certifired_img

Books and Documents

Debating Islam

403 - COMMENTS

  • Salam

    It is an arduous task to read the entire article, here are my two cents on some issues raised. On the lawfulness of Sea Animals, dead or alive, there is a clear quranic injunction that they are halaal.

    The other issue is about prohibition of blood. This too has been qualified by quran as the 'flowing blood'. In both above matters the narration reported from the Prophet can be considered as what this general prohibition and permission mean.

    For those who say that Salah is not detailed in quran and that the one already was in practice shall be followed will have to prove how what was being done in a salah. And it is ironic that they are willing to extract something from the era of Ibrahim but not willing to follow what is the invariable practice of Salah. Earliest people, for instance in India, came to Kerala. And people in Kerala offer salah as many times as any of us and exactly same way (now don't catch my word 'exact').

    The people who say that everybody should read and understand quran go against the quran which clearly instructs the prophets to teach. With a book, you need a teacher. Only few extremely talented can say tehy don't need a teacher. The Prophet is a teacher.

    The correct attitude is not to discard the whole reports in the books from scholars but to sort good from bad and while doing so one must not be biased and pick, as has been stated by many in the discussion in this thread, but to discern. 

    If there is no book from the past then all history from anyone should be rejected not only Islamic but other. As has been said by someone, the history is written by the victorious. Every book of history available is open to question even if it relates to event of recent past.

    Wassalaam

    Khalid
    By Khalid Faridi - 10/20/2014 4:49:49 AM



  • Ghulam Ghaus sahebغلام غوث - 8/12/2014 11:16:54 PM
    my previous comment was not proper.
    it should be does the violent verses in the Bible old or new justify the violent verses in the Quran and violent sayings in Hadith books.
    First you will not agree that there is something violent in the Quran and hadith though there are. that is why those verses need to get contextualize which all moderates are doing.
    another point anything done by the prophet will not be considered violent even if it is, because you believe whatever he did was right. It is a matter of your faith. you will not put it on stake at the cost of honesty and critical analysis because these two things are not known to belivers.
    1. Do you agree the bile contains violent verses?
    2. if yes, why?
    3. The Quran is uncreated and undistorted as it is preserved in the Loh e mehfooz. why the Bible was not protected? was it not the word of God? Why Allah allowed it to get distorted? Does Allah discriminate his words?
    If the Quran is uncreated, where the question of context arise?
    i hope you will give answers to these questions leaving none as you are an Alim Fadhil and i am not.




    By rational moahmmed yunus - 8/13/2014 12:47:53 AM



  • No, Mr Rational. In fact, there is no violent verse in the Quran and Hadith.. By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/12/2014 11:16:54 PM



  • Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/12/2014 saheb7:48:29 AM
    do the violent verses justify violence in the Quran and hadith?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/12/2014 9:13:17 AM



  • No offense no defence and when no defence no question no doubt and no confusion. We should not let the former take place.

    Allah Almighty knows the best. Even if we apply our mind and thus we find a principle of Jurists that when two Ahadith are different in meaning we should follow the one which is according to the nature of the Quran and Hadith, that is undoubtedly peace and leave the other if its meaning or context is different and unclear.    

    May Allah Almighty save the entire Ummah from the agenda of Terrorists who through their actions and some enemies of Islam who by their theory are burning midnight oil to discredit sometimes the holy Quran and sometimes the holy Hadith. By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/12/2014 8:08:11 AM



  • Terrorists have no basis to wage what is termed as “offensive Jihad”. There is no concept of offensive Jihad in Islam. Offensive attitudes cannot and should not be called Jihad. Jihad was and is only for defence. Great Jurists unanimously prohibit offensive attitudes during Jihad. Jihad cannot be done by any organization or any group of individuals, rather it is done on a state level, but only when there is no chance left for saving the country except for fighting for defence and fighting for restoring peace and security in the country.  

    But as far as criteria of defensive war is concerned, an Islamic country should not kill women, children, priests etc. To prove this point, there is a special chapter including many Hadees from Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim given below. But what about the Hadees that makes some exceptions to killing women and children in the state of defensive war, provided it is not deliberate, the very idea has been discussed in the following article:

    The Prophet Prohibited the Killing of Women and Children

    By Bassam Zawadi

    There are so much hadith where the Prophet condemned the killing of innocent women and children during time of war that it is impossible to deny them.

