certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islam, Women and Feminism (12 May 2015 NewAgeIslam.Com)




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   100


  • Shahin Sb says: "But your insistence on using the urdu word, as it sounds more gross for us than the English word, is inexplicable".

     

    How he twists what I said?

     

    This is what I said protesting against the use of all three words (whore, prostitute and Randi):

     

     

    The title of the article creates an impression that Muslim society in India is highly incestuous and a woman is routinely raped by her husband, his friends, his brothers, his father and his grandfather!

     

    The woman is also not just a victim of sexual abuse  but a whore or prostitute or randi. The last expressions which was there earlier, appears to have been dropped. These words are not used for the victims of sexual abuse whether she is raped or gang raped but for a woman who is a willing partner for pecuniary benefit. It is Yunus Sb who has reduced Muslim women to the status of prostitute and the Indian Muslim  men to lascivious beasts who freely indulge in incest and wife swapping and the Indian Maulvis for  sanctifying these acts.

     


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/21/2015 3:06:26 AM



  • Mr Shahin,

    I did not say that all the three words were there together in the headline itself.  This is what I said "the woman is also not just a victim of sexual abuse but a whore or prostitute or randi." All three words were used in the article.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/21/2015 1:39:29 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    This is what Yunus Sb said:

    "Naseer Sahab,/ all those critical of the article 

    Where do you find the word with R you quoted in your comment. It is not there. You are again twisting my word......"

     

    Now you confirm that the "R" word was very much there and Yunus Sb was lying when he was implying that it was never there and that I was twisting his word.

     

    Not only me, but everyone else found the article in poor taste, with not a single commentator having anything positive to say about the article. I have however acknowledged that there are issues that are screaming for reform in my very first comment. Reform cannot however be achieved through the use of the hyperbole and to the over sensationalizing with imaginary situations to the point that it becomes a lie.  Ghulam Ghaus Sb was constrained to ask "Only Twelver Shias approve Muta, yet they do not believe in what you have said, “A woman can marry a son for a week, his father for the next week and his grandfather for the following week”. Please correct me if any Twlever Shias believe in what you have said."  

    Has Yunus Sb produced any evidence that any cleric has approved marriage disregarding the iddat period? He also retracted that Muta is a practice in India.

    A sensitive subject must be dealt with with sensitivity. The article is gross!

    When it comes to abusing, there are few who can match Yunus Sb. Let me correct you once again, I never abuse. 



    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/21/2015 1:27:12 AM



  • Dear Naseer Saheb, one of the items in my to-do list is responding to your insistent demand for discovering if Yunus Saheb got deleted an Urdu word in his article, in translation of the word “whore, ” after its publication. It is not unusual for writers, including perhaps you, though I am not sure, to suggest an improvement or correct a typo mistake after the publication of the article.  One writer used to invariably send a completely revised article after the publication, so we now invariably wait for him to revise after he has sent the first draft.

    I didn’t remember the situation in this case, so I asked Yunus Saheb, and he says he had suggested dropping the urdu word from the article, translating the word whore, immediately after publication, though we had taken some time in effecting the change. You may have seen the first draft, though you should take the final wordings as the final draft. But your insistence on using the urdu word, as it sounds more gross for us than the English word, is inexplicable.

    However, this does not allow you to twist his words into saying something entirely different. This would amount to slandering a Quran exegete of the stature of Yunus Saheb. For instance, you write: “The specific reason for my request was that I had written in my comment saying that for Yunus Sb, “the woman is also not just a victim of sexual abuse but a whore or prostitute or randi. The last expression which was there earlier appears to have been dropped.”

    Yunus Saheb had actually written: "All these customs under the ambit of the so-called Islamic Law – each of which blatantly contradicts the Qur’anic message, reduces a Muslims woman virtually to the position of a whore.”

     Indian clerics “reducing a woman to the position of a whore” and the woman being a whore [what you put as “the woman is also not just a victim of sexual abuse but a whore or prostitute or randi” ] are two different statements. It’s your contention that a woman victim is is a whore or prostitute or randi. that you are ascribing to Yunus Saheb.  This is not Yunus Saheb’s position. The very headline of his article says: “Indian Muslim Clerics Reduce Muslim Women To The Level Of Whore With Whom The Son, The Father, The Brother And The Friend Can Have Sex Within The Ambit Of Islamic Law.”

    Yunus Saheb is not willing to explain all this to you himself for fear of being abused and slandered and his words being twisted again. But I felt that I must not allow Yunus Saheb’s thoughts being twisted in this fashion and he being slandered.

    Your insistence on the use of urdu word for whore is truly bizarre. What purpose does this serve? You are a writer yourself and have a right to improve your write-ups and have second thoughts, though, of course, it would be much better for us if authors sent us revised and final documents, not requiring changes later.
     
    I wish you focussed on the crux of the article which lies in the words of Yunus saheb “in the monstrosity of the Sharia ruling under discussion which entails the legitimisation of the breaches of Qur’anic commandments relating to punishment for adultery, rape, prohibition of incest, time-frame for divorce, compensation to a divorced woman, her willingness to enter into a wedlock or choose her spouse. It exempts a rapist from the punishment for a major crime, dehumanises the rape victim by forcing her to swap the father-in-law for the son in wedlock, thereby becoming the mother of her erstwhile husband, and thus causes her enduring trauma and agony that simply cannot be captured in words. It also gives an unlimited power to a father-in-law who can, if he wishes, treat his daughter-in-law like a bondmaid slave or a mistress, having the power to break her marriage at will and take her into his own wedlock simply by raping her. It is socially most humiliating to the victim woman as in her society she will be singled out as an odd and condemned woman once a wife of a man and later of his father. The most grievous thing of all is the distortion of the meaning of a key Qur’anic verse for which the Hand of God may seize the advocates of this heinous ruling and its tacit supporters if any by their neck and cut their aorta off. Above all, in the backdrop of sexual mores of this era, appropriation of incestual rape in its present form grievously demonises Islam.”
        
    It would be best if you as an expert yourself commented on the body and contents of the article, rather than focusing on an urdu word he used initially then got us to delete.  Also, you should not twist his statement which blames the Sharia ruling as a definitive statement coming from him.

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/20/2015 11:02:28 PM



  • A simple request made three times before that can be answered by a yes or no remains unresponded. And yet Shahin Sb has the gall to say: 

    "Yunus Saheb has explained to me in a private mail why he has stopped interacting with you on that issue despite your allegations.  I would have liked him to continue debating the issue, but I cannot stop you from abusing him and I cannot ask him to grin and bear it like I do. That is a personal choice. "

    The request was as follows:

    Shahin/Yunus Sb,   I had requested both of you to list the changes made to the article since it first appeared but the request is not responded.

    The specific reason for my request was that I had written in my comment saying that for Yunus Sb,  “the woman is also not just a victim of sexual abuse but a whore or prostitute or randi. The last expression which was there earlier appears to have been dropped.

    While commenting itself I had noticed that the word ‘Randi” that had appeared the first day was changed to whore. The first day had all three words – whore, prostitute and randi. Now all these have been uniformly change to whore.

     To my surprise however, Yunus Sb asked me “where is the ‘R’ word?” and accused me of distorting what he said.

    I would therefore like the record to be put straight. Was the word Randi there or not there when the article first appeared?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/15/2015 5:58:03 AM


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/8/2015 11:53:36 AM



  • Rational,

    There is an article "Is the Quran a Book of Contradictions?". Incidentally, the question of intercession is answered in a comment under the article.

    You will have to come up with the best response to your own question before I answer your question.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/18/2015 11:46:44 AM



  • Naseer Saheb
    the right answer is the Quran if full of contradictions despite its claim of no contradiction. its challenge is challenged by itself.

    in which thread you want to continue?


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/18/2015 4:21:46 AM



  • Rational,

    Provide the best answer to your questions that you are capable of before I answer your questions.

    And choose the appropriate thread.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/18/2015 12:08:43 AM



  • Naseer Saheb
    your progressive revelation doesn't solve the problem of contradiction.


    Quran (31:15)
     
    "But if they strive (Jahada) to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration)..."

    Quran (9:23) 
    "O ye who believe! Take not protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above faith: If any of you do so, they do wrong"

    How the verse 9:23 is faith neutral?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/17/2015 10:59:25 PM



  • In continuation to contradiction in the Quran
    Further contradiction in the Quran:
    Intercession or no intercession?


     
    Sahih International
    And fear a Day when no soul will suffice for another soul at all, nor will intercession be accepted from it, nor will compensation be taken from it, nor will they be aided.


    Sahih International
    That Day, no intercession will benefit except [that of] one to whom the Most Merciful has given permission and has accepted his word.
    The way Naseer saheb eliminating the contradiction, no book including corrupt Bible and other holy books contain any contradiction.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/17/2015 12:42:48 AM



  • Shahin/Yunus Sb,   I had requested both of you to list the changes made to the article since it first appeared but the request is not responded.

    The specific reason for my request was that I had written in my comment saying that for Yunus Sb,  “the woman is also not just a victim of sexual abuse but a whore or prostitute or randi. The last expression which was there earlier appears to have been dropped.

    While commenting itself I had noticed that the word ‘Randi” that had appeared the first day was changed to whore. The first day had all three words – whore, prostitute and randi. Now all these have been uniformly change to whore.

     To my surprise however, Yunus Sb asked me “where is the ‘R’ word?” and accused me of distorting what he said.

    I would therefore like the record to be put straight. Was the word Randi there or not there when the article first appeared?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/15/2015 5:58:03 AM



  • Rational,

    We have discussed 9:29 before. Go back to the same thread if you want to continue that discussion and don't use wrong threads. You have covered the discussion on this article under so many comments that are irrelevant to the article helping the author to evade answering the questions that he has been asked.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/15/2015 5:16:17 AM



  • 9:29

    no words can hide what Allah said in the verse.
    there is no word to qualify the to make it specific.
    why to go to other verses when we have clear command to fight against believers.
    Beside that Muslims believe in universality of the Quran, Muslims have applied and are applying these verses. these verses are recited to those Muslims who are fighting under the command of ISIS.
    those who are not doing so, may apply when the need will demand.
    How could Afghanis drive out the Soviet? who gave tme strength to fight for Afghanistan ans in fact for USA?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/15/2015 4:38:54 AM



  • Naseer Saheb
    though one contradiction is enough but i have posted more than one.
    you will not accept because the Quran is foundation of Islam and no Muslim will like to destroy this foundation.
    For that they invented abrogation, interpretation and out of context tools. you have invented one more tool to define the central theme of the Quran.
    for what? to make it peaceful, to make it inclusive, to make it logical.
    it is you are trying to do and Muslims are not giving ears to it.
    for that Muslims including you slandered the translators, mufassireens, muhadditheen mujaddids etc.
    all were slaughters at the altar of the contradictory, unclear supposedly speech of God.
    if unclarity, errors and contradictions become attributes then nothing can be said, because that wil;l not accepted despite obvious facts.

    for time being these are enough. it will come up time to time.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/15/2015 4:28:58 AM



  • an open violation of fundamental of Islam " la nufarriqu mim baina ahdim minhum"

    An open case of contradiction.

