Books and Documents

Ijtihad, Rethinking Islam (13 Dec 2018 NewAgeIslam.Com)

Why the Reformist Scholars Cannot Make a Difference

By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam

13 December 2018

Islamic reform theologians such as Fazlur Rahman and Abdullah Saeed and Turkish Islamic Scholars such as Mehmet Paéaci and Ilhami Güler study the Qur’an via the framework of the time when it was revealed to Muhammad.  Mattson says that "in many of the first Qur'anic verses to be revealed relate to Muhammad’s inner state as he began his prophetic mission". In this sense, if the Qur’an is seen as God’s revelation at a specific time it must be acknowledged that the revelation was influenced by the historical and social conditions of that time (Esack, Saeed).

Abdullah Saeed further says: "Values change according to social, economic, political, legal and intellectual circumstances. When this happens, there should be a change in how we approach the foundation texts that relate to those values. The Qur’an was given in a specific context, within the framework of a worldview that was appropriate to first/seventh-century Arabia, and in a language and symbolism that its audience understood. The Qur’an should be seen as embedded in the context in which it was received."

While Ebrahim Moosa says that he firmly believes that Islam is a religion for all ages and eras, he also says that the key is to interpret it according to the time and world we currently live in. "Muslim communities are based on historical traditions. And I'm not saying everything in tradition has to be thrown out. You don't throw the baby out with the bath-water. I think retaining an element of tradition is important. But some parts of tradition have become outdated and anachronistic in today's world- the question of gender, relationship between self and other, questions about practices that understand the world in a very different way. Our world has changed, and with the arrival of science and scientific thinking, how do you bring all those things together in a conversation?" Moosa asserts that progressive Islam doesn't mean changing the Quran or changing Hadith, but is instead about having alternative methodological approaches that are going to allow us to find different kinds of answers from tradition, and answers that will be much more amenable to our experiences and our way of life, be much more equitable.

"The key thing about progressive or critical traditionalist approach in Islam, to me, is that we must see that all knowledge must substantiate and support the fulfilment of human dignity. Human dignity is at the core of all Islam's messages. And if knowledge does not deliver on human dignity, then that knowledge really is questionable. So those kinds of interpretations of the past that talked about non-Muslims in a particular way that talked about women in a particular way are no longer dignified. That has to change. You can only change it when you are prepared to ask questions, and are prepared to challenge the paradigm of interpretation that has been prevalent thus far." Moosa also believes that that is probably one of the biggest challenges for Muslims collectively, "because certain strands of Muslim orthodoxy do not want the paradigm to be questioned. They think the paradigm is perfect. And because they think so, anyone who challenges it becomes the enemy. But that is the only way we can have peace amongst Muslims today."

The Flawed Argument of Context by Reformist Scholars

Is historical context important to a revelation? It certainly is for progressive revelations. Allah has taken mankind forward progressively from the earliest times time when man did not even have the concept of right and wrong to a stage when mankind was ready to receive the “perfected and complete religion” from Muhammad (pbuh), the last and the seal of the prophets. This was a stage in civilisational development, when the worth of the Deen of Allah (moral principles of religion), had become evident through practice over the ages, and therefore clear from error (Quran 2:256).  Once the perfected and complete Deen (Quran 5:3) was delivered, there cannot be further improvement to it or any addition/subtraction.

The flaw in the argument is in the assumption that lessons on the eternal principles cannot be delivered through a context. No matter what the context, eternal principles remain unchanged and any given context is only incidental, but part of the deliberate methodology of experiential learning followed by the Quranic revelations.  The context is to elucidate but not to define the message itself. It is therefore erroneous to believe that the Deen of Islam would have differed if the context of the revelation was different. No, the context or the process of elucidating the message would have been different but the Deen would have remained the same.

If you believe otherwise like the reformist scholars, then you are saying in effect that Allah did not “perfect and complete his religion” and that religion can never be perfected/completed since it must continue to change with the times. You also reject in effect the argument of Muhammad (pbuh) being the last and the seal of the prophets because who else but a prophet can guide us afresh according to the changed times?

