certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islamic Ideology

233 - COMMENTS

  • 7/3/2017 1:13:20 PM  A kafir
    It is shameful
    when U
    try this shameful
    kindness? 
    ..... (Hate speech deleted...Editor)
    TO THE EDITOR 
    If u have a guts then post it.  
    Dear Mr. Kafir,
    Personally I do not like the idea of deleting even hate speech. I would like Muslims to engage with you and remove your misunderstandings that may have led to this hatred. After all, hatred must have some reason. But this the law of the land. Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified it several years ago. You don't have the guts to post your hate speech with your name and address, so that action can be taken against you. The Editor would go to prison for publishing such comments, specially if the writer hides behind words like "A Kafir.".
    By A Kafir - 7/4/2017 9:33:29 PM



  • Naseersaab,

    You have not answered any of the points that I had raised in my last comment. Instead you made some highly inappropriate and irrelevant remarks. Kindly respond to my post or concede that the claim that moral/ethical precepts can only be divine is patently ludicrous.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/12/2016 2:06:51 PM



  • GM Sb,

    Now you go back on your own wonderful analogies!

    Debating with you is like playing chess with the pigeons as Hats Off would say.

    By the way what have you got to say on the state of relationship between the various sects in Iraq before the war? Who can argue with one determined to argue for the sake of argument? It is tiresome in the extreme. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/12/2016 12:28:45 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    You said, "The Creator of human beings, heavenly bodies, coal etc is the Divine. In the case of medicine, he studies what is there and produces what is required because he can produce them."

    You missed the point! Whether a moral precept is of human or divine origin, a philosopher will systematically study it and expound on it, but it is not his job to produce moral precepts. In the realm of physical sciences, the scientist of course studies the creation of Nature or God. In the realm of humanities, including morality, law, poetry or history, a scientist or a philosopher studies whatever literature exists on the subject.

    You asked, "Why doesn’t “The Science of Moral Duty” only study the moral principles given by religion but does not produce them?"

    It studies all moral precepts whether they are from Confucius or Christ. Confucius' work deals extensively with morality and ethics. He said, 500 years before Christ, "Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself". That's why some people have tried to call Confucianism a religion. But it was a philosophy, not a religion. The fact that Confucius was such a prolific producer of aphorisms does not mean all philosophers have to produce such aphorisms. Socrates, who lived 100 years after Confucius, taught, "ethical virtue is the only thing that matters." Perhaps we should say that the earliest philosophers did produce ethical precepts, but later philosophers just studied them.

    You said, "Moral Principles must be inspired/revealed by the same Entity that created the stars."

    You underestimate the capabilities of the human mind. You cannot convert a falsehood into truth just through persistence.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/11/2016 2:39:37 PM



  • For the benefit of everyone to help follow the argument.

    Naseer’s Question

    The Science of medicine studies medicine and also produces medicine

    Why doesn’t “The Science of Moral Duty” only study the moral principles given by religion but does not produce them?

    GM’s Response:

    Moral principles are like the stars that man studies but does not produce.

    Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

    Naseer’s argument:

    Now I get what you are saying.

     Moral principles are like the stars that man can only study but not produce.

    It is not like medicine which man can both study and produce.

    I have been trying to say the same thing.

    Moral Principles must be inspired/revealed by the same Entity that created the stars as claimed by religions which have given us the moral principles.

     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/11/2016 10:13:59 AM



  • GM Sb,

    You say:Without responding to my previous comment, you ask a new question: " If ethics is the science of moral duty, why does it not generate its own moral principles ?"

     

    You had deliberately ducked answering this question twice before. It is not a new question.

     

     

    You say: Science is a systematized study of a subject. According to Kidder, ethics studies moral duty. It does not produce moral precepts. A physicist studies energy. He does not produce coal or petroleum. An astronomer studies the stars. He does not create any heavenly bodies.

    -

    That is a great analogy GM Sb. Your analogy and my analogy prove the point that I was making and you were unable to get.

    I agree that man studies what is there and produces what he can. He studies anatomy of a human being, he does not and cannot create human beings, he studies heavenly bodies, he does not and cannot create them, he studies moral principles, he does not and cannot create them.

    The Creator of human beings, heavenly bodies, coal etc is the Divine.

    In the case of medicine, he studies what is there and produces what is required because he can produce them.

    My point is proved. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/10/2016 11:44:37 PM



  • Naseersaab,

    Without responding to my previous comment, you ask a new question: " If ethics is the science of moral duty, why does it not generate its own moral principles ?"

    Science is a systematized study of a subject. According to Kidder, ethics studies moral duty. It does not produce moral precepts. A physicist studies energy. He does not produce coal or petroleum. An astronomer studies the stars. He does not create any heavenly bodies.

    Why are these things difficult for you?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/10/2016 4:25:34 PM



  • I am surprised that many Muslim ( not all ), especially who are in bandwagon to prove Islam is best, use Philosphy to prove Islamic view point.

    Slavery cannot be eradicated and will never go as long as humans are their, the forms had changed and will change, the degree of freedom had been given time to time and restriction of expression of freedom is stopped, time to time to achieve political and relgious means and agendas.

    So Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, and other relgion have no clean chit on it.

    So does, Democracy, Dictatorship, Kings or any other form of governing system has clean chit in matter of slavery.

    But my view is opposite to Manzural Haqe, keep discussing so we get our share of degree of freedom, which had chance of getting snatched away by tricks and brainwash.
    By Aayina - 9/10/2016 6:53:47 AM



  • Only a colour-blind person would dismiss the role of Islam in dealing with slavery. True, Islam did not abolish slavery on a certain Sunday , but it rather took a different route. It worked to eradicate slavery. When liquor was banned people threw their wines down the drains. By banning slavery outright, were the slaves also to be thrown down the drain? Their integration to the society was more important because they were human beings and not objects. I have read that in some cases the slaves used to commit suicide on the death of their masters. The attitude of slavery was sometimes two-way. As an after-effect of changes in attitudes, when a slave became a sovereign king, what was there for him to abolish?And even after abolition of slavery in modern times in non-Muslim countries , can we say the poor man is free? Ask  a Westerner on the street. Slavery in another shape , is coming back in a big way, and it might be that this time man would have  lost the ability to fight against slavery. Let us not take this serious issue to the childish level and waste our effort defaming Islam. By Manzurul Haque - 9/10/2016 3:13:58 AM



  • GM Sb,
     You have not answered the following question:
     Rushworth Kidder states that "standard definitions of ethics have typically included such phrases as 'the science of the ideal human character' or 'the science of moral duty'".
      Can we even talk about moral duty without moral principles? If ethics is the science of moral duty, why does it not generate its own moral principles ?
     If medicine is the science of curing people, isn’t producing appropriate medicine for various diseases a part of the science of medicine or that of its sub branches or related branches? There was a time when only what was available such as natural herbs were used. So is philosophy at the same stage where it can only use what is available from wherever and cannot produce any moral principle?
    Why hasn't the science of moral duty developed like any other science and give us the latest moral principles? Why do we have to depend on religion?
    And why has religion been so successful? By Naseer Ahmed - 9/10/2016 2:44:48 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    Thanks for reproducing that Bishop piece. However it does not mean what you think it means. It does not  offer proof of the failure of philosophy as far as morality is concerned. It only bewails the loss of moral certainty and reflects how modern man finds himself with   no authentic moral framework for making value distinctions. Philosophers study and expound on this vacuum but they do not hold philosophy  responsible for it. Philosophers have no mandate to be either the generators or even guardians of morality. They are in-depth students of morality, among other things.

    My questioning the distinction between utilitarian and ethical precepts was only as regards man's capability to produce them, and had no other implication.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/10/2016 1:30:40 AM



  • GM Sb,
    If you haven't understood the difference between Utilitarian precepts and Moral precepts, read philosophy or simply Kant's "supreme principle of morality".
    or just the following:
    "Philosophers have totally abandoned the idea of a unifying, universal secular morality, whether derived from Kant to Sartre or from Post-modernist Scepticism to Nietzsche. Morality has floundered on the rocks of Utilitarianism, Pluralism, Universality, Prescriptivism, Existentialism, Postmodernist Scepticism, Moral Relativism, Moral Absolutism and any other philosophical 'ism' one cares to name. Post-modernist critical theory seems to have destroyed any hope of moral certainty. The consequence of this argument is that we, as individuals, now believe that we inhabit a moral vacuum where there is no firm foundation for moral concepts. There is no moral compass, and no authentic moral framework for making value distinctions. We are left with nothing except a feeling of powerlessness, an absence of moral awareness, a lack of a shared experience and social solidarity. There is nothing but a post-modern culture of narcissism, devoid of any real moral framework for making value distinctions. It is apparent that we have no respect for ourselves or for others as independent free moral beings. The knowledge that we do not have defined moral values has encouraged a deep-rooted culture of suspicion in society and a scarcity of basic trust between people. Attempts to constantly extend mechanisms to make people more 'accountable' flounder; because without personal moral accountability, we are reduced to doing what we are told and we do not, in turn, trust the people doing the telling. There is no duty and necessity of critique, by enquiring into one's own individual conduct and the conduct of established institutions. The consequence of people not being trusted is that they become less and less trustworthy. The downward spiral continues.” (Bishop, A. (2005) 'Moral principles defined: a decision-making perspective', Int. J. Management and Decision Making, Vol. 6, Nos. 3/4, pp.326-333)
    While philosophy has give us Utilitarianism, Pluralism, Universality, Prescriptivism, Existentialism, Postmodernist Scepticism, Moral Relativism, Moral Absolutism and any other philosophical 'ism' one cares to name it has floundered as far as morality is concerned.
    There you have proof of the failure of philosophy as far as morality is concerned and the fact that it is not the same as Utilitarianism etc.. What next? By Naseer Ahmed - 9/9/2016 11:19:16 PM



  • Naseersaab asks, " If you are taking an evolutionary view of development of all moral principles minus help from the Divine, why don't you go all the way and answer the question asked by me?"

    That is a strange question to ask when I had just said, " I see no conflict between man's achievements and religious teachings. I think they compliment each other."

    And you deliberately misquote me when you say that I am "taking an evolutionary view of development of all moral principles," when you know fully well my position that moral precepts can have both human and divine origins.

    Trying to make much of the distinction between ethical precepts and utilitarian precepts is fallacious. As man's brain grew in size and as his ability to analyze and learn from his struggle to survive increased, he developed the capability to generate both utilitarian and ethical precepts.

    Instead of using such deceptive techniques to keep the discussion going would it not be wise to drop the ridiculous assertion that religion is the only source of moral precepts? Such an assertion is not necessary for being a good Muslim or a good Christian.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/9/2016 1:33:03 PM



  • GM Sb, If you are taking an evolutionary view of development of all moral principles minus help from the Divine, why don't you go all the way and answer the question asked by me?
    As far as hunting is concerned, animals also hunt in packs including tigers and lions not to speak of the wolf and the hyena. Savages also killed other savages in packs. Pack level cooperation existed. Man has always been a social being and lived in communes. Intra-commune cooperation existed among the savages. Here man is not going beyond instinct and utilitarian considerations or learning from his environment. Man has always been excellent at seeing the utilitarian angle of anything but not the moral one on his own. He can learn morals from the example of other societies or from the behaviour of animals. Ethics of Utilitarianism is a human construct.
    We can discuss the topic further when I write the article on why human beings have found it difficult to produce moral principles.  The article will provide answers to several other interesting questions also. This may take anything from a few days to a couple of weeks depending on how much time I get for research. By Naseer Ahmed - 9/9/2016 5:41:34 AM



  • Naseersaab asks, "Are you saying that Islam is a construct of Muhammad and God or divinity has nothing to do with it?"

    Did you read my last post and the article that I had linked? Man must have started developing moral codes when big game hunting started. As the article says, "When hunter-gatherers formed groups, survival essentially boiled down to one key tenet—cooperate, or die." 

    Religions enriched this process,  adding more moral precepts and giving them divine sanction. I see no conflict between man's achievements and religious teachings. I think they compliment each other.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/9/2016 2:18:40 AM



  • GM Sb,

    In my article:

    Causes For The Rise And Fall Of The Muslims

    I discuss the Islamic principles which helped achieve what Scott describes as follows:

    “The rapid and almost miraculous development of the human mind was the inevitable consequence of a policy based on those principles whose application had promoted the wonderful progress of every nation ruled by the enlightened successors of Muhammad.” (Scott)

    and D C Sarton describes as:The achievements of the Arabic speaking peoples between the ninth and the twelfth centuries are so great as to baffle our understanding” 

    Now an evolutionist can easily say that those principles evolved precisely to achieve what the Muslims achieved. There is nothing wrong with that. So are you also saying the same thing? Are you saying that Islam is a construct of Muhammad and God or divinity has nothing to do with it? 

    Even if your answer to the above question is yes, the fact remains that human endeavour to find moral principles has failed despite enormous effort put in by philosophers who pursued "The Science of Moral Duty".  Philosophy appears to have accepted its failure. 

    I am doing research for my next article, where I plan to establish with data and facts that human beings are actually incapable of producing moral principles but good at learning from hindsight. The facts and data are from all the unsuccessful attempts made by the philosophers to find new moral principles.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/9/2016 12:01:44 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    You posted the same comment under two articles yesterday. Does that show your desperation to have the last word?

    It seems you are now saying that the main job of the philosophers is to do something that they are not capable of doing or that they have not done so far. Why don't you leave the philosophers out of this discussion and consider the proposition that man has generated moral precepts since the dawn of civilization for the sake of his own survival.

    Please read the following:


    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-humans-became-moral-beings-80976434/?no-ist

    It says human morality emerged along with big game hunting. When hunter-gatherers formed groups, survival essentially boiled down to one key tenet—cooperate, or die.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/8/2016 3:14:02 PM



  • GM Sb,  The very fact that you are posting the same comment under two articles is because clearly you want to have the last word here.
     Rushworth Kidder states that "standard definitions of ethics have typically included such phrases as 'the science of the ideal human character' or 'the science of moral duty'".
     Can we even talk about moral duty without moral principles? If ethics is the science of moral duty, why does it not generate its own moral principles ?
     If medicine is the science of curing people, isn’t producing appropriate medicine for various diseases a part of the science of medicine or that of its sub branches or related branches? There was a time when only what was available such as natural herbs were used. So is philosophy at the same stage where it can only use what is available from wherever and cannot produce any moral principle?
    Why hasn't the science of moral duty developed like any other science and give us the latest moral principles? Why do we have to depend on religion?
    And why has religion been so successful? By Naseer Ahmed - 9/8/2016 4:10:25 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    You said, "You are repeating yourself trying to have the last word by hook or by crook as you always do. Stop this juvenile practice."

    Actually that is your habit. And your taking that tone  suggests that you are again running out of arguments. All that you can now do is to keep repeating yourself or try to browbeat me into letting you have the last word!

    You also said, "Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct."

    But not generating moral precepts! You yourself have testified umpteen times that they haven't.
     
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/8/2016 3:24:11 AM



  • GM Sb,

    We have discussed this before. You are repeating yourself trying to have the last word by hook or by crook as you always do. Stop this juvenile practice.

     Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.

    As a branch of philosophy, ethics investigates the questions "What is the best way for people to live?" and "What actions are right or wrong in particular circumstances?" In practice, ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality, by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrongvirtue and vicejustice and crime. Three major areas of study within ethics recognised today are:

    1.   Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined

    2.   Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action

    3.   Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action

     Rushworth Kidder states that "standard definitions of ethics have typically included such phrases as 'the science of the ideal human character' or 'the science of moral duty'".Richard William Paul and Linda Elder define ethics as "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures". The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word ethics is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality'.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/8/2016 12:53:32 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    Bringing philosophy in this discussion is a red herring. Philosophy is an intellectual pursuit. Moral precepts on the other hand are the products of common sense and folk wisdom. You do not need a philosopher to tell you that it is wrong to steal your neighbor's cow.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/7/2016 1:35:52 PM



  • GM Sb,

    Take any other subject such as sociology or psychology. People did have some knowledge of human behaviour and motivations and of the various kind of emotions and of social organizations and behaviour of groups. So this knowledge was there in some form before it became a part of an academic discipline. There after, the academic discipline took this rudimentary knowledge or folk wisdom to new heights.

    Now let us look at the moral precepts. What has philosophy added to it beyond understanding what it meant and come up with a good definition of what it found? Kant's contribution is considerable but limited to making moral choices when faced with a moral dilemma but working with the given moral precepts.

    When we talk about ability we are talking about the future possibilities. That would be speculation and I don't speculate. My arguments are limited to facts and facts are based on what has happened in the past.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/7/2016 1:25:10 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    Are you now saying that maybe man is capable of producing moral precepts but that there is no proof that he has actually done so? Is asking for proof for the obvious your main strategy? Do we have records of what man said and did over the past 5000 years? I had asked you earlier whether before Moses came down from the mountaintop with his Ten Commandments, man did not know that it is wrong to steal a neighbor's cow or to kill another human being. If a precept is part of a religion, it is well recorded. But if it is a product of collective human wisdom, how would you trace or affirm its origin? If one goes to the other extreme and says that all religion-based moral precepts pre-existed as products of human wisdom or common sense, how would you go about proving or disproving such a hypothesis?

    You say that man has produced utilitarian precepts but not ethical precepts, but you forget that ethical precepts are as essential for human survival and group survival as utilitarian precepts, if not more so. If one tells you that it is absurd to think that man cannot generate moral concepts, you counter by asking for "one example of a moral precept whose source is other than religion." Is that your proverbial pound of flesh? 

    What you are in effect arguing is that until religions came along, man was but an animal no different from any other beast. That is an old religious dogma which would be discounted today by most educated Muslims, but you have clothed it in the garb of modern scholarship to make it palatable.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/6/2016 12:37:42 PM



  • Hats Off,

    There is nothing wrong in quoting someone if you agree with what they say. The important thing is that you should be able to own up what you quote as your considered view and defend it.

    There is nothing wrong with your rejecting what anybody else has said either. You do not have to agree with anybody in the world no matter how great but then you should be able to defend what you say.

    As far as the meaning of the Quran is concerned, I do not agree with any scholar 100%. I do not write an article unless I have something different to say from what everyone else has said. If I didn't disagree with what others have said, I wouldn't have written a single article.

    If somebody wants to debate what I have written, he is free to quote anyone provided he defends what he quotes as his own view. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/6/2016 12:18:08 PM



  • sorry! i stand corrected.

    mr naseer ahmed's hypothesis is - religion is the "only" source of morals.

    the objection is about mr naseer ahmed holding mr royalji's interpretation to the conclusions of more reputed commentators of the bible, while exempting himself from the same requirement on the matter of interpreting kufr and jizya.

    also if the webmaster could find the time to look into it - the comments text box is mangling text as well as formatting. but of course this is a gratuitous complaint and suggestion and may be ignored entirely.
    By hats off! - 9/6/2016 8:52:27 AM



  • Hats Off comment is obviously without seeing my response to GM's comment.

    "The hypothesis that human beings are not capable of generating moral precepts is absurd."

     Is that that the hypothesis? That is not the hypothesis.


    When you cannot attack a reasonable hypothesis, you re frame the hypothesis in such a manner that the re framed hypothesis can be seen to be absurd. 


    I am surprised that Hats Off did not see through the trick.


    The argument is not about human ability at all. That no human being has ever run  a 100 m race under 9 seconds is not proof of the inability of man to do so.


    That man can do 100 m in less than 9 seconds using other means is well known. Now if someone tells you that man has covered 100 m in less than 1 second,  that he he has not run that distance but used other means is a reasonable hypothesis .


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/6/2016 5:30:05 AM



  • What you imply can be said more simply and directly: "The hypothesis that human beings are not capable of generating moral precepts is absurd." (absurdities of one man are the bedrocks of another's logic. things may and can be succinctly said, but they may also be said elaborately, especially when we are splitting hairs. essentially it is matter of individual style or the way of speaking or the way of typing words into a text box.)

     Requiring proof or evidence of man being able to create moral precepts is equally absurd. (like i said before, absurdities of one man are the proofs of another)

     It would be like questioning whether man can learn from experience. We all know that man learns from experience and this can be easily proved in a laboratory. (unfortunately morality - especially religious moralities - are difficult to be established by laboratory experiments. if they could be, it would imply that issues of morals are empirical matters. i do not know how many would be comfortable with the position that, religion-derived-morals are empirical. especially when religion-derived morals are the absolute, the time less, the divine that we are sadly grappling with. like shariah - for instance, which is touted to be the law of allah.)

     If man can learn from experience, he is quite capable of forming moral precepts. (i should probably add experience to the list of non-religious sources of morals along with instincts, self-interest, fear and hope. as a refutation of the assertion that religion is the "only" source of morals)

     A precept, by definition, is nothing but "a rule or direction, often with some religious basis, dictating a way you should act or behave. Precepts are little life lessons that are usually passed down to children by authority figures such as parents, teachers, or religious figures." The definition says precepts "often", not "always", have "some religious basis". (i am unable to see what is being arrived at by making a distinction between moral behaviour and moral precepts. in my humble opinion, the distinction is trivial for the purposes of the current debate. in my opinion, the words/phrases that are being discussed are "only", "always", "exclusively" or some such absolutes. not relativistic ones such as "often" or "one of the". these are offered in refutation of the absolutist positions.)

    By hats off! - 9/6/2016 3:27:24 AM



  • In general lack of proof is not proof of something. (probably what mr naseer ahmed wants to say is something like the following dictum from pathologists examining blood for blood parasites - "absence of proof is not proof of absence". be that as it may,  and whether my guess is correct or not, my comment neither implies that it is nor that it is not. this is a guess, but not an attempt to put words in mr naseer ahmed's key strokes.)

    Lack of proof that X is innocent is not proof that he is guilty. Being proved guilty requires proof of guilt. (i do not know if standards of establishing or absolving of guilt was/is the matter in discussion. but i am inclined to believe that it is/was not. the matter was the absolutist position that religion is the "only" source of morals.) 

    When you have substantial proof of guilt and no proof of innocence such as a water tight alibi, it is reasonable to consider the person guilty. If the case is based on circumstantial evidence alone, then the probabilities that those circumstantial evidences can be true and yet the person is innocent is considered. Only if the person is found to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt that a verdict of guilty is reached. My evidence follows the process rigorously. (i am unable to see what process is being followed here and am not convinced of its rigour. but of course to everyone be the right to his poison. arguments on social, moral, and ethical issues cannot be offered with any "rigour". at best arguments about these issues may be convincing or they may be unconvincing. that is all. until so far, mr naseer ahmed's argument is not convincing. at least to me. rigour is neither being sought nor can it be convincingly offered in semantic exercises. in my understanding, this is analogy - not what i said in my comment. so there is reasonable doubt about the operative word "only".)

     Now it is for the other party to show that the case is not without reasonable doubt. (social, moral and ethical issues and debates about them can only offer evidence. and that evidence might be tested on whether it is admissible or not. if at least one more source of morals is offered, the statement that religion is the "only" source of morals - stands refuted. because, one or more possible source of morals have been offered, to wit - instincts, self-interest, fears and hopes - when it was originally asserted that religion is the "only" source.)

     The analogy is incorrect because the rigour followed  to prove something right is not the same when you are trying to condemn. (i have not offered any analogy/analogies. if there are analogies i have offered that i am not able to see, i must be word blind. and nothing was being condemned. it was only stated that sources of morals - other than religion - can be offered. and these were offered.)

     And yet, I have followed the same rigour to establish my point. (this is what is precisely under debate. a repeat assertion of rigour is not an argument. it is merely the re-assertion of a position taken by mr naseer ahmed. the burden of proof is with mr naseer ahmed.)

     There is  enormous positive evidence and lack of negative evidence. (what enormous positive evidence and what lack of negative evidence? a couple more of the possible/probable source of morals was offered. either these are admitted or they are dismissed. once again - other sources (of morals) were offered in refutation of the statement that religion is the "only" source of morals. "only" is the operative word here, in my opinion. of course i might be mistaken.)

     finally why must mr royalji be required to align with "more reputable commentators" of the bible while mr naseer ahmed is free to interpret kufr and jizya in dissonance with other "more reputable commentators" of the koran? i miss the logic. may be my logic is flawed, but like the islamic exegetes are wont to say "allah behtar jaanta hai". whatever that implies.

    By hats off! - 9/6/2016 3:25:03 AM



  • The discussion has helped me to write my next article "Atheism vs Theism" which provides a far more fertile ground for continuing the discussion.

    Thanks to everyone for their contribution.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/6/2016 2:10:22 AM



  • "The hypothesis that human beings are not capable of generating moral precepts is absurd."

     Is that the hypothesis? That is not the hypothesis.

     Requiring proof or evidence of man being able to create moral precepts is equally absurd.

     Is that what is asked for? What is asked for is simply a single example of a moral precept generated outside religion. That certainly is very reasonable. I can understand your frustration at not being able to do that.

      It would be like questioning whether man can learn from experience. We all know that man learns from experience and this can be easily proved in a laboratory. If man can learn from experience, he is quite capable of forming moral precepts.

     This is a false analogy. Man has made revolutionary strides in “utilitarian” disciplines. As far as ethics is concerned he excels in the ethics of utilitarianism. Those ethics are what makes us savages and not moral persons. That is the reason why we were savages before religion civilized us. The reason why society shows a strong tendency to regress to immorality is because Utilitarianism makes sense and is rational and morality is irrational and counter intuitive.

      A precept, by definition, is nothing but "a rule or direction, often with some religious basis, dictating a way you should act or behave. Precepts are little life lessons that are usually passed down to children by authority figures such as parents, teachers, or religious figures." The definition says precepts "often", not "always", have "some religious basis".

     The challenge thrown is not whether there are more moral precepts coming from religion or less. The challenge is to give one example of a moral precept whose source is other than religion.

    It is absurd in the extreme to use the argument of absurdity when all that is required is one counter example. It shows that the person is at the end of his wits.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/6/2016 1:57:14 AM



  • To
    Raihan Nezami

    No I do not have deep hatered to Islam or even Muslim.

    In fact I have never hated any relgion as such, only I hate absurdity later on added to justify political and personal gains, which is very hard to distinguish, when some practises and narration of absurd stories are repeated, practised and taught again and again.

    With Islam and Muslim as they do not recognise multiple gods or even saints, the only human figure left out is your prophet, the result of this is that lots of fable and good stories are borrowed from past histories and tradition, and  than after attached with little modification to your revered Mohamed paigamber, the addition is still going on, but I do not mind because the greater consequence will be paid by Muslims, not the races that are now going away from this fable stories.

    All stories and traditions always have some phycology and moral( bad or good) to teach, that does not mean they became divine.

    I Give the example of paigamber Lot, and Brahma, do you think that the sexual misconduct done by Lot with her daughter and Brhama had lust for her daughter does it make any sense, this are absurd stories added later on by sick people to satisfy their own needs or defame other religions(or belife), a rational mind can understand easily, to understand this you do not need to be learned scholar.

    This type of stories can be used to abuse each other verbal, or written which we all do.

    I do not mind when Muslims pick Hindu fable stories and abuse because they want to prove that our Muslim absurd stories are true and divine, if this things are going to guide our Muslim brothers life let it be, but certainly not for Hindus.

    Since  we get independence 1948, we Hindus had first chance after centuries to get it out from old absured traditions, thanks to Baba Ambedkar who gave social revoulation to Hindu by giving more rational and moral constitution to India and Nehru who help to develop scientific temperament for all Indians( Includes all relgions and Athiest too), if Muslim want to remain behind that should not be seen as Hindus hate towards Muslim, the constitutions is not stopping muslim from social revolution or scientific tempermentl, if muslim want to guide their life through Quran and sunnah that also a majority Hindu society of India had not stopped a Muslim personal laws was introduced so Muslim deal their own issues in their own way.

    If you see my comments I have equally condemn practise followed by Hindu along with Muslim.

    I belive relgion develops as human develops intellectually, the development  of relgion can be stopped by enforcing fable stories, which ultimately stops human intellectual development.
    By Aayina - 9/6/2016 1:34:53 AM



  • Naseer saab,

    The questions you ask are bizarre and unrelated to what is being discussed.

    Why does slavery exist in the modern world? For the same reason it existed in the ancient world. But the fact that it has been markedly reduced and criminalized is largely the result of evolution in human thinking.

    Why does adultery exist? For the same reason that it always existed, namely carnal desires. It still exists in societies in which stoning to death is still practiced as well as in societies in which adultery is not a crime but a tort.

    Your comment, "If you wish to ignore the woods for the trees and the tremendous stride forward for the backtracking, that is your choice," is totally inappropriate and meaningless.

    You asked, "Have you enlightened us on sectarian strife in Iraq before the war?" Please go back to that discussion and examine the data I presented. If you have any specific questions about it please let me know.

    I do not know the purpose of this barrage of questions. Does it mean you have run out of arguments? Does it mean you want to end this discussion with fireworks in order to save face?

    With regard to your comments addressed to Hats Off, let me just say that whether humans are capable of creating moral precepts should not even be a question let alone  be something that requires proof.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/6/2016 12:59:58 AM



  • GM Sb,

    I agree. Now please enlighten us why slavery exists in the modern world?

    Morality wouldn't be morality if it was easy to practice.and if the society did not regress to what is immoral. 

    Why does adultery exist?

    If you wish to ignore the woods for the trees and the tremendous stride forward for the backtracking, that is your choice.

    Have you enlightened us on sectarian strife in Iraq before the war?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/5/2016 10:06:18 PM



  • Hats Off,

    In general lack of proof is not proof of something. Lack of proof that X is innocent is not proof that he is guilty. Being proved guilty requires proof of guilt.
    When you have substantial proof of guilt and no proof of innocence such as a water tight alibi, it is reasonable to consider the person guilty. If the case is based on circumstantial evidence alone, then the probabilities that those circumstantial evidences can be true and yet the person is innocent is considered. Only if the person is found to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt that a verdict of guilty is reached. My evidence follows the process rigorously. Now it is for the other party to show that the case is not without reasonable doubt.

    The analogy is incorrect because the rigour followed  to prove something right is not the same when you are trying to condemn. And yet, I have followed the same rigour to establish my point.

    There is  enormous positive  evidence and lack of negative evidence.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/5/2016 7:34:23 PM



  • Hats Off,
    What you imply can be said more simply and directly: "The hypothesis that human beings are not capable of generating moral precepts is absurd."
    Requiring proof or evidence of man being able to create moral precepts is equally absurd. It would be like questioning whether man can learn from experience. We all know that man learns from experience and this can be easily proved in a laboratory. If man can learn from experience, he is quite capable of forming moral precepts. A precept, by definition, is nothing but "a rule or direction, often with some religious basis, dictating a way you should act or behave. Precepts are little life lessons that are usually passed down to children by authority figures such as parents, teachers, or religious figures." The definition says precepts "often", not "always", have "some religious basis".
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/5/2016 1:39:25 PM



  • Naseersaab, Slaves holding important positions in the army should hardly be a point of rejoicing for us. The evil lies in one man being the owner of another man and depriving him of his God-given freedom.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/5/2016 1:02:56 PM



  • Hats Off,

    The role of instinct is discussed in my article:

    While instinct is a source of moral behaviour, it is not a source for moral precepts. Instinct is instinct and can be overridden with great difficulty by reasoning.

    Moral behaviour based on precepts has to be learned since the moral precepts are contra intuitive.

     Children learn the precepts from their parents and all learning is based on the system of reward and punishment. Moral precepts learned in childhood become instinctive. The unconscious memory of reward/punishment associated with the precept acts as the motivator which makes our response instinctive.

    The rest of the comment I think addressed is in my next article "Atheism vs Theism" which may get published tomorrow. I agree with most of what is said.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/5/2016 10:14:36 AM



  • One of your best comments Hats Off.  By Naseer Ahmed - 9/5/2016 8:55:14 AM



  • the statement that religion is "a" source of morality can be supported by ratiocination and therefore is possibly true.

     but to state that religion is the "only" source of morals is to create a godelian safety net.

     this statement (that religion is the "only" source of moral) can neither be proved nor disproved. "proof" is the prerogative of mathematics while "evidence" is for all others. while proofs are incontrovertible, evidence is almost always controvertble.

     but if evidence can be provided to suggest that the statement might not be entirely true in so far as other sources of morals can be identified, the operative word "only" will then have to be discarded. animal instincts, (including human instincts) for example can be put forth as another source of morals. self-interest can be put forth as one more source of morals. fear and hope can also suggested as yet other sources of morality.

     while in general absolutist statements have the to bear the burden of proof, these positions can never be substantiated merely by stating that they are true "because" they cannot be disproved. statements that cannot be disproved cannot be taken as proof of  their being true.

     while religion undoubtedly is a source of morals, it needs to be pointed out that very often religions have also been the source depraved immorality. ritual cannibalism, adult and human sacrifices, animal sacrifices, and temple prostitution are all probably highly immoral. as is the unethical "otherization" that all religions propound. these immoralities are almost exclusively sourced to religion. some studies suggest that religiosity itself might have a genetic basis in which case nothing can be made out for its universality, because atheism might be postulated as an effect of the absence of genetic sequences that "cause" religiosity.

     if one were to accept that religion is the "only" source of morality, then those that are in favor of its being true need to also accept that religion is also the source of depravity, promiscuity, superstition as well as sanctioned discrimination through the often violent "otherization". the otherization dichotomy (the us versus them fork) is a universal attribute of almost all religions. because any religion and its followers almost always canvass and co-opt followers of "other" religions and those that refuse to be co-opted then are immediately "otherized". no religion is exempt from this.

     the last word on the morality can probably be said only by the theory of evolution, but in these semantic arguments nothing can ever be said with any amount of certainty because participants rarely take the trouble to define the terms, delimit the domain and map the range of discourse.

    By hats off! - 9/5/2016 8:02:45 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    You said, "You cited an article to prove that the Greek philosophers believed in equality but I have shown you that the very same scholars supported slavery."

    They supported slavery but they also believed in equality. They believed in equality of the free citizens of the state. Slaves were excluded from this discussion. This is not unique. The Quran says that all are equal in the eyes of God and yet our Prophet had slaves and did not expressly ban slavery. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," and yet he had many slaves and so did George Washington. 
    AS I said in another post, "Abolition of slavery and reduction of inequality have both been slow and assiduous processes over the millennia resulting from evolutionary dynamics rather than from revolutionary upheavals. These are human achievements. The contribution of religions to this process has been small and often ambiguous."
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/5/2016 12:57:52 AM



  • Some words get respelt by the system. Plz bear with it and read the correct one.

    Another point : all unequals are not slaves, but all slaves are unequals.
    By Manzurul Haque - 9/4/2016 11:59:21 PM



  • GM Sb,
    There are degrees of freedom and degrees of slavery. Slavery is most certainly a form of inequality.

