certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islamic Ideology (13 Oct 2016 NewAgeIslam.Com)


The Misrepresentation of the Quran through Mistranslation



By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam

13 October 2016

The major source of mistranslation of the Quran is the mistranslation by every translator of the Quran of the word “Kafaru” as “disbeliever”. A disbeliever is understood as “those who are not followers of Prophet Muhammad” although even this meaning of disbeliever is incorrect. The Quran does not use the word Kafaru in the sense of “disbeliever” even in a single verse! As a matter of fact, the Quran makes it unmistakably clear that Kafaru means not a disbeliever but one of the following:

a)       Religious persecutor

b)       Oppressor

c)       Those who were fighting against the Muslims for no other reason except for their faith

d)       An insincere Muslim

e)       A deliberate rejecter of the truth.

In every verse related to fighting and war, the Quran uses Kafaru in the sense of either a), b) or c) above and not for those under the category d) or e). We can imagine how the meaning gets distorted if in such verses, Kafaru is translated as disbeliever who could be a peaceful disbeliever but not an oppressor! The impression created is that the Quran commands fighting against the disbelievers or that Islam stands for the destruction of all other religions. Nothing can be farther from the truth.

The Kafaru are a category apart and can otherwise be Muslim, Jew, Christian or Polytheist

(98:1) The Kafaru, among the People of the Book and among the Mushrikin, were not going to depart (from their ways) until there should come to them Clear Evidence,-

(98:6) Those Kafaru, among the People of the Book and among the Mushrikin, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.

(2:105) It is never the wish of the Kafaru among the People of the Book, and among the Mushrikin, that anything good should come down to you from your Lord. But Allah will choose for His special Mercy whom He will - for Allah is Lord of grace abounding.

(9:90) And there were, among the desert Arabs (also), men who made excuses and came to claim exemption; and those who were false to Allah and His Messenger (merely) sat inactive. Soon will a grievous penalty seize the Kafaru among them. (The Kafaru referred to here are Muslim)

From the above verses it is clear that the Kafaru can be from among any religious group including the Muslims and not all people of any faith are referred to as Kafaru. Translating Kafaru as disbeliever is therefore a gross mistranslation.

If all polytheists were considered as Kafaru, then the verses cited above would have been worded not in the manner they are worded but as follows:

(98:1) The Mushrikin and the Kafaru, among the People of the Book, were not going to depart (from their ways) until there should come to them Clear Evidence,-

(98:6) The Mushrikin and the Kafaru, among the People of the Book, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.

(2:105) It is never the wish of the Mushrikin and the Kafaru among the People of the Book,, that anything good should come down to you from your Lord. But Allah will choose for His special Mercy whom He will - for Allah is Lord of grace abounding.

In the reworded verses, it means all the Mushrikin and only the Kafaru among the People of the Book which by implication would then mean that all the Mushrikin are Kafaru. Clearly this is not what is intended, and not all the Mushrikin are considered as Kafaru by the Quran in any of the verses. Verse 9:3 is another clear example that covers only the Mushrikin and uses both terms Mushrikin to cover all of them with whom treaty is dissolved and also to the Kafaru or to the Kafaru among the Mushrikin for whom a grievous penalty is proclaimed. The Kafaru are those who fought against the Muslims and the non Kafaru are those who never fought against the Muslims.

(9:3) And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage, - that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Mushrikin. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to the Kafaru.

There isn’t even a single verse that castigates the Mushrikin or the Polytheists or says that they will be cast into hell. It is always the Kafaru who will be cast into hell. There are two verses that say that polytheism is an unforgivable sin but these verses are in the context of Jews and Muslims. For the Jews and Muslims, polytheism would be going against the clear and known tenets of their religion and is an unforgivable sin. For others, only those who die rejecting the truth knowing it to be the truth are kafir. Those who die without ever coming to know of the “truth” are not kafir.

The Second Major Misunderstanding

The second major understanding comes from the following verse:

(3:85) If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

Islam and Muslim however have a broader meaning and cover the righteous of every faith.

(2:62) Those who believe (in the Qur´an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Anyone who believes in God and the last Day or The Day of Judgment and works righteousness is a Muslim

(22:34) To every people did We appoint rites (of sacrifice), that they might celebrate the name of Allah over the sustenance He gave them from animals (fit for food). But your god is One God: submit then your wills to Him (in Islam): and give thou the good news to those who humble themselves,-

The verse above refers to people of other faiths. Since there is only one God and all of them follow the rites appointed to them in submission to Allah (by whatever name), their faith is Islam.