What is possible however is that the traditionalist approach is flawed, and they have misinterpreted the Quran and their mistakes need to be corrected. It is also possible to throw out the traditionalist approach completely if it is full of errors and adopt a more robust methodology to the study of the Qur’an.

Does Religion Shape Our Values, Or Do We Change The Religion According To The Changing Values?

Man did not know right from wrong. It is religion which has exclusively given us the criteria of right and wrong and each one of our ethical and moral principles. The moral/ethical domain has exclusively belonged to religion and not even one of our moral principles has come from outside of religion or outside of Divine Revelation. It is therefore preposterous for the reformist scholars to suggest changing the religion according to the changing values. If the values have come from outside of religion then religion was unnecessary in the past and if the values from religion are inappropriate in today’s world, then the religion has outlived its utility and must be abandoned. The claim of the Quran that the Deen is perfected and complete is then proven false (Nauzobillah). Is this however the case? Far from it as we shall see.

The Argument against Interpretations

First, let us question why the Quran needs to be interpreted. Whose speech requires to be interpreted? We know that we need to interpret the speech of:

1. A Child who has not yet learned to speak well.

2. An imbecile

3. Another category of speech or writing that is interpreted is poetry and literature.

 We never try to interpret the speech of sane intelligent honourable persons but take them on their word or take what they say literally.

 The Quran informs us that it is a Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds (Qur’an 56:80), a Book that makes things clear and not poetry (Qur’an 36:69), nor is it the word of an imbecile or mad man (Qur’an 68:2), but the word of a most honourable messenger of Allah (Qur’an 81:19). It therefore does not require to be interpreted but taken on its word or its most direct literal meaning. Those who interpret and not take the direct literal meaning are those who hold the Message in light esteem and the Quran asks: (56:81) Is it such a Message that ye would hold in light esteem?

What of the Mutashabihat verses? These also do not require interpretation but knowing which of the words have been used as a metaphor, which is also never in doubt. In any case, the Deen of Allah, or right way of living in Islam, is through the Muhkamat verses (verses of clear established meaning) alone.

 So, what do we make of this penchant for interpretation? Why is every scholar interpreting? This is because each one of us reads the Quran with pre-conceived ideas of what is right and wrong and is subconsciously bending the Message to those ideas. Nobody is listening to the Qur’an with an open, clear and blank mind. We therefore have paradigms of interpretation or theological frameworks.

The Meaning vs the Paradigms of Interpretation

However, if all that we do is interpret, then there is no end to the re-interpretations. But if you take the meaning as intended when the Quran was revealed, then this meaning is fixed and can never change. Is it possible to take the meaning? Yes, it is not only possible but easy and simple. The clear meaning is as relevant today as it always was and will forever be as the revelation of Allah is expected to be.

Allah’s attribute of Tawheed or Oneness, manifests itself in the attribute of every verse. The single, easily understood clear meaning, makes taking any other meaning clearly false. This pre-supposes that no verse of the Quran contradicts any other verse of the Quran and no verse of the Quran is abrogated which indeed is the case. Our scholars, with their misinterpretations, however, render the Book a book of many contradictions and provide proof that they misinterpret. The Quran is consistent with itself but not necessarily with the secondary literature consisting of the Ahadith, Shane-Nuzul, commentaries of the scholars and imams. The Quran is best understood by itself. The simple trick is to blank out every other noise and listen carefully to the Quran alone. Nothing can be simpler than that.    

Question the scholars, the traditionalists and every paradigm of interpretation and in fact interpretation itself, but either accept that Islam is eternal, unchanging and perfected as claimed by the Quran, or reject that claim and therefore the Qur’an itself. You are then free to follow whatever you wish to follow. Why should we be constrained by the Qur’an that makes a false claim?  Professor Ebrahim Moosa is debunking the Islam of the traditional schools without bringing out the real Islam because he has no idea of how to bring out the real Islam. He only knows that the Islam of the traditional schools is inconsistent with human dignity. I debunk the Islam of the traditional schools by showing them to be in gross error and misinterpreting.

