certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islamic Ideology (27 Jul 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)


Some Muslim Intellectuals of This Era Cry Lies or Half-Truths against Islam Creating Doubts and Suspicions against It – Ignorantly or Fraudulently - God Knows Best



By Muhammad Yunus, New Age Islam

(Co-author (Jointly with Ashfaque Ullah Syed), Essential Message of Islam, Amana Publications, USA, 2009)

27 July 2017

In her publication, ‘The Trouble with Islam’, Irshad Manji, a self-styled Muslim reformer and a scholar celebrity, regarded by many in the West as an authority on Islam, calls the Qur’an “a bundle of contradictions” (page 40, 2nd para. concluding sentence).

Referring to a forged Pact of Umar, Irshad Manji declares: “Not many years after the Prophet’s death, a disturbing and supposedly authoritative document appeared. It decreed that non-Muslims should stand when any Muslim wishes to sit, that non-Muslims must watch their houses of worship decay without repairing or replacing them, that a Muslim testimony in the court will trump that of a non-Muslim. You get the grim picture. This document was called ‘the Pact of Umar.” [Page 69, para-1, referenced book] In the subsequent para on the same page she adds, “From now, all I can tell you is that the Pact of Umar had a decisive effect on early Islam – and beyond.”

The historical fact as attested by Thomas Arnold, a most respected historian of Islam specializing on the reason for its rapid spread - who carried out an extensive research, lasting almost two decades based on contemporary accounts left by Christian chroniclers dates the forging of the document to the middle of the fifth century of the Hijrah or later. He states: “The earliest mention of this document is made by Ibn Hazm, who died in the middle of the fifth century of the Hijrah; its provisions represent the more intolerant practice of a later age, and indeed were regulations that were put into force with no sort of regularity, some outburst of fanaticism being generally needed for any appeal to be made for their application. There is abundant evidence to show that the Christians in the early days of the Muhammadan conquest had little to complain of in the way of religious disabilities." [Preaching of Islam, 2nd revised edition, 1913, reprinted Delhi 1990, p. 57.

Continuing along Irshad Manji’s above quoted remark, she then skips the entire history of Islam and comes early 19th century and quotes “an eminent legal scholar “to using the pact for advising Muslim governors on what kind of relations they should seek with their non-Muslim subjects and listed a few highly demeaning terms as example. 

Thus, Irshad Manji straight away dismissed the Qur’an and shortened the four centuries gap between the issuance of the original and the forged Pact of Umar, quoted no source, and quoted ‘an eminent legal scholar’ of 19th century without naming him, advising unnamed Muslim Governors of unnamed countries to apply the forged Pact of Umar on their Christian subjects. Worst still, she makes no mention of the original Pact of Umar that was in the form of highly accommodative and compassionate terms of surrender of Damascus (635 AD) and Jerusalem (638) to Khalid Ibn al-Walid and Caliph Umar, as reported by two of outstanding Western historians of Islam, Thomas. W. Arnold (1864-1930) and Philip K. Hitti (1886-1978) - that we shall discuss in a later article.

Her book is ranked #1 bestseller in Canada in its time (publication 2004).

In his article, ‘Law, Morality, Triple Talaq, dated July 10, 2017, Prof. Faizan Mustafa, vice-chancellor, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, declares, “Quranic verses are vague, general and, at times, contradictory…”

In his article, “Is Islamic Reform Possible?’Should We Just Accept That Quran Is Not Perfect, Infallible Word of God, If Nearly All Muslims Misundetstand It?'” dated July 2017, Hassan Radwan, a Muslim scholar who graduated in Classical Arabic specializing in Qur’anic commentary from SOAS University of London in 1984 states: “the Qur’an is the rather less carefully planned work of a human mind” …“It (the Qur’an) is not infallible. It is not perfect and it is not the word of God.”

Such sentiments are expressed by a fringe of Muslim intellectuals, but what is disturbing and speaks very poorly of Islamic scholarship is that some of them tell ‘lies’ or ‘half-truths’ to make their point.

