certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islam, Women and Feminism (06 May 2012 NewAgeIslam.Com)




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   64


  • We go round and round and round endlessly. First we say the Qur'an allows light chastisement / beating of wife then we go on explaining it. Why can't Muslim men understand that today the moral injury from a "light' chastisement or slap is no less harsh that of ruthless beating with an iron rod.
    Let us come out of the medieval ages and take a fresh insight into the Qur'an.
     A gender-neutral translation/ interpretation of the verse based on Qur’anic vocabulary and internal illustrations in a recent exegetic work [Essential Message of Islam, Amana Publication, Maryland, USA-  2009.] tables the following rendition of this verse [that does not need a lot of apologetic explanations and leaves the husband to decide what is ‘light chastisement.’]
    “Men are the supporters (qawwamah) of (their) wives because God has favored each of them in different measures, and because of what they spend (for them) of their wealth. The righteous women are devout and guard the unseen that God would have them guard. As for those (women), of whom you fear extramarital perversity  (nushuz), counsel them, leave them (alone) in their beds and assert on them (wadribuhunna); but if they listen to you, do not seek a way against them. (Remember,) God is Sublime, Great” (4:34).
    Please see this article for further details:
    Notions of male superiority, domination and beating of wife stand un-Islamic today.
    But the argument obsessed Muslim intellectuals (not all of them of course) will be never ever satisfied and instead of reading and comprehending the referenced article, shoot of an irrelevant comment with an air of authority and scholarship. Only God can help them - but God helps those who helps themselves. So unless people try to help themselves they remain lost in arguments. 
    By muhammad yunus (1) - 8/21/2012 11:48:20 PM



  • Janab Naseer Ahmed Sahib, This article is not about fatherly slapping or lovingly slapping. You must ask the article writer(Aiman Reyaz) why he took up this issue. Why is there a need to discuss it if the wife beating in under the category of fatherly slapping. Please don't make people fool. Please go to sites where such analysis is going on. If they are incorrect in their understanding please correct them.
    I could not decide after reading this article and the one I copy pasted who is right because I am not a scholar of Arabic. Twisting the meaning is common practice of Muslims. I read many articles by Muslims where they are playing with the word Dharaba. For example Maulana Yusuf Ali insert (lightly) in his translation. I dont understand if there is  need to insert this.
    I think you understand the Arabic more than Arab Ulamas
    I posted this article so that others can see it and give their views. If you take it as an attack you are free to think.
    Why most of the verse of Quran requires defence from like you. Why lengthy article are needed to explain. Why not clear understanding in a guide book?
    Don't worry I will keep posting more
    By mohd yunus - 8/21/2012 11:10:21 AM



  • Ahmed sahab, I read your comment and I have read the Quran (4:34). The Quran mentions only wife beating. It makes no mention of husband beating. This goes against the grain of gender equality. Setting a limit on beating is in effect legitimizing beating.
    If one beats one's wife one humiliates her. If one beats one's wife lightly one still humiliates her.
    The Quran broght down severe or repeated beatings to one light beating. The next natural step would have been to proclaim "No wife beating". But our ulamas in their wisdom decided to put a halt on all ijtihad. This means that we have to follow seventh century rules unless we can imagine what Islam would have been like if ijtihad had continued for the past 1000 years. I do imagine that and hence I feel quite comfortable saying, "Islam does not permit wife beating".
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/21/2012 2:14:05 AM



  • GM Sb, Read the comment once again. It is a limit and not a sanction.. Better still read the Quran and try to understand it directly yourself.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/20/2012 11:54:57 PM



  • "Common Couples Violence" (wife beating or husband beating) may be common in every culture and society, but all we can do with it is to condemn it. It should certainly not have any religious sanction.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/20/2012 2:38:58 PM



  • @mani, It is not Ali Sina though I have read his debates with Javed Ahmed Ghamidi celebrated scholar from Pakistan and others.
    By mohd yunus - 8/20/2012 10:14:10 AM



  • We should be clear about what exactly are we discussing. Here are the definitions by Michael P Johnson.
    Distinctions are made among the types of violence, motives of perpetrators, and the social and cultural context based upon patterns across numerous incidents and motives of the perpetrator. Types of violence identified by Johnson:
    1.       Common couple violence (CCV) is not connected to general control behavior, but arises in a single argument where one or both partners physically lash out at the other.
    2.       Intimate terrorism (IT) may also involve emotional and psychological abuse. Intimate terrorism is one element in a general pattern of control by one partner over the other. Intimate terrorism is less common than common couple violence, more likely to escalate over time, not as likely to be mutual, and more likely to involve serious injury. IT batterers include two types: "Generally-violent-antisocial" and "dysphoric-borderline". The first type includes people with general psychopathic and violent tendencies. The second type are people who are emotionally dependent on the relationship. Support for this typology has been found in subsequent evaluations.
    3.       Violent resistance (VR), sometimes thought of as "self-defense", is violence perpetrated by victims against their abusive partners.
    4.       Mutual violent control (MVC) is rare type of intimate partner violence occurring when both partners act in a violent manner, battling for control.
    As far as CCV is concerned, these could be compared with fights between siblings. It is to show that they are "very angry"  and rarely result in leaving a mark since the intention is not to cause physical harm but to express extreme anger and signal that patience has run out and the threshold crossed.  When a wife beats up her husband when she is wild, she often hits him repeatedly because the man puts up with it without wailing. The husband does not complain either nor holds it against his wife. When a husband strikes out, it is usually only once since the wife sets up a loud wail. These incidents do not count as domestic violence unless either party finds the behavior of the other unacceptable. Conflict is a process of gaining better understanding of the other person and defining the limits of what one is willing to put up with, beyond which control breaks down. Among mature couples, who are able to act on verbal and non-verbal clues, the conflicts are resolved without getting physical. When verbal discussions do not help, the issue gets escalated with repeated transgressions and results in minor violence preceded by several warnings which are ignored. Once the threshold is understood and respected, couples live amicably. Skilful negotiators also negotiate to the point where the other party is pushed to the wall and can be pushed no further. They strike a deal at this point.
    A woman can put her foot down and say no to any kind of violence, but then if the problem remains unresolved, there is a high probability that the marriage ends up in divorce. A woman who can put her foot down is usually wise enough to adapt without allowing matters to reach boiling point or independent enough to take the consequences which could be divorce.
    CCV is common in every culture and society.
    Having understood the above, it should be clear that the Quranic verses are not a license for CCV, but they define the limit on how far a husband can go with his wife, who has no choice but to put up with him. If the lady is not prepared to put up with it, the most he can do is divorce her.
    Now coming to MY2s post, and assuming that what is contained therein is true, the question to him is under what category does he classify the various incidents? If it is CCV, then it does not even merit a discussion. How do we know what a fatherly slap on the neck means? It may be just a loving slap to let his daughter know that she has crossed her threshold. No father beats up his grown up daughter but yet shows his disapproval in a mock act of anger.  So what is the purpose in circulating these stories?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 8/20/2012 5:13:08 AM



  • @Aiman Reyaz,mohd yunus, 
    Here , mohd yunus not wish to mention author's name. My guess is that the author might be the great Ali sena founder of main.faithfreedom.org who is an  Iranian ,coming in the discendant of Mohammad,invinciable, unconquerable for past 12 years ,himself the greatest Islam scholar, defeated many very good Islam Scholars. No one scholar dare to challenge him nowadays.Still his challange about Mohammed remains.

    By mani - 8/19/2012 11:40:38 PM



  • @ Rehan Nezami,  Sir improve your geographical knowledge. Antarctica is man-less land. Only researchers spend their time there. So there is no question of message of Allah. There is no slightest hint of Antarctica in the Quran or hadith.
    Would you cast some light on how you will perform roza namaz in long day and night. I witnessed 2 months long day and 2 months long night. At poles day and night are 6 months long alternately.
    May be jins were/are living there. Be the first to take msg and reap the reward.


    By mohd yunus - 8/19/2012 11:27:18 AM



  • @ Aiman Reyaz. A heated discussion is going on. Since I am not scholar in any discipline I paste an article without giving author’s name. Let us hear what the enemies say.

    "Wife Beating In Islam

    Domestic Violence against Women IS Permitted in Islam

    There are many Islamic sites that are directed at non-Arabic speakers. If you speak Arabic, you can’t be fooled and many of the arguments stating that a Muslim man can not beat his wife fall like a deck of cards. They claim that the following verse (4:34) does not mean “to beat them,” but rather to “separate from them” or to “strike them out.”

    Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

    Qur’an 4:34

    Beat them and leave/separate/abandon them are different phrases in Arabic. The Arabic word idribohunna driven from the root word Darab does not have any other meaning than Beat when it comes to mean “Yadreb Ahadan” = Hit someone. Idriboohunna (أضربوهن) means beat them (for female plural). Adriboo Anhunna (اضربوا عنهن) is the one that means abandon or leave them.