Debunking the Islam of the Traditionalists

We need to take the bull by the horns. The misinterpretations of the traditionalists cannot be countered by an appeal to modernity. If we need to change the religion with the times, then the religion is man-made and if so, why do we need the Quran at all? We can go wherever our reason leads us. We have a case against the traditionalists only if we can show them to be in gross error or by showing that their Islam is a caricature of the real Islam of the Quran if not a complete anti-thesis of it. If not, then the traditionalists are right and we either accept their Islam or go our own ways. Why should we hang around Islam if we disagree with what we believe to be the authentic Islam? What we need to become is a person of integrity and not a hypocrite.

The fact is that the Islam of the traditionalists is a gross misrepresentation of the true Islam of the Quran as brought out by the clear meaning of the verses shorn of all interpretations.  I have brought out in my articles the eternal Islam of the Quran which is consistent with the most refined ideas of human dignity, as it should be, if the Quran is indeed a revelation, and the last word, from the Lord of the Universe. I also do not deviate from the literal meaning. The meanings of the words that I take is as defined or made clear by the Quran itself, and not the distortions that have crept in from misuse of those words by the scholars. For example:

1.       Kafir is a faith neutral term meaning an ingrate rebel or a wilful denier of the truth, or those who wilfully disobey the commands of Allah but never a simple “disbeliever”, for it is only a believer who can wilfully disobey or deny and therefore be a Kafir. There are several verses of the Quran where “Kafaru” refers to the believer. A simple “disbeliever” is la-Yuminun (one without belief) because he may be la-Yalamun (one without knowledge) and is not a Kafir. There is no verse in the Quran that refers to all the polytheists as Kafir because many of them are simply those without knowledge and are not wilful deniers of Allah’s Oneness. While “shirk” or associating partners with Allah is an unforgivable sin for the believers, it is merely among the prohibitions for the disbelievers without knowledge. There is of course a category of “disbelievers” who have the knowledge and conviction and yet are wilful deniers of Allah. These are among the category of people “who will not believe” no matter what proof comes to them and are among the Kafir. This is covered in my article: Revisiting the Meaning of Kafir

2.       Islam is the Deen (religion) of Allah from the time of creation of the Universe itself, and every scriptures-based religion is a sect of Islam. This is covered in my articles:

Understanding the Religion of Allah through the Ages

The Momineen and the Kafirin

Is It Possible To Logically Derive A Single Meaning Of Every Verse Of The Quran? Or, Does Allah Provide A Level Playing Field To All The People?

3.       The only cause for fighting that is justified and described as fighting in the cause of Allah is fighting to end any kind of oppression against any people by any oppressor. The faith of the oppressor and the oppressed is immaterial. Islam does not justify any other cause for fighting – not even fighting to end disbelief. This is covered in my articles:

The Principles of War from the Quran

The Much discussed and debated Medinian Verses Relating to Fighting

The Correct Understanding of the So Called ‘Sword’ Verses of Surah Taubah

The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Qu’ran (Concluding Part) Summary

4.       The polytheists (Mushrikin) who had not fought against the Muslims in violation of their treaty had a right to retain their faith and become jiziya paying citizens. Their choice was not limited to either accepting Islam or death as portrayed by the traditionalist. This is covered in my articles:

The Ahadith That Distort The Message Of The Quran - Part I

The Importance of Getting the Story Right on the Divine Plan Allah

5.       Shuhuda does not mean martyrs in the Qur’an. It means witnesses or exemplar Muslims. They are those who provide living evidence of Islam through their deeds and words. Those slain in the cause of Allah are referred to in the Quran by the full description “qutelu fi sabi lillah” and never as the Shaheed or the shuhuda. The meaning of shuhuda has been distorted by the traditionalists to glorify getting slain in violent jihad. This is covered in my article: The Politics of Religion and the Changing Concept of Shuhuda over the Years

6.       A woman’s testimony is not worth half of that of a man’s testimony. The Quran allows women the privilege and option of witnessing and testifying jointly consulting each other. This is not a legal requirement but an option and a privilege. Their separate testimonies are not to be taken but only their joint testimony allowing them to consult each other before testifying or answering any question. This is covered in my article: Is A Woman’s Testimony Worth Half That of A Man?

