Books and Documents

Islamic Ideology (09 Feb 2019 NewAgeIslam.Com)

Does Hell Not Contradict A Loving And Omnipotent God?

By Dr Muhammad Maroof Shah

08 Feb 2019

Is there any possibility for exit for all and any hope for those who are condemned to it?

Hell is obviously a bad place or state to find oneself in. But the story doesn’t end here.  There arise many questions regarding it, that cry for answers. One such important question is about God’s mercy if so many people end up in hell. And is there any possibility for exit for all and any consolation/hope/remedy for those who are condemned to it? How do we live lives if such terrible future awaits most of us/fellow humans? How come we can sleep well if it is the case that anytime anyone amongst us is going to be picked up for ultimate concentration camp? I think most of these questions hinge on understanding the nature of hell. Today we ponder on a few points to help us approach these questions.

      Peter Kreeft, an influential religious figure, has this to say in his Three Philosophies of Life, on the nature of hell:

“The essence of Hell is not suffering but vanity, not pain but purposelessness, not physical suffering but spiritual suffering. ..  Suffering is not the essence of Hell, because suffering can be hopeful. It was for Job.”

"Does hell not contradict a loving and omnipotent God? No, for hell is the consequence of free will. We freely choose hell for ourselves; God does not cast anyone into hell against his will. If a creature is really free to say yes or no to the Creator's offer of love and spiritual marriage, then it must be possible for the creature to say no. And that is what hell is, essentially. Free will, in turn, was created out of God's love. Therefore hell is a result of God's love. Everything is.”

      The point that we are punished by sins and not for sins if pondered over resolves all the key difficulties many encounter in comprehending the doctrine regarding hell and especially the fear that we might be punished for this or that transgression/minor sin. Just keep in mind that any action that alienates us from ourselves, that blocks sunshine of love, that puts ego before God and neighbour has to be punished. If you are told that you will be punished for this or that “sin” or failure to abide by particular fatwa ask yourself if it leads to decrease in love of God and love of neighbour and apply the golden test of the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) “Consult your heart. Righteousness is that about which the soul feels at ease and the heart feels tranquil. And ithm (sin) is that which wavers in the soul and causes unease in the breast, even though people have repeatedly given you their legal opinion.”

The simple point to be noted is if heart feels disease, it constitutes a punishment and if we wish to hide this disease it doesn’t work. In posthumous life one has to encounter or own it and can’t but feel sorry or torture that constitutes hell.

 If we fail to reciprocate love from a lover who is all the more adorable and lovable and imagine we are not loved or we can’t submit to the rules of the game of love, we can’t but be deprived of the joy of love or playing well the game and when we realize we have missed a great joy, we taste hell. “The pain of loss—the loss of God, who is the source of all joy—is infinitely more horrible than any torture could ever be. All who know God and his joy understand that. Saints do not need to be threatened with fire, only with loss.”

      C. S. Lewis said, "All your life an unattainable ecstasy has hovered just beyond the grasp of your consciousness. The day is coming when you will wake to find, beyond all hope, that you have attained it—or else that it was within your grasp and you have lost it forever" (C. S. Lewis).

      God wants to help us but can’t help the proud as He can’t drag them against their will – God is a shy guest who has to be welcomed or He leaves – though He has devised humiliations and suffering of all kinds from diseases to old age to ingratitude and badmouthing critics to make us yield to his advances. Earlier or later all are granted entry to heaven except those who don’t enter it thanks to pride as heaven is a space where ego or resistance to love, to other, to being open can’t be.

What goes to hell, said C. S. Lewis, is "not a man, but remains." A proud man is not a man but a deformed creature who has chosen to hide in a crevice when there is an open sky and the sun is shining.  As Kreeft explains: “In reality, the damned are in the same place as the saved—in reality! But they hate it; it is their Hell. The saved love it, and it is their Heaven. It is like two people sitting side by side at an opera or a rock concert: the very thing that is Heaven to one is Hell to the other.