    According to the Arabic lexicon:

    Arabic Transliteration Meaning

    ضرب Zarb Beat

    أضربوهن (used in 4:34) Idriboohunna Beat them

    اضربوا عنهن Adriboo Anhunna abandon them, leave them

    Quran 4:34 says Idriboohunna أضربوهن, not Adribu Anhunna اضربوا عنهن. These two phrases have different meanings. All the verses that contain darb against a human are understood to mean “beat” or “strike” that human, by their context, and this is agreed upon by Islamic scholars. Why then do they consider verse 4:34 to be a special case and translate “darb” to mean “separate from them”?

    Many Muslims will try to come up with 100 explanations for this. Some will say that the Qur’an says “beat lightly” but in truth, the Qur’an doesn’t say anything about lightly. Others will say that it is only with the stick that was used to clean one’s teeth (miswak) in Mohamed’s times (also not true) while some say it is only in special cases. I can’t imagine what would be a “special case.” If someone is mentally ill, they need mental health care, not a beating. And if Islam is so fair, why can’t a man be beaten by a woman? Of course, this would be barbarian too, but it does illustrate the point!

    The Qur’an allows Wife Beating and Muhammad Beat his Wives

    He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was ‘A’isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi’. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O ‘A’isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?…”

    Sahih Muslim 4:2127

    Many Muslims say that Muhammad never hit a woman or a child. According to Aisha, this is not true.

    Muhammad Allowed his Companions to Beat Women

    Muhammad allowed for Abu Bakr to slap Aisha

    Jabir b. ‘Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) came and sought permission to see Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him). He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came ‘Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat ‘Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter of Khadija when you asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) then got up went to ‘Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) and slapped her on the neck, and ‘Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) for anything he does not possess. Then he withdrew from them for a month or for twenty-nine days. Then this verse was revealed to him:” Prophet: Say to thy wives… for a mighty reward” (xxxiii. 28). He then went first to ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) and said: I want to propound something to you, ‘A’isha, but wish no hasty reply before you consult your parents. She said: Messenger of Allah, what is that? He (the Holy Prophet) recited to her the verse, whereupon she said: Is it about you that I should consult my parents, Messenger of Allah? Nay, I choose Allah, His Messenger, and the Last Abode; but I ask you not to tell any of your wives what I have said He replied: Not one of them will ask me without my informing her. God did not send me to be harsh, or cause harm, but He has sent me to teach and make things easy.

    Sahih Muslim 9:3506

    Iyas b. Abdullah reported God’s messenger as saying, “Do not beat God’s handmaidens;” but when `Umar came to God’s messenger and said, “The women have become emboldened towards their husbands,” he gave license to beat them. Then many women went round God’s messenger’s family complaining of their husbands, and he said, “Many women have gone around complaining of their husbands. Those are not the best among you.” Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, and Darimi transmitted it.

    Mishkat Al-Masabih: Volume 2, page 692

    Al-Muwatta 30 2.13, See also:Al-Muwatta 30 30.213b

    Sulayman Ibn `Amr Ibn al-`Ahwas narrated: “Ubai told me that he witnessed the address of departure of the prophet. He thanked God and praised him, and started preaching, saying, “I command you good-will for your wives, for they are captives to you that do not own anything, unless they commit a manifest obscenity [or adultery]. If they do [commit it], then God has given you permission to leave them alone in their beds and give them a bearable beating.”[12]

    Abu Dawud 11:2141

    Muhammad Ignored the Abuse of Women

    It seems that Muhammad was not concerned with the suffering of believing women. Instead, he rebukes her for her words against her husband.

    Narrated ‘Ikrima: Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘Abdur Rahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When ‘Abdur Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, ‘Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa’a.” Allah’s Apostle said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa’a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” Then the Prophet saw two boys with ‘Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that ‘Abdur Rahman said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow.”

    Sahih Bukhari 7:72:715

    I just don’t understand why, if in truth Mohamed was a “mercy to mankind” did he not have mercy on this woman who had bruises all over her body. He believes the man, although it had not been proven that he was not impotent as his wife claimed just because her child looked like his dad. Maybe he had become impotent later on in their marriage. Instead, she is forced to stay with someone she does not want to live with. (As a side note, this Hadith also references the fact that a woman has to have sex with another many before she can return to a husband who has divorced her, an experience which could be very upsetting for anyone wanting to reconcile with someone they love.)

    Scholars Agree with Wife Beating

    And remember Our servant Ayyub, when he invoked his Lord (saying): “Verily, Shaytan has afflicted me with distress and torment!” (Allah said to him): “Strike the ground with your foot. This is (a spring of) water to wash in, cool and a drink.” And We gave him (back) his family, and along with them the like thereof, as a mercy from Us, and a reminder for those who understand. “And take in your hand a bundle of thin grass and strike therewith (your wife), and break not your oath.” Truly, We found him patient. How excellent a servant! Verily, he was ever oft-returning in repentance (to Us)!

    Tafsir Ibn Kathir – Quran 38:41-44

    Ayyub, peace be upon him, got angry with his wife and was upset about something she had done, so he swore an oath that if Allah healed him, he would strike her with one hundred blows. When Allah healed him, how could her service, mercy, compassion and kindness be repaid with a beating. So Allah showed him a way out, which was to take a bundle of thin grass, with one hundred stems, and hit her with it once. Thus he fulfilled his oath and avoided breaking his vow.

    Tafsir Ibn Kathir – Ayyub

    Here’s a question posed online to a sheik…..

    Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 49945

    Mohammed Jamjoom – CNN, May 10, 2009

    If a person gives SR 1,200 [$320] to his wife and she spends 900 riyals [$240] to purchase an abaya [the black cover that women in Saudi Arabia must wear] from a brand shop and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment.

    Saudi Judge Hamad Al-Razine : It’s OK to slap spendthrift wives.

    A man should not be asked why he beats his wife

    Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.

    Abu Dawud 11:2142

    Therefore, he is not accountable to his community nor to God on Judgment Day as to why he beat his wife. In the Middle East, you don’t even call the police if your husband beats you. It is considered disloyal. There are even YouTube videos which instruct Muslim men on how to beat their wives properly.

    A woman would have to be practically dead to even consider calling the police. Although most people say that beating a wife is not good, it seems that it is also understood to be a form of discipline. Thus, women almost have the status of children. I’ll leave it at that."

    Please refute the above article. I will paste your response with your permission to source (if you like)


    By mohd yunus - 8/19/2012 11:07:12 AM



  • Thank you Farheen. I admire your flexible approach.
    By Aiman Reyaz - 8/14/2012 6:34:50 AM



  • A huge round of Applause! 
    A change of opinion: Your thoughts, research, perspective and everything that goes into writing all that you write is not just 'Fine' like i said earlier, but Its really good. And this aint no white lie :)

    By Farheen - 8/13/2012 7:34:28 AM



  • @Miriam It is a problem indeed Miriam, for even God seems to have discriminated against woman as in Genesis 2:16-17 for He “laid this commanded upon the man.... ” only as I understand, and yet punished her as well for not being given the command and having been left out of “the wisdom”. How can it be?
    By Rashid - 5/17/2012 2:22:02 AM



  • Original sin is the problem. Man's disobedience to God, and as a result this emnity between man and woman...he ruling over her, her pains of labor increased. Christ is not a myth. Christ is the restorer to man and to woman. In Christ the original friendship and partnership is restored. One man, one woman devoted to each other permanently in this life, the man to provide and protect as head, the wife his helpmate who he loves as himself, the provider and nurturer of their children. They are gift to each other. The woman is not a piece of property, an object. Woman is the highest of God's creation, the fair sex. Take away the black clothes, and let her wear white that illuminates the hot sun. To the Western women, put your clothes back on. Treat woman as equal, not a piece of property, with love and respect and kindness.
    By Miriam - 5/14/2012 11:57:31 AM



  • @Shahid, I sincerely thank you for giving us this link. I read it, though not page by page and I am actually shocked to know that in 2007, 71% supported Sharia law and 65% supported the caliphate. The other thing that disturbed me very much was the belief in the people that "moderate" is not mainstream and and "moderates" are not a majority. I sometimes feel angry on the extremists, they are the ones who curropt their religion's name and it is the moderates who have to bear the burden of carrying the bad name of their respective religions. Islam says "do not commit excesses in your religion", Buddha said "follow the middle-most path", I am sure other religions too say the same thing so why aren't we following our relion properly? I do not know the perfect answer to this.
    By Aiman Reyaz - 5/14/2012 7:49:23 AM



  • http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/05/dooley_counter_jihad_op_design_v11.pdf
    By shahid - 5/14/2012 1:13:54 AM



  • @ Sadaf, I leave the first half of your comment for Mr Shahin, regarding the last part, I found it profoundly philosophical. "I am not a Muslim because of my birth in a certain family. I am a Muslim because I feel I am a Muslim..." I just loved it, I too feel the same way. You are right,certain people "very religiously follow the ‘non-instruction’ instruction of the Holy Quran". A hadidth says that there will be 73 sects, it does not mean that our Prophet asked us to create sects, infact the Quran says, as you have also rightly said, "Hold to the rope of ALlah and be not divided". The other part of that hadidth reads that out of the 73 sects only one will go to Heaven, the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) asked which one, he replied- 'the one who follows me and Allah'.
    By Aiman Reyaz - 5/12/2012 11:24:24 PM