(27:44) She was asked to enter the lofty Palace: but when she saw it, she thought it was a lake of water, and she (tucked up her skirts), uncovering her legs. He said: "This is but a palace paved smooth with slabs of glass." She said: "O my Lord! I have indeed wronged my soul: I do (now) submit (in Islam), with Solomon, to the Lord of the Worlds."

The above verse is about Prophet and King Solomon and Queen Sheba who preceded Jesus and their religion is Islam.

(2:132) And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam."

(2:136) Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma´il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

Islam is the religion of every prophet and of every person who believes in God (by whatever name), and in the consequences of his deeds beyond this life, and works righteousness.

House of God

Monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. (22:40)

Third Major Source of Misunderstanding are the Verses giving permission or the command to Fight.

The misrepresentation and mistranslation is mainly on account of:

1.       Kafaru is mistranslated as disbeliever instead of religious persecutor which is what it means in all the verses. If it is correctly taken as religious persecutor, then even the precise context becomes unimportant because who can object to fighting against the oppressor?

2.       Fight until the “Deen of Allah” prevails. Deen of Allah means the law of Allah which includes:  a) There is no compulsion in religion (2:256) and b) To the peaceful disbeliever be his way (109:6). However, most translators translate “Deen of Allah” as faith in Allah which is incorrect and conveys a totally different meaning of accepting the faith of Islam. See also verse 12:76 where Dini Maliki means Law of the King.

With correct translation as above, no verse is problematic even without knowing the context outside what the Quran itself describes.

(2:190) Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.(191) And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of the Kafirin. (The Kafirin are not any disbeliever but specifically those who fight you) (192) But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.(193) And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail the law of Allah (dinu lillah); but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

(217) They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn your back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

(2:246) Hast thou not Turned thy vision to the Chiefs of the Children of Israel after (the time of) Moses? they said to a prophet (That was) among them: "Appoint for us a king, that we May fight in the cause of Allah." He said: "Is it not possible, if ye were commanded to fight, that that ye will not fight?" They said: "How could we refuse to fight in the cause of Allah, seeing that we were turned out of our homes and our families?" but when they were commanded to fight, they turned back, except a small band among them. But Allah Has full knowledge of those who do wrong.

(4:75) And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"

(8:36) The Kafaru spend their wealth to hinder (man) from the path of Allah, and so will they continue to spend; but in the end they will have (only) regrets and sighs; at length they will be overcome: and the Kafaru will be gathered together to Hell;-(37) In order that Allah may separate the impure from the pure, put the impure, one on another, heap them together, and cast them into Hell. They will be the ones to have lost.(38) Say to the Kafaru (religious persecutors), if (now) they desist, their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).(39) And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail the law of Allah altogether and everywhere (dinu kulluhu lillah); but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

(22:39) To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-(40) (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).

The cause for fighting is clearly to fight against religious persecution or any kind of oppression until the law of Allah prevails which means until there is no more compulsion in religion or any kind of oppression. The verses are of eternal relevance. It is the mistranslations on account of which some Muslims become oppressors or “Kafaru” that must perish.

(23:18) Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us).

(39:32) who, then, does more wrong than one who utters a lie concerning Allah, and rejects the Truth when it comes to him; is there not in Hell an abode for blasphemers?

(33) And he who brings the Truth and he who confirms (wa Saddaqa) (and supports) it - such are the men who do right.

(34) They shall have all that they wish for, in the presence of their Lord: such is the reward of those who do good:

(35) So that Allah will turn off from them (even) the worst in their deeds and give them their reward according to the best of what they have done.

 

 Unless people support the dissemination of the correct version, how can we transform Islamic theology? Nothing that I have written in this article is new or what I have not written in other articles and yet, instead of disseminating the correct understanding, people indulge in the same arguments based on the mistranslations. Which is easier, correcting the wrong understanding based on mistranslations or invasive methods with the text of the Quran? In any case, not a word from the Quran can be changed nor is required to be changed but those who do not mean well, will continue with their chant for changing this or that. Clearly, the Quran has been carrying the burden of falsehood heaped on it by bigoted scholars and the effort that will be blessed by Allah is the effort to clean it up of all the falsehood heaped on it through mistranslations and misinterpretations. Will people choose the way that is blessed or the way that is accursed?

(10:25) But Allah does call to the Home of Peace: He does guide whom He pleases to a way that is straight. (26) To those who do right is a goodly (reward)- Yea, more (than in measure)! No darkness nor shame shall cover their faces! they are companions of the garden; they will abide therein (for aye)!(27) But those who have earned evil will have a reward of like evil: ignominy will cover their (faces): No defender will they have from (the wrath of) Allah: Their faces will be covered, as it were, with pieces from the depth of the darkness of night: they are companions of the Fire: they will abide therein (for aye)!