    2:253
    Of those messengers, some of whom We have caused to excel others, and of whom there are some unto whom Allah spake, while some of them He exalted (above others) in degree.
    2:285
    We make no distinction between any of His messengers.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/15/2015 3:52:07 AM



  • Allah has faulty memory. here is the proof
    3:124, 126
    When thou didst say unto the believers: Is it not sufficient for you that your Lord should support you with three thousand angels sent down (to your help)? ...
    Allah ordained this only as a message of good cheer for you, and that thereby your hearts might be at rest - Victory cometh only from Allah, the Mighty, the Wise.
    8:9-10
    When ye sought help of your Lord and He answered you (saying): I will help you with a thousand of the angels, rank on rank. Allah appointed it only as good tidings, and that your hearts thereby might be at rest. Victory cometh only by the help of Allah. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise.

    an open case of contradiction and faulty memory.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/15/2015 3:48:53 AM



  • Naseer saheb,     what is apparent from so many varied translations is that the book has created confusion to them.
    Why should i go for your translation not of others whose scholarship you can't challenge?
    From your arguments all are wrong only you right. this is the bad score of the Quran despite a claim of clarity.
    there may be some variation in understanding of the scholars but should they have diametrically opposite conclusions on almost every verse or important issue.
    why  difference on the core themes?
    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/15/2015 3:43:37 AM



  • Naseer Saheb
    10:64
    There is no changing the Words of Allah.
    But here is proof of abrogation
    2:106Sahih Internationa
    We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?
    Muhsin Khan
    Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?
    Pickthall
    Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?
    Yusuf Ali
    None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?
    Shakir
    Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?
    16:101
    Sahih International
    And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know.
    what is it if not abrogation? or do you accept some verses and reject some?
    All Scholars of Islam ancient and recent accept few believe in abrogation because otherwise they can't resolve contradiction.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/15/2015 3:36:06 AM



  • Naseer saheb
    no matter how much you reject contradiction but there is a contradiction.
    you have strong reason to not accept contradiction. for that you will play with words.
    Another contradiction:
    "No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things."
    "I swear by the star when it goes down.Your companion does not err, nor does he go astray; Nor does he speak out of desire. It is naught but revelation that is revealed, The Lord of Mighty Power has taught him, The Lord of Strength; so he attained completion, And he is in the highest part of the horizon. Then he drew near, then he bowed. So he was the measure of two bows or closer still. And He revealed to His servant what He revealed. The heart was not untrue in (making him see) what he saw. What! do you then dispute with him as to what he saw? And certainly he saw him in another descent, At the farthest lote-tree; Near which is the garden, the place to be resorted to. When that which covers covered the lote-tree; The eye did not turn aside, nor did it exceed the limit. Certainly he saw of the greatest signs of his Lord.
    Hadith
    Narrated AbdurRahman ibn A’ish
    Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I saw my Lord, the Exalted and Glorious in the most beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed HIS PALM between my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: ‘Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.’(6:75)
    in one verse God telling nobody can see Him.
    In other verses the prophet saw him.
    Hadith also supports that prophet saw him
    this the contradiction within the Quran.
    Some Muslims claim that the prophet saw archangel Gabriel.
    but it is invented to resolve the contradiction within the Quran.
    the description doesn't fit on  archangel Gabriel.
    Either Aisha was wrong in saying the prophet didn't see the Lord or Ibn Abbas was wrong who said the prophet saw Lord.
    If the Quran were a clear book why it divided companions in two groups?
    Allah could speak in clear words. who stopped him to name Gabriel if he was the companion of the prophet in above quoted verses.
    Allah's speech(if it is) opened the doors of confusion among the believers.
    I am stating what is in the Quran and Hadith. it shows a big contradiction on which companions were divided. 
    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/15/2015 3:19:13 AM



  • Naseer saheb
     will you ever agree? never.
    you are just repeating what you have said multiple time. don't do what you don't like from others. keep your words.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/15/2015 2:45:14 AM



  • Rational,

    You have proved nothing. You can take any of the 6000 verses and 40 translations of it and go around in circles. It is immaterial which verse you take. You may take "BismillahiRehmaniRahim itself and take 40 translations and find variations and keep arguing about them. 

    What is clear to me is that people do not make a distinction between  sin and sinner or between kufr and kafir.

    While the Quran is unequivocal about the unforgivable sin or kufr of 'shirk', this does not imply that it condemns the born `mushrik'. People (past and present) are so greatly influenced by the many strong verses in the Quran against 'shirk' that they automatically consider all 'mushrik' as kafir. This is a very common human failure.

    God has not failed since God did not consider all 'mushrik' as kafir even 20 years after the prophetic mission of Muhammad when Mecca was conquered by the Muslims. God could not have made His point clearer. Do not blame God for human failure because when you do so, you only prevent humans from correcting their error.

    Humans are blinded by their thinking even though they have no argument against what I say. 

    Imam Ghazali very tentatively says that past generations to whom no messenger was sent may be embraced by the Divine Mercy, and after a brief spell (a moment, an hour, a day, few days) in Hell, will be admitted to Heaven. Notice that he does not include generations after Muhammad (pbuh) in this category and he does not totally exempt them from a brief spell in Hell even if it is only for a moment. That is how strong is the effect of conditioning. The Quran conditions a believer against the kufr of  'shirk' but unfortunately, this conditioning makes a Muslim  judge the born 'Mushrik' automatically as 'kafir', which is not the intention of the Quran. Ulema tend to be conservative and take conservative views. Taqwa, to them means conservatism and even bigotry. Some of the Sufis broke this hold of conservatism but unfortunately, instead of finding their answers in the Quran, subscribed to the philosophies from other cultures of Wahdatul Wujood and Sulh-e- kul which are rejected by the non-Sufis. Had they found their answers in the Quran, their impact on Muslim thinking would have been great and their following almost 100%.

    There are verses in the Quran that apply to all "kafir". There are verses like 98:6 and a host of others that apply to only those displaying the "kufr" which is the subject of the verse. Uniformly translating "kafir" as "Unbeliever"  then makes all unbelievers "the worst of creatures" going by 98:6 and all "believers" as "the best of creatures" going by 98:7 which is sheer nonsense.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/15/2015 12:29:21 AM



  • Naseer saheb 
    Why should I go to other verse if I have this one as you don't want to go to this verse? I have no reasons to leave this verse which is a clear command to Muslims.
    By inventing new definition of kufr and shirk you are rendering all translators of repute under the sky in 1400 years wrong, misguided. It is itself testimony against the Quran's claim that it is in clear Arabic easy to understand.
    No I don't need to go anywhere. 
    The Quran says it is a guide to believers and muttaqeen. Shall I conclude the Quran could not guide muttaqeen or none was muttaqi.
    I will proceed to next contradiction. No need to beat it again and again.
    The Quran fails to deliver its message to scholars in 1400 years. Anyone who doesn't take your new tool is wrong, misguided. What can be a more serious blow on the Quran and Muslims than this.
    Silence of muslims on a Muslim site determined to reform leaves you alone with your breakthrough discovery. You can erect one more sect.
    I have adequately proved my point from the Quran not quoting any islamophobe or enemy of Islam.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/14/2015 8:19:22 PM



  • Rational,

    Why did you have to take any other verse when we have 98:6 on which we had so much discussion? Just because people differ on it does not make the Quran a Book of contradictions. I have discussed the verse both from the linguistic perspective as well as relating it with the complete Surah and also verses from other Surahs and yet some people will close their eyes and shut their ears to it. How is this a fault of the Quran?

    My understanding of Kufr and Shirk does not lead to a single contradiction. Any other understanding will lead to contradictions.

    Imam Ghazali expressed  an opinion whichYusuf Hamza described  as "astonishing" saying that  the Mushrikin to whom the "message" has not reached will also be embraced by the divine Grace and Mercy. Have I not established the same without leaving room for doubt with strong evidence from the Quran in the most straight forward and matter of fact manner in part3 of my article "Who is a Kafir"? So, why do I have to worry about what other translators/ scholars say when God has given me the ability to know when any translator is right or wrong? Have I not discussed in some detail the kind of errors Muhammad Asad routinely makes and the kind of errors Yusuf Ali routinely makes and especially how every translators mistranslates by taking a fixed meaning of kafir when it is anything but fixed? And almost every scholar including Yusuf Hamza, Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Asad often translate Mushrik as idolater. 

    Rational, you can take 40 translations and keep going around in circles. The fact that people differ does not make any difference to me since I can make my choice based on my own criteria and my own researched, tried and tested conceptual frameworks for understanding the Quran. My internal test of accuracy is that my understanding does not lead to a single contradiction and I do not consider any verse as abrogated. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/14/2015 2:09:30 PM



  • Due to this classical Sharia uncounted Muslim women were deprived of rights and dignity. Who is at fault?
    Why Allah failed to guide classical Islamic scholars?
    He took thousands of years to send the guide. but what kind of guidance? which can be interpreted in any way one likes. Allah if is there, is a total failure in guiding the people.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/14/2015 12:11:32 PM



  • Naseer saheb
    copy to Sultan saheb in continuation of my previous comment to you
    i couldn't download the book you mentioned. it showed download, but it couldn't open. Still i am trying.
    i searched Jerald F. Dirks a convert to Islam hence darling of Muslims. you gave him weight because he is a convert from Christianity.  for you it is an example of truth of Islam. Naturally he is darling of you because he must have told that the Bible is no more intact book, full of contradictions etc.
    if more tham 1.5 billions of Christians can believe in a corrupt book as infallible word of God, full of miracles mathematical and scientific, true guide etc, why near 1.5 billion of Muslims can not believe in a book which is not clear despite its claim.
    Will you give some thoughts to Abdullah bin, abi sarah, Ali Dashti, Amar khan, anwar saikh, syed abul qasim, ali sina and syed kamran mirza who left islam because of the Quran.
    Is not Islam like political ideology. his traitor my loyal. his enemy my friend.
    not only this many scientists who supposedly found scientific miracles in the Qur'an didn't believe in the Quran.
    what else you need to believe in the Quran? if you find truth in the Quran but not in bible why you don't leave the Bible and accept Islam
    Muslims have answer for this too. that is it allah's mercy he wants to bestow upon he likes.
    can somebody explain why a Muslim will leave the Quran if it is truth? and why Islam prescribes the death sentence to apostate?
    Like billions of people believe in roman mythology, christian mythology, hindu mythology and so many other mythologies which are untruth to Islam, Muslims believe in the Quran. Billion of Muslims believe in Ahadith which are to some Muslims are illogical, unscietific, inhuman, insult to the prophet, some of them contradictory to the Quran.
    For belief nothig is required. Muslims believe in the Qran not because they understand it, but they are forced to believe because they are born Muslims.
    if i count thousand contradictions, errors you will not leave believing in the Quran like GRD and GG will not leave believing in ahadith no matter what some moderates say and prove.
    it is all systematic conditioning, brainwashing of people which make people believe in anything no matter  how it is absurd.

    when Muslims found contradiction they invented, abrogation and reinterpretation.
    when the Quran is a clear guide book, why it needed abrogation and interpretation.
     
    these all moderates are telling that we must not rely on literal meaning. why should not? what they want to achieve from it?
    you say interpretation is not needed at all. literal meanings are just fine.

    translators are blamed for wrong translations. interpretation is blamed.
    this all khtaraag is to cover the errors and contradictions of the miraculous guide book from all-knowing Allah.
    • There is no Compulsion in religion…. [Quran-2:256]

    9:29
    • Fight those who do not profess the true faith (Islam) till they pay  the polltax (jiziya) with the hand of humility. [Quran-9:29]
    Sahih International
    Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
    Muhsin Khan
    Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
    Pickthall
    Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
    Yusuf Ali
    Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
    Translations are from reputed Islamic scholars not from airaghaira nathhu khaira.
    you invented new definition of the kufr and shirk. why should we take your translation which is alien to Muslims?
    Now you can twist anything to achieve your cherished belief like submitters twist verses of the Quran to achieve miracle of 19 in the Qur'an.
    for me this contradiction is enough though there are numerous.
    Why abrogation, why interpretation, why refusal to Hadith, why context????