Hassan Radwan declares: “He (Muhammad) was accused of recounting nothing but myths and fairytales and it took a long and violent struggle to win over Arabia - not an intellectual one” It is indeed true that Prophet’s enemies brought all kind of charges against him, including the noted ones, but his accusers eventually converted to his faith voluntarily and thus disowned their own accusations. Radwan’s statement is therefore half-truth. Regarding his allegation of ‘a long and violent struggle to win over Arabia’ the Qur’an, which is by far the most authentic historical source on the Prophet’s mission – having been recorded and memorized simultaneously in real time clearly demonstrates that all the battles that the Prophet fought were either to defending against military attacks or against hostile tribes that were constantly breaking the Peace Treaty, and that he never used force to gain converts. This is well known and expounded on the basis of Qur’anic allusions in my article referenced below [1]. Besides, Hassan’s dismissal of the intellectual appeal of the Qur’an in gaining converts is refuted upfront by some of the most eminent Western scholars of this era, briefly quoted below:

Karen Armstrong states: “The Qur’an does not ask Muslims to abdicate reason. The signs are for ‘a people having understanding’, ‘for a people who know’: Muslims are asked to look upon the signs in the world and examine them carefully..”[p.100, Muhammad, 1991]

Thomas Cleary declares: “Islam does not demand unreasoned belief. Rather, it invites intelligent faith, growing from observation, reflection and contemplation, beginning with nature and all around us.” [The Essential Koran 1994, opening page, Introduction] 

Prof. Faizan Mustafa, contradicts his remark about the vagueness and ‘at times ‘contradiction in the Qur’anic verses by inserting in the concluding paragraph of his referenced article these words: “We must educate people and the Board must ensure that all divorces henceforth happen as per the Qur’anic procedure.” Thus despite his doubt son the integrity of Qur’anic verses and juristic debate on the methodology of divorce in his preceding two articles excluded from this discussion, he acknowledges that the Qur’anic protocol for Talaq was the best option for the Muslim Personal Law in India.

Fortunately there are not many Muslim scholars of the Qur’an or Islam who write articles or make speeches challenging the Qur’an’s divinity or blaming it of contradictions and for the crisis in the Muslim world. Scholars are free to hold any view but if they take to lies or half-truths to support their views, they do far greater harm to their community than any good. They become conspirators and traitors.

And as for any Muslim scholar who dreams of editing the Qur’an or dismissing it altogether, he must learn lesson from history. The Moghul Emperor Akbar the Great who styled himself a reformer of Islām - arriving almost 1,000 years after the Prophet Muḥammad, introduced a modified version of Islam, Din E Ilahi. He couldn’t make even a score of converts in his long life. Where do people like the present day proponents of a modified Qur’an stand – this author has no word to say. Nor has he any word to say on the level of intelligence and world knowledge of the present day self-styled Muslim reformers who want to tamper the Qur’an or to remove it altogether from the world of Islam.

The Muslims have lived with the Qur’an for the last 14 centuries. They have gone through immensely grater trials of history - massacres, mass deportations, destruction of cities and civilization, colonization and military defeats – this is not the place to recount. The Qur’an has stood its ground and remained unaltered. It will remain unaltered until the end of time. As the Qur’an says: 

“The Words of your Lord will be fulfilled truthfully and justly: none can change His Words, for He is All-Knowing and Aware” (6:115).

“Surely We have sent down this Reminder, and surely. We will protect (preserve) it” (15:9).

“Nay! This is a Glorious Qur'an (85:21). (Inscribed) in a Tablet (well) guarded (Lauh Al-Mahfuz) (against corruption)” (85:22).

Let the people of the world know, the rebellious Muslim intellectuals and the non-Muslims alike, that even if Muhammad had forged the Qur’an, he had pre-empted all of them against any tampering of his book (so to say) by putting himself on the gallows even if he ever changed a word of it:

“If he (Muhammad) attributed to Us any false speech (69:44), We would seize him by the right hand (45), then We would sever his aorta (46) and none of you could prevent it (69:47F

Finally, the author will thank NAI for posting Hassan Radwan’s passionately laid out, logically argued cunningly poisoned article aimed at achieving what he can never achieve, as the article is a clear warning of an internal conspiracy to plunge the Muslims into confusion in religion that could only add to their problems and crises that have already reached a bursting threshold. And let no Muslim reader be disturbed by it as much as the seeing cannot be disturbed by someone threatening them to prevent the sun from rising.

