Books and Documents

Islamic Ideology (31 Jul 2019 NewAgeIslam.Com)


  • Taha Deceiving is not explanation. Might be clear to you now.
    By Aayina - 8/13/2019 12:50:01 AM

  • Hats Off totally loses his mind when he sees Muslims advocating peace and nonviolence! The message of the progressive Muslims does not accord well with his war of hate and lies.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/9/2019 11:54:37 AM

  • most of the so-called moderate muslims are essentially dishonest, deceitful and treacherous. they always sugar-coat murderous intentions, verses and hadees. they try to make you believe that islam spread like pollen. they lie shamelessly when they insist that the Qur'an likes polytheists and idolators and kuffar and the jew and the christians.

    it hates their very guts. this hatred is internalized by moderate muslims as love.

    even the best meaning ones.

    moderation is never a virtue where honesty is needed.

    By hats off! - 8/9/2019 7:53:14 AM

  • OOOHHHOO.. I simply asked you to cover all round of subject in your article but you took it other way. 
    There is nothing for me to impress you or anyone else on this website. 

    By GGS - 8/9/2019 6:00:14 AM

  • GGS entire effort revolves roud flaunting his knowledge of terminologies to impress me. I have not translated the words myself. I only cited the translation of the scholars whom you call mufassir or mutarajjim or Ulama and showed that the meaning of the word jahd was done killing or fighting. It is the Ulama who used the word in a limited sphere that is killing. That's what I said that the word jahd has various meaning like patience, endurance sacrifice,service etc . And tell me is the conventional meaning of the word jahd is killing or fighting when the literal meaning is strive? What is Sharia terminology? Does the word jihad become killing non Muslim children in Sharia terminology. Whatever academic terminology you use it should be for the purpose of making the study of Quran easy and not for merely pricing yourself Superior to others and complicating matters. Muawwal, muqayyad majaz haqeeqat will be your academic tools not for the common Muslims. They will only see what end product you are giving them. And you may or may not agree my views in an article but you cannot say for others if they too do not agree with me. And also the objective of my writings is to discuss various aspects of Quran not showing my scholarship. I am not a scholar but a humble student of Quran and am proud of the fact that since 2006 Allah has made read His sacred book word by word a number of times. Whenever I rite in a topic I search the Whole Quran for relevant verses before writing. It's not done with a casual approach. You have definitely reasons to be envious of me. 
    By Arshad - 8/9/2019 5:15:55 AM

  • No translations of the Quran is Quran. 
    The Quran is only in its original form and that is Arabic. 
    Translations are based on human understanding. 
    Translation is the understanding of the translators who translate the Quran. 
    Tafsir is the understanding of Mufassir who explanation.
    One must understand this basic thing. 
    Translations are different in their approaches.
    Some are predominantly literal translations, some are explanatory translations, some are Ahkami translations etc. 
    One must decide first what one should read. 
    All the articles published on this website and translations of the Quran are not the Quran. Instead they are the understanding of the writers or translators. 
    In my opinion, the Quran can be understood well only in Arabic format because no human beings have power to convert the divine words in other languages as beautiful as is in the Quran. 
    But for guidance, understanding can be imparted to common people. Those who are interested in studying the Quran to be known as the schoalrs must learn Arabic so that they can refute and criticize the scholars of the past by dint of independency. 

    By GGS - 8/9/2019 3:11:44 AM

  • Can we say it so-called following of the Quran?
    all muslims claim to follow the path of Quran. 
    all present their arguments in their style. 
    all claim their rationality 
    but let me live with what i think is most perfect understanding based on the Quran.
    you claim for yours and they claim for theirs 
    i have read your arguments and theirs also 
    finally let me choose what is more rational according to me, 
    i am fool in your mind and you are intelligent in your mind - 
    let me live the life of fool. 
    you can choose what is rational according to you
    do focus more on converting me to your truth while i am happy with my truth.
    the story ends. anything else???

    By Talha - 8/9/2019 2:49:16 AM

  • Even the Prophet (pbuh) had no power to convince anyone and make them accept what he said.
    Truth remains truth even if no once accepts it and falsehood does not become truth even if everyone believes in it.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/9/2019 2:29:45 AM

  • The article avoids taking the dictionary meaning and relies only on the Quran and the sense in which the word is used in the Quran.

    The dictionary meaning is the meaning the Ulema have given to a word in their writings or as the word is commonly used and understood.

    For example, when you use the word Shaheed, it is invariably understood as martyr but the Quran never uses that word to mean a slain martyr but only to mean a living witness!

    The dictionary meaning is the meaning the Ulema have given and as it concerns Quranic words, we have seen that quite often the dictionary meaning is at variance with the meaning of the word in the Quran.