7.       Jizya as implemented by the Prophet (pbuh), was not a religious requirement under Islam, but a negotiated agreement between the parties. It was value for money. This is covered in my article: The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) From the Qu’ran (Part 6): The People of the Book and Jiziya

8.       A Muslim is anyone who establishes regular prayers and pays zakat and has accepted to follow the tenets of Islam while he may not yet have become a believer. Belief is something which grows over a period and is not a pre-condition for becoming a Muslim (Qur’an 9:5 and 49:14). You cannot therefore declare a person who establishes regular prayers and pays zakat as kafir for his beliefs no matter what those beliefs may be. A believer can be a kafir but not a Muslim because a Muslim by definition is one who submits to Allah in Islam by establishing regular prayers and spending in charity. Every sect of Islam practices takfir of every other sect and is in error and since the Kharjites started this practice, every sect of Islam is a sub-sect of the Kharjite. This is covered in my article: What Survives Of The Authentic Sunna (Practice) Of The Prophet (PBUH)?

9.       The divorce process in the Qur’an is a two-stage process with a mandatory Iddat period in between, which must be spent in the husband’s house. Divorce by pronouncing Talaq thrice in one sitting is therefore null and void and also divorce through messages. If reconciliation does not take place during the iddat period, then the divorce becomes irrevocable. If reconciliation takes place, then any subsequent divorce will have to go through the same two stages. This can happen any number of times. The Quran does not put the limit of three on it. What the Quran says is that there is no third stage. After the second stage or at the end of the iddat period, it must either end with reconciliation or with an irrevocable divorce because there is no third stage. This is covered in my article: The Process for Divorce in the Quran

10.     The five pillars of Islam is a construct of the Ash’ariyya and the Maturidiyya theology. These are better thought of as the hygiene factors rather than as the pillars of Islam. What Islam rests on are the virtues of the Siddiq, Shuhuda and the Saliheen extolled in the Quran which are the pillars of Islam and covered in my article: The Role Models in the Quran


The traditionalists have relied upon bigoted paradigms of interpretation which has resulted in portraying the religion at odds with the humanistic and universal message of the Quran. The answer to that is not another paradigm of interpretation but rejection of every paradigm of interpretation and establishing the true meaning of the Message of the Quran as demonstrated through my articles. What comes through are the eternal values of human dignity and Allah as the God of all mankind, who provides a level playing field to all people irrespective of the religion into which they are born.

Naseer Ahmed is an Engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur and is an independent IT consultant after having served in both the Public and Private sector in responsible positions for over three decades. He is a frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com

 URL: http://www.newageislam.com/ijtihad,-rethinking-islam/naseer-ahmed,-new-age-islam/why-the-reformist-scholars-cannot-make-a-difference/d/117148

New Age IslamIslam OnlineIslamic WebsiteAfrican Muslim NewsArab World NewsSouth Asia NewsIndian Muslim NewsWorld Muslim NewsWomen in IslamIslamic FeminismArab WomenWomen In ArabIslamophobia in AmericaMuslim Women in WestIslam Women and Feminism


  • Actually, it is GM sb who is telling a blatant lie. I did not say that he has “denied”. I only said that he is pretending that he did not say it which is a true description of his comment.

     I understand from GM sb’s clarification, that he may not support, but he will allow, if that is how his women wish to dress and behave. He has developed cold feet after I showed the consequences of allowing/supporting such behaviour. Good -  he has learned something and may be able to appreciate Islamic norms better now.