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/islamic-ideology/naseer-ahmed,-new-age-islam/the-misrepresentation-of-the-quran-through-mistranslation/d/108846

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:-   127


  • Secularlogic,
    Verse 5 when read with the exceptions in verse 4 excludes all those who did not fight against the Prophet. It leaves out all the peaceful Mushrikin and those left to be killed are the kafirin only or those who had fought with the Muslims and broke their treaties. It also excludes those who have migrated, those who have sought asylum and those have shown a genuine change of heart.

    The question simply was the meaning of kafir in 9:2 and 9:3 made clear by the verse cited.The verses clearly exclude the peaceful Mushrikin from the meaning of kafir. You cannot accept this simple truth and say yes kafir does not mean disbeliever but it means religious persecutor in these verses. You are a willful and deliberate rejecter of a simple truth in these verses. How can you be without blemish? Take a small step by accepting one obvious truth that is pointed out and then see your perspective change. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/5/2016 5:25:18 AM



  • but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them

    Means, if they convert to Islam.

    If one amongst the Mushrikin ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge. 

    Men without knowledge of what?

    that Allah will cover with shame only the Kafirin and not all the Mushrikin 

    Allah may cover kafirin with shame, but he is recommending in verse 5 that you ambush and kill all Mushrikn. not Kafirin.
    Mushriks are polytheists and idol worshippers, no? 

    Those who remained defiant by not migrating, or by not seeking asylum or by showing a genuine change of heart and accepting Islam. 

    Why should they migrate? Why should they accept islam? And in absence of both conditions, you think it is alright to kill them? suppose India had imposed such conditions during partition? that those who did not migrate had to convert to hinduism or be killed. Would you have liked it? It follows the same principal of the Quran. Might is right.

    But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand. 

    Unambiguous, no? If these fellows embrace islam, they are spared. So then how is it faith neutral.

    the hudood punshments are also only for kufr in the temporal dimension and not for kufr in the spiritual dimension. 

    What does this even mean?

    Verse 9:29 also allowed the non-kafaru among the polytheists to pay Jiziya and live as polytheists. However, every one of them accepted Islam and no one was killed as per 9:5 nor were there any jiziya paying polytheists. -

    Ah, your beloved Jizya again. Why should anyone pay to retain their faith? You want to pay Hindu version of Jizya in India? When you charge protection money to protect others from yourself, it is called extortion. What the underworld does, in the current day context. This is God's wish? That his own creatures who follow other faiths pay Muslims to keep their faith? What nonsense.

    You bet there were no polytheists left. Anyone who is humiliated for his faith at every turn and made to pay through his nose to keep his faith, who is discriminated against legally when it comes to crime and punishment and who does not want to undertake the burden to migration will take the easy way out. Allah hu Akbar, and he is home free.

    However, no scholar understands these verse as I have - 

    There you are right here, but that is probably because they know arabic and are under no compulsion, scholarly or otherwise, to whitewash islam. 

    So much for your defence. Why dont you just answer the hypothetical questions and be done with it? Is there some reason you dont want to answer? 

    By secularlogic - 11/5/2016 3:06:32 AM



  • Secularlogic,

    When the Quran itself is making the meaning of kafir clear in any given verse in which the word appears, why do you need the knowledge of Arabic to know its meaning? Not taking the meaning that is being made clear by the Quran but assuming a different meaning from one’s knowledge of Arabic is the problem. As explained earlier, kafir could not have had the meaning of disbeliever in the Prophet’s times but acquired this meaning later when Islam spread among the Christians who brought to Islam both the concept of disbeliever and of exclusivism. Arabic was the language of the pagan Arabs and there is no way that there could have been a word for disbeliever in that language or the concept of exclusivism. Islam of the Quran also does not have the concept of exclusivism nor any single word for disbeliever. It does not even have a single word for martyr but the Arabic word “Shuhuda” or “shaheed” has changed meaning in later years to mean martyr thereby corrupting the message of the Quran. Islamic scholarship that is available to us is from the 10th century onwards after such corruption had taken place. Fortunately, the Quran itself helps us clean up the corruption and in that sense, it is incorruptible.

     People with knowledge of Arabic and of the ahadith read into the Quran the wrong meanings and the correct meaning therefore escapes them. Only a clinical approach without the defective foreknowledge helps understand the correct meaning.

