the Jews and the Christians in Arabia but except a few, they rejected him. This is the nature of man. They cling to whatever they have and reject what comes later.
    Christianity succeeded only because the Pagan Romans adopted it. Islam succeeded because of the Pagan Arabs. A new revelation never succeeded with the "people of the Book" which is why Islam spread in Indonesia and Malaysia even without a conquest but only in a limited way in India despite having been ruled by Muslims for a few centuries. 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/13/2019 8:11:29 AM



  • Naseer sb. is inventing new angles to defend his bogus arguments. Now he says that I am not responding to what he said. My comments are, in fact, directly responsive to his phony arguments, and if he says that he does not see it, it is because he is either a slavish literalist or a liar.
    He is contradicting himself when he says our Prophet was sent to the Arabs because they were most backward. But in the article he said, "The revelations from Allah from time to time, were appropriate for each period and limited by the stage of civilizational development." So if Prophet Muhammed's message was the most advanced as compared to previous revelations, why was it delivered to a people who were the least ready for it?

    He does not seem to understand how harmful and misleading his articles are. All that he is doing is to proclaim the superiority of Islam over other religions and repeating various labels that he thinks should be applied to certain people e.g. Momin, Muslim, kafir, mushrikin, zalimun, fasiqun, mujrimin etc.!

    By the way, adaptive behavior is closely tied to the instinct for survival.  Developing moral precepts is adaptive and is in the service of the instinct to survive. Is that hard for you to understand?

    Your "supplement" defining a true believer again shows what a slavish literalist you are!
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/12/2019 12:11:27 PM



  • يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ادْخُلُوا فِي السِّلْمِ كَافَّةً وَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا خُطُوَاتِ الشَّيْطَانِ ۚ إِنَّهُ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ مُّبِينٌ

    2:208) O ye who believe! Enter into Islam whole-heartedly; and follow not the footsteps of the evil one; for he is to you an avowed enemy

    The believer is being asked to become a complete Muslim. As far as belief is concerned, there is nothing like believing a part and disbelieving a part. Either you believe in the whole of the Quran or you disbelieve, and anyone who rejects even one verse of the Quran, is a Kafir. A person may not understand and seek clarification but not reject. It is not as if even the Prophet (pbuh) was immediately comfortable with every part (11:12) Perchance thou mayest (feel the inclination) to give up a part of what is revealed unto thee,..... The Prophet also had to adapt to the teachings of the Quran and the commands of Allah because even the final revelation was to some extent counter intuitive even to the Prophet. To some of us, it may still be, and this is where faith comes in. Those who have faith will be blessed with complete understanding and conviction but those who lack faith will never understand and go astray.

    As far as practice is concerned, a person may lag because of laziness, indolence, succumbing to temptation etc., but as long as the person believes that what he is not doing right is wrong, he remains a Momin though not a perfect Muslim, but the moment he begins to justify his wrong, he has ceased to be even a Momin and becomes a Kafir. It is therefore important to retain perfect belief and consider what is wrong as wrong and seek forgiveness for our shortcomings in what practice as imperfect Muslims.

    This is a supplement to the article and not a response to any comment.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/12/2019 6:16:22 AM



  • GM sb responds to not what is said, but to what he imagines have been said. He is forever indulging in straw man arguments because he has little to say on the subject of the article.

     He has a very poor understanding of the Quran and also my articles. Religion has civilized us and if the prophets were sent to all regions and people before a prophet was sent to the Arabs, it means that these other people and regions were civilized by religion much earlier. The Arabs, if they had a religion and civilization, it was only from what had rubbed onto them by association with others. Culturally, civilizationally and religiously therefore, they were the most backward among the people which is why their earlier period is called Jahiliya. So, what GM understands is quite the opposite!

     These articles are important to educate people such as GM sb who misunderstand and misuse terms. For example, in his comment, he blames Islam for intolerance rather than Muslims! He may read my article to understand what Islam and Muslim mean: The Meaning of Islam and Muslim

     I may have to write another article to make him understand that being adaptive is not related to either intuition or instinct. Adaptation is related to training and learning. Yes, man adapts to conditions imposed externally such as religious laws earlier and man made laws today or to his environment. This is different from acting instinctively or intuitively.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/12/2019 3:30:50 AM



  • The moral code is not counterintuitive. It is closely tied to the instinct for survival. It is adaptive.
    To imply that earlier scriptures were addressed to a less developed people is an insult to the great civilizations of Greece, Rome and Palestine. It is also an egotistical boost for the Arab Jahilyyah whom Naseer sb. considers to be suitable subjects for a supposedly more advanced moral code!
    Rejection of compulsion and coercion is a meritorious aspect of Islam but is not unique to it. It is not necessary to have the exact wording of 2:256 to be considered tolerant. More important is the practice. Unfortunately, Islam has been one of the most intolerant religions in the past several centuries as far as apostasy, blasphemy and heresy are concerned. Our attention should be focused on rectifying  our problems rather than making claims of superiority over other faiths.
    Pedantic preoccupation with definitions of labels like Momin, Muslim, kafir, mushrikin, zalimun, fasiqun, mujrimin etc. is the bane of idle minds. Islam is more about doing the right thing and the principle of "live and let live" rather than pointing fingers at others.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/11/2019 11:01:53 AM