    While Islam did not ban slavery, it removed inequality to an extent where slaves also held important positions specially in the army. Read the article which describes the various ways in which slaves under Islam enjoyed more equality than free afro Americans in the US until recently.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/4/2016 11:52:26 PM



  • GM Sb,

    There are many ways to look at the word equal. One may look at the etymology of all equivalent words in all our languages and then say that the word meaning what we understand by equal today is found in the earliest known language. Looking at the question in this manner, we may say that the first man may have had the concept of equal which to him may have only been in the context of things such as one apple is equal to another apple although they are not same. Is that what we are talking about? As a matter of fact, the concept of inequality of man may be an acquired or a learned concept but once learned, this became so firmly ingrained in our psyche that no philosopher or reformer opposed slavery on moral grounds upto the end of the 18th century and on the contrary, all of them found justification for it.

    The US abolished slavery in 1865 after a hundred years of intense struggle and several acts of rebellion by slaves. A Civil war was also fought over the issue. And yet inequality remained with legal sanction for another hundred years. It took another hundred years of intense struggle to get citizenship rights and equality. Racism still remains even in the judiciary.

    You cited an article to prove that the Greek philosophers believed in equality but I have shown you that the very same scholars supported slavery. You cited the article without adequate research which shows how readily you accept anything that supports your view. It is quite apparent that you do not look for data that may contradict your view and on the other hand discount it when what you say has been proved wrong. My challenge has not been met.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/4/2016 8:34:22 PM



  • I have said this before. I treat the anonymous remarks on NAI as coming from the editor because I don't talk to ghosts. The Prophet (PBUH) has also advised Muslims to argue with wisdom. As a matter of principle, I sometimes convey to a cretin (I have no particuar person in my mind) the age-old wisdom, "jinke ghar sheeshe ke hote hain, woh doosron par pathar nahi marte". 

    People (especially the anonymous gender. I hope everybody knows my allergy for anonymity) on NAI talk of equality without knowing the concept. They look for Procrustrean justice. They do not understand the essence of justice that gives different shapes  to the concept of equality, and thus they keep asking repetitive questions to vent their anger against Islam. In fact a better expression is 'equal opportunity in a similar circumstance (for a similar category) in pursuit of justice'. I have seen somebody asking "why was the war widow of the 7th century not rehabilitated in Gurgaon call-centre?"(Plz bear with little humour) Persons bereft of common sense are asking questions with 58" puffed up chest! If explained politely to them with reasons and historical facts, that 'arre baba Muslims under whatever little influence of Islam were trying their best to give the needy his/her due', the 'Tal Thokres' jump in with a gun at our 'kanpatti' and yell 'withdraw your comments, else..' Lo bhai withdraw kar liya. You win. But NAI loses because the debate is lost, the direction is lost. Some friends here think that I have a dislike for Hinduism. They go to Google and cut something from there and paste it on my face. I always say I am not very educated because I feel that 'the other person is better than I am'. Let me tell now, I am sure quite some commentators here were not even born, when I had finished reading  J Krishnamorthy, Bhagwan Rajneesh, Radhakrishnan and above all Swami Vivekanand who impressed me most. I can say with surety that Swamy Vivekanad would never have abused Islam or Muslims. He advocated synthesis. People entirely missed my concept of God-polarity which is an attempt at synthesis and a negation of what Shahin sb is fond of calling Islam supremacism. I have read quite authentic books on the gods and goddesses of India and have understood the essential unity of the natural forces they represent culminating in the same God-head. So Aayina sahiba you are not entirely off-mark to gauge my dexterity in handling the theme. Didn't I recently post my eulogy for Hinduism's contribution to the Beauty of life (because of its strong feminine principle)? And yes I have developed a theoretical framework of reasoning ( a bit difficult to understand) by which a person can grasp a clear possibility of the coming into existence of Quran as a communication from God. But as a man of science I cannot say it in a cock-sure manner. My only point, friends here, is,  please do not defame Islam as you would be destroying a great legacy and a source of strength to the weaker sections of humanity. Give yourself time before you go for the jugular. If you permit I can add my personal, though  very rough finding, that Muslims today follow 1% (because they are encumbered to give up the spirit for the sake of form)  of Islamic values, Hindus perhaps follow 10% ( I am not saying because of Islam) and the Western peoples follow about 40 % of Islamic values (Again not because of Islam). This should explain why Muslims are languishing despite Islam.
    By Manzurul Haque - 9/4/2016 3:02:58 PM



  • The opposite of slavery is not equality. The opposite of slavery is freedom. Americans abolished slavery 150 years ago but even today the whites and blacks are not equals in society. But a black man now is free to quit his job if he wants to. He will not be whipped for wanting to quit his job. He is free to move from one city to another. He will not be brought back in chains to the city of his master.

    Abolition of slavery and reduction of inequality have both been slow and assiduous processes over the millennia resulting from evolutionary dynamics rather than from revolutionary upheavals. These are human achievements. The contribution of religions to this process has been small and often ambiguous.
     
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/4/2016 2:23:27 PM



  • Haquesaab says, "What about 'your religion is worse than all other  religions?' which is the hallmark here."

    That kind of hallmark is just too silly to respond  to.

    Haquesaab also said, " I incidentally found that GM sb had no word against false presentations by secular logic glorifying Hindu practices through half-stolen texts."

    I made a general statement, "Arguing in this day and age "my religion is better than your religion" is silly and juvenile. The only argument worth having is, "How can I best use my religion to make myself a better human being and to make my society a more civil society?"" My focus is to refute the wrong-headed ideas that Naseersaab is articulating and not to respond to everything that everybody is saying.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/4/2016 1:56:13 PM



  • Secularlogic,

    The questions that you have asked have been asked by you before and answered.

    Are Muslims equal citizens in India? The answer is by the Constitution of the country they are.

    Do they face discrimination based on their religion? The answer is yes.

    Are they persecuted? Generally no, but there are frequent riots and they are the target of the violence and killing.

    Is the administration just? No, the police often play a partisan role.

    Is the judiciary just? They try to be but are often unsuccessful especially when powerful politicians are involved.

    Even so, on the whole, India is one of the better countries and although all the bad experiences are fact, they form a small percentage of the total experience which is by and large good.

    However, a fat book can be written on all the negative experiences over the 69 years of independence leaving out all the positive things to prove otherwise which is what the Islamophobes do when they write about Islam.

    From the 7th to the 12th century, there was no better place for religious tolerance, equality of opportunities, and for fairness and justice  than the lands under the Islamic Caliphate.

    Read "The Jews of Islam" by Bernard Lewis or any other reputed historian.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/4/2016 11:35:13 AM



  • Also, the fact that civilisations all over the world had some form of religious, racial or caste inequality does not imply that Islam, with its version of equality, was any better. It only means that everyone was flawed to a greater or lesser extent. By secularlogic - 9/4/2016 7:36:04 AM



  • Mr Ahmed, instead of throwing the quotes of random people in my face, just answer the questions I have posed. You claim Islam introduced equality in this world, and nobody before them did. I have some basic questions about the nature of equality in Islam. 1. Is a Muslim equal to a non Muslim in Islam 2. Is a woman equal to a man in all respects 3. Are polytheists, Jews, Christians, and other denominations equal to Muslims and to each other 4. Are war captives, especially women, equal to free muslim men and women? Are all of them treated with equal grace in the Quran? Praying shoulder to shoulder means nothing. All ingroups have this equality. Christians pray shoulder to shoulder. Jews pray shoulder to shoulder. Savarnas in Hinduism pray shoulder to shoulder. The test of equality lies in how the out-groups are treated. Give me the answer to this. I am not interested in your quotes, as my opinion is not dependent upon the understanding of others. I can give you a similar number of quotes that state the opposite. By secularlogic - 9/4/2016 7:34:13 AM



  • Mr Nezami, before lecturing me, read the comments of your esteemed co-religionist Mr Haque.

    Your prophet had given one very wise piece of advice - do not mock the Gods and faiths of others, lest they turn around and mock yours. 

    Well, this pious person broke this rule and got what he deserved in return.

    It is interesting that you see offence only when it is given to muslims. Not by muslims.

    I had no opinion about Islam and treated it like any other faith in the world, with its own virtues and shortcomings, until Muslims started creating havoc in the world. Then I went into the details and found it not very much to my liking.

    I would still have refrained from commenting about it if people did not go about saying their religion was perfect in every respect, and the greatest religion in the world.

    Assertions like that need to be challenged and disproved and that is exactly what I am doing.

    If in the process your feeling are hurt, my apologies. Unfortunately, the truth cannot be held hostage to anybody's religious feelings. Especially when that religion is being so aggressive.

    I do not go examining the beliefs of Jews, Zorastrians, Christians, Jains....because they are not making pests of themselves anywhere. And they are not committing crimes against humanity in the name of religion the way some people who call themselves Muslims are. 
    By secularlogic - 9/4/2016 7:26:16 AM



  • Mr Aayina: I like your fondness for writing in English, but the problem is you are not learning a bit to write correct sentences. 
    I suggest you should start expressing yourself with simple sentences and then, you will develop gradually. Right now, your ideas come in a jumbled form which makes it very hard to understand your actual context. By the way, may I ask you a question. 
    Is it your deep-hidden hatred against Islam or just enjoyment talking like this?
    By Raihan Nezami - 9/4/2016 4:03:18 AM




  • Here is my new God I found it GoogliGod, well I dumped all my Indian God as it is hurting to Our Indian Muslims brothers, especially Manzural Haque even if he intrested on non-Muslim gods they are goddesses that how they are fond of non-Muslim women, but my brother you will not able to convert this mythological goddesses.

    How Muslim mind is sick of women that even they want to bring Indian Hindu  belife system in discussion they are fond of goddesses, we give you have it a women God, endulge with her like M F Hussian who drawn naked Indian Hindu Godesses, have his drawings in your house, a gift from Muslim to Muslim for non-Muslim godesses  endulgment.


    By Aayina - 9/3/2016 11:33:09 PM



  • To
    Manzural Haque

    Would explain me scientifically coming of existence of Quran, 


    or Islam started with plagrased greet story of stone from heaven, which you all Muslims go there for Haj on stolen stone of Greeks.
    By Aayina - 9/3/2016 11:14:14 PM



  • I asked simple question to Manzural Haque To which Manzurul Haque Did not answer I repeat the question, as he is very fond of making fun of other relgion.

    Question:
    Harfe Muqatat comes before 29 Suras, it grammatical mistake in Quran or God hided truth?

    Here is another cock and bull plagiarised story of cock and bull by Muslims of stone of kaba come from heaven, a story which was widely used by  Greek mythology.

    There are more stories getting plagiarised, cock and bull type by Muslims in sub-continents from Hindu mythology as well, I will clearly would not mentioned which stories but I wish Muslim gets more confused and remains in this fable stories of their own plagiarised stories which they put on their paigamber accounts, which is not going to bear any fruit.

    Sorry Manzural Haque if you cannot understand my English, because the in that case I am very similar to your so called prophet who was not a scholar like you who did not have formal education, may be you teach both of us in heaven if we meet.

    Theirs paigamber Birthday is another addition from Hindu tradition, This Indian Muslims had different opinion on to celebrate or not but this sub-continent Muslims will blame Hindus for that that how silly they are, if they are having all Muslims families (Jali Jate as per Hussan Nisan) originated in Arab which all Muslim claims how they contaminated, neither Zoroastrian, or Jews get courppted living with Hindus for centuries but this Muslims getting easily courppted and Balme others and what about that Abdul Wahab he was also reviving this courppted Islam in Arab, and what about Sultan Shain, which one he trying to review.
    By Aayina - 9/3/2016 11:05:46 PM



  • Naseersaab, Historically rejection of inequality was a phased process to which the Greek philosophers, Islam,  American "Founding Fathers" and several others contributed. The concept of equality did not dawn on humans in a fully formed version because of either Aristotle, Prophet Muhammed or Thomas Jefferson (who himself owned many slaves as did Muhammed), nor can we say that it is is an accomplished fact even now. Hence any attempt to find the true originator of the concept of equality is silly and claiming it for divinity is unwarranted and unnecessary. We should move beyond the phase of making unnecessary claims towards a phase of trying to humbly complete the tasks set forth for us both by divine and human goal-setters. 
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/3/2016 2:53:50 PM



  • Secular Logic,  “The European experience of African slavery and American colonization served as the original source of racialized – and indeed racist – thinking. That men of the intellect of Locke, Hume and Kant were not immune to such thinking suggests that apologies for slavery are not simply about the causes of global economic inequality, but about the failure to universalize the human experience to all persons.”
     
    Both literature and philosophy failed to put forth a case for universalization of the human experience to all persons well into the 20th century – a full 13 centuries after the revelation of the Quran. The practices established by the Prophet (pbuh) universalizing the human experience to cover all sections of the society including the slaves are:

    1.    Marriage of freed slaves with Muslims including those from the Quraish (ruling) tribe. This is explicitly supported by the Quran.

    2.    A black freed slave Bilal holding the position of treasurer of Medina. He also gave the first call for prayer from the sacred mosque when the Prophet made his first pilgrimage to Mecca after his migration.

    3.    Many pious Muslims following the Prophet’s example spent all their wealth to purchase slaves and free them keeping only those who could not support themselves from out of compassion. Apart from personal wealth, the Quran empowers the state to use zakat funds for the freeing of slaves.

    4.    In the mosque, when the call for prayer is sounded and worshippers are gathered together, the equality of all before God is embodied five times a day, when the slave and the ruler stand shoulder to shoulder and pray.

    5.     Read the article for independent accounts of the equality of opportunity enjoyed by the slaves.

    Islamic equality of mankind is no fiction as it is in Christianity. No human mind has ever thought of such total freedom as established by Muhammad.”
     ― Mawde Royden

    “He laid the foundation of a universal government. His law was one for all. Equal justice and love for everyone.”
     ― George Rivorie

    Get it?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/3/2016 11:51:07 AM



  • Dear Secular Logic Sb: Greetings for the Day! I have been following your comments in various threads, and observing your reactions to the logics and explanations given by different writers and commentators by quoting the great historian Kant, Bernard Louis, the Greek and Christian philosophers or anybody else not to mention the references from Quranic Aayat or Hadees which are totally irrelevant to you. There is one thing guaranteed, you can not accept anything positive about Islamic teachings as I think you suffer from assumption and misconceptions.

    In your recent comment, you quoted the following lines what I failed to understand, is its purpose, “72 virgins in heaven, rivers flowing with milk and honey, men with virility of a 100 men to enjoy the 72 virgins whose hymens repair themselves after every intercourse, and who additionally neither defecate nor urinate, a hell for the sinners who are thrown into fires and when their skin burns away, the skin is renewed and they are thrown into the fire again, a prophet ascending to heaven and back in one night after seeing the delights of heaven”.

    Is it your hatred against Islam or just enjoyment talking like this?


    By Raihan Nezami - 9/3/2016 11:50:33 AM



  • secular logic ji,

    I can understand your bluster. You are not used to equality. The first inequality is when you create for yourself an anonymous identity and then go in for uncalled for attacks on Islam and Muslims in which you feel free to use any kind of derogative language against the symbols of Islam.

    The second inequality is that you do not like to be countered or questioned by the other side.

    The third inequality is that you show your extreme anger and hatred for anyone who questions your right to abuse.

     And the fourth inquality is that you want to be deemed as secular and logical compared to others.

     If the mission of NAI is to reform Muslims, you are doing greatest disservice to NAI. Most Muslims do not like to be abused.  

    You are also doing disservice to the cause of Indian nationalism by contemplating to unconstitutionally throw away large sections of Indians outside of India merely for the offence of being different from you. But this problem you may face with other communities as well, though you may not agree with me for the time being.
    By Manzurul Haque - 9/3/2016 10:59:13 AM



  • No. I dont get it. 

     What is the connection? In saudi arabia, the land where the Islamic religion was born, Slavery was not abolished until 1962. 1962. That too under british pressure.  They had heard the Quran ever since it started to be revealed, and they did not abolish slavery for 1200 years. 

    The european problem is similar. They followed christianity, and christianity also condones slavery. So they had trouble coming to terms with its abolition.Still, they did it before the Islamic world did. 

    One Bilal becoming a treasurer means nothing! It does not mean Islam abolished slavery.It just means that it manumitted slaves after a time, at the will of the master, as an act of peity to earn brownie points in the heavenly account book. Manumission is not some great invention of Islam. Jews manumitted slaves much earlier, in seven years, with gifts and as a matter of right. But only Jewish slaves, not the non Jewish ones. So there was discrimination there too. These ex slaves too could go on to lead normal lives and amass property, and rise on their merit. So whats so special about Bilal? 

    Nothing changes the fact that |Abrahamic faiths had robust slave systems, with rules governing their treatment and release and sexual use. They are not equal to free men.

    You can talk about Mahabharat, Kant, french enlightenment, Draupadi, Jesus, whatever, whatever..... you cannot justify slavery and spread false information that slavery in islam was mercy to the enslaved. Never will I agree with you. The mental problem lies with you, not me. You think all wrong things in the world are right if they are in the Quran. 
    By secularlogic - 9/3/2016 10:44:59 AM



  • Secularlogic,

    My apologies! I have difficulty anticipating the problems in understanding that an ignoramus like you faces.

    Kant is considered the ultimate in philosophy on the subject of morality and he is a 18th Century Philosopher. The other greats are Locke and Hume. You now know what they have to say on the subject of slavery and of equality of human beings.

    I am trying to help you guys with the research. I find no one speaking against slavery even upto the 19th Century 1200 years after the revelation of the Quran. Even the US Declaration of Independence falls short.

    Compare this with not only the Islamic precept but the Prophet's practice. Bilal a freed black slave was the first treasurer of Medina. He was also the first to give the call to prayer from the Sacred Mosque.

    Got it?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/3/2016 8:23:45 AM



  • 72 virgins in heaven, rivers flowing with milk and honey, men with virility of a 100 men to enjoy the 72 virgins whose hymens repair themselves after every intercourse, and who additionally neither defecate nor urinate, a hell for the sinners who are thrown into fires and when their skin burns away, the skin is renewed and they are thrown into the fire again, a prophet ascending to heaven and back in one night after seeing the delights of heaven, who has lightning bolts of revelations at the most convenient times and surprise! the revelations are all to his advantage, angels who will curse wives until dawn who refuse to lie with their husbands....... indeed, there are religions which believe in cock and bull stories. But of course, their cock and bull is not cock and bull, but others cock and bull is cock and bull, and this cock and bull declaration of course cannot be questioned by anybody. To paraphrase Tarek Fatah, how does religion produce so many *** *****. It is indeed India's misfortune to have not gone for complete exchange of populations at the time of Partition. These minds are poisoned beyond cure. By secularlogic - 9/3/2016 7:58:32 AM



  • These two gentlemen have gone stark raving mad! 

    How does that para on Kant and slavery in Europe prove that Islam was ahead of the French Renaisance and the Enlightenment? Islam did not abolish slavery, nor was it non-discriminating towards people of different denominations! Nor was it equal in any way! Instead of addressing our questions on how you can claim Islam promoted Equality, the author is making comments that grow bizarre by the minute. Indeed, we have fanatics in our midst. 
    By secularlogic - 9/3/2016 7:49:20 AM



  • See for your self how far ahead Islam was. It was ahead of the French renaissance and enlightenment. It was ahead of even the US Declaration of Independence of 1776. Truly it was Islam which showed the way for equal human rights for all including the women.
    By the eighteenth century, slavery had become the root metaphor of Western political philosophy, connoting everything that was evil about power relations. Freedom, its conceptual antithesis, was considered by Enlightenment thinkers as the highest and universal political value. Yet the political metaphor began to take root at precisely the time that the… enslavement of non-Europeans… was increasing… to the point that by the mid-eighteenth century it came to underwrite the entire economic system of the West, paradoxically facilitating the global spread of the very Enlightenment ideals that were in such fundamental contradiction to it. [Susan Buck-Morss, ‘Hegel and Haiti’Critical Inquiry 26/4 (Summer, 2000): 821.]

     Of all the Enlightenment philosophers, however, Kant is the most influential in contemporary moral philosophy. Human rights law, and indeed modern liberal morality, clearly derives from Kantian arguments that we all share a basic moral status that governments and, indeed, other individuals cannot violate. As modern philosophers put it, Kant’s thought is characterized by its universalism. That is to say that, for Kant, ethical principles should be consistent and rational, which requires that they apply equally and rationally to all persons.

     Unfortunately, however, even Kant was not immune to a European inability to perceive non-Europeans as equal human beings. He denied that non-Europeans had the same status as Europeans, and to do so he was led to suggest an essential intrinsic difference between Europeans and non-Europeans, particularly native Americans and Africans. Indeed, Thomas McCarthy, an influential philosopher, has recently argued: ‘In fact, it seems to have been Kant who first introduced the idea of explaining racial differentiation by postulating in our original ancestors a fund of four germs or seeds, each of which contained… one set of racial characteristics’.

     So while Kant is arguably the greatest influence on modern moral universalism and the ideal of human equality, he is also one of the most important sources of race-based differentiation within humanity.

     A common response to these sorts of quotes is to wonder whether Kant’s thought and the Enlightenment more generally necessarily requires hierarchical differentiation among human beings. Some critical theorists insist that racist differentiation is at the very heart of the Enlightenment project – defining moral agents in terms of a rational thinker that was idealized as male, white and privileged. Others insist that Kant was inconsistent in applying universal values. Modern Kantians of course reject the idea of racial differentiation (and hierarchy) among humans by emphasizing the inconsistency between Kant’s notion of biologically inferior races and his assumption that human beings are rational agents worthy of respect. A contemporary example shows why this inconsistency is not just an academic or philosophical dispute: while the US Declaration of Independence of 1776 declared it ‘self-evident’ that all men were created equal, this truth was denied to slaves and of course women. To the extent that we are inspired by these ideals today, we accept it as ‘self-evident’ that they must apply equally to all human beings.

    Whatever the connection between Kant’s philosophy and his views on human races, the fact that he was led to make such arguments shows just how far the experience of European slavery affected European social and intellectual life. So while we ought to continue to build on Kant’s insight that all persons are owed equal concern and respect, we should also remember that the slave trade’s legacy is not limited to economic inequalities between Africa and Europe (and North America). The European experience of African slavery and American colonization served as the original source of racialized – and indeed racist – thinking. That men of the intellect of Locke, Hume and Kant were not immune to such thinking suggests that apologies for slavery are not simply about the causes of global economic inequality, but about the failure to universalize the human experience to all persons.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/3/2016 6:13:57 AM



  • Is it possible that there are two types of religions? A -type and B-Type. There are religions which are based on cock and bull type of stories. Adherents of such religions have to necessarily seek morality elsewhere. On the other hand there religions which have come to establish rule of morality. Rules are obeyed because of faith in religion. Without faith the Rules are empty slogans! By Manzurul Haque - 9/3/2016 5:58:21 AM



  • Adressed to X,mn of hats off who was on shift duty at relevant time.Didn't expect so much confusion from this channel on the issue of equality. Equality is ensherined in Indian constitution, but does it mean;a chor is equal to police (though in practice they might have become equal in India) ?Hate the sin and not the sinner is an original precept given Allah. Anybody disobeying will face His wrath. I shall not clarify you or likes of you any further so please make a note of it for ever. The correct expression from our side is "We reject kufr, and accept kuffars in our fold with wide-open arms". Hate and all are words not used by us, man ! By Manzurul Haque - 9/3/2016 5:24:30 AM



  • GM Sb, Read what the Greek and Christian philosophers thought of slavery from a reliable source. Not one spoke against the institution of slavery.
    bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/philosophers_1.shtml
    The discussion of equality and justice in Greek philosophy is for the free people. It appears that nobody even thought of the slaves as  deserving much attention.
    Read what Locke has to say:
    lockephilosophy.voices.wooster.edu/contextual-essay/
    I will make your task easy. Quote anyone who spoke against slavery before Islam. By Naseer Ahmed - 9/3/2016 4:58:53 AM



  • On other questions: first decide what you actually want the challenge to be. Have morals evolved outside religion? Yes, they have. In most cases,they evolved outside religion and THEN became part of religion. In some cases, they have come from the individual's own meditations, as the case of Buddha. It is gracious of you to accept the Vedas as scriptures, but they are not the dictation of some divine being sitting in heaven. They are the product of human thought. It is an ideal proposed by some ancient thinker of the Vedic times and got included in the Maha Upanishad. If you are arguing that the concept of equality of man was first proposed by Islam, that is also not true, because what Islam proposes is not Equality at all, as both Hats off and I have taken great pains to point out - I wonder if you read what we write, or whether you read and ignore inconvenient observations. Secondly, as mr mohiyudding who accuses me unfairly of indulging in my religion greatest tactics says, there were two earlier philosophers who also discuss equality of man. There were systems of in-group equality in the Roman society also. It is not a novel concept invented by religion. If you are arguing that Vedic ideals, morals, call them what you like, were never really implemented in practice, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that even the "islamic equality' concept has not been implemented in practice. Arab Muslims are unequal from Bangladeshi muslims who are looked down upon by Pakistani Muslims who declare Ahmadis to be non muslims. The Shias are not equal to the sunnis, the Sufis are not equal to the shias and sunnis, the muslim women are not equal to the men. In fact, I allege that it is because Islam differentiates between men, women, believers, non believers, slaves, free men, apostates, homosexuals, that you find yourself with a concept of equality that is great to chest puff over, but that is practically unimplementable. As everybody is busy calling the other a Kafir, an apostate, an innovator, what not. Similar criticisms, of course, could be made about the dissonance between some hindu ideals and the actual situation on the ground. Or about Christian claims of love for all mankind contrasting with the cruelties of the inquisitions and the unethical conversions in the new world and in India. As for last prophets, Mohammad made sure nobody after him would have the temerity to aspire for this post. For those who are not bound by these rules, we have seen a vast improvement in the moral landscape OUTSIDE religion. Modern constitutions have done what religions could not do. They have abolished slavery in one stroke. They have made women equal to men, have given them inheritance rights, have made abortion, homosexuality legal, have made all men equal in the eyes of law (no believer kafir rubbish here, or caste discrimination). And so much more, if you sit and think about it. We have come much further than religion ever brought us. Have I covered all your thrust areas? By secularlogic - 9/3/2016 4:15:25 AM



  • Mr Ahmed, I have read Bernard Louis AGAIN. And I have also read the provisions in the old bible, in the Torah, in Leviticus. All three of them (though there are differences even among them) have the concepts of manumission, allowing slaves to purchase own freedom, kindness to slaves, justice to slaves, different treatment of female slaves built into them. They also have in common with Islam the reluctance to enslave people from their own religious group, while there is differential treatment for the out-group. The Quran has only outlawed enslaving people for theft, for debt, for penury which was allowed under the other religious laws. I stand by my statement that there is no radical humaneness displayed by Islam towards slaves. The same language is found even in the bible and in the jewish laws, if you will care to read them. I especially appreciate the part in the Old Bible, i think (if anything about slavery can be appreciated at all) where the person is automatically free after 7 years, and he goes with a gift of food and small animals. So whatever you or Bernard Lewis may say, I think there was not much material difference in the slave system. Except the thieves instead of becoming slaves now had their hands chopped off instead (I am sure they would prefer slavery, but then, who am I to oppose allah) and only non muslim people could be enslaved. I find this to actually be more regressive, because it is religious racism to use a term I just discovered. By secularlogic - 9/3/2016 3:53:35 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    Read the article. Bernard Lewis who is a reputed historian and also a Jew,  talks about what is there in Christianity and Judaism and tells us precisely in what way the Quran made a difference and in what significant way Slavery changed in the Islamic Society as a result.

    I am sure people were considerate and kind to even animals before in all societies and that this was considered a virtue.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/3/2016 2:56:09 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    My comment about the superiority of one religion over another was directed at another poster, not at you.

    Equality and justice were discussed extensively by both Plato and Aristotle. See the following link:

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/

    In Islam, all are equal in the eyes of God but slavery was not abolished and women were not considered equal to man. I also do not find convincing any arguments to justify jaziya. Even so we can say Islam advanced the cause of equality and justice, but we  cannot say it with bubbling over-confidence.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/3/2016 2:52:23 AM



  • does islam say everyone is equal?

    does it say polytheists are equal to the momeen?  

    does islam say the kuffar are equal to the momeen?

    does it say that the final prophet is equal to the idol worshippers?

    does it say that the progeny of the apes is equal to the momeen? is the value of their evidence equal according to the shariah? does it say that the value of the evidence by a women (the majority of the inhabitants of hell) equal to that of men?

    is the blood money for momeen men equal to that of momeen women?

    is the blood money of the momeen equal to the blood money of the progeny of the apes?

    like dr qadri, the more islamic one becomes, the more easy it becomes to lie. the more they lie, the more vicious they get. until relief can be had only by a mindless, soulless hatred of polytheism and idol worshipers and the kuffar.

    the tragedy is that these religiously delirious professional haters get sanctuaries in the secular democracies and then start undermining the system from within.

    eventually the hate transmogrifies into aal wara al bara, whatever that incoherent cant means.
    By hats off! - 9/3/2016 2:48:17 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    I haven't denied that the Vedas are scripture. So if the Vedas have moral precepts and these are original, it only proves my point.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/3/2016 2:34:44 AM



  • I am enjoying reading the thought provoking original pieces on NAI, and some of the silly comments. In fact the silly comments give me more thrill which I currently need. 

    I am not fully participating in the debates but only managing to maintain link with the website. Even at the risk of pleasing secular logic and hats off, I have to admit that I  am under curse of some goddess spurned. 

    Anyways, here are few  mild punches using my phone.

    Jn. Mohiyuddim sb , very well said, like always. What about 'your religion is worse than all other  religions?' which is the hallmark here. Or your jaundiced eyes cannot see? I incidentally found that GM sb had no word against false presentations by secular logic glorifying Hindu practices through half-stolen texts. But never mind, I also share his weakness for love of Hinduism which stops me from purveying reams of scriptural  information sanctifying any number of imaginable and un-imaginable evil practices.

    Kind attention please. Check the records. I have always said Hindu practices and not Hindu theology or religion, which in fact does not exist, scientifically speaking. If large number of vectors are randomly assembled half of them opposing the other half, the resultant is a nullity. Yes Hindu practices matter because these have impact on our lives and I have some rudimentary interest in saving my neck which is under real threat of a mob.

    Aayina behen is permanently unhappy and would not allow me to yell 'aah' ! To her it sounds 'aag' ! 

    Hats off please. Human nature is so evil that part success of Islam so far, is seen as a miracle. You don't worry, Islamic doctrine itself predicts the demise of Islam. You can count the numbers in your favour. A Muslim counts his days to meet his Maker, and till then his life is (should be) a struggle against evil however mighty the evil may be.


     Signing off , I have to meet my doctor in my struggle against the goddess gone angry.
    By Manzurul Haque - 9/3/2016 2:18:45 AM



  • Not surprising that GM doesn't even know what is being discussed. He is back to his mindless and dysfunctional sloganeering.

    Faced with trying to prove/disprove the source of every moral precept which people were finding easy to shrug off as not possible, the challenge was narrowed down to just one as follows:

    Was there a concept of equality of all human beings before the Quran gave it to the world? Not in India, not in Europe and not in China and not in any other scripture. Was there such a concept discussed as an ideal or possibility in any book of literature or philosophy?

    You don't have to research every moral precept. Research just one on the equality of all human beings and show me where do you find it until the Quran gave it to the world.



    This challenge is a simple one since all the epics and great classical literature that  pre-date Islam are substantial and known to us. A subject which easy to research.

    There is no claim that the Quran gave every moral precept. The claim is only on just one although there may be more than one. The Quran builds on all the previous moral precepts contained in other scriptures. Since the thesis is that all moral precepts are of divine origin and there is only one God and it is accepted that the Vedas, Torah, Bible, Psalms of David, Quran, the book of Zoroastrians, Sabians etc are all scriptures, there is no claim of superiority of any religion.

    The argument is only on the source of moral precepts.

    What we take today as self evident, the opposite was self evident earlier - the inequality of human beings.

    There is another claim that the Quran makes which is that Prophet Muhammad is the last of the Prophets. Is there any durable new moral precept after the revelation of the Quran? This should also be easy to deal with.

    What I have shown above, is that it is very easy to disprove the thesis if it is false.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/3/2016 12:59:06 AM



  • At the end everything became conspiracy or paid people to defame Islam or so on..., Mr Haq had learn this mastery from their other umma friends in Pakistanis are number one in this not even Arabs are fond of this conspiracy.

    Cleaning the dirt with dirt.

    Hats-off and secular logic transfer some money to NAI account also if you are earning too much to our disheartened Indian Muslim friend Mr Haq. He is not getting the share.

    O yah, I remember the one Tarekh Fateh always been paid too much he ready to share as well, a RSS and RAW paid agent.

    Sorry Tarekh Shaib just added fun for Mr Haq conclusion of paid people her to comments, by chance if you get this message of my comments you can also transfer some money, our Haq Shaib soul will get shanti, that he is been also paid for commenting on NAI
    By Aayina - 9/3/2016 12:55:17 AM



  • Dont shift the goalpost. You said, show me one idea of equality that any other religion came up with. The Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam idea is not exactly the same - it does not say all are equal, because obviously all are not. But it does say all are one, which is a much vaster idea than equality. I have shown you one lofty idea that did originate in a philosophical system that is not Islam. Now you are saying that it must also be proven to have been implemented. Sorry, I am not playing. You prove your much vaunted equality has been implemented in Islam first. There is no equality in the first place. Even among fellow muslims you have no equality as your religion demands.

    What you would have liked to see in the Geeta is unfortunately not there, as the whole structure and message of the Geeta is different from what you are used to. You are used to some divine deity sitting up in the sky and dictating random laws at convenient ocassions to one and one chosen person only. So somebody sees destitute war widows and lo behold, God announces that you may have sex with them. Naturally now that injustice has been done to Draupadi, you want God to speak on it. The Geeta does not work that way. To understand it, you have to seek a Guru. Or you have to read it with a non-islamic eye. You can pick a bone with ved vyasa for not taking a breaking news kind of break in his synopsis of the vedas and upanishads to suddenly speak about vastraharan and abolish slavery.

    You dont demand this abolition of slavery edict of your Allah who dictated the Quran. And you have the gall to demand it of the Geeta?

    Some scholar you are.

    Mr Mohiyuddin, speaking for myself, I do not voluntarily go into my religion greatest kind of declarations. But when people like Mr Haque and Mr Ahmed goad you with astonishing claims that are blatantly untrue, you have to protest and present some counter facts.

    Maimonades may have lived in the twelveth century, but the Deuteronomy, and old Bible both predate Islam. Both of them have rules for proper treatment of slaves, manumission, marrying female slaves, feeding them, It is much more probable that Mohammad took a cue from these books rather than invented his 'humane' rules himself. There are only some differences in what he has said and what exists in the deuteronomy. As far as I can see, the only significant difference is that only people of armies defeated in war may be enslaved under Islam, Muslims may not be enslaved. Having sex with enslved women has not been given much space in the two texts mentioned earlier, as it has in the Quran, but there are clues that sex with female slaves from non-jewish communities was practiced. Jewish girls could be given as slaves only on the condition that the masters/his family members eventually married them when they came of age.