    The writings of the Ulema who have distorted the meaning of the Quran are therefore misleading. To understood the Quran one needs to read nothing except the Quran. Allah's Word is sufficient for understanding His Word and Message in the same manner as an infant does not learn a language from dictionaries, books of grammar or from teachers but simply from interacting with his/her mother or immediate environment. Allah has not made us dependent on the Ulema and their writings to understand His Book.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/9/2019 2:25:51 AM

  • Aayina sb, 
    in objective of criticism i have read that it is done to uplift the level of knowledge but provided it is done with sincerity witout preconceieved adversity. 
    you should select good scholar and do criticize but in sincere mood and if something is said by the scholar you should then accept him and not go to be stuck with the repetition of old criticism which has now been responded in irreftuable way. 
    kuffar and mushrikin too criticized in the era of the Prophet. they were experiencing everything through theri eyes but some of them continued to criticize after the facts had been clear to them. 
    i want to say that after being clear about something one should uplift one's understanding and level of knolwedge without bothering to remaining on the same path. 
    the quran replies mushrikin and kuffar and their criticism but you can read it and understand it making your mind free from the marketing of peace and hate. 
    the Quran is a book of guidance for the sincere and I do not know whether or not you are sincere. 

    By Talha - 8/9/2019 12:55:19 AM

  • One of the reasons that the articles fail to address the real problem is that we do not spend time on hard work. we simply take two three books even without struggling to cover all juzyiat correctly and start writing articles as if we were the only experts. 
    This is one of the grave mistakes of this push-button age, or in other words, intellectual dishonesty. This confuses other readers and lose its credibility. 
    One PHD student spends four to five years to solve one subject but we are here to write hundreds and yet we are unable to convince even our frequent readers such as Hats Off and Aayina etc.

    By GGS - 8/8/2019 11:22:18 PM

  • On Apostasy etc from my article: Pakistan blasphemes Islam   3 Sept 2012

     The Muslim conquerors adopted and assimilated many of the practices of the conquered territories. Muslim jurists found the legislative verses in the Quran far too little in comparison with Jewish and Christian laws. They therefore built an elaborate body of Islamic law using the principles of analogy and legal precedent to meet the requirements of governing vast territories with large non Muslim populations. The Law of apostasy, the law of blasphemy, the law of stoning adulterers to death and the practice of circumcision find no mention in the Quran but are found in Jewish and Christian scriptures. The Muslim jurists appear to have relied on the old and the new Testament for these laws although there is lack of sufficient and direct support from the practice of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) for such laws.

     From my article Who is a Kafir in the Quran? (Part 4) Defining Kufr 25 Feb, 2015

    The article discusses the very concept of Hadd punishments and the difference between  sin (kufr in the spiritual dimension) and crime (kufr in the temporal dimension) and why there is no Hadd punishment for apostasy in the Quran because it is a sin but not a crime.

     “Some forms of Kufr may appear to stride both the dimensions - for example, an apostate who turns hostile and carries on activities harmful to a section of the society or the state. Such a person can be punished for the harm that he has caused or can potentially cause but not for apostasy. Apostasy is merely incidental and irrelevant to the case as apostasy is not kufr in the temporal dimension.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/8/2019 11:22:08 PM

  • Arshad sahab says, "GGS the ulama of the past interpreted Quran and hadees according to the social and political situation of their age....."
    This lesson is very popular and we should give the credit of this knowledge to Ulama themselves.
    Arshad sb, the problem is; who are Ulama according to you? 
    Those who are Ulama according to me know this basic thing. 
    Another problem is to understand Ulama correctly. Very often people just read one set of texts and base their understanding of Ulama on that insufficient study. In my opinion this is intellectual dishonesty; with which you can agree to disagree with me.

    What are the principles to understand Ulama of the past? Their written words or their principles? 

    Arshad sb, you have made mistakes in your own article.
    Your entire article rovovles around a limited sphere of knowledge. Based on dictionary meanings you have drafted your arguments. 

    You should have worked hard to cover all aspects of the word Jihad otherwise your arguments can be easily rejected. 

    What is the objective of writing this article? If your article is not able to convince the audience, it means you are doing futile efforts. 

    While translating words, you should go through several ways; such as literal meaning, conventional meaning, Sharia terminology, mutlaq and muqayyad application, general and specific application, mushtarak and muawwal, majaz and haqiqat, with each having diverse areas of understanding. 