  • The same thing has been happening to the personality of Jesus Christ (pbuh). There are several book entitled 'Jesus- Man, Myth or God?' Many scholars think that Jesus is a mythical person who never existed because historically no record is to be found. The scholars after analysing the Bible came to the conclusion that in the Bible iteslf crucifixion of Jesus is not clear. Modern scholars like Earl Doherty, G.A.Wells believed that Jesus never existed. ANother famous scholar-philosopher Bertrand Russell too doubted about the existence of Jesus Christ. He gives forward his point of view in a book called, 'Why I am not a CHristian'. ANyways these things will go on and on, we should apply our reasoning and logic.
    By Aiman Reyaz - 5/12/2012 7:37:54 PM



  • Dear Mr. Sultan Shahin Sir, I have a lot to say on this subject and in due course if God permits, I’ll come to it. Today incidentally I am extremely short of time and from tomorrow; I may be quite busy for a couple of weeks. So I thought better to inform this. But as I have few minutes with me at the moment, so here is this. 
    Sir, there are three parts in your comment. First is about how Prophets (Peace be upon them) were raised among non-believers in the time of Jahiliya. Indeed I agree to it totally. 
    Second part is somewhere someone ensured that the Prophet’s personal family be obliterated and then someone benefitted from it. That is also absolutely true. The Prophet’s immediate family did not sink all at once with sinking Titanic, but there was someone or we should say there were some who systematically participated in dislodging them from position of influence and then not let any of them even survive. These were the people whom we should consider Hypocrites, if so far we haven’t been considering them that way. We may not know their names, but we know that they existed among those generations. And who else could benefit (albeit only in worldly sense) in such a power play other than they and naturally thus those who ultimately gained the power, were suspects and progeny of suspects. 
    The third part is about the attitude of present day Arabs and our (Non-Arabs) position with respect to them, then let me say that the attitude of present day Arab is not directly related to the second part, but it is related indirectly in the sense that of course amongst these people exist the progeny of the conspirators having that genetic criminal traits and so it is natural to see its manifestation. I might be sounding very racist to say this, but the truth is that it is Arabs who finished off the family of Prophet so Indian and Malaysians cannot share the blame as a race for doing this. 
    But since the blame is being divided on as large a group of people as a race, then it is almost meaningless. Among Arabs we have and we have had good people too and among Indians and Malaysians we have and we have had bad people. In fact the progeny of bad Arabs too cannot be held guilty of the crime of their fathers or forefathers. Islam doesn’t allow passing on the blame or even credits to progenies and all new born are independent from any blemishes or burden of the past. So that way, present Arabs cannot be blamed for the episode of obliterating the Prophets family or their present crime of supremacist attitude cannot be exaggerated because of the history of their forefathers. 
     However the supremacist attitude itself is a big problem and we can hit on their forehead (very mildly and lovingly in a gentle ‘Islamic’ manner) the Holy Book, that contains that ‘No Arab is in anyway superior than a Non-Arab’ and even though the vice-versa is also true, this statement cannot be downplayed in anyway. 
     An Arab should be told back that your name has specifically been mentioned in Quran saying ‘you aren’t superior’ even as we know that none of us are superior. For an academic interest we may discuss as to why Arab have been pointed out. Is it because they felt superior even then or is it simply because the Quran happened to arise among them? I personally would like to think in the latter way. But even after discounting the fact that Arabs have been named specifically, I as a Muslim do not consider any race superior or inferior than any and this ground is sufficient for me to challenge the superiority that some or many Arabs exhibit. Even the advantage of knowing Arabic doesn’t thus entitle them to interpret Islam their way. The Holy Quran would be interpreted by one and all, but the correct interpretation will not necessarily come from Arab. It would come from the Muttaqees- who believe in being fair, and caring and humble, be it from wherever he comes from. 
    By the way, when we make a case against Arabs, saying their name is there in the Quran and may be even if it is just because it arose among them, that doesn’t mean ‘them and their’ that we discussed means Arabs. The ‘them and their’ is for the people of the world and Quran’s universality over runs all pockets, be it Arab or Non-Arab and that famous line from it is a huge testimony for it. 
     As for Dr. Zakir Nayak, my views are absolutely unambiguous, so I do not need to repeat my words for him, here. About Dr. Yazid, his son, Muawiya 2, had much better to say and who did try to control the damage, but the damage was already done. The moment these names come up, the Shia - Sunni positioning blocks one’s thinking and it begins from there whether to call him Rahmatulah or Laanati . Some people are not satisfied being a Muslim; they want to be a Sunni or a Shia and some people want to specialize even more when they want to be divided even further and find an excuse for that, that the Holy Quran has predicted of 72 divisions among Muslims. However the Holy Quran has not instructed to get divided into 72 divisions, yet so called Muslims but in real, specific sect following individuals very religiously follow the ‘non-instruction’ instruction of the Holy Quran. 
     Sir, when I read a book, or when I watch a movie (long time haven’t watched any and have stopped reading fiction altogether), I always find myself seated at the farthest seat from where I can see not just the reader’s and audience’s heads and the emotion sparking therein but also the writer writing the book and the director directing the movie. I could never imagine that their ‘imaginary’ stories should be taken as anything real even though the writer and director tried their best to make it appear real. I wish you could understand what I am saying. So basically I do not rely on narrations anymore and every story has to fit in its place logically else shunted away till it fits somewhere and every story is just a ‘story’ from some creator who himself/herself has got created by the Creator and in no way he/she is able to cast spell as long as one doesn’t really want to get spellbound. Everyone will be tested and retested again and again for their credibility and the nature of their narration, whether it is fiction or non-fiction. I am not a Muslim because of my birth in a certain family. I am a Muslim because I feel I am a Muslims and I find in Islam that something which many convert-to-Islams have found in it and therefore my interpretation is bound to differ from conventional ones.

    By sadaf - 5/12/2012 4:02:32 PM



  • I think mostly we are in agreement. However, I am just adding my views about the language part. The use of the words “conferred a great favour on the believers in sending a Messenger from among themselves” should not surprise or worse still confuse us. I find the idea is most beautifully expressed in these words as indeed the entire language of the holy Quran is most beautifully expressed.

    While trying to compose verses I used to face a great dilemma of choosing between beauty and absolute correctness of an expression. Finding a balance is a herculean task. In Quran this balance of beauty and correctness is pervasive which is perhaps why there is a general opinion that the language of Quran as coming from the mouth of an Ummi (the Prophet, PBUH) itself is a ‘muajza’.

    That is why Western detractors of Islam are now developing a theory, in the form of Rushdian history of a perverted imagination, that there was no person like Prophet Muhammad, that he was not from Mecca, that a group of scholars wrote the pieces of Quran when the Arab empire was at its zenith and hammered into the consciousness of subjects of the Empire the story of the life of the Prophet etc. After being fed on James Bond farcical stories these fellows are convinced that they can sell any history like the junk American food. I randomly pick up one translation of the verse because all of them convey the same meaning:Wahiduddin khan: Indeed, God has conferred a great favour on the believers in sending a Messenger from among themselves, to recite His revelations to them, and purify them, and teaches them the Book and wisdom, for, before that they were surely in manifest error.

    I would like to recall my explanation of this before in these words, “that Prophets were born at all times and in all races (by the grace of Allah, my statement) and they were a grace to those who became believers thereby.” Actually, the verse here describes a social process. Amongst a group (this group is an abstract, and can be very small in size depending on God’s will of the shape of history He designs, or it can be dynamically expanding in size which can be defined only in retrospect so as to include India Indonesia and Malaysia or anything till eternity, again on God’s will) a prophet is born, his birth marks a precipitation in which the believers are on one side and the non-believers remain on another side (there is no concept of conflict here.

    In my view, this is according to divine plan of the free will God has given to human beings and the evil He has let out in the form of satanic forces. Remember Satan is a creation of God who or which, does not allow men to move towards righteousness. My past writings on the subject like ‘Existence v. Non-existence’ will help understand how all this could be a divine plan). Through this verse, God has informed those who become believers that the advent of a prophet is a grace to them who teaches them what is right to safeguard from the evil. (The corollary is that if a person without the instruction of a Prophet by using his own free-will corresponds his actions and deeds with what God has ordained as good, then such person may be more credit worthy – just a loud thinking - because once a prophet is there around such person is bound to follow the prophet and if he does not then obviously he never belonged to the credit-worthy category).