    I am sure Mr Ahmed is aware of all this, but I suggest other readers go through the texts of other religions too. It is quite fascinating. In fact, I feel the Deuteronomy is very much like Islam.
    By secularlogic - 9/3/2016 12:31:06 AM



  • Arguing in this day and age "my religion is better than your religion" is silly and juvenile. The only argument worth having is, "How can I best use my religion to make myself a better human being and to make my society a more civil society?"
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/2/2016 2:51:17 PM



  • there you have it!

    there is no need for elaborate word games, digressive quoting of "western authorities", appeals to quantum theory or probability.

    every thing islamic can be proved by any two of the following three postulates.

    the postulate islamophobia
    the postulate of enemies of islam
    the postulate of paid trolls

    so mr naseer ahmed wins this round hands down. bravo and three cheers!

    i wonder why it took the lawyer person more than a hundred and fifty comments to discover this magic bullet that can virtually win each and every islamic argument hands down. given his experience he could have discovered the cure many comments ago.

    what waste of precious keystrokes!
    By hats off! - 9/2/2016 8:24:22 AM



  • I have quoted Bernard Lewis, a Jewish scholar on the subject, and he speaks exactly what Islam’s positive contribution has been which has had far reaching effects on the institution of slavery. Lewis was called "the West’s leading interpreter of the Middle East" and "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East." His advice was frequently sought by neoconservative policymakers, including the Bush administration. His support of the Iraq War and neoconservative ideals have come under scrutiny. He is therefore not exactly a great fan of Islam and the Muslims nor very much loved by them.

    You write about what Maimonides did. He lived in the 12th century in Islamic Spain and no wonder he reformed Jewish ideas on slavery to conform to the Islamic society in which he lived. The influence of Islam on other religions is undeniable.

    One family, extended family, joint family, commune, community, club, country and various such common identities have certainly existed. You are at pains to show whether the concept of the whole world as one family was ever practiced or whether the one family meant all human beings or only a subset. Was the slave even considered human? Wasn’t the foreigner considered malecha? What about the caste system?

     

     

    As far as the Draupadi incident is concerned, Vyasa did not invent the concept of a slave or the societal norms in which an enslaved Yudhishtir had no choice but to obey his master and gamble his wife on the master’s orders, and where the enslaved woman was about to be publicly ravished and no person was in a position to prevent that. Do people buy improbable stories which have no relation with the reality in their society? Does the Mahabharata belong to the horror genre? I was looking for some legislation in the Hindu scriptures which does away with such slavery. I don’t think there is any.

     

    This is my last comment on NAI on my last article.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/2/2016 8:10:29 AM



  • Jn Naseer Ahmad sb., 
    You shouldn't feel disheartened by criticisms of some elements present on the NAI. I assure you some of them are paid trolls. In fact I don't mind if it helps Shahin sb to run the NAI. It's not easy to maintain sustained interest of audience without playing some gimmicks. I  would miss secular logic or hats off who are actually not individuals but 'channels' meant to channelize scornful criticisms against Islam.They provide grist to the mill.
    NAI can be useful for Muslims in a negative way. Let the fanatic Hindus criticize Islam, that gives us opportunity to rebut them and examine  Hindus own practices.

    I am very appreciative of the logic that you put forward to convey a viewpoint. Your write-up on two women witness was marvellous and I admire you for handling a jegal topic so brilliantly. Keep it up.
    By Manzurul Haque - 9/2/2016 4:52:24 AM



  • Mr Hamza,

    Have you even read the article? Read it once again. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/2/2016 4:38:30 AM



  • Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is a Sanskrit phrase found in Hindu texts such as theMaha Upanishad, which means "the world is one family".[2]
    The phrase Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (Sanskrit: वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम्) consists of several words: "vasudhā", the earth; "ēva" = indeed is; and "kutumbakam", family.
    History[edit]
    The phrase appears in Maha Upanishad.[3][4][5]It is in Chapter 6 of the text.[6] This verse of Maha Upanishad is engraved in the entrance hall of the parliament of India.[1]
    The world is a family
    One is a relative, the other stranger,
    say the small minded.
    The entire world is a family,
    live the magnanimous.
    Be detached,
    be magnanimous,
    lift up your mind, enjoy
    the fruit of Brahmanic freedom.
    —Maha Upanishad 6.71–75[7][3]
    The original verse is contained in the Mahopanishad VI.71-73.[1] Subsequent ślokas go on to say that those who have no attachments go on to find the Brahman (the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe). The context of this verse is to describe as one of the attributes of an individual who has attained the highest level of spiritual progress, and one who is capable of performing his wordly duties without attachment to material possessions.[8]
    The text has been influential in the major Hindu literature that followed it. The popular Bhagavata Purana, composed sometime between 500 CE and 1000 CE, the most translated of the Purana genre of literature in Hinduism,[9] for example, calls the Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam adage of the Maha Upanishad, as the "loftiest Vedantic thought".[10] By secularlogic - 9/2/2016 4:30:48 AM



  • Hindu society[edit] Hindu Vedas regard liberation to be the ultimate goal which is contrary to slavery.[110] The term '"dasa" (dāsa) in ancient Hindu text is loosely translated as "slave."[111] However, the meaning of the term varied over time. R. S. Sharma, in his 1958 book, for example, states that the only word which could possibly mean slave in Rigveda is dāsa, and this sense of use is traceable to four later verses in Rigveda.[112] The term dāsa in the Rigveda, has been also been translated as a servant or enemy, and the identity of this term remains unclear and disputed among scholars.[113][note 1] The word dāsi is found in Rigveda and Atharvaveda, states R.S. Sharma, which he states represented "a small servile class of women slaves".[118] Vedic slavery, according to him, was mostly confined to women employed as domestic workers.[119] He translates dasi in a Vedic era Upanishad as "maid-servant".[120] Male slaves are rarely mentioned in the Vedic texts.[120] The word dāsa occurs in the Hindu Sruti texts Aitareya and Gopatha Brahmanas, but not in the sense of a slave.[120] Towards the end of the Vedic period (600 BCE), a new system of varnas had appeared, with people called shudras replacing the erstwhile dasas. Some of the shudras were employed as labouring masses on farm land, much like "helots of Sparta", even though they were not treated with the same degree of coercion and contempt.[121] They could be given away as gifts along with the land, which came in for criticism from the religious texts Āśvalāyana and Kātyāyana Śrautasūtras.[122] The term dasa was now employed to designate such enslaved people.[123] Slavery arose out of debt, sale by parents or oneself (due to famines), judicial decree or fear. The slaves were differentiated by origin and different disabilities and rules for manumission applied. While this could happen to a person of any varna, shudras were much more likely to be reduced to slavery.[124][111] By the time of the Mauryan period, such slavery was probably employed on a large scale. The Arthasastra laid down norms for the State to resettle shudra cultivators into new villages and providing them with land, grain, cattle and money.[125] It also stated that aryas could not be subject to slavery and that the selling or mortgaging of a shudra was punishable unless he was a born slave.[126] Despite these measures, R. S. Sharma believes that slavery must have increased on a vast scale during the Maruyan period due to the growth of the empire through war, leading to war captives, and the subjugation of hilly areas, which provided agricultural labour.[127] Emperor Ashoka had banned slavery.[128] After the fall of the Mauryan Empire (200 BCE), agricultural slavery gradually disappeared and the former slaves became sharecroppers. The position of shudras as a whole improved and essentially became indistinguishable from that of vaishyas (arya commoners). Thereafter, slavery was mostly domestic and slaves did not get treated as a distinctly marked class.[129] From the seventh century onward, Islamic rulers brought Middle Eastern systems and practices to India. The numbers of chattel slaves increased sharply and included artisans, soldiers as well as domestic servants. This type of slavery reduced after the fourteenth century, but debt peonage and bonded labour increased during the Mughal period.[130] By secularlogic - 9/2/2016 4:21:31 AM



  • Judaism[edit] More mainstream forms of first-century Judaism didn't exhibit such qualms about slavery, and ever since the 2nd-century expulsion of Jews from Judea, wealthy Jews have owned non-Jewish slaves, wherever it was legal to do so;[19] nevertheless, manumissions were approved by Jewish religious officials on the slightest of pretexts, and court cases concerning manumission were nearly always decided in favour of freedom, whenever there was uncertainty towards the facts.[28][62] The Talmud, a document of great importance in Judaism, made many rulings which had the effect of making manumission easier and more likely: The costly and compulsory giving of gifts was restricted the 7th-year manumission only.[19] The price of freedom was reduced to a proportion of the original purchase price rather than the total fee of a hired servant, and could be reduced further if the slave had become weak or sickly (and therefore less saleable).[19][28] Voluntary manumission became officially possible, with the introduction of the manumission deed (the shetar shihrur), which was counted as prima facie proof of manumission. Verbal declarations of manumission could no longer be revoked.[63] Putting phylacteries on the slave, or making him publicly read three or more verses from the Torah, was counted as a declaration of the slave's manumission.[28] Extremely long term sickness, for up to 4 years in total, couldn't count against the slave's right to manumission after six years of enslavement.[19][28] Jewish participation in the slave trade itself was also regulated by the Talmud. Fear of apostasy lead to the Talmudic discouragement of the sale of Jewish slaves to non-Jews,[64] although loans were allowed;[65] similarly slave trade with Tyre was only to be for the purpose of removing slaves from non-Jewish religion.[66] Religious racism meant that the Talmudic writers completely forbade the sale or transfer of Canaanite slaves out from Palestine to elsewhere.[67] Other types of trade were also discouraged: men selling themselves to women, and post-pubescent daughters being sold into slavery by their fathers.[19][28] Pre-pubescent slave girls sold by their fathers had to be freed-then-married by their new owner, or his son, when she started puberty;[19] slaves could not be allowed to marry free Jews,[68] although masters were often granted access to the services of the wives of any of their slaves.[69] According to the Talmudic law, killing of a slave is punishable in the same way as killing of a freeman, even it was committed by the owner. While slaves are considered the owner's property, they may not work on Sabbath and holidays; they may acquire and hold property of the own.[70] Several prominent Jewish writers of the Middle Ages took offense at the idea that Jews might be enslaved; Joseph Caro and Maimonides both argue that calling a Jew slave was so offensive that it should be punished by excommunication.[71][72] However, they did not condemn enslavement of non-Jews. Indeed, they argued that the biblical rule, that slaves should be freed for certain injuries, should actually only apply to slaves who had converted to Judaism;[19] additionally, Maimonides argued that this manumission was really punishment of the owner, and therefore it could only be imposed by a court, and required evidence from witnesses.[19] Unlike the biblical law protecting fugitive slaves, Maimonides argued that such slaves should compelled to buy their freedom.[19][28] At the same time, Maimonides and other halachic authorities forbade or strongly discouraged any unethical treatment of slaves. According to the traditional Jewish law, a slave is more like an indentured servant, who has rights and should be treated almost like a member of the owner's family. Maimonides wrote that, regardless whether a slave is Jewish or not, "The way of the pious and the wise is to be compassionate and to pursue justice, not to overburden or oppress a slave, and to provide them from every dish and every drink. The early sages would give their slaves from every dish on their table. They would feed their servants before sitting to their own meals... Slaves may not be maltreated of offended - the law destined them for service, not for humiliation. Do not shout at them or be angry with them, but hear them out." In another context, Maimonides wrote that all the laws of slavery are "mercy, compassion and forbearance".[73][74] Christianity[edit] Source: wikipedia. You see Mr Ahmed, there was nothing new Mohammad did when he adviced kind treatment of slaves. Christianity and Jewish faiths also show these stirrings of humanity. Whether they had God-sanctioned sex with their female slaves, however, remains unclear. Maybe they did. By secularlogic - 9/2/2016 4:17:17 AM



  • Slavery in the Bible[edit]
    Main article: The Bible and slavery
    Genesis narrative about the Curse of Ham has often been held to be an aetiological story, giving a reason for the enslavement of the Canaanites. The word ham is very similar to the Hebrew word for hot, which is cognate with an Egyptianword (kem, meaning black) used to refer to Egypt itself, in reference to the fertile black soil along the Nile valley. Although many scholars therefore view Ham as an eponym used to represent Egypt in the Table of Nations,[1] a number of Christians throughout history, including Origen[2] and the Cave of Treasures,[3] have argued for the alternate proposition that Hamrepresents all black people, his name symbolising their dark skin colour;[4] pro-slavery advocates, from Eutychius of Alexandria[5] and John Philoponus,[6] to American pro-slavery apologists,[7] have therefore occasionally interpreted the narrative as a condemnation of all black people to slavery.[8] A few Christians, like Jerome, even took up the racist notionthat black people inherently had a soul as black as [their] body.[9]
    Slavery was customary in antiquity, and it is condoned by the Torah, which occasionally compels it.[10][11] The Bible uses theHebrew term ebed to refer to slavery; however, ebed has a much wider meaning than the English term slavery, and in several circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant.[12] It was seen as legitimate to enslave captives obtained through warfare,[13] but not through kidnapping.[14][15] Children could also be sold into debt bondage,[16]which was sometimes ordered by a court of law.[17][18][19]
    As with the Hittite Laws and the Code of Hammurabi,[20] the bible does set minimum rules for the conditions under which slaves were to be kept. Slaves were to be treated as part of an extended family;[21] they were allowed to celebrate theSukkot festival,[21] and expected to honour Shabbat.[22] Israelite slaves could not be compelled to work with rigour,[23][24]and debtors who sold themselves as slaves to their creditors had to be treated the same as a hired servant.[25] If a master harmed a slave in one of the ways covered by the lex talionis, the slave was to be compensated by manumission;[26] if the slave died within 24 to 48 hours, he or she was to be avenged[27] (whether this refers to the death penalty[19][28] or not[29] is uncertain).
    Israelite slaves were automatically manumitted after six years of work, and/or at the next Jubilee (occurring either every 49 or every 50 years, depending on interpretation), although the latter would not apply if the slave was owned by an Israelite and wasn't in debt bondage.[30] Slaves released automatically in their 7th year of service, which did not include female slaves,[31] or[32][33] did,[34] were to be given livestock, grain, and wine, as a parting gift[35] (possibly hung round their necks[19]). This 7th-year manumission could be voluntarily renounced, which would be signified, as in other Ancient Near Eastern nations,[36] by the slave gaining a ritual ear piercing;[37] after such renunciation, the individual was enslaved forever(and not released at the Jubilee[38]). Non-Israelite slaves were always to be enslaved forever, and treated as inheritable property.[39]
    In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, as to the Lord, and not to men;[40][41][42][43][44] however these particular Pauline epistles are also those whose Pauline authorship is doubted by many modern scholars.[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] By contrast, the First Epistle to the Corinthians, one of theundisputed epistles,[57] describes lawfully obtained manumission as the ideal for slaves.[58] Another undisputed epistle isthat to Philemon, which has become an important text in regard to slavery, being used by pro-slavery advocates as well as by abolitionists;[59][60] in the epistle, Paul returns Onesimus, a fugitive slave, back to his master nature, which was opposed to the equality in which mankind was created.[61]
    Source: wikipedia
    By secularlogic - 9/2/2016 4:12:01 AM



  • The concept of equality in Islam is also flawed; it applies only to the ingroup of fellow muslim free men. Women are not equal to men; Slaves are not equal to the masters; believing slaves are not equal to non believing slaves; non believing slaves are not equal to free muslim men; people of the book are not equal to muslims; polytheists are not equal to people of the book, and even more unequal than muslims. What equality are you talking about? Ever heard of Vasudaiva Kutumbakam? That idea of oneness originated in Hinduism. We all know that perfect equality is but an ideal. Like perfect markets and perfect knowledge and perfect information. But despite our differences and despite our inequalities, we are all one. It is a much more wide, all encomapssing concept that goes far beyond the muslim idea of equality. By secularlogic - 9/2/2016 3:45:02 AM



  • Mr. Ahmed, I have no need to focus on the Draupadi incident because nobody is writing articles justifying the act, and nowhere is it said in our scriptures that disrobing slave women is permitted by God. Nor is any Hindu sect gambling with men with their women as stakes, and proceeding to disrobe their wives with religious justification. So your wild attempts to divert my attention and draw justification for islamic sex slavery from the literary epic of the Hindus is pathetic, to say the least.

    WRT Mohammad's freeing of slaves, one question comes to mind. The justification for sex slavery was that these women's husbands, brothers, sons had been killed and they had no means to make a living, so enslaving them and having sex with them was the kindest thing to do. Then why free them at all? these conditions had not changed for them. They were still fatherless, husbandless, sonless - unless sex with their master had resulted in children. Would freeing them not,then, result in the same destitute state for which they were enslaved in the first place? It makes no sense. If they could live as free people and make their own living after they were manumitted, they could equally have done so before they were enslaved. Then why enslave them at all? The argument for enslaving them is demolished in a trice.

    And for your information, I have read about slavery under Christianity, under Jews. All of them condone the practice. In addition, the Jews have some humane laws regarding slaves, some of which are even better than those found in Islam. Islam did not invent the idea that even slaves should get some semblence of humane treatement. The Jewish faith also recommends that they be fed well and clothed well and treated like extended family, and there is provision for manumission even in the jewish faith. But you dont read anything about others except to find fault and find facts that show Islam in a better light in comparison, do you?

    Argue as long and as hard as you may - nobody except rumpelstiltskin is impressed with your arguments. See what sort of people rally around you, and then judge the quality of your opinions.  
    By secularlogic - 9/2/2016 3:34:17 AM



  • To
    Mazural Haque

    You muslims have enough numbers and constantly pursue it by tricks, so trying to pretend that we did not need to convert is bougus claim of yours, once Muslims will be enough to finish hindus it will be done case.

    Pakistan and Bangladesh had finished all 30% hindu minority, you are Muslim in India are nearly or more % same when India get independence, hindus did not finish you.

    Trying to play victim card of with Secular logic that you have stopped eating cow-meat...  so on....is old habit of yours lots of Hindus also come in protest of allowing beef eating, because they as hindu eat the beef, the prime example is Rishi Kapoor.

    So stop projecting this victim abusing type of acting and roles.  


    By Aayina - 9/2/2016 2:24:58 AM



  • To
    Naseer Ahmed.

    You are discourage because people( that is mostly Hindu background) are not agreeing.

    By Aayina - 9/2/2016 1:58:25 AM



  • Secular Logic,

     Focus on your own blindness. Slavery pre-existed Islam and the number 39237 are not slaves enslaved by Muslims but slaves existing prior to Islam. There is no virtue in enslaving and freeing the enslaved thereafter. Only a Secularlogic could have got this wrong!

     Focus on the Bhagwad Geeta and how the view changes when we look at it as a book of literature or a book of scriptures. Fortunately, although many people revere it as a book of scriptures, nobody takes the message seriously which is "it is dharma to kill your kin to protect your property rights!". Taken as literature, it can be discussed and argued and many can agree with either of the two characters in the discourse or something in between. No questions also arise as to why the subject of slavery is kept out of the "updesh" when everybody agrees that the disrobing incident is a central one and many events revolve around it. Vyasa has clearly succeeded in arousing the conscience of the people but nothing happened as far as the slaves are concerned anywhere in the world until Islam gave the law making a slave the equal of a free person in religious and moral terms with two verses where a Muslim is asked to even marry them. This was unthinkable in any society at that point in time. Islam abolished all distinctions based on social and economic conditions, race, colour and ethnicity. The conditions of slaves in Islam as described by Bernard Lewis, was better than the condition of blacks in the US until recently or more than a century after slavery was abolished.

     If the freeing of slaves initiated by the Prophet supported by the Quran had continued at the same pace, the society should have become free of slavery in about 10 years of peace except those slaves who could not support themselves if freed. That this did not happen is a comment on the frailties of human beings as well as of the economic conditions.

     The US banning slavery was an incremental step and yet the conditions of blacks remained far worse than that of slaves under Islam. As discussed, the economic factor was perhaps stronger than the moral one when slavery was banned by the number one economic power.

     Was there a concept of equality of all human beings before Islam gave it to the world? Not in India, not in Europe and not in China and not in any religion. Was there such a concept discussed as an ideal or possibility in any book of literature or philosophy?

    You don't have to research every moral precept. Research just one on the equality of all human beings and show me where do you find it until Islam gave it to the world.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/2/2016 12:55:26 AM



  • The relevance of the issue goes beyond merely responding to what has been selectively presented to logically justify continuance of slavery in Islam. The issue is: Did Islam take any foolproof step to stop the pre-islamic bad practice of taking the women of the defeated enemy as concubines and rape them without any restriction even if they have thei kafir husbands and whether there is any proof that hazrat Muhammad himself sincerely  practiced what he preached?

    Contrary to the apologists’ claim There are evidences which show that Hazrat Muhammad himself owned numerous slaves after he proclaimed himself to be a prophet. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya who is one of the greatest scholars and chroniclers of Islam,in his book, "Zad al-Ma'ad", says,

    "Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased (more slaves) than he sold, especially after God empowered him by His message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca. He (once) sold one black slave for two. His name was Jacob al-Mudbir. His purchases of slaves were more (than he sold). He was used to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves than he rented out". Zad al-Ma'ad" (Part I, p. 160)

    Islamic websites quite often claim that hazrat Muhammad used to purchase freedom of slaves. For example one website says, “Our Prophet (peace be upon him) never approved of slavery. He once purchased the life of a slave who came to him, liberating him from his master!”

    Here is the real story on which it is based:

    There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave.  Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me.  And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man) (Sahih Muslim 3901).

    The other issue is whether Islam allows to have sex with women who are taken captive, even if these captives happened to be married!

    Here is a reference permitting to have sex with captive women:

    Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property, - desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. S. 4:24 Yusus Ali

    The above passage emphatically allows to have sex with women who are taken captive, even if these captives happened to be married!

    It did not remain an abstract theoretical right, but was readily put into practice by the Muslims:

    Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess’. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371 & Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150)

    Ibn Kathir wrote:

    “except those whom your right hands possess”

    except those women whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant.

    Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah 4:24 was revealed, allowing us to have sex with them.

    Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women." This is the wording collected by AT-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih. -Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

    By cherry picking you can prove anything.

    The fact is prophets were, in the first place, reformers of their times and a reformer carries out his reforms, to a great deal,  within the framework of the existing norms of his society. It is beyond his capacity to change the whole social system overnight which can be understood from the revelational cercumstance of many Quranic injections like allowing the wife beating wose details are availabe in Hadith books.. This view is supported by Shah WAliyyullah Dehlavi in his most circulated book, " Hujjat-ul-lahul-balighah, chapter 56, titled, BAB-E-ASBAB-E- NUZOOL-US-SHARA"E AL- KHASSAH BI ASRIN DUNA ASRIN ( Why different Shara'e (plural of Sharia) were given in different eras).

    By Abdul Rehman Hamza - 9/2/2016 12:27:51 AM



  • 39,237 slaves only by Mohammad and his close circle. More slaves by other Muslims. think how many families the army of Mohammad devastated, orphaned, widowed. All for the sake of propagating his religion. The victims' only fault being they wanted to keep their religion and not convert. And this man is supposed to be the epitome of mercy. By secularlogic - 9/1/2016 11:57:14 PM



  • Mr Ahmed, you are very fixed in your ideas, and make no concession for the views of others. You ask a chicken and egg question, and then insist that your answer is the correct one, and ask others to disprove you knowing full well that it is impossible to identify the origin of any moral with any certainty. It is not surprising that most people opt out in frustration and leave you crowing over an empty battleground as the unconquered victor. Reading your comments to Hats Off, I see that you are clearly afflicted by delusion, megalomania and an exaggerated sense of self importance. You should introspect or seek some professional help. I say this out of concern, not spite. 

    And by the way, I think all Prophets were philosophers first. Not mouth pieces of a non existent god. Take god out of the equation and everything starts to make sense.  
    By secularlogic - 9/1/2016 11:52:34 PM



  • NAI is certainly not the place to publish original articles and my articles are completely out of place here. I had therefore dissociated from NAI but came back when Shahin Sb requested me to write again. It was a mistake.

    I did submit my article to an Islamic Research Institute and they had selected it for publication. Later on they realized that my article was already published in NAI and academic journals do not publish what is already published.

    The letter is below:

    Dear author,

     

    Congratulations.

     

    Your academic paper has been selected by the JRISS editorial board for inclusion in the latest edition of Vol. 6, No.1, 2015. The edition shall be published soon.

    As an author publishing in this volume you will receive two hardcopies from us for free; please write us your address details and we will send it by post after publication.

     

    For your information we have composed an overview of JRISS 2015 here below.

     

    -          CONTENTS

    -          Editorial Foreword

    -          The Qur’anic and Prophetic Model of Peaceful Coexistence

    -          The Methodological Influence or Contribution of Orientalism on The Re-Reading and Re-Thinking of Basic Islamic Texts ( Qur’ān and Sunnah)

    -          Democratic Institutions in Some Muslim Majority States and Their Role in Shari'ah Implementation: A Case Study

    -          Male Authority and Wife Beating in the Lenses of Feminists: An Analysis of Amina Wadud’s Hermeneutics

    -          Muslim Women in Partisan Politics and The Question of Tawhidi Worldview

    -          Fundamentals of Faith as Reflected in Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s Risale-i Nur

    -          The Contribution of Muslims to Science during the Abbasid Period with Special Reference to Medicine (750-945)

    -          The Science of Knowledge in Islam: An Anthropological Perspective

    -          A Socio-Historical Survey of The Practice of Islam Among the Muslim Minorities In Ekitiland, Southwestern of Nigeria

    -          A Comparative Study of Distinguished English Translations concerning interpretation of Majāz in the Holy Quran

    -          A Comparative Study of Distinguished English Translations concerning interpretation of Majāz in the Holy Quran (Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Arberry, Dryabadi, Asad, Assami and Kennedy, Hilali and Khan, and Vickar)

    -          Who is a Kafir in the Quran?

     

    On behalf of the JRISS editorial board,

     

    Met vriendelijke groet / With kind regards,

     

    Ahmet Dündar

    Algemeen Secretaris / Secretary General

    Islamitische Universiteit Rotterdam

    algsecretaris@iur.nl

    T +31 (0)10 485 47 21 / +31 (0)6 41 32 60  95

    I  www.islamicuniversity.nl



    My articles discuss the current state of Islamic theology on the subject and how I differ from it. The articles also discuss what the various worthies from the Islamic world have said on the subject and why I differ from what they have said. So nobody has to speculate on what others have said or would have to say. I also realized that scholars who have published works to their credit are not going to agree with anything different from what they have themselves written and admit that they got it wrong in their books.

    The hope is really publishing in academic journals or writing a book or addressing University students who are themselves engaged in research.

    Shahin Sb tried to organize a meeting/conference with the ulema, with Aligarh University but failed.

    Since I am otherwise busy with my consulting work, I have not found the motivation and the time to pursue other avenues. But as far as NAI is concerned, I will not submit another article although Shahin Sb has said in the past that beyond those who comment, there are many who read and are influenced but do not comment. I doubt whether that is true and if really there are many besides those who comment who read.

    There have been a few who were appreciative but were driven out by the targeted criticism of their appreciation.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/1/2016 8:51:09 PM



  • Hats Off,

    There was a time when I discussed many things with you and you were a most appreciative and even grateful pupil. For example, you once even graciously acknowledged in a comment “I learnt from him the defect in my understanding of cognitive dissonance.”

    Now I find that you are not even shamed by the fact that what you once appreciated as brilliant, you now criticize as logically fallacious for which I had to give you another lesson in logic. I see that you have not expressed your appreciation for it although I am sure that you learnt the lesson well. I am a good teacher and you aren’t dumb.

    You churn out very amusing nonsensical gibberish and I am sure it keeps the people entertained and if that is your charming way of seeking some light or direction from me, you may explore the methods of academic research and inquiry and in particular the theory of measurement and errors which is the first lesson taught in college physics. You will realize the importance of theories of probability and statistics in the discovery and validation of scientific truths. Not that you will understand any of it given that you have no grounding in these subjects but it will increase your general knowledge about these exalted subjects. It will also give you a few more talking points and jargon to flaunt next time and add to your gibberish vocabulary. Poor GM sb! He fell for your nonsensical gibberish containing jargon from logic. He trusted a clown and made a fool of himself!

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/1/2016 8:27:02 PM



  • Hats off may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Islam is still a meaningful anchor for over a billion people. Those who want to leave it of course have the right to leave it, but those who have decided to stay in the fold have a right and a duty to make it as compassionate, inclusive and rational as it can be.

    I am not with those who try to defend the indefensible with faux scholarship. Expounding on explanations and justifications for slavery, concubinism, polygamy, jazia, violence etc. is neither wise nor necessary. That is Islam as it was practiced in the bygone days. Let us hear from men of modern sensibility who have a grasp of the true essence of Islam. And the true essence of Islam is, simply put. righteousness, justice, equality, kindness, forgiveness, rationality and peacefulness.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/1/2016 2:50:43 PM



  • Secular Logic,

    Every great piece of literature makes good use of the available knowledge (religious and secular) and reflects the state of the society, its norms, beliefs, struggles, dilemmas, hopes and aspirations. Literature has its strengths and limitations. The strengths are that it can through its narrative; arouse strong emotions to mold public opinion about social evils. If the story is pure fiction, then the Draupadi incident shows the possibilities in that society based on its existing norms to make people abhor such possibilities and to reform them. Since this is only literature and Vyasa was not an avatar or prophet, he could not lay down the law or a new moral precept to cover the shortcomings in that society or to propel the society through transformational social engineering to make rapid progress in new directions.

     

    The relationship between philosophy and religion is that as far as philosophy is concerned, religion is an important subject for study, besides principles of ethics and morality which have today become part of sociology, which is why it comes as a surprise that philosophy is completely bereft of moral/ethical precepts and religions are rich in these. The prophets that I am aware of were anything but philosophers.

    Religion is many things to many people and there have been philosophers in every religion for example Thomas Aquinas, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Iqbal and even these worthies failed to give any worthwhile revolutionary idea that succeeded or proved to be stable and which can be called a moral or ethical precept.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/1/2016 11:54:24 AM



  • what shall we discuss today?

    quantum statistical mechanics? statistical koranic moral dynamics? moronic assertive philosophies? just-in-time-revealations?  hindu cow love? muslim pig hatred? islamic jew love? christian trinitarianism? obsessive compulsive monotheism? paranoid conspiracy theories? enemies of islam theory? empirical koranic exegesis? statistical koranic text analysis? numerical koranic miracles? psychology of transference? prophetic revelation of convenience? vocal decibel analysis?

    which will it be?

    the best would be the psychoanalysis of the stockholm syndrome, but i am game for anything islamic. or even anything remotely unislamic.

    welcome to the marketplace of dangerous ideas!
    By hats off! - 9/1/2016 9:49:48 AM



  • Also, Mr Ahmed, The entire Hindu religion is a result of philosophical synthesis. That is the basic point I was trying to make when you so forcefully stated that religion is the only fount of morality. To me, it seems the other way round. Even Mohammad was a thinker before he became a Prophet and revealed the verses; Buddha went into deep meditation for many years before he came up with Buddhism; Jesus was also a thinker of sorts, a preacher of novel ideas. What he said became religion. He did not come out of his mothers womb with the bible in his hand. All of them went through a process of deep thought and analysis before they preached what they did. If that is not philosophy, what is? By secularlogic - 9/1/2016 7:55:07 AM



  • Mr Ahmed, The Mahabharata is an epic that contains the Bhagwat Geeta, which is a synopsis of the moral and spiritual philosophy of the Vedas and the Upanishads. The Mahabharata, against which backdrop it is set, is an allegory. Man faces moral dilemmas throughout his life, and the Bhagwat Geeta helps him resolve his inner conflicts. It shows the human being his relative position vis a vis every other human, it tries to teach equanimity, it tells us that fighting for righteousness is above all other emotional and physical attachments. The Mahabharat and Bhagwat Geeta are too vast, too complicated, to discuss here. They are INTENDED to give rise to the sort of questions that come to my mind. There is no set of morals that the Geeta prescribes. In fact, in one breathtaking sentence after Krishna finishes reciting the Geeta, he says, think of all that I have said, and decide as per what your intellect tells you. So even God himself gives man the authority to NOT follow his instructions, if it does not seem right to him. The rest of what you say is minutae. Why did x not do this, why did y not do this? The Mahabharat says all human beings are fallible. It does teach us things, but the last thing it teaches us that it is okay to disrobe a slave woman. As I told you before, it is a highly immoral act and is seen throughout our religious narrative as a heinous crime. Why the others did not speak up is also considered a sin, for which they paid dearly according to the laws of Karma. There is absolutely no equivalence in the Quranic licence to have sex with slave women and the disrobing of Draupadi. If you really wish to understand the Mahabharat and the Ramayan, you must go to a learned person, a Guru. I am but a lay person and would do a poor job of explaining it to you. Your understanding of the Hindu religion gave me no offence, and I accept your disclaimer that none was intended. By secularlogic - 9/1/2016 7:50:40 AM



  • Mr Haque, it does not perturb me in the least that you do not believe that god exists in everything, including shit. As I said,it is beyond the intellectual capacity of an orthodox muslim to imagine anything of the sort. 

    You are only stopped from eating cow meat. All other meats are available to you. But you people crave for cow meat only because you know it would hurt the religious sentiments of your Hindu countrymen to see a cow slaughtered for food. the cow is revered in Hinduism. You people have all your religious whims indulged in by your personal laws. for the sake of evenhandedness of law, you must bear the hardship of refraining from cow meat. 

    Whether you sing the national anthem or not is a reflection on you. The country will thrive, regardless of your actions. 

    Nobody asked you to do Surya namaskar or Yoga. It is for people of the country who have no religious hang ups in embracing what is even a part of their heritage. It is entirely desirable that this system of physical and mental well being be imparted in schools through able teachers. Muslims who think their faith will be endangered by doing yog can send in notes saying their kids will not participate on religious grounds. You will be exempted. 

    I have no need for your permission to enjoy Hinduism. I am enjoying it quite thoroughly, and would have enjoyed it better if people like you did not populate this country. 
    By secularlogic - 9/1/2016 7:34:47 AM



  • Mr Hamza,

    According to a source, Muhammad (pbuh) his household and friends bought slaves only to free them  and this number was 39,237 slaves.

    Slaves who could not support themselves if freed on account of their age, sickness, physical disability etc were kept out of compassion.

    In any case, when you quote me and then say something, that something is expected to contradict what I have said. What you have written does not contradict anything that I said.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/1/2016 7:25:09 AM



  • All of behavioural sciences and all of the empirical sciences are based on statistical probability. If we are to reject statistical probability, there would no science at all - not even theoretical physics which depends on the empirical sciences for confirmation of its models of reality.