    Saheeh Bukhari

    Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.

    Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

    Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.

    Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

    Saheeh Muslim

    Book 019, Hadith Number 4319.

    Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.

    It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He disapproved of the killing of women and children.

    Book 019, Hadith Number 4320.

    Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.

    It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children.

    Sunan Abu Dawood

    Book 008, Hadith Number 2663.-----------------------------

    Chapter : Not known.

    Narated By Rabah ibn Rabi' : When we were with the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) on an expedition, he saw some people collected together over something and sent a man and said: See, what are these people collected around? He then came and said: They are round a woman who has been killed. He said: This is not one with whom fighting should have taken place. Khalid ibn al-Walid was in charge of the van; so he sent a man and said: Tell Khalid not to kill a woman or a hired servant.

    Maliks Muwatta

    Book 021, Hadith Number 008.

    Section : Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

    Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that a son of Kab ibn Malik (Malik believed that ibn Shihab said it was Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kab) said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade those who fought ibn Abi Huqayq (a treacherous jew from Madina) to kill women and children. He said that one of the men fighting had said, 'The wife of ibn Abi Huqayq began screaming and I repeatedly raised my sword against her. Then I would remember the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so I would stop. Had it not been for that, we would have been rid of her.'"

    Book 021, Hadith Number 009.

    Section : Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

    Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi from Ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saw the corpse of a woman who had been slain in one of the raids, and he disapproved of it and forbade the killing of women and children.

    Book 021, Hadith Number 010.

    Section : Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

    Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq was sending armies to ash-Sham. He went for a walk with Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan who was the commander of one of the battalions. It is claimed that Yazid said to Abu Bakr, "Will you ride or shall I get down?" Abu Bakrsaid, "I will not ride and you will not get down. I intend these steps of mine to be in the way of Allah."

    Then Abu Bakr advised Yazid, "You will find a people who claim to have totally given themselves to Allah. Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves. You will find a people who have shaved the middle of their heads, strike what they have shaved with the sword.

    "I advise you ten things| Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly."

    The Prophet made some exceptions to the Killing of Women and Children

    Saheeh Bukhari

    Volumn 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 256.

    Narated By As-Sab bin Jaththama : The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle."

    Saheeh Muslim

    Book 019, Hadith Number 4321.

    Chapter: Permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided it is not deliberate.

    It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.

    There are many possible meanings for these Hadith. I was kind of surprised when I read it at first. But we don’t know the EXACT situation or what the Prophet truly meant. Maybe, maybe THOSE particular women and children were planning to fight against the Muslims with the enemy.

    Maybe the Muslim army just could not have blown this chance to attack the enemy that they still had to attack them no matter at what cost in order to stop the risk of more bloodshed (do a little bad for the greater good).

    The very fact that the companions of the Prophet asked the Prophet's permission shows that the Prophet used to be strict regarding his prohibition on the killing of women and children. However, when a situation arises and there is no choice, things could get ugly. The Prophet even forbade the cutting down of palm trees in war, however during the siege of Banu Nadir the Prophet had to make an exception. So exceptions do arise unfortunately.

    Imam Ibn Hajar Al Asaqalani says in Fath Al- Baari that the point is not to target the women and children intentionally but if there is absolutely no other way to kill the enemy than by injuring the women and children because they are mixed with the men then there is no other choice. (Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=4747)

    Another possibility is that the hadith has been abrogated and that even if women and children accompany the enemy during war then they still should not be killed. (See http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=4747 for the evidence)

    Imam Nawawi says in his tafseer of Saheeh Muslim that women and children are only killed only if they cannot be distinguished. But because it was so dark and they could not be distinguished, the Muslims had not choice. (Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=1&Rec=4215)

    The tafseer of Abu Dawud says the same thing here (Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=4&Rec=3291)

    Killing of Women and Children According to the Bible

    If Muslims ever get any trouble from a Christian that says Islam advocates for the killing of innocent women and children then give him a taste of his own Bible.

    1 Samuel 15:2,3

    2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

    Numbers 31:17,18

    17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

    Deuteronomy 20:16

    16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.