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/14/2015 11:59:38 AM



  • secularlogic, you are right. it takes sometime.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/14/2015 11:05:37 AM



  • Mr Dumbo,
    The proof in the Quran was further elaborated in the next comment which precedes your silly Queen of England comment as follows:
    Rational,
    Every mathematical or scientific proposition can be disproved with one counter example.
    The Quran challenges you to find a contradiction or a discrepancy. Take up this challenge to prove that there is a contradiction or a discrepancy.
    As far as the signs that it is a divine book is concerned, there are numerous signs. Read my article on the Prophetic mission of Muhaamad (pbuh) and how seemingly impossible predictions made when the number of Muslims were only 3 come true. 
    The oft repeated description of the Messenger as a warner and a bearer of glad tidings is also proved against all odds. 
    A doubter can keep on doubting because that is how Allah has made human nature. The Meccans kept on doubting until they lost everything. A person who is losing will either course correct early or never. After a point, he has invested too much to care anymore and would rather lose everything than salvage what he can. If you want to read some serious stuff on this aspect of human psychology, I can suggest a book.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/6/2015 1:06:18 PM
    No why do I have to post this once again? Because you just don't get it dumbo!
    Now tell me how does your "Queen of England" comment make any sense?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/14/2015 10:35:05 AM



  • As anybody can see, there was no reason to assume that I was suddenly declaring myself Gay. Mr Observer was being deliberately offensive by playing on the word Queen. I am tempted to call him names at this point, but shall abstain. 
    By secularlogic - 5/14/2015 10:00:21 AM



    • "I have no need for any hadith to believe that the Quran is the Word of  God and not of Muhammad (pbuh). The Quran states this in so many words. 

      The proof that the Quran is a book of revelations is in the Quran itself. The Quran provides several tests to prove its authenticity as the Word of God. The mushrikin of Mecca asked the same question and the Quran provides the answer. Imagine responding to them with the word of Ayesha (RA) or even the word of the Prophet (pbuh) himself! Of course the unimpeachable and pure character of the Prophet and his word should have been good enough but the people called him a madman though  not a liar which means that they still held his word in high regard.

      Why do we believe a hadith but not the Word of God in the Quran?
      By Observer - 3/25/2015 2:54:55 AM"
    • Thank you for your directions, Mr Ahmad. With your help, I was able to locate this pearl of wisdom from you. " the proof that Quran is a book of revelations is in the Quran itself" and " "I have no need for any hadith to believe that the Quran is the Word of  God and not of Muhammad (pbuh). The Quran states this in so many words."
    • This is the same logic as " I am the queen of England because I say I am the queen of England"

    By secularlogic - 5/14/2015 9:56:41 AM



  • Mr Naseer, Dumbo? @ Rational, please note. Mr Ahmad is very much a name caller. 
    Point proven. 

    By secularlogic - 5/14/2015 9:45:27 AM



  • Ok mr dumbo. Just type "queen of England" in the search function it will first search the articles and return nothing. Use the drop down box to choose comments. It will show you all the comments where this appears. Choose the comment where you first used.

    Click on view the article. It will take yup to the article.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/14/2015 9:29:38 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    Why is it that I can provide you the link but you cannot find it yourself if you are not dumb?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/14/2015 9:25:28 AM



  • "Secular Logic,
    The sum total of Secular Logic is that let alone being logical, his comprehension is very poor. He is either dumb, or pretends to be, when it suits him."
    What I comprehend from this comment is 
    1. Somebody way saying Mr Ahmed is not a name caller. He just called me dumb. So if you corner him, he does call names.
    2. He is avoiding giving me the link to the entire conversation. I requested this so I could check for myself what actually transpired on that thread
    3. He is also avoiding explaining to me what was so outrageous about my statement that "I am the Queen of England because I declare myself the Queen of England" that it provoked him to use the word 'queen' to declare me a homosexual. Or was it just his poor comprehension of idiomatic English? 
    Mr Ahmed, give me the link to that conversation. Clearly, you have it since you have picked up one comment from there.

    By secularlogic - 5/14/2015 9:16:46 AM



  • Mr Yunus conveniently avoids commenting on this part of what GG sb said:

    "Only Twelver Shias approve Muta, yet they do not believe in what you have said, “A woman can marry a son for a week, his father for the next week and his grandfather for the following week”. Please correct me if any Twlever Shias believe in what you have said." 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/14/2015 8:39:43 AM



  • Dear Ghulam Ghaus Sahab,
     When did I say that a Sunni cleric approved of Mutah. Kindly read my exact wording in the article:
     " Yet another example is the Muta marriage, whereby a woman can marry a son for a week, his father for the next week and his grandfather for the following week."
    This is indeed a part of the broader sharia of Islam as is stoning to death for adultery though I fully agree with you that none of these is upheld by Sunni Muslim clerics in India. The reference to Mutah in the article is only subsidiary, technically ‘non-material argument’ and now that you have raised objection, I will get it deleted from the article.
    The crux of the article lies in monstrosity of the Sharia ruling under discussion which entails the legitimization of the breaches of Qur’anic commandments relating to punishment for adultery, rape, prohibition of incest, time-frame for divorce, compensation to a divorced woman, her willingness to enter into a wedlock or choose her spouse. It also exempts a rapist from the punishment for a major crime, dehumanizes the rape victim by forcing her to swap the father-in-law for the son in wedlock, thereby becoming the mother of her erstwhile husband. This causes enduring trauma, and agony that simply cannot be captured in words. It also gives an unlimited power to a father-in-law who can, if he wishes, treat his daughter-in-law like a bondmaid slave or a mistress, having the power to break her marriage at will and take her into his own wedlock simply by raping her. It is socially most humiliating to the victim woman as in her society she will be singled out as an odd and condemned woman once a wife of a man and later of his father. The most grievous thing of all is the distortion of the meaning of a key Qur’anic verse for which the Hand of God may seize the advocates of this heinous ruling by their neck and cut their aorta off. Above all, in the backdrop of sexual mores of this era, appropriation of incestual rape in its present form demonizes Islam as a sexually perverted cult As one committed to protest any demonization of Islam, the author has done this article and removed a subsidiary argument re Muta marriage as it is unlawful in Sunni Islam – though in the article, the reference to this custom was not sect-specific.
    By muhammad yunus - 5/14/2015 8:33:39 AM



  • Secular Logic,
    The sum total of Secular Logic is that let alone being logical, his comprehension is very poor. He is either dumb, or pretends to be, when it suits him.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/14/2015 8:30:28 AM



  • Shahin/Yunus Sb,
    Please list the changes made to the article since it first appeared. I find that there are words that have been substituted etc. 
    All changes to the  article once it has appeared, must be transparently made especially while it is still being debated/discussed.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/14/2015 8:25:56 AM



  • Shahin/Yunus Sb,

    Please list the changes made to the article since it first appeared. I find that there are words that have been substituted etc. 

    All changes to the the article once it has appeared, must be transparently made while it is still being debated/discussed.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/14/2015 8:24:18 AM



  • Quoting of exact words is not necessary. The sum total of what you say is that the proof of Mohammad being the prophet of God is that Mohammad says he was the prophet of God. The proof of the Quran being a divine revelation is that Mohammad says it is a divine revelation. Please provide me a link to the place where this conversation happened so I can go there and see for myself what sparked my comment. 

    You have not answered what was so outrageous about " I am the Queen of England because I declare myself the Queen of England" that made you make that logical, yet a meant to offend comment about my sexual orientation? 

    By secularlogic - 5/14/2015 8:11:24 AM



  • Secular Logic,
    If you think I said those words then quote the exact words just like I quoted your exact words on the claim of being Queen of England.
    Sigh! You will never do that and expose yourself.
    So let me reproduce what I said and nail your lie.
    • Rational,

      Every mathematical or scientific proposition can be disproved with one counter example.

      The Quran challenges you to find a contradiction or a discrepancy. Take up this challenge to prove that there is a contradiction or a discrepancy.

      As far as the signs that it is a divine book is concerned, there are numerous signs. Read my article on the Prophetic mission of Muhaamad (pbuh) and how seemingly impossible predictions made when the number of Muslims were only 3 come true. 

      The oft repeated description of the Messenger as a warner and a bearer of glad tidings is also proved against all odds. 

      A doubter can keep on doubting because that is how Allah has made human nature. The Meccans kept on doubting until they lost everything. A person who is losing will either course correct early or never. After a point, he has invested too much to care anymore and would rather lose everything than salvage what he can. If you want to read some serious stuff on this aspect of human psychology, I can suggest a book.

      By Naseer Ahmed - 4/6/2015 1:06:18 PM

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/14/2015 7:57:55 AM



  • Sigh. Since you are determined to continue this let me test my stamina:

    "I didn't say either of these two things and neither was there a conversation going on with you."

    You did say the former. Dont you think the Quran is the word of God because Muhammad/the Quran says it is the word of God? Who cares whether the conversation is going on with me? If I find a fallacy in an argument I will point it out, no matter who is talking to whom.

    "The problem is that you jump into another conversation without properly reading/understanding what is being said and why."

    Oh I read everything and I understand everything and why it is being said. If you think otherwise, it is your problem, not mine.

    " It is best to keep out of other peoples conversation  or start with a polite question or two to get your understanding right before you say anything that amounts to criticism."

    I will interject into other people's conversation when I want to. I have already said that I make my statements in full knowledge and understanding. They may ignore me or respond, that is their prerogative. That is the way of the social internet. This is not some court of Aurangzeb that I have to seek permission to talk. Of course, the expectation is that they will respond like civilised human beings. 

    "Else, you will always say something that the other person finds outrageous and you will end up getting a sharp response."

    I have no problem with sharp responses. I only have a problem with uncivilised and deliberately uncouth responses. Your response to the Queen statement was such. What was so outrageous about "I am the queen of England because I declare myself the Queen of England" to you, that you were prompted to call me homosexual? Again, I don't mind. In fact, i find it quite shocking that an IIT engineer should speak to others thus. But it was bad argument, it was a sly and deliberate misuse of words and it strengthens my argument that you use the ambiguities in the text of the Quran to cover up its many sins against mankind. 


    By secularlogic - 5/14/2015 5:37:00 AM



  • Dear Secularlogic
    i know where i agree with NA and where i don't. for example i never agreed that the truth was established by just saying
    "i am the prophet and this is the book revealed on me".
    what generally i say is what religious books and religious scholars say.
    i was put under extreme pressure but i never gave up.
    if i say God/Bhagwan/Allah said so and so it is because i read it in books not that i believe in it.

    in religious debates often personal slandering is common.

    as i have said earlier NA saheb had been most tolerant compared  to others.
    Severest were Sadaf, GM, mohammed yunus and Sultan Shahin who spoke in tune of GM. but nobody could deter me.
    However i must lift myself above all this. let them say whatever they want to say.

    i believe they need more professional psychological advice than me.

    continue your posting of comments.
    i often visit Hindu and Christian sites and read similar heated comments from readers.
    intolerance is inherent property  of monotheism. and you are dealing with strict monotheism.
    at least commentators on NAI use rarely slang abusing words.