 Dostoyevsky says, 'We are all in paradise, but we won’t see it'…Hell is not literally the 'wrath of God.' The love of God is an objective fact; the 'wrath of God' is a human projection of our own wrath upon God, as the Lady Julian saw—a disastrous misinterpretation of God’s love as wrath. God really says to all His creatures, 'I know you and I love you' but they hear Him saying, 'I never knew you; depart from me.' It is like angry children misinterpreting their loving parents’ affectionate advances as threats. They project their own hate onto their parents’ love and experience love as an enemy—which it is: an enemy to their egotistic defences against joy…Since God is love, since love is the essence of the divine life, the consequence of loss of this life is loss of love...Though the damned do not love God, God loves them, and this is their torture. The very fires of Hell are made of the love of God!”

      “The fires of hell may be made of the very love of God, experienced as torture by those who hate him: the very light of God's truth, hated and fled from in vain by those who love darkness. Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever.”

      Hell can’t be understood except in reference to paradise. Sheikh ‘Īsā Nūr ad-Dīn Ahmad writes in this regard: “What is paradise? It is the inward nature of pure Existence; to be in conformity with that nature is to be carried by the wave of becoming toward beatitude. To be in conformity with Existence is to submit; to submit ourselves to the celestial law, to conform to our own essence, the essence by which we exist and which is the innermost nature of things. Without Existence we would not be; how can we reasonably revolt against it and set ourselves against that by which we are, that, which makes us to be ourselves? The essence of Existence is blissful; opposition to that essence – the idolatry of contents or of accidents-leads us away from Beatitude and encloses us in the blind alley of our own contingency and in the measureless hell of our own absurdity.”

      Auden’s following remarks illuminate another dimension of the question: “The gates of Hell are always standing wide open. The lost are perfectly free to leave whenever they like, but to do so would mean admitting that the gates were open, that is to say that there was another life outside. This they are afraid to admit, not because they get any pleasure from their present existence, but simply because the life outside would be different, and if they admitted its existence they would have to lead it. They know all this. They know that they could leave and they know why they don’t. Their knowledge is the flame of Hell”.

      This recalls Ibn Arabi’s emphasis on the point that denizens of hell will be hooked or attracted to hell for its compensatory graces and will not part with blocks of fire they are living with. From Milton to Ghalib to Auden we find clear recognition of the point that we can preview hell just by looking around or within and are all the time facing judgment or negotiating the “straight bridge.”  “For the Divine Law, whatever its nature, operates here and now. As Kafka says: “Only our concept of Time makes it possible for us to speak of the Day of Judgement by that name; in reality it is a summary court in perpetual session.’”

      Hell’s connection with mercy becomes evident if we understand its purifying function of which the scriptures inform us. Muhammad Ali has noted in this connection that hell is described in the Qur’an as being  the ‘friend’ (Mawla) of the sinners (Q. 57:15), as well as their ‘mother’ (umm) (Q. 101:9). Furthermore, he notes, that “the term Fitnah is used in the Qur’an to refer to the ‘trials’ experienced by both Believers in this life and ‘evil-doers’ in Hell. After all, the term Fitnah in its original usage denoted the casting of gold into fire for the purpose of purifying it."

      Ibn Qayyim has argued that “…As for those who remain in Hell, if we consider the natural disposition (fitrah) established in humans by God, and the likelihood that punishment in Hell would eventually rectify all, once Hell’s purification is complete, there will be no need for further punishment. Accordingly, the punishment in Hell and the pain accompanying it is actually a mercy from God – as is the case with the pain experienced in the punishments of this life (such as the Hudūd).”

      Indeed we are told in a hadith that “God created Mercy as one hundred units of mercy, and the Unbeliever who comes to learn of the extent of God’s mercy, will never lose hope of one day entering Heaven.”

      Despite disagreements with Ibn Arabī’s vision of Hell becoming a place of felicity, Ibn Qayyim’s conclusion is almost Akbarian in effect as all – Pharaoh, the people of Thamūd, and Abū Lahab – will eventually go to Heaven after becoming purified.

      Ashraf Ali Thanwi has remarked that for believers hell is like a bath in rather hot water that helps to remove tightly adhered dirt. Isn’t it remarkable that the root word for Azab means a sweet thing?

