Books and Documents

Islam,Terrorism and Jihad (04 Feb 2013 NewAgeIslam.Com)

Refutation of Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri's Fatwa Supporting Wanton Killing of Innocent Civilians – Part 4



Refutation Of Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri's Fatwa Appearing In English Translation In New Age Islam Website Supporting Wanton Killing Of Innocent Civilians Under Special Circumstances And Thus Justifying The 9/11 Attacks - Part-4.

By Muhammad Yunus, New Age Islam

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

Feb. 05, 2013

1. The fatwa in light of the Qur’an – a cumulative review.

This part quotes two Qur’anic verses one each from Surah al Baqura and al Nahl  (2:194 and 16:126)  already repeatedly quoted in the first three parts (Part-1, Part-2, Part-3) and shown to lend no legitimacy to the Fatwa under the corresponding Refutation discourses already posted as summarily recapitulated below.

1.1 Verse 2:194 quoted once each in Part-1, and Part-2 and four times in Part-3, total 6 times: “[Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him. ‘(2: 194).

Argument tabled under Refutation (Part-1, point 3): “The verse merely authorizes the Prophet's followers to fight back if they are attacked in the four months of truce [Muharram, Rajab, Dhu 'l-Qa'dah and Dhu 'l-Hujjah] that gave the otherwise perennially warring tribes an opportunity to engage in trade and commerce and live in peace. It has no relevance to the fatwa.” 

1.2. Verse 16:126, quoted four times in Part-1, once in Part-2, and six times in Part-3, total ten times: “And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allah), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.). (16:126).

Argument under Refutation (Part-2, 2.ii):  “the emphasis on enduring an affliction in patience in 16:126 points to a softer response (even forgiveness) to an oppression, so as not to be excessive in response. It does not support - rather, it purports to negate the theme of the Fatwa.”

2. Summary Refutation of this part (Part-4): This part quotes two previously cited verses (2:194, 16:126) not supportive of the Fatwa (1.1, 1.2 above) and tables arguments in support of applying the principle of Quisas (retributive justice or like for like punishment) to state policies and claims the legitimacy of adopting a policy of terror to respond to state sponsored terror allegedly perpetrated by America and Israel. Having apparently established this principle (maslah), it conceivably recognises its contradiction with the Qur’anic message and concludes that any suggestion to “kill more than 4 million non combatant Americans and render more than ten million Americans homeless” will be a transgression of maslah (core principle of fatwa). Hence, this fourth part of the Fatwa is self defeated.

3. Detailed scrutiny of the Fatwa (Part-4)

For clarity of presentation, the Fatwa (Part-4) is divided into five parts.

3.1. America’s direct role and responsibility in causing colossal loss of life, destruction and havoc to millions and millions of Muslims.

The Fatwa charges America for its invasion of Iraq with lethal and destructive weapons that killed “millions of Iraqi Muslims, created havoc, caused colossal damage and dangerous disease (such as blood cancer) in its aftermath, and for imposing sanctions on the pretext of Saddam and his Ba’ath Party that resulted in human sufferings and indirect casualties.” Given that even an American anti-war website puts the figures of civilian casualties in Iraq at 1,455,500 [1], Fatwa’s details are reminders on the terrifying consequences and human cost and tragedies of this war.

It also refers to “US sanctions on Afghans for sheltering Osama bin Laden  and war against Afghanistan with missiles killing ‘tens of thousands’ of Muslims, its support (to Israel) and continued siege of ‘our Palestinian brethren’ entry into Somalia on supposedly humanitarian grounds and subsequent dumping of ‘its nuclear waste’ in Somalia that caused various fatal diseases ‘to the Muslims there’; its military intervention in Sudan, bombing and destruction of one of its medicine factories and missile attack on Khartoum aimed at killing civilians, justified by a claim that it housed chemical weapons; its support of Christians in the Southern Sudan and fomenting the war causing damage to the Muslims and their economy.” (Paraphrased quotation)

It singularly blames America for all the sufferings and devastations of the Muslims and charges it of “the overt and covert interference in the Muslim countries in order to cause bloodshed and kill innocent people.” It also blames America for whatever is happening in Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, Macedonia and Bosnia and thus holds it responsible for all the trials and tribulations, the Muslims are going through.