     However, another Muslim man, having married a Muslim woman, is well within his rights to insist that she follow the Islamic code of dress and modesty. The problem arises only where there is a conflict in the position taken. To avoid such conflicts, the Quran debars an adulterer from marrying a non-adulterous person and vice versa. Two adulterous persons can marry each other and indulge in adulterous activities discreetly. As long as they do not leave behind four eyewitnesses, they are safe even in a country which practices Islamic shariat law of punishing the adulterers with 100 stripes. In countries such as the US and India, they can be indiscreet and carry it on publicly, if they wish.

     Likewise, knowing the Islamic norms of dress code and modesty, if a girl has no intention of abiding by these, she should make this clear before marriage by dressing provocatively “with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden. If the boy has no objection and marries her, the expectations are clearly set before marriage, and there is no conflict.

     The problem arises only when a boy is expecting the girl to abide by Islamic codes and she pretends to do so, but after marriage shows her true pagan colours. The man is then within his rights to correct her behaviour or divorce her.

     The argument that verse 4:34 demeans women is fallacious. If 4:34 demeans women, then the criminal laws demean mankind. The sound and fury raised by GM sb, is sheer politics and nothing to do with logic. Allah doesn’t care for political correctness.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/16/2019 10:33:34 PM

  • Naseer sb., is lying again! When did I deny saying, "“4:34 is not about disloyalty or adultery. It is about obedience and disobedience. It is about a woman going in public places  dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden.” And I stand by what I said. Was I supporting such behavior? Of course not! I was questioning the qualifications and the objectivity of the husband to judge his wife's behavior and his right to admonish her or to beat her. It is cheap demagoguery on your part to suggest that I was supporting either adultery or economic exploitation of sexuality. You even fall to the level of bringing in polyandry in this discussion although I am sure you will have nothing to say about polygyny! You are declaiming wildly in your village mullah mode! Will you ever be able to hold an adult mature dialogue? Your sole aims seems to be to fight to death any attempts at gender equality.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/16/2019 2:00:03 PM

  • Naseer sb.,
    Since we are living in India we have to discuss laws which apply to us in India and reconcile them to what is written in the Quran.
    Regarding 24:2, yes I am against inflicting 100 lashes to the adulterer. Sex between consulting adults is not the concern of the state.
    It will be dealt with on the Day of Judgement.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/16/2019 1:40:25 PM

  • It is GM sb who is trying to throw dust in everyone's eyes and pretend that he did not say what he said. This is what he said:

     “4:34 is not about disloyalty or adultery. It is about obedience and disobedience. It is about a woman going in public places  dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden.

     Why would someone who supports his “women going in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden” and is for decriminalizing adultery, not use the erotic capital of such women for economic and social benefit and allow it to be wasted? If he uses the erotic capital, then he is a pimp and if he doesn’t, then he is a dumb ass to waste it on nothing.  The pendulum swings for the man from being the “Qawwamuna” or Protector of his woman in Islam, to becoming her pimp in adopting Pagan ways once again.

     I salute the brave Muslim women, who while living in the US and participating in public life, observe Islamic norms and modesty.  It is sad that there are on the other hand wimps like GM sb who have totally succumbed to societal pressures living in the US and are adapting their ways. The consequences of such behaviour is brought out in my previous comment.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/15/2019 10:52:12 PM

  • We are not discussing the laws in India or the US. We are discussing the law in the Quran and your argument is about Hudud laws in general and the law on adultery in particular. Why do you now pretend that you have not opposed verse 24:2 which lays down the punishment for adultery? Why are you trying to throw dust into everyone's eyes?  Are you so thick headed that you do mot understand what you yourself said?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/15/2019 10:41:41 PM

  • Naseer sb. is trying to throw dust in our eyes quoting from Western authors on   uses of sexuality in the work place. Does he really think 4:34 is about working women flirting with their male colleagues? Why is he trying to deceive us? By supporting 4:34 he is only supporting men's right to lord it over women and even to beat women. He will go to any length to support such inequality and such male dominance. The Quran for him is just a weapon to suppress women and to keep us all tied down to the 7th century. Shame!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/15/2019 2:05:53 PM

  • Naseer sb. says, 

    "Are you now saying that you are unaware that adultery is a punishable crime in Islam besides being a sin?"