    Shall I reiterate that this Quranic verse beautifully, majestically and uniquely conveys the idea! Now, if from English translations, I could experience the beatitude of the language of Quran and thereby extract from it a great philosophical message calculated to help the humanity, I wonder why the Saudi Arabs (all the Arabs or only the elites are our targets?), who perhaps know best the original language Arabic of the holy Quran, cannot derive even half of the humanitarian massage? ARE THEY AGAIN IN MANIFEST ERROR? Only an Arab spokesperson can answer or rebut our charge.

    About this khilafat thing, we can have any amount of academic discussion and I don’t mind if we fight a couple of wars more, but this should not be linked with our religious faith, I humbly think. How ridiculous this khilafat business can be is found from the Khilafat Movement of India which even Gandhiji had joined! Struggle for temporal powers though by no means redundant, are quite different from the religious struggle within, to look for righteousness. By the way, did not Zakir Naik apologize for calling Yezid as Rahmatullah Alaih? Is he still spreading this calumny? Are there people in the world who do not condemn Yezid for the heinous crimes he committed? Is even this a contentious issue amongst Muslims?!


    By Manzoorul Haque - 5/12/2012 6:44:08 AM



  • Dear Mr. Sadaf, I am glad you are willing to engage with the questions that arise in our minds while reading the Holy Quran and trying to understand its message. This is the only way to clarify our thoughts and become true believers. God repeatedly asks us to reflect, so it can’t be wrong to ask questions.

    As you know all prophets including ours were raised among non-believers in times of Jahiliya. There would be no point in sending prophets to a good people and believers. Prophets come to preach belief and good behaviour; they come to make us believers and good people. Our prophet (saw) too was raised among people who were disbelievers in the concept of one God and an exploitation-free society. Other societies had already got hundreds of prophets in their history and had been imparted the concept of one God and been asked to conduct themselves in the manner of muttaqees, people who care for the weak, the elderly, the orphan, the wayfarer, the poor and the helpless in their midst, according to the definition of the word in the holy Quran.

    So the word “believers” in this verse could not refer to the Meccans’ quality of belief in one God or their goodness; they did not have any at the time the prophet saw was raised among them. Remember, they were going through a period of Jahiliya. Verses in the Quran directly address and refer to the Meccans and helps them solve their day-today problems of those times. Even prophet’s uncle and protector insisted on remaining a disbeliever until his last breath despite the prophet saw own imploring to him to convert at least at the last moment. 
    However, in the time of Prophet Mohammad (saw) himself, Medinans also benefited from Islam, indeed shed their blood in its cause.  They were already familiar with the concept of one God and the message of practicing taqwa, as they had a large number of Jews in their midst. So, like Medinans of that time, we non-Arabs too can benefit from the message of Islam, even though we have had many prophets in our midst before Prophet Mohammad (saw).

    But we must remember that after the Prophet Meccans did not allow Medinans to become Khalifas, even though they were the ones who actually protected the infant religion of Islam at the time that the Meccans were determined to destroy it at any cost. Even today the Meccans, who must be referred to today as Arabs, as that distinction is no longer valid, do not consider non-Arabs equal to themselves. Ask anyone who has had the misfortune of living among them. You serve them and what they consider “their” religion for a hundred years, they will not even give you so much as a residence permit in “their” land while they preach to you a message which says all land belongs to God and all people are one. And this is true not only of Saudis, but all Arabs. They tell you that if you want to be a Muslim you try and become as much of an Arab as possible, you should pray in Arab-style mosques, wear Arabs beards and Arab dresses, which were meant to protect them and their women from sandstorms.

    However, the moot question is: could they be right? Is it possible that they understand the Arabic language of the Holy Quran better than us? Are they correct in looking at us with contempt when we try to appropriate “their” prophet whom God raised among “them” primarily for “their” guidance? I used the expression “our prophet saw” a little while ago. But am I right in doing so? Let us not forget, the Quraish of Mecca did not even consider Ansars of Medina as their equal. They butchered the Prophet saw’s family mercilessly and called the killer Yazid rahmatullillah. The Saudi launched televangelist Zakir Naik does that even today in front of millions of his viewers and apparently wants us to do the same. They do not want us to poke our noses in their “internal” affairs, killing the prophet’s family members, accepting the killer and his progeny as their lord and master and still calling themselves Muslim and so on.
     
    I am truly glad, Mr. Sadaf, that unlike most Muslims, you are prepared to engage with questions that arise in your and other people’s minds. Obviously you truly believe that God is rahman and rahim who has asked us to think and reflect and then accept anything and not just become muqallids of our ancestors. Remember the prophet saw did not do so. He spent hours, days and weeks at a stretch, sitting in a little cave and reflecting on questions that bothered him in his ancestral religion and once he found the answers he was not afraid of blaspheming his ancestral gods.


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/11/2012 9:08:04 PM



  • Apologize, previously I have used Moshin Khan version, now is in Yusuf Ali’s version. Without the use of Bukhari, Quran in Yusuf Ali forbids husbands to deal with women harshly or evil. The following is the extract:
    An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #19, “ ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.”
    As the phrase, You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, is mentioned above, Allah certainly forbids men to force women that dislike them to be their wives since this is against their will. The phrase, Nor should ye treat them with harshness, above includes the harshness against women that these include wives by means of beating them or maltreat them and to the extent to cause them to bleed. The phrase, live with them on a footing of kindness and equity, as mentioned above certainly demands husbands to show kindness to their wives. As husbands need to show kindness to wives, should husbands beat wives then?
    Quran demands muslims to treat wives good instead of beating them. The following is the extract:
    At-Talaq, Chapter #65, Verse #6, “Let the women live (in 'iddat) in the same style as ye live, according to your means: Annoy them not, so as to restrict them. And if they carry (life in their wombs), then spend (your substance) on them until they deliver their burden: and if they suckle your (offspring), give them their recompense: and take mutual counsel together, according to what is just and reasonable. And if ye find yourselves in difficulties, let another woman suckle (the child) on the (father's) behalf.”
    As the phrase, annoy them not, is mentioned above with the phrase, the women (in ‘iddat), it demands men not to annoy those divorced women that would depart from their houses. As it mentions the phrase, annoy them not, do you think Quran permits muslims to beat them till they swollen and illtreat them? The subsequent extract is, if they carry (life in their wombs) then spend (your substance) on them until they deliver their burden, implies that husbands have to concern their wives and it certainly forbids them to treat wives harshlyly. The phrase, take mutual counsel together according to what is just and reasonable, implies that husbands have to listen and to accept the mutual counsel from their wives and to deal with it in a just and reasonable way instead of evil way.
    Quran mentions that those husbands do evil deeds by means of torturing them and burn them without repentance will have their end in the torment of hell. The following is the extract:
    Al-Burooj, Chapter #85, Verse #10, “Those who persecute (or draw into temptation) the Believers, men and women, and do not turn in repentance, will have the Penalty of Hell: They will have the Penalty of the Burning Fire.” The phrase, those who persecute…women and do not turn in repentance, as mentioned above could refer to those husbands that persecute the Believers, women, and these could be their wives by beating them and torturing them without any repentant heart. Their destiny is spelt out in the subsequent phrase, They will have the Penalty of the Burning Fire.

    By zuma - 5/11/2012 5:53:37 PM



  • While reading it, I could not sense that the 'them and their' are for Arabs. It sounds to me as if it is about the people in general. I wonder what makes it seem to Dear Mr. Sultan Shahin, like it is about Arabs? "The Prophet (saw) was “a favour upon the ”believers” when He raised up in “their” midst an apostle from among “themselves” to convey His messages unto “them” and to cause “them” to grow in purity and to impart unto “them” the divine writ as well as wisdom."

    I guess for an impartial reader, the people of the world are divided into three. One who are good, one who are bad, and one who are indifferent or can say, unaware or even undecided of what is good and what is bad- the 'can't say' people. The good are termed as believers, the bad are unbelievers,and 'can't say' types are general 'them'. What is good and what is bad is outlined in Quran and decided by someone who is not a 'person' whom one can dispute with asking why it is your idea of what is good and what is bad that one should accept. It may sound oversimplistic because it is about making Islam easy dot com.


    By sadaf - 5/11/2012 2:42:07 PM



  • Without the use of Bukhari, Quran in Yusuf Ali ‘s translation demands man or woman to work righteously in the family. The following is the extract:
    1)An-Nahl, Chapter #16, Verse #97, “Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has Faith, verily, to him will We give a new Life, a life that is good and pure and We will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions.”
    As the phrase, works righteousness, is mentioned in An-Nahl, Chapter #16, Verse #97 with the phrase, man or woman, it certainly forbids unrighteous deeds in the family, such as, husbands beat wives or slaughter them to death.
    2) At-Talaq, Chapter #65, Verse #6, “Let the women live (in 'iddat) in the same style as ye live, according to your means: Annoy them not, so as to restrict them….”
    As the phrase, Annoy them not, is mentioned above with the phrase, women live (in 'iddat), do you think Allah encourages men to beat women?
    Quran in Yusuf Ali’s translation does not demand husbands to be men of evil to beat their wives until swollen or even to slaugther them as they like. The following is the extract:
    Maryam, Chapter #19, Verse #28, "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"
    As the phrase, a man of evil, is mentioned here with the phrase, Thy father, it demands a husband to be a man of good so as to treat women well instead of men of evil so as to beat the wives to become cripple.
    Quran in Yusuf Ali’s translation demands husbands and wives to work righteous deed. The following is the extract:
    Ghafir, Chapter #40, Verse #40, "He that works evil will not be requited but by the like thereof: and he that works a righteous deed - whether man or woman - and is a Believer- such will enter the Garden (of Bliss): Therein will they have abundance without measure.”
    Do you think it is a righteous deed for a husband to anyhow beat his wife without reason?