Having thus established the US as guilty of killing millions of Muslims in the last fifty years, it invokes the principle of Quisas – retributive justice as it refers to in each of the preceding part of the fatwa – like for like punishment for those “who unleash bloodshed and transgress” and states:

“So if the Muslims carry out maslah against the Americans, it would be justified for them to kill millions of Americans.”


 The maslah (principle) confuses America’s foreign policy with common American people. America’s foreign policy that plunges it into war and dictates sanctions is drawn by its political-cum-military bureaucrats and legislative bodies (Congress and Senate) based on their joint assessment of the political realities and global strategic issues and threats of the times. If anyone in America is to be held accountable for the terrible consequences of sanctions and wars, it must be those persons who were directly involved in policy making at the given historical points that saw sanctions and wars. Common Americans at those or later historical points (such as today) cannot and must not be held responsible. If the above maslah (principle) were accepted as a ground-rule for humanity, Bangladesh will have to take military action against Pakistan for its killing of allegedly three million civilians in the liberation war, Israel will nuke Germany to avenge Hitler’s barbaric and en-masse liquidation of Jews, China will annihilate Japan for its atrocities against Chinese citizens during the world war and all the nations of the world will be caught in a frenzy of retaliatory wars, massacres and genocides as the case may be against their past tormentors. Accordingly, in its concluding phase, the Qur’an espouses collective forgiveness of past enemies (5:2), personalized justice (5:8) and forbids killing of any innocent person except when found guilty of murder or abominable crime (5:32):

“...And let not the hatred of a people who (once) obstructed you from (entering the) Sacred House, lead you to be hostile. Therefore, help each other to virtue (birr)** and piety (Taqwa), and do not collaborate with each other in sin and enmity. Heed God, and (remember,) God is severe in punishment” (5:2).

“You who believe, be upright before God as witnesses to justice (qist), and let not the hatred of any people prompt you to detract from justice (‘adl). Deal justly: this is nearest to heedfulness (Taqwa); and heed God. Surely God is informed of what you do” (5:8).

“For that reason We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever kills any person - unless it be (in punishment for) murder or causing corruption on earth - it shall be, as if he had killed all humanity, and whoso saves a life, it shall be, as if he had saved the life of all humanity…” (5:32).

 The Fatwa also ignores historical relativism - hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed and many times more put to grievous suffering by their own Islamic regimes or neighbouring Muslim invaders such as Bangladesh war of liberation, Iran-Iraq war, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and oppression of Muslims outside of America or American sphere of influence - notably China, Russia, Albanian peninsula, the central Asian states in the erstwhile Soviet Russia. It also ignores America’s historic military role in defending and preserving the Albanian Muslims and thus ensuring the presence and growth of Islam in Europe and by extension, the Western hemisphere let alone its food aid, emergency relief, technological/ infrastructural development role in all Muslim countries, and being home to some five million Muslims – who enjoy greater political and religious freedom and civil rights than in any other Muslim country of the world.

 3.2. The Fatwa declares that “US does not attack from the front but attacks or lays siege remotely” to justify attacking them the same way as they attack Muslims, and argues against the notion advocated by most Muslims that “retaliatory action against the US (citizens) is Haram for them? It argues “Under the rule of retributation (maslah) we will inflict the same destruction on the US as it has done on us.”

Refutation: The Fatwa simply repeats the theme it already tabled and under 3.1 above, which has been duly refuted in the foregoing.

3.3. The Fatwa declares that America’s policy of “punishing the people for the crimes of individuals,” gives lawful ground to evolve a reciprocal policy – a maslah for “punishing the American civilians for the crimes of the American government.”

Refutation: It is a repetition of arguments 3.1and 3.2 above though framed in a subtly false manner by stretching the scope of Quisas (retributive justice) to state policy. It purports to advocate adoption of an evil and abdominal policy in response to a similar policy of the enemy. However expedient and justifiable it may be deemed politically, it is antithetic to the Qur’anic principle of returning evil with good to diffuse enmity (13:22, 23:96, 41:34), and its repeated exhortations to abjure what is Munkar (reprehensible, contrary to reason) and abominable.