All forbidden things are sweet and this sweetness is not lasting but nevertheless lures us. Al-Jili has recounted certain ways in which people in hell would be comforted. For instance, he notes that scratching a clot on a wound gives a pleasure. Ibn Arabi’s central thesis regarding the presence of mercy in hell that ultimately cools it or makes it a place if felicity is closely argued from the Quran and traditions which insist both on unending stay in hell for disbelievers and omnipresence/privileging of mercy. 

Manazir Ahsan Gilani, that formidable scholar of Deoband and illustrious student of Allama Kashmiri, has in his much ignored classic Maqalat-i Ihsani discussed the thesis maintained by some Muslim scholars that believers (Mu’mineen) will not stay in hell but just presented to it or  have a brush with it. The Quran is clear that hell has been prepared for disbelievers. And if we think more closely who is the disbeliever we would readily appreciate why it should be so. It is not believers in other religions who are threatened by hell; it is those who reject faith as such and are characterized by morally reprehensible things like ingratitude, haughtiness and refusal to acknowledge the truth.

Source: greaterkashmir.com/news/op-ed/finding-mercy-in-hell/312049.html

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/dr-muhammad-maroof-shah/does-hell-not-contradict-a-loving-and-omnipotent-god?/d/117701


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

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

  • GM sb,

    You started off by denying, rejecting, doubting verses 4:34, 24:2, 33:36,37. Even after I have explained these and you are left without a question unanswered, you say it has made “zilch” difference to you. You continue to deny that the verses are revelation from Allah. You have succeeded in proving for the benefit of all the readers of NAI the truth in the following verses of the Quran:

     (2:6) As to the rejecters/deniers/doubters (kafaru), it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.

    (7) Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).

     You being a dumb literalist also asked the question “Does Allah set a seal on their hearts?” My answer was that Allah is describing the law of human behaviour that He has decreed. Those who choose to heed Allah (Muttaqin) advance on the path of guidance and those who are heedless (kafaru), progress on the path of error till they reach a point of no return. Their state then becomes as if their hearts have been sealed.

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

     You confirm that you have been rendered Deaf, dumb, and blind, and will not return to the correct path. Now, you should tell us, whether Allah did this to you or you did it to yourself.

     Your attitude is of a confirmed disbeliever. If you were seeking answers, you would have thanked me for my efforts and showed exactly what continues to bother you and kept seeking better answers. That is not the case. You started with rejection and denial and you continue to do so.

     I will give you the same advice you gave Rational under identical circumstances discussing the same verses 33:36,37 “Someone who has left Islam should not pretend that he is seeking answers to some questions. You are an apostate. Act like one. You have every right to be an apostate. Join the company of other apostates and have a good time. Your forays in this forum have had the sole purpose of being disruptive, derisive and rude. That's why you were called "a wolf in the garb of a sheep, a snake in the sleeve, or more".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Six years back, Rational and Hamza attacked based on verses 33:36,37 and the response to it was weak and was warded off saying that these are the “ambiguous” verses which Allah does not want us to discuss. You warded off the attackers with your vituperation. Now six years later, you become the attacker with the same verses and repeating many of the questions asked by the other two earlier. Clearly, in sheer desperation, after having lost all your arguments, you were looking for a semblance of a victory and you thought it would be easy with these verses. Alas, this was not to be!

    You were a hypocrite then and you are a hypocrite now. Nothing has changed. As a hypocrite, you act as a friend of the Muslims when the more honest ex-Muslims attack. At other times, you are the snake in the grass attacking disguised as a friend. Just review what you said to Rational. Your own words apply to you today such as “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, “venomous snake”, “apostate” etc. And your advise to Rational to leave this site and go to the apostate sites applies to you. In this thread, you tried to escape after attacking by saying that you are not blaming the Prophet but the compiler 20 years later while at the same time saying that the timing of the verses coinciding with the marriage is what makes it suspicious! How you tie yourself up with your own contradictions!  To escape the heat, you suddenly start looking for “innocent” explanations such as the Prophet mistook his own thoughts to be revelation from Allah! That is the most mischievous explanation as it undermines, the Prophet (pbuh), Allah and the Book but that is precisely your objective. The disgusting pervert that you are, you will take any meaning, but the straightforward direct meaning of the verses as explained. You want to attack without being perceived as an attacker. The perfect hypocrite.