    URL for this article: http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/did_prophet_muhammad_kill_innocents.htm

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/12/2014 7:48:29 AM



  • Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - saheb 8/12/2014 12:27:58 AM

    Is every Hadith (not fabricated) worth to practice irrespective of time and place?
    By rational moahammed yunus - 8/12/2014 2:16:30 AM



  • Dear Jonathan,

    After mentioning the hadith texts taken out of context, why not to discuss passages from the Bible:

     

    Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

    [Numbers 31:17-18]

     

    And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.

    [Ezekiel 9:5-6]

     

    And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent. And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it. But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD.So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

    [Joshua 6:17-21]

     

    Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

    [1 Samuel 15:3]

     

    Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

    [Hosea 13:16]

     

    Alhamdulillah, Islaam truly is a religion of mercy!!! Many "Judeo-Christian" countries of the West are meting out these acts of pure savagery and then covering their deeds and then put the spot-light on a few bands of wrong-doers in the Muslim world. We won't forget Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Bosnia or anywhere else where such Biblical verses wereimplemented, and the UN just sat there and watched.

     

    Look at Islaam however. We're totally prohibited from these heinous crimes, yet we are told that in an event that there happens to be women and children in a place under attack, that it doesn't need to be held back because of their presence. On the other hand, in the Bible we read that infants should be diced and slashed?

    By Vijay Khanna - 8/12/2014 2:13:07 AM



  • Can this hadith narrated by Imam Bukhari be a saying attributed to the Prophet of peace, Muhammad (peace be upon him)?

     

    Narrated Anas bin Malik:


    Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik,

    "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

    Sahih Bukhari 1:8:387, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:2:24


    By Shahul Hameed - 8/12/2014 2:02:15 AM




  • Please see below the hadith texts which are the root of today's Jihadist terrorists:


    “The Prophet was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." Bukhari (52:256)

    In this hadith, Prophet is seen as the one who establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Jihadist terror bombings.

     

    Similarly, one more hadith reported by Imam Bukhari says: “The Prophet said, 'He who fights that Allah's Word, Islam, should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause.” Bukhari (52:65)

     

    These hadith words are the basis for offensive Jihad, spreading Islam by force. This is how it is understood by the jihadist terrorists of today.


    By Jonathan


    By Jonathan - 8/12/2014 1:45:19 AM



  • I will discuss the role of Mutazila, early Kharijites and modern orientalists in discrediting the institution of Hadees, but in free time. Today a few people who call themselves Muslims have not applied their own minds, following in the footsteps of Mutazila, early Kharijites and some of modern orientalists in order to discredit the authoritativeness of Hadees. 

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/12/2014 12:40:07 AM



  • I must defend every Hadees, if it is. I never call the fabricated one “Hadees”. Actually you are still confused at the definition of Hadees. Let me tell you that fabricated sayings are never Hadees among the scholars of Hadith. They say it just metaphorically.

    Let me also tell you that I believe in every Hadees of our holy prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and not the fabricated Hadees. Like many so-called Muslims, I do not discredit Hadees just for whims and the so-called desires of the world. I fear I have to be accountable to Allah Almighty.

    I believe in every Hadees if it is not fabricated, but you seem to disbelieve in every hadees even if it is not fabricated.

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/12/2014 12:27:58 AM



  • Ramesh,

    My question is quite pertinent. I need  to understand on what basis you are asking such a question which appears preposterous to me. 


    By Observer - 8/11/2014 5:50:41 AM



  • Secular Logic,

     

    You are missing the point and the woods for the trees. Let me repeat what I said:

      

    The problem with revisionist history is that it focuses entirely on the negatives completely ignoring the positives. While such listing of all the negatives may be factual and accurate, it does not present a complete and holistic picture. In a thousand year history, one can collect an impressive list of all the negatives to fill tomes.

    There are two periods – pre 1967 and post 1967. The Jews before 1967 saw no wrong. The revisionists after 1967 see nothing right. I could have quoted the pre 1967 historians who saw no wrong but I chose Cohen because he is consciously trying to reconcile between the ‘romantics’ and the `revisionists’. The two paras that you quoted from Cohen is the most he could do to justify what the revisionists say. The rest of the article is a negation of the two paras that you quoted. The revisionists even when they are 100% right, represent only 1% of the truth, if you take the cumulative experience  of the Jews as the base. For example, number of Jews who faced persecution multiplied by period in years  vs aggregate of the lifespan of each Jew for the Islamic period. If this is 0.2%, then the fact that the Jews were persecuted cannot be denied but the fact is also that in totality, this was insignificant. For this reason, Jews in Islamic areas do not have a collective memory of persecution whereas they have it as far as Christendom is concerned.