 “Those who patiently seek the Countenance of their Lord, keep up prayer and spend out of what We have provided them, secretly or publicly and repel evil with good – such will attain the eternal life” (13:22).

“Repel evil with that which is good. Indeed We are aware of what they are working (in their minds)” (23:96).

“Goodness and evil are not equal. Therefore repel the latter with that which is good, and then the one between whom and you is hatred, will indeed become your friend (41:34).

As the foregoing enunciations of the Qur’an may appear a mere window dressing or conveniently claimed to have been abrogated, there are irrefutable historical records that demonstrate the application of the above noble principle even at times of war. Thus the eminent historian Thomas Arnold quotes a contemporaneous Church record on the compassionate treatment of the survivors of the 2nd crusade who were deceived by their Greek allies (who refused to ship them back home to Europe) and lay at the mercy of the Muslim warriors: “The situation of the survivors would have been utterly hopeless, had not the sight of their misery melted the hearts of the Muhammadans to pity. They tended the sick and relieved the poor and starving with open-handed liberality. Some even bought up the French money which the Greeks had got out of the pilgrims by force or cunning, and lavishly distributed it among the needy. So great was the contrast between the kind treatment the pilgrims received from the unbelievers and the cruelty of their fellow-Christians, the Greeks, who imposed forced labour upon them, beat them and robbed them of what little they had left, that many of them voluntarily embraced the faith of their deliverers. As the old chronicler says: "Avoiding their co-religionists who had been so cruel to them, they went in safety among the infidels who had compassion upon them, and, as we heard, more than three thousand joined themselves to the Turks when they retired. Oh, kindness more cruel than all treachery!”[2]

 3.4. The Fatwa refers to Israel’s military actions and gross human rights violations of Palestinians as acts of terror even by the definition of US policy (on protection of human rights) and thus describes the Jews as terrorists and the US, a supporter of Zionist terrorism in Palestine, and accordingly claims the right to pursue a corresponding course of action and invokes the foregoing principle of reciprocity of policy (3.3 above) to appropriate its politically informed terrorist aspirations into the Shariah of Islam and concludes: “The killing of American women, children and the elderly people and other non-combatants is permissible (by Shariah), rather it is one of the categories of jihad God and his prophet (PBUH) have ordered.”

3.5. The Fatwa concludes by citing previously cited verses 2:194 and 16:126 which are not supportive of the Fatwa (1 above) and takes an abrupt about turn in its arguments by declaring that “under no circumstances it is permissible and appropriate for them to kill more than 4 million non combatant Americans and render more than ten million Americans homeless. If they do so they will be among those who transgress in the act of maslah.

Conclusion: This fourth part, and cumulatively, the first four parts of the Fatwa fail to draw any legitimacy from the Qur’an, are antithetic to the Qur’anic message and thus stand refuted. Repetitious quotation of Qur’anic unsupportive verses 2:94, 16:129 reflects an indoctrinating strategy: bombard the simple and innocent Muslims with what is most awe-inspiring and obscure to them – the verses of the Qur’an and capitalizes on their reverential obscurity to the meaning of the Qur’anic verses to sell them their own fatwa, however un-Qur’anic it may really be – as God knows best.

1.       http://antiwar.com/casualties/

2.       Thomas W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam, (First publication 1896, 2nd extended edition 1913). Delhi 1990, p. 88.

Related Articles:

Refutation Of Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri's Fatwa Appearing In Taliban Website Nawa-E-Afghan Jihad Supporting Wanton Killing Of Innocent Civilians And Thus Justifying The 9/11 Attacks - Part-1

Refutation of Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri's fatwa appearing in Taliban website Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad supporting wanton killing of innocent civilians and thus justifying the 9/11 attacks - Part-2

Refutation of Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri's Fatwa Supporting Wanton Killing Of Innocent Civilians - Part-3

Refutation Of Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri's Fatwa Appearing In English Translation In New Age Islam Website Supporting Wanton Killing Of Innocent Civilians Under Special Circumstances And Thus Justifying The 9/11 Attacks - Part-4.