     Honesty requires that you consider what is presented and give your opinion. If you run away from it, then you are deliberately shutting out the truth and you are a willful and deliberate rejecter of the truth and you know what that means. Why ask hypothetical questions when we can ask a real one and get a real answer?

      The following are verses from Surah Taubah:

     (1) A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Mushrikin with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-

    (2) Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame the Kafirin.

    (3) And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Mushrikin. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to the Kafaru.

    (4) (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Mushrikinwith whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

    (5) But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Mushrikin wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

    (6) If one amongst the Mushrikin ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

     Verse 2 says that Allah will cover with shame only the Kafirin and not all the Mushrikin

    Verse 3 proclaims a grievous penalty to the Kafaru and not to all the Mushrikin

    Verse 4 identifies those who are not kafaru among the Mushrikin. These are those who have not broken their treaty, nor aided the enemies of the Prophet against him.

    Verse 6 says that if any Mushrikin seeks asylum grant it to them and escort him to a secure place.

    Verse 1 allows anyone to migrate to a secure place within the amnesty period of four months.

      So who are to be killed at the end of the amnesty period? They need to satisfy all of the following conditions:

     1.    Those who fought against the Muslims and also broke their treaties with them and/or aided those who did.

    2.    Those who remained defiant by not migrating, or by not seeking asylum or by showing a genuine change of heart and accepting Islam.

     These are the kafaru. Only their demonstrable kufr in the temporal dimension was relevant. If there were any deliberate and willful rejecters of Islam but never fought or aided those who did were not to be harmed and are treated as not among the kafaru although they are Mushrikin.

      The verses below describe their kufr which is nothing but religious persecution.

      (7) How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Mushrikin, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.

    (8) How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked.

    (9) The Signs of Allah have they sold for a miserable price, and (many) have they hindered from His way: evil indeed are the deeds they have done.

    (10) In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds.

    (11) But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.

    (12) But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith (immatul kufri) : for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.

    (13) Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

      All through the verses, what is held against the kafaru is their demonstrable kufr in this temporal world and not “unbelief” or “Rejection of Belief” and the main charge is that they fought against the believers, hindered the believers from His way, violated their oaths and treaties, were the first to assault the believers and earlier plotted to expel the Messenger from Mecca. The charge is religious persecution only.

      As I have brought out in my articles, the hudood punshments are also only for kufr in the temporal dimension and not for kufr in the spiritual dimension.

      There are verses that deal with the temporal dimension and there are verses that deal with the spiritual dimension. The punishment for kufr in the spiritual dimension is only by God in this world or in the Hereafter or both as He chooses. No polytheist was killed for “unbelief” and the principle “let there be no compulsion in religion” 2:256 and “To the (peaceful) Kafirin be their way” 109:6 was never violated. The peaceful and law abiding kafir is a kafir only in the spiritual dimension and cannot be harmed.

      Verse 9:29 also allowed the non-kafaru among the polytheists to pay Jiziya and live as polytheists. However, every one of them accepted Islam and no one was killed as per 9:5 nor were there any jiziya paying polytheists.

      However, no scholar understands these verse as I have, because what they have learnt from their childhood, is that the terms Mushrik, Kafir and Idol worshipper are synonyms. They therefore make no distinction between these words. They do not try to understand how the Quran uses these words and makes clear distinctions. There isn’t a single verse which uses the wrong term and if it did, there would be a contradiction. No verse of the Quran contradicts any other verse of the Quran. All the scholars end up with several contradictions because of their loose translations and understanding because of which they believe in the doctrine of abrogation. I reject completely the doctrine of abrogation as the greatest kufr and therefore say without any hesitation, that Islamic theology based as it is on the doctrine of abrogation, is a theology of kafirs.

     My understanding is based on textual integrity, without ignoring/abrogating a single verse and without the meaning of any verse contradicting the meaning of any other verse. There cannot be a better assurance of correctness and authenticity. I have nothing to gain by falsifying the correct meaning and everything to lose if I did so. Allah is my Guide and my Helper and I seek His help in everything I do and seek His refuge from all falsehood.

     You have an opportunity to deal honestly and squarely with the question whether you agree with what I have shown to be the meaning of kafir in the verses 9:2 and 9:3. There is no need to ask hypothetical questions. If you cannot deal honestly with this question, then your entire understanding of Islam is based on deliberately and willfully lying to yourself.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/5/2016 1:36:26 AM



  • I am not confusing anything. I have read the translations of some quranic verses and all them refer to disbeliever, not religious persecutor. If that translation were wrong, some arab speaking person would have been the first to point it out. 