    Bernard Lewis book is post 1967 and also Cohen’s book. Lewis may have taken a balanced view like Cohen or could be a revisionist or you may be selectively reading the few paras that make you happy. It is easier to deal with a complete book or article or a summary of the book. Summary statements are easily recognizable for example those that I quoted from Cohen’s book. Cohen’s article is a complete article which contains both the negatives and the positives.

     

    By Observer - 8/11/2014 5:41:55 AM



  • Observer,
     Pl answer my question. Instead you are raising another question to evade answering my question. 
    By ramesh - 8/11/2014 5:16:19 AM



  • Also, if you are willing to tear yourself away from Mark Cohen, there is an extract from a book by Bernard Lewis that you may find instructive if you don't do selective reading. Now wish me bon voyage. :)

    http://books.google.co.in/books?id=c0S4lOyfKSYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Norman+A+Stillman+Subordinance+and+Dominance&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GXnoU9G6Jojh8AXm94LIDw&ved=0CEwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
    By secularlogic - 8/11/2014 3:41:43 AM



  • Mr Observer: You wont let me pack in peace :) I read the Mark Cohen article on NAI yesterday afternoon, when your comment had not even been posted. I read your comment today morning. But I dont want to make an issue of that.

    Your persistence in denying any persecution at all prompted me to search for this document that I had read two days ago. Here is an interesting article by Mr Cohen for you. Pages 145-164. 

    He lists periods in which there is documented evidence of persecution of non Muslims including Jews by Muslims, but he says that though Jews wrote many liturgies about persecution at the hand of Christians, they are surprisingly subdued when reporting persecution at the hands of Muslims. As if they have accepted their fate. One even goes on to blame the persecution on a Jew because he was not "humble" before the Muslims. Which means that was the expected behavior for survival. He says there are many yet unstudied works of literature which might fill this gap. I do hope you read this and make your opinions on this issue more balanced.

    http://books.google.co.in/books?id=i-82PgsJJDIC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=mark+cohen+on+islamic+persecution+of+Jews&source=bl&ots=p0LP6C7Idg&sig=9IWJdwAF2PyZ07MaEm28yqqxybw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=L3HoU7yjMo7i8AWaloLgBg&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=mark%20cohen%20on%20islamic%20persecution%20of%20Jews&f=false
    By secularlogic - 8/11/2014 2:55:40 AM



  • Observer's in-depth study and arguments on different subjects are fantastic and laudable and I read them with great interest but  perhaps being muslim, he often tries to justify several non-defensible principles and acts of  muslims like Ghaus saheb who will go on defending every hadees without logic and merit. Quotations as many as one likes can be collected  from history for either side but logic should be the main critera to arrive at a decision. I find secular logic more logical in his arguments than others in defence of pagans and jews. These arguments and counter arguments will definitely enlighten the readers on NAI and several may change their inherent biases against others.

     
    By Mohd Abis - 8/11/2014 1:42:28 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    And the remaining paras negate what is said in the first 2 paras which means that the actual conditions experienced for 99.9 % of the time were as described in the remaining paras. Cohen is trying to reconcile with the revisionists version which totally focuses on the negatives alone and saying in effect that while there is truth in what they say and these things happened, it was more as an exception rather than the rule.

    The article was published in NAI after my comment.
    By Observer - 8/10/2014 11:50:44 PM



  • Mr Observer, 
    You need not have copied the Huffington post article. It is already on the NAI website and I have read it. The first few paras of the article itself provides indication of the inferior status of Jews under islam. In case you have missed it, I will provide a copy paste of the copy paste.


    1. The idea of a so-called Golden Age, a Jewish-Muslim interfaith utopia in Islamic Spain and elsewhere in the middle ages, has rightly been called a myth: it overlooks the inferior legal status of Jews during that time and glosses over episodes of conflict and hardship. 

    2. In the premodern Muslim world Jews, like all non-Muslims, were second-class subjects, but they enjoyed a considerable amount of toleration, if we understand toleration in the context of the times. ........There were deficits to being a dhimmi. The head-tax was often collected in a humiliating manner to symbolize the superiority of Islam, and it was burdensome for the poor. Special sartorial rules, originally intended to distinguish the majority non-Muslims from the minority of Muslim conquerors, could spell danger when exploited by hostile Muslims to identify and mistreat them. Protection, moreover, could be rescinded if dhimmis exceeded their humble position. This could happen, for instance, when a dhimmi rose to high office in Muslim government, violating the hierarchy that placed Muslims on top.