    By zuma - 5/11/2012 8:08:24 AM



  • Without the use of Bukhari, Quran in Yusuf Ali ‘s translation does not promote violence in the family. The following are the extracts:
    1)An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #128, “If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best;…”” (Yusuf Ali Translation)
    The phrase, If a wife fears cruelty…on her husband’s part, in the above extract could refer to the wife that has the fear that husband might illtreat her. The suggestion that has made in the phrase above is to An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #128, “…arrange an amicable settlement between themselves…” When there is an amicable settlement or peace to be introduced between them, beating or violence would disappear in the family. Thus, Quran promotes peace in the family instead of violence.
    2)Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #223, “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah…”
    As the phrase, do some good act for your souls beforehand, is mentioned in Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #223 after the phrase, Your wives…approach…when or how ye will, it implies that muslims have to show good act for our souls to the wives. As muslims should show good acts to them beforehand, the above verses certainly discourages husbands to beat their wives.
    3)Al-Ahzab, Chapter #33, Verse #6, “The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers….”
    Do you think the Prophet would beat his wives when he mentioned that his wives were his mothers? Certainly not! Instead, he would respect them as if they were mothers.
    Allah does not permit violence between husband and wife even if they divorce.
    Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #229, “…A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold Together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness…” As the phrase, separate with kindness (instead of with violence or hatred), is mentioned in the above extract, it demands husbands to divorce with wives in kindness instead of in violence, i.e. wives beating.

    By zuma - 5/11/2012 7:42:03 AM



  • It seems New Age Islam will milk me dry of all that I know. On the word “believers”, – ‘all translators quoted here are agreed’ – appears to be right conclusion. But, “seems to refer only to Meccans or maybe to Arabs at most” 
    ALL TRANSLATORS QUOTED HERE ARE AGREED (if it is suggested) – then I doubt because it would not be a fair conclusion. Rather from the Islam that I have learnt in the family-fold, the correct interpretation would be, the same time-weathered idea that Prophets were born at all times and in all races (by the grace of Allah, my statement) and they were a grace to those who became believers thereby. Here the verse is not even referring to a single prophet at all, so how could this verse be limited to Saudi Arabia is not fathomable? However, I think the criticality lies elsewhere. The question ‘What happens to us Indians and Chinese and all’ is suggestive of the issue being linked to a larger question, which in fact has been magnified by, may be the Arabs by their attitudes (But I am not sure whether all the Arabs are such a despicable lot. If it is their stated national policy that they are superior like the Nazis, then I am the first to slap them. However, if I am a servant of an Arab Sheikh and am pinching good money from under the nose of the fool, I would rather accept all his hyperboles. We, as two individuals, are on even wickets in our own ways.) 
    I do not think we have to be a part of “them” in a national sense. If they have become rich because of petrol, we should not grudge them either. If you go to Mayo College in Ajmer, you see a plaque outside a building donated by one of the princes of Arab world, the plaque describing the poverty in which the Arab prince had lived amongst the rich princes of India before the discovery of oil. This way wealth and prosperity of nations keep changing. If we see purely form the economic advantage theory - Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran have enjoyed much more from the advent of Islam (as custodians of Islam. Please do not mix it with the custodian of the Holy Mosques). Mecca and Medina rather remained in cold storage (or hot storage, because of the warm weather) except for the opportunities derived from the Hajj. Answer to these questions - Does this also explain why Saudi-funded priests insist that we should be wearing Arab dress, we should look like Arabs and different from our compatriots, our mosques should be built in the Arab architectural style, and so on? – the reply is a resounding, no. Can we then put ourselves in the category of “believers”? Yes, we have been putting ourselves so, over ages. Where were these rustic nomads of Saudi Arabia in the past nearly 1300 years? 
    History proves that Islam was meant for us all. Now the final question: Are we merely victims of Abu Lahab and Abu Sufyan family’s Arab imperialist project that is being carried on today by the Saudi royals in the name of Islam? This question is serious and is becoming popular being advanced by the West after facing moral defeats at the hands of Muslims, and the potential material defeat at the hands of China, India and Russia etc (In any case present ruling family of Saudi has no historical link with either of the two lineages mentioned). One book of Tom Holland on the subject is under discussion on this website. There is another book under circulation in US whose name I shall not mention. The common theme of both books is to show Islam as the project of Arab Imperialism, and the arguments advanced are at their tendentious best. What tenacity these fellows have to degrade Islamic ideology whose main historic role quite obviously is to address the Human Question of the Known World – then and now. For academics sake, supposing God had chosen Siberia or Malaysia to graft his last Words, there would still have been some Abu Lahab and Abu Sufiyan families –known by other names – and may be with more messy results (entirely God’s privilege how He enjoys seeing us humans). 
    On the other hand, I have read detailed reasons given by Islamic scholars, to explain why Islam was best planted in Arabian soil and by secular scholars to elucidate how the conditions were ripe for the historical emergence of Islam in Arabia. However, good to see that anti-Islamists have given these issues a pride of place in the evolution of civilization, which perhaps is a part of the divine play.

    By Manzoorul Haque - 5/11/2012 6:41:01 AM



  • @Zuma Mohsin Khan uses Sunnah because I think he is trying to propagate the Wahabi Islam and not just Islam. By the way you should read your comments once again, specially the latest one. You said "If the word, Sunnah, should not be in the book of Quran, why should Mohsin Khan's translation indicates a number of time the word, Sunnah, or the phrase, the Sunnah of the Prophet?" Let me ask you a very simple question, who mentioned "Sunnah"?

    Mohsin Khan, a human; not Allah. So don't we just follow what Allah tells us to follow. Who are we, humans to put or add or mix in God's word? And the second point is, do you think Mohsin Khan is irrefutable and that he cannor be corrected? May be you have not read my comments. Ok give me one reason why Hadidths should be considered as from Allah, as you have been indirectly claiming in so many comments? If that satisfies me then I will accept, but if it does not satisfies me then I will give you numerous reasons why Hadidths are NOT from God. Please do not think I am rude.


    By Aiman Reyaz - 5/11/2012 12:45:46 AM



  • Mr. Zuma: Your comments are worthy enough to be read, but it hurts when You miss to add (saw) or (pbuh) precisely even, to the name of the prophet Hazrat Muhammad (saw). Generally I, maybe others too, appreciate your comments and read the quotations carefully, but please think about our sentiments.
    By Raihan Nezami - 5/11/2012 12:23:11 AM



  • @Reyaz: Your Urdu teacher, I think, was at fault not to tell you that Allah Kareem says in the Qur'an, concerning His messengers, " And assuredly, We have sent amongst every people a messenger (proclaiming),'Worship Allah (alone) and avoid Taghut (false deities)'" (16:36). In the light of the present Aayat, it is not possible that the message and bliss of Allah didn't reach to the people living in the Arctic, Antarctica and jungles etc. 
    So, you are absolutely correct as Allah has sent revelations through His messengers to the entire mankind for guiding us to the divine and righteous path.

    By Raihan Nezami - 5/11/2012 12:07:09 AM



  • If the word, Sunnah, should not be in the book of Quran, why should Mohsin Khan's translation indicates a number of time the word, Sunnah, or the phrase, the Sunnah of the Prophet?

    I would raise the same question as I have raised before as below:

    Would there be any possibility that the words of hadith would have existed at the time of the life-span of Muhammad and yet it was only compiled 2-3 hundred years after the demise of Prophet Muhammad? The same is for Quran that it would have been existed at the life-span of Muhammad and yet it was only compiled after the demise of Muhammad?

    Those that would not accept the book of Hadith should at least place in the bookself instead of mocking it or burnning it in case if this book is really the book of Allah despite there are some queries.
    By zuma - 5/10/2012 8:17:18 PM



  • This is my opinion. Quran is the words from Allah and all muslims have to treat the book of Quran with high. As muslims should treat it with high respect, muslims should not sit on the book of Quran or to tear the paper out to wipe windows or etc. since at least our heart is right since we give high respect to the book of Quran even though the book itself does not mention it. So, we should neither use the book of Hadith to disprove Quran as Quran is the word of Allah.