Refutation of Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri's Fatwa Supporting Wanton Killing of Innocent Civilians –Part 5

Refutation of Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri's Fatwa Supporting Wanton Killing of Innocent Civilians-Part 6

Refutation of Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri's Fatwa Supporting Wanton Killing of Innocent Civilians – Part 7

 Summing Up: Refutation of Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri's Fatwa Supporting Wanton Killing of Innocent Civilians under Special Circumstances and Thus Justifying the 9/11 Attacks – Part 8

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://newageislam.com/islam,terrorism-and-jihad/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/refutation-of-sheikh-yousuf-al-abeeri-s-fatwa-supporting-wanton-killing-of-innocent-civilians-–-part-4/d/10267


  • Dear hats off, The thoughts, questions, doubts and cognitive dissonance that assail your mind encourages me to share some thoughts with you – NOT to win you over to my side – for as you would have guessed, I am an anarchist believer if that means anything to you – but a consummate believer too in the divinity of the Qur’an. You don’t have to cite the examples of modern scientific advancement to dismiss the divinity and immutability of humans as an exclusive creation of God and thus deconstruct the advent of religion. Any free thinking soul in the pre-Islamic era, even ancient times would have been highly suspect of an All Merciful God that allows a tiger to crush a child under its jaws before the eyes of its horrified and helpless mother, unleashes devastating tidal waves, gnusamis, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, plagues and the likes that decimate entire habitations, creates man with the lust for blood, and a vicious mix of base instincts that drives him to all forms of crimes ,.....

    As i may have cited in one or the other article, the illiterate Arabs of the Prophet’s era took Muhammad for a joke (21:36, 25:41) (as many brilliant people, even Muslims do to this day), called him an impostor (30:58), crazy (44:14, 68:51) and a crazy poet (37:35/36); and ridiculed the Qur’anic revelation (18:56, 26:6, 37:14, 45:9) as the legends of the ancients (6:25, 23:82/83, 27:67/68, 68:15, 83:13) and a jumble of dreams (21:5). So you and anyone else make no great point by being an agnostic or atheist.

    Why am I possessed with a missionary zeal to defend the Qur’an?

    Well, I simply cannot believe that Muhammad could have contrived a book fourteen centuries ago that can enable a rationally atheist/ agnostic turn believer to sell it as a book of guidance for humanity more than 14 centuries after his death. Surely, you will be wondering, how this fellow, who appears to be rational and intelligent can talk like a blind believer. I simply request you to read my following article and tell me are there blinkers on my intellect or the claim I make for the Qur’an stands. If the claim stands, you know what it means. If it fails, I am a stupid and guided by blind faith. You seem to be a voracious reader. So this should not be very taxing to you.

     The Qur’an Was Never Edited And Any Effort To Edit The Qur’an Will Be Self Contradictory.

    By muhammad yunus - 2/18/2013 8:44:56 AM

  • to mr muhammad yunus, there is absolutely no need for such profound words. i was absolutely not out to flatter you. i have many times written sarcastically or even dismissively about some of your assertions. please let not modesty come in the way of my acknowledging and giving credit where it is due.

    i am sure no one on this forum will doubt your scholarship. some of us only question your beliefs. never your scholarship or analysis or logic. and this is again not flattery, please. it is the supreme irony for an agnost to be in appreciation of a believer's exegetic. but strange are the ways of men and their world.

    i am as staunchly agnostic as you are staunchly a momeen. the theist as well as the atheist are both required to provide proof. the skeptic does not bear the burden of proof. in a way his is the middle path between the rush of theists on the right and the atheists on the left. belief and unbelief are the sides of the same coin. the skeptic wonders if there IS actually any coin.

    where i differ with you is that i believe, (this i agree is again a 'belief', but that's another whole thread on this forum) in the long run we are all dead (i think adam smith). period.