    I view this treatment of non-Muslims as an abomination, though you think it is a benediction. And now you will have to excuse me. I am travelling tomorrow. We will resume hostilities after I return. 

    By secularlogic - 8/10/2014 9:51:31 PM



  • Dear Ramesh,

    Speak for yourself. Have you been forced/induced to convert?
    By Observer - 8/10/2014 1:14:27 PM



  • observer,
    If the conquest of india by islamic rulers is unislamic, the resultant forced/induced conversions are islamic or unislamic?
    By ramesh - 8/10/2014 3:39:16 AM



  • Ramesh,

    The conquest of India by the so called Muslim rulers itself was un-Islamic leave alone everything else.


    By Observer - 8/9/2014 1:19:12 PM



  • Prophet drove out pagans of mecca fom kaaba since he wanted different forms of worship. This although the pagans were the original worshipers of kaaba even before the birth of prophet himself. If prophet wanted to give better form of worship he might have easily built another shrine in mecca itself and asked his followers to go the new shrine. Instead he prefered military takeover. In observer's view this is fully justified. If we extend this logic, if few people get converted in ant temple town, that temple can be taken over and converted into mosque. Probably this logic was implemented in the case ramjanmabhoomi, krishnajanmabhoomi ,kashiviswanath temple takeover  etc by islamists. Earlier i thought that demolishing these temples by  moghul rulers were unislamic. Now after reading observer's justification of kaaba takeover by prophet i think it is very much islamic.  It is such view of moderates that gives  fodder to islamic extremism. Hence moderates are equally responsible for islamic violence. By ramesh - 8/9/2014 12:27:20 PM



  • The problem with revisionist history is that it focuses entirely on the negatives completely ignoring the positives. While such listing of all the negatives may be factual and accurate, it does not present a complete and holistic picture. In a thousand year history, one can collect an impressive list of all the negatives to fill tomes. The following is a balanced article which touches on the favorite subject of Secular Logic of the dhimmi status and the inferior position of non-Mulsims. While this is mentioned and was fact, it was not clearly a fact for all and for all times and in all places since the remaining part of the article negates what one may come to expect from the implications of the inferior status of the dhimmi.

    When Jews and Muslims Got Along

    Mark R Cohen

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-r-cohen/when-jews-and-muslims-got-along_b_4964469.html

     

    The hostile relations between Israel and the Muslim world make one wonder if Jewish-Muslim relations were ever amicable. The idea of a so-called Golden Age, a Jewish-Muslim interfaith utopia in Islamic Spain and elsewhere in the middle ages, has rightly been called a myth: it overlooks the inferior legal status of Jews during that time and glosses over episodes of conflict and hardship. But to say that Muslims have always persecuted the Jews, and that anti-Semitism in the Arab-Muslim world today represents a continuation of fourteen centuries of oppression, would be just as wrong--indeed, a counter-myth.

    In the premodern Muslim world Jews, like all non-Muslims, were second-class subjects, but they enjoyed a considerable amount of toleration, if we understand toleration in the context of the times. They were a "protected people," in Arabic, dhimmis, a status that guaranteed free practice of religion, untrammeled pursuit of livelihood, protection for houses of worship and schools, and recognition of communal institutions--provided that able, adult males paid an annual head-tax, accepted the hegemony of Islam, remained loyal to the regime, and acknowledged the superiority of the Muslims.

    There were deficits to being a dhimmi. The head-tax was often collected in a humiliating manner to symbolize the superiority of Islam, and it was burdensome for the poor. Special sartorial rules, originally intended to distinguish the majority non-Muslims from the minority of Muslim conquerors, could spell danger when exploited by hostile Muslims to identify and mistreat them. Protection, moreover, could be rescinded if dhimmis exceeded their humble position. This could happen, for instance, when a dhimmi rose to high office in Muslim government, violating the hierarchy that placed Muslims on top.