Notes:

1.       Islam Is a Religion Of Peace And Pluralism

http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/islam-is-a-religion-of-peace-and-pluralism/d/108249

Muhammad Yunus, a Chemical Engineering graduate from Indian Institute of Technology, and a retired corporate executive has been engaged in an in-depth study of the Qur’an since early 90’s, focusing on its core message. He has co-authored the referred exegetic work, which received the approval of al-Azhar al-Sharif, Cairo in 2002, and following restructuring and refinement was endorsed and authenticated by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl of UCLA, and published by Amana Publications, Maryland, USA, 2009.

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/some-muslim-intellectuals-of-this-era-cry-lies-or-half-truths-against-islam-creating-doubts-and-suspicions-against-it-–-ignorantly-or-fraudulently---god-knows-best/d/111985

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

 




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   31


  • Dear Mr. Muhammad Yunus,

    I do not find anything wrong with your statement that can be taken as the crux of your article as follows:

    “'Scholars are free to hold any view but if they take to lies or half-truths to support their views, they do far greater harm to their community than any good. They become conspirators and traitors”.

    In the latest comment, you say to Professor Naim sahib,

    “In your last comment you rightly said, it is not good to call people "conspirators and traitors." You are perfectly correct. You cannot call people by these terms without water-tight evidence, lest they can charge you of moral turpitude and even file a case against you. All I said in my article after presenting hard and irrefutable evidence was this: "The crux of the article lies in the statement: 'Scholars are free to hold any view but if they take to lies or half-truths to support their views, they do far greater harm to their community than any good. They become conspirators and traitors”. In the context of the article it becomes obvious that the terms denoted their 'conspiracy' and 'treason' against the Qur'an/ Islam/ Muslim community. Whether they or you find it bad or take me to court, I have to face the divine court.”

    Now it is clearer and I can publicly repeat that you have appropriately used the words “conspiracy” and “treason”. 
    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 8/1/2017 6:23:52 AM



  • Dear All readers and commentators,
    I have gone through all the comments under this article, specially of Mr. Muhammad Yunus, Mr. Naseer Ahmed and Professor Naim sahib, and I would rather you all had a look at my following comment.
    What does chauvinism mean?
    We can look up in the English dictionaries; the word “chauvinism” has variety of meanings and applications.
    Is there anyone safe from willingly or unwillingly adopting the chauvinist attitude?
    For example:
    A says to B, “Those that harm their community by speaking half-truths and lies are traitors and conspirators”.
    B says to A, “You should not use the words “traitors” and “conspirators” for such people.
    It can be deduced that according to B, A is at wrong. So, the indirect statement of B to A can be deduced as “you are at wrong”.
    C says to B, “You too are at wrong, as you have deemed the view of B as wrong”.
    Then D can say the same thing to C and thus E, F, G, H, I, J will do successively in chronological order.
    If the same thing continues to take place, the question will be as to what we should do for being safe from “chauvinist” attitude.
    If describing bad as bad is “chauvinist” and wrong attitude, can we not think that using “chauvinist and wrong attitude” too is bad?
    Finally the conclusion is that no one would be safe from chauvinist attitude.
    Is calling liar as liar wrong?  Is calling traitor as traitor wrong? Is calling conspirator as conspirator wrong? If it is wrong, what about the one who says it wrong?
    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 8/1/2017 3:16:16 AM



  • Dear Prof. Naim, In your last comment you rightly said, it is not good to call people "conspirators and traitors." You are perfectly correct. You cannot call people by these terms without water-tight evidence, lest they can charge you of moral turpitude and even file a case against you. All I said in my article after presenting hard and irrefutable evidence was this: "The crux of the article lies in the statement: 'Scholars are free to hold any view but if they take to lies or half-truths to support their views, they do far greater harm to their community than any good. They become conspirators and traitors”. In the context of the article it becomes obvious that the terms denoted their 'conspiracy' and 'treason' against the Qur'an/ Islam/ Muslim community. Whether they or you find it bad or take me to court, I have to face the divine court. I assure you I will stand by what I wrote - but for heaven sake don't quote me out of context and don't catch me for any inaccuracy in citing any historical parallel as purely non-material illustration. I have a feeling that you have not read the article, having stereotyped me as a fanatic and half-way educated fellow not worthy of any attention. I am sure, had you read the article you would have surely made some comment on its elephantine body rather than picking at its insignificant tail. My apologies if i offended you in any way.
    By muhammd yunus - 7/31/2017 7:46:04 PM