    you would assert that we will all be brought around at some unimaginably future epoch and be judged by a god and we will be assigned to places of pleasure or torture. you will probably say this is metaphorical. i have no quarrel with that, but i am not very sure what your co-religionists will say to that.

    people are talking about thermal death, alien life and exo-planets, growing human spare parts and a whole lot of spine chilling things. i think you would have noticed. in theory, we can with the present state of the art grow clones of humans. what does any religion say about that? i am sure you will have had sleepless nights over this scenario because you will frantically have to score the religious texts to see what needs to be said without stepping on the toes of your ever-sensitive coreligionists. religions which locate man at the center of discourse simply point to their own stark naked egotism as well as obsessive egoism. man for all his faith or knowledge is so insignificant by sheer scale, that it is a wonder how faith is defended by him so tenaciously.

    in as much as we have no history (may be i haven't come across any) of atheists ruling at any time historic or pre-historic, we can never know how "just" it would be if atheists ruled. but we are seeing the results of the spilling of a purely baseless faith into every endeavor of humans. there is no crevice of our lives that religion has not seeped into. it is getting suffocatingly oppressive. agnosts are probably the silent victims of today's rabid competition among the merchants of various faiths. it is very difficult to be a doubter in this world of the hindu, the muslim, the christian, the whatever. there is simply no space. for those that either kill or die in the name of religion it means nothing but sheer senselessness, but as to the agnost with shrapnel in the eye, it is the price your god extracts for "doubt", collected by those that "believe". unbelievers have the luxury of  "see,didn't i tell you".

    that is all.

    By hats off! - 2/18/2013 5:47:46 AM

  • Dear hats off, I am touched, honored, flattered, humbled, and enormously encouraged by your kind and flattering words, even if they were written cursorily as those glib in tapping their thoughts at the keyboard, rich in vocab and generous in thinking about others are wont to do while making routine comments.
    I may indeed deserve congratulation for getting a bold, inveterate, intelligent, learned and passionate maligner of the Prophet (conceivably with the good intention of provoking fellow Muslims to introspect) to promise not to ridicule him any more. Thank you and hope other commentators will take your flattering remarks no more than bid to cheer me up for my tenacity in posting comments and writing articles at times on complex issues.
    By muhammad yunus - 2/18/2013 4:13:32 AM

  • Dear hats off! - 2/17/2013 10:05:06 AM
    I agree with you. I may fight with him. I have said much bad to him but he returned good. He tolerated much so I will try to follow some of his advise.
    Same goes with Sutan saheb. I admire him for his extraordinary tolerance.
    Mr Ghulam Ghauss suggested a book. I downloaded it. Its Forward was enough for me. I wonder why Aala hazrat was not nominated for the Noble Prize. Why the scientific community is deprived of him?
    Soon I will post some part of it for  NAI readers in Islam and Science section. I think NAI should create a laughter sub section where we can enjoy Islamic Science.

    You know it is too dry to discuss the religious issues. So let us enjoy. Wait please.

    Good Night

    By rational - 2/17/2013 10:46:32 AM

  • to mr rational, i believe we must not bait mr muhammad yunus. he is trying to build bridges. i cannot say the same about many star commentators here.

    he has been most forthright and i would say has put in so much effort in deconstructing the terrorist narrative, that we all ought to pay more attention. it might save us from a suicide vest.

    some muslims burdened with a sense of superiority might flagellate him for "capitulating" to the liberal, but from the point of view of a skeptic forced to live among dangerously unreasonable believers (the momin as well as the kuffar), i would at anytime vote for mr muhammad yunus than any other momin on the forum.

    i am sure i would be safe in his caliphate even if i was an apostate. i cannot say the same about most of the other star believers on this forum.

    i think that's a lot, in my opinion. this is not yunus prasasti as some of the star commentators might immediately point out.

    better kind man prasasti than cruel god prasasti.

    By hats off! - 2/17/2013 10:05:06 AM

  • Dear muhammad yunus - 2/17/2013 7:16:27 AM
    Flogging of women for sex outside marriage stands brutal and Un-Islamic today.
    Let us agree with you for the moment.
    Are the people those who have capacity to implement the Sharia listening to you? Or the people who play with Sharia laws or formulate the sharia laws listening to you.
    Does our brother Mr Ghulam ghauss agree with you? Have read his views on women under Sharia in recent comment I am afraid he agrees with you. Do you agree with him a Muslim woman should not shake hands with na-mehram a non-muslim is out of question. He is nejas.