    How would Hats Off know all this? He is an ignoramus with a big mouth.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/1/2016 7:10:10 AM



  • I think hats off alone can resolve this controversy between GM sb and Naseer Ahmed sb. In a sense I like both hats off and secular logic who show Muslims the perfect mirror. They must be laughing mad at the sight of Islamic Generals smashing each other.  Something is definitely wrong with Muslims that they can't see beyond their nose! As a Muslim, I know that they are trying to defend something worth defending. But the scene is - two persons wrestling to rescue a pillow from each other. In the process, the pillow is a spectacle of misery !  Muslims will have to grow up, else they are doomed. I had thought that I would be able to do some value additions by the following ideas (details avaible on NAI) but I have a lurking fear that whereas my Hindu friends understand the importance of these ideas (to my peril) my Muslim partners would simply trash these: - 

    - future is charted as an extension of past by taking only necessary and useful aspects and by ignoring other aspects (without being abusive or derogatory).
    - effort should be optimized. Collecting too much (say information) and not be able to use even a little part of it (in case of info, not being able to grasp the gist against space-time background)  shows poor optimization. 

    - before understanding one's religion,  the need to reflect on the true nature of deity which in our case is monotheism and further understanding that others can legitimately take a different view of divine as they are not Quran-bound.

    - even though we hold a quranic monothestic view of divine we cannot absolutely correctly know Him, we can only feel that we are somewhere near His polarity. Thus others can also feel to be near His polarity though not exactly occupying the same space as us. We are like infinite number of points around the Divine Polarity. 
    - as Muslims following specific Islam of Prophet Muhammad, we are blessed to be near the Pole , we have perhaps better chances of success if we just also genuinely and honestly cultivate the high moral conducts laid down in the holy Quran.

    - if we believe in giving independent spaces to individuals around the Pole we must give them right  to interpret scriptures in their own ways if there is evidence that the person is not actuated by malice.

    - it follows logic that essence is more important and fruitfull than form. It's like a glass of milk. Essence is milk. Form is glass. But if anybody is mad after form, let him be. Not advisable to argue with him.

    - Islam happened because of the earnest seeking of Truth. But it's not a course on Theoretical Physics or a book of encyclopedia to give us all that we want. If we have received less than what was there in God's kitty, well we have received less. Don't extrapolate. Those areas have been left for us to explore and develop.

    - we do no favour to God by converting everybody. If somebody has a dislike for Islam try not to bring the issue of Islam with him. It is between him and his Creator. None of our job really. 

    - we as Muslims can be a great asset to humanity if we tie up one end of our thought-line to the unseen all powerful Allah, and keep the other end fully floating in the ocean of ideas. This will give us stability as well as 360 degree mobility and save us from meaningless drift.

     
    etc.etc. 

    PS: what I have written is from the inspiration I have received from Islam.I hope I have not transgressed anywhere. If so Allah will forgive me.
    By Manzurul Haque - 9/1/2016 6:10:18 AM



  • “It is worth pointing out that you do not find any text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah which enjoins taking others as slaves, whereas there are dozens of texts in the Qur’aan and the ahaadeeth of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which call for manumitting slaves and freeing them”. By Naseer Ahmed - 8/18/2016 1:41:43 PM

    But the prophet himself did not free his concubine, Maria Qibtia till the last. The prophet possessed her as slavewoman until he passed away  whereupon she became free. Moreover, according to Qazi Muhammad Sulaiman Salman Mansurpuri, auther of the most celeberated biography of Hazrat Muhammad, “ Rahmat-ul-lil-a’lamieen”, the prophet freed all his slaves  one day before his death, whose number, according to one source was 40. – Rahmatul lil a’lameen, part 1 page no 248.

    By Abdul Rehman Hamza - 9/1/2016 5:38:47 AM



  • In response to your latest comments Mr. Logic. Your comments are important for me, for Muslims and for NAI. I may not write on this further but wanted to convey my thanks and a request that you should keep engaged with Muslims , though I did say that Islam is not a cup  of tea for you. At least your abuses will keep us Muslims awakened and your visibly inherent contradictions will help the seekers of Truth.

    I am already in a state of symbiosis with you. So my veiled commentary on Hinduism looks assinine; whereas you frontal pornographic attacks on Islam on the pages of NAI, sounds like the music of orchestra, which I am supposed to explain away  with increasingly laborious intellectual efforts ! This symbiosis is possible because of your supremacism on one hand  and  my faith in Truth on the other. 

    I think I condemned myself for not being able to believe in the shit thing. Do I have a right to rescue myself ? My mere mentioning the motion fills you with an illogical shame and flares you  up, whereas you say that this is an article of faith for you! What sort of contradiction is this? What is the harm,  if I plead with you not to push me into the consequences of such a belief, because it gives me nausea? And mind you, I am not asking you to change your precept or practice. All you have to do is - just let me be. You have stopped my cow-meat eating, you have stopped my bull-meat eating, you have stopped my buffallow-meat eating, you have  endangered my goat-meat eating and even chicken-meat eating, you are forcing me to do suryanamashkar, you are forcing  me to sing swarsati bandana, etc etc. Is it your all encompassing vision? When I protest against these disgusting acts, you find me disgusting. But then you have the power to say so, and I have to meekly accept all this in a state of symbiosis. Enjoy Hinduism my dear without being accountable for anything !
    By Manzurul Haque - 9/1/2016 4:06:50 AM



  • the more fragile your convictions - the more violently you need to defend them. 

    vulnerable hypotheses generally need vicious defense.

    the issue here is not what some 'x' "claims" or "proves". the issue is whether "more reputable commentators" agree with those "claims" or proofs.

    as for peer reviews of his opinions, it would be suicidal to subject his whimsical kufr and kuffar theory to such a process by an ulema board of al-azhar. it would ruin the author's health in profound ways.

    and just imagine what kind of peers will review them. qaradhawi? ghazzali? taymiyya? tabari? bilal philips? hamza tzortis? nouman ali? zakir naik? ahmad 
    deedat? dr qadri?

    off the cuff let us imagine dr tahir ul qadri (the great "peaceful" "anti-terrorism-fatwa" dude) reviewing mr naseer ahmed's theses. dr qadri has stated explicitly in an interview with a jouralist of pakistan (mr najam sethi) that he is in complete agreement with the blasphemy laws of pakistan and that it is entirely islamically justifiable and that the penalty for blasphemy is death. 

    but what he is against is the procedural law mind you, - not the substantive law. i would not know of course if mr qadri is a fake, traitor, liar, pimp, politician, sycophant, sloganeer or dysfunctional, clutching at straws or dredging the hadees. so what can he say about mr naseer ahmed's theses?

    (it is another matter that dr qadri lies through his teeth in an interview with 
    the danish press that he is not in favour of death penalty for blasphemy 
    especially if the accused person is a kuffar. but in another video for the 
    consumption of braying, blood-thirsty pakistani mobs, he proudly screams that he is largely responsible for the drafting of the black legislation and as well for recommending the punishment of death for blasphemy.)

    it appears to me that the only qualified exegetes of the koran in the world are on this forum. and there are only two of them. one - the iit alumnus and the other the non-descript "wah-re-wah-kya-kamaal-kiyaa" lawyer person.

    islamic schalarship - it appears - is like the teeth of elephants. there are two sets of them - one set to display and another (hidden) to grind.

    will mr qadri accept the thesis that the koran does not prescribe punishment for apostasy? rather doubtful. will he agree that the kuffar mentioned by the koran are "actually" oppressors? atleast i would not be holding my breath over that one.

    peer reviews of defense of religious dogmas is bidaah. "revealed" texts need no defense. it is the defendants who defend its absurdities that need a defense. some indication of this is the deafening  silence of the "sufi" brigade on this site on the matter of who is a kuffar according to mr naseer ahmed. (not according to the koran though)

    then again, silence is of two kinds. one is the silence of searing disapproval. 

    the other is the silence on account of the fear of being mauled and shredded by mr naseer ahmed's personal attacks and slut-shaming technics.

    both have their entrenched places in a global discourse of almost everyday "defense" of islam and the white-washing of hateful texts as well as actions carried out based on it. someone somewhere everytime has to be constantly coming out saying islam is not this, islam is not that. and that islam means peace when actually it means "submission". if islam has to be "defended" at each and every turn of violent crimes purportedly carried out in its name, something somewhere is wrong. and that wrong is probably in the willful obfuscation and deliberate ambiguity of ancient texts. this is also probabilistic.

    the text-context ruse does not suffice either. then it would beg the question - what is the "context" of so-called eternal texts and the so-called last word of god? 

    what context can there be in the final seal of eternal validity?

    a useful test question for all wannabe exegetes would be to ask  "what would mr qaradhawi say". or what would ghazzali say? or what would jalayn say?

    that should provide some clues. probabilistic approaches are just that. probablistic. they are probably true. and probably false. this is the beauty of probabilty. probabilistically a person whose hair is on fire and whose feet are frozen, is on the average comfortable. probabilistic analyses are the 
    tools of pragmatism. not of koranic exegesis and perverted pet theories. they are perhaps completely irrelevant when one claims absolute "truths" with "absolute" non-chalance.

    and by the way voltaire was a self-described atheist.
    By hats off! - 9/1/2016 3:23:17 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    What Kant has to say on the subject of morality is discussed in my article:

    The Vedas certainly contain the scriptures and possibly contain several original moral precepts. Successive religions have built on these precepts adding a few new ones.

    I am not an expert on the Mahabharata and the following discussion is purely from an academic point of view. I have respect for every scripture based religion since these possibly and probably are divinely inspired. 

    But what is Mahabharata and especially the Bhagwad Geeta? You would most probably agree that Mahabharata is an epic and not a religious book which is what I think too. If it is an epic, it is a book of literature. What is Bhagwad Geeta then? Is it not part of Mahabharata and therefore part of the epic and not a religious book?

    The answer to this question according to me is :

    Yes, it is only a work of literature and not a religious book although many people treat it as a religious book, because the subject of this part of the book is a long discourse between Krishna and Arjuna.

    If we accept it purely as a book of literature, it answers many questions but if we call it as scripture, then it raises many questions.

    One of the questions it raises is, why there is no updesh on slavery when the epic contains the incident of enslaving of Draupadi and her attempted disrobing in public?

    If it is only a book of literature, then updesh in the form of laying down the law or moral precepts is not its domain but if it is part of the scriptures then the question arises why does it fail to lay down the law.

    Now let us apply a different test - does it contain any original moral precept?

    The only moral precept on which the entire discourse is based is "duty stands above relationships" but to my mind completely misapplied to the situation. What was the dispute about except a property dispute between cousins when we know that the war would have been avoided if the Duryodhana had agreed to give just one village to the Pandavas? The reluctance to share territory may have been the proverbial tip of the iceberg or hiding underneath the recalcitrance a mountain of sins and adharma but the fact remains that one simple act of conceding a very small and insignificant  territory could have avoided the war.

    What is the great moral principle here for which war was waged in which everyone took part on one side or the other and many died? Wasn't Arjuna's argument and reluctance more moral?

    Krishna orders his army to fight on the side of the Kauravas who presumably were on the side of adharma and they have no choice. Were they not moral beings allowed to make their own moral choice? Since they were on the losing side, many of them would have been killed. For what moral principle? Obedience to master? Were they slaves then with no power to make a moral choice? Is that the lesson then that slaves are not moral beings and must obey their master? And mind you this lesson is being given by Krishna himself. This again explains why an enslaved Draupadi could be treated the way she was and why Bhishma, Dhritrashtar, Gandhari, Drona etc were helpless to intervene despite their moral authority over Duryodhana.

    Mahabhrata is one of the greatest epics known to us and none of these questions detract from its merits as an epic but as a book of religious discourse, it raises very serious doubts.

    The Bhagwad Geeta is one of the greatest pieces of dialogue in literature as long as it is not taken as religious instruction.

    The Mahabhrata and the Bhagwad Geeta is a masterpiece of literature and not scripture.

    In this is also the difference between what literature can give us and its limitations.

    The Bhagvad Geeta is a discourse based on a moral precept but the fact that the precept appears to be misapplied is proof that it is not an original precept. The original precept may be found in the Vedas.

    I raised the question on the incident of disrobing of Draupadi and have now provided the answer which is simply that the Mahabharata is a work of literature and therefore laying down the law or providing new moral precepts is not its domain and therefore you find no updesh or guidance on slavery, slaves and their treatment.

    The "updesh" in the Bhagwad Geeta is simply a great piece of dialogue in one of the greatest epics.

    No offence meant to anyone and this comment is purely from an academic point of view.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/1/2016 3:19:43 AM



  • Compare the probabilistic nature of my conclusion in my article Is There A Rational Basis For The Atheists To Oppose Religion? as well as my previous comment with the comment of Mr Ghulam Mohiyuddin.

     Conclusion in the article

    Is it possible to think of moral precepts as a product of human thought? Yes, it is possible. Is it a result of human thinking? I doubt it because if it was, then the works of secular thinking would be rich in these concepts.........

     And my comment:

    The hypothesis that Religion is the sole source of Moral Precepts is a reasonable hypothesis.

     How can this hypothesis be proved? This is one of those kind of truths that can be easily disproved if untrue but never really proved.

     So all that we can do is try to disprove it and that is my challenge. If they are unable to disprove, they cannot also then logically say that the hypothesis is false.

    It is they who fall foul of logic if they call the hypothesis false without being able to disprove it. At best, they can say that it is neither proved nor disproved but considering the ease with which it can be disproved if false, we know that it is more likely to be true than false by a long shot. All truths in the real world turn out to be probabilistic.

     Step 1 is the question “is religion rich in moral precepts?” The answer is undisputedly yes. There is no dispute that Religion is a rich source of Moral Precepts

     Step 2

    Is there any other source of moral precepts apart from religion? Where do we look for other sources? The obvious answer is philosophy because philosophy encompasses all academic disciplines.

     There is also no dispute that Philosophy has failed to produce a single Moral Precept. According to GM Sb, this is because it is not the business of Philosophy to generate Moral Precepts. This is a classic case treating failure as not failure but saying that it was never attempted. Did Philosophy really never attempt to generate Moral Precepts? Philosophy has preoccupied itself with questions of morality, has come up with several ethics theories such as Utilitarianism and several variations on the same theme.

      If Philosophy did not generate moral precepts, did literature produce them? Literature is an applied art and nobody sees literature as contributing to any original truths. It uses knowledge from all disciplines without which it would be meaningless but is not seen as producing any truths. Discovery of all truths are the domain of philosophy. There are litterateurs who are also scientists or philosophers and if they make any contribution that is original, it forms part of philosophy and not literature.

     Is there any scholarly article that talks about how literature contributed to any original moral precept?

      I have made my inquiries as diligently as I could and my hypothesis stands. The onus is truly on the others to disprove it if they can.

     Now let us look at GM’s comment

    It is obvious that Naseersaab is not listening to any of the counter arguments.

    Is there a counter argument? What is the counter argument? We don’t even need a counter argument but just one counter example which GM Sb is unable to provide.

    If he sees his theories being challenged he hits back with the ferocity of a wild animal who has been cornered. He certifies his own theories as being proven without listening to other voices in the forum and without seeing any need for peer review by academics and ulama outside this forum.

    I have shown the way not only to challenge my theory but to disprove it. The lie in his statement is obvious since I have presented my findings not as proven but as most likely true unless disproved by a counter example. Let alone preventing people from challenging my theory, I have shown them the clear path to disprove it.

    Unable to disprove, GM sb has behaved like any drowning man would and eagerly clutched at the straws flung at him by Hats Off

    Since his ideas and convictions are based on egotism he feels very threatened by even a suggestion that his scholarship has been misapplied to a spurious cause. 

     He gives away his game here. He is not concerned with what is right and what is wrong but he thinks that proving that at least those religions rich in moral precepts are divinely inspired is a “spurious cause”.

     Religions at this time are not in need of any tall claims or hollow justifications. We need to bring humility, flexibility and rationality to make our faith-based systems conducive to enhancing our humanity and brotherhood.

    GM Sb in his egotism instructs us what Religion should be. All his comments drip with his egotism. It is not for him to discover what religion is. He tells us what it should be. It is not for him what the Quran teaches us. He tells us what it should what it shouldn’t.

    “What God says is best, is best, though all the men in the world are against it.” 
    ― John Bunyan, The Pilgrims Progress;

    “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it."

    ― Voltaire

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/1/2016 1:33:51 AM



  • I discuss things not for the sake of discussion. Therefore my preference is to discuss the matters of the day. To the extent our past impinges on our present, I am interested to discuss past. My concern more is why I am being cheated by all the corporates in India (instances are so numerous that those cannot be narrated) and why our elected government is siding with the cheats? I am surprised why even  Indians pretending to follow Islam are as as much cheaters as those not following Islam. Clearly Islam has lost its impact on shaping the morality of India as a whole. May we presume that we have a source of immorality now which is  stronger than the source of morality of Islam in India? What is that source really? Is there a strong motive or purpose of strong group(s) that wants immorality and illegality to prevail in India? A typical fanatic faced with this question would counter question, 'is Pakistan any better'? As far as I am concerned, Pakistan has never separated from India. But yes I have found many other nationalities, which are much less immoral and illegal, quite a lot of them being Muslim countries. But this question itself is totally irrelevant to me. I am concerned about India. By Manzurul Haque - 9/1/2016 12:54:59 AM



  • Mr Haque,
    flying off the handle is your forte, not mine. 

    I have read your assinine comments on NAI long enough to understand your veiled commentary on the Hindu religion. It is not that I mind - how can everybody like hinduism, and how can everybody even understand it? Especially orthodox muslims would have difficulty understanding a completely different philosophy, a completely different imagination of divinity, a completely different and fluid faith. I was merely trying to tell you that judging the actions of people in the past shows nearly all of them to have shades of grey by our current moral standards. So there is no point in my abusing your prophet or you abusing my Gods.

    You mention people who used the Hindu faith to fool a lot of people. They are to be condemned, but they are not our only thought leaders. Thankfully, there are much more towering personalities who have contributed to our religion, whose teachings have endured long after they have gone. These towering personalities do come close to becoming gods for us Hindus. In many homes, you would find a picture of some of these saints and thinkers nestling cosily among the other idols. This is in recognition of their contribution to the religion, and we dont have a problem with this, because we believe that each and everything in the universe is a manifestation of the divine. Yes, even shit - you mentioned this item in another comment on another thread. Such a disgusting person you are. Trying to demean such a vast and all encompassing vision with such comments.

    Only one part of that long comment of yours I heartily agree with. Islam is not my cup of tea. At ALL.
    By secularlogic - 9/1/2016 12:24:46 AM



  • This will be my last comment in this thread. It is obvious that Naseersaab is not listening to any of the counter arguments. If he sees his theories being challenged he hits back with the ferocity of a wild animal who has been cornered. He certifies his own theories as being proven without listening to other voices in the forum and without seeing any need for peer review by academics and ulama outside this forum. Since his ideas and convictions are based on egotism he feels very threatened by even a suggestion that his scholarship has been misapplied to a spurious cause. Religions at this time are not in need of any tall claims or hollow justifications. We need to bring humility, flexibility and rationality to make our faith-based systems conducive to enhancing our humanity and brotherhood.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/31/2016 2:28:51 PM



  • Mr Logic, I find you flying off your handle, even though I did not even name the religion whose starcast I merely referred without identifying them. It seems you were too conscious of their misdoings. At least in those  parts of world, where justice prevails, our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), would not be jailed, without any evidence. The abusive imagination of a fanatic would not stand as evidence in civilized parts of the world, especially when the fanatic has a grudge for being routed by the mission of the Prophet. You talk of followings of the likes of Rajneesh, frankly speaking these fashion icons have no chance before Islam. You may be having great deal of post-facto  tailor-made rules of morality but you cannot vest the rule with sanctity. A moral rule needs the backing of faith or belief-system which is engraved on human heart more permanently than is possible on stone. Please don't close your eyes to the reality. The persons I have named are the ones who once were followed by lots of Hindus, but now stand charge-sheeted or will be charge-sheeted for their known offences. The persons you have named cannot be above in hierarchy than your known gods and goddesses and original scriptures, so if any 'source' of morality or immorality has to be located (whether found or not) it is to be traced there (you have said this in your preceding comment). For doing glossing work, you are a sufficient person! And yet we say, be satisfied with your glossy work, Islam is not your cup of tea. By Manzurul Haque - 8/31/2016 2:21:24 PM



  • what is "religion" and how is it defined, described or pointed out?

    if and only if such definition/descriptions/indication is capable of being arrived at, to the mutual satisfaction of the warring parties -

    then,

    what "moral" precepts have the religion(s) discovered/propounded/stated?

    then and only then when the "moral" precepts are enumerated/tabulated it will be possible to harangue each other on each of the numbered items on the list

    if not - then its just your word against mine.

    which by me is just fine.
    By hats off! - 8/31/2016 12:00:26 PM



  • Mr Haque, when will it dawn on you that morality is not written in stone. It is not necessarily what Islam, or any other faith says it is. Of course Acharya Rajneesh was propogating a different morality. You should listen to his lectures. You may agree or disagree with him, but for some time, he did convince a lot of people. The magazine the Osho group brings out has a lot of readers, still. Then there was J Krishnamurthy, a philosopher, whose teachings and outlook towards life had a lot of following. Still have. Swami vivekanand. Ramkrishna Paramhans. Sant Dnyaneshwar. Sant Tukaram. Ramdas swami. Namdev. Guru Gobind Singh. All of them spoke about morals. some of them brought old moral precepts into new form, some broke with tradition, some started a whole new form of worship called the Bhakti movement. Some started a new religion breaking with the past, yet taking from it what was, to the new thinking, worth taking. Don't you see the beauty of this freedom to think, to evolve, to change, to become more humane? New religion come into being precisely because morals evolve outside religion. Talking about who would go to jail for what - the prophet mohammad would go to jail under modern secular laws for paedophilia, genocide, bigamy, rape, destruction of places of worship, encroaching on other peoples place of worship, war crimes including loot and pillage, practicing slavery. His claims of being a messenger of God would also be questioned, and he would be accused of being a charlatan similar to the Rajneesh you so disdain. So it is better you keep your opinions about the gods of others to yourself. By secularlogic - 8/31/2016 11:30:53 AM



  • I am not sure about the link between morality and all the so-called religions but surely with Islam, mortality has the strongest link..... says my rumpelstiltskin.

    Never was a truer word said :D. Islam and mortality have a strong link. 
    By secularlogic - 8/31/2016 11:12:41 AM



  • Haque Sb,: A little more of logic.
    All moral precepts have come from religion does not imply that all religions promote morality or even that every religion has contributed at least one moral precept.
    All that it means is that every moral precept has come from religion. If there were a hundred thousand prophets it does not mean that every prophet brought some new moral precept either. Many of them may have just emphasized what had come earlier.
    In the case of Jesus (pbuh) he did not bring a single law but he brought hikmat or the wisdom to apply the laws.
    In my comments, I have also shown how Jesus manner of dealing with the accusers of adultery agrees with the Quran's very stern stand on accusers if they number less than four.
    The law is punish the adulterer and adulteress but only if they indulge in flagrant sin with many witnesses.
    Self confession is not encouraged in Islam either and the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said that let the cloak of darkness remain on a sin committed in darkness and on the Judgement Day, Allah will not expose and shame the sinners.
    Sin is not being encouraged at all but there is hope of forgiveness to those who repent and punishment for those who flagrantly violate the law.
    What is the moral principle involved in making adultery a sin? The command is thou shall be faithful to your trust and covenants of marriage and violation attracts a punishment.
    There are the moral principles, the laws based on these principles and the wisdom that goes with applying the laws.
    Religion maintains a balance to promote the maximum good of society.
    The original moral principles may be few for example:

    1. Thou shall love they neighbour as thyself
    2. Thou shall not steal
    3. Thou shall keep your promises, treaties and covenants
    4. Thou shall not kill except as a matter of justice
    5. Thou shall repel evil with good
    6. Thou shall resist oppression and defeat it
    7. Thou shall speak the truth and stand for justice 
    8. Thou shall make peace with people and enter into treaties.
    9. Thou shall feed the indigent, help the orphan etc.
    10. Thou shall persist in all good works with patience 
    10. Thou shall not covet, envy etc.
    11. Thou shall guard your modesty except ....
    12. Thou shall not kill an animal except .....
    13. Thou shall help in all good deeds but not in sin, rancor or enmity.
    Mosaic laws were just the laws but without the wisdom on how these were to be applied. Jesus showed the wisdom but did not bring any new law. In Islam, you find both.
    Many of the laws are changed but these do not affect the precepts.
    Punishment for adultery reduced to 100 lashes. Requirement of evidence specified.
    There is no punishment prescribed for apostasy, homosexuality, blasphemy.
    Punishment for homosexuality is an interesting subject which covers the changing norms of society and I will cover this topic some day in an article.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/31/2016 7:38:28 AM



  • I am not sure about the link between morality and all the so-called religions but surely with Islam, mortality has the strongest link. I have known some religions that propagate only immorality. Some of the leading characters of those religions would be behind bars under IPC today. Was Bhagwan Rajneesh teaching morality through his religion ?Indeed many practitioners who are venerated also have hardly any link with morality such as Radhey Maa, Aasharam Bapu, spurious food and drug producer Ram Dev, and any number of them. There is a cult by the name of Augarh which is the product of highest religious philosophy of conquering self. What great rules of morality have they distilled ! 
    I shall not go back to old stories because that would be hurting. But who can explain me why I was cheated by the super rich Ambanis through their Reliance phones and having changed the service provider, now by the Airtel with such alarming consistency? Are they very poor to need to cheat me? And mind you under our elected cheat leaders there are any number of all kinds of service providers whose prime job in fact is to cheat because they have been given by the government a license to cheat. Morality is zero today. And as we are becoming the greatest world power we will be able to teach immorality to the rest of the world, with no questions asked, because it would have ..... backing.
    By Manzurul Haque - 8/31/2016 4:48:44 AM



  • BTW.. what is an original moral precept? Don't different ideas of morality run together in the same space-time continuum? Look at our moral landscape today. Pro- abortion, anti-abortion, pro-gay, anti-gay, pro-euthanasia, anti-euthanasia, pro- evolution, anti-evolution.... How can anybody trace any moral concept to its origin?  We all know that 'truthfulness' is a highly desirable moral. But the Quran sanctifies 'taquiya'; Other streams of thought accept it in exceptional circumstances as a necessary evil for a good cause... ahimsa is not practicable in totality, but is still the preferred path, and this has been accepted by all, inasmuch that violence is eschewed as a means of settling dispute. It may have been given prominence by Buddha, but to say it was his original idea is to say that prior to that every person settled his problems violently. This obviously being implausible, it is stands to reason that morality evolves outside religion too. More likely that religion just codifies existing thinking on the subject of "good humans, good society". If this were not so, we would all be living by the standards of the Torah, Old Testament, the Quran.... We'd be stoning and beheading and hand chopping for crimes like stealing and blasphemy. We'd be killing people for having sex outside/without marriage  (but wait, some of us ARE doing that). Hindus would probably be in a better position, not being encumbered by one single religious constitution. We could always follow Charvaka. Thankfully, modern moral systems have compasses other than religion to guide them.  By secularlogic - 8/31/2016 4:16:44 AM



  • The only advantage that Hats Off has is that he is good with his "turn of the phrase". Anyone who is good with his language is mistaken to be intelligent and it does require intelligence to master the language. However, mastering the language requires different talents from mastering logic and in this Hats Off falls short woefully. 

     I must say here, that precisely with the same article viz:

     Religion as a Civilizing Influence

     I took him and other commentators through the paces of how to disprove my theory if that is what they wished to do. You can go through the comments to find it. I showed them precisely what my premises were and my conclusions and told them that if they wanted to disprove my theory, they needed to either show that my premises were factually incorrect or my conclusion did not follow logically from those premises. This they failed to do and you have Hats Off’s acknowledgement of failure when he calls these articles brilliant which people struggled to counter.

    In a different context, I also took him through the paces of logical fallacies and he is just throwing a few forms of logical fallacies at me without showing how my argument is logically fallacious. He is incapable of showing that because he is weak in logic and my arguments are logically sound.

    GM Sb being the shallow sloganeer that he is, merely latches on to what Hats Off said. Otherwise he too is incapable of showing how what is alleged by them is true.

    The ball is in my court to take further, the lessons on logic that my ungrateful pupils have failed to grasp.

    The starting point of all hypothesis is an assertion, which if falsified disproves the hypothesis. There are many truths and even mathematical theorems that can never be proved  but can be easily disproved with a single counter example. (Read about Godel’s incompleteness theorem).

    The hypothesis that Religion is the sole source of Moral Precepts is a reasonable hypothesis.

    How can this hypothesis be proved? This is one of those kind of truths that can be easily disproved if untrue but never really proved.

    So all that we can do is try to disprove it and that is my challenge. Those who cannot disprove it may continue to adamantly reject it. After all, all of the Prophets were rejected by the majority so what am I and my truths?  If they are unable to disprove, they cannot also then logically say that the hypothesis is false. It is they who fall foul of logic if they call the hypothesis false without being able to disprove it. At best, they can say that it is neither proved nor disproved but considering the ease with which it can be disproved if false, we know that it is more likely to be true than false by a long shot. All truths in the real world turn out to be probabilistic and Hats Off may please note, that such truths are not based on syllogisms. He has a long way to go before he begins to understand the ABC of logic. The same hold good for the venerable GM Sb.

     So what is step 1?

    Step 1 is the question “is religion rich in moral precepts?” The answer is undisputedly yes. There is no dispute that Religion is a rich source of Moral Precepts

     Step 2

    Is there any other source of moral precepts apart from religion? Where do we look for other sources? The obvious answer is philosophy because philosophy encompasses all academic disciplines.

    There is also no dispute that Philosophy has failed to produce a single Moral Precept. According to GM Sb, this is because it is not the business of Philosophy to generate Moral Precepts. This is a classic case treating failure as not failure but saying that it was never attempted. Did Philosophy really never attempt to generate Moral Precepts? Philosophy has preoccupied itself with questions of morality, has come up with several ethics theories such as Utilitarianism and several variations on the same theme.

    Now let us assume that Moral Precepts did not exist and yet Civilization somehow managed to reach our present levels of knowledge (an impossibility as I have shown in my article “Religion as a civilizing influence). What would we have then? Obviously we would have Utilitarianism. Where would that lead us? Self Interest (enlightened self-interest if you wish) would be the highest goal of mankind. This would mean maximize your gains or profit. This is what existed when we lived as savages and killed each other for our gain and if this was what we only had, civilization would never have made any progress.

    Our Moral and Ethical precepts have taught us to be compassionate and caring to all living things and our environment. So what is wrong with the human concept of ahimsa and vegetarianism? It looks like a laudable goal and even a self-evident moral principle at least to Buddha, but we know that without the balance that nature maintains, through the food cycle, where this concept of ahimsa taken to extremes will land us. Ahimsa is not an original concept but what we human beings have built on the ethics of frugality, necessity and respect for all life forms and our environment.

    Religion has a way of saying exactly what is right – neither more nor less. Islam permits killing animals for food but for no other reason – neither sport nor game. It does not permit waste either. The permission combines the virtues of necessity, frugality as well as respect for life.

     If Philosophy did not generate moral precepts, did literature produce them? Literature is an applied art and nobody sees literature as contributing to any original truths. It uses knowledge from all disciplines without which it would be meaningless but is not seen as producing any truths. Discovery of all truths are the domain of philosophy. There are litterateurs who are also scientists or philosophers and if they make any contribution that is original, it forms part of philosophy and not literature.

     There is no denying that all the sciences and religion influence literature but has literature influenced religion or the sciences? There is a grey line as it concerns science fiction or in general, works that predict the future society or shape of things to come. This is visualizing based on the present state and capabilities that are not yet fully exploited. However, the fiction here is by a scientist.

     Is there any litterateur known to have produced any original moral precepts? Did Mahatma Gandhi produce any original moral precepts? Did Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King produce any or Shakespeare or Tolstoy or Keats, Shelley or Wordsworth or Aesops fables or the Arabian nights or Bikram and Betal?

    Is there any scholarly article that talks about how literature contributed to any original moral precept?

     I have made my inquiries as diligently as I could and my hypothesis stands. The onus is truly on the others to disprove it if they can.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/31/2016 3:01:11 AM



  • ETHICS:  Chapter 9  Kantian Theory : The Categorical Imperative: Section 4. Moral Law
    What is the "moral law"?
    When Kant speaks about the moral law, he is essentially referring to that sense of obligation to which our will often responds. We all know the experience -- we are sometimes pulled in a certain direction, not because we desire to act in that way, but in spite of our desire to act in the opposite way.
    This pull is toward that moral sense which Kant believes each of us has, in virtue of being rational and free. It is conscience. Actually, it is deeper than conscience, because our conscience can be mistaken. Conscience arises because of certain structure of human consciousness -- it is the structure of human reason and human will.
    The moral law is not given to us from outside. Kant does not associate the moral law with what God commands. Nor with civil law. Nor with what society recommends.
    The moral law is nothing other than rational will -- the will which is entirely "devoted" to, or guided by impartiality and universality of reason.
    The nature of reason itself is universal -- this is made most clear in logic, in mathematics, and in science. We look for universal laws by which the universe is guided. Well, so in practical affairs of human moral existence.
    Therefore, to obey the moral law is nothing else than to obey the basic structure and drive of human reason that is in each and every person, and that is also the source of human freedom and autonomy.
    The test of a genuine moral imperative -- the test of the moral law -- is that I can universalize it, that I can will that it become a universal law. This "test" is what the Categorical Imperative is for -- to provide us a way to examine the rationality and therefore moral acceptability of an action.
    The source of the moral law is US -- it is human nature, human freedom, human reason.
    cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_8_Kantian_Theory/Moral_Law.htm
    Most rational, good human beings in the world today draw their sense of morals from something similar to Kant's moral law. Many try to reconcile it with what their religion teaches, try to find the common ground between these two, and REJECT that part of religion that is not in confirmity with Kant's idea of morality. So for at least some people in the world, morals do come from philosophy, irrespective of whether they have read Kant or not.
    It is religious people who stick to religion dictated morals, and if they find dissonance and know in their conscience that what religion dictates is unacceptable, twist themselves into knots trying to justify the unjustifiable.