  • Professor Naim says "Also not helpful is to call a text 'clear' and perfect' but also 'shrouded in ambiguity."

    Isn't he mixing up what I said with what Yunus Sb said?

    Take me on what I said. I have said it is a clear Book without ambiguity and without a single contradiction. The meaning of the keywords and the meaning of every Muhkamat verse can be logically derived. This means that such verses have only one meaning and it can be shown that all other interpretations are false. If one knows logic he will understand what is being said. There is a vast difference between interpreting and deriving logical conclusions.

    The verses on fighting are also of eternal relevance, and these can be understood on their own merit without even requiring information on the context in which the verses were revealed outside of the context that the Quran itself provides.

    I present quite a target for anyone who wants to prove me wrong and have written articles on every subject. Pick up any article and take me on what I say and do not mix up what others say with what I have said.




    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/31/2017 11:40:25 AM



  • Tahir Iqbal writes in his article on NAI which appeared today

    "Sheikh Sirhindi laid great stress on the observance of Islamic teachings and started a full-fledged intellectual war against the ‘Din-e-Ilahi’ of Akbar and got its very edifice dismantled."

    http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-personalities/tahir-iqbal/mujadid-e-alf-thani,-sheikh-ahmad-sirhindi--the-reviver-of-muslim-intellectualism-in-the-subcontinent/d/112027


    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/31/2017 9:58:04 AM



  • Lest we lose sight of what Professor Naim said in the first place to which I responded, I reproduce the same below:

     

    Muslims believe that the Quran is the revealed word ofGod. The Jews do not claim that for the Torah. Nor do the Christians make that claim for the New Testament. In both religions, their scared books are considered human creations - records of words that some humans spoke and some human recorded. Muslims insist that No, they were revealed books and the Jews and Christian have made changes in them. Is that logical?

     

    There is no difference between what the Jews and the Muslims believe regarding Moses having been spoken to by God Himself and also given the Tablet. As far as Christianity is concerned, they consider Jesus as divine. So where does the question of either the Jews or the Christians considering their books to be human creations arise?

    The position that Islam takes is actually the most modest one. Neither did God speak to Muhammad (pbuh) directly nor was Muhammad god or son of God. He was an ordinary mortal receiving revelation from Allah through Gabriel. All three religions believe their sacred books to be either the word of God (Judaism and Christianity) or the revealed word of God (Islam).

    The Muslims however, do not treat the received Torah or the Bible to be a hundred percent word of God for the reasons cited in my comment covering the books. The common Christians and the Jews also do not consider their books to be a hundred percent word of God for their own reasons but this is not the official Jewish or Christian position of their Church or Temple.  

    The reason why I responded is precisely because Professor Naim is a respected academic and if he writes a comment implying that the Muslims are making an unreasonable and extravagant claim when they say the Quran is the revealed word of God and no other community makes a similar claim, it needs to be told that Islam actually makes the most modest claim vis-à-vis every other religion where Muhammad (pbuh) is neither God Himself nor son of God nor did God speak to him directly.

    Islam bashing appears to have become a favourite pastime of all and sundry and being a Professor emeritus is not a guarantee that the person will not succumb to the temptation of joining in the fun.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/31/2017 7:04:00 AM



  • Calling people 'conspirators,' 'traitors,' even 'idiots,' or impugning that they look down upon those they differ with—these are not helpful things. Also not helpful is to call a text 'clear' and perfect' but also 'shrouded in ambiguity.' I sincerely believe what I wrote earlier: 'The important thing is not what you believe in but what you do with that belief.' Enough for me.
    By C M Naim - 7/31/2017 6:58:23 AM



  • Dear Naseer Sahab,

    Prof. Naim is professor emeritus of a leading American University, and most respected scholar and a buzurg for us on this forum. So when he nailed me down over the inaccuracy of the historical parallel I sighted at the tail end of the above article, I didn’t respond – you very kindly did on my behalf.