    Talking about hypothetical questions. so what if they are hypothetical. Answer them.

    I dont need an 'unblemished' certificate from you. I am telling you to assume that I am unblemished, and then answer.

    By secularlogic - 11/4/2016 7:38:40 AM



  • Secularlogic,

     You continue to confuse kafir with non-believer or perhaps non-Muslim. Remove this confusion first and many of your questions will disappear.

     Your questions are also hypothetical. When you contradict yourself in two comments in the same thread, it is obvious that you give scant regard to the truth. How can you then be without blemish? How can a person who cannot remain truthful in small matters ever be truthful on the big ones? So what does the rejection of Islam by such a person really mean? It is the rejection by one who lies unselfconsciously. Such a person can deceive himself of the truth. My advise to you therefore was to make a resolution and stick to the truth come what may and you will find the path to heaven. Let us see whether you can make a beginning by responding truthfully to my comment By Naseer Ahmed - 10/25/2016 2:21:45 AM


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/4/2016 4:54:12 AM



  • Secularlogic,
    You have not responsded to my comment By Naseer Ahmed - 10/26/2016 4:45:57 AM
    It answers your main question. 
    You can marry anybody who agrees to marry you. Marriage being a social contract, any marriage is valid.
    If you desire to be buried in a Muslim cemetery and you also desire that your namaze janazah be performed, then I am sure Muslims will fulfill your wish.
    As regards whether you can visit the sacred mosque or not, check with the Saudi Embassy what you need to do for that.

    you can try runnig away with that, but it does not answer my question from a quranic viewpoint. The question you have asked me is not very pertinent, but the one I am asking you is. 

    I am declaring myself to be a polytheist, idol worshipper, critic of Islam, though not a liar or religious persecutor. And even less an armed opponent of Muslims. So am I a Kafir or not. 

    If I am not a kafir, can I marry a muslim person without converting, according to Quran, not according to you. Can I enter the holy mosque, according to Quran, not according to Saudi Arabian authorities. Will I have the same legal and citizenship rights as Muslim men in a Muslim country, according the Quran, not according to you.

    Similarly, if there is a Muslim man, who has declared faith in one god, mohammad as messenger, last day, day of reckoning, zakaat, praying five times a day, and whatever minimum conditions are there to be called a muslim. Now this person is a habitual liar or a religiious persecutor. suppose he is persecuting non muslims. Like Aurangzeb. In this case, will all muslims call him Kafir, and will he have to pay Jizya, will he be denied entry to mecca, and will he be  ineligible for marriage with muslims, will other muslims not pray for him after his death, etc, ... all the things that a Kafir is subjected to, if he is a muslim liar? Answer according to Quran, not according to you.

    I think not. Because by the criterion of a liar being a Kafir that you have enumerated, I think very few of the 1.5 muslims in the world could be called muslims anymore. Most would be Kafirs. because everyone lies at some point of time. 

    By secularlogic - 11/3/2016 3:25:52 AM



  • the last resort of every islamist who loses an argument is to win it back by claims of islamophobia, accusation of apostasy, insinuations of heresy.

    no one - including mr naseer ahmed has been able to show that that moral principles come from religion. all mr naseer ahmed is saying is that divine texts are divine because they claim to be divine. that is an example of an utter ignorance of the principles of logic.

    morals do not come from religion. most of the authorities cite instincts, group hunting, solitary trapping, nurturing of the young, group versus individual survival and darwinian selection among a host of other factors for the origins of morality.

    animals also display behavior that is altruistic, demonstrate empathy, undertake calculated risks and indulge in behavior that can be called rudimentary morality.

    these moral principles are then plagiarized, perverted and promoted by prophets and peddled as divine revelation to all those who cannot live without a tyrant. those that like to bully love those who cannot live without a tyrant.

    there is no single moral precept that was ever given by religions or by prophets. 

    most of the moral principles as given by religions are misogynistic, racist, discriminatory, oppressive and unjust.

    all so-called revealed texts are copied from common sayings, folklore, fireside gossip, witty ripostes, collective fables and psychotic imagination. nothing in the revealed texts can be independently verified by either archaeology, documentation or other reliable methods.

    in fact most of the immorality is firmly rooted in the divine texts. like turning people into pillars of salt or walking on water or splitting the moon. these fables empower the chronic liars and their lies.

    mr naseer ahmed does not provide a single instance where a moral precept has come from religion.

    i have on the other hand listed many of the immoral, unethical and hateful precepts that are sanctified by revealed texts.

    mr naseer ahmed's last comment just proves he has no idea whatsoever (1) what the koran means or (2) what a circular argument means.