    Have you guessed how many Muslims including one rightly guided jamat are with you?

    By rational - 2/17/2013 7:55:16 AM

  • Dear Muhammad Yunus
    I agree I must not ridicule the prophet.
    You quote Thomas Arnold. If I quote the same person on the Quran, will you agree. Why so much selective quoting?
    I remember once I asked your favorites you told Mohammed Asad, Karen Armstrong and one more. Once I quoted one full paragraph on the prophet from the Karen Armstron. One of our star commentator rebuked me.
    What is this?

    By rational - 2/17/2013 7:41:40 AM

  • Dear hats off,

    On the theme of adultery, my article referenced below concludes as follows: 

    Conclusion: There can be no doubt whatsoever that the punishment of stoning to death for adultery is NOT prescribed by, or derived from the Qur’an. The Qur’an prescribed flogging for zina – institutionalized public adultery as an emergency measure, as the custom stood in the way of the Qur’anic family laws. It, however, enables a woman committing adultery (nushuz) without leaving witnesses to avert punishment by simply taking an oath of innocence (24:8/9). In the same token, an unwedded woman bearing a child may be exempted from punishment by repeatedly affirming (under oath) that she was betrayed by a man who had pledged to marry her, as typically happens, or sexually abused or assaulted, while the man who has impregnated her should be liable to punishment depending upon the severity of his sexual offence – whether rape or betrayal of trust – the former defilement of what God venerates (4:1) and decrees to be guarded (4:34), and the latter, a violation of God’s covenant (2:177, 6:152, 23:8, 70:32). The Muslim jurists have to act and create a modern Sharia in line with the Qur’anic paradigms – the divine Shar‘iah as expounded in this paper. 

    In sum, the literalist application of a context specific emergency law (public flogging, mainly the women bearing its brunt) tailored to the pre-Islamic realities of seventh century Arabia for all time and all places transforms the specific into the generic, disregards the Qur’anic mandate on legislative dynamism, overshadows its spirit of mercy and compassion, dilutes its profound concern for women, drains Islam of its beauty and nobility and thus stands brutal and un-Islamic today"

    Flogging of women for sex outside marriage stands brutal and Un-Islamic today.

    Comments if any may please be posted under the article and not in this thread to help others relate it with the the former.

    By muhammad yunus - 2/17/2013 7:16:27 AM

  • Dear GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/17/2013 12:38:28 AM
    Thanks for educating me.
    "The laws of Islam came to protect women's honour and modesty. Islam forbids women to wear clothes that are not modest and to travel without a mahram; it forbids a woman to shake hands with a non-mahram man. Islam encourages young men and women to marry early, and many other rulings which close the door to rape."

    I liked your honesty. Taliban give same reasons in their fatwas and when some throw the acid on their faces. These (women) desrve this treatment. Sharia also say if you have power to stop the evil you must use force.
    Thanks a lot my brother.

    By rational - 2/17/2013 5:58:22 AM

  • to mr ghulam ghaus, as far as i know, koran does not have any reference to stoning for adultery. it is from hadiths.