    Now totally out of the blue, the Professor emeritus says,  And the Muslims are the only one, of the three, who accuse the other two of messing up their own sacred books. To my mind that is a kind of religious chauvinism.”

    I don’t want make any comment to him because his response to it may have no bearing with whatever comment I post – or go above my head. The only object of my above article is captured in its caption and restated in the following statement in the article:

    “Scholars are free to hold any view but if they take to lies or half-truths to support their views, they do far greater harm to their community than any good. They become conspirators and traitors.”

    Possibly the learned professor has not read the article at all and stereotyped me in some lowly category not worthy of any serious attention. Or perhaps he wants to quash any debate on the article. He knows best.


    By muhammd yunus - 7/31/2017 6:01:32 AM



  • 1. Jesus did not preach the concept of Trinity. He never claimed to be divine. The divinity of Jesus and the concept of Trinity are later decisions made by the Christian community. 

     The Quran affirms the above as fact. What has been merely pointed out is the high position given to The Holy Spirit in Christian doctrine without telling us what role it played vis-à-vis Jesus (pbuh). Christian doctrine gets into all kinds of knots trying to explain the concept of the Trinity and does a very poor job of it. It cannot, for example, say that The holy Spirit brought revelations to Jesus while at the same time treat Jesus as divinity. So, it doesn’t say that. So how does The Holy Spirit become one part of the Trinity?

     So for somebody to doubt that Gabriel brought revelations to Muhammad (pbuh) because the Christian doctrine does not say so, does no credit to his learning

     2. The Gospels have authors. Some have multiple authors. There is an entire science of textual analysis that the Christians have used. It is the community that much later decided on what were true gospels and what were to be treated as apocrypha. Viewing the history of Christianity through the lens of the Qur'an is not particularly helpful. 

     Please re read my comment analysing the different scriptures. It does not use the lens of the Quran but is an extract from a book written by a Christian who graduated from the Harvard Divinity School and specialized in those scriptures. The Quran merely mentions Ingeel as one of the Books of revelations without further comment.

     3. I think there is also a Qur'anic explanation of what Ruh is. And that does not jibe with the Gabriel theory unless we accept that the word had a range of meanings and was understood by the earliest Muslims in different ways. 

     The complete explanation is in my article:

    Islam and Mysticism: Is ‘Ruh’ Soul? (Part 2)

     4. Moses was given tablets with the commandments, which he later smashed. No angel was involved in giving or smashing. 

     Nobody said that angels were involved in giving or smashing. The verses from the Quran have been quoted on the subject. What has been pointed out is that neither the Jewish traditions nor the Quran differ on how Moses received his revelations.

    5. The fact to be noted is that in the three so-called Abrahamic religions, God speaks to His audience in several different ways at various occasions. And the Muslims are the only one, of the three, who accuse the other two of messing up their own sacred books. To my mind that is a kind of religious chauvinism. 

     I wonder why this question of the Muslims accusing the other two of messing up their own sacred books has been brought up since neither the article above nor any comment does that. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/31/2017 3:48:12 AM



  • Yunus Sahab,

    It is true that the Quran itself asks us to take the best meaning from it. I wish our ulama knew that. Many of them are doing exactly the opposite!


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/30/2017 11:05:51 PM



  • Dear Ghulam Mohiuddin Sahab,

    The Qur'an asks you to ignore a great part of it that is shrouded in ambiguity (3:7). All its Biblical allusions were addressed to the contemporary Christians and Jews and not to its 21st century Muslim readers. The same is true of all its verses relating to fighting that were addressed to its immediate audience. The very fact that the Qur'an mixes themes without any order, chronology, organization and structure and abruptly changes themes and audience and mixes the spiritual with the temporal and features an extremely complex diction renders it virtually unintelligible for its post revelation reader - unless one ignores all that is couched in ambiguity. This is the very nature for the Qur'an that is addressed to diverse audience in time and religious affiliation.