    By secularlogic - 8/31/2016 2:38:58 AM



  • A large part of Hindu concept of morality stems from the Philosophy of the Vedas. The Gita draws upon the wisdom of the Upanishads, which are philosophical treatises.
    Of course, social conditions also dictated some moral values of the Hindus. These do not come from the Vedas. Many morals were amenable to changing with the times. For example, most modern Hindus now consider a daughter to be on par with a son, consider daughters to be legitimate heirs, and consider them to be bread winners. In the traditional texts, their position was not quite so equal, and it was considered highly moral for a woman to be subservient to the men. Also, many Hindus today question the morality of abandoning a pregnant Sita in the woods. So no morality is absolute, no moral code is 'divinely inspired'. Some moral values, though, are more durable than others. Thats all we can say.
    I fully support Mr Mohiyuddin's arguments on this thread, though I suspect I may be an unwelcome supporter :)
    Here is some extracurricular reading for Mr Ahmed and others who may find this subject of morality interesting:
    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705697/ By secularlogic - 8/31/2016 2:12:14 AM



  • There are moments of mirth even on this bleak site. 

    As I read the comments of one venerable gentleman below, the image of Rumpelstiltskin going into a wild fury, raving and stomping his feet until the ground cracked came to mind. Readers know that fairytale, I suppose. :D
    By secularlogic - 8/31/2016 1:48:54 AM



  • And yes. West is good, and Islam is West , so we are all good, good. Unfortunately I firmly believe, West is bad in the balance sheet. There are aspects of Western thinking which are anti-human being anti-poor and anti-weak, and therefore anti-Islamic. The dominant Western thinking is destructive, exploitative, hypocratic, inhuman, anti-women, pro-slave and highly supremacist because of their Neanderthal ancestry. My struggle will not end until they become fully human. Of course large parts of them have become homo-sapiens, but the dominant elements have deeply entrenched their fangs around the necks of the lesser humans and woe of woes they have quite a number of dalals in the shape of fakes, traitors, liars, pimps, politicians, commentators, doing the biddings on their behalf.  By Manzurul Haque - 8/30/2016 10:07:46 PM



  • Hats off is back with his hat on! Does he continue to be so-called atheist Hindu? He seems to be quite disturbed that Mr Naseer Ahmed has been able to interpret Islam harmoniously with the values of the modern Western civilization.  He is angry that he (Mr Ahmed) is not explaining holy Quran, the way he (hats off) would like the Quran to be explained. I thought hats off wanted us to do some new ageing of Islam, but on the success of the project he is seen to be flying off his handle. I think he is also  bitten by the same bug - Islamic supremacism. Problem is that he is suffering from this, but he would not let go Islam from him. And if I tell him few words about my secular theories of Islam, of course without one citation from Quran or Hadiths, he would go mads off! By being secular I have an advantage. I am at par with the Atheist in maneuverability. Long back when I had entered this portal, I had declared that I was not a gentleman type of  Muslim and am free of this image trap and further I believe in comparative merit and not in absolute merit. If you discuss with me the quality of my wares, I would compare with yours.

    Okay now one point only. My view is that large communities and tribes across the vast stretch of continents became Muslims because of some local intense social dynamics where the tribes were suffering in their struggle with some other  dominating tribes or where the subjects of a king were suffering under his despotic rules (not an unlikely scene). Islam came to them as a natural source of strength as a liberating ideology to fight against those tyrannies. India became Muslim in the areas of Raja Dahar. But the same India did not convert because that social dynamics went missing and it was a story of one despot replacing another despot. The absence of this dynamic change in Indian Society has enfeebled India. Many Hindus today are floundering as spurious atheists not able to determine a course for themselves. The others are forcibly convincing themselves with silly claims of supremacism of Hindu period of history as if there was such a thing! In fact you can almost see that they are Hindus because we are Muslims. Pity. By writing this I am making a humble plea not to carry so much ill-will against Muslims,and of late they have themselves lost any comparative merit that they had. Plz get over with such poisonous feelings.
    By Manzurul Haque - 8/30/2016 2:09:27 PM



  • Naseersaab,

    You ask why philosophers are not in the business of producing moral precepts. Philosophers study and analyze knowledge. They do not make discoveries in astronomy, medicine or physics. They do not propose theories in psychology, sociology, linguistics or economics. In any case, the argument that since philosophers  have not proposed moral precepts, it means that all moral precepts must have come from religions, is fallacious. It is just a fact that we call our moralists "wise men", "sages", "gurus" or "mentors", not philosophers. By the way, expounding on the theory of ethics is not the same as producing ethical concepts.

    The fact that moral precepts have the self-evidence of first principles does not mean they cannot be produced by human mind.

    You said, "I have responded to your dysfunctional comments by pointing out that my articles are not for you but for those who read the Quran and would like to understand it."

    Calling my comments "dysfunctional" and bestowing your articles with the sanctity of the Quran shows the depth of the abyss that your cockiness has gotten you into. I hope for your sake that you will get yourself out of this morass soon. While I do not agree either with your excessive defensiveness about religion nor with Hat Off's excessive offensiveness about religion, I do think he is right when he says, " no one can argue with one who mistakes assertions with syllogisms, confuses mere assertions with proofs and creates premises from conclusions or thinks that the winner is one who has the last word."

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/30/2016 2:01:52 PM



  • Royalj,

    You also ask "Why Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, who follow the greatest prophet who ever walked on the earth, are lagging behind the Indians who are idol worshippers and polytheists worshipping 330 million gods, though these three countries got their freedom from the British on the same date 15-8-1947?"

    Have you gone raving mad? What has religion got to do with it? It is you who has lost his composure.

    What are you? You look like a Christian from Pakistan or Bangladesh? 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/30/2016 7:24:25 AM



  • Royalji. If you are done with your ala, bla.. I need to tell you that unlike BJP, Allah governs by laws and not by ordinances. As to his judgment in a specific case or situation, only a mad Muslim (I am not the one) or a spiritual Hindu guru like you, knows His mind. The obvious reply in this case according to you leads the Almighty to start residing in shit, because He is everywhere out of love for everything. I am condemned not to be able to believe in this shit theory so I do not generally seek to know His mind to be able to manipulate things. My interaction with Him is slightly different. I thank him round the clock and pray for his help and forgiveness round the clock.

    Not to you, you are an honorable buzurg. But I want to announce to all the burbak babas and rolly-pollies, that war indeed is permissible. otherwise why would USA be warring all the time in all the places, especially with the weak countries? 

    Don't you feel ashamed to compare Pakistan and Bangladesh or for that matter any Muslim country  with India? We are the number one power in the word because of all the Muslim saints who are buried here.
    By Manzurul Haque - 8/30/2016 7:16:08 AM



  • Royalj, It is you who has failed to answer simple questions. Try answering them if you can:

     1.     What do you think is the relevance of Mathew 5:17?

     "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

     And what is the law on the subject? And who gave that law?

    2.     How many offenders are transformed as a result of pardon? If pardon had such power, why did it not become the norm for society? Or do you subscribe to the view “exceptions prove the rule?”

     My article that I have cited provides a straight answer to your question. I reproduce below from my article:

    Spiritual Islam Vs Bigoted Islam

     There is only one Hudood law on which the Quran is inflexible and that is on adultery.

    (24:2) The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

    The verse leaves no scopes for ifs and buts or for lessening the punishment. Any compromise on the sentence castes a doubt on your belief in Allah and the last day. Simply said, non-implementation of the law or any compromises made makes the judge and servant of the State trying the case and awarding the sentence, a disbeliever.

    Does this mean that since the Quran is so inflexible in the matter of punishing those found guilty of adultery, individuals who report on such cases and help establish the charge of adultery earn divine pleasure and rewards? Let us consider how those who report on such cases are rewarded.

    (24:4) And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors (Fasiq);-

    Those who report without being able to establish the charge with three other reliable witnesses are given 80% of the punishment for adultery besides being categorized as wicked transgressors whose evidence is to be rejected ever after.

    (24:5) Unless they repent thereafter and mend (their conduct); for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

    By no stretch of imagination can we say that a solitary witness is always a liar and neither does the Quran call them a liar. It calls them a Fasiq or a person given to wickedness.

    The lesson to derive from this is that an individual who is concerned about the “sins” of others is driven by wickedness or by a hate for others rather than love. He is driven by feelings of revenge and retaliation rather than forgiveness. He takes gleeful pleasure in catching others in the wrong rather than overlooking faults.  While in Islam there is no intention to tolerate or encourage adultery, there is no encouragement for an individual to excessively bother about the sins of others either and such a person is called a Fasiq or wicked. The same term Fasiq has been used to describe those who waged battle against the Prophet. The Fasiq are therefore the enemies of humanity and all that is good and must be shunned and not encouraged in Muslim society. What this at the same time teaches you is to abhor adultery and all sin to an extent that your personal life is totally free of it.

    Spirituality and Bigotry are effectively defined from this example. A spiritual person is concerned with constant refinement of self where as he progresses on the path of self-refinement, his sense of gratitude to Allah increases.  The embodiment of perfection is Allah. The embodiment of love, mercy, tolerance, forgiveness and of giving many chances to the sinners and giving them a very long respite from retribution is also Allah. A person as he progresses on the spiritual path acquires these qualities of Allah. Retribution is solely the prerogative of Allah and punishment is solely the duty of the State. A common man should not concern himself with either. A common man should represent God’s love, mercy, forgiveness and tolerance on earth unless he chooses to represent Satan.

    Bigotry is excessive concern with the sin of others, of gleefully trapping and catching the sinners and punishing them or getting them punished. Bigotry is driven by hate. In a person who calls himself a “believer” or a Muslim this is disguised as a love for the “Shariat” and its implementation in the harshest form possible. Even when it comes to a believer, it is easy to see that he is either a worshipper of Allah or a worshipper of Satan irrespective of what he professes with his mouth.

     The way Jesus (pbuh) dealt with the accusers is exactly how the Quran deals with them – discourages them from making accusations (even if true) unless it is a flagrant public act with many witnesses that has the effect of corrupting society if not punished. As far as trying and punishing the guilty is concerned, he had no civil authority to do so.

     Where is the question of getting caught red handed as you say?

     There can be absolutely no difference between what two messengers of God taught and my comments on the subject establish that.

     On the question of war, if religion allows no wars, why is the US at war? And what do we do with the ISIS? You will not answer any question. These questions have been asked and you have no answer.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/30/2016 6:48:44 AM



  • @Naseer: You have been caught red handed. You did not answer a simple spiritual question. What does Allah want: repentance of a sinner and turns to the right path or the sinner should be stoned to death”? Anyone in this thread will give the obvious answer; but you are beating about the bush. It means you do not belong to the truth. Can I take it that you support killings?

    I have already suspected your intention when I commented under “Experts are experting”.Sultan says “These instructions (violent versus) are no longer valid when the war is over”. Whereas Naseer Ahmed says “the message of the Quran is that war is permissible and even incumbent on the Muslims but only under a legitimate ruler and in the cause of Allah which is clearly to end oppression of any kind” As per Naseer’s comment, my humble opinion is “oppression of any kind” will be there until the end of the world and the war by Muslims either against non-Muslims or Muslims against other sects will go on endlessly.

    Ghulam has repeatedly advised you to use tactics, wisdom; not to open the Pandora’s Box,(obscurantism, slavery, concubinism, polygamy, triple talaqs etc.), not to find explanation for literal quotes from the Quran, not to waste your energy and time in your pseudo scholarly activity.

    In my opinion you are doing a disservice to the intention and purpose of NAI

    I think you have lost contact with reality. You will regain your composure when you try to answer the question: Why Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, who follow the greatest prophet who ever walked on the earth, are lagging behind the Indians who are idol worshippers and polytheists worshipping 330 million gods, though these three countries got their freedom from the British on the same date 15-8-1947?

    “We cannot to claim to love Allah and pray five times while we hate and abuse His creatures” Al-wala' wa-l-bara' is pure evil – causing mayhem throughout the world By Royalj - 8/30/2016 5:55:30 AM



  • Hats Off,: With reference to two of my articles which incidentally are the same two articles being discussed now with GM Sb
    1.       Religion as a Civilizing influence
    2.       Is There A Rational Basis For The Atheists To Oppose Religion?
     You wrote in your comment on these two articles addressed to Khalid Suhail: “He wrote two very brilliant articles which we really struggled to counter”
     If these articles “mistake assertions with syllogisms, confuses mere assertions with proofs and creates premises from conclusions” why was it difficult for you to counter?
    You also said:
    “the most interesting issue is why he - a believer, a practicing muslim and a brilliant scholar with very original interpretation of the koran and hadith - felt constrained to exit from the forum voluntarily…..”
     How come now you say what you have just said about the same articles? By Naseer Ahmed - 8/30/2016 3:31:18 AM



  • GM Sb,

     There is a history behind why the degree of PhD or doctor of philosophy is the highest academic degree irrespective of the subject. Philosophy meaning "love of wisdom" encompassed every subject. Natural philosophy encompasses astronomy, medicine, and physics. Psychology, sociology, linguistics and economics which were part of philosophy have become separate disciplines on account of growth in knowledge and need for specialization. Major sub-fields of philosophy include metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, politics and logic.

     Philosophy therefore encompasses the fruits of all human thinking and endeavour. How can then anybody say as you have said that “Philosophers are not in the business of producing moral precepts but they do discuss and analyze them”? Why is producing moral precepts excluded?

     You further say “Moral precepts result from learning from the vicissitudes of life and are aids to the survival of the individual and to the well-being of society.” If so, why do we not find philosophy contributing to moral precepts?

     An important sub-field of philosophy is ethics or “the science of the ideal human character” or “the science of moral duty”. When can we then say that “producing moral precepts is not the business of philosophy but analysing them is”?  Only when we concede that it is impossible for philosophy (which includes all of human endeavour) to produce a single moral precept. The success of human endeavour in the field of ethics is limited to the theory of Utilitarianism and several variations on the same theme but nothing close to what religions have given us. If philosophy did not make producing moral precepts its business, but only analysing them, it needn’t have come up with the ethics theories either.

     Since the moral precepts necessarily have the self-evidence of first principles once stated for these to be useful, it is easy to take these for granted, but the fact that philosophy which encompasses all of human endeavour has not contributed to even one durable moral precept should tell us something about religions and their claim of divine inspiration.

     There is no limit to what one may steadfastly and stubbornly deny no matter the evidence. My problem is not with what you choose to believe and what you choose to disbelieve. That is your choice. My problem is with your dysfunctional comments dismissing religion as a source of knowledge for determining what is ideal human behaviour. On several occasions, I have responded to your dysfunctional comments by pointing out that my articles are not for you but for those who read the Quran and would like to understand it. You can choose to deify modernity despite its utter failure to promote happiness. Its flaws are considerably masked by the gains of economic progress which you mistake for “civilizational progress”. You are welcome to your views as long as you do not try to thrust these on me.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/30/2016 3:04:21 AM



  • Hats Off, You can say what you wish to say by quoting me on the different subjects that I have covered. As your comment stands, all your arguments are based on what I never said but what you have conveniently made them out to be because that is what you can attack.
    To help you, below is a link to my articles:
    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/30/2016 3:00:30 AM



  • --royalji It does not matter what I have to say. What you say is not the position that reputed Christian commentators have taken on the subject - mr naseer ahmed--

    rather strange, to say the least.

    this is precisely what other skeptical commentators were saying to counter mr naseer ahmed's eulogy of jizya as an wonderful way of dealing with the stubborn kuffar who refused to convert. but these commentators were exhorted to keep off these hujjat-al-islams and other worthies. amnesia is a wonderful thing.

    similar is the case with what mr naseer ahmed "proves" in his disparate articles about kufr and the kuffar, the hateful legitimization of slave trade and sex slavery of war captives. because "reputed" commentators of the koran do not agree with mr naseer ahmed. they all assert almost unanimously that until salughter in the land has been complete no slaves be taken. they uniformly aver that jizya is a humiliation/disincentive to kufr, and most significantly all non-muslims (across the board) are indeed kuffars. convenience is another wonderful thing. especially when propped up by wobbly memory.

    (on a side note, a prophet cannot claim moral high ground by simply making a virtue out of necessity or sanctifying baser human instincts on the grounds that slavery was the standard operating procedure of the day and that outright banning would not have "worked". so much for the all powerful sky-god). and if you set the bar so low, then even the one who refrains out of mere inability can also claim virtue. or like the hindus would say "vriddha naari pativratha". 

    it is baffling to see him assert (in another article or comment) that minorities "flourished" "because" of jizya while the vast islamic wastelands (except for india, perhaps) are conveniently or miraculously free of the kuffar. rather counter-intuitive but entirely islamic. but maybe, by some kind of fuzzy logic, the very reason for is the reason against. like one mr farrokh sakleshfar (a very "reputed" islamic scholar by the way) asserts in one of his brilliant sermons at a mosque in canada "..out of compassion for homosexuals, let us kill them - now". and talking of reputation who can be more reputable than the indomitable al-qaradhawi? so we might as well troupe up behind his enormous "reputation". why not?

    what mr naseer ahmed "proves" (in his various self-advertised articles on NAI a little like mr mohammad yunus) on kufr and the kuffar, the jizya and slave trade and sex slavery is "not the position taken" by most of the the "reputed" exegetes and their uncles included. they all agree that denigration and humiliation - not edification -is the theory behind jizya.

    all four schools of islamic fiqh declare that the non-muslim is the kuffar, they agree that polytheists must be converted fought or killed (in that order), they say slave trade and sex with war captives is sunnah, they say  jizya is paid in humiliation by the kuffar, they say resisting dawah is legitimate cause for jihad, they say an apostate from islam is given some time to repent failing which he is to be murdered, they all agree that homosexuals should be pushed off the top of tall buildings in the absence of which tall cliffs would suit them fine, and they say much else and more horrible. the highly reputable "umadat al salik" gives the parents and grand-parents the right to kill their wayward children. you can't get more reputable than umadaat al saliq. these honourable men suggest that all male children above the age of ten be beaten if they do not attend the mosque. the list is quite long.

    all the past worthies of islamic theory and practice are (probably) much more reputed (as of now) than mr naseer ahmed. we probably need to revisit him a thousand years later. his major thesis (on kufr and the kuffar) is by the way wasting its fragrance on the desert air. no one is passing him the ball. at least mr mohammad yunus is not playing.

    partly understandable because no one can argue with one who mistakes assertions with syllogisms, confuses mere assertions with proofs and creates premises from conclusions or thinks that the winner is one who has the last word. 

    like they say, one may take the boy out of school but one cannot take the school out of the boy. in other words, you may take islam out of supremacism, but you cannot take supremacism out of islam. 

    while mr ghulam mohiyuddin appears to be wanting out of playing chess with pigeons, mr royalji seems to be caught in a mid-game crisis. good luck to him.
    By hats off! - 8/30/2016 1:01:23 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    You are the one who is making the claim that moral precepts did not exist before religions brought them to us. It is a tall and unbelievable claim.  The onus is on you to prove what you claim.

    You asked, "What quotation from any holy book have I used?" You had quoted, "17:88. Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support. 2:23. And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true."

    You asked, "
    Where else to look for original moral precepts except philosophy?" Philosophers study morality. They do not produce moral precepts. Let me simplify my task by quoting from the Wikipedia, "The evolution of morality refers to the emergence of human moral behavior over the course of human evolution. Morality can be defined as a system of ideas about right and wrong conduct. In everyday life, morality is typically associated with human behavior and not much thought is given to the social conducts of other creatures. The emerging fields of evolutionary biology and in particular sociobiology have argued that, though human social behaviors are complex, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals. . .Psychologist Matt J. Rossano muses that religion emerged after morality and built upon morality by expanding the social scrutiny of individual behavior to include supernatural agents. By including ever watchful ancestors, spirits and gods in the social realm, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.  The adaptive value of religion would have enhanced group survival."

    You ask, "Does anybody doubt the influence of religion on literature, music, art and architecture?" As I had said, the civilized world has been steeped in religions for the past two millennia or more and therefore religions  had an all-pervading influence on art and literature. That does not however mean that without religion man could not have produced moral precepts. See the previous paragraph, including the quote from psychologist Rossano.

    You say, " I am merely pointing out to what is fact with all the evidence." That is a tall claim. Your "evidence" just does not qualify as evidence. It is a series of assertions based on wishful thinking.

    You say, " I do not think that my assertion and your refutation which is simply a stubborn refusal to accept without being able to support what you say, are on the same plane." That self-serving assertion is precisely why I had said that we should now agree to disagree and end this discussion because both you and I have already said what we wanted to say and from here on there is great risk of the dialogue becoming uncivil. Thanks for this stimulating exchange.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/29/2016 12:20:33 PM



  • Royalj, It does not matter what I have to say. What you say is not the position that reputed Christian commentators have taken on the subject.

    What do you think is the relevance of Mathew 5:17?

     "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

     And what is the law on the subject? And who gave that law?

     How many offenders are transformed as a result of pardon? If pardon had such power, why did it not become the norm for society? Or do you subscribe to the view “exceptions prove the rule?”

     You will however find a direct answer to your question based on the Quran in my article:

    Spiritual Islam Vs Bigoted Islam

    which by the way is not very different from how Jesus dealt with the accusers.

    Your aj ara kal jara or whatever it is, is another straw man argument completely unrelated to what is being discussed.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/29/2016 7:45:01 AM



  • @Naseer: // even a Prophet of God is powerless to impose God's punishment on a sinner and he has to follow the law of the land //
    What does Allah wants; repentance of a sinner and turns to the right path or the sinner should be stoned to death?

    Your answer will reflects your world view.

    “We cannot to claim to love Allah and pray five times while we hate and abuse His creatures”

    Al-wala' wa-l-bara' is pure evil – causing mayhem throughout the world.

    By Royalj - 8/29/2016 5:16:52 AM



  • GM Sb,:Your comments are in red.

     Take the Ten Commandments for example. Do you think they are original ideas? Did man not know before Moses that it is wrong to kill another human being or to steal his neighbor's cow?

     The onus is on you to prove that these ideas were known before Moses, Noah, Krishna, Rama etc. What do you have to show?

     In order to support your thesis you need to present evidence other than quotations from the holy books.

     What quotation from any holy book have I used? I have relied primarily on Philosophy and its failure despite its pre-occupation with morality to produce a single moral precept.

     You said, "Produce three moral precepts that do not owe their origin to religion or even one if you can!" The onus however is on you to show that the moral precepts of religions did not exist before the prophets conveyed them to us.

     You accept that Religion is a source of moral precepts. Where else to look for original moral precepts except philosophy? I do not find philosophy contributing a single precept.

     Moral precepts should be seen as products of human wisdom. Human wisdom in turn should be seen as a product of evolution of our species. Religions helped in the process by re-emphasizing the best of the moral precepts and maximizing compliance through divine sanction.

     That is your belief system without proof and not necessarily how things are.

     You ask why works of secular thinking are not rich in moral precepts. Our world has been so steeped in religions for the past couple of millennia that it would be impossible to say which works can be called "secular"! Are Plato's four cardinal virtues or Polonius's advice to his son in Shakespeare derived from "religion"? If you say "yes", is it just an assertion or can you prove it?

     Does anybody doubt the influence of religion on literature, music, art and architecture?

     Has any scholar said that literature, music, art, architecture have influenced religion?

     Hasn’t religion sounded the death knell of philosophy except what relates to logic?

     The Sciences and logic have however been most useful in understanding religion but the pursuit of this knowledge is what religion itself exhorts.

     But my basic objection to your line of reasoning is this. Why is it necessary to ascribe all moral thoughts to religions?

     Where is the question of necessity? I am merely pointing out to what is fact with all the evidence. You seem to feel it necessary to prove otherwise without a shred of evidence.

     Does affirmation of human wisdom detract from the majesty of religions? I don't think so.

     Neither do I think so. However, wisdom lies in accepting the truth and not rejecting it.

     Religions do not need such claims being made in their names. Let us respect what religions teach us as well as what our collective human wisdom has done for us.

     Religions are what they are. You may reject the claim of Religion as divinely inspired guidance for mankind but if Religions have been the sole source of all durable moral precepts, then I believe in that claim.

     Buddhism does not claim to be divinely inspired and is agnostic on the question of divinity. Its moral precept of Ahimsa and as a consequence of vegetarianism is also an ethical precept but it has not been a durable precept.

     Collective human wisdom when it deviates from the divinely inspired laws, have only brought misery.

     It seems both you and I have been repeating ourselves. It is best just to agree to disagree. You believe that all morality comes from religions and I do not. Let us leave it at that.

     I do not think that my assertion and your refutation which is simply a stubborn refusal to accept without being able to support what you say, are on the same plane.

     Philosophy mainly pre-occupied itself with morality and did come up with several theories of ethics the most important being Utilitarianism and several variations on the same theme, but nothing close to what we know and accept as morality which is beyond "enlightened self-interest". Philosophy's failure to produce a single moral precept is not because it did not attempt it. St Thomas Aquinas thinks that all moral principles and norms can be inferred as either implicit in, or “referable to” as conclusions from the moral first principle of love of neighbour as self. But he never displays an example or schema of these deduction-like inferences. His successors have proposed that moral principles and norms have the self-evidence of first principles without being able to advance a single moral principle.

     The fact that moral principles and norms have the self-evidence of first principles makes it look as if these could have come from anywhere but from where have they come when even philosophy is bereft of original moral/ethical precepts although philosophy engaged itself mainly with the subject of morality, metaphysics and religion? What other evidence is required?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/29/2016 3:28:28 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    I have already refuted several times the claims you make in your article. Religions are not the sole source of moral precepts. Philosophers are not in the business of producing moral precepts but they do discuss and analyze them. Moral precepts result from learning from the vicissitudes of life and are aids to the survival of the individual and to the well being of society.

    Take the Ten Commandments for example. Do you think they are original ideas? Did man not know before Moses that it is wrong to kill another human being or to steal his neighbor's cow?

    In order to support your thesis you need to present evidence other than quotations from the holy books.

    You said, "Produce three moral precepts that do not owe their origin to religion or even one if you can!" The onus however is on you to show that the moral precepts of religions did not exist before the prophets conveyed them to us.

    Moral precepts should be seen as products of human wisdom. Human wisdom in turn should be seen as a product of evolution of our species. Religions helped in the process by re-emphasizing the best of the moral precepts and maximizing compliance through divine sanction.

    You ask why works of secular thinking are not rich in moral precepts. Our world has been so steeped in religions for the past couple of millennia that it would be impossible to say which works can be called "secular"! Are Plato's four cardinal virtues or Polonius's advice to his son in Shakespeare derived from "religion"? If you say "yes", is it just an assertion or can you prove it?

    But my basic objection to your line of reasoning is this. Why is it necessary to ascribe all moral thoughts to religions? Does affirmation of human wisdom detract from the majesty of religions? I don't think so. Religions do not need such claims being made in their names. Let us respect what religions teach us as well as what our collective human wisdom has done for us.

    It seems both you and I have been repeating ourselves. It is best just to agree to disagree. You believe  that all morality comes from religions and I do not. Let us leave it at that.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/28/2016 2:10:49 PM



  • Oh, Royalji I have understood! It means if you ask a pricking question , the fellow goes ranting mad ! Obviously your picking did not work. We Indians are very thick-skinned unlike you Angrezj.  By Manzurul Haque - 8/28/2016 2:04:29 AM



  • This is in response to Royalj's comment who does not appear to show a good understanding of Christianity.
    The story of Jesus (PBUH) alongwith the commentary tells us, that even a Prophet of God is powerless to impose God's punishment on a sinner and he has to follow the law of the land.

     And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

    They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

    John 8:5

    5: Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

    This they said, tempting him that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

    7: So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

     Barnes' Notes on the Bible

    Tempting him - Trying him, or laying a plan that they might have occasion to accuse him. If he decided the case, they expected to be able to bring an accusation against him; for if he decided that she ought to die, they might accuse him of claiming power which belonged to the Romans - the power of life and death. They might allege that it was not the giving an opinion about an abstract case, but that she was formally before him, that he decided her case judicially, and that without authority or form of trial. If he decided otherwise, they would have alleged that he denied the authority of the law, and that it was his intention to abrogate it. They had had a controversy with him about the authority of the Sabbath, and they perhaps supposed that he would decide this case as he did that - against them. It may be further added that they knew that Jesus admitted publicans and sinners to eat with him; that one of their charges was that he was friendly to sinners (see Luke 15:2); and they wished, doubtless, to make it appear that he was gluttonous, and a winebibber, and a friend of sinners, and disposed to relax all the laws of morality, even in the case of adultery. Seldom was there a plan more artfully laid, and never was more wisdom and knowledge of human nature displayed than in the manner in which it was met.

     Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

    That they might have to accuse him - Had our Lord condemned the woman to death, they might have accused him to Pilate, as arrogating to himself the power of life and death, which the Romans had taken away from the Jews; besides, the Roman laws did not condemn an adulteress to be put to death. On the other hand, if he had said she should not be put to death, they might have represented him to the people as one who decided contrary to the law, and favored the crime of which the woman was accused.

    --------

    Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

    This they said, tempting him,.... For they brought this woman, and exposed her in this manner, not because of their abhorrence and detestation of the sin; nor did they put the above question to Christ, out of their great respect to the law of Moses; which in many instances, and so in this, they in a great measure made void, by their traditions; for they say, that for such an offence as adultery, they did not put to death, nor beat, unless there was a previous admonition; the use of which was, to distinguish between presumptuous sins, and wilful ones (m); but if there was no admonition, and the woman, even a married woman, if she confessed the crime, all her punishment was to have her dowry taken from her, or to go away without it (n): now these masters say nothing about the admonition, nor do they put the question, whether this woman was to be dealt with according to their traditions, or according to the law of Moses? But what was the sense of Christ, whether Moses's law was to be attended to, or whether he would propose another rule to go by? And their view in this was,that they might have to accuse him; that should he agree with Moses, then they would accuse him to the Roman governor, for taking upon him to condemn a person to death, which belonged to him to do; or they would charge him with severity, and acting inconsistently with himself, who received such sort of sinners, and ate with them; and had declared, that publicans and harlots would enter into the kingdom of heaven, when the Scribes and Pharisees would not; and if he should disagree with Moses, then they would traduce him among the people, as an enemy to Moses and his law, and as a patron of the most scandalous enormities:

     The commentary resolves an apparent contradiction in the behaviour of a Prophet of God. Did Jesus preach that no sinner should be punished? A simple search and reading of the commentary by different Christian commentators tell you the true story which does credit to Jesus (PBUH) and not our false notions however romantic these notions may be. The false notions lead to the conclusion "cruel Father (God), merciful Son (Jesus)". Also imagine, if there was no deterrence to crime where would society be? Which is more merciful - deterrent punishment or license?

     About turning the other cheek, read the commentary and understand the context. The Jews were under the Romans who persecuted and oppressed the Jews. Turning the other cheek was a strategy to deal with a cruel oppressor to shame him (hopefully) and make him behave better. Breaking the jaw of the Roman slapper was not an option. The same strategy was advocated by Gandhi to deal with the British rulers. It is good strategy for a people under occupation. I have respect for Gandhi for showing the wisdom to follow the Bible when the Bible suited the circumstances best.

    A comparison between verses in two scriptures which are not normative (according to the scholars of respective scriptures), covering circumstances that are opposite, cannot be the basis of drawing conclusions about the message of these scriptures. Faced with an argument that is based on a conclusion drawn from such comparison, the only way to make the questioner realize that he does not have a correct or holistic view is to make him focus on other verses which according to respected scholars from among the Jews and Christians themselves, are for unprovoked killing of the Gentiles and Philistines who are considered to be subhuman.

     Following the Biblical code of turning the other cheek is good advice for Muslims who are militarily incapable of winning a war. For the Christian West which has military power it is not, and they will not follow it. They are very clear in their minds that these are not normative verses as much as we are clear that some of the verses in the Quran concerning fighting are context specific and not normative verses. The problem with the Muslims today is that for the circumstance that they find themselves in; they are following the wrong code.

     Compare the life of Muhammad (PBUH) in the first 13 years of Prophethood. The Muslim community was weak and not in a position to resist. The Muslims were prohibited by the Prophet from retaliating. The code followed was to turn the other cheek. The Prophet himself was stoned and injured and he refused retaliation even when the Angels appeared seeking his permission to crush the population by bringing the two mountains together. Read my article on the law of Taqiya which contains more detail on the atrocities that the Muslims bore with patience and fortitude and without retaliating. An example of turning the other cheek (figuratively) is to be found from the behaviour of the Prophet himself when he enquired about the health of the lady who did not throw rubbish on him one day as was her wont. That shamed her into changing her offensive behaviour and she did not throw rubbish at him again. The normative verses in the Quran are also for repelling evil with good. When retaliating they are not to transgress limits. Initiating aggression is prohibited. Catching them out worse than they catch you is prohibited.

    The next 10 years were of strength when the Muslims could fight and the command to fight was given. Jesus (PBUH) was never accorded the position of a leader of even the Jews let alone becoming a ruler. So the context of his preaching is entirely different. Moses (PBUH) became a ruler/leader of his people like Muhammad (PBUH)

    The lesson of all the scriptures is to resist oppression. The methods to employ depend upon your circumstances. By ignoring the context of the verses, fools come to different conclusions and argue.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/28/2016 1:45:24 AM



  • GM Sb,

    All the arguments that you have put forth so far, are covered in my article and I am reproducing here the part that answers all your questions.

    Religion and Morality

    Evolutionary biologists glibly talk about morals and moral emotions, without pausing to wonder, why religion has been the sole source of all moral precepts. Why philosophers, who have dealt with the subject and have defined morality, been unable to generate any moral precept? Why secular thinking has not produced a single moral precept?  Religions, with their claim of divinely inspired messengers of God or avatars have on the other hand, contributed richly and exclusively. These moral precepts form the basis for the civil and criminal law of nations with necessary additions of a juridical nature. To borrow the words from the Quran, in this is a sign of God for those who think. The Quran gives out a challenge to humanity as follows:

    17:88. Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.

    2:23. And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.

    The challenge holds good for all that was revealed to every messenger, sent to every nation, from the beginning of time. My alternate challenge would be - Produce three moral precepts that do not owe their origin to religion or even one if you can!

    Let us look at some possible arguments against divinity as a source of all durable moral precepts.  Are these precepts self-evident which religion appropriated and since all the self-evident moral precepts were already appropriated by religion there was nothing left for the secular thinkers?  As De Bono would say, every valued creative idea has to necessarily be logical in hindsight. If it were not so, we would reject it as without value. As the creative idea is logical in hindsight we are tempted to think that it should be equally accessible to logic in foresight. This need not be so. What chance does an ant on the trunk of a tree have of reaching a specified leaf? At every branch the chances diminish. In an average tree the chances are one in eight thousand. Now if we have an ant sitting on a leaf what are the chances of reaching the trunk of the tree? There is no forward branching in the journey so the chances are one hundred per cent. It is exactly the same with creative ideas. Once the idea has been reached then it is logical and obvious in hindsight. But reaching the idea is a different matter. The fact that no moral precept has come out of secular thinking and all moral precepts have come from only Religion is a good reason to believe that these are divinely inspired as claimed. There is evidence that every major religion, through its moral and social precepts, has pitch forked the followers at least a thousand years ahead of the rest and different civilizations have therefore enjoyed preeminence at different points in time. A link is provided below to my article covering the Islamic principles whose application had taken Islamic society (tribal Bedouins) to great heights.

    URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-history/naseer-ahmed,-new-age-islam/causes-for-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-muslims/d/10880

     

    Response to Common Arguments against Theism

    a)       Morality is not the preserve of the theists alone

    What makes it easy for even atheists to imbibe and follow the moral precepts? Man is endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discerning, and enjoys freedom by virtue of his reason to make moral choices ignoring his instinct and conditioning, his likes and dislikes and can act in accordance with the highest moral principles. That the moral precepts promote happiness and disregarding these has undesirable consequences for self and the society is self-evident. We recognize what we must do and what we must avoid to promote the good of society and self. Hence, a rational human being will accept moral precepts that promote wellbeing of self and the society irrespective of where these come from and without necessarily believing in any of the religions.

    b)       Even Animals show pro social behaviour

    Looking at animal behaviour, the evolutionary biologists think that altruism and reciprocity evolved among animals because these behaviours provided better survival benefits whereby those who learnt, did better than those that did not. They contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviours through an evolutionary process, by sacrificing self-interest for the benefit of their group. Whether such behaviour is instinctive, or whether it evolved over a period as part of an evolutionary process is a controversial topic in evolutionary theory. While animals have shown their limited altruistic and pro social behaviour, and are not known to prey on and kill their own kind, it has taken much longer for man to learn the same behaviour, until which time, they lived in small communes and treated every other commune as hostile and preyed on and killed each other. The savage man of 10,000 years ago is known to have preyed on, and killed other men not belonging to their own group, with great predictability and regularity. The instinctive pro social behaviour was perhaps limited to the maternal bond, the immediate family and their commune. Man continues to kill other men, which is proof that it is learnt behaviour, and not biological instinct or behaviour modified by the evolutionary process that drives man to a greater extent. A man can be raised to be moral, amoral or immoral and his morality is shaped by the values that he imbibes. Abraham Maslow argued that what is called instinct is often imprecisely defined, and really amounts to strong drives. For Maslow, an instinct is something which cannot be overridden, and this is not true for humans. What man comes equipped with biologically are the emotions of happiness, sadness, pleasure, pain, disgust, ecstasy, anger and fear. Emotions and feelings are automatic physiological responses to external stimuli and help us take split second decisions such as fight or flight when facing danger or in simpler contexts like or dislike. Using reason is far slower and a very conscious and deliberate process. We are often too lazy to exert our thinking and let emotion or feelings decide for us. However, reason is capable of overriding instinctive and conditioned responses.

    Morals are what help us in pro social behaviour and in propagating and preserving our species. Since pro social behavior is common for all living beings and seen among animals also, is no reason to believe that the process by which these skills are acquired is identical.

    c)       Man possesses conscience or a moral compass which guides him to what is moral

    Has evolution provided human beings with an internal moral compass or a conscience which guides him to make correct moral choices and is that the secret of man’s moral behaviour?

    “Human beings are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment”.  They can through their reason alone, recognize, appreciate and accept all good moral precepts no matter from where these come. They can be trusted to enact good laws based on these and also support their effective implementation by setting up necessary institutions for detecting violations, prosecuting offenders, and for punishing the convicted. You therefore saw millions turn out in support of setting up of the Lokpal. People pointed out that cine actors, and many others like them, who accept black money in compensation, also came out in support and therefore, the show was sheer hypocrisy. I disagree. Yes, people who cheat on their taxes etc. came out in support, but there was nothing insincere about their support. People look for a level playing field and will be happy not to cheat provided no one else cheats. They will therefore sincerely support the setting up of institutions that can prevent cheating and corruption. The government can make good use of the “splendid moral equipment” of people to create incorruptible institutions or institutions that are independent and share responsibility with other independent institutions so that each of these independent institutions is a check on the misuse of power by the other institutions and together, they effectively curb corruption and misuse of power.

     However, when faced with a situation, the very same people easily violate the laws they helped enact, if they think that they can get away with it. What about the moral compass and conscience? When presented with a situation that involves making a moral choice, our first impulse is to obey our feelings. The feeling generated is in accordance with our beliefs of what is right or wrong. If reason is applied, then there is a chance that we may subvert our `moral learning’ to do what we think is better suited for our self-interest although not for the society. However, we experience unease and discomfort when our actions are not in accordance with our feelings or beliefs. This is nothing except the cognitive dissonance or a feeling of unease when our actions are not in consonance with our beliefs. The reasoning mind is however capable of rationalizing our preferred action and resolves the cognitive dissonance through a process of redefining or discounting the discordant factors. Robert Wright in his book the Moral Animal writes, “Human beings are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse.” They do not even acknowledge to themselves that they have done any wrong. The next time the cognitive dissonance felt is even weaker and the person breaks the law without feeling a twinge.

    The effective way to make people follow the law is to have an all pervasive surveillance system to detect violations. People do have a threshold for crossing the line. They can be expected to follow the rules until the temptation to break the rule becomes stronger than the desire to conform or the fear of the consequences of getting caught. This threshold depends upon our relative position in life. A prosperous person has more to lose than to gain if he cheats for small amounts and gets caught. He can be expected to remain honest and even show generosity while dealing with people less fortunate than him, and in transactions involving small amounts. All other factors remaining the same, the people of a prosperous country will show a higher standard of morality in ordinary day to day life, since the consequences of cheating are more harmful to such people than the gain from cheating.  In prosperous countries therefore, you find little or no corruption in the day to day life of a citizen and all frauds and corruption are for very large amounts mostly.

    Difference between the Pro Social Behaviour of Animals and Humans

     Animals are hard wired and are largely guided by their instinct and to some extent by conditioning. Mammals with complex neural system exhibit a greater role of their cerebral cortex and depend more on social learning and less on instincts. Lionesses and chimpanzees raised in zoos away from their birth mothers most often reject their own offspring because they have not been taught the skills of mothering. Such is not the case with simpler species such as reptiles. Animals display a range of very limited capacity to learn through conditioning which makes it possible to domesticate them. Although the larger mammals are capable of learning, their responses are guided by either instinct or conditioning and not from reasoning. They are not moral agents making moral choices through reason. Man on the other hand is guided by instinct, conditioning as well as by reasoning and his reasoning can overrule both his instinct and conditioning. While animals are mostly pre-programmed, man is entirely programmable and even reprogrammable. Animals instinctively show pro social behaviour. Humans need to learn the concepts of empathy, kindness, generosity, giving, sharing, nurturing, modesty and humility.  If these are not learned early enough, man will grow without the capacity for feelings and moral emotions and will exhibit psychopathic behaviour. The earlier, the moral precepts are learnt, the greater their chances of making an indelible mark on the person. Up to the age of 3 years, a person accepts all that it is taught without filtering. Beyond the age of 3 years, a person filters new messages through what he/she has already learnt. Noam Chomsky’s most powerful single idea is that there is a universal capacity for language but it is expressed in different ways in different cultures. Every baby has the capacity to learn the entire world’s languages but what the neurologists call synaptic pruning in the early years reduces that child’s capacity to the languages around her. A songbird which does not hear other songbirds singing at the crucial stage of its development can never sing. That account of language can work for morality too – indeed the two are closely related, depending as they both do on human interaction.”

    Another Irrational Objection of Atheists to Religion

    Dawkins also says “Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that.” Was 9/11 a political act or a religious one? Was it directed against Christians or the USA?

    What does he think of the needless dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki then when the Japanese were ready to surrender but their overtures were ignored for at least 6 months, because the US wanted to test the destructive power of the bombs and also drive home a point to the USSR?

    Conclusion

    Is it possible to think of moral precepts as a product of human thought? Yes, it is possible. Is it a result of human thinking? I doubt it because if it was, then the works of secular thinking would be rich in these concepts?

    Is it possible that all life began in its lowest form and the present higher life forms are a result of evolutionary process? Yes, it is possible. Is it possible that the starting point of life could have been the higher forms? Yes, I think so.

    The fact that mutations according to the law of natural selection are necessary to make us adapt to our changing environment, makes it necessary for the life forms to be composed of basic mutable building blocks which in turn show us the possibility of life evolving from lower forms. However, like the self-evident creative ideas which are logical in hindsight just do not happen by themselves, nor are the works of Shakespeare composed of the basic building blocks of words created by computers, a Creator may have created the higher and most complex life forms and while evolution by natural selection goes on, the starting point for life could well have been the higher forms. Does evolutionary biology rule out the idea of the starting point of life being the higher life forms? I don’t think so. What about the existence of fossils that are hundreds of thousand years old? They just prove that the beginning of life on earth dates hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. What about creation in 6 days as per the Bible? The Quran also talks about creation in 6 days but a day is according to 22:47 and 32:5 like a thousand years and according to 70:4 like 50,000 years.

    Richard Dawkins is not an exception and western education displays a very strong anti-religion slant which may be mainly attributed to the Church taking an inflexible stand on:

    1.       Evolution including mutations by natural selection

    2.       Age of living things taken as a few thousand years when fossils show that life has existed hundreds of thousand years ago.

    3.       Creation in 6 days whereas the big bang theory talks of a much longer periods.

    4.       A geocentric view of the universe with the earth at absolute rest

    5.       A flat earth.

    The Church clearly took up positions in the past based on its world view which may not even be justifiable in the light of its own scriptures. Not every religion suffers from the same defects where what was claimed to be its divinely inspired scriptures have been proven to be wrong. Take just one case of the creation in 6 days which the Quran confirms but lest we confuse a day as 24 hours, there are verses which talk of a cosmic day which can be as long as 50000 years. The Quran does not speak about genealogy or of history or when life began or the age of the Universe. It is possible that the Church or mortals have added a number of details to make the Bible ‘complete’ providing ‘missing historical details.’ Errors are due to human accretions to divinely inspired scriptures where it has now become difficult to distinguish between inspired scriptures and human additions. Without doubt, the strong positions taken by the Church on a number of points which have been disproved have raised grave doubts about the claims of Religion as divinely inspired wisdom. However, looking at the Quran, which is claimed as the unaltered word of God, and without doubt preserved in the language of its revelation exactly as first revealed, we find none of the problems that we find in the Bible which was compiled by men, centuries after Jesus’ crucifixion.

    The anti-religious slant in western education however affects all those who pursue it and therefore we find even Muslims who have received western education drifting away from religion. These strata of highly educated Muslim society and its intelligentsia should have become the leaders of the Muslim masses but because of their alienation from Islam, they have distanced themselves from the people. Western education is therefore looked upon with suspicion with good reason and the Muslims to blame for it are the educated ones who are ‘lost’ to Muslim society.

    I have tried to show in this article, that the anti-religion slant in western education is understandable but unfortunate and not rational. While mutations by natural selection are undeniable, creation is an acceptable model of reality with a higher probability of being right than evolution of all life forms from the lowest forms. Moral precepts being the exclusive preserve of religion are further evidence of the claims of divine inspiration of the Religions which have contributed richly to these precepts. We have further explored how divine revelations and Islam’s charter of Human Rights granting various freedoms to all individuals unknown to Europe and rest of the World, pitch forked the followers at least a thousand years ahead of the rest of humanity.

    This article is built on my previous article in NAI “Religion as a Civilizing Influence” which may also be read using the link below:

    http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-tolerance/religion-as-a-civilizing-influence/d/10685

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/28/2016 1:06:58 AM



  • @Manzurul Haque: “What is picking the brain”? (A true scholar will not feel shame to learn from anyone). When someone picks your brain with some statement/narrative, you start probing, keep asking questions until you find a counter narrative, or accept the truth of it. For instance, you go to bed thinking Islam is a wonderful religion, but Sultan says you are living with the seventh century mindset; that upsets you. You start probing: Am I supporting stoning? Cutting the hand of a thief? Sex slavery? Killing the apostate? Multiple wives? Does Halala Make Muslim woman unchaste? Does Allah behave like a pimp supplying 72 virgins to Jihadists? Etc.

    There is another example.

    Your Messiah stopped 2000 year practice of stoning with one question!! Both in Judaism and Christianity! The experts of the Jewish law dragged a woman caught red handed in adultery, and asked the Messiah “What do you say?” If the Messiah answered ‘no stoning’ he would be arrested. He wanted repentance for the sin rather than killing. When the crowd with stones in their hands were nagging him to answer the question, Messiah replied “Let anyone of you who is without sin be the first to throw at her” This question picked their brains and lead them to introspection. All felt they themselves were sinners too at some stage. Moreover they were looking for the saint who is going to throw the first stone, since they knew everyone’s sins. For the first time in history, they dropped their stones and went home murmuring. Messiah said to the woman “Go free and sin no more” (just google John 8:1-11). This prostitute, Mary Magdalene, became one of the greatest saints in Christianity, and a legendary example of Allah’s mercy and grace. Christians are against death penalty because they think life imprisonment gives a chance for repentance, and no one, even a government, has the right to take away one’s life except Allah who is the author of life.

     

    “We cannot to claim to love Allah and pray five times while we hate and abuse His creatures”

    Al-wala' wa-l-bara' is pure evil – causing mayhem throughout the world.

     

    By Royalj - 8/27/2016 5:28:34 PM



  • Naseersaab,

    Not all philosophers are deontologists. Moral behavior can exists in its own right because of its intrinsic soundness. Louise Antony, a professor of philosophy, puts it thus:

    "

    "Consider the following moral judgments — judgments that seem to me to be obviously true:

    •            It is wrong to drive people from their homes or to kill them because you want their land.

    •            It is wrong to enslave people.

    •            It is wrong to torture prisoners of war.

    •            Anyone who witnesses genocide, or enslavement, or torture, is morally required
    to try to stop it.

    To say that morality depends on the existence of God is to say that none of these specific moral judgments is true unless God exists.  That seems to me to be a remarkable claim.  If God turned out not to exist — then slavery would be O.K.?  There’d be nothing wrong with torture?  The pain of another human being would mean nothing?"

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/good-minus-god/

    To say that "original" moral precepts came only from religions is a tall claim and will be difficult to prove.

    By the way, if not all moral precepts are derived from religions, does that suggest that religions are not divinely inspired? No! It doesn't.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/27/2016 3:17:42 PM



  • You say: “Our belief that religions are divinely inspired cannot be adduced to argue that all morality originated in religions.”

     That is not what I said. You are putting the cart before the horse! What I said is:

     1.    All moral/ethical precepts have come exclusively from religion

    2.    Human endeavor and thinking has not produced a single moral precept outside religion although philosophy preoccupies itself with this subject and literature is full of stories with a moral based on the moral precepts from religion.

    3.    This goes to prove that the claim of religion as divinely inspired and not a product of human ingenuity has a sound basis.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/27/2016 2:32:53 AM



  • GM Sb,

    If philosophy which preoccupied itself with the "Principles of Morals and Legislation" and "The Principle of Supreme Morality" and with Ethics theories such as Utilitarianism, had to finally fall back on Deontological ethics or ethics based on the scriptures or if Kant had to finally concede that without a belief in "immortality of the soul and of the existence of God" true morality was not possible, what are we left with?

    Philosophy did engage itself earnestly with morality but could not produce a single moral precept.

    Noah, Abraham, Moses, Rama, Krishna and a host of others preceded Aesop's fables. While epics, fables, fairy tales, poetry, drama and literature deal with questions of morality and have what may be called a moral story to communicate, none of these are a source of any original precept. 

    Psychology only confirms what philosophy tells us which is that a rational person can only be expected to maximize utility for self while he can be expected to lend support to the framing of good laws which he will break if there is little chance of getting caught.

    I urge you and others to read the two articles which deal with this subject in sufficient detail.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/27/2016 1:13:01 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    Philosophy has not yielded moral precepts because it is not the job of philosophy to yield moral precepts. Law makers and religious preachers deal with moral and ethical concepts. One of the earliest works on morals was a collection of children's  fairy tales. Aesop's Fables were told 600 years before Christ.

    Our belief that religions are divinely inspired cannot be adduced to argue that all morality originated in religions.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/26/2016 2:35:01 PM



  • GM Sb, Yes, animals can also be trained. Cubs are taught how to hunt by their mother, zoo animals are trained etc. using the system of reward/punishment. The pro social behaviour of animals has been studied which shows that something is left even for the weakest among them by the more aggressive in the group which ensures survival of the species. The difference between humans and animals is that animals rarely kill their own kind but humans do. Even today, suspicion of the outsider predominates society and makes people adopt aggressive behaviour towards those who are not their own kind. Shared values create trust and promote cooperation. This is where religion made a contribution which is why there is immediate bonding between people of the same religion since people share the same values and the reason why there is distrust of people from a different religion. 

     All of this is discussed in the two articles cited. 

     In the article,

     Religion as a Civilizing Influence

      I have examined all of philosophy to show that it has not contributed a single moral/ethical precept and that all of it has come from religion.

     You can disprove what I have said by citing counter examples. This was a keenly debated article and no one could cite a counter example to disprove what was said. 

     You seem to be implying that all of religion is man-made and none of it is divinely inspired. If that were so, then surely human endeavour in subjects such as philosophy should have given us at least one good moral precept. That is not the case.

     Please go through the article and the discussion under it.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/26/2016 6:27:13 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    I was not talking about genetic memory or instinctive behavior. I was talking about learned behavior. Morality is an outgrowth of the struggle for survival. A bird knows that if it eats the eggs of its neighbor, its own eggs will be at risk. Similarly in the earliest human settlements, people realized that if they wanted to co-exist, certain rules of conduct will have to be followed.

    Religions moved this process one step forward by interposing God as the prescriber and observer of behavior and as one who rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior. We cannot however say that religion has a "monopoly" in this field.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/26/2016 2:38:26 AM



  • GM Sb,

    The point that I made is that apart from our genetic memory or instinct which even the Quran talks about in relation to both human beings and animals, we owe all our moral and ethical precepts exclusively to religion. Not a single precept has come from philosophy or any other discipline. All our laws are primarily based  on these precepts.

    In the case of animals, I have only talked about instinct and not precepts. Precept would mean an ability to think through and build on those precepts which ability apparently, the animals do not possess. Else, we would also see the phenomenon of "generation  gap" among the animals.

    The good thing about the moral and ethical precepts is that these are logical in hindsight and simple to understand which is why even atheists have no problem accepting these. However, these must be difficult to reach in foresight which is why philosophy has been unable to give us a single precept while giving us some very good definitions of morality.

    That brings us to the main point which is that Religion does have a monopoly on insights into what is moral and what is not or what promotes the well-being of our society and what contributes to its misery. Religion deserves far more respect than the people are prepared to give these days which is why our society will grope around and peace and happiness will elude us.

    Religion is not what some Maulana's think it is. If all of us individually are seekers of the truth, the world would be a much better place.

    Our society is presently on a path of self destruction in more ways than one because of its nearsightedness and making a virtues of its stupidity. This can be the subject of another article.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/26/2016 1:06:00 AM



  • I appreciate that Mr Mohiyuddin is standing up strongly and vocally for what he believes in. Too often in the past, he has allowed himself to be cowed down. Most of his ideas are on the right track, ans will help the Muslim community step out of the morass that they have allowed themselves to sink into. If there are enough thought leaders like him, people like secular logic will become unnecessary. More power to him.  By secularlogic - 8/25/2016 11:33:42 PM



  • Naseersaab,

    All we can learn from a study of animals is the existence of moral behavior. It is impossible for us to know if they have moral "precepts".

    You said, "Cite one country which has waged war and not indulged in gang raping both men and women."

    That is exactly why recognized and widely accepted standards or ideals should exist. It does not mean such standards will not be violated. At present the best and widely recognised standards are the two I quoted, namely the Geneva Conventions and the Unified Declaration. If the Quran lays down any standards which can be applied in today's world, we can use them too. The Quran does recommend compassion. The two standards I mentioned are compassionate.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/25/2016 1:57:56 PM



  • GM Sb,

    You Say  "Psychologists say babies know right from wrong even at six months. Scientists studying animal behavior believe they have growing evidence that species ranging from mice to primates are governed by moral codes of conduct in the same way as humans."

     This is covered in my article:

    Is There A Rational Basis For The Atheists To Oppose Religion?

    Read it for a fuller understanding of the importance of our genetic memory (pre-programmed at birth or instinct). 

    The Quran itself talks about genetic memory in an allegorical language 

     “When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): "Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)?"- They said: "Yea! We do testify!" (This), lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment: "Of this we were never mindful":”

     What is drawn from the loins of Adam/man is his seed and the verse only means that belief in a single God who is the Cherisher and Sustainer of the Universe is instinctive or part of every human’s genetic memory. This is also why Islam is called a Religion in accordance with human nature.

    Incidentally recent studies appear to support the same view. 

    Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study

    Is Belief in God Ingrained in Our ‘Human Nature’? A New Study Says So

     There is therefore a part that is instinctive and a much larger part that is learned in the case of human beings whereas for animals, there is more of instinct and less of learning. That is why humans have larger brains compared to the animals.

    What makes us human is in a large part determined by our learning which is why human beings are capable of extremes. They can be evil in the extreme as well as righteous, just and kind in the extreme. In the case of animals, since they are guided more by instinct and less by learning, the variation in their behaviour is small.

    It is religion alone which has given us all our moral precepts (the learning part which determines our behaviour) as brought out in my article:

    Religion as a Civilizing Influence

     You can read history and tell us whether what I have said about wars waged under our Prophet and in the first few centuries of Islam is correct or not.

    You say “We should adopt the best standards available, which at this time would be the Geneva Conventions and the Unified Declaration of Human Rights of the UN.”

    Cite one country which has waged war and not indulged in gang raping both men and women including the US army which went to Iraq to win the "hearts and minds of the people". You are back to “we have the best laws on paper” and “religion should have nothing to do with our laws”. 

    While I agree and see no other way either in our present times since international laws need to be secular, but surely we can at least acknowledge what was good in practice in our past as well as what is evil in practice in our present rather than condemn the past based on precept and extol the present based on precept.You choose to ignore both religion and history. You can follow your own path.

     As I have said earlier, to most Muslims, what the Quran says on any subject and Islam's early history showing the precepts in practice alone are important as they would like to live like a Muslim which by definition means in complete submission to Allah's will and commands and by the practice established by the Prophet (pbuh). While slavery stands abolished and going by the Quran, this process is irreversible, there is no need to condemn the practice in the past as it served an essential economic purpose as well as prevented the evil of rape of the conquered people. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/25/2016 2:54:03 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    How Christian or Muslim victors in wars treat the captured is a matter for historians and news papers to record. The business of religions is to set standards or ideals of behavior. We should adopt the best standards available, which at this time would be the Geneva Conventions and the Unified Declaration of Human Rights of the UN. I do not think this topic calls for either boasts or apologies from us.

    I have read the Quran in English by myself as well as with my children when they were small and I refer to it often. How else could I talk so often of "the spirit of the Quran"? It is however not true to say, "all our innate sense of right and wrong has come exclusively from religion." Psychologists say babies know right from wrong even at six months. Scientists studying animal behavior believe they have growing evidence that species ranging from mice to primates are governed by moral codes of conduct in the same way as humans.

    I have criticized American foreign policy in this forum several times before and have never justified it on moral grounds. The way Muslim countries have behaved in the past and behave now is nothing to be proud of either. We cannot blame religions for the evils that Americans and Muslims perpetrate.

    By the way, when did I support "those whose arguments are a “stretch” and “self-serving” when they have argued that the Quran does not permit sex with female slave inspite of what the Quran says"? I don't think I have ever said that. I have based my arguments regarding the dignity of men and women on the Geneva Conventions  and the Unified Declaration on Human rights, both of which I consider compatible with Islam.

    Your full confidence in what you say, based on your reading of the Quran, is admirable. I take the Quran's insistence on righteousness and fairness very seriously and use a common sense approach to translate that into clear axioms.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/24/2016 3:46:45 PM



  • Royalj sb, what is 'picking the brain'? By Manzurul Haque - 8/24/2016 2:17:16 PM



  • Royalj, You are indulging in straw man arguments and outright lies.

     This is what I said:

     What will happen to the Saudi Monarchy without the support of the US? Isn’t the “democratic” US an enemy of democracy in the rest of the world and one of the staunchest supporters of authoritarian regimes such as the Saudi dynasty? Hasn’t the US destabilized several democracies and installed their own stooges? For example, it installed the autocratic Shah Reza in Iran who was a stooge of the US in place of Mohammad Mosaddegh who was a democratically elected Prime Minister from 1951 until 1953. His government was overthrown in a coup d'état aided by the American Central Intelligence Agency and the British Secret Intelligence Service.  The experience taught the United States that the CIA could overthrow elected governments who refused to sacrifice the future of their people to Western commercial and geopolitical interests.  Since then, the US is behind several successful and failed coups. Most U.S. coups have led to severe repression, disappearances, extrajudicial executions, torture, corruption, extreme poverty and inequality, and prolonged setbacks for the democratic aspirations of people in the countries affected.

    Read “Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II” by William Blum. From China in the 1940s to Guatemala today, William Blum provides the most comprehensive study of the ongoing American holocaust. Covering U.S. intervention in more than 50 countries, KILLING HOPE describes the grim role played by the U.S. in overthrowing governments, perverting elections, assassinating leaders, suppressing revolutions, manipulating trade unions and manufacturing "news."

    The social fabric of any society is severely torn apart by war and colonization. Societies destabilized by war and in disequilibrium cannot be held as representative of an Islamic society.

     It is Royalj who has no idea how democracy works and why the US government represents only its elite/rich and why this elite is an enemy of democracy all over the world. These people want to grab all the resources and riches for themselves and they care very little for the means that they adopt or for democracy. 

     Noam Chomsky: America is only a democracy for the 1 percent. Why is voter turnout so low? Because the poor and the working class have been disenfranchised.

     [The United States] became to a high extent run by the business world, and that’s revealed in many ways.

    Take voting, the United States has a pretty high abstention level—people who don’t vote. And that’s been investigated with interesting results. … [U.S. non-voters’] socioeconomic profile matches those in Europe who vote for labor-based or social democratic parties. That sector of the population in the United States just doesn’t vote, because nothing represents them. There are no such parties.

    According to data from the 2014 election, voting in that election was approximately the same as [voting] in the 1820s, when the vote was restricted to propertied white males; which tells you quite a lot about participation in what’s called a democratic society.

    The saving grace for the US is that it is rich (though at the cost of the rest of the world) and its poor are also not as poor as the poor in other countries.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/24/2016 7:53:03 AM



  • @Manzurule: My background or personality is immaterial. If I am presumptuous let it be.  The criteria should be based on evidences and opinions. Democracy works well in 120 countries. There is infusion of new ideas and leaders every five years. Whereas Twenty Arab totalitarian governments produced nothing. The other day British PM simply resigned when he lost the referendum, not the election. But Assad determined to bring Syria to zero even after 400,000 of his people are killed. What bothers me most is after seeing the brutalities of dictators, still majority of Muslims support Dictatorships. They couldn’t see how democracy works, including Naseer. It makes me sad, that is why I was bit hard on my expression towards Naseer. I have no reason to hate anyone in this website. Criticism is vital for critical thinking and for the growth of an individual or community. If all the writers and commentators write repeatedly Islam is a wonderful religion or Islam is a religion of peace while suicide bombs blast everywhere, I don’t think NAI would survive another day. I know at least NAI picks the brains of some Indian Muslims including yourself. When Deepa picked your brain you have produced from somewhere a beautiful poem in another thread. This is what I want, perhaps NAI too.

    By Royalj - 8/24/2016 4:39:07 AM



  • GM Sb,

    My comment provides the context in which I have used the term "modernity". It is in the context of the discussion in this thread and not in the context of nudity, alcoholism, or adultery. Specifically, I have cited the mute acceptance of the rape and gang rape of men and women who are taken captive in war in our modern times, while refusing to acknowledge that this problem did not exist when the Muslims were victors in the Prophet's time or for several centuries later. These battles appear to be the only exception to the rule of rape. "Muta" was invented when slaves were not taken but rape was not resorted to. The context is your unexamined condemnation of the past and embracing of “modernity”.

     While you may dismiss the Quran as a Book of guidance, for the majority of the Muslims, what the Quran says on any subject alone matters and not what you think with your “innate sense of right and wrong”. As discussed by me in an article, all our innate sense of right and wrong has come exclusively from religion, and not from philosophy or literature.  

    Religion as a Civilizing Influence

     Your “innate sense of right and wrong” is blind to the injustice and atrocities of war in our times as it appears to be molded largely by the mainstream US media which blindly supports the US government foreign policy. I am also surprised that as a Muslim, you feel no need to study the Quran yourself and do not treat it as a book of guidance for you but a Book which does not deserve a reading because the ulema disagree on its meaning!

     In this article, I have not quoted a single verse of the Quran and the only references to the Quran are by Bernard Lewis whom I have quoted.

     You also say: “I am not qualified myself to say whether your method is water-proof or not, whether your arguments are a "stretch" or "self-serving" or not and whether your self-confidence should inspire confidence in me or not.”

     I am surprised that you should say this, when I find you supporting those whose arguments are a “stretch” and “self-serving” when they have argued that the Quran does not permit sex with female slave inspite of what the Quran says in unmistakable terms.

     What I say has been scrutinized minutely by those who frequent this website some of whom are exegetes and qualified Alims on the staff of NAI who are answerable to Allah if they allow any misrepresentation of the Quran to go unchallenged. Moreover, I write in English, and what I write can be easily checked by anyone using online resources and tools. My open challenge to show a single contradiction in the Quran or in my articles and comments was taken up, but without success by Rational Mohd Yunus. Read the thread under my article:

    Is the Quran a Book of Contradictions?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/24/2016 2:22:16 AM



  • "Meanwhile his TRP will increase and he will switch over to real estate business."...
    Quite a prediction, Manzurul Haque Saheb. Maybe Dr Zakir Naik was already in real estate business at that time, as we now know he is. But, in that case, it would be a case of high intuition. Cheers.
    By Sultan Shahin - 8/23/2016 2:50:19 PM



  • Naseersaab,

    Your efforts to base your rational conclusions on a literal reading of the Quran are praiseworthy but they have not been exposed to the scrutiny of the larger world of Islamic scholarship. I am not qualified myself to say whether your method is water-proof or not, whether your arguments are a "stretch" or "self-serving" or not and whether your self-confidence should inspire confidence in me or not. 

    As you know, the holy books of Christians and Jews too have many objectionable passages on slavery, concubinism, stoning to death of adulterers, death sentences for apostates and homosexuals etc., but we do not see them dwelling on those subjects or trying to explain them. They just ignore them. Instead they talk about loving your neighbor, turning your other cheek, blessed are the peace-makers, and their being the "chosen people" etc.

    We too do not need to condemn anything that is in the Quran. We may however decide to talk as little as possible about those words in the Quran which we consider to be incompatible with our concept of our glorious God. We will of course be confronted with questions  about them by the Islamophobes. Our short answer should be, "We do not believe in that." No explanations. No justifications.

    If your literalist approach suits you, that is fine, but you should be a little more tolerant towards those who are more pragmatic. Inventing phrases like "friendly Islamophobes" is not helpful.

    By the way, what I mean by "modernity" is not nudity, alcohol or drug abuse or sexual permissiveness. I mean democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, human rights, gender equality and abolition of cruel and unusual punishments.

    We have had a lot of problems with the West but considering the West to be our enemy is too Huntingtonian for my taste.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/23/2016 2:12:36 PM



  • Haquesaab says, "Your stance however is that in the 1400 years history of Muslims, these positive messages of Islam have remained non-existent, and that Muslims must adopt these now."

    I was not referring to our 1400 year history. I was referring to the current preoccupation with obscurantism, slavery, concubinism, polygamy, triple talaqs etc in NAI's discussion forum, in Deobandi fatwas and in the pronouncements of AIMPLB, Jamaat-e-Islami-Hind etc.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/23/2016 1:14:34 PM



  •  Dear Sultan Shahin sb,

    You have nailed me on the head by bringing in this old write-up of mine.

    No, this is not the one I was looking for, because this is only incidentally related to Zakir Naik, being a program of some maulana on peace TV. In fact there could be several comments of mine on Zakir Naik on the pages of NAI, but today I have found at least one, which I am quoting. About the write-up you have referred, I shall revert back after this, and perhaps under the thread where the discussion on gender equality/patriarchy would be more suitable.

    It seems some Shaista was a fan of Peace TV and she had questioned some of my older remarks about Zakir Naik, to which I had replied in these word (The computer file is dated 15.08.2012 in which the following draft is located):

     

    About Dr Zakir Naik, I have an ambivalent stand. It is surprising how we can claim to have the need to be decent with clear abusers of Islam, if we become abusive of someone like Dr. Naik. On this website, I have supported him where he deserves support but I have opposed him where it was needed. I even wrote to IRF my views. I don’t consider him a fool or a moron or even an unqualified doctor. On the other hand, he has mastery over his subject and he can make brilliant analysis too. So far his use of TV is concerned; it is a master-shot. His explaining Islamic concepts to Muslims and even Hindus cannot be faulted. However, I strongly detest his publicly converting a Hindu to Islam before a crowd and on top of that letting crowd to clap. He makes himself such a despicable person by this act of his. However, do we think that he does not know it? He does, but he uses this gimmick to advance his TRP ratings, at the cost of public decency. In essence, he is no different from the ones who encourage nudity to increase TRP. Don’t blame the masses, the masses are always asses. I wonder why government is not bringing in legislation to ban any public showing of the act of conversion at the pain of penalty. I have suspicion that the sagacious mandarins of the government have allowed him free hand to create the highest degree of bias in public against Islam so that his dawah dies its natural death. Meanwhile his TRP will increase and he will switch over to real estate business. Another Amitabh Bacchan made (only the routes of rise are different). It is still time that Dr Naik restricted himself to explain concepts of Islam without making comparisons with other religions except in the passing. Or he could engage in opening of good Islamic schools where ideas distilled out of the laborious debates (such as of New Age Islam) could be put to use by him.

    Anyway, Shaista nice to see you interacting and taking great interest in the ideological discussions. Please keep it up. I am not entirely against watching Zakir Naik on TV.

    By Manzurul Haque - 8/23/2016 12:46:27 PM



  • I do not question your honesty or your logic. Our disagreement is about tactics. We do not have to turn again and again to scriptures to justify or to make sense of our stands on various issues. There is no unanimity among our exegetes about how to interpret texts or whether to take them literally and to consider them immutable. We should seek clarity instead of opening up Pandora's boxes. Luckily we do have something called Muslim ethos or Muslim sensibility derived from an understanding of the spirit of t

    he Quran and the collective wisdom of the ages. Probably that's why the conclusions that you reach tend to be very similar to the assertions I make. But on your long route you are likely to be attacked by skeptics as well as scholars. You yourself must at times wonder whether you are resolving controversies or creating more controversies. As I said before, I like the approach of: "This is what we believe!" - See more at:

     http://newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/the-morality-or-the-immorality-of-the-institution-of-slavery-and-the-quranic-permission-that-allowed-sex-with-female-slaves/d/108233#sthash.8RbrSJ2b.dpuf

     GM Sb,

     What you say is in red and my response in black

    we do have something called Muslim ethos or Muslim sensibility derived from an understanding of the spirit of the Quran and the collective wisdom of the ages. Probably that's why the conclusions that you reach tend to be very similar to the assertions I make.