    By hats off! - 2/17/2013 1:04:45 AM

  • Rational sahib! says “My point is Allah is not able to control his viceroy on this earth. It happened, it is happening/ will happen. Religion has obtained partial success in controlling the lust at the cost of permissible  freedom. What sexual education is available to Muslim children except suppression of their questions. When talking on this topic is a shame, how can we educate our children on these valid issues at the time the sexual desire controls the mind of human most. Even a person like me not able to break this bondage. If there is slightest hint to educate the children first halla gulla will come from you”.
    My response is Allah is able to control his viceroy on this earth. Religion has restricted the lust of sexual freedom. Sexual education is given in the holy Quran and the Hadith. Allah does not feel shame in telling the mankind truth and righteousness.
    Allah says in Surah Baqarah 2:30, “And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels, "I am about to place My Caliph in the earth"; they said, "Will You place (as a caliph) one who will spread turmoil in it and shed blood? Whereas we glorify You with praise and proclaim Your Sanctity"; He said, "I know what you do not.”
    In this verse Allah almighty has already informed the mankind of good and evil.
    The mankind is suffering from probationary period, as Allah says in Surah Baqarah 2:36, “So the devil destabilised them in it and removed them from where they were - and We said, "Go down, one of you is an enemy to the other; and for a fixed time you shall stay on earth and feed in it."
    Allah almighty has also fixed the punishment for those who make mischief on the earth. Many verses of the holy Quran witness that. The punishment for rape in Islam is same as the punishment for zina, which is stoning if the perpetrator is married, and one hundred lashes and banishment for one year if he is not married.
    Islam gives education to men and women in order to save this crime. The laws of Islam came to protect women's honour and modesty. Islam forbids women to wear clothes that are not modest and to travel without a mahram; it forbids a woman to shake hands with a non-mahram man. Islam encourages young men and women to marry early, and many other rulings which close the door to rape.
    Allah says in the Quran {Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty} (Surat Al Noor <24:30-31>)
    By GHULAM GHAUS غلام غوث - 2/17/2013 12:38:28 AM

  • Mr Rational,  Now-a-days, many persons (the boys and girls), are just out of religious practices. Do you know what are they doing considering themselves free? Without marriage they are committing adultery, unlawful and sexual relations among themselves......GHULAM GHAUS
    You are right. Are not their incidents when girls under veil elope with their lovers? Don' they have illicit relations within close relatives and then go to doctors for abortion. Don't Imams and teachers in religious institutions commit sexual crimes? There are many reports but because they are respected people these reports are suppressed and the victims are threatened to save the Ummah from the shame. This goes with other religions too. If religion is such a nice thing why it is not able to control its deputies.
    Incest that is a crime today(Muslims have some different view) was only the way children of Hz Adam practiced to multiply their numbers. First murder was committed by the son of the Hz Adam none other than our ancestor and prophet.
    You can say incest was not a crime at that time but perfectly legal because it was the beginning of human race. May I ask if modesty is absolute or relative? Is truth absolute or relative? Why it was not crime then but now is? Was Allah different then or His taste was different then? Or Allah has evolved. Or mankind has evolved? You don't believe in evolution.
    Does Allah feel shame when he watch nude tribes?
    My point is Allah is not able to control his viceroy on this earth. It happened, it is happening/ will happen. Religion has obtained partial success in controlling the lust at the cost of permissible  freedom. What sexual education is available to Muslim children except suppression of their questions. When talking on this topic is a shame, how can we educate our children on these valid issues at the time the sexual desire controls the mind of human most. Even a person like me not able to break this bondage. If there is slightest hint to educate the children first halla gulla will come from you.
    Though this thread is not an appropriate for discussing sex based issues. But I want to raise this important issue. How Muslim children are exploited at the hands of Mullahs and Hakeems?
    How masturbation which is haram(Islamic view) but prevalent in the society?
    By rational - 2/15/2013 11:17:10 PM

  • Raihan Nezami - 2/14/2013 9:42:34 AM

    Thanks for so many complements. You have lost your zeal. So I will not address you and hope you will not do the same.
    Have a nice time.

    By rational - 2/14/2013 9:55:24 AM

  • Rational: Please don’t react to any of my comments as I have no such patience and knowledge to respond to you. You are really an eccentric and peculiar kind of person. With anyone you talk, you use deprecating language, abuse and hurt and involve them in useless talk with filthy language, finally, you too, get abused, then the talk is disrupted abruptly. That’s you.

    By Raihan Nezami - 2/14/2013 9:42:34 AM

  • Mr Raihan Nezami - 2/14/2013 8:57:39 AM
    gachi pakdi gayi kya? Were  not it you one who used to give me names alongwith your guru Sadaf.
    It is open to all. You never mentioned it is not for some particular person.
    By rational - 2/14/2013 9:07:42 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.