    It asks us to seek the best meaning it using our intellect and declares that the worst of all creatures in God's sight are those who do not use reason.


    By muhammd yunus - 7/30/2017 8:33:44 PM



  • There is much in the Quran that can be ignored. That includes criticism of the holy books of others. The important thing for us is not what Islam was but what Islam should be and can be.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/30/2017 12:41:00 PM



  • Being wrong is not being bad. I have been wrong many times. 
    1. Jesus did not preach the concept of Trinity. He never claimed to be divine. The divinity of Jesus and the concept of Trinity are later decisions made by the Christian community. 

    2. The Gospels have authors. Some have multiple authors. There is an entire science of textual analysis that the Christians have used. It is the community that much later decided on what were true gospels and what were to be treated as apocrypha. Viewing the history of Christianity through the lens of the Qur'an is not particularly helpful. 

    3. I think there is also a Qur'anic explanation of what Ruh is. And that does not jibe with the Gabriel theory unless we accept that the word had a range of meanings and was understood by the earliest Muslims in different ways. 

    4. Moses was given tablets with the commandments, which he later smashed. No angel was involved in giving or smashing. 

    5. The fact to be noted is that in the three so-called Abrahamic religions, God speaks to His audience in several different ways at various occasions. And the Muslims are the only one, of the three, who accuse the other two of messing up their own sacred books. To my mind that is a kind of religious chauvinism. 





    By C M Naim - 7/30/2017 10:17:42 AM



  • Gabriel appears by name only twice in the Quran. As far as revelations to Muhammad (pbuh) are concerned, the Quran says that Gabriel brought this to Muhammad’s qalb or heart. 


    According to the Quran, Jesus (pbuh) was born with the ruh of Allah like Adam and was further strengthened by ruhul Qudoos which means the Holy Spirit, which we learn from the Quran is one of the titles of Gabriel the other being Ruhul Amin.

     

    The Holy Spirit plays an important role in Christian doctrine and is part of the Trinity. Christian doctrine also makes out Jesus to be not just son of God but god himself so why would such a doctrine make Jesus look like Muhammad (pbuh) an ordinary man receiving inspiration from Allah through Gabriel? The role of the Holy Spirit otherwise remains undiminished in Christianity except vis-a-vis Jesus. Professor Naim is surely aware of the difficult concept of Trinity which the Christians themselves struggle explaining.


    As far as Christianity is concerned Jesus is not human but god. Professor Naim is therefore wrong in saying that the Christians consider the Gospels to be the work of man unless the Christians consider Jesus as an ordinary man. The Christians therefore, make no distinction between the word of God and the word of Jesus and all the ahadith of Jesus are gospel for them. For Muslims, the ahadith of Jesus are not gospel (just like the ahadith of Muhammad are not the Quran) but may contain some part of the revelations of Allah which is the Ingeel according to the Quran. 


    As far as Moses is concerned, I don't think there is any conflict in what the Jews and the Muslims believe. They do not think that Moses made up the Ten Commandments.


    Professor Naim is therefore wrong on both counts. Jesus is not human but god according to the Christians and God spoke to Moses and gave him the tablet according to the Jews.



    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/30/2017 1:33:38 AM



  • This is what the Quran says about Moses and I do not think that Jewish tradition differs from it.

    (7:142) We appointed for Moses thirty nights, and completed (the period) with ten (more): thus was completed the term (of communion) with his Lord, forty nights. And Moses had charged his brother Aaron (before he went up): "Act for me amongst my people: Do right, and follow not the way of those who do mischief."

    (143) When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee." Allah said: "By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe."

    (144) (Allah) said: "O Moses! I have chosen thee above (other) men, by the mission I (have given thee) and the words I (have spoken to thee): take then the (revelation) which I give thee, and be of those who give thanks."

    (145) And We ordained laws for him in the tablets in all matters, both commanding and explaining all things, (and said): "Take and hold these with firmness, and enjoin thy people to hold fast by the best in the precepts: soon shall I show you the homes of the wicked,- (How they lie desolate)."



    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/30/2017 12:48:29 AM



Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
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.

Content