    Now, there is an uncertainty whether Hadith is really the words from Allah. What if the book of Hadith is the words of Allah, muslims should give respect of the book. If some would be against the teaching of the book, at least they should keep it without reading it instead of using the paper to wipe windows or to sit on the book of Hadith or to burn it since muslims have to give respect of it in case if this book is really from Allah. If some muslims would quote the book of Hadith for right purpose, it is irrational for any muslims to be against it since at least we give respect of it.

    What if Hadith is not really the words from Allah, there is no problem for all muslims to destroy it. However, if this book is really the words from Allah, we have to give respect of it. We have to consider also the consequence of punishment from Allah if Hadith is really from the words of Allah and yet some muslims would burn it and mock it.

    As there is an uncertainty whether the book of Hadith is from Allah, it is best to treat if with high reverence instead of condemning it. If you feel that the book of Hadith should not be used, at least leave the book on your own self with some respect instead of burning it or mocking at it.

    By zuma - 5/10/2012 7:52:08 PM



  • @Shahin, I never thought of this verse like this. This verse refers to the few "believers" of the Mecca and Medina because this chapter was revealed during the early Medina period, its exact number chronological order being 89, as far as I can remember it. Anyways you have highlighted a very important point. The same thing came to my mind my mind, once I asked my Urdu teacher, (it was 3 years ago)' what will happen to people living in the Arctic, Antarctica, jungles etc where no message of Islam has reached?' He replied that they will all go to hell. You can imagine my shock. ALlah is "most gracious" and "most merciful" and this act does not appear to me as such. Regarding Indians, Chinese, European, in short the non-Arabs; we too have been given revealations and prophets, which the Quran describes in several verses.
    By Aiman Reyaz - 5/10/2012 7:41:13 PM



  • The question of how the Quran was compiled is crucially important. Many people have said that it is a mixture of what is of eternal relevance and what was relevant at a particular time in a particular place. If the best brains amongst us can separate the two, it may be a great help to us.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/10/2012 3:56:44 PM



  • Islam must cut its umbilical cord from Arabia and become a universal message of peace, justice, reason, compassion and learning. As such Islam will have easy comradeship with other faiths and philosophies which share those values.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/10/2012 3:27:51 PM



  • But, to my mind, Mr. Aiman Reyaz, rather than concluding this discussion in a very positive manner, Mr. Manzoorul Haque’s comment, particularly the verse from the Holy Quran he has quoted raises another very contentious issue.

    As all the translators appear to agree on the meaning of the verse, this question becomes unavoidable.  Here the word “believers” – on which all translators quoted here are agreed – seems to refer only to Meccans or maybe to Arabs at most. The Prophet (saw) was “a favour upon the ”believers” when He raised up in “their” midst an apostle from among “themselves” to convey His messages unto “them” and to cause “them” to grow in purity and to impart unto “them” the divine writ as well as wisdom.”

    Now, where does this leave us Indians or Chinese or Europeans or Americans who are not and are not going to become part of “them”? Can we then put ourselves in the category of “believers”? Was Islam meant for us at all? Are we merely victims of Abu Lahab and Abu Sufiyan family’s Arab imperialist project that is being carried on today by the Saudi royals in the name of Islam? Does this also explain why Saudi-funded priests insist that we should be wearing Arab dress, we should look like Arabs and different from our compatriots, our mosques should be built in the Arab architectural style, and so on? Are the Arab rulers of our minds simply being kind to us, knowing as they do that in order to be put in the category of “believers” that we desperately want, we will need to be Arab, if not Meccan? Can we, however, become Arbas?


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/10/2012 1:34:16 PM



  • @Haque, I agree with you and I thank you for your beautiful commment. I believe your comment concludes this discussion in a very positive manner.
    By Aiman Reyaz - 5/10/2012 9:34:37 AM



  • Would there be any possibility that the words of hadith would have existed at the time of the life-span of Muhammad and yet it was only compiled 2-3 hundred years after the demise of Prophet Muhammad? The same is for Quran that it would have been existed at the life-span of Muhammad and yet it was only compiled after the demise of Muhammad?
    By zuma - 5/10/2012 8:36:32 AM



  • Zuma (apparently, unless his identity is known to the editor), is a farcical name and so he need not detain us here. His time is over. He was trying to validate (or invalidate) Quran with the help of Hadith, whereas Hadith flows from Quran and cannot be used to question the former. The following translations are given which to any student of language mean one and the same thing and whose meaning has nothing to do with a book of Ahadith which was to be compiled some 200 years after event, by a gentleman from Bukhara. Mr. Zuma please back out.
     Malik: Allah has done a great favour to the believers that He raised among them a Rasool from among themselves, reciting to them the Revelations of Allah, sanctifying them the Book and Wisdom, although before this they were in manifest error. 
    Asad: Indeed God bestowed a favour upon the believes when He raised up in their midst an apostle from among themselves to convey His messages unto them and to cause them to grow in purity and to impart unto them the divine writ as well as wisdom – whereas before that they were indeed most obviously lost in error. Yusuf Ali: Allah did confer a great favour on the believers when He sent among them an Apostle form among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs of Allah, sanctifying them, and instructing them in Scripture and Wisdom, while before that they had been in manifest error."
     Pickthal: Allah verily hath shown grace to the believers by sending unto them a messenger of their own who reciteth unto them His revelations, and causeth them to grow , and teacheth them the Scriptures and wisdom, although before (he came to them) they were in flagrant error. 
    Wahiduddin khan: Indeed, God has conferred a great favour on the believers in sending a Messenger from among themselves, to recite His revelations to them, and purify them, and teaches them the Book and wisdom, for, before that they were surely in manifest error. 
    Now I find Mr. Sultan Shahin has felt tempted to join in the fray (could not control himself, it seems. Long back I had requested him to keep away from this website because his is also the controller of the site). Nevertheless, let me inform him that this temptation is too great for me too and the kind of personal loss New Age Islam is inflicting on me is nobody’s business - by keeping me (away) from all other businesses of my life. 
    The point that he has raised is a bomb that I shall not touch with a bargepole. I promise to not write back again on the issue except making my own personal stand clear here once in the following words. If these words have the effect of numbing the bomb, well and good, else I stand by my promise. My reference is to Alex Haley’s, “Roots” from where I have learnt that in eastern Africa (close to Arabian peninsula) there was a long standing tribal tradition of memorizing the history of village along with genealogy of the village men, by great memory experts, in a manner not even possible to imagine, by today’s computer-savvy man or boy. This was also teamwork in that if one narrator got tired blurting out, the other would pick up the thread and proceed. If even one-tenth of what Haley has described as their cultural practice, is true, I have no doubt that Quran could have been memorized by not one, not two but many a Sahabas and accuracy maintained by collective recitation. 
    I hope you agree that the preservation a book is best guaranteed by Allah by a sound memory. However, the tradition of writing was also there. And I think you have already answered why Hazrat Usman had to burn some of the badly written pieces with obvious mistakes. Whereas memorizing can be a collective affair, wherein collective recitation can correct the contents, the act of writing cannot be a collective affair and to maintain the correctness of a book it is necessary to destroy the pages that were incorrect. We have to remember that there were no computer printers those days and each book was a standalone piece. What the Khalifa Usman ® did was to authenticate one piece of book, which became the standard book for other calligraphers to copy. Of course, the memorizers were always there to cross check. I therefore believe every word of Allah is preserved in its original pristine glory as promised by Allah Himself.

    By Manzoorul Haque - 5/10/2012 8:03:21 AM



  • Correction-I am still doing the same thing. I urge you to do the same, question the authority and do acquiesce unless you get... Regarding Quran's compilation and it being burned down and destroyed. The Quran was revealed in Arabic language, in the Quraishi dialect, there were 6 other dialects in Arabia, I guess and Quraishi being the best. Each dialect had a slight difference with the other and the RECITATION was different. The other manuscripts were burnt to avoid the different versions of the Quran. 
    The only version left was that of the Quraishi dialect, the one in which it was revealed. When the prophet got the revelations he repeated them and everything was documented on paper and saved and memorised by his relatives and friends. He also had the entire Quran memorised. When Uthman, the third Caliph in Islam, compiled the Noble Quran, he did not determine the numerical order of the Noble Chapters and the Noble Verses. The entire Noble Quran was already documented and memorized. 
    Chapters from the Noble Quran were recited by our Prophet peace be upon him at least 5 times a day during the Muslims' five-daily prayers. Also, the Noble Quran was recited during the month of Ramadan, as it is still done today. Allah Himself guarantees that this is the Book which He hath sent and He will guard it from corruption, ch 15, v 9. After the death of Prophet, Islam started to expand in the Middle East region. Not only the People of the entire region didn't have the same dialect, but also they had different languages. The languages that were spoken in the region at that time were Arabic (with its 7 dialects), Persian, Assyrian, Hebrew and some Greek. All of these languages are quite different from each others. 
    As the Muslims expanded through the entire region, which is thousands of squared miles in area, the Noble Quran was documented at different places with sometimes different languages and Arabic dialects as well. Islam mostly spread throughout the region during the first two Caliphs, Abu-Baker, and Omar. They were mostly concerned with spreading Islam to the people of the entire region and never had the time, nor the ruler ship (since Islam wasn't quite spread throughout the entire region until toward the end of the second disciple's time) to unify the Noble Quran or the teaching of the Noble Quran with one dialect in recitation and spelling. When Uthman (the third disciple) came, Islam was pretty stable in the region, and he had ruler ship to implement the Quraishi dialect among all the Arabic speaking people in the entire region, and to teach them the Noble Quran through that dialect only.