    Stay and be happy. if you expect such behavior, you will feel less hurt.
    we can give back what we receive.
     

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/14/2015 4:55:10 AM



  • Mr Muhammad Yunus, you said in this article, “A woman can marry a son for a week, his father for the next week and his grandfather for the following week”.

    I have never heard such a thing before, never from any Islamic scholars. If, according to you, any Indian Muslim cleric has supported and allowed such a brazenly un-islamic thing, you should have given the name of that cleric. To the best of my knowledge, all Sunni Muslims, whether they are Indians or non-Indians, classify Muta as forbidden.

    Only Twelver Shias approve Muta, yet they do not believe in what you have said, “A woman can marry a son for a week, his father for the next week and his grandfather for the following week”. Please correct me if any Twlever Shias believe in what you have said. 


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/14/2015 4:10:44 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    You say: "you had said earlier in the thread that Quran is the word of God because the Quran itself says so. Or Mohammad is the messenger of god because Mohammad himself has declared so - one of the two"

    I didn't say either of these two things and neither was there a conversation going on with you. The problem is that you jump into another conversation without properly reading/understanding what is being said and why. It is best to keep out of other peoples conversation  or start with a polite question or two to get your understanding right before you say anything that amounts to criticism. Else, you will always say something that the other person finds outrageous and you will end up getting a sharp response.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/14/2015 4:08:54 AM



  • To the best of my knowledge, Mutah is classified as forbidden among all Sunni Muslims, Indians or non-Indians, as well as the Isamaili and Zaidi Shias, the oldest branch of the Shia who do not practice Mutah marriage. However,  Athana Asheri, the Twelver Shia do not accord value to the argument that the Mutah is immoral because, according to them, it can be used to hide prostitution.

    In the Sahih al-Bukhari, Mutah marriage is classed as forbidden because Ali bin Abi Talib  radiallah anhu said that he heard Muhammad (peace be upon him)  say that it is forbidden. As narrated by 'Ali bin Abi Talib: "On the day of khaibar, Allah's Apostle forbade the Mut'a (i.e. temporary marriage) and the eating of donkey-meat." Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 527

     In another text, Sahih al-Bukhari (Volume 9, Book 86, Number 91), Ali bin Abi Talib also said that it (mutah) was forbidden.

    Many early Shia texts also state that Ali radiallah anhu said Mutah marriage was forbidden and for this reason the Zaidi Shia, the oldest branch of the Shia do not practice Mutah marriage.

    Shia books like Tahdeeb: vol. 7, pg. 251, rewaya 10 and Istebsar: vol. 3, pg. 142, rewaya 5 also said that Ali radiallah anhu said that Mutah marriage was forbidden because Muhammad peace be upon him told him.

    Other early Shia books also recorded that Imam Baqir rahimahullah forbade Mutah Marriage 'Tahdeeb al Ahkam' and 'Furu al Kafi':Pp476.V2/Pp34.V5 and there was no recorded case of it in the family of Hadhrat Ali radiallahuanhu.

    Like Sunni Muslims and Indian clerics, The Zaidi and Ismaili Shias also reject the Muta (temporary marriage)

    In many early books of the Zaidi Shias like Mujmoo Imam Ali Pp 498 V112. 2), Hadiths narrated by Ali bin Abi Talib state:

    "Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) forbade the Mutah (temporary marriage) in the year of Khaybar." Please see the book “Mujmoo Imam Ali Pp 499 V112. 3”

    Ali bin Abi Talib radiallahuanhu said to a man who was engaging in Mutah: "You are a straying person,  the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) has forbidden temporary marriage (Mutah)”

    Please see the book “Mujmoo Imam Ali Pp 498 V112. 2) Narrated Ali, Mujmoo Imam Ali, From Imam Ali to Imam Hasan & Imam Hussain then Narrated to Imam Zian Ul Abideen to Imam Zaid bin Zian Ul Abideen.Pp 503 V112. Classified all above Zaidites narration as Mutawathar [Highly Authentic] By Imam Ziad bin Zian Ul Abideen in his Majmoo tul Biyan Pp212 V18”

    The Zaidi and Ismaili shias rejected all claims made by Athana Asheri, The Twelver Shia about Mutah legality and class text that try to justify it as fabrications.

    The Zaidi and Ismaili Shias argue that it is reported from Imam Ja’fat Sadiq rahimahullah to Imam Ismail al-Mubarak that these texts are fornication and that it is adultery (zina bil raza).  Please see the book;  “Kitabul Mola. Pp 414.V21”

    According to the Zaidi and Ismaaili Shias, the Hadiths banning Mutah are classified as Mutawatir hadith (A technical term which is used in sciences of Hadith to describe highly authentic hadith). Please see the book:  “Irshad Ul Imam.Pp112, V11. Darajat Ul AL Imam Azam Imam Ismail bin Imam Jaffar ul Sadaq rahimahullah.Pp421.V23”

    To the best of my knowledge, all Sunni Muslims and the Zaidi and Ismaili Shias, whether they are Indians or non-Indians, classify Muta (temporary marriage) as forbidden.

     

    I am quoting a sunni Islamic Scholar and Mufti who has given a very brief detail about Mutah in Urdu, arguing that Mutah is forbidden in Islam.  

    علماء کا اتفاق ہے کہ جنگ خیبر سے پہلے متعہ حلال تھا پھر جنگ خیبر کے موقع پر متعہ حرام کر دیا گیا۔ پھر فتح مکہ کے موقع پر تین دن کے لیے متعہ حلال کر دیا کیا گیا اور اس کے بعد اس کو دائما حرام قرار دیا گیا۔

    متعہ کو حضرت عمر فاروق رضی اللہ عنہ نے حرام قرار نہیں دیا اور نہ ہی آپ کا یہ منصب تھا بلکہ آپ نے متعہ کی حرمت کو واضح کیا تھا۔ کسی بھی حدیث میں یہ نہیں ہے کہ وطن میں متعہ کی اجازت دی گئی ہو۔ بلکہ جنگ کے ایام میں سخت گرمی کی وجہ سے اس کو حلال کیا گیا صحابہ کرام رضی اللہ عنہم کے لیے بغیر بیویوں کے ان سخت گرم علاقوں میں رہنا مشکل تھا۔ اس لیے مباح قرار دیا گیا تھالیکن اس کے بعد فتح مکہ کے موقع پر قیامت تک کے لیے حرام قرار دیا گیا تھا۔

    حضرت ابو ہریرہ رضی اللہ عنہ سے مروی ہے کہ ہم حضور صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم کے ساتھ غزوہ تبوک میں گئے ہم تثنیۃ الوداع پر اترے تو حضور صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم کے چراغوں کو دیکھا اور عورتوں کو روتے ہوئے دیکھا تو آپ صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم نے پوچھا یہ کیا ہے؟ بتایا گیا کہ یہ وہ عورتیں ہیں جن سے متعہ کیا گیا تھااور وہ رو رہی ہیں آپ صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم نے فرمایا۔ نکاح، طلاق، عدت، اور میراث نے متعہ کو حرام کر دیا ہے۔

    مسند ابو يعلی، رقم الحديث: 6594

    حضرت علی رضی اللہ عنہ بیان کرتے ہیں کہ حضور صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم نے غزوہ خیبر کے دن عورتوں سے متعہ اور پالتو گدھوں کے گوشت کو حرام کر دیا

    صحيح بخاری، حديث نمبر: 4216

    صحيح مسلم، حديث نمبر: 1407

    قرآن و حدیث میں نکاح متعہ کا کہیں ذکر نہیں ملتا۔ متعہ خود حضور صلی اللہ علیہ وآّلہ وسلم نے حرام قرار دے دیا۔ لہذا اب اگر کوئی یہ کہے کہ متعہ حلال و جائز ہے یہ کلام اور ہے۔ اللہ تعالی نے ارشاد فرمایا

     فَانكِحُواْ مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاءِ مَثْنَى وَثُلاَثَ وَرُبَاعَ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ

    (النساء 4 : 03)

    جو عورتیں تم کو پسند ہیں ان سے نکاح کرو دو دو سے تین تین سے اور چار چار سے اور اگر تمہیں یہ خدشہ ہو کہ ان کے درمیان انصاف نہیں کر سکو گے تو صرف ایک نکاح کرو یا اپنی کنیزوں پر اکتفا کرو۔

    اللہ تعالی نے قضاء شہوت کی صرف دو جائز صورتیں بیان فرمائی ہیں۔ ایک سے چار بیویوں تک نکاح کر سکتے ہیں یا پھر اپنی باندیوں سے نفسانی خواہش پوری کر سکتے ہیں اور بس۔ اگر متعہ بھی قضاء شہوت کی جائز شکل ہوتا تو اللہ تعالی اس کا بھی ان دو صورتوں کے ساتھ ذکر فرماتا۔ اس جگہ متعہ کا بیان نہ کرنا اس بات کی دلیل ہے کہ وہ جائز نہیں۔ اوائل اسلام سے لےکر فتح مکہ تک متعہ کی جو شکل معمول اور مباح تھی اس آیت کے ذریعے اس کو منسوخ کر دیا گیا۔یہ ایک واضح حقیقت ہے کہ متعہ میں صرف عیاشی ہے اس میں نہ تو مرد پر عورت کے لیے نان و نفقہ ہوتا ہے اور نہ طلاق نہ عدت اور نہ وہ مرد کی وارث بنے گی، یہ محض صرف عیاشی ہے اور عورت کی حفاظت و عزت صرف نکاح میں ہے۔

    واللہ و رسولہ اعلم بالصواب۔

    مفتی: حافظ محمد اشتیاق الازہری


    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 5/14/2015 3:48:48 AM



  • Mr Ahmed, I am not questioning your logic. Yes, it is logical, and you also knew at the time you made that comment that there was no reason why suddenly out of the blue I would want to declare myself as a member of the LGBT community. You knew exactly well what I wanted to say - you had said earlier in the thread that Quran is the word of God because the Quran itself says so. Or Mohammad is the messenger of god because Mohammad himself has declared so - one of the two. To which I replied - I am the Queen of England because I declare myself Queen of England. Anybody with a modicum of sense can see what I am getting at, and not use a word with two meanings to imply what you did. With the obvious intention of insulting me, because you consider homosexuality to be something shameful. Unfortunately, I was not offended. My outrage has more to do with how you twist words to suit yourself, whether it is with reference to Queen, or in your interpretations of Islam. Legal and logical are no guarantees of truth or justice. They are sometimes just tools to do something without getting punished for it. Now if you want to go on arguing about this, you are welcome. I will continue saying what I have said here. Lets do it till one of us gets tired - probably me, since you have infinite passion to always prove yourself right and have the last word - and I don't. Your strategy is to drain out the opposition until he lets it go in exasperation and then declare you have won the argument. Save me the trouble. I give up. Keep yourself spotless, shining, in your own eyes, it that makes you happy. 
    By secularlogic - 5/14/2015 3:41:58 AM



  • Mr Secular Logic,

    Ask any third person. He will say it is a perfectly logical conclusion.

    You should give me credit for accepting your word and not calling you a liar but looking for all possibilities under which what you said could be true. 