    On the plus side, Islamic society was a pluralistic mosaic of different religions and ethnic groups and Jews were not the only marginal group. Moreover, as the smallest of the minority groups, Jews were rarely singled out for special attention. In Latin Europe, by contrast, Jews constituted the only non-conforming religion (heretics were considered bad Christians), and accordingly suffered more frequent and severe persecutions.

    Jews enjoyed a vibrant cultural exchange with Islam. At its beginnings, Islam drew some of its inspiration from Judaism. Later on, Judaism was creatively enriched by contact with Islam, notably in the fields of law, medicine, science, poetry, and philosophy. Jewish intellectuals, of whom the illustrious Maimonides is but one example out of many, imbibed Arabic and Islamic cultural values and exchanged knowledge with Muslims in friendly, interdenominational settings.

    Where we have evidence of everyday life in the middle ages, most famously, the first-hand documents discovered in a medieval synagogue in Old Cairo known as the Cairo Geniza, we are able to observe the Jewish population-at-large going about their daily lives, just as deeply embedded in Arab society as the great intellectuals. Apart from the dhimmi tax, they suffered little of the discrimination prescribed by Islamic legal theory. They bore Arabic honorific names (forbidden in Islamic law) dressed any way they liked with impunity. In violation of Islamic prohibition they read the Qur'an (in Hebrew transcription). They owned and enjoyed reading other books from the Arabic literary bookshelf (we have inventories of the books Jews owned). They maintained synagogues that were obviously constructed after the rise of Islam (in contravention of Islamic law). And, with rare exception, their communal institutions functioned without unwanted government interference. 

    Jews often had recourse to Muslim religious courts to register contracts and litigate business disputes, and even for matters of personal and family status. They received fair treatment before Muslim judges, who honored their testimony under oath (though Islamic legal theory disallowed it). Jews' confidence in the Muslim judicial system continued down to modern times.
    Jewish merchants operated freely in the Islamic marketplace, traveling between places as far from each other as Spain and India, enduring no greater risk or danger than the average Muslim trader. They formed bonds of trust and friendship with Muslim colleagues and even established business partnerships with Muslims, circumventing restrictions on mixed partnerships inscribed in Islamic law.

    The infamous massacres and forced conversions in North Africa and Spain in the mid-twelfth century by the Muslim Berber dynasty of the Almohads, regularly cited by counter-mythologists as an example of Muslim anti-Semitism, were directed not at Jews, but at dhimmis as a group--including Christians--and even nonconforming Muslims.

    Anti-Semitism, understood properly as an irrational belief in the inferiority and even nefariousness of Jews, arose in medieval Europe in the twelfth century in the form of the myth of the diabolical, all-powerful Jew who murders Christian children to reenact the crucifixion and uses the victim's blood for ritual or medicinal purposes. This myth was embellished with racist hatred in modern times (when it first came to be called "anti-Semitism").

    Such irrational, anti-Semitic beliefs are not found in classical Islam. They were imported into the Middle East in the nineteenth century on the heels of European colonialism. An early example is the famous blood libel in Damascus in 1840, regularly, though wrongly, cited as proof of homegrown Muslim-Arab anti-Semitism.

    Anti-Semitism increased in the Muslim world as Arab nationalism (itself imported from the West) came into conflict with Jewish nationalism. Today, it uses Islamic sources, from the Qur;an and the hadith, but this is only an "Islamized" version of its western, Christian model, giving the erroneous impression that it is rooted in classical Islam. This, in turn, helps fuel the historical counter-myth of Islam as an intolerant, violent, anti-Jewish religion.

    The great French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs wrote that collective memory is fashioned by the social frameworks of human experience. Changing social frameworks, especially the intensification of Arab-Israeli animosity, have caused many Jews to reject the more favorable interpretation of Jewish-Muslim relations and caused many Jews from Arab lands to replace memories of friendships with Muslims with a selective, bitter memory of enmity, exclusion, and persecution. In many ways this is a transplanted version of the bitter memory of Christian Jew-hatred and of the Holocaust that haunts Israelis and diaspora Jews when faced with the prospect of having to trust Muslims. Muslims need to be aware of this; anti-Semitism in an Islamic mode is, simply stated, politically unproductive.

    An awareness by both Muslims and Jews that they were not born to hate one another, and that there once was a time when Jews and Muslims actually coexisted in a creative and mutually enriching manner, might promote confidence on both sides of the seemingly unbridgeable gulf.