    A crime in Islam is not a crime in India, but a sin in Islam is also a sin for Indian Muslims. Are you going to live in India and not follow India's laws? Why do you make such dumb arguments?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/15/2019 1:52:17 PM

  • For GM sb, the happy Pagan days are back again!

    Prominent British Sociologist  and expert on women’s issues and employment Dr Catherine Hakim says not only is it perfectly permissible, but it’s also important for women to learn that “erotic capital” has genuine economic value and social benefits. Her new book called Honey Money: The Power Of Erotic Capital suggests that knowing how to use your sexuality is as crucial to success at work as intelligence, skill and professional qualifications. 

    Barbara Corcoran, real estate guru and an investor on ABC’s Shark Tank  said “I find running a #business in a man’s world to be a huge advantage. I wear bright colors, yank up my skirt to get attention.

     I  (Beatrice Lockhart)Use My Sexuality To Get Ahead At Work, And I Don’t Feel Bad About It

    I use my sex appeal to get ahead at work... and so does ANY woman with any sense

     Why would someone who supports his “women going in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden” and is for decriminalizing adultery, not use the erotic capital of such women for economic and social benefit and allow it to be wasted? If he uses the erotic capital, then he is a pimp and if he doesn’t, then he is a dumb ass to waste it on nothing.  The pendulum swings for the man from being the “Qawwamuna” or Protector of his woman in Islam, to becoming her pimp in adopting Pagan ways once again.

     The next stage in such a society is polyandry. While the men and the beautiful women can have all the fun, it will leave the plain Janes or the vast majority of ordinary women behind. They will have to work very hard to attract men and bribe them with gifts and money to keep them.  I don’t see the men complaining but as for the women, may God help them! 

     The Deen Al Islam is the perfected religion or what is best for all but “those who will not believe”, are deaf to all reason and turn a blind eye to the evidence and keep mouthing their dumb nonsensical arguments. This is not the first time that I have shown GM sb the contrast between his stupidity and the wisdom of the Quran

    (2:18) “Deaf, dumb, and blind, they will not return (to the path).”

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/14/2019 11:43:28 PM

  • Are you so thick headed that you do not even understand what you say?

     Below is your 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.”

     Are you now saying that you are unaware that adultery is a punishable crime in Islam besides being a sin?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/14/2019 10:17:16 PM

  • As I said before, it is impossible to get anything through that thick skull of Naseer sb.

    Murder, theft and adultery are all sins but they are not all crimes. Murder and theft are crimes. Adultery is still a crime in Muslim countries. It is not a crime in India, America and many parts of the civilized world. It is a breach of contract and subject to civil suits but not subject to criminal prosecution. Is that hard for you?

    On the second point raised by you, men have always considered themselves to be the authorities on what women should wear. But those days are going, going, gone.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/14/2019 2:03:13 PM

  • GM sb is losing his mind. Let me ask him a few questions to bring him back on track.

    Is murder both sin and a punishable crime?
    Is stealing both a sin and punishable crime?

    Adultery in Islam is also both a sin and a punishable crime. The Hudud laws in Islam cover punishable crimes which are also a sin. While all crimes are sins, all sins are not necessarily punishable crimes. Is that too much for you to understand GM sb? 

    Muslim women are anything but lambs. They are truly tigresses who defy western norms and wear the hijab and not suck up to that society in the manner of wimps like yourself. 

    It is the western society that demeans their women and have turned them into sex objects. The feminists when they burned their bras, were fighting against the same society which treats them as sex objects.

    There is a continuum between the man playing the role of "qawwamuna to friend to pimp". The men who think nothing of their women dressing provocatively, and use the sexuality of their women for their benefit, are those who have turned pimps.

    The brainless wimps however consider it progress to turn into pimps.