    By Aiman Reyaz - 5/10/2012 7:30:47 AM



  • Does Islam allow wife beating?
    Yusuf, Chapter #12, Verse #25, "...She said: "What is the recompense (punishment) for him who intended an evil design against your wife, except that he be put in prison or a painful torment?"" As the phrase, (punishment) for him intended an evil design against your wife, in the above extract discourages husbands to have evil design, i.e. beating or torture his wives for his pleasure or even to slaughter her.
    The extracted verse below encourages husbands to act righteously from among their wives and it certainly discourages husbands to beat wives since how the wives could be treated righteously when their husbands keep on beating them:
    “r-Rad, Chapter #13, Verse #23, "Adn (Eden) Paradise (everlasting Gardens), which they shall enter and (also) THOSE WHO ACTED RIGHTEOUSLY FROM AMONG their fathers, and THEIR WIVES, and their offspring. And angels shall enter unto them from every gate (saying): “
    Quran encourages husbands and wives to make peace between themselves. As there is peace between husbands and wives, it will certainly avoid wives beating or violence against them. The following is the extract:
    An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #128 , “And if a woman fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no sin on them both if they make terms of peace between themselves; and making peace is better...”

    By zuma - 5/10/2012 7:12:47 AM



  • @Zuma, I failed to fully understand your latest comment. Anyways the things that I was able to understand, I disagree with you. Sir as stated by Mr Shahin, Hadidiths were written 2-3 HUNDRED years after our Prophet's death and NOT just 2-3 years. 
    You write "It has been speculated that Sahih Bukhari is not from Allah" I do not know, maybe you think that Bukhari is from Allah, let me tell you that Allah has given us minds to THINK and differentiate between good and bad, right and wrong. What about the things that are bad and unscientific portions? Will you ascribe these things to Allah, i hope not. You also say "The above are all the possibilities as I was not born at that time and so, I do not know how Hadith be compiled 2-3 years after the demise of Prophet Muhammad" that means you will not agree to anything unless you have got the proof of it. Right? 
    I do not want to win a debate; I have respect for you because you, as i have already told you, are good with the knowledge of the books. I only want to give you one suggestion, if i may, that think before you choose, be it anything, even religion or religious books. We must use our brains more often. Thinking is very important. Just a couple of years back I did not think about religious matters, i accepted whatever was told to me or whatever i read. then I realised that it is not good, i must think about metaphysics and try to question the authority. I am stil doing the same thing. I urge you to do the same, question the authority and do acquiesce unless you get a totally satisfactory answer. Thank you

    By Aiman Reyaz - 5/10/2012 6:04:02 AM



  • Mr Zuma, Hadees was compiled 2-3 hundred years after the demise of the Prophet, not 2-3 years after the prophet (SAW), as you write.

    Indeed the Holy Quran was itself not compiled then. It was compiled in the period of the third khalifa Hazrat Usman, raziallah ta'ala anha. Indeed, this is itself a mystery why the prophet saw didn't get the Quran compiled in his lifetime. Didn't he and Allah not want to preserve the book? There were several surahs written down by mostly illiterate Arabs in that period differently and Hazrat Usman had to get them burned, yes, verses of the Holy Quran copied in the Prophet's time by our salaf burned down and destroyed, some are said to have even survived.

     

    Hadees began to be compiled after the born enemies of Islam took over Islam and had to rule according to their whims but in the name of Islam. In order to create larger and larger distance between Islam and Muslims, they created two institutions: the Hadees and the so-called ulema. Both these institutions have served and continue to server anti-Islamic rulers of Muslims throughout our history.


    By Sultan Shahin - 5/10/2012 5:14:15 AM



  • Hadith was compiled 2-3 years after the demise of Prophet Muhammad. Could there be any possibility that Hadith and Quran might have existed at the time when Prophet Muhammad was here and that, hadith was not in a complete book? Or in other words, could there be any possibility the Hadith was written randomly and not in order and yet it was then compiled by muslims as a whole book 2-3 years after the demise of Prophet Muhammad? Could there be any possibility that Hadith would have existed at the time of the life-span of Prophet Muhammad and just that it was few pieces with a person and another few pieces with other people and these were then compiled and combined into a book 2-3 years after the demise of Prophet Muhammad? The above are all the possibilities as I was not born at that time and so, I do not know how Hadith be compiled 2-3 years after the demise of Prophet Muhammad.
    By zuma - 5/10/2012 2:38:47 AM



  • If the phrase, scripture , in Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #164 in Yusoff Ali translation, refers to Quran, the phrase, and wisdom, should refer to the book other than Quran alternatively. It is irrational to assume that both the words, scripture, and, hadith, refer to the same book of Quran. This is due to when both the words, scripture, and wisdom, for Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #164 in Yusoff Ali translation are to be replaced with the word, Quran, the whole paragraph in Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #164 would turn up to be:

    "Allah did conferr a great favour on the believerrs when He sent among them a messenger form among themselves, rehearsing unto them the signs of Allah, sanctifying them, and instructing them in QURAN and QURAN, while before that they had been in manifest error."

    Now a question has to be raised: Why should the extract paragraph seems to mention two times Quran instead of one. It seems very weird to me unless one of the word does not refer to Quran but alternative.

    It has been speculated that Sahih Bukhari is not from Allah. It is rational to abandon Sahih Bukhari on the condition that it is not from Allah. What if Sahih Bukhari is from Allah despite many words in it seems unacceptable to some muslims, the rejection of it would cause trouble among muslims when they would meet Allah one day. Be it good or bad, it is depending how all the muslims to deal with Sahih Bukhari.

    If all the muslims make the right decision, it is alright when they meet Allah one day. If some of them have made the wrong decision, it is too late when they have met Allah one day in the future.

    By zuma - 5/10/2012 2:22:47 AM



  • @Zuma I do not agree with :"Sahih Bukhari, Book #89, Hadith #255, “…A man whom ALLAH HAS GIVEN wisdom (knowledge of the QURAN and the HADITH) and he acts according to it and teaches it to others". This reminds me of the Bible, in the New Testament on several occasions it is mentioned that 'Jesus went to the garden and taught the Gospel', 'he went to the mountain and taught the Gospel'. 
    I am asking was Jesus carrying the Book under his arm? Was he? No. whatever God commanded him to say, he said and THAT is the Gospel. Similarly you quote Bukhari, nay SAHI Bukhari "A man whom ALLAH HAS GIVEN wisdom (knowledge of the QURAN and the HADITH) and he acts according to it and teaches it to others." IN the bracket you mention knowledge of the Quran and the Hadidth. I know and you may also be knowing that Quran was being compiled during his lifetime, in front of him, so he had the "knowledge" of the Quran but was the HADIDTH present there? the answer is NO, an emphatic NO. It was compiled 2-3 centuries after our Prophet's demise. He was the wisdom, not the HADIDTH. But again I wish to tell you that if you do not agree with me then please correct me as I think that you are quite strong with the books.
    By Aiman Reyaz - 5/10/2012 1:21:46 AM



  • @Zuma, I was also pondering about the phrase 'scripture and wisdom', I too thought that wisdom could be the Sunnah but I think it is not so because of the grave errors that some of the SAHI Hadiths contain, there are many things that I cannot say in public, its authenticity is questionable. SO I believe that the word 'wisdom' does not refer specifically to the Sunnah of our prophet.I interpret this phrase as the wisdom that Muhammad (pbuh) was, as Allah says in the Quran that Muhammad is a noor. And I also interpret it by including all the previous revelations of Allah as wisdom. Allah says in Surah Nisa, I guess "O ye who believe, believe in Allah and His messenger, and the scripture which He has sent to His messenger and the scripture which He has sent to those before him and any who denies Allah, His angels, His BOOKS, His MESSENGERS, and the day of judgement has gone far astray'. So wisdom could be previous revelations and previous Messengers.

    By Aiman Reyaz - 5/10/2012 1:12:15 AM



  • @Zuma, I too have the translation of Muhammad Taqi-uddin and Muhammad Muhsin Khan, but I do not use it because I somehow feel that the commentary highlights the Wahabi ideology. You may think that I am juvenile but it is my personal opinion. Ok I see that you have quoted correctly but I want to ask you in all humulity about your first comment. You wrote "Allah not only gave the book of qur’an for our instruction, but he also gave the book of Sunnah of the Prophet to us". The article was about wife beating and Islam, were you trying to say that both in the Quran as well as in the Sunnah wife beating is not approved of? Please explain. Thank you, by the way my name is AIMAN REYAZ.
    By Aiman Reyaz - 5/10/2012 12:15:33 AM



  • If hadth is really from Allah and yet all muslims would reject this book. There would have severe punishment among muslims if that is so. If the hadith is truly from Allah, the extract below would give a strong support that Allah wishes us to know that hadith is truly his words that muslism should not despise.