    "divine texts are divine because the divine texts say so" this in essence is mr naseer ahmed's argument. this is a near perfect example of circularity.

    i will let mr naseer ahmed figure out the rest of the koran by himself.

    the example of one principle that did not come from religion is the golden rule. revealed texts almost always exhort people to break the golden rule - for example by taking women as sex slaves, though we would hate to be taken as sex slaves. even if we do not like being sex slaves, religion encourages people to take sex slaves. the geneva convention criminalizes it. geneva convention is far more wiser than god can ever hope to be.

    the golden principle predates all religions and in fact most religious texts contain exhortations to break the golden principle.

    they do it by encouraging jizya, taking slaves and sex slaves, destroying of idols and tearing down of religious monuments. the revealed texts condemn menstruating women as being dirty and encourages segregating from them. the revealed texts say all sorts of immoral things and encourage unethical practices such as stoning for adultery and widow burning.

    By hats off! - 11/3/2016 3:21:22 AM



  • Can a scholar of the Quran ignore if the Quran is being misinterpreted? He is duty bound to engage in a discussion to arrive at the correct understanding. He is otherwise guilty of allowing a lie being said about the Quran. However, any discussion concerning a verse from the Quran is serious business. One cannot question unless one is sure of himself. Otherwise he may become blameworthy for preventing the truth from emerging or from covering up the truth which in Arabic means kufr. So what does one do when one is unsure or cannot agree for some reason but does not find a good enough reason to disagree? He keeps quiet.

     The Muslims in India are all Muqallids or follow their imam unquestioningly. They will not go against the interpretation of their imam no matter what evidence is presented against such interpretation. They also interpret the Quran through the ahadith. Each one of my articles differ with current Islamic theology and what the ahadith say on the same subject and therefore the silence of the scholars is understandable. It is decent on their part that they do not try to create confusion by engaging in unnecessary discussion when they know beforehand that they can neither agree nor disagree. Shahin Sb has tried to make them respond but without success. He has said that his impression is that they do not disagree but cannot be seen to agree either. Since my articles are translated, they are both read and understood by the Islamic scholars.

     There was no debate with Yunus sb on jizya. As a matter of fact he had supported what I said.

     The objective of the Islamophobes is to destroy Islam by making it out to be against the rest of the humanity. They will not like my articles which prove them wrong.  GM Sb is a nominal Muslim who seeks justification for what he is. He does so by denying that the Quran is meant to be taken seriously. He therefore dismisses it as unimportant except that he knows that it stands for truth, justice, equality, compassion, pluralism and universalism. Thereafter, one can forget the Book and rely on one’s own intelligence is what he says. The Islam that emerges from my articles is beyond criticism by the Islamophobes. That is why the Islamophobes oppose my articles tooth and nail. They do so without any understanding. GM Sb, cannot even discuss an article based on a single verse of the Quran. He has just run away from the discussion on the meaning of Kafir in 9:2 and 9:3 without even attempting to show why it cannot be “Religious Persecutor” when I have shown clearly why it is “Religious Persecutor” and nothing else.  All my articles without exception are original and tread new ground and I have said this on earlier occasions also. So, it is downright dishonest to run away by saying that no Quranic scholar has said that kafir means religious persecutor. When the Quranic verses clearly define the kufr of the kafir in 9:2 and 9:3 as several acts which can be clubbed under the category “religious persecution”, only one who is deaf, dumb and blind can deny that kafir in 9:2 and 9:3 means “religious persecutor”.

    Has Hats Off found one moral principle that does not trace back its origin to religion?  If he hasn’t, then the thesis still stands. He can keep arguing in circles but what is required is just one example and without it the rest is just gas. He will still not accept the obvious truth that every moral principle without exception has come from religion. The reason why someone persistently denies the truth is found in my article:

    Who Are Those Who Will Believe And Those Who Will Not?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/3/2016 2:27:55 AM



  • Secularlogic,
    You have not responsded to my comment By Naseer Ahmed - 10/26/2016 4:45:57 AM
    It answers your main question. 
    You can marry anybody who agrees to marry you. Marriage being a social contract, any marriage is valid.
    If you desire to be buried in a Muslim cemetery and you also desire that your namaze janazah be performed, then I am sure Muslims will fulfill your wish.
    As regards whether you can visit the sacred mosque or not, check with the Saudi Embassy what you need to do for that.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/3/2016 1:22:15 AM



  • mr naseer ahmed's article are generally totally ignored by other islamic scholars on the forum. mostly it is only mr gm, mr sl, and myself that pucture his pompous balloon. others simply ignore him.