    To you be your way and to me mine.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/13/2019 11:00:25 PM

  • Naseer sb. is now indulging in gobbledegook! He is trying to hide his devaluation of women by creating an arbitrary distinction between the assertive women of 2:34 and the Muslim women who behave like lambs! He is not really interested in the subject of status of women.

    He says, "Adultery is the second most heinous sin in Islam after polytheism and GM sb wants that it should be decriminalized! "

    He himself calls it a "sin" but he wants me to call it a "crime"! I have said several times that it is a sin but what is a crime and what is not a crime is not determined by religions but by civil society. But that will never enter his head and he will go on arguing his point without trying to understand what others are saying!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/13/2019 1:08:23 PM

  • GM sb,  The State has the  authority and duty to punish criminals after establishing their crime. Should all citizens take offense for it? All good citizens who have no intention of committing crimes, support the State. Who then opposes it? Maybe the criminals do but does anybody care about that?

     Why should then any devout Muslim woman who has no intention of “failing to guard what Allah has commanded to be guarded (modesty and chastity) in secrecy or in her husband’s absence” be offended by the measures advised to be taken against such a wife? Who is then offended? The type of women on whose behalf GM sb is arguing. To quote him those women who “ go in public places  dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden”. He should know that such women are outside the pail of Islam and directly violate verse 24:31. Why should I or any devout Muslim care for what such women and their men think about 4:34? We know they won’t like it.

    Below is GM sb’s argument for decriminalizing adultery:

     “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.”

     Adultery is the second most heinous sin in Islam after polytheism and GM sb wants that it should be decriminalized! 

     Polytheism is between man and God and is not criminalized. Adultery when practiced openly, however corrupts the entire society and is a crime against humanity. And it is punishable only when there are four eyewitnesses providing acceptable evidence which means the act is indulged in an indiscreet or flagrant manner that can corrupt society. Why should verse 2:11 to 13 then not apply to you for opposing 4:34, 24:2?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/12/2019 11:35:06 PM

  • Naseer sb. says, "Verse 4:34 contains instruction for people like you and not for the devout Muslims for whom the correct behaviour is instilled from childhood and is instinctive."

    Being an expert on Islam, he can invent any bizarre falsehood from the Book that he wants to! It is futile to have any discussion with him.

    He says, "The meaning of qawamuna is not boss but protector."
    But here we are discussing a "protector" who has the authority to admonish and beat the woman he supposedly protects!

    He again brings in adultery which has nothing to do with 4:34, and again accuses me of wanting adultery to be decriminalized when I have told him more than once that it is the Supreme Court of India which has decriminalized adultery, not me. Adultery is still a sin and I have never said anything to contradict that.

    Naseer sb. brings in 2:11 in his usual self-righteous mullahish ways. He thinks 2:11 applies to others but not to himself.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/12/2019 1:20:14 PM

  • You are being offensive about Muslim women while insinuating that they need anyone to tell them how to dress and how to behave. They don't need anyone to tell them that and as a matter of fact the wives correct their husbands in several ways. Verse 4:34 contains instruction for people like you and not for the devout Muslims for whom the correct behaviour is instilled from childhood and is instinctive.

    The meaning of qawamuna is not boss but protector. So, don't twist the meaning simply because the correct meaning gives you no scope to object but only your twisted version. You are indulging in straw man arguments because Muslim men and women have no problem with verse 4:34 and you are trying to create a problem where none exists.

    You are arguing for those women who “ go in public places  dressed seductively, e.g. with her hair or face uncovered, or with breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden” and would like adultery to be decriminalized. You are trying to take  Islam back to 7th century paganism. The attraction of pagan norms is undeniable going by the number of people succumbing to it. Such people are outside the pail of Islam. So, take your arguments elsewhere and do not try to taint Islam.

    (2:11) When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only Want to make peace!"(12) Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.(13) When it is said to them: "Believe as the others believe:" They say: "Shall we believe as the fools believe?" Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but they do not know.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 1/11/2019 11:16:48 PM

Compose Your Comments here:
Email (Not to be published)
Fill the text
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.