    Sahih Bukhari, Book #89, Hadith #255, “…A man whom ALLAH HAS GIVEN wisdom (knowledge of the QURAN and the HADITH) and he acts according to it and teaches it to others."

    Read carefully the words in capital letters above and consider it whether to abandon.
    By zuma - 5/10/2012 12:01:16 AM



  • Do you see my logic? If hadth is really from Allah and yet all muslims would reject this book. There would have severe punishment among muslims if that is so. If the hadith is truly from Allah, the extract below would give a strong support that Allah wishes us to know that hadith is truly his words that muslism should not despise.

    Sahih Bukhari, Book #89, Hadith #255, “…A man whom ALLAH HAS GIVEN wisdom (knowledge of the QURAN and the HADITH) and he acts according to it and teaches it to others."

    Read carefully the words in capital letters above and consider it whether to abandon.
    By zuma - 5/9/2012 11:57:50 PM



  • Do you see my logic? If hadth is really from Allah and yet all muslims would reject this book. There would have severe punishment among muslims if that is so. If the hadith is truly from Allah, the extract below would give a strong support that Allah wishes us to know that hadith is truly his words that muslism should not despise.

    Sahih Bukhari, Book #89, Hadith #255, “…A man whom ALLAH HAS GIVEN wisdom (knowledge of the QURAN and the HADITH) and he acts according to it and teaches it to others."

    Read carefully the words in capital letters above and consider it whether to abandon.
    By zuma - 5/9/2012 11:53:20 PM



  • Airman Reyaz, I have noted your extract is from Yusuf Ali and the following is
    your extract:

    "Allah did conferr a great favour on the believerrs when He sent among them a messenger form among themselves, rehearsing unto them the signs of Allah, snactifying them, and INSTRUCTING THEM IN SCRIPTURE AND WISDOM, while before that they had been in manifest error."

    The phrase, scripture and wisdom, in Yusoff Ali consists of two items despite there is no mentioning of Sunnah and there are: one is scripture and another is wisdom. If scripture in this extract refers to Quran, there is a possibility that the word, wisdom, refers to the alternative book and that could be hadith.

    Bear in mind that Mohsin Khan-English does contain the phrase, Sunnah of the Prophet, instead of other translations

    If hadith is really the book of wisdom from Allah, the intention to remove or to discard hadith would seriously be against Allah in which it is not permissable. Ultimately the people would receive severely punishment from him.

    The extract from Yusof Ali that mentions that those that reject the revelation from Allah would receive punishment:

    Az-Zumar, Chapter #39, Verse #25, "THOSE before them (also) REJECTED (REVELATION), and so THE PUNISHMENT CAME TO THEM FROM DIRECTIONS they did not perceive."
    By zuma - 5/9/2012 11:44:22 PM



  • Airman Reyaz, The extract of Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #164, that I have submitted previously is from from Mohsin Khan-English translation.

    By zuma - 5/9/2012 10:51:36 PM



  • Airman Reyaz,

    Read the words that are highlighted in capital letters as follows:

    Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #164, "indeed ALLAH conferred a great favour on the believers when He sent among them a Messenger (Muhammad ??? ???? ???? ????) from among themselves, reciting unto them His Verses (the Qur'an), and purifying them (from sins by their following him), and INSTRUCTING THEM (IN) the book (the QUR'AN) AND Al-Hikmah [the wisdom and THE SUNNAH OF THE PROPHET: ??? ???? ???? ???? (i.e. his legal ways, statements, acts of worship)], while before that they had been in manifest error."
    By zuma - 5/9/2012 10:42:36 PM



  • @Zaara, I still remember your last comment and you have still not responded to it. You had said that "Muslims do terrorist activities..." and I had disagreed with you and said that a true Muslim or a tru Hindu or a true Christian will never indulge in terrorist activities, I am still waiting foor your reply. Regarding this comment of yours I again disagree with you. You say that by "going through the Quran" all our problems will be solved or they will have "apt solutions". First of all let me bring this to your notice, all over the world the book that is being read the most is the Quran, yet you find that majority of the Muslims are down in the dust, even though they"go through the Quran". Secondly only reading is not enough and earning 10 sababs per leter is not enough, understanding and most importantly implementing on its teaching is. So again I have to disagree with you, although you liked my article so this makes it even more difficult for me to disagree with you. ANyways I hope that this time you will respond. Thank you
    By Aiman Reyaz - 5/9/2012 7:56:18 PM



  • @Zuma, I checked your reference but unfortunately I could not find 'Sunnah' mentioned there. This is what is mentioned: "Allah did conferr a great favour on the believerrs when He sent among them a messenger form among themselves, rehearsing unto them the signs of Allah, snactifying them, and instructinng them in Scripture and Wisdom, while before that they had been in manifest error." If I am misquoting then please correct me and make sure you tell me about the 'sunnah' that you mentioned in the verse. By the way I took the quotation from Yusuf Ali.
    By Aiman Reyaz - 5/9/2012 7:48:31 PM



  • Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #164, “…allah… instructing them (in) the Book (the qur’an) and…the Sunnah of the Prophet… (i.e. his legal ways, statements, acts of worship)],…” The phrase, the Book (the qur’an) and..the Sunnah of the Prophet…, as extracted above implies Allah not only gave the book of qur’an for our instruction, but he also gave the book of Sunnah of the Prophet to us.
    By zuma - 5/9/2012 10:20:55 AM



  • another good effort! I dont have much information about shariya and democracy and to compare them with islamic ideologies but all i can say is that to know the real islam just theres a simple and perfect way and that is- go through the Holy Quran and all your problems wil definitely have apt solutions and i can bet on that though i dont like betting.
    By Zaara Urouj Haider - 5/9/2012 9:17:31 AM



  • @Taj Hashmi I congratulate you for bringing a wider view on the verse. @Sadaf, I wish to reiterate what you have written in your second comment. I too want our sisterss to comment more on this and related subjects.
    By Aiman Reyaz - 5/8/2012 1:28:32 AM



  • I find Ahmed Ali's translation of the Quran very interesting. Ali was an Arabic scholar and a Pakistani diplomat. His translation came from the Princeton University Press. The way Ahmed Ali translated the verse (4:34) makes sense to me. He has differentiated the Arabic word meant for "obedience" between "obedience to Allah" and "obedience to one's superior". The term used in this verse implies "obedience to Allah". Ali has trasnlated the term "darraba" not as "beating" but "when the he camel shrouds the she camel or copulation". Consequently the verse means when your wife is disobedient to Allah then admonish her, separate her bed and then have sex with her if she obeys Allah (period). Take care! Taj Hashmi, Author of Women and Islam in Bangladesh: Beyond Subjection and Tyranny (Palgrave-Macmillan, New York 2000), Clarksville, Tennessee, US
    By Taj Hashmi - 5/7/2012 9:17:54 AM



  • Dear All, those wishing to explore further are invited to visit "Wife beating in Islam? the Qur'an strikes back" here: http://www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html
    By Mubashir - 5/7/2012 8:43:00 AM



  • May I request our sisters Sonika Rahman and Kahkashan and others to participate more and let these male chauvinists understand that women can think on their own and have their own mind on matters pertaining their faith. Religion cannot remain monopolized by men, at least not by foolish among them who just have the advantage of physical strength. Religion is not where physical power is required. Religion is not 'Akahada/Dangal'. To understand religion it requires brain (wisdom) as well as heart (sensitivity) and definitely not muscles (power).
    By sadaf - 5/7/2012 2:42:55 AM



  • Islam hasn't spoken anything about whether Pluto is a planet and should be treated as such or is not a planet and hence needs to be treated otherwise. But Ask Dr. Zakir Nayak and he will explain why Pluto should be considered and treated one way and why not the other way and how the same has been mentioned in Quran ayah number something, something, surah number something, something, and not just there but in Vedas and puranas also mention this which Hindus do not understand because Muslims are intellectually superior because they eat cows brain.
    By sadaf - 5/6/2012 3:24:34 PM



  • Few days back an article was published in New Age Islam, ‘Why is New Age Islam So Critical of the Ulama?’ New Age Islam is not critical of the Ulama because it represents 21st century Muslim’s perspective and aspirations. After going through such videos one normally says that these kinds of ‘Honurable Ulama’ are making a mockery of Islam and with their rote learning of religious text they are making the Muslims a laughing stock. We have to keep in mind that we cannot generalise these samples to all Ulama, but this is really high time for Ulama to rethink.
    By Sonika Rahman - 5/6/2012 2:44:07 PM



  • If Islam allowed wife-beating, should we beat our wives?

    Do we need religions to tell us that we should not beat our wives?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/6/2012 12:55:07 PM