     There is no unanimity among our exegetes about how to interpret texts or whether to take them literally and to consider them immutable.

     The conclusions that I reach which you say are very similar to the assertions that you make are by taking a very fundamentalist and literalist meaning of the Quran and not by cutting corners, “interpreting” or treating inconvenient verses as abrogated. I ignore nothing and whatever I say contradicts no verse of the Quran.

     The logical consistency that I maintain is across all my articles which must around 50 and thousands of comments which is further proof that what I say based on the Quran violates no verse of the Quran.

     To my amazement, even Maulanas like Wahiduddin Khan cannot distinguish between a verse that contains a command and verse that contains no command. For reference, see my comment under the article:

    Maulana Wahiduddin Khan on Islam, Peace, Interfaith and Christian-Muslim Relations

    He has strangely concluded that the verse that addresses Abraham (pbuh) and says that people will come to him for hajj in Mecca from distant lands on camels is abrogated because people now travel for hajj by planes and in cars! The verse is not abrogated but Abraham is dead and people never travelled by planes and in cars while Abraham was alive. In no way can the verse be construed as commanding people to travel on camels for haj.

    As regards the subject of slavery, there is no verse that commands a Muslim to enslave – not even the war verses which only speak about releasing the POW for ransom or as an act of charity. There are however verses that command entering into a contract for freeing the slave, freeing as expiation of sin or as a charitable act and even using zakat money for the purpose. The Quran therefore establishes a clear direction in which it wants the society to move free of slavery. Once the society has rid itself of slavery, these verses are only of historical interest.

     While we condemn present day efforts to enslave people, condemning the past practice is tantamount to condemning the Quran which regulated the practice without banning it. There are several groups which are interested in condemning the Quran and Islam’s past. Their intention is to destroy Islam. The Islamophobes, the hostile apostates and also the friendly apostates who are uncomfortable with the practice of Islam but remain culturally affiliated. So, even the friendly apostates keep attacking the Quran and Islam’s past and identify too closely with “modernity” ignoring all its shortcomings and the strengths of past practices.  For example, while everyone makes a hue and cry about the permission to have sex with female slave (and calls it sex slavery although Islam banned the existing sex slavery while allowing sex with female slave), they are absolutely unconcerned about the rape and gang rape of both men and women captured in war. Isn’t there a law against it? That is what matters and not the outcomes. Such hollowness is a mark of slavery to modernity and not a sign of strength. I would urge you to come to terms with the past as well as with modernity which will not happen by running away and dismissing the past as either of no consequence or simply to be condemned.

    Unfortunately, there are many insecure people who try to run away from their past including from their own parents, if their parents are from a different background. If the traditional Muslims resist modernity, it is because what modernity has done to the Muslims who have adopted it. These people are not sufficiently grounded in their past to appreciate it but condemn it based on their shallow appreciation of both modernity and the past of their ancestors. It is such Muslims who are poor ambassadors for modernity and make modernity repulsive to the rest.

     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/23/2016 5:43:41 AM



  • Dear Manzoorul Haque Saheb, Is this the article you were looking for?
    Zakir Naik's Peace TV on women as fitna (trouble)

    A community whose leadership is given to women is destined to doom

    Earlier this month (03.01.2011) night, in a Peace TV program, a questioner asked one Maulana (not Dr. Zakir Naik but a traditional Maulana without a suit) this question: “In view of a Hadith (quoted verbatim by him) describing woman as fitna, how far was it right for the Muslim woman to become MLA or MP?” The Maulana replied that it was un-Islamic for a woman to become MLA or MP especially in view of other Hadith (again quoted) in which it has been told that a ‘qaum’ (community) whose leadership is given to women is destined to doom. ...

    But the Maulana hit the nail on the head when he stated another Hadith which says that a ‘qaum’ whose leadership is given to women is destined to doom. This statement is generic and not specific. It contains a principle which can be interpreted comprehensively to give shape to a society as a whole.  This is the correct sociological statement of Islam. Islam does give primacy to men to run the affairs of the society. Let me speak a rustic tongue. It is either man or woman (the position of eminence). Why not man? Why should I give the reins to a woman, even if she is my mother? I will bow to her feet out of respect and love, but why should I jeopardize the whole family including her, by giving her the reins. -- Manzoorul Haque, NewAgeIslam.com

    http://www.newageislam.com/islam,-women-and-feminism/zakir-naik-s-peace-tv-on-women-as-fitna-(trouble)/d/3991
    By Sultan Shahin - 8/23/2016 5:04:15 AM



  • Jan GM sb : 'Muslim ethos and collective wisdom of ages' sounds familiar. Didn't I say that that this (Muslim muashra and it's long-standing practices) is the only source of my knowledge of Islam, since I am not a scholar? Has anybody seen me quoting scriptures? Yet there is surprising unanimity between my thoughts and Naseer sb's presentation?  Does it prove anything ? I think it does. There is no dichotomy between the scriptures and our practices. As regards slight differences, as an educated person, I would like to see the differences as a natural off-shoot of the more fundamental  differentiation-integration process of nature and would like to silently work for integaration rather than highlighting/instigating differentiation. Please introspect whether you are also doing this ? 
    You do talk of positive messages of Islam but so does Royalj. Your stance however is that in the 1400 years history of Muslims, these positive messages of Islam have remained non-existent, and that Muslims must adopt these now. This comes more as a jibe; the empathy factor being totally missing. But I do not blame you for two reasons - you are in US and you are constrained in your liberty of expression. Second, you may be  haveing less familiarity or dexterity with the methodology of social sciences. History and Sociology are not exact sciences and require watching of the underlying trends and causes rather than counting of the visible episodes. Having written this I must add that your messages per se are not offensive (I only feel they are incomplete) and hope you will carry on with the mission of spreading good words.
    By Manzurul Haque - 8/23/2016 1:50:04 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    I do not question your honesty or your logic. Our disagreement is about tactics. We do not have to turn again and again to scriptures to justify or to make sense of our stands on various issues. There is no unanimity among our exegetes about how to interpret texts or whether to take them literally and to consider them immutable. We should seek clarity instead of opening up Pandora's boxes. Luckily we do have something called Muslim ethos or Muslim sensibility derived from an understanding of the spirit of the Quran and the collective wisdom of the ages. Probably that's why the conclusions that you reach tend to be very similar to the assertions I make. But on your long route you are likely to be attacked by skeptics as well as scholars. You yourself must at times wonder whether you are resolving controversies or creating more controversies. As I said before, I like the approach of: "This is what we believe!"

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/22/2016 4:07:54 PM



  • Haquesaab,
    Your tirade against me is unfocussed and bizarre. Asserting the positive message of Islam without being defensive is not "sloganeering".  If you actually read the "cut-and-paste" items you will notice that they are relevant and make the point that they are supposed to make.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/22/2016 3:40:39 PM



  • GM Sb,, This what you said in another thread which is the reason why this article was written: "For Muslims of today, the simple and honest answer would be an outright condemnation and rejection of concubinage and slavery. Are we not capable of issuing simple and honest dennciations of past shameful practices?"

     The practice as you can see was regulated by the Quran and allowed. Do you condemn the Quran then?

     While I do not support the practice either in today’s world, I need to be honest enough and either condemn the Quran for having allowed it in the past or try to understand why this practice was greatly reformed by Islam but not banned. There are no half measures with me and I suppose with other Muslims who like me believe in the Quran as the word of Allah.  My article is meant for such Muslims and not for you for whom the Quran does not hold much importance and is merely a 7th Century book not to be taken seriously.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/22/2016 5:05:41 AM



  • If capitalism is such a good thing, and communism such a bad political philosophy, why should communism have a domino effect and why should there be no takers for capitalism?

    The simple answer is because capitalism is pro elite and socialism is pro people.

    In a real democracy, therefore, people will vote for pro people parties and not for the capitalists. Such governments will work for their people and not for the US Corporations. The US Presidents, whose elections are funded by the Corporations, work for these Corporations and will wage covert or overt war to ensure that the interests of their Corpoartions are protected.

    The immorality of the US covert and overt wars escapes Royalj because he is a blind believer in the supremacism of the US and its political system.
    .
      
    How many were killed in the war on Iraq? How many continue to be killed every year? How does that compare with the 8000 dissidents Saddam killed over two decades? Are the people in Iraq thanking the US for what it did to their country?

    There is nothing Christian about the US. It is a country of worshipers of Mammon. 

    Royalj talks of taqiya showing his fangs. He is a wolf behind sheep's clothing.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/22/2016 2:33:26 AM



  • Jn Mohiyuddin sb lacks direction in his thinking.What does he want to convey and how will he achieve that, never comes out of his discussions. He feels that persistence in sloganeering will reach him there. He must understand that things are comparative and if somebody is arguing a point at lenghth then his arguments deserve to be heard, understood and not merely rebuffed for personal reasons like sloganeering. It's more like BJP trolls sloganeering 'acche din ayenge'. The way he is collecting facts by cut and paste technology devoid of the connecting rod of an intelligent narrative, he might end up glorifying the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libiya, Yugoslavia, Donbass, Yemen, much of East Africa. And he will not be worse for it ! But he has a right to say what he wants to say and how he wants to say. No, problems. By Manzurul Haque - 8/22/2016 12:21:02 AM



  • Royalj is a false name meant to hide rather than reveal the personality of the person. It does not indicate sex, ethnic background, regional background etc  of the person. Those using such coverups cannot be taken seriously. At the most Royalj is a handle which any number of persons can operate. As regards the quality of his thought, I find him presumptuous. He assumes that capitalism is inherently superior and that USA has the right to intervene in any country on some pretext without regard to international law. He likes to play A is bigger than B, and B is bigger than C by labelling A,B and C with arbitrary values. Nothing to show really. By Manzurul Haque - 8/22/2016 12:00:09 AM



  • Naseer! You have shown my comments in red, which you have never done to others. You have purposely omitted my all-important sentence. “US sent CIA to 40 countries to neutralise Russian KGB influence. It is called the cold war.”  You should have known the domino effect of communism. After Russia, other 15 countries fell into the Soviet Union camp. Again, China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba became communist countries. Communist parties spread all over the world, and to your country India also. Kerala and West Bengal had been ruled by Communist parties. Besides there are Maoist killers in many states. Hamid Karzai government was better than Taliban who burned thousands of girl schools. Al Maliki was better Saddam who killed 8000 Kurdish Muslims through acid attack.

    You are not honest my dear friend, though it doesn’t come under taqiyya.

    “Every unkind word will come back on our face and make us stumble in the race of life- Will Durant.

    By Royalj - 8/21/2016 7:23:59 PM



  • Naseersaab,

    Study of history is a perfectly valid and honorable pursuit in itself. Like any other area of the humanities its scholars are few. Religions however are for the masses. People turn to faith to know what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad. They do not want to know the history of how slavery and concubinage were acceptable at one time but are sins now. Their own innate morality confirms the admonition that slavery and concubinage are bad. That is the beauty of Islam. It is not hard to find allusions and insinuations in our scriptures to support such assertions. That's why I think assertions of righteousness are more important than getting lost seeking historical justifications. As they say, if we went to a sausage factory and saw how sausages are made, no one will eat sausages.

    All that Islam entails is a message of peace, righteousness, justice, rationality, equality and compassion. It is a positive message, not a defensive one.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/21/2016 3:50:53 PM



  • Mr. Naseer Ahmed is precisely doing that -  “developing a narrative which lucidly describes our stand on various issues – present and past. Such a stand is a product of contemporary Muslim sensibility based on an understanding of the true spirit of the Quran as well as on the collective wisdom of the age”.

     

    I don’t know what frame of mind Muslims have that we understand nothing. This attitude is scuttling movement forward.

     

    Now our Abdullah sb says we four have rigidity of attitudes.  From him, I learnt that Aayina is a sweet lady. Too bad of me, that I didn’t agree with her. But what can I do; she remains under veil and writes in French. I wish I had learnt the language she writes in, to be able to see her eye to eye (But for a woman, she writes a bit bawdy, no?!). With Naseer Saheb,  I am in full agreement. Now I am left with   Secular Logic. He has introduced himself with these words, “I don’t believe in God at all”. “I am my own judge and jury”. What is there to agree with him (a darling of some goodfellows) on the issues of religion?

     

    Yesterday night, I was going through some of the comments of 2012 vintage in New Age Islam. I was pleasantly surprised how deeply we had delved in, to create new narratives. Sorry that my written items are so badly scattered in files and folders that it would take me months to organize those expressed thoughts. Yesterday night I spent four hours merely to read one old compilation. There are hundreds in different files and folders.  I wanted to quote one particular piece on Dr. Zakir Naik written in 2012 which would have been an eye-opener today, but after spending two hours I have failed to retrace that piece. Sad, I feel.

     

    21.08.2016

    By Manzurul Haque - 8/21/2016 7:01:33 AM



  • Aayina: There is no harm in having contrasting views rather it is the sign of an intelligent mind and healthy discussion, but when your pre-mindset drives you towards rigidity it becomes a curse. An intelligent person must have some respect for others ' views as well. The superiority complex of being the "most knowledgeable person" is self- destructive.
    I fully appreciate the views, theories and explanations of Naseer sb.
    By ABDULLAH - 8/21/2016 3:24:41 AM



  • ​Excellent article and a very thorough and convincing comment by Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb:
    "As modernist Muslims we need to develop a narrative which lucidly describe our present stand on issues. Such a stand is a product of contemporary Muslim sensibility based on an understanding of the true spirit of the Quran as well as on the collective wisdom of the age".

    By GRD - 8/21/2016 1:49:38 AM



  • GM Sb,  Your comment says that you can learn nothing from history!
    To learn from history, fist of all history must be understood in the context of the times and as truthfully as possible. 
    What can I say about the present except that wars must be completely banned to prevent the rape of women and men and the enormous suffering that wars bring in their trail? There is more to condemn in the present than in the past but unfortunately our sensibilities are completely numb to the horrors of the wars of our times.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/21/2016 1:28:51 AM



  • As modernist Muslims we need to develop a narrative which lucidly describe our present stand on issues. Such a stand is a product of contemporary Muslim sensibility based on an understanding of the true spirit of the Quran as well as on the collective wisdom of the age.

    Attempts to find explanations for literal quotes from the Quran are neither necessary nor productive. Enormous amounts of time and energy are being wasted in this pseudo-scholarly  activity. No other religion does it.

    We should have the confidence and the clear thinking to assert: "This is what we believe!"

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/20/2016 2:05:42 PM



  • To
    Abdulla

    Very good observation but any one had opportunity to understand, find their own spirituality from it, it may we lose and you win in perspective of love and nearness to God and we all you mentiond became evil.

    Their is carton movie called Megamind it is one of the best movie how a good person turns bad and bad person turn good, you may end up different than us.

    Appreciate your observation, but nothing wrong in different opinion and refuting each other as long as they do not have potential to became physical violent inspiration.
    By Aayina - 8/20/2016 1:25:21 PM



  • The article by Shehzad Saleem that I referred to:
    My views are far more radical and cover the non-Muslims in the Prophet's times as well and only those who indulged in Religious Persecution were treated as Kafir and none for their beliefs.
    By definition of course, one who deliberately rejects the truth after the truth has become evident to him is also a  Kafir but not even the Prophet knows who these people are unless informed by God. Since there is never a war against the peaceful disbeliever, there is no necessity for God to share this knowledge with the Prophet. The war is only against those who are Kafir by their acts and it is by their acts that the ISIS are kafir and war to end their oppression is mandated by the Quran.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/20/2016 8:06:26 AM



  •  Royalj says: “US has not gone to war with Saudi Arabia because of a technical difficulty. US has to prove that the Saudi Government had a hand in sending 15 Saudi terrorists to destroy America.”

     The US does not have proof to this date that Osama had any link with the 911 incident and yet they went to war with Afghanistan within 11 days of the incident.

    By the admission of both the US and the GB governments, they did not possess prosecutable evidence against Osama's involvement. A video was therefore produced which showed Osama taking credit for 911 which was sufficient to convince the public of his involvement. Isn't admission of guilt proof? This video elicited the comment from Chomsky "that is like me claiming that I won the Boston marathon"! Others have pointed out several anomalies and claim that it was a look alike but younger and healthier and right handed person while Osama was left handed. Moreover, the Taliban were prepared to hand over Osama if the US provided them with evidence of his involvement in 911. If the US considered this video as evidence, they would have offered the same as proof to the Taliban government which they did not. The video was only to fool the public into believing that the US was waging a just war based on good evidence.

    Iraq was not even charged with having a hand in the 911 incident and yet the US went to war against that country.

    Against Saudi Arabia, they had the proof but suppressed it!!!

     Royalj says: Out of 800 odd pages of 9/11 inquiry 28 pages are not yet published. Saudi Arabia threatened to pull 750 billion dollars in US assets if these pages are published. If these pages are published or declassified relatives of 3000 victims, perhaps owners of twin towers, four planes, and pentagon may go to courts for compensation. Saudi Arabia may have to lose this money or face war.”

    Can Royalj explain clearly why is the US trying to save Saudi Arabia from the consequences?

    Royalj says: “Anyway Saudi Arabia will face tough time when Hillary comes to power.”

    I am sure it will after they have served their purpose as an ally of the US in promoting and using “Muslim Fundamentalism” to achieve the political objectives of the US in the region. They have been instrumental together in defeating the USSR, bringing down Saddam and destroying  Iraq, Syria and Libya.

    Royalj further has the gall to say: People must have certain standard to understand great minds and great nations.”

    Isn’t that supremacism besides being an unabashed defense of what is idefensible?

    Royalj is very much a supremacist and believes in the supremacy of the US. He is unapologetic of the US sending the CIA to 40 countries to bring down elected government and install their stooges as autocrats because “communism is an infectious diseases and dictatorship is not”! The US government and not the people will decide what is good for them!

    Heil Royalj!!!

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/20/2016 6:36:33 AM



  • Secular Logic,

     My reading on every subject is quite vast and I thoroughly research a subject before writing an article. There isn't a better known non-Muslim scholar and historian on the subject than Bernard Lewis whom I have quoted extensively. He is by the way a consultant to past and present presidents of the US on ME affairs and widely thought to be the brain behind the use of “Muslim Fundamentalism” to achieve the political objectives of the US. I do not have a soft corner for him therefore but respect his scholarship and deep knowledge of the subject he writes on. He is the inspiration behind the project for building cadres of “Muslim Fundamentalists” funded jointly by the US and Saudi Arabia with Pakistan providing the infrastructure consisting of madrasasa and training camps. His success is directly related to his deep understanding of Islam, its history and the Muslim society in the ME.

     Islamic Society deteriorated over the centuries and in later years the practice of slavery and every other practice veered from the norms set up in the early years and adhered to strictly for the first couple of centuries. 

     Quranic precepts are best understood based on the practices that prevailed in the Prophet’s times and in the first two to three centuries of Islam. 

     We are looking at the practice in history and what GM says is irrelevant from this perspective.  Historically speaking, in Islamic society, slavery was not what slavery was elsewhere and Islam greatly ameliorated the conditions of slaves. As Jacob Neusner says  "Prohibiting slavery in the context of seventh-century Arabia apparently would have been as useful as prohibiting poverty; it would have reflected a noble ideal but would have been unworkable on an immediate basis without establishing an entirely new socioeconomic system."  He speaks from only the economic point of view and my article throws light on a different aspect in the context of war and the fate of women in war and how the permission to have sex with a female slave prevented the rape/gang rape of women who fell into the hands of the Muslim army.

    Today the conditions are entirely different. The economic argument today is against slavery as covered in my article.

    The article was written primarily to understand the rationale behind the Quranic verses relating to slavery when from our perspective today, and based on our peace time sensibilities, the same appears indefensible or even worthy of condemnation as GM says. Others notably Shanvas and Yunus deny outright that the Quran allowed sex with female slave. Denial is their way of dealing with their discomfort.

    My way is to address the questions directly and in a forthright manner. You are quite right in saying that my mind works like that of a lawyer but I am not dishonest and will not defend what is wrong or ignore any valid data to arrive at wrong conclusions. If I was evasive or less than honest, I would have taken recourse to arguments denying that sex with slave was permitted.

    As regards the definition of Kafir, I am not the only person. I was in correspondence with Shehzad Saleem an associate of Javed Ghamidi on my article on "Kufr and Kafir". He has said very much the same thing in one of his articles as I have pointed out earlier and I am sure that the idea will catch on since it is based on a flawless derivation of the meaning of the word as used in the Quran.

    Rational Muhammad Yunus couldn't find a flaw in my arguments although he did say that I am the first person in 1400 years to hold such a view.

    The classical scholars on this website maintained their silence although they were asked by the editor to comment or even refute if they thought it fit. Mr Shahin commented that they do not appear to have any argument against what I wrote but are not in a position to go on record as that is not the accepted meaning.

    It is not surprising that everyone went wrong over the last 1400 years. That is how wrong notions persist about anything until someone comes along and shows what looks obvious in hindsight. In matters of religion, people are so conservative that they will not believe even what is made clear after they have held wrong notions all their life.

    We therefore have the situation where people neither accept nor are in a position to refute what I have said on the subject.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/20/2016 6:06:38 AM



  • Today I got some time to go through various comments in this thread by Secular Logic Sb Naseer Sb Manzoorul Haque Sb and Aayina Sahiba. I sincerely noticed one thing that all are rigid in the perspective from their point of view and absolutely not ready to pay heed to others ' point of view. I am sorry to say that.....  By Abdullah - 8/20/2016 5:54:07 AM



  • I think you should read these articles on slavery in Islam, Mr Ahmed. You view the world only through one perspective - you should read what others have experienced, read,studied and understood about this practice.
    secularafrican.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/denials-of-islamic-slavery/
    secularafrican.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/772/
    What I have understood is:
    1. Slavery is permitted in Islam; it is recommended as a way to deal with war captives. Not just the combatants, but the non combatants too. (women and children are not combatatants)

    2. Islam permits the owners to deal with slaves as they like. This includes sex with female slaves. The slaves do not have a right of denial

    3. Slaves are treated like chattel - they can be gifted, resold, or manumitted as a gesture of charity at the will and pleasure of the master.

    4. Mohammad himself practiced slavery, and Muslims think that Mohammad is an ideal for them to follow in toto. In fact, that is what pious muslims aspire to do. So his practice of slavery is justified by them. And is also implicitly a proper thing to do, since he did it. 

    4. Jihad itself was waged against Kafirs, and the captives in these wars would naturally be kafirs. Islam forbids fighting against other muslims. Put two and two together and what do you get? Only kafirs may be made slaves.

    5. Sharia is based on these Koranic injunctiions and the Hadith. So they have also put two and two together to derive the conclusion that only Kafirs may be made slaves. Even though there may or may not be an explicit verse to this effect in the Quran (you may know better), this is surely a result of what IS said in the quran : Fight the Kafir, dont fight a Muslim, and enslave the women and children of those defeated in war.

    I think you should stop supporting Islamic slavery. The fact that all countries have banned slavery is neither here nor there. Mr Mohiyuddins suggestion should be accepted by all.

    concede that our religions and our religious anscestors did things that do not seem just in a more morally evolved society, and instead of defending such practices, express regret and grief over them, and pray that these practices never raise their heads again.

    If people like you keep defending the practice as a just and noble system, there will be no dearth of people who will want to return to this just and noble system.

    And with this note, I will stop commenting on this thread. Do not accuse me of running away. It is just that I have said all I wanted to say. You have, too. What is the point of keeping arguing in circles when our positions are fixed? I think your arguments are disingenous, and motivated more by a lawyerlike impluse to protect his client with all the means at his disposal rather than a humane and honest appraisal of what really happened, and a reluctance to call something wrong, just because it has islamic connections. 
    By secularlogic - 8/20/2016 2:41:06 AM



  • The '28 pages' of the classified 9/11report were in fact published in July:
    theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/15/911-report-saudi-arabia-28-pages-released
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/20/2016 1:14:43 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    Let me repeat what I said:

    The verses of the Quran only regulate an existing practice of slavery.

    While there are several verses of the Quran that exhort:

    1. Freeing of slaves for charity and as expiation of sins.

    2. Enabling a slave to buy back his/her own freedom and assisting him/her in the same.

    there isn't a single verse that says that a free person can be enslaved.

    There are also verses that speak of freeing prisoners of war for ransom and for those who cannot afford ransom, freeing them nevertheless as an act of charity especially if they promise not to attack again. There is no verse that speaks of enslaving even a POW.


    It is the man made shariat that restricted enslavement to only the prisoners of war. Enslavement of POWS was the practice of that society and culture all over the world.  

    As already discussed, enslavement of POWs was the exception rather than the norm. For example no Meccan man/woman was enslaved because of kinship ties with them. Meccan POWs were invariably freed for ransom or as a charitable act.


    The Quranic verses also make no distinction between the believing and the  non-believing slaves. The verses do not say that only a believing slave should be freed or that only a believing slave should be treated with kindness. Neither do the verses of the Quran restrict the beneficiaries of  Zakat to the believing people. The rights of the neighbours are next that of kin and the Quran makes no distinction between believing  and non-believing neighbours.

    The Quran specifically exhorts treating all non-believers who currently are not warring against you, with kindness and justice disregarding past animosities (if any)

    And who says that when the Muslims lost wars, their men and especially women were not enslaved? How can the Quran prevent that? The Mongols raped as well as enslaved women when they overran the Abassid Caliphate in the 13th century.

    Where was the question of wars against the Muslims by the Muslims during the Prophet's time and enslavement of Muslims as a result or for several centuries thereafter when all the Muslims in the world were part of the Islamic Caliphate? In any case, since there is no verse of the Quran that speaks of enslavement, any rules that were formed subsequently when there may have been wars with other Muslims Such as Iran-Iraq war, are man-made.

    As I have said right at the beginning of the article, slavery is today banned and such banning is in accordance with both the spirit and the letter of the Quran since the letter of the Quran speaks of granting freedom to the slaves and the spirit of the Quran does not lend any support to the act of enslavement.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/20/2016 12:52:36 AM



  • To
    Manzarul Haque.

    Answer to Rampet slavery in India(Kufirs countires) and Islamic(Allah countries):
    people from sub-continent had gone to Arab countries since last 50 years, all their Sky scrapers had siphoned blood of people of sub-continent and now suadi Arabia,  which had never given people from sub-continent citizenship right,  so buy arguing that principle this so called shariah following country easily want to through them back, at least poor India is still supplying them food as their citizenship and our dirty neighbour Pakistan had also some human values and is also going to follow same, it may be reflection of people living under Islamic rule which Naseer Ahmed is talking about.


    In answer in relation to Brahma:
    what is the validity of the mystic stories? while is Islam is history where Paigamber marries is son's wife, A high moral set up.

    what about the you and me all Incest kids produced from one pair ADAM and EVE because of Allah's will, or he do not do not disturb anything as you are trying to project in your comment.

    I add to Secular logic as well, you do not need to believe in any Hindu philosophy or gods and goddesses. 

    Follow your Sunnah as you wish and as your paigamber did? we Hindus are not interested in it, you Muslims in India had been given Muslim pesnonal law board, you guys are using triple-talaq add another practice on daily basis  of Halala also which is used in pakistan, there are specialist Molvis in pakistan, indian molvies can get insperation and can be trained.

    Also add another addition of marrying to daughet-in-law.

    we hindus had lots of flaw very bad for you muslims follow your sunnah and muslims tradition, if any sunnah and tradition had stopped because of hindus bad influence rejuvenate

    By Aayina - 8/19/2016 11:56:35 PM



  • Naseer: US has not gone to war with Saudi Arabia because of a technical difficulty. US has to prove that the Saudi Government had a hand in sending 15 Saudi terrorists to destroy America. Out of 800 odd pages of 9/11 inquiry 28 pages are not yet published. Saudi Arabia threatened to pull 750 billion dollars in US assets if these pages are published. If these pages are published or declassified relatives of 3000 victims, perhaps owners of twin towers, four planes, and pentagon may go to courts for compensation. Saudi Arabia may have to lose this money or face war. Anyway Saudi Arabia will face tough time when Hillary comes to power. Please google this particulars and learn more.

    People must have certain standard to understand great minds and great nations.

    By Royalj - 8/19/2016 8:34:49 PM



  • All that needs to be said on the subject of slavery is that we abhor and condemn it. Enslaving another person must be a crime punishable with a stiff sentence. We must fully endorse and comply with 'The Universal Declaration of Human Rights' (of the United Nations) which says, "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.”
    Regarding prisoners of war, we must fully comply with the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/19/2016 1:42:47 PM



  • And your highly convoluted definition of what is a kaafir is accepted by a grand majority of one and one person only: The convoluted definer himself. The rest of 1.6 billion minus one people believe kaafir means non muslim. Nothing comes to naught except your ranting rubbish articles that not a single religious scholar has accepted as valid. By secular logic - 8/19/2016 10:21:53 AM



  • Mr Haque, Nobody is asking you to believe in Hindu Gods and Goddesses, or follow Hindu customs, or appreciate Hindu philosophy. We are just asking you not to shove your islamic slavery down our throats as the biggest boon to all kuffar womankind. And stop asking us to respect your religion because you dont respect anything. As you sow, so shall you reap. I dont believe in God at all. So I am not at all scared by all that judgement rubbish. I am my own judge and jury. You can sit and quake in fear of final judgement and/or rejoice at the thought of me suffering in hell. Have a nice time with these thoughts during your sabbatical. By secular logic - 8/19/2016 10:16:29 AM



  • Mr Ahmad,
    I picked up that part that was relevant to my argument. That the God of islam permitted sex slavery of women of defeated armies,  and only the non muslims could be made slaves.

    No God can permit such a monstrosity. No god can be partial to people of one religious sect and allow them to run rampage over his other creatures.

    Your God of islam writes war manuals that recommend slavery. In my opinion, it is even worse than the earlier, more secular slave system, where you could enslave anyone you could lay your hands on.
    By secular logic - 8/19/2016 10:11:34 AM



  • Shall not be available for further comments for some time. By Manzurul Haque - 8/19/2016 12:28:58 AM



  • There is rampant slavery going on in India of the 21st century, but that is not a matter of concern for some despite the presence of thousands and thousands of gods and goddesses in India, who obviously have no business to ameliorate the condition of the human beings, becuase their interest lies elsewhere.But somebody is mad with Allah who is the lone and unique deity whom the Muslims worship. To Secular Logic, Allah looks funny but this same person would appreciate Brahma and his  union with his own  daughter to explain Creation.
     Muslims have understood Creation as the handiwork of one single, powerful, pious entity. the like of which just does not and cannot exist in this material world. Allah has assigned responsibility on mankind, while giving him  guidance and created the world in the manner He deemed fit. If He wanted, he could have eradicated age old devdasi system or Sati system from India in one go, but he let mankind  face this challenge and be judged. If Allah wanted He would have consulted some idiot to design or redesign this world, He could have eradicated the desire to fight from the hearts of people, and ensured no war, and no issues of slavery. Unfortunately He did not do so. He even left debautch men claiming divinity to survive and flourish in life and even after death. But then He did say He is the one to have allowed evil an existence because He would test mankind. Whether secular Logic likes or not, or believes in or not,  he will also be tested by the same Allah, even the latest bhagwan like Rajneesh  will also be judged by Allah. If you put a legal ban on my saying this in India, I will continue to believe this in my heart that Allah will judge us all human beings.

    Now that war has not been disbanded by Allah, the warring sides are there face to face, and each side has the chance to win, and let's come to the point,  to capture women of the opposite camp and gang-rape them, the kind happening in India or in blue movies. That precisely has been disallowed by Allah. Why he did so, we didn't get a chance to question! The male slave and  his faith. In those days I don't think the pagans had some great attachment to their faiths unlike the fanatics of today, so after all they found Islam to be a nice clean religion duly value-loaded. So in due course they became Muslims without the fanfare of dancing on the drumbeat around a fire, which is not the Muslim way. Okay what happened to the Muslim men and women who were captured by the enemies?Women must surely have joined the ranks of the devdasis , being loot ka maal, and men were probably shot dead in fake encounters, being too dangerous to live. I mean such is the course of history.
    By Manzurul Haque - 8/18/2016 2:23:33 PM



  • The following is from the same source that Secularlogic quoted. He quoted selectively omitting that which confirms exactly what I said proving that he is a willful and  deliberate slanderer when he accuses me of lying.

    It is worth pointing out that you do not find any text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah which enjoins taking others as slaves, whereas there are dozens of texts in the Qur’aan and the ahaadeeth of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which call for manumitting slaves and freeing them. 

    There were many sources of slaves at the time of the advent of Islam, whereas the means of manumitting them were virtually nil. Islam changed the way in which slavery was dealt with; it created many new ways of liberating slaves, blocked many ways of enslaving people, and established guidelines which blocked these means. 

    Islam limited the sources of slaves that existed before the beginning of the Prophet’s mission to one way only: enslavement through war which was imposed on kaafir prisoners-of-war and on their womenfolk and children. 

    The source confirms that there is no verse in the Quran or even a hadith that says "Enslave". The question of who to enslave and who not to enslave comes later.

    I have also said in my article that enslavement was limited to prisoners of war. The war was only against the Kafir and I use this term in the same faith neutral manner that the Quran uses for the Oppressors and not for people of any particular faith.I have also said on several occasions that in these days the ISIS are the Kafirs against whom Jihad is mandatory for all legitimate rulers of legitimate countries since the Quran mandates jihad against the oppressors.

    There you are Mr "Seculrlogic" with your weak and mean minded attack which comes to naught!

    Read my articles:

    The Much discussed and debated Medinian Verses Relating to Fighting

    The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (Pbuh) In the Qu’ran (Part 4): The Medinian Period

    7. The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Qu’ran (Concluding Part) Summary

    I have more than 50 articles published in NAI covering the entire range of topics. Find one flaw or logical inconsistency across any of my articles or even across the thousands of my comments. This kind of consistency can be achieved only by someone who never ever compromises on the truth. It cannot be achieved by the likes of "Secularlogic" who willfully omit that which confirms what I said quoting what does not contradict what I said and yet claim falsely that I lied.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/18/2016 1:41:43 PM



  • Royalj, You are a presumptuous person to attribute motives!

     You say "But Saudis betrayed US by sending 15 terrorists to destroy US (9/11)"

     So why did the US wage war on Afghanistan and Iraq but not on Saudi Arabia? Answer the question and don't just run away. 