    Mark R. Cohen is an emeritus professor of Jewish history in the Islamic world at Princeton University and contributing editor of A History of Jewish-Muslim Relations.

     

    By Observer - 8/9/2014 12:03:15 PM



  • No Mr Observer, I am not interpreting him. Neither am I quoting him. I am summarising him, after reading articles and book extracts available online. He has indeed said that the Jews were accorded Dhimmi status, and that he has come across letters and reports of Jews travelling to Palestine from Europe reporting that 'galut' here is less oppressive than that found in Europe. Similarly, he has quoted written accounts of Jews residing in the Islamic kingdoms who speak of "galut". Since I read several articles and book extracts that google threw up to reach this conclusion, it will be very difficult for me to go back and search for the relevant material again so I can quote it to you. I am not inclined to go the whole trouble again, as my own curiosity is now sated.

    As regards your admiration for the Dhimmi status, I think you should launch a movement demanding Dhimmi status for Muslims and other minorities in India, with all the attendant perks and privileges. Its a wonderful thing, really.
    By secularlogic - 8/9/2014 10:26:24 AM



  • Secular Logic,

     

    You are not quoting Cohen but interpreting what he said. Quote him if you want to attribute anything to Cohen. We do not need Cohen to tell us whether or not non-Muslims enjoyed dhimmi status or had to pay Jiziya. Does he say that these made the non-Muslims second class citizens or was something that was resented?

     

    In your eyes dhimmi is second class citizen. In Islam he is "protected citizen" without an obligation for military service for which he pays "Jizya". For you jizya is humiliation, in Islam it is only a tax in lieu of obligatory military service for only males capable of military service. There is no jizya for the disabled, the old, the very poor, the females, the children and for the monks. Why would monks and females be exempted if it was a tax for being non-Muslim?

     

    Indeed, very few of the historians have looked upon Jizya with distaste or as humiliation except the revisionists after 1967.  I agree however, that it was turned into something distasteful in the 12th century or later, in a few places.


    By Observer - 8/9/2014 2:59:12 AM



  • Mr Observer,

    Upon your recommendation, I have read several articles by Mark Cohen on the subject. He testifies that the Jews, along with other non Muslims, were accorded the Dhimmi status - effectively, a second rate citizen who enjoyed protection upon payment of jizya and freedom under certain conditions to practice their religion. The pact of Umar, which specified discriminatory social practices, has also been testified to by Mark Cohen. Mark Cohen also says that the Jewish writers of that period testify that they lived under 'galut' oppression. I am not making this up. Though Mark Cohen does present a picture that the Jews lived tolerable lives under Islamic rule with spradic episodes of violence, the general conditions, he agrees, were those of inequality. But he does not comment upon it negatively because, he says, that was the accepted norm at that time. Even Jews did not expect to be treated equally, given the contours of Islam. So they were OK with what they got, migrating when it appeared that things may be better elsewhere. All this is freely available on the net. You may want to satisfy yourself with a google search. 

    Ramesh, I don't know. Maybe the scholars here can answer that one. 
    By secularlogic - 8/9/2014 1:31:59 AM



  • Dear SL/Observer,
     Two different views exist on muslims leaving mecca in the initial days.
    1. they were driven out by meccans
    2.prophet left mecca to medina on his own accord as he did not hav eenough follwers at mecca. Which is correct? any evidence to which is correct?.
    By ramesh - 8/8/2014 11:49:34 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    You say "it is accepted" - by whom?

    You talk about your links - one is jewish and the other is wikipedia with the topic  "Persecution of Jews". Wikipedia is open source. Who will contribute to an article with such a title except those motivated to contribute or the revisionists?

    Cohen is right when he says "many people have used the myth that Jews were mistreated under Muslim rule to bolster their political standpoints".  Ever wondered why would he call their mistreatment a myth? 

    By Observer - 8/8/2014 10:33:31 AM



  • Mr Observer,
    Why are you getting agitated?

    It is accepted that when Muslims gained power in the middle east, they imposed Dhimmi status on the people of the book, including Jews. In one of the links, I have given information of how they were also humiliated in other ways. They had to wear identification badges, they could not own slaves, they could not grieve for their dead audibly, their women had to wear shoes of different colours and with bells on them to identify them as Jewish, they could not bear arms, they could not hold official positions, etc etc....a long list that can make life quite unpleasant for a self respecting person. That the Jews accepted such a life without demur is because they were weak. The option was getting killed. For me, this is a form of persecution though you view this treatment as a benevolent arrangement. The conditions could induce people to migrate to other lands. Only the other lands proved much worse. The Muslim treatment of Jews only looks better in comparison; not in an absolute sense. Even your precious Mark Cohen says that.