    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/14/2015 3:29:35 AM



  • Mr Naseer Ahmed,

    Legalese can only take you so far. You used an innocent word, and an innocent phrase, ( people often say - if you are this, then I am the queen of England - to show up the absurdity of somebody's claim) to deduce that I was coming out of the closet on NAI. For a non-gay person, it amounts to slander. You are guilty.

    By secularlogic - 5/14/2015 3:03:13 AM



  • Author Noor Zaheer highlighted the issue of Halala marriage where a woman has to marry another man, get divorced and then get back to her original husband if the husband realizes the mistake and wants her back. The issue is why should a women be subjected to the ignominy of sleeping with another man for the fault of her husband, Noor has questioned. She said that Islamic practice of Muta'h marriage had degenerated into prostitution, where by the terms of marriage and automatic divorce are stipulated in advance. Most cases of Arabs coming to India and marrying younger Muslim girls till their stay here have resorted to this practice, she has argued. There are examples where a girl has been married seven times to different people under Muta'h. Mufti Maqsood Hasan said that the practice was a Shia tradition and not of the Sunnis.

    Source:http://rethinkingislam-sultanshahin.blogspot.in/2015/04/debating-indian-muslim-personal-law.html

    The lady has done a study on the practice in India. It does exist. Google can sweep the dust out from under the carpet. 

    By secularlogic - 5/14/2015 2:58:36 AM



  • If Secular Logic calls perfectly logical inferences name calling, then I cannot help. Also he should cite the names he has called for which the compliment was returned.

    Secular Logic: I am the queen of England because I declare myself the queen of England.

    My response: I must infer from the above that you belong to the LGBT community in which case I must accept that you could very well be  "queen of England" and indeed of every country.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/14/2015 2:55:43 AM



  • As for Mutah marriages in India, it indeed appears that the Shia community is allowed by law to practice this form of womanising:
    By secularlogic - 5/14/2015 2:49:58 AM



  • uh ...* was meant to be friendly ribbing...*
    By secularlogic - 5/14/2015 2:40:25 AM



  • Dear Rational, 

    so long as you are only referring to yourself, no issues.

    I do think calling others ignorant, idiot, islamophobe, twisting their online names in ways that are meant to insult, implying that people are homosexual when they have not declared themselves to be so, accusing critics of being mentally disturbed and various other behaviors come under the category of name calling and abuse. 

    Nobody on this site is free of this behavioural weakness, except perhaps our friend Hats Off. Not Mr Shahin, too. He calls people 'disturbed' and 'Islamophobes'. I have heard how they all hounded you and called you demented and were crowd sourcing funds for your treatment. 

    Where this gentleman is concerned I think you are a victim of the Stockholm syndrome. The modicum of respect he gives you blinds you to his larger faults. 

    I have no wish to call anyone names. I do not find it intellectually rewarding. It was mildly fun when I was referring to Mr Ahmad as Aurangzeb, because of his imperious manner and self declaration of victory, and absolute faith in the infallibility of his beliefs. In my defence, that was not meant to be friendly ribbing, not malicious.

    Anyway... you carry on. From my perspective, you are on the right side. 

    By secularlogic - 5/14/2015 2:37:49 AM



  • yunus saheb,   i know you don't quote Hadith, but weather you like or not, it is  part of Islam.
    you don't reject all Hadith.
    please go through following and comment.
    Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 139:
    Narrated Abdullah: We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet). "Shall we castrate ourselves?" But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: "O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you."
    - Mut'ah Banned by Umar
    Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 43:
    Narrated 'Imran bin Husain: The Verse of muta was revealed in Allah's Book, so we performed it with Allah's Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Qur'an to make it illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But the man (omar) just expressed what his own mind suggested
    Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3250:
    Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut'as (muta of Hajj and muta of women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger pbuh Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them.
    Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3248:
    Ibn Uraij reported: 'Ati' reported that jibir b. Abdullah came to perform 'Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet pbuh and during the time of Abi Bakr and 'Umar
    Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3249:
    Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of (tales or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger pbuh and durnig the time of Abu Bakr until 'Umar forbade it in the case of 'Amr b. Huraith.
    Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3261:
    'Urwa b. Zabair reported that 'Abdullah b. Zubair stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying: Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favor of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn 'Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Mut'a was practised during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Allah's Messenger, pbuh), and Ibn Zubair said to him: just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones. Ibn Shihab said. Khalid b. Muhajir b. Saifullah informed me: While I was sitting in the company of a person, a person came to him and he asked for a religious verdict about Mut'a and he permitted him to do it.
    - Mut'ah During Life of Rasulullah [s]
    Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3252:
    Sabra Juhanni reported: Allah's Messenger pbuh permitted temporary marriage for us. So I and another person went out and saw a woman of Bana 'Amir, who was like a young long-necked she-camel. We presented ourselves to her (for contracting temporary marriage), whereupon she said: What dower would you give me? I said: My cloak. And my companion also said: My cloak. And the cloak of-my companion was superior to my cloak, but I was younger than he. So when she looked at the cloak of my companion she liked it, and when she cast a glance at me I looked more attractive to her. She then said: Well, you and your cloak are sufficient for me. I remained with her for three nights, and then Allah's Messenger pbuh said: He who has any such woman with whom he had contracted temporary marriage, he should let her off.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/14/2015 2:22:39 AM



  • GM saheb
    What is your say to yunus saheb on this article?
    please member we are not advocating/supporting halala or muta or incest or based on common sense.
    we support justice for mankind, equality of gender, tolerance to all based on common sense.

    you can give your commentary on these verses.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/14/2015 2:10:06 AM



  • GM
    it is your trick to conceal what is ugly in Islam.
    you don't want to expose it for it brings bad name to Islam.
    you are not interested in uprooting of weed rather you prefer covering them up.
    this coring ha been done for long, it has to be exposed.
    you can appeal to mr shahin again to not report what is happening in islamic world and to stop posting the controversial verses of the Quran, seerah and Hadith.

    this is exactly the problem of you and mr lodhia.

    nobody is fighting against what is good in the Quran or in any other religious book.
    you are posting your views and i support them. Use of common sense, intelligence, promotion of gender equality etc. i never confronted them.
    you should bring bright side. no problem in at all.

    and please advise your fellows too use some common sense. to teh only the Quran truth and cure for every ailment.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/14/2015 1:59:07 AM



  • Shahin Sb,
    Can you provide a list of changes made to the article since it first appeared?
    Some changes appear to have been made.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/14/2015 1:39:39 AM



  • Rational says, "Real issue is to identify weed." . . .

    You in fact are keeping the weeds alive by constantly focusing on them. You are obsessed by the weeds. Let us hear what you want to preserve and promote.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/14/2015 1:37:47 AM



  • yunus saheb you said:
    "My problem is I know that willful tampering of the meaning of any Qur’anic verse is a very grave sin, while appropriating incestuous-rape in Islam demonizes Islam"

    But playing with verses of the Quran is just fine to insert the agenda to you.
    i posted some translation of some verses and asked what do you say about his tempering of verses.
    but you are silent because you have great respect for the translator.
    can a scholar substitute his name in place of the prophet in translations of the verses.
    can you interchange seen and swaad in a Quranic word? can you delete some verses because it doesn't suit to him.
    you have no problems with these blasphemes. you have great respect for blasphemer, but if quote from the authentic sources of Islam, you call me internal evidence against Islam.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/14/2015 1:12:34 AM



  • yunus saheb
    if a woman is raped will you call him R*** or you will demand punishment for rapist or you will demand reform if the laws are not adequate to deliver  the justice to that victim.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/14/2015 1:02:25 AM



  • Dear secular logic

    it refers to me. He stood unprovoked when i quoted from authentic Islam sources.  it separates him from others.
    Sultan saheb also is in list because he advised me to seek professional help.

    you can quote the name he gave to you. we have exchanged some pleasantries like jahil, idiot, ignorant etc. in my personal view this happens when we debate on touchy issues.
    you can call him names. i have no problem.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/14/2015 12:53:02 AM



  • what names have I called you Secular Logic?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/13/2015 11:40:02 PM



  • Oh he's a name caller alright. You just have to provoke him enough. 
    By secularlogic - 5/13/2015 11:34:10 PM



  • The last refuge of every cornered person is to indulge in straw man arguments and counter accusations. Mr Yunus does the same!

    He has a very low opinion of the word of God if he thinks that it needs his lies to support it.

    He concedes that there is neither muta nor fatwas on muta by Indian Muslim Clerics. That reduces the title of his article to a brazen lie. He however remains unfazed!

    And also his fertile imagination which visualizes the son, father and grandfather having the same woman, then is just a figment of his imagination.

    Regarding Halala he provides no evidence for saying that the women marry/remarry during their iddat period with approval from the clerics. He calls this practice as part of Classical Law which is a lie but he has also called it a local custom but unable to say in which place is this a local custom.

    He ignores my comment on the Imrana case because then he cannot indulge in his straw man arguments.

    While the Imrana case screams for reforms, Mr Yunus should realize that the Hanafi Ulema are helpless being Muqallids. They are bound to follow the legal precedent of their Imam Abu Hanifa. It is not that the Maulvi who issued the fatwa who is himself morally depraved. It is Imam Abu Hanifa who must be blamed and for the lack of ijtehad. There are only two such cases recorded and by inserting the video clip, Mr Yunus is trying to again sensationalize an issue that needs to be dealt with with sobriety.

    The Imrana case can become the cause for demanding reform but Mr Yunus has not even made a demand for reform. He is only interested in heaping dirt on the Indian Muslim Men, Women and the Clerics. How will that change anything? Change will happen only as part of conscious reform since the legal precedent otherwise will remain the same and every case will be decided in the same manner by every Hanafi Mufti.

    He asks where is the ‘R’ word? Suddenly he has become coy spelling out the word. Did he miss what I said? The woman is also not just a victim of sexual abuse but a whore or prostitute or randi. The last expression which was there earlier appears to have been dropped.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/13/2015 11:17:04 PM



  • GM saheb
    I must exclude Naseer saheb from the list of name callers.
    I don't agree to all of his views, but he stood alone unprovoked.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/13/2015 8:27:07 PM



  • GM saheb
    Unless we identify what is weed, who is feeding the weed, we can't uproot it. We can't make our garden clean, and in proper shape.

    We are identifying the real culprits who are enjoying the respect even after death. How long our repesct will go to wrong persons, how long we will keep condemning people on the basis of beliefs? Is there any limit?
    If fundamentals of our religion are feeding the intolerance, unrest, hatred, injustice, better we say goodbye to it? Can you change the fundamentals?
    I have pointed out the weakness in the thinking of Mr yunus. From beginning you people are calling me names for the wrongs of others.
    Though I agree with you but yet weeds have not been identified and acknowledges.
    You picked up attributes. Am I indulged in attributions? Please pick up the real issue. Real issue is to identify weed, uproot it. When it is done plants will automatically get their nutrition which we are willingly and unwillingly giving to weeds.
    I hope you will be able to identify the plant and weed.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/13/2015 8:24:24 PM



  • Naseer Sahab,/ all those critical of the article 

    Where do you find the word with R you quoted in your comment. It is not there. You are again twisting my word. I never call a Muslim woman whore. It is the Islamic Sharia and people like you who are apparently offended by my loud and vocal protest at the demonization of Muslim women and Islam that virtually reduces your own women to the lowest of the low in the eye of Sharia that I have explained in detail in my comment. You are just trying to debunk my strong condemnation of a ruling of Sharia that is triple sin, a major crime and a spiritual offence (tampering the Qur'anic message) for which the Divine Hand may seize the concerned Cleric and those who try to defend them by their neck and severe their aorta - a warning that the Qur'an gave to the Prophet Muhammad in the event he made any alteration in the Qur'an under pressure from the Quraysh. 