    By GGS - 8/8/2019 11:05:53 PM

  • What Quran said is not important, the way it is used to kill innocent is important, Mr Arshad is cheating to the people,mhis inner ego is allowing him to tell that Quran and Mohmmad are responsible for killing of innocent and who are against them. The book Quran( so called God booked, to mislead the people) is so weak that it tolerant its own criticism, that Quranic book God cannot tolerate criticism. Criticism and to be critical should be the fundamental right of human for it progress towards peace and prosperity but Quran God forbids and kill
    By Aayina - 8/8/2019 10:47:32 PM

  • Does knife means to cut only vegetable, it can cut throat as well, Quranic Jehad is like that, it does not matter it's means vegetable in your opinion for us as Hindus it our throat that will cut.
    By Aayina - 8/8/2019 10:33:52 PM

  • GGS the ulama of the past interpreted Quran and hadees according to the social and political situation of their age. Our age has moved ahead and we have a differe t set of problems, issues and challenges. We do not need to cowtow them. We have modern scholars who have interpreted Quran and hadees according to the situation today. For instance Sultan Shahin sb mentioned that Imam ghazali wrote that Muslims should do jihad ever year. In his age the ulama may have had this opinion because theirs was a tribal age. Today junior people like you and me know that it is ridiculously wrong. Another example is the opinion of our imams and ulama that apostates should be killed. This view was cir ulated so widely that every Muslim now believes this but now we know that Quran does not prescribe any earthly punishment for apostasy leave alone death sentence. I tell you one interesting thing. Six years ago I sear he'd the whole Quran to find punishment for apostasy. I didn't find a single verse prescribing death sentence for apostasy. Everywhere Quran said the apostates should be left to their fate on Earth and only God will punish him in hereafter. After that I wrote an article saying the Quran does not prescribe death for apostasy. But I did not have the courage to send it to Me Sultan Shahin for publication for fear of repercussions because my finding was contrary to ulama had been saying for centuries. So I was waiting. After a few days , an article of Yunus sahab was published on the same topic and forming same opinion. This gave me courage and I sent the article to NAI and it was ublished but then I regret. It sending my article first and the credit sent to Yunus sb. Therefore we should not stick to what ulama in the past have said. We should do our own research. Another example is triple talaq. Muslims do not k ow what Quran says on the topic. They just read what Imams have said. Quran says at talaqo marratan but ulama say at tLaqo salasatan. Quran says stop after second talaq and take time to tbink but ulama say say it three times at one go. Hun Hain na halal karane ke liye. Koi nahi milega to main hi tumhari biwi ko rape kardunga badle me time SE rupay bhi llunga.We have to ask them why do you ignore talaqo marratan. Again Shah Waliullah lived in 18th century. He formed some opi ions which seem irrelevant but we have idolised him and teach his interpretations in madrasa syllabus. This approach has to be changed.
    By Arshad - 8/8/2019 8:54:13 AM

  • Mr Amburaj at NAI we are trying to do the same: to throw in dustbin the wrong interpretations of the Quran and interpret it in modern context. In modern social and political context, the teachings of Quran have to be rei terpreted so that they can sound relevant. Christian missionaries also do jihad but theirs is passive jihad. Steins and his two children were burnt alive by Dara Singh but lady Steins forgave him and moved on in life. This is the spirit Prophet Mohammad demonstrated. Muslims have ulama and some extremist organisations who just talk of violent jihad against non Muslims. This is not Islam. These Marauder's rapists and killers of children living as outcasts in jungles claim to be caretakers of Island and Muslims. They only talk of violence against women, children, the old and the weak everyone. And non Muslims are misled. They form opinion about general Muslims on the basis of these ignoramuses.
    By Arshad - 8/8/2019 8:26:16 AM

  • @you do every act and blame that islam was doing it
    By Barani - 8/6/2019 5:22:38 AM

  • Mr.Arshad Hindu culture is evolving from dark to light.We should not quote what is old and abandoned.Let us take Bhagavad Gita.It does not preach imperialism based on sect etc.But Islam is nothing but Arabian imperialism. Muslims must realise it.If  realised
    you will beable throw into dustbin what is not suitable to modern days.

    By Dr.A.Anburaj - 8/6/2019 3:03:41 AM

  • We will not get anywhere by mixing up things. The Quran uses Qital for fighting and Jihad for striving. It does not use the words interchangeably as synonyms. 
    The ahadith and the  Islamic literature mix up the two words and use them interchangeably as synonyms. 
    Unfortunately, Muslims are more loyal to the ahadith and their imams and will therefore not reject these people for distorting the meaning.
    There are several other words that have acquired meanings different from their meaning in the Quran. Shaheed/Shuhuda is one such.
    The bigoted scholars glorify fighting and those who perish fighting which is why Jihad is translated as "fight" and Shuhuda as "martyr".

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/3/2019 12:28:17 AM

  • I think the way we try to understand the Quran with the claim of using the right method; we should also use the same method to understand Ahadees and the scholars of the past. Very often the scholars of the past are misunderstood. The error of misunderstanding was and is being made not only by the secular scholars but even by some of the classical scholars who outwardly reject the scholars of the past. Yes there are some classical scholars who present their arguments to reconcile between the scholars of the past and of the present on the basis of the principles and causes. Such scholars are very effective and highly appreciated in academic circles provided they adopt convincing approaches towards reconciliation (tatbeeq).