    probably they think that ignorant people are best ignored.

    they feel it is not worth arguing with fools who think they understand the koran without a knowledge of arabic.

    the most prolific exegete on this forum disagreed with mr naseer ahmed on jizya (which mr naseer ahmed thinks is an honorable thing for the kuffar), sex slavery (of which mr naseer ahmed speaks very approvingly), slave taking (which he supports as being a very good thing) and even on the meaning of the word kaffir.

    but everyone (except for about three or four people) simply stopped responding to his illogical and meaningless articles, because islamic discourse usually degenerates into a takfiri brawl.

    by that standard, mr naseer ahmed's arguments are always well supported by takfir, false references, misquotation and half truths, not to mention null hypothesis and market research.

    we all remember very fondly how mr naseer ahmed tried proving god's existence with market research and null theory and he crashed.

    that is scholarship to be ashamed of.

    By hats off! - 11/2/2016 8:17:25 PM



  • Just answer this part of my comment

     If you dont agree, tell me: I have declared myself a non believer of islam, I am not a potential muslim who can possibly in the future ever be converted to Islam. Can I marry a Muslim without conversion? Will it be valid? Can I enter your holiest Mosque? If I oppose islam in word and spirit, am I still allowed to enter heaven if I have otherwise an unblemished character? On the flip side, if a muslim lies and persecutes others for their faith,(which makes him a kaafir by your definition) will he not be allowed to marry muslim women? will he be kept away from Mecca? Will other muslim people refuse him a janaaze ka namaaz? Or will he continue to enjoy the privileges that a Muslim enjoys just by professing a belief in one God, Mohammad as messenger, and the day of reckoning?

    By secularlogic - 11/2/2016 12:00:17 PM



  • An honest way of disagreeing is to show that a different meaning of Kafir/Kafaru emerges from verses 9:2 to 9:13 which elaborate in detail the kufr of the Kafaru mentioned in 9:2 and 9:3. When their kufr is elaborated in such minute detail and it clearly excludes those among the Mushrikin who remained peaceful, the meaning of kafir/kafaru in 9:2 and 9:3 is clear. These are verses which deal with this world or the temporal dimension.

    In the spiritual dimension, a deliberate rejecter of the truth is a Kafir whether peaceful or not. The number of verses that deal with the spiritual dimension are far more numerous than the number of verses that deal with the temporal dimension. The problem with the scholars is that a meaning that holds good for many verses has become the meaning across the Quran for all the verses!

    The fact of the matter is that no scholar of the Quran makes a distinction between the verses that deal with the temporal dimension and the verses that deal with the spiritual dimension and if they did, it would become clear to them, that in verses that deal with the temporal dimension, the faith of the kafaru or whether he is a deliberate rejecter of the truth is of no consequence.  The Quran itself makes this very clear as I have brought it out. In the temporal dimension, what a person does or has done is alone relevant. The punishment for kufr in the spiritual dimension is by God alone whether in this world or in the Hereafter.

     It is not true that no scholar of the Quran has come to a different conclusion. As a matter of fact, my research into this topic began only after I read Pickthall who says “In the Qur’an I find two meanings (of a Kafir), which become one the moment that we try to realize the divine standpoint. The Kafir in the first place, is not the follower of any religion. He is the opponent of Allah’s benevolent will and purpose for mankind - therefore the disbeliever in the truth of all religions, the disbeliever in all Scriptures as of divine revelation, the disbeliever to the point of active opposition in all the Prophets (pbut) whom the Muslims are bidden to regard, without distinction, as messengers of Allah.”

    Pickthall while translating the Quran has however translated kafir as disbeliever in every verse like all others. What he says is therefore contrary to how he has translated. He has translated the word based on the accepted meaning of the word by scholars. What he says is therefore based on the sense in which he thinks the word is used in the Quran. This called for a detailed investigation which was not easy or even possible for the earlier scholars because a hundred years ago, I do not think that an indexed Quran with cross references even existed. Pickthall is not accurate either as I found out after detailed analysis and the word has mainly five different meanings.

    Today, it is possible to pull out every verse that uses the word and group these verses based on any classification that one chooses. It could be based on the faith of the people for whom it is used and I find that it has been used for people of every faith including the Muslims but never for all the people of any faith. That clearly established that it is a faith neutral term.

    The second classification is based on whether the verses talks of this world or the Hereafter or whether it deals with the spiritual dimension or the temporal dimension. In verses that deal with the spiritual dimension, a deliberate and wilful rejecter of the truth is a Kafir. In verses that deal with the temporal dimension, only an “oppressor” is a kafir and his beliefs are immaterial.