    It is notable that I have very provocatively questioned the Sharia legitimizing incestual marriage and have nowhere blames Indian Muslims nor questioned their sexual morality. People must quote me from the article and say, "Mr. Yunus, you wrote this" and you are not correct. A child can pass general remarks. 

    I insist, my article is a loud and provocative condemnation of a ruling of Islamic Sharia that is most inhuman, most most reprehensible and the gravest violation of the Qur'anic message and I am really ashamed of you for trying to twist the literal sense and spirit of my article by giving different meanings to what I wrote. I charge you all for not protesting loud enough for a sin-cum crime of gravest nature and that purports to reduce a Muslims women physically and mentally to a condition that is worst than that of whore and you are telling me that I am calling them whore. You are dishonest and I am ashamed of you. Quote any sentence from article and tell me where I have gone overboard. 

    By muhammad yunus - 5/13/2015 5:50:29 PM



  • Rational says, " but attributing false to prophet is honour." . . .

    Don't get lost in your attributions. The Prophet sowed the seeds, but now it is our garden to tend, to water, mow grass, remove weeds, plant flowers and take good care of. Now Islam is our religion and we have to foster what we consider to be the best, and weed out what has become obsolete.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/13/2015 12:16:28 PM



  • Yunus saheb
    Drawing cartoons of prophet is insult to prophet. Quoting from hadith and seerah is insult to prophet but attributing false to prophet is honour. Abu huraira, imam sahebaan, muhaditheen, mufassireen, fabricators of corrupt Islam are true servants of Allah and true followers of the prophet.
    This hypocrisy is though common but it is specific to you.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/13/2015 11:54:17 AM



  • Janab Rational Sahib 
           Your are right, nobody has right to blame all the Muslim community of India on basis some incidents of sexual abuses. In every religion intention or motive behind an act is responsible to prove it good and evil . 

    By Mohammad Ishaque Foujdar - 5/13/2015 11:45:41 AM



  • Yunus saheb
    When you are so concerned for plight of Muslim women, why don't you call spade a spade?
    You are running in circles by condemning the mullahs but not saying a single word for creators of mullah. 
    They were true servants of Islam to you.
    You call this Islam fabricated Islam but shower the fabricators with your salutes.
    You may send laanat on clerics but don't forget the real culprits if you have some respect for honest reporting.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/13/2015 11:40:43 AM



  • Mr Yunus,

    You are true to yourself. As expected, you are not repentant at your use of the hyperbole and rhetoric to the point of utter nonsense and falsehood painting a disgusting picture of Indian Muslim men, women and clerics in the most lurid terms. You have shown disregard for sticking to the facts and to the truth and for sobriety while discussing a sensitive subject. You now have the gall to dismiss these as “technical faults”!

    You may imagine what your state will be if your wife or daughter are raped by their father in law. I have no need to imagine such things. I know how to protect my family and the members of my family know how to protect themselves. The female members of my family are not at the mercy of their husbands or in-laws and least of all, at the interpretations of the divine law by the Imams or their followers. Let alone my immediate family, even the extended family consisting of the servants is not at anyone’s mercy.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/13/2015 11:32:19 AM



  • Yunus saheb
    Nobody is justifying/defending sharia. Nobody is saying that Muslim women under sharia is honoured.
    You generalized and you condemn me for sweeping generalizations.
    Muslim women suffer a lot under sharia but calling her "Randi" is too much.
    It were you who was upset with my quotations from hadith and seerah. You charged me for using obscene words.
    Is not equating a helpless women equal to Randi obscene?
    I agree with naseer saheb. Randi sell for money.
    Where is your wisdom? 
    My objection is not only to clerics but it falls on those who created such misogynist, not just, insulting and disgusting sharia for women. Your tongue is stuck to palate, your hands paralyzed to write something about real culprits.
    Please answer why same verse makes muta halal to shias and haram to Sunnis. Had hz umar authority to make triple talaq halal and muta haram if it was practiced by companions and the prophet allowed it?
    Why Allah could not speak in clear words on this important issue? It is a question on omniscience attribute of God. Didn't he know some will make it halal.
    Read shia sources and you will be amazed to see that muta is beneficial to society.
    Belief can make people stooping to unimaginable level.
    Your article gives wrong impression. It radiates wrong message.
    No doubt Muslim women pay for mistakes of others. But who made it possible?
    Bring to justice those who were responsible for such rules.
    They are not gods. Are you afraid of hitting the nail on right head? 
    You cut branches of poisonous tree and irrigate its root.
    A bad example indeed.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/13/2015 11:26:53 AM



  • Dear Naseer Sahab/ others critical of the article

    It seems the gravity of legitimizing a rapist father in law as a legitimate husband has not dawned on those of you who are trying to find technical flaws in my article. The thing is if Mutah is not practiced in India, and if, for the sake of argument, there is any other technical flaw in the article - these do not lighten the force of the article AT ALL. Besides, the article refers to the custom of Mutah only in general terms as follows:

    “Yet another example is the muta marriage, whereby a woman can marry a son for a week, his father for the next week and his grandfather for the following week.”

    This is a generic statement cited just as an example of a Sharia ruling that demonizes Islam.

    The crux of the debate lies in the ruling that a woman raped by a father-in-law should have her lawful marriage with her husband terminated and must marry without her will her rapist father-in-law. This is so inhuman and traumatizing for a Muslim woman that will pale the trauma of a whore into insignificance. Let me illustrate this to you who are not happy with my article that very strongly and provocatively denounces this most unholy ruling that is otherwise ultra vires of criminal law and the law of the land and deeply misogynistic.

    The ruling empowers the father-in-law of any married woman living with a father-in-law as a member of the household to break her lawful marriage and make her his own lawful wife by raping her.

    Imagine the trauma of your married daughter, if you have one living in a joint family with a father-in-law as part of the household. He may be the most pious person and the chance of his committing the rape may be one in a billion. But the very realization of a perceptive woman that the Islamic Sharia in vogue gives her father-in-law the de-facto power to break her marriage and take her into his marriage may cause her immense worry lest the unthinkable happens.

    In today’s world many husbands leave their wives behind while taking up an overseas job. While the rare triply unholy and gravely criminal incident will be totally beyond his imagination, and may happen only in rare cases, but the fact that the Clerics of Islam appropriate this monstrous sin-cum-crime into Islam prompts me to challenge it in most provocative way. Now you may say how it is triply unholy and how is it a crime as it is a family matter. Here is my answer.

    Marriage of a woman with a man is a sacred matter. It is done in the name of God and with due solemnity Any third person who has sex with a married woman whether forcefully or by consent commits a rape. And if that person is relative in the forbidden list such as father-in-law, it becomes incest, and if subsequently the husband gives her a triple divorce, it is yet another breach of Qur’anic message as the Qur’an sets out a time-frame for a divorce. And thereafter if the raped woman is to marry a man who raped her without her will it is yet a breach of the Qur’anic message because the marriage has to have the willing consent of the woman. Thus such incestual-rape turn marriage is triply unholy as well as criminal, and it does put a married woman in greater trauma and more vulnerable position than a whore. A whore can complain if her client beats her up or brutalizes her or causes burn on her body or a deep cut injury – but a married Muslim woman cannot say one word against her father-in-law if he behaves even more cruelly to her because the Sharia in vogue gives him the power to break her marriage and take her in his own wedlock just by raping her.

    You or anyone less who goes by statistics may say that this fellow is making a hill out of mole. But tell me what happens in the whole Muslim world a magazine prints a cartoon of the Prophet. Charlie Hebdo is one in several years in the entire world. It was a moral crime – an insult to the Prophet. Imagine how much protest it generated and for how long in the entire Muslim world. But what happens when a jurist changes the meaning of a verse of the Qur’an to accommodate a most heinous sin-cum-crime into Islam, people try to pin him down for alleged technical flaws on the fringes of the article. This is absolutely shameful. For those who have not read the article let me quote how the meaning of the Qur’anic verse is doctored to accommodate incestual rape under discussion.

    The verse 4:23 of the Qur’an reads as follows:

    “And do not marry (tankihu) women whom your fathers had married (nakaha), except what is already past. It is indeed abominable and abhorrent, and a sinful way (4:22). (Also) forbidden (haram) to you (in marriage) are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your paternal aunts, your maternal aunts, your brother's daughters, your sister's daughters, your foster-mothers, your foster sisters, your wives' mothers, your stepdaughters under your guardianship, (born) of your wives with whom you consumed marriage; (but there is) no blame if you did not consume marriage with them; and the wives of your own begotten sons; and two sisters (in wedlock) at the same time - unless it was a thing of the past. (Remember,) God is Most Forgiving and Merciful (4:23)

    However, to appropriate incestual rape, the translation of the verse 4:22 is doctored as below:

    And do not have sex (tankihu) with women with whom your fathers had sex (nakaha), except what is already past. It is indeed abominable and abhorrent, and a sinful way (4:22).

    To you or others who are so upset on my quoting the example of Muta marriage as a custom of Islamic Sharia in general terms are shockingly showing no concern over the tampering of the meaning of the key Qur’anic verse on the prohibition of incest. For your information, when the Prophet was under pressure to make some alterations in the Qur’an, the divine voice had warned him as follows:

    “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 (69:47).”

    My problem is I know that willful tampering of the meaning of any Qur’anic verse is a very grave sin, while appropriating incestual-rape in Islam demonizes Islam. Therefore, if I remain silent I not only became part to a grave sin, I also fail in protesting against any in-house demonization of our faith as spelled out in my jt. publication dated 2009 as follows and quoted in the article:

    “Last but not least, there is an over-riding need for the Muslim intelligentsia to protest the demonization of their Holy book by some of their own theologians and jurists, who, in the name of implementing the Qur’anic ordinances, justify blatantly anti-Qur’anic heinous crimes, particularly against womenfolk”

    I don’t think I have to say anything more to justify my loud and provocative protest and my citing of the Custom of Mutah marriage just as an illustration of the weakness of Islamic Sharia, and not as any material argument. In other words if the reference to the Mutah marriage is removed the force and fury of the argument remains unchanged though it falls inordinately short of the anger that causes me at demonization of my faith, the creation of a terrible precedent, at the agony and trauma of the victim who must have endured unspeakable agony as their voice and expression betray in the attached NDTV interview.

    I don’t think I need to say anything more on the issue.

    May I request Sultan Shain Saheb to post an Urdu translation of this comment for all the Urdu speaking readers to fully grasp the significance of this article. 


    By muhammad yunus - 5/13/2015 10:12:21 AM



  • yunus saheb, 

    Shia and Sunni follow same Quran but one makes muta halal and second makes it haram.
    one or two may disagree with the verse of the Quran is justified but millions and billions differ on the same verse. what is this nautanki? Why the Quran doesn't guide them alike?
    who one is not muttaqi if the Quran guides muttaqis?
    Triple talaq was started by Hz umar the second khalifa e rashid. Then who is the culprit hz umar or clerics of Islam?