     Yes there are some modern and secular scholars who outwardly condemn in general mode, without knowing the fact that the classical scholarship is spacious and is full of differences. Classical scholarship includes so much flexible approaches that it can resolve the conflicting issues of the changing times, provided the people take interest into resolution and not in retaining the antagonistic approaches.

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 8/2/2019 12:24:56 AM

  • Sultan Shahin sb has rightly said. 

     The Quran and Sunnah have used Jihad and Qital several times.

    There is no use explaining the word Jihad to confine it to the sense of fighting against negative self, or to the sense of fighting against oppression, as the Quran also uses the word Qital for that matter. In some Sufi books of Tafsir even the word Qital is used to mean ‘struggle against negative self’; which can be justified if taken the rule of figurative uses of the words. 

    Islamic theology uses Jihad in both ways; fighting against oppression and fighting against negative self. The books are full of such uses.  

    There were times when no distinction could be made between offensive and defensive fighting as all tribes, states or regimes used to lie in ambush to attack or capture the land of others. Even the offensive war in those days was meant for defence. One group thought that if it did not wage offensive fighting against its opponents, it might be attacked by them at any time. This was the reason that even the Islamic theologians would support offensive fighting or Qital against the opponents of their land. But very often the Muslim army used to declare their war before attacking any land.

    In those days the Muslim and non-Muslim armies would be in ambush to fight against each other. Only thing that could keep them away from waging offensive fighting was to come to any peace-treaty with one another.   

    There was no such ruling as today in the international law which does not allow war of expansion; as a result Muslim and non-Muslim countries have stopped their war of expansion and are akin to establishing the peace-treaty in the form of written agreement.

    It is binding for all of us to remain in agreement with this treaty and any individual who violates this treaty or agreement, must be declared rebel and punished as per law. 

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 8/2/2019 12:06:42 AM

  • It's surprising that those people whose mother language is Arabic have distorted the meaning of jihad. When we take the meaning of jahd or jihad as killing or fighting for Deen it will mean that Muslims should keep fighting for Deen. This jihad becomes one of the fundamental duties of Islam like namaz, roza,zakat Hajj and tawheed. In fact jihad is not the fundamental pillar of Islam. But because of the distortion in the meaning of the word jahd the core message of Islam was distorted.
    By Arshad - 8/1/2019 7:39:34 PM

  • It's not only Urdu newspapers or books that use Jihad only in the sense of Qital. That is the story of our entire Islamic theological literature. Some Sufis do talk about higher Jihad against one's own negative self, but otherwise the entire theological literature uses jihad in the sense of Qital. Take, for example, the Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Islam, developed over half a century by ulema of nearly all sects. It's popularly called Kuwaiti only because it was done in Kuwait. It has a 22,000 word chapter on Jihad, if my memory is serving me right. Except six words in the first para which talks of Jihad-e-Akbar against one's own self, the entire chapter talks of Sharia rules and regulations regarding Qital. 
    By Sultan Shahin - 8/1/2019 7:35:05 AM

  • Mr Mburaj by saying so you are only supporting those who give wrong meanings to Quran's verses to promote extremism among Muslims. Leave the meanings of Arabic words jahd and qital, tell me whether the meaning of Hindi words yuddh and sangharsh are the same.? 
    By Arshad - 8/1/2019 3:02:40 AM

  • There is no whitewashing. There are verses on qital or fighting also. What the article merely says is that jihad does not mean fighting but striving which is correct. If fighting was meant, why wouldn't the Quran use qital as it has done when fighting was meant?

    Jihad means striving and striving with sword is not ruled out if that becomes necessary but that is just one form of striving. However, when jihad is translated as fighting, it rules out other forms of striving which is incorrect. When jihad is used, it always means peaceful striving without ruling out violence if that becomes necessary, but then that is only as a last resort and not the first option.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/1/2019 2:59:13 AM

  • All religions must adapt and improve themselves. For Hats Off this becomes another occasion to spew his venomous hatred!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/1/2019 12:01:26 AM

  • This write-up is supercilious and does not supported  by History of Prophet Mohammed and his  disciples. sorry it is fully concocted one.

    By Dr.A.Anburaj - 7/31/2019 9:24:21 PM

  • At least the whatewashing is done with the colour of logic and valid references. Jai Shri ram is force-chanted without any logic and no voice from Hindu intellectuals  isbeing raised..
    By Moin Siddiqui - 7/31/2019 9:13:11 PM

  • what a whitewashing we need when we are basically dishonest!
    By hats off! - 7/31/2019 5:40:52 PM

  • The message should be loud and clear that the religion of peace does not endorse fighting wars in the name of religion.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/31/2019 12:21:26 PM