    When Jews started immigrating to Israel in large numbers, there wasn't a plan to segregate the two populations. The Palestinians could not countenance the changing demography, and I do understand their chagrin. Nobody likes to cede space. Everybody is not noble like India, who hived off two parts of the country to make exclusive countries for Muslims. But lets say I sympathise with the Jews more for what they have suffered for centuries. Israel was a natural choice for them to call their own country. Where were they going to go? Antartica? Like Indian Hindus accepted Pakistan, why can't Palestinians accept Israel as an inevitable development in the course of history? They ARE being given money by the westerners to build their country. They are misusing it. 

    As for the Muslims - if they had not preached against the existing religion, cursed their Gods, declared their faith to be the only true one, maybe they wouldn't have been driven out of Mecca. Has that struck you? Will you harbour in your home a person who keeps cursing your religion day in and day out or will you ask him to leave?

    Muslims see this as injustice to them. I don't.
    By secularlogic - 8/8/2014 9:54:55 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    You again talk about Muslim rulers driving out Jews when no Jew has ever said that they were driven out by the Muslims. You are more revisionist than the Jews themselves!

     The Palestinians  have to pay according to you for the collective guilt of the rest of the World although the Muslims or the Palestinians have done no wrong.  Israel's intransigence for implementing  an amicable single nation or two nation solution and its atrocities to prevent any solution also meets with your  approval. The Palestinians are responsible for what is happening to them since they are resisting or fighting.  The Jews also resisted the persecutions and there were more than 100 armed Jewish uprisings in Germany alone. Thank God, nobody blames them from bringing on the holocaust. The Palestinians be damned - they are Muslim and don't deserve the same consideration!

    If the pagans had not fought, persecuted, driven out the Muslims, barred them from entry into kaba etc., they would never have met the same fate either. The Muslims were also Meccans and with equal rights. They were not foreigners. Might is right was OK for the pagans but the Muslims reclaiming their rights with full justice is not OK! It wasn't just the fighting that the pagans indulged in but treachery also. 

    When the Muslims  tried to perform umrah in 628, they were stopped. A totally one sided treaty was executed for a period of 10 years. According to the treaty the Muslims had to return but could come back the following year to perform pilgrimage. The close companions of the prophet were livid with the humiliating terms of the treaty especially as they were strong enough to defeat the Meccans and perform the pilgrimage the same year. This would have been an aggressive war and the Prophet preferred an amicable treaty instead. The Muslims performed the pilgrimage the following year as per the terms of the treaty. When the Muslims were treacherously killed by the Meccans violating the treaty, war became permissible according to the terms of the treaty. The Muslims entered Mecca in battle gear and took the city without  a fight. They could have done the same thing 18 months back when instead, they preferred a treaty.

    If the pagans had respected the terms of the treaty, Mecca would  never have been taken. The treaty was for 10 years and even beyond that, a war of aggression would have been avoided for the same reason it was avoided in the first place. The humiliating (to the Muslims) and one sided terms of the treaty emboldened the pagans to act recklessly thinking that the Muslims who could not even negotiate proper terms for themselves, were  weak and could be trifled with. They brought about their own downfall and nothing was done without justice.

    I can understand your sympathy with the Meccans. They were trying to protect their turf and could use all means - fair or unfair, right or wrong. I can also understand why they acted the way they did, but what the Muslims did was with right on their side and with justice.


    By Observer - 8/8/2014 9:16:48 AM



  • What are you talking about. In no way can the displacement of Jews be compared to why early Muslims were forced to leave Mecca! The entire set of circumstances is different!

    Nowhere have I said that only Muslims were responsible for the Jew diaspora. I have said they were also responsible. And given the joint culpability of the Romans, Assyrians, Christians, SOME intolerant and oppressive Muslim rulers that led to their homeless plight with nary a place-except India - where they can be free from persecution, the world does owe the Jews some  recompense. A tiny sliver of land to call their own is not a big price to demand. Israel is the size of New