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/13/2015 5:30:16 AM



  • KS,   Thanks for your comment. It is clear that the clerics discourage and consider makrooh marriage performed with the intention of divorce to enable previous husband to remarry although such a course is not prohibited.
    The above follows from what the Quran says on the subject.
    There is no evidence that the law or the clerics allow a woman to marry during her iddat period.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/13/2015 2:38:41 AM



  • "It is Makrooh-e-Tahrimi (abhorred) to perform Nikah with the express condition of Halaalah. However, if the intention of Halaalah is concealed at the time of marriage, it is not Makrooh. (Raddul Muhtaar vol.3 pg.414".
    Who says clerics are stagnated?
    aisa jawab ki saanp bhi mar gaya aur lathi bhi nahi tooti.
    rind ke rind rahe aur haath se jannat bhi na gayee ... wonderful !  Khalid suhail hal mim muzeed

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/13/2015 2:38:25 AM



  • Meanwhile, another atheist Hindu blogger is killed in Bangladesh and 41 Ismaili community members fall to bullets sprayed by Islamists in Pakistan.

    Who are you kidding. The world, or yourselves?

    Shatranj ke Khiladi ho, sab ke sab. Sitting here and trying to outwit each other while the world suffers - just because it does not believe what you believe. 

    By secularlogic - 5/13/2015 2:36:44 AM



  • Naseer Ahmad Saheb To Muhammad Unus Saheb on halala,

    “You begin by calling it a local custom and end with saying that these practices remain part of the Classical Islamic Law. Can you clarify whether this is a local custom or Classical Islamic law?”

    Fatwa#: 8804

    Asked Country: South AfricaAnswered Date: Jun 04,2003

    Title: Can halala take place ONLY BY ARRANGEMENT so that a couple may re-marry after 3 talaaqs were given?

    Question

    My ex (husband)and I have been advised that I cud make nikah with someone (by agreement) so that after he gives me talaaq, I will be able to re - marry my ex.I was given 3 talaaqs by my ex and we are not living together, though we would like to reconcile ONLY if it were possible.Pls advise if the halala procedure is an option, Jazakallah.

    Answer

    It is Makrooh-e-Tahrimi (abhorred) to perform Nikah with the express condition of Halaalah. However, if the intention of Halaalah is concealed at the time of marriage, it is not Makrooh. (Raddul Muhtaar vol.3 pg.414. 

    .(Radd al Mukhtar is a super commentary on Imam Ala' al-Din al-Haskafi's Islamic Jurisprudence book Durr al-Mukhtar fi sharh Tanweer al Absaar. It is widely considered as the central reference for fatwa in the Hanafi Madhab. The Indo-Pak scholars often refer to Ibn Abidin as "al-Shami" and to his Hashiya as "al-Shamiyya" or "Fatawa Shami)

    The person performing the second marriage will be rewarded if he marries with the sole intention of reconciling the wife to her former husband. The curse in the Hadith is when Halaalah is done with remuneration. (Dars-e-Tirmidhi vol.3 pg.398-401; Karachi) 

    (Dars-e-Tirmidhi is a commentary of Aha’dith by famous Pakistani Deobandi A’lim, Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani)

    . and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best 
    Mufti Ebrahim Desai

      AskImam.org questions

    I have complete set of Dars-e-Tirmidhi in my personal library. I found in it the following in addition to the above.

    Imam Abu Haneefah ke Nazdeek agar halala ki shart ke sath bhi nikah kiya jaye to who makrooh tahreemi ( abhorred) hai, lekin nikah ho jayega, kyonki shart-e-f’asid se nikah batil nahi hota. Is kitab mein ek hawala bhi diya gaya hai jis mein hazrat Umar ne arranged halala ke bawajood nikah ko faskh nahi kiya- Dars-e- Tirmidhi.Vol.3 pg 399-401.
    Ebrahim Desai is a South AfricanDeobandi Muslim Grand Mufti of Indian origin and a teacher of Islamic law based in Durban, Sherwood, South Africa. He runs the fatwa website Ask Imam[1] an online Islamic questions and answers (Q&A) database and used to head the Dar al-Ifta of Madrasah In'aamiyyah, Camperdown as the principal mufti as well as used to be the senior lecturer of Hadith (Shaykh al-Hadith) there[2] He currently heads the Darul iftaa in Sherwood, Durban, South Africa and is the oversight for the Fatwa Department of Jamiatul Ulama KZN.


    By Khalid Suhail - 5/13/2015 2:18:47 AM



  • Naseer saheb,  well said.
    Mr Mohammed Yunus never pointed his finger to those who were creators of Classical Sharia. He has tried to save imam abu hanifa by saying that Hanafi school is just named after him long after his death and he had nothing to do with Hanafi school.
    These misogynist rulings were created, recorder and propagated by four imams. Triple talaq was already there due to Hz umar.
    However contemporary clerics should upgrade now.
    this article is bogus in Indian context with truth that clerics are backward. Blame should go to those who created this classical sharia.
    there are sexual abuses of women everywhere including India. but the way yunus saheb narrated it is shameful and dishonest.
    Muta is also there but i am not aware if it is practiced in India because i have no shia community near.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/13/2015 1:45:03 AM



  • Yunus Sb  abuses the Indian Muslim clerics with falsehood on Muta for which he has no evidence. He limply responds that it is prevalent in Persia! How are Indian Muslim clerics responsible for what is common in Persia? Yet this accusation is in the title of his article in bold.

    The title of the article creates an impression that Muslim society in India is highly incestuous and a woman is routinely raped by her husband, his friends, his brothers, his father and his grandfather!

    The woman is also not just a victim of sexual abuse  but a whore or prostitute or randi. The last expressions which was there earlier, appears to have been dropped. These words are not used for the victims of sexual abuse whether she is raped or gang raped but for a woman who is a willing partner for pecuniary benefit. It is Yunus Sb who has reduced Muslim women to the status of prostitute and the Indian Muslim  men to lascivious beasts who freely indulge in incest and wife swapping and the Indian Maulvis for  sanctifying these acts.

    He has also used the expression wife swapping. This is an expression used for the perverse sexual practices by willing partners. If the father in law is having sex with the daughter in law then we know what wife swapping means. It is the son having sex with his mother and mind you in wife swapping there is no coercion and all are willing participants!  

    Good going Mr Yunus! Who can be a better internal witness to the utter moral and sexual depravity of the Indian Muslims and the Indian Muslim clerics than an exegete of the Quran?

    Who needs Islamophobes with the likes of Mr Yunus on the prowl?

    While the Imrana case screams for reforms, Mr Yunus should realize that the Hanafi Ulema are helpless being Muqallids. They are bound to follow the legal precedent of their Imam Abu Hanifa. It is not that the Maulvi who issued the fatwa who is himself morally depraved. It is Imam Abu Hanifa who must be blamed and for the lack of ijtehad. There are only two such cases recorded and by inserting the video clip, Mr Yunus is trying to again sensationalize an issue that needs to be dealt with with sobriety.

    While Mr Yunus  abuses through his articles, his partner abuses the commentators in his comments.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/13/2015 12:44:58 AM



  • Shamim Saheb & Bablu Bhai,

     

    Aap Dono Ko Kiya Parna Aata Hai? Angarazi Aati Hai Ya Nahin? Koi Maulvi Na Kaha Ho Ga Na Angarazi Parna “Haram” Hai!

     

    Aap Dono Kiya TV Ya YouTube Dekhta Hain Ya Nahin? Ya Bhi Ho Sakta Hai Ka, Maulvi Saheb Na Fatwa Diya Ho Ga?    

     

    Aap Log Apna Aap Ko Kiya Samajh Baitha Hain? Jahaaliyat Ma Kab Tak Dooba Raho Ga, Mian Saheb!  

     

    “Jinne Naaz Hai Islam Par Vo Kahan Hai?” Baar Baar Dekho, Aur Paroh. Phir Aap Logon Ka Damaag Khula Ga. 

     

    https://myfellowmuslims.wordpress.com/november-29-2008/

     

    Pakistan Ma Kiya, America Ma Bhi Aisa Musalmaan Hain, Jo TV Nahin Dekhta, Na Gaana Sunte Hain. Kiyoon Ka, Mullah Girgi Sa Hamaara Log Baaz Nahin Aata.

     

    Insaan Chand Par Ho Kar Aa Gaya Hai. Aap Jaisa Musalmaan To, Ab Tak Andheri Nagar Ma Rahta Hain.  

     

    Kiya Bola Ga, Shahim Saheb & Bablu Bhai. Bohat Afsos Ki Baat Hai.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

     

    cid:image007.jpg@01D07C89.00C57A10  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/12/2015 9:44:53 PM



  • Lodhia
    Khuda ka qanoon hai kidhar.  Pahle imam bukhari imam Abu hanifa the khuda ab yunus saheb ban neki koshish Mar rahe hai.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/12/2015 8:10:55 PM



  • O Bablu Bhai,

     

    As-Salaam Alay-Kum

     

    pata nahi apne aap ko kya samajh baitha hai

     

    Zara Aap Farmayain Ga, Ka Aap Ki Soch Kiya Hai, Bablu Bhai?

     

    un sabka hisab Allah pak khud lenge

     

    Maulvi Logon Ko Sunna Ka Kaisa Hisaab Hoga, Bablu Bhai?

     

    allah pak ne abhi apni rassi dheel chor rakhi hai

     

    Jo Aankh Bandh Kar Ka Mullah Ko Sunta Hai, Us Ko Bhi Khuda Na Dheel Chor Raki Hai?

     

    ek din sab dudh ka dudh and pani pani ho jaega

     

    Wah Bablu Bhai. Khoon Sa Islami Mulk Bah Raha Hai, Aur Aap Dudh Ki Baat Karta Ho?

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

     

    cid:image007.jpg@01D07C89.00C57A10  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/12/2015 7:44:46 PM



  • Janab Shamim Saheb,

     

    As-Salaam Alay-Kum

     

    aap jahalat ke bhi baap hain,

     

    Wo Kaisa? Zara Bataiya, Shamim Saheb.

     

    man made law maante hain..

     

    Aap Kaun Sa Khuda Ka Qanoon Ko Maante Hain?  

     

    jo jaisa kara wo waisa hi sochta dusron ke baare me

     

    Walla Humay Batayain Ga Ka Aap Ki Soch Kiya Hai, Janab.

     

    indian ulemas are very much fine

     

    Mullah Giri Ma Kab Tak Ulja Raho Ga, Shamim Saheb.

     

    jo apne deen ka janaza

     

    Ara Baap! Kiya Mullah Log Bohat Sharif Log Hain?  

     

    sirf allah pak hi aapko naseehat de sakta hai   

    Aap Ko Kis Kisum Ki Naseehat Haasil Hai Allah Paak Ki Taraf Sa, Shamim Saheb?

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

     

    cid:image007.jpg@01D07C89.00C57A10  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 5/12/2015 7:31:57 PM



  • Yunus Sb,  Take a look at your heading and what you say:

    "So it (muta) remains a part of Shia doctrine and whether it is practiced or not in India and whether there is a specific ruling or not, it remains a CUSTOM within the ambit of Islam's Sharia Law that allows a woman to enter into a temporary marriage with a son in one week and the father next week and the grand-father the next week. It is part of Islamic juristic heritage that goes unchallenged and has assumed a form of institutionalized prostitution in Persia. These practices may be rare in India but the point is it remains in the ambit of Islamic law."