     I have presented my findings in a detailed article: What Is Kufr And Who Is A Kafir In The Quran? (Full and Revised Text of the New Age Islam Series on the Subject)

     

    (39:32) Who, then, doth more wrong than one who utters a lie concerning Allah, and rejects the Truth when it comes to him; is there not in Hell an abode for blasphemers?

    (33) And he who brings the Truth and he who confirms (and supports) it - such are the men who do right.

    (34) They shall have all that they wish for, in the presence of their Lord: such is the reward of those who do good:

    (35) So that Allah will turn off from them (even) the worst in their deeds and give them their reward according to the best of what they have done.

    May Allah guide us and give us the strength to bring out the Truth and support it. May Allah also reward us as promised for our efforts and save us from blaspheming the word of Allah, by attributing to Allah, what is not said by Allah. Amin.

    Either Mr Ghulam Mohiyuddin establish that what I have said is false or else his calling me a charlatan is part of his attempt to prevent the truth from emerging. He has been very persistently engaged in falsifying the truth.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/2/2016 2:26:27 AM



  • Naseersaab says, "I discussed verses from 9:2 to 9:13 from which it is clear that the meaning of kafir/kafaru in 9:2 and 9:3 is “religious persecutor” and the definition clearly excludes peaceful rejecters of Islam."

    It may be "clear" to you but it is hardly clear to anyone else because the meaning that you have discovered was hidden too all the scholars over the past 1400 years! You are nothing but a charlatan. Please stop making a fool of yourself.

    My last comment in this thread.



    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/1/2016 2:42:03 PM



  • the crux of mr naseer ahmed's argument is the word "truth" which he cleverly uses without ever telling or revealing what "truth" means (either for mr naseer ahmed or for mr allah).

    however, the "truth" (referred to by the koran) is the following (among others)
    1) allah is the only god
    2) mohammad is his last prophet
    3) there is going to be a qayyamat

    if anyone has come across these "truths" and having come across them, rejects it is a kaffir. implying that all those given the dawah but not accepting it are "rejectors" of "truth".

    obviously mr naseer ahmed can play all he wants as long he does not come out openly and say what "truth" means.

    if his interpretation of the kaffir is correct, a jew, a polytheist, and all those who reject the towheed, khatm-e-nabuvvat and qayyamat are also momeen.

    if the jews and christians and also those who reject the koran are momeen, then mr naseer ahmed's argument can be considered valid.

    while mr naseer ahmed carefully avoids telling what this "truth" means, the koran is very clear. in addition to the three bullet points it specifies zakat, prayer, fasting and hajj as other requirements for being a momeen.

    in short koran implies clearly that all who are not momeen are indeed kaffir. and who are the momeen? those who believe in touheed, katm-e-nabuvvat, qayyamat, zakat, timely prayers, and do hajj.

    the trick is to ask mr naseer ahmed to tell us what he means when he uses the word "truth".

    if he defines it, only then we can see if his definition of the word kafir is correct.

    By hats off! - 11/1/2016 7:00:49 AM



  • GM Sb had said: “You are right in calling kuffaru a faith-neutral term. I stand corrected.

    I do not however know how you translate "kuffaru" into "religious persecutor" or "oppressor" from 9:3, 9:4 and 9:5.”

     I responded with my comment By Naseer Ahmed - 10/25/2016 2:21:45 AM in which I discussed verses from 9:2 to 9:13 from which it is clear that the meaning of kafir/kafaru in 9:2 and 9:3 is “religious persecutor” and the definition clearly excludes peaceful rejecters of Islam.

     There is no empty claim by me. I have clearly shown what this word means in the context of 9:2 and 9:3 with the help of the verses from the Quran which clearly elaborate on the kufr of these kafaru. So what is his difficulty in accepting that in the context of 9:2 and 9:3 it means “religious persecutor”?

     He says “Your claim is actually your opinion and is not the "truth". I do not accept your definition.” How is it my opinion or my definition when the Quran has clearly spelt out the kufr of the kafaru referred to in 9:2 and 9:3? He is free to derive his own meaning from the verses 9:2 to 9:13 and let us know what it is.

     He is plainly being dishonest and running away. If he does not have the courage or the character to engage in an honest discussion, he should just stay away from it and not try to create mischief by engaging in a discussion and then falsely saying it is only your opinion and not the “truth” without showing why he disagrees with the meaning that I have clearly derived from the Quran.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/1/2016 4:19:41 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