    Once he has lost the arguments he can pretend that the answers were "inane" or whatever. An honest person will show these were inane by pasting the question and the response which this loser cannot afford because it exposes his falsehood.

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

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

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

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

  • You are pathetic GM sb!  You are ashamed even to copy my question on 4:34 and post your response below it because that exposes you as a fool. 

     You are the one who has been stalking me and not the other way around. It is my unassailable presentation of Islam as fundamentally and literally a religion of peace, justice, inclusiveness and reason that upsets your nefarious plans to destroy it by pretending to be a friend of Islam and questioning a major part of the Quran. Your efforts do not hurt Islam. They only strengthen Islam. For example, take the discussion on verses 33:36-38. I have stuck to the literal meaning of the verses and answered all your questions which I can see is a super-set of the questions that Rational and Hamza asked on the subject besides your own. You cannot find a flaw in my answers. There isn’t a part of any verse that I haven’t explained or any part of your question that I haven’t answered.  You are only a disbeliever in the revelation by Allah of the verses. Now, what explains the inability of others to come-up with an equally clear explanation of the verses? Why are the verses that are crystal clear to me “ambiguous” to others? This is because a veil covers either fully or partially, the eyes, ears and hearts of the people. The flaw is with the reader and not with the Quran. The Book is Kitabum Mubeen and there are no “ambiguous” verses for those who have their ears, eyes and heart for it. For others, it makes as much sense as their ears, eyes and heart are open to it. It is not Allah who seals their hearts – the people do it to themselves. Take your own example, you are a disbeliever by choice even though I showed you how this incident is similar to Ibrahim’s (AS) “sacrifice” and the departure from the norm in addressing the Prophet rather than the Believers on a verse legislating the divorce process. Allah uses the prophets to teach by example.

     By your excellent example, you have helped people who had difficulty understanding the meaning of “those who will not believe” understand it. Allah uses both you and me for His purpose. Your poison is neutralized and the truth advances. The clarity to the understanding of the verses would not have come but for your questioning. I have therefore patiently answered all the questions of Rational before and I do so for your questions also. I see no difference between the two except that one was honest and the other a hypocrite. You both have the same way of arguing and running away without closure when you know that you have lost the argument.

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

  • Naseer sb.,

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Your comment below betrays the truth. If you had thought that you were in any position to win the ongoing discussion on 4:34, 24:2, 33:36,37 and other verses, these would have been a significant achievement for you and not “nothing of value”. When you have lost the discussions only then it becomes “nothing of value”. Your bluff and bluster now do not fool anyone.

     “By the way, flooding of NAI's "COMMENTS" section with comments lifted from Facebook and written by people who never visit NAI, has resulted in the disappearance of threads that were carrying ongoing discussions between Naseer sb. and me.

    Come to think of it, nothing of value has been lost!”

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

    You say: “Your explanation of the Zainab verse is not satisfactory to me because it does not question the timing and the circumstances of the revelation.”

    That is a ridiculous thing to say! My explanation explains both the timing and circumstances of the revelation, but you fail to understand because you have made yourself “deaf, dumb and blind”.

     The verse says very clearly that this was not an ordinary marriage, but a marriage performed by Allah “We joined her in marriage to thee”. The Prophet merely followed what was indicated as a duty by Allah to him 33:38. This he could do only after Zaid divorced Zainab and the observance of all necessary formalities. The Prophet was trying to prevent Zaid divorcing Zainab because he didn’t want to marry Zainab and he feared the reaction of the people to such a marriage. Allah therefore says that He has a greater right to be feared than the people. Allah also gives the reason for making the Prophet marry the divorced wife of his adopted son. The timing of the verse coincides with Allah marrying the Prophet to Zainab. What is the ceremony of Nikah except the mutual acceptance of the other as spouse and an announcement to the society of the marriage? How else can a marriage performed by Allah become an announcement without a revelation? When else should this verse have been revealed except after the marriage? You refuse to understand the simple, straightforward meaning of the verses because of your perversity.