    Clearly from what you say, it has nothing to do with India and even less so with the Indian Muslim Clerics whom you are unnecessarily abusing and that too in bold in the title of your article! .

    Also state the Law in Shia doctrine which allows son, father and grandfather to share a common woman in serial Muta which appears to me to be another fabrication.

    You have in one sentence called halala without iddat a local custom and in the next sentence as part of Classical Islamic law but not clarified whether it is only a local custom or part of Classical Islamic Law. If it is part of local custom then it must be frequent enough to have become a custom. I am not aware of even a single instance so tell where has this become a local custom as you say.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/12/2015 1:12:37 PM



  • yunus saheb
    please don't smear ulema because they followed the rulings of hz umar bin al khttab.
    • Surah Talaq of the Quran stipulates that there is no such thing as an impromptu triple divorce at one instance, rather the recital must take place over tree periods (Al-Qur’an Surah 65, verse 1), yet Khalifa Umar ruled that his subjects could divorce their wives by uttering the divorce recital in triplicate on one occasion (Sahih Muslim, Book 009, Number 3493).
    • Al-Qur’an Surah 65, verse 1 states that the final divorce must be made before two just witness, Umar did away with the need of witnesses altogether, after all he entitled a man to utter the divorce immediately, without the need for a time to reflect or summon witnesses.
    • Umar issued an edict that a maximum limit be set on Mehr (dower), and it took a woman to silence who pointed out that his ruling breached Surah Nisa verse 20 that sets no ruling (Jalalu’d-din Suyuti in his Tafsir-e-Durru’l-Mansur, vol. II, p.133; Ibn Kathir in his Commentary, Vol. I, p.468; Hakim Nishapuri in his Mustadrak, vol.II, p.177; and many more).
    • He ruled that Tayamum cannot be performed as an alternative to water, and was unconvinced by the testimony of the Sahabi Ammar ibn Yasir (Sahih Muslim Book 003, Number 0718) even though an entire verse on Tayamum is in Surah al Maida verse 5.

    when i quoted the hadith of triple talaq in oe go and mentioned the name of umar, i was rebuked saying that ulema don't dare to speak on such matters, who are you.

    and my journey to asking questions started.

    you hypocritically condemn your contemporary ulema but never point out your fingers towards those who made such rulings. at that time i never read from shia sources.

    Do you admit Hz umar started triple talaq in one go?

    He initiated many other practices good and bad depending who is quoting him.

    this is quoted from http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/mutah/umar-banned-mutah.html

    I know in my neighborhood how halala was propsed and manipulated. a condition was imposed that the person will not have sex with divorcee though it is requirement of halala.

    there are many manipulations in these matters. it all depend on how you get fatwa. where the ulema learned these manipulations from?

    most demanding question. do their beliefs in Islam stop them from such shameful acts.

    this is forgivable if allah wills, but shirk is not even if the mushrik is not guilty of such crimes.

    pity on such mindset.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/12/2015 11:59:03 AM



  • [Forbidden to you] are married woman, except what your right hand possesses. This Allah has written for you, and all other women besides these are permitted to you, so that you may seek them out with your wealth, seeking chastity and not fornication. So when you have contracted temporary marriage [istimt'atum] with them, then give them their words. There is no sin on you for whatever you agree to after this. Indeed, Allah is Knowing, Wise.
    Al-Qur’an, Surah An-Nisa, Ayah 24

    Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr that Khawla ibn Hakim came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, ”Rabia ibn Umayya made a temporary marriage with a woman and she…”
    Muwatta Imam Malik, Book 28, Number 28.18.42


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/12/2015 11:32:48 AM



  • interested readers can visit the link:
    Chapter One: Introduction

    Chapter Two: What is Mut’ah?Chapter Three: The necessity of Mut’ah
    :
    :
    Chapter Fifteen:  Conclusion: An appeal to justice
    http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/mutah/necessity.html

    no fire no smoke


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/12/2015 11:25:08 AM



  • Dear Naseer Sahab:

    Do you deny that there is no such custom as halala in India? That the custom of hala is in vogue among some Muslims communities is is a common knowledge and you who I suppose live in India should better know in which village or town it is practiced.

    Do you deny that triple tallaq is not practiced in India?

    Do you deny that in the rare cases of incestual rape of a daughter-in-law, the Muslim clerics try to give it a touch of piety by asking the son of the rapist to divorce his raped wife for her to marry his father. Don't you think what the clergy are doing is utterly against the Qur'anic message, most abominable and shameful or do you support the clerics? 

    By asking me questions after questions you are diverting from the theme - that the Muslim clerics in India dehumanize their womenfolk, treat them like a chattel and reduce them to the lowest of the low as explained at length in my last comment. 

    By muhammad yunus - 5/12/2015 9:57:56 AM



  • Dear Naseer Sahab,

    You should know better than me that Muta marriage is an established CUSTOM - the precise word I used, within the ambit of Islamic Sharia Law. I am quoting below from Asaf A A Zaid, an iconic figure on Islamic jurisprudence who writes: "Ithna Ashari school (Shia Islam) retains the practice (of muta marriage) and considers it lawful.” So it remains a part of Shia doctrine and whether it is practiced or not in India and whether there is a specific ruling or not, it remains a CUSTOM within the ambit of Islam's Sharia Law that allows a woman to enter into a temporary marriage with a son in one week and the father next week and the grand-father the next week. It is part of Islamic juristic heritage that goes unchallenged and has assumed a form of institutionalized prostitution in Persia. These practices may be rare in India but the point is it remains in the ambit of Islamic law. For your information, according to the theologian Al-Hurr al Amiri "The believer is only perfect when he has experienced a muta.”
    There is absolutely no doubt that cases of incestual rape are very rare among the Muslims the world over including India- only two cases sighted over the period of a decade. But the fact is Muslim clerics try to appropriate it in Islam by suggesting the rape victim to marry the rapist father in-law, turning a rapist into a lawful husband. This amounts to demonizing Islam and this is my duty as a Muslim to defend my faith against any demonization.

    I am sure you are aware of the custom of halala and triple divorce – all these are tailored to humiliate Muslim women and treat them like chattel Since the Muslim clerics do nothing to secure their women the rights and dignity that is due to them, the article challenges them in language that falls considerable short of the trauma and agony that the married woman of Muzaffarnagar must have endured for months by being repeatedly raped by her faith-in-law and hiding her pregnancy and many women go through when their husbands declare talaq thrice and then ask them to marry another pre-arranged person, to have sex with her and divorce her for him to remarry her.

    Let all Muslim commentators know that their customs and personal law combine together to deprive their women of much of their Qur’anic rights and reduces them to the status of a prostitute who can be asked to leave the house without any notice, asked to marry and have sex with someone else and marry her father-in-law if he rapes her. The whole world reviles Islam for its deplorable treatment of women and there is time to challenge the Clerics to stop supporting customs and laws that reduce their women to the lowest of the low.and legitimize incestual rape, however rare may be its incidence.


    By muhammad yunus - 5/12/2015 9:31:47 AM



  • Yunus Sb,

    Regarding Halala, you say:

    "Some local customs such as Halala that allows a man to divorce his wife at the spur of the moment, such as in a state of anger or drunkenness and then force her into marriage and sexual intercourse with a friend and get him to divorce her to marry her back the next day or so totally disregarding the three month time for his divorce and that of his friend to take effect also stands utterly haram and sexually shameful sadistic. These practices that remain part of the Classical Islamic Law have defiled and demonized Islam"

    You begin by calling it a local custom and end with saying that these practices remain part of the Classical Islamic Law. Can you clarify whether this is a local custom or Classical Islamic law? If local custom, then confined to which place? 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/12/2015 9:29:09 AM



  • sahih kaha aapne shamim bhai ye pakhandi jo sab ko advised deta phirta hai kehta hai ke mere articles ko padho, pata nahi apne aap ko kya samajh baitha hai, waise fasiq aur is jaise pakhandi duniya me bahut hain lekin un sabka hisab Allah pak khud lenge . allah pak ne abhi apni rassi dheel chor rakhi hai, ek din sab dudh ka dudh and pani pani ho jaega . 

    waise shamim bhai is pakhandi ke articles me to sirf jahalat hi nazar aa raha hai

    By Bablu - 5/12/2015 7:49:14 AM



  • yunus sahab aap bahut bari wali jahalat me jee rahe hain . apke articles se maloom parta hai aap jahalat ke bhi baap hain,
    hum to aapke articles ko man made law maante hain.. aapke yahan is tarah ka sex hoga isi lye aap dusron ke mutalliq yahi sochte hain. bahut perfect baat kahi hai kisi ne jo jaisa kara wo waisa hi sochta dusron ke baare me .. indian ulemas are very much fine . hume tum jaise pakhandi nahi chahiye jo apne deen ka janaza khud hi tayyar kar chuke hain . main apni baat khatam kar sakta hun ye kah kar ke aap jahalat ke bhi baap hain . sirf allah pak hi aapko naseehat de sakta hai .  

    By SHAMIM - 5/12/2015 7:41:52 AM



  • Yunus Sb,

    Is there any Indian Muslim cleric who sanctions Muta? Is there a fatwa by an Indian Muslim cleric? 

    You say "Yet another example is the Muta marriage, whereby a woman can marry a son for a week, his father for the next week and his grandfather for the following week. All these customs under the ambit of the so-called Islamic Law" 

    Can you  quote the law that permits Muta marriage where the prohibitions do not apply? Any reported instance where the son, father, grandfather "married" the same woman in turn for a limited period each?   
     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/12/2015 6:37:51 AM



  • "It is better that the verse is interpreted in such a way that it conforms to their opinion.” [1]"
    this is the practice of all scholars. anybody can find anything in the Quran

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/12/2015 3:17:51 AM



  • Every scholar calls his work based on the Quran Hadith. then every of them accuse each other.
    if somebody questions the diffrences he is told that differences are blessings. but what if differences are blasphemies? will it be still blessing.

    whoever whether imam abu hanifa or his disciples played with the Quran, the result is misguidance.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/12/2015 3:14:54 AM



  • Believers are most abusers of so called God of words. anybody can put his words in the mouth of God.
    these blasphemers enjoyed money, respect, position by distorting the msg of God (if it is from god).
    Imam abu hanifa, called imam e aazam mistranslated the Quran.
    what is the meaning of root word of nikah? what is meaning of root word of meher? why it is paid?
    perhaps without calling other scholars wrong, scholar can't find space for himself.
    Muslims were guided by misguided/blasphemers.
    Indian Muslims use Hanfi fiqh. but are other fiqhs practiced by others better than Hanafi.
    Hanfi fiqh is the fiqh of Devbandis and Brailvis alike.
    If mohammed yunus saheb become successful to bring new fiqh, future generations may call him misguided.
    Imam Hanifa is considered more tolerant and modern than other imams. yet he was misguided.
    A misguided is hurling sheeps of Islam for centuries.
    Salute to Islamic scholarship.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/12/2015 3:09:26 AM



  • Alas! there was no mohammed yunus at that time.
    Muslims have treated their women as prostitutes because of wrong translation. these ulema who guided Muslims were misguided.
    yet they are imams of billion Muslims. this is the level of Guidance the Quran provides or this is the level of stooping of muslim scholars.
    God is not interested in guidance.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/12/2015 2:25:32 AM



  • Our laws must be derived from our common sense, our sense of justice and fair play, and our regard for the dignity of every man and woman.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/12/2015 1:23:32 AM