     What did the US achieve in Vietnam, Korea and Cambodia? Did they defeat communism?

     Why is the US friendly with China which is a communist country?

     You say Communism is infectious and worse than a dictatorship. Oh is that really so? After the disintegration of the USSR, the USA no longer feared communism and became bolder and took away all powers from their Labour Unions.

     1. The richest became richer by 400% while those at the bottom not only became poorer but also lost their jobs.

     2. The Labour Unions were cut down to size taking away their powers enabling the US to farm out all blue collar work to China mostly. The blue collar workers were rendered jobless.

     3. Shrinkage of employment opportunities for the blue collar workers resulted in making available a steady supply of volunteers for the armed forces enabling the US to wage wars in the ME. While the US lost the Vietnam war because its citizens resisted draft, they now had more volunteers than their requirement because blue collar jobs were no longer available.

     4. Now that the war in Iraq has come to an end and also in Afghanistan, they are bringing back jobs to the US.

     What is good about capitalism that makes the US exploit the rest of the world to become richer? The beneficiaries are the corporates mostly but also the rest of the people in the US. Why will selfish people not gravitate to such a country from where they can become richer though at the cost of the rest of the world? The US is a country of exploiters.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/18/2016 12:53:35 PM



  • Islam limited the sources of slaves that existed before the beginning of the Prophet’s mission to one way only: enslavement through war which was imposed on kaafir prisoners-of-war and on their womenfolk and children.
    Shaykh al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The reason for slavery is kufr and fighting against Allaah and His Messenger. When Allaah enables the Muslim mujaahideen who are offering their souls and their wealth, and fighting with all their strength and with what Allaah has given them to make the word of Allaah supreme over the kuffaar, then He makes them their property by means of slavery unless the ruler chooses to free them for nothing or for a ransom, if that serves the interests of the Muslims. End quote from Adwa’ al-Bayaan (3/387).
    He also said:
    If it is said: If the slave becomes Muslim then why keep him as a slave, when the reason for slavery is kufr and fighting against Allaah and His Messenger, so this reason no longer applies?
    The answer is that the well known principle among the scholars and all wise people, which is that the previously established right cannot be erased by a right that is established later, and that what came first takes precedence, is obvious.
    When the Muslims captured kuffaar, their right to possession was affirmed by the law of the Creator of all, Who is All Wise and All Knowing. So this right is confirmed and established. Then if the slave became Muslim after that, his right to escape slavery by embracing Islam was superseded by the mujaahid’s prior right to take possession of him before he became Muslim, and it would be unjust and unfair to annul the prior right because of a subsequent right, as is well known to all wise people.
    Yes, it is good for the master to free the slave if he becomes Muslim. The Lawgiver enjoined and encouraged that, and opened many doors to it. Glory be to the Most Wise, the All Knowing. “And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All‑Hearer, the All‑Knower” [al-An’aam 6:115].
    “in truth” means in what He tells us, and “in justice” means in His rulings.
    Undoubtedly this justice refers to owning slaves and other rulings of the Qur’aan.
    How many people criticize something sound when their problem is their own misunderstanding. End quote from Adwa’ al-Bayaan (3/389).
    Capture of prisoners during war was the most common way of acquiring slaves. Prisoners
    source:islamqa.info/en/94840
    non wiki source for this liar and obnoxious defender of slavery in islam. Does not know when to stop defending a lost argument. By secular logic - 8/18/2016 10:14:55 AM



  • Naseer: You may be knowing communism is an infectious diseases and dictatorship is not. US sent CIA to about 40 countries just to neutralise Russian KGB influence. This was called the Cold War. US sacrificed 400,000 soldiers during WWII to wipe out Nazism and Fascism; again 100,000 lost in Vietnam and Korean wars to defeat communism. US established democracy in Germany and it became the 4th largest economy, similarly, Japan became 3rd, Korea 11th and Russia 10th. With the same good intention US established democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. Alas! Many Muslims do not like democracy.

    Russia brutally suppressed Muslims’ uprising in Chechnya and banned certain Islamic literature. China was very hostile to Muslims and banned Ramadan fasting. US never did such things. Instead it helped Kuwait and Saudi Arabia against Saddam’s aggression.  But Saudis betrayed US by sending 15 terrorists to destroy US (9/11).  US had given arms, ammunitions and trained Taliban and Pakistan ISI. Both betrayed and attacked US forces and hid Bin Laden in their Army Camp for 6 yrs. US invaded Yugoslavia and brought Slobodan Milosevic who did atrocities to Muslims to International court of war crimes. Israel defeated Arabs four times. US helped to achieve peace between the two through Camp Davis accord. US denied twice visa to Modi. Invited Muslim refugees with open arms and allowed building thousands of mosques.

    How many Muslims have gratitude towards US? Many apply for green cards while chanting death to America. After entering US, use all the facilities which they have never dreamed in their lives and some kill the fellow Americans. Naseer I know you will never accept the positive side of the US. Simply because of the negative versus in the Koran against Jews and US is supporting Israel: never realising that the same Jews Killed the Christians’ ‘Son of God’ on the cross.

    No further comments from me on this subject. Peace.

    By Royalj - 8/18/2016 5:50:08 AM



  • Royalj.

    What will happen to the Saudi Monarchy without the support of the US? Isn’t the “democratic” US an enemy of democracy in the rest of the world and one of the staunchest supporters of authoritarian regimes such as the Saudi dynasty? Hasn’t the US destabilized several democracies and installed their own stooges? For example, it installed the autocratic Shah Reza in Iran who was a stooge of the US in place of Mohammad Mosaddegh who was a democratically elected Prime Minister from 1951 until 1953. His government was overthrown in a coup d'état aided by the American Central Intelligence Agency and the British Secret Intelligence Service.  The experience taught the United States that the CIA could overthrow elected governments who refused to sacrifice the future of their people to Western commercial and geopolitical interests.  Since then, the US is behind several successful and failed coups. Most U.S. coups have led to severe repression, disappearances, extrajudicial executions, torture, corruption, extreme poverty and inequality, and prolonged setbacks for the democratic aspirations of people in the countries affected.

    Read “Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II” by William Blum. From China in the 1940s to Guatemala today, William Blum provides the most comprehensive study of the ongoing American holocaust. Covering U.S. intervention in more than 50 countries, KILLING HOPE describes the grim role played by the U.S. in overthrowing governments, perverting elections, assassinating leaders, suppressing revolutions, manipulating trade unions and manufacturing "news."

    The social fabric of any society is severely torn apart by war and colonization. Societies destabilized by war and in disequilibrium cannot be held as representative of an Islamic society.

    Royalj, you have shown your fangs in your comment and all your talk about love etc stands exposed as sheer hypocrisy. Neither is your pontification a sign of humility except of the Uriah Heep type.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/16/2016 11:58:30 AM



  • I agree with you Naseer completely. Discrimination still exists in the US.  The entire community of blacks had come from another continent 6000 miles away. Their colour is different. Their civilization is different. Their religious beliefs are different. They were brought up as slaves to work in the fields. All those white people, who had come to America from various European countries to exploit the lands that were freely available, did not take any interest in the welfare of these slaves. These whites did lot of killings of aboriginal Indians who fought for their lands with bow and arrows. The US government took responsibility when it was formed in 1776. You will also give credit to the US democracy when you realize how different sects of people are treated in the subcontinent and elsewhere. Only one question. What will happen if this New Age Islam is published in Saudi Arabia? In my opinion Sultan and some of you may get 1000 lashes if it is  in Mosul, may be beheaded in red jump suit. Naseer please be thankful to Allah that you are born in India, enjoying freedom, safety and multicultural values, though some may be not to your taste. Thanks for your comments. I enjoy the difference of opinion By Royalj - 8/16/2016 4:46:18 AM



  • Position of African living in America is far better than Middle East where people from sub-continent had gone, all thier Sky scrapers had siphoned blood of people of sub-continent and now suadi Arabia,  which had never given people from sub-continent citizenship right,  so buy arguing that principle this so called shariah following country easily want to through them back, at least poor India is still supplying them food as their citizenship and our dirty neighbour Pakistan had also some human values and is also going to follow same, it may be reflection of people living under Islamic rule which Naseer Ahmed is saying.


    By Aayina - 8/16/2016 3:30:53 AM



  • Royalj,  The position of slaves in Islam was better than the position of blacks in the US till recently.
    It was only in 1948 that President Truman signed Executive Order officially ending segregation and racial inequality in the military. Desegregation of the military was not complete for several years, and all-black Army units persisted well into the Korean War. The last all-black unit wasn't disbanded until 1954. Fifteen years after the Executive Order, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara issued Department of Defense Directive 5120.36. "Every military commander", the Directive mandates, "has the responsibility to oppose discriminatory practices affecting his men and their dependents and to foster equal opportunity for them." The discrimination faced by the blacks in the Vietnam war may be gauged by the following facts:
    Blacks suffered disproportionately high casualty rates (four times higher than their proportion in the army) in Vietnam because they were assigned the most dangerous combat duties. Civil rights leaders including Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, John Lewis, Muhammad Ali, and others, criticized the racial disparity in both casualties and representation in the entire military, prompting the Pentagon to order cutbacks in the number of African Americans in combat positions. The army instigated myriad reforms, addressed issues of discrimination and prejudice from the post exchanges to the lack of black officers, and introduced "Mandatory Watch And Action Committees" into each unit. The proportion of black casualties began to decrease, and by late 1967, black casualties had fallen to 13%, and were below 10% in 1970 to 1972 although still higher than their proportion in the army.
    Before the Vitenam war, the discrimination went unchecked. The law of 1792, which generally prohibited enlistment of blacks in the Army became the United States Army's official policy until 1862. In what would be known as the Philippine-American War (1899-1902), the U.S. Military also sent colored regiments and units to stop the insurrection. However, due to the discrimination of African-American soldiers, many of them defected to the Philippine Army. The Blacks were segregated, given menial jobs and positions or entrusted the most dangerous of combat operations.
    Contrast this with a British naval report, dated January 25,1858, that speaks of black slave marines serving with the Turkish navy:
    "They are from the class of slaves abandoned by merchants unable to sell them. There are always many such at Tripoli. Those brought by the Faizi Bari, about 70 in number, were on their arrival enrolled as a Black company in the marine corps. They are in exactly the same position with respect to pay, quarters, rations, and clothing as the Turkish marines, and will equally receive their discharge at the expiration of the allotted term of service. They are in short on the books of the navy. They have received very kind treatment here, lodged in warm rooms with charcoal burning in them day and night. A negro Mulazim [lieutenant] and some negro tchiaoushes [sergeants], already in the service have been appointed to look after and instruct them. They have drilled in the manual exercise in their warm quarters, and have not been set to do any duty on account of the weather. Those among them unwell on their arrival were sent at once to the naval hospital. Two only have died of the whole number. The men in the barracks are healthy and appear contented. No amount of ingenuity can conjure up any connection between their condition and the condition of slavery."
    Former slaves rose to positions of authority in administration as well as the military and even became ministers and rulers and the Mamluks also became Sultans. “In a society where positions of military command and political power were routinely held by men of slave origin or even status and where a significant proportion of the free population were born to slave mothers, prejudice against the slave as such, of the Roman or American type, could hardly develop” (Bernard Lewis)
    It may be noted that there was neither segregation or discrimination against slaves who also held positions of authority over free men in the military under Islamic rule while segregation and discrimination against the blacks continued well after slavery was abolished in the US.
    Islamic society was egalitarian despite the existence of slavery and even slaves had equal opportunities and could enlist in the army or become administrators and buy back their freedom.
    The egalitarianism is in the Islamic precepts that encourage  free men and women to marry even their slaves after freeing them which is unheard of in other societies and cultures.
    The first call for prayer in the sacred mosque was given by Bilal (RA) an African slave who was bought and freed by Abu Bakr (RA). Bilal's name is always taken with respect adding (May God be pleased with him abbreviated as RA). This honorific is the  highest for any person other than a prophet.
    One reason why Islam did not ban slavery was also because as Jacob Neusner says  "Prohibiting slavery in the context of seventh-century Arabia apparently would have been as useful as prohibiting poverty; it would have reflected a noble ideal but would have been unworkable on an immediate basis without establishing an entirely new socioeconomic system." In practice, all those who could support themselves as free men and women earned their freedom and only those who needed to be supported and could not survive on their own remained slaves. By Naseer Ahmed - 8/15/2016 2:40:07 AM



  • Too bad really. What? Slavery or this reporting!
    Gethin Chamberlain in Delhi
    Saturday 4 August 2012 ,
    Up to 200,000 children a year fall into the hands of slave traders in India, many sold by their poverty-stricken parents for as little as £11.
    *****
    Tens of thousands of girls as young as 12 are trafficked from India’s remote north east every year. Many are the daughters of tea estate workers, and end up working as servants in the Indian capital New Delhi or trafficked on to the Middle East and the UK. Many suffer physical and sexual abuse at the hands of employers and few receive the wages they were promised
    Watch our documentary of the reunion between a slave girl and her fatherGethin Chamberlain ; Sunday 2 March 2014 00.05 GMT By Manzurul Haque - 8/14/2016 12:34:59 PM



  • Story of a wise man who understood Mahabharata -

    Muslims do not talk much about the profanities of the religions of other religious communities because of their decency. Would some of commentators here hold it against Muslims? Should Muslims really comment upon the religions of others?

    By Manzurul Haque - 8/14/2016 12:15:38 PM



  • Secular Logic says: "A wise man knows when to stop responding to inane and ignorant comments."

    Secular Logic knows when to run away with an inane comment. 

    He also says "The quran does say only non muslims can be taken as slaves. Read wikipedia on this issue." What an inane comment! If his source (Wiki) does not cite a reference to the relevant verse of the Quran, then it is some trash posted by somebody like himself. Wiki is open source and anyone can post anything there. The editors usually add "citation required" and this must be one such entry with missing citation.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/14/2016 10:47:07 AM



  • The quran does say only non muslims can be taken as slaves. Read wikipedia on this issue. the injunction  was a big blow to muslim slave traders, who fould their talent pool shrunk.  By secularlogic - 8/14/2016 1:49:39 AM



  • A wise man knows when to stop responding to inane and ignorant comments. You need someone to explain the Mahabharat to you. I am not that person. I will stop here.  By secularlogic - 8/14/2016 1:47:26 AM



  • Moral codes change when man ascends from agricultural age to Industrial age and then to Hi-tech age. However core values or absolute values do not change. For instance “ you shall love your neighbour as you love yourself” is applicable for million years; Similarly “you shall not commit adultery” The consequence of breaking this command is particularly evident in Muslim community. Having multiple wives is immoral and adultery, against the intention of Allah who created Adam and Eve; not Adam and four women. Having sex slaves is both immoral adultery. When a family is having four wives or sex slaves it becomes a total disaster. Children suffer immensely; poverty stricken, no proper education and moral development.

    Where there is no vision people perish.

    By Royalj - 8/13/2016 7:07:57 PM



  • Greatness is not to find what is common but what is unique. It is common to find fault with the conduct of the soldiers in a war. What is unique for a Muslim scholar is to present the inconsistencies in Islamic theology to the Ulema.  To a certain extent Sultan Sahin is doing this job. We should not chop the leg of an enemy who is already killed by others. Yes, many Western journalists have already exposed the sex crimes of soldiers in war, whether My lai massacre in Vietnam or Abu Ghraib in Iraq or any other.

    This writer should use his scholarship to maximise the wellbeing of the Muslims who are battered in every way. He can explain how a black man elected president of America out of 13% minority whose fore fathers were brought as slaves. How the US Government, education, social service departments, universities, Church fathers helped the blacks to shine in every field, especially in sports and entertainment; Michael Jordan, Mohammad Ali, Michael Jackson, Oprah Winfrey to name a few.

    It is a unique thing for a white man John Griffin to go in disguise as a black man before the white people and written a book “A black like me” in which he wrote how he was ridiculed, scorned, mocked insulted and all the bad languages used against him.  This book has opened the eyes of many racists in America.

    It will be very interesting if he can write “Is Islam the death knell for both multiculturalism and freedom of religion”?

    By Royalj - 8/13/2016 6:45:37 PM



  • The pasts of all religions are sordid, so why are we fighting over whose past history is more shameful? Let us do whatever we can for our own religions. Every religion must try to make itself the best that it can be
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/13/2016 1:20:10 PM



  • Secular Logic says:

    “There is no codified rule in Hinduism that slaves may be disrobed and dishonoured. The epic also relates it, not as an acceptable practice, but as a horrifying act with consequences.”

     

    What was it then that prevented the five (ex) husbands and the elders and the acharyas and the gurus from intervening except the norms of that society which allowed what was taking place and disallowed any intervention as that would have apparently transgressed the rights of the new owner?

     

    I agree that the five (ex) husbands and all present must have been horrified by the act but the point is that all felt totally helpless to save the woman from her fate. What made them feel helpless except the norms of that society which allowed such a thing to happen unchallenged?

     

    The fact that this act was finally avenged when the situation changed does not alter the norms of that society. Even if such extreme behavior was a rare incident, it still means that it was both possible and permissible and there was no check on what one could do with one’s slave.

     

    I have myself said in my article, there is no codified rule which can be criticized but what is a codified rule except the codification of either an existing practice or a prescriptive one? Islam has a prescriptive rule and although it promoted a much better society as Bernard Lewis records, it alone can be criticized because Islam alone codified the rules regarding the slaves and slavery. Other societies lived by their norms without codifying the rules and although the fate of their slaves was much worse, they escape notice because their rules were not codified and the actual behavior can today be treated lightly as merely a human weakness or an aberration.

     

    Today all societies have banned slavery by common consent and anyone who indulges in it can be isolated and warred against. So what prevents the world from destroying the ISIS which has revived the practice? The Quran does not sanction revival of the practice while it allows banning it going by the verses which envisage a society free of slaves.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/13/2016 11:23:18 AM



  • Secular Logic says:

    “The God of the Quran seems to be partial to Muslims. It says Muslims cannot be taken as slaves. Only Infidels can be.”

     

    The Quran does not say any such thing. It does not even say that non-Muslims can be enslaved. It only regulates the treatment of all slaves whether Muslim or non-Muslim. As Bernard Lewis points out, Islam banned enslavement altogether except those taken prisoners on the battle ground. The general population of captured territory was untouched. There were wars in which women took part and were captured and there were wars in which no women took part in war and none were captured. In such situations, Muta appears to have been resorted to but was forbidden by the second Caliph.

     

    What was unique about this society was that:

     

    1.    A woman captured could not be touched unless allotted as slave

    2.    Rape and adultery was punished by stoning to death but contract marriages appear to have been allowed at least in some campaigns by the local commander. Rape and adultery therefore did not take place.

     

    The Mongols, when they overran Baghdad and the Abassid dynasty, raped and took many Muslim women as slaves.

     

    Deepa Natrajan says: “While the wars you are talking about with regards to the West are recorded to a certain extent, do you mean that none of their caliphates and their militia ever erred? Had you worked sincerely to record the sex crimes of your community, there's enough your fundamentalist brothers are doing already. So, one doesn't become smart by probiding an exhaustive history of flaws of others but not theirs.”

    The original Islamic Caliphate as long as it lasted, lived by the Islamic rules and did not indulge in rape.

    In the modern era, all armies behave alike whether it is a Muslim army or a non-Muslim army. The Pakistani army raped in Bangla Desh. Even the UN peace keeping forces rape. Islamic laws did not apply in the colonial period and that society has changed ever since in several ways. We first shape our laws and thereafter our laws shape our lives. We have excellent precepts and laws today but totally ineffective in addressing the problem.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/13/2016 10:41:53 AM



  • To Secular logic and Sister Deepa Natarajan
    Keep asking the question on Islamic or Muslim irrational thoughts and accepting Hindu scouted pitfall is should be true goal of Hindus.
    Here learned Muslim scholars Campare and say that all notable high status gurus and other in high status were mute at the Draupadi insult.
    We should not be discourage on the contrary we should appreciate this Muslim brothers for reminding us, as this type of stories are openly written in Hindu scriptures to dicourage the certain activities but not to propagate it, and so one should not play his wife in Jugar after that incident and should not treat as object.
    Also moral of story doesn't not stop there, the story ends it narrative when Bhishma pitamaha was on arrowbed. He ask Krishna that why I am punished,  through out my life I had not committed crime, than Krishna reminds of two crime of one was this that you did not speak up when Draupadi was getting humiliated, and it was seen as silent permission by him even though Bhishma did not like what Dushashan did.
    Hindu had been told stories to stop evil practise Campare to Islam they want to live and practise what happened at time of Mohmmad paigmaber and what he practised.
    so if you guys try to give answer to them they will bring all evil happened in Hindu society to let us know that your forefather was equally shame as ours but at the time our ones was slightly superior.
    So in short our evil part stories are  to stop practice and for Muslim let them do whatever they want to do. Hindus just have to seek next level of consciousness and civilised behaviour leaving behind and learning from past absurd practice in Hindu society to stop out of which we had stop but lot reforms yet to come.
    It can be only happen when sister like you, secular logic and many more remain active, we can witness lots of faul language is used by Hindu brother that shows how uncivilised is Hindu society is?
    Sultan shahin is doing his job for his Muslim brothers but we should do ours, the level of cheap language used by Hindu brothers is matter of concern.
    Thanks Naseer Ahmed for true heart bringing Hindu stories to prove your point and how Islamic practice is superior at the time but we had moved away in future stooping those evil practise, but reminder and criticism should be always welcomed. Just one thing was wrong in comparison that timing of Mahabrat society and Islamic history are very different, humans had taken centuries to develope even moral code of conducts, especially MEN had treated all physically weak creature including women as object uptil now, women is liberated in some part of world is recent phenomenon, animals are still facing cruelity from humans.
    By Aayina - 8/13/2016 1:39:56 AM



  • Mr Ahmed,

    The Draupadi incident is an event out of an epic that tells a tale of two dynasties. It is not an eternal guide for human behavior. There is no codified rule in Hinduism that slaves may be disrobed and dishonoured. The epic also relates it, not as an acceptable practice, but as a horrifying act with consequences. The Quran, on the other hand, sanctifies the use of war victims for sex. I am astonished you do not see any difference. 
    But then, how do you make a person see, when he pretends to be blind. 
    By secularlogic - 8/13/2016 1:32:49 AM



  • Some more bullshit: 
    On paper, we can say that we should treat the women who fall into your hands in war  as your mothers and sisters but what good does that do?  It will raise a few wah wahs and we can claim that our precepts are the best.

    The Quran is a Book of guidance and not a Book of either political correctness or a book excelling in theoretical precepts which are impractical. It aims for the best outcomes using means that are humanly possible and achievable.

    The Quran is supposed to be a guidance from God, eternally applicable to mankind throughout the ages. God's wisdom and sense of justice is supposed to transcend time and space, community an culture. The God of the Quran seems to be partial to Muslims. Is says Muslims cannot be taken as slaves. Only Infidels can be. 

    God is practical? Or God is an idealist? Should he be practical when what he says guides human morality.

    How come no consciences are troubled by this lack of universal applicability of goodness and compassion to all mankind, whichever faith he follows? 

    There is discrimination at each step. No wonder Muslims love it.  

    By secularlogic - 8/13/2016 12:25:24 AM



  • Yes Deepa, I am both a fundamentalist and a literalist. You can be sure that what I write is exactly what is meant in the Quran. Lest you take your own meaning of what it is to be a literalist and a fundamentalist, I have written an article on the subject: By Naseer Ahmed - 8/13/2016 12:01:26 AM



  • The Draupadi incident would not have been mentioned but for the fact that Secular Logic said in a different thread that if he were a Muslim he would have died of shame for the verse that allows sex with female slave. So, I have given him an opportunity that he missed not being a Muslim to die of shame as a Hindu.

    The Draupadi incident describes the society of those days. A wife could be sold or lost in a game of dice and the new owner could do anything with her including disrobing her in full public view with what intent we know. She was saved by a miracle but without any principle being established about the impropriety of enslavement in this manner or how a slave could be treated. The fact that the five (ex) husbands and the elders of the Pandavas and the Kauravas and their gurus were mute spectators to what was taking place speaks volumes for the status of a slave in that society and the absolute rights of a master. And these were not ordinary folks but the nobility and the highest and most principled acharyas.


    Just because these rules are not codified does not make that society any better. That Dushyasan was killed in war by Bheema who drank his blood also does not change the rules of that society as it concerns slavery.

    In Islam, what happened to Draupadi is impossible and a slave had rights to good treatment and could take his master to an Islamic court even for being slapped and if the charge was proved, the master could be forced to free the slave.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/12/2016 11:43:57 PM



  • "That does not make any of them raping the women of the defeated side right. Not even in the manner stated in the Quran. You cannot enslave any man or woman, nor can you have sexual relations with anyone without their consent. Nor must you stop two consenting adults from sexual relations." writes Mr. Communal Illogic, without giving a reason for why these can't be done even as we have overwhelming evidences of such things happening so often and so regularly.

    Not just is it easy to do such things but in practice it gets done and it is proved that it 'can be done' by warring folks.

    The point however is, first of all, WHY is it all not right? Then, who are 'you' to decide what is right and what is wrong? Then, when everything is supposedly fair in love and war, as is often said, after Churchill said it first, to justify the bombing of civilians in Hiroshima, how can something be wrong in a war?

    Especially when you do not agree to the One deciding what is right and wrong? 

    Apart from this, who said all that was 'without consent'? And then imagine the situation of those who did not gave any such consent, nor were they accepted back in their own society, did they not automatically become slaves of the people/govt. under whom they were held captive? If only they had consented, what wrong it would have been for them to be the wife of an individual whom people still do not get tired of saying him as her master? 

    When slavery was not seen  as that big an evil nor was it that kind of slavery that we get to know of as it existed in rest other societies, the option of letting the war captives disowned by their own family members, and then making them even more vulnerable to evil-mongers by letting these war captives have the booty too with them, for the so called 'help to begin a new life', doesn't make sense.

    Does it not ever strike the proponent of such an idea that with what would they have begun their new life? With the booty and just that? And without a family of their own? And then who would have married them until someone agreed to be known as her master married her? 

    Wanting no women to get raped and having laws of such an act is one thing, and letting women get raped on regular basis by warriors by establishing "comfort stations", and to either "give a sense of brotherhood and camaraderie" or  "to break the spirit and fighting will of resisting men", all these is just bogus and hypocrisy. A double standard law only meant to decorate the law books but not helping in anyway to reduce the exploitation of women in general and of captive women/slaves in particular.

    Chala illogic logic baghaarne. Hunh!
    By sadaf - 8/12/2016 3:40:00 PM



  • And pleeease, stop your tactics of putting forth everything in the name of God. No woman in her right sense would want to sleep with a man she bearly knows, let alone the enemy who killed her family. This writer conveniently ignores the women's consent to sex and what does he think: she went out of her way and slept with a man. This author is clearly a fundamentalist who uses the same words used by his wicked counterparts that drags God into every act. Sorry. Highly stupid article. I liked another one read a long time back wherein a lot of reforms were brought forth in slavery knowing well how it could not be done overnight ... and it doesn't talk about other cultures but itself: it had a sense of introspection and humility this article lacks. If I were to review this article, I would trash it for it never looks into its own weakness. Neither rational nor scientific. Sorry. By Deepa Natarajan - 8/12/2016 9:52:04 AM



  • There is an inherent bias in your article in a number of instances. While the wars you are talking about with regards to the West are recorded to a certain extent, do you mean that none of their caliphates and their militia ever erred? Had you worked sincerely to record the sex crimes of your community, there's enough your fundamentalist brothers are doing already. So, one doesn't become smart by probiding an exhaustive history of flaws of others but not theirs. Your presentation is clearly skewed. With regards to Hindu laws to war, there is enough if we care to talk about. And the Hindus have not known to wage into war for a long time, which by itself is a far greater acheivement than your perennial war mongering Muslim brethren. The Draupati incident was clearly a violation but don't use one incident from another religion to justify Islam. That's not rational. That's in fact stupidity. Try to argue in such a way that there is error from both ends and what could be learnt out of it ... else this article is boiling down to promoting Islamic supremacy that is biting your butts already.  By Deepa Natarajan - 8/12/2016 9:41:42 AM



  • Thank you Manzurul Haque Sb for your comment and welcome back. We missed you and your balanced views and penetrating comments.

    With your background in law, you may find the following article interesting:

    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/12/2016 5:31:04 AM



  • Rashid Sb,

    The best solution is an end to all war and violence.

    As far as the female perspective is concerned, I do not see them very different from the men. They took a very active and willing part in the sexual humiliation of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib. Give them the means and they will also go about raping. As such, they do use artificial methods to do the same.

    As I have said, we cannot compare precept with what has never been practiced because it is impractical. On paper, we can say that we should treat the women who fall into your hands in war  as your mothers and sisters but what good does that do?  It will raise a few wah wahs and we can claim that our precepts are the best.

    The Quran is a Book of guidance and not a Book of either political correctness or a book excelling in theoretical precepts which are impractical. It aims for the best outcomes using means that are humanly possible and achievable.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/12/2016 5:22:52 AM



  • The article by Mr. Naseer Ahmad and the lengthy comments ‘by secularlogic’ are commendable in their different approaches to a complex subject based on morality and from male perspective in war situation.  There has never been a female perspective ever presented.

    For example, the authors of declaration of American independence ‘All men are created equal’, there is no mention of women. Although it will be argued that ‘man embraces woman’ but then the authors themselves owned many men and women slaves.

    The British too may claim to have stopped the slave trade on international scale by their blockade of ships taking African slaves to America, but that too was hardly on ethical and moral basis.

    If only we can solve the dilemma of declaring whether WAR is a normal or abnormal activity for ‘thinking’ humans to indulge in.  

    By Rashid Samnakay - 8/12/2016 4:13:12 AM



  • Holy books are not supposed to be military manuals prescribing how soldiers should treat captured enemies. Holy books should preach compassion, forgiveness and treating others as we would like to be treated ourselves. The acceptable standards of behavior cannot be either the standards of  7th century Arabia or 1930s' Japan or 1960s' U.S. The standards are better defined in the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN. The best aspirations of the modern human mind on the subject should supplant the standards of the past.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/10/2016 3:11:19 PM



  • If war is inevitable, and men must die, the only thing that a humane society can do is minimise its horrors. Becoming a slave that can be sold again and again and used by the owner for sexual gratification at will, presented to another person, made to work for bed and board without pay is not acceptable under any circumstance. God could have outlawed slavery then and there. there was no need to wait till Abe came along. What to do with widowed women, fatherless girls? In that medieval time, too, they could have been given employment as paid employees. A part of the loot could have been returned to them to enable them to start life afresh. Muslims never tire of telling us that Islam emancipated women. if they were so emancipated, they could have lived on their own. They could have been compensated for loss of husband/father. But no. How could allah deny his bande the delights of forcing himself on the daughters/mothers/ wives of the men he had killed. It is true that rape is a war crime commited by armies past and present. But only the Quran sanctifies this horror. I am not aware of any other book of god permitting it. By secularlogic - 8/10/2016 12:02:43 PM



  • The writer seems to be unaware of the existence of a slave market. The women who were captured in war were distributed to the men, who could even sell them. In the slave market, the women were disrobed, they stood naked, the prospective buyers could touch and poke them to examine quality. The master could have sex with the slave, her consent was not needed. Also, the master could sell his slave later, if he so desired, so she could be sexually enjoyed by the next owner. His claim that only one man molested her is also wrong. To see islamic slavery in action, you only have to look at ISIS. The writers statements about how slavery worked are lies at worst, and ignorant at best. By secularlogic - 8/10/2016 11:54:07 AM



  • And another matter: The disrobing of Draupadi is never seen as a good thing that was done by Dushyasan. He paid for it with his life. God did not permit Dushasan to do his deed. He rushed to the victims aid. you must understand nuance and not pick random facts to support your argument. Do not equate an epic with a religious word of God. The Mahabharat tells a tale that depicts the best and the worst of human behavior. The Quran recommends codes of behavior for Muslims. Taking sex slaves is one of them. By secularlogic - 8/10/2016 11:48:54 AM



  • There is no reason why the Quranic injunctions cannot be applied in current times. There are countries and communities at war with each other. There is no reason why Islamic armies cannot make slaves of their enemies' women. The conditions are similar. The ISIS is not at fault. They are only following what they have been taught is the word of God. The source ideology is the culprit. By secularlogic - 8/10/2016 11:43:24 AM



  • What is true is that war has horrifying consequences, and armies go berserk. Whether they are American, Japanese, or Islamic armies. That does not make any of them raping the women of the defeated side right. Not even in the manner stated in the Quran. You cannot enslave any man or woman, nor can you have sexual relations with anyone without their consent. Nor must you stop two consenting adults from sexual relations. Why is something so simple so difficult to accept? The truth needs only a few words to express. Lies and cunning defence of odious practices needs reams and reams of words. By secularlogic - 8/10/2016 11:40:35 AM



  • I imagine myself to be God: Loving, merciful, all knowing, just, compassionate, and even handed to all his creatures. Such a god, looking down on the earth, seeing one section of the people killing another and their wives, daughters, sons and aged parents left bereft, what would he recommend? Would he recommend 1. Let the war be only among combatants, leave the non combatants alone, or would he say kill all menfolk above puberty, and take the women and kids as slaves? Have sex with the women after doing them the great favour of waiting for three months if they have been married earlier? What great benevolence does anybody find in this? Why is it the females of defeated armies must be used for this purpose? Why can they not, instead, be given a part of the booty that has been looted from their community, help them begin life anew WITHOUT HAVING SEX WITH THEM? If some uneducated, tribal person living by tribal codes prescribes what has been prescribed in the Quran, it can be forgivable. He is a creature of his time. What is not forgivable is to claim God said it and hence make it unassailable, and eternal. By secularlogic - 8/10/2016 11:36:23 AM



  • To a thinking mind, the following is clear: In the pre islamic world in arab culture, it was common to take slaves as war booty. The women would be used as servants and sex slaves. It was considered quite right to do so. The Quran came along and said, yes, continue doing what you are doing, but just treat them well, treat their kids well, and if you can, release them at your will and pleasure. It permitted sex with slaves. Which is Okay,considering that that was the point of moral development that those men were. The trouble begins when you say this is an order by God. By secularlogic - 8/10/2016 11:28:58 AM



  • Bunkum. 

    This writer begins with a presumption. "It is written in the Quran, permitted by Allah, therefore it has to be right. Now let me see how I can defend it and say it is absolutely correct."
    By secularlogic - 8/10/2016 11:24:06 AM



  • Excellent write up from Jn Naseer Ahmed sb. He supports his  scientific analysis with painstaking research. I hold views similar to his on the subject matter. I see very unrealistic presentations many times which actually smack of the Western hypocracy. Thankfully this one is different. By Manzurul Haque - 8/10/2016 8:20:28 AM