    Harsh punishments have been a feature of the Divine Law through the ages. Why this is so, is explained in my article:Understanding the Religion of Allah through the Ages.So, when I ask you on what source book are you relying on to say what you say about 100 lashes etc., it is because there is no Scripture without harsh punishments for crimes and there is a good reason for corporal punishment. It has worked very well in civilizing us otherwise we would have been no different from any animal. If you think your reason/common sense is superior to the “perfect and complete religion” then you do not need the religion. From where is your common sense derived except from the liberal political philosophy that values individualism over the collective? Religions are for maximizing the collective good. There is no compulsion in religion, so if you are for individualism and therefore for tolerance of an individual’s “right” to have sex with any consenting adult and “right” to use his/her sexuality for social and economic gain, then leave religion and espouse your political philosophy.

    Your advocacy for decriminalizing adultery in Islam and tolerating women " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden is a recipe for turning Islamic society into an openly adulterous one and we know from empirical evidence that 87% of such women openly admit that they use their “erotic potential” for social and economic gain. That makes them sluts and their men pimps. It is your choice to become a part of such society but when you are trying to drag all Muslims to your level of degeneracy, then you need to be exposed as a dangerous apostate bent on mischief mongering.

     The difference between Rational and you is that he was not a hypocrite but you are the very epitome of hypocrisy. You are far more dangerous than Rational. You are the snake in the grass.

    You say 24:2 is not from Allah, and religion should have nothing to do with crimes and punishment for them including adultery, and you also argue that adultery is not a crime against society, but it could be violation of a civil contract if sex is with a partner married to another. You do not therefore even accept the definition of adultery in Islam which is sex between partners not married to each other and covers even those who may be unmarried and do not violate any civil contract. You reject the Islamic position that adultery is a punishable crime against society, since an act that leaves behind four eye witnesses, corrupts the society. And yet, you also want to say at the same time that you are not for decriminalizing adultery in Islam. What a hypocritical lie!

    You say you are not accusing the Prophet of "falsehood" but saying "He could have mistaken his own honest thoughts for revelation". How can thoughts that are falsely attributed to Allah be honest?  If he did that, these would have been immediately expunged through a revelation. Why do you think that Allah would quietly watch his Messenger insert his own thoughts as from Allah and fail to punish as threatened by “severing the artery of his heart” (69:46)?

    Do you have any straight answers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • GM sb,

    Instead of running away, why don’t you copy my question in full and give your non-answer/non-solution below and we close the discussion on 4:34? If at all you bring this up again as you have done after 6 years, we can start where we left off rather than repeat ourselves all over again.

    Are you saying that you are OK with verse 24:2 and adultery remaining a punishable crime in Islam and not for its decriminalisation in Islam?

    You say “Regarding the Zainab episode, I know what the Quran says. If all you can tell me is what the Quran says, you are wasting your time and my time.

    What else did you expect other than a full explanation of what and why the Quran says what it has said on the subject?  Did you want like Rational to discuss outside of the Quran and bring in the Seerah and the Ahadith and the Islamophobic version of it? Perhaps a discussion of how the video “Innocence of the Muslims” deals with it?

     If you think the truth is outside the verses and the verses are a falsehood inserted by the Prophet (nauzobillah), then I wonder how you can even believe in such a prophet.  Are you not then an apostate?

     Your bringing up verse 33:36,37 out of the blue is proof that you had lost all other debates on verse 2:282, 24:2, 4:34 etc and in sheer desperation, you threw 33:36,37 at me because:

    1.       I had never discussed these before

    2.       In a previous discussion Yunus sb gave a very unsatisfactory response that did not answer anything.  He did not even explain the verses because to him these are “ambiguous”

    You therefore thought that this topic would leave me without answers, and you will taste a measure of some victory at last. Alas! This was not to be and will never be.

    The questions that you have raised now with me, must have arisen in your mind even then, but you did not raise these. On the contrary, you castigated Rational for defaming the Prophet with his questions, going outside of the Quran and relying on the Ahadith and Seerah. Today, you stand exactly where Rational stood before, and what you said to him applies to you. Let me quote you on how you castigated Rational.

      He (Rational) says, "Mr GM is helping Mr Yunus in cursing tournament."
     Showing up a liar and a hypocrite like you is not cursing.
     He adds, "Perhaps Mr Yunus has hired a full time badmouth. A noble job that should be carried on to give a proof how a good Muslim behaves in critical situation."
     There is nothing noble about your apostatic activity in this forum, so stop whining.
    He asks, "why do you expect elixir (amrit) from me?"
    Nobody expects anything but snake venom from you.
    He says, "I can promise to stop it immediately if GM saheb agrees to it. It is up to him."
    Let me see you stop your malicious and vicious activity first.
    He says, " NewAgeIslam nowhere put a condition that we should not criticize."
    That's why I am criticizing you.
    He says, "Only condition is to remain within civility."
    Mocking people and their beliefs under the guise of asking questions is rude. ' By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/11/2012 2:47:27 PM

     Rational says, "my questions are difficult."

    Please don't exalt yourself by saying that your questions are "difficult". They are stupid and must be ignored. Someone who has left Islam should not pretend that he is seeking answers to some questions. You are an apostate. Act like one. You have every right to be an apostate. Join the company of other apostates and have a good time. Your forays in this forum have had the sole purpose of being disruptive, derisive and rude. That's why you were called "a wolf in the garb of a sheep, a snake in the sleeve, or more".

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

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

    The worst dhamki comes from you when you announce that you will continue spreading your foul stink in this forum as if it is your birthright! I see that you are trying to form an alliance with the Hindus on this forum as if you have some well thought out battle plans to defeat moderate/progressive Muslims. Why don't you take your mono-maniacal fight to some mullah site since the obscure Hadiths that you quote are probably the same ones that are dear to mullahs.

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

     Rational sayws, " You know my intentions."

    If you deny your intention to insult the prophet with your own words or with maliciously selected quotes, it shows what a shameless liar you are.

    You say, " You don't like even Karen."

    I have not criticized Karen. Why do you lie so much? Don't you have any shame?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/7/2012 3:48:24 AM

     Rational, in his usual pesky way asks, "Are not they inviting anti-blasphemy laws to this site?"

    You have full rights to commit blasphemy. We do not want you hanged for your blasphemy. There are hundreds of sites where you can commit your blasphemy. This is a gathering of people interested in promotion of moderate and progressive Islam. For you to come here and interrupt our converstion, make fun of serious discussants and insult our Prophet either with your words or words selectively and maliciously picked from other sources just shows rudeness and lack of civility. It is intolerable behavior.  No religious site would tolerate such despicable behavior.

    You asked, "Why don't Muslims think we critics are test from Allah?"

    You can keep such school boyish questions to yourself.

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

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

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/7/2012 2:37:39 AM

     Rational says that he, "quoted from the Sirah and Ahadith."Like most pesky apostates you are a liar. Your intent clearly was to insult the Prophet on an Islamic website. Why don't you take your hate and animus to an apostate website?

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

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

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

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

  • GM sb says: "

    Regarding the Zainab episode, you again repeat the argument that because the verse says so it must be so. If you do not have a better argument to offer, stop extending this thread unnecessarily."

    So are you asking me to disregard what the verses of the Quran say and pay credence to the canards that are  spread by the Islamophobes? Thank God! You at least agree that what I say is exactly what the Quran says.

    I not only say that if the verse says so it must be so, but also say that this is not an affair of the Prophet at all, but what Allah arranged to put an end to a strong social taboo in Arab society against marrying non biologically related people we may have called father/mother, aunt/uncle, brother/sister. 

    For a comparison, take Ibrahim (AS) sacrifice of his son. Allah has not required such proof from any other prophet nor did he need it from Ibrahim. This event was only to demonstrate in a dramatic manner that Allah does not require such a sacrifice even from his Prophets, putting an end to child sacrifice prevalent in the society. Islamohobes however pick on this story also to malign Allah and the religion.

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

  • You are lying GM sb. You brought up discussion on verse 24:2 which is about the punishment for adultery. You lost the argument when I showed you how stupid your prescription is which does not prevent adultery but encourages practicing it openly as is happening in the West with everyone knowing who is screwing whom as they have seen them in the act in the office, at a party, in the car or in the park. Islam discourages adultery that leaves witnesses and has put the stringent requirement of 4 eye-witnesses and discourages the witnesses with punishment of 80 stripes if the crime is not established with 4 witnesses. Islam also does not encourage self-confession. Those bent upon adultery are therefore not prevented if they are discreet and do not do so openly that can be witnessed by 4 persons.

     Your prescription to decriminalize adultery will however corrupt the society as it has corrupted the western society. With the act being performed without a care about being discovered, the disease will spread and finally engulf the entire society. Every Muslim will then become guilty of the second most heinous crime/sin  in Islam and be punished for it in the Hereafter.

     So, what have you achieved by decriminalizing it? You have succeeded in making everyone an adulterer destined to Hell Fire! Although, the law is not in force in many countries, a Muslim knows that it is the law for them and prevents them from engaging in it. Your argument is for decriminalizing it in the Book itself!

     Having been shown how stupid your argument was, you extended it to all criminal laws and began arguing that religions should have nothing to do with crimes in general and punishment for them. Who are you to say that? Islam is what it is. You want to end the argument with denying what you yourself have argued and said. We have exchanged more than a hundred comments specifically on 24:2 which is about adultery across two threads.

     It is quite revealing that you picked up punishment for adultery for discussion and not punishment for any other crime. Other crimes do not concern you except as an after-thought after losing the argument, but adultery does. Also, why verse 4:34 bothers you is because it is a prescription for how to deal with wives  who " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts being insufficiently hidden and you want to allow such behaviour. The words in quotes are yours. The words in the verse are “those who fail to guard their chastity/modesty in the absence of their husbands”.

     You have argued with me on verse 4:34 six years back and lost the argument. This time you brought it up in a different context arguing with me that the Quran asks us to take the best meaning of any verse while I was saying that every verse has only one meaning and the best refers to how we practice what the verse commands. In this context, you started off the argument by saying that the best meaning of wa-iḍ'ribūhunna  in 4:34 is not “beat” but several other alternate meanings. After discussion you agreed with me that those who translate wa-iḍ'ribūhunna as “beat” cannot be faulted as the Quran unmistakably uses the same word to mean “strike” in several other verses.  This being an advisory verse, people are free to take a different meaning but those who take it to mean “beat’ cannot be faulted. You then switched to the argument “Can God Almighty ever ask us to beat under any circumstance and therefore the verse is not from God!” God almighty who has prescribed 100 stripes for adultery can certainly ask us to beat as a curative for shameful behaviour that leads to adultery.

     You have lost this argument a long time back unable to answer my question but have not only kept going, but spread the argument to half a dozen threads. I repeat the question below that has left you without an answer ages ago but you refuse to give up.

     GM sb had lost the argument 6 years back on verse 4:34

    On Verse 4:34, GM sb simply does not have an answer to the following question but keeps arguing ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The same argument was used six years back when he debated with me on the same subject and has remained unchanged

      What if the woman does not want a divorce, but promises to change her ways of immodest dressing (“seductively exposing her breasts and other body parts”as described by GM sb himself), but does not do anything about it even after repeated discussions and admonishments which only end in making another false promise, and is apparently only testing him on far he will go to assert himself?

     Note: Empirical evidence of Common Couple Violence in all cultures shows that minor domestic violence works very well in resolving conflicts during the early years of marriage of young couples.

     So, why forsake what is known to work very well and especially if the woman is refusing the divorce option even when warned about the possibility of a beating if she repeats her behavior? There is a chance that once she gets a beating for repeated transgressions, she may mend her ways and if she doesn’t, she should be divorced without repeating the beating. What is wrong with it? Why should the husband proceed with divorce which the woman does not want?

     On what source book do you rely to say that beating is wrong under any circumstances? On what empirical evidence do you rely to say such a thing when the empirical evidence shows that CCV is both common and effective in conflict resolution in the early years of marriage? Is it not simply your whim and another political slogan? You must submit to Islam or leave it. Verse 4:34 has all the attributes of revelation from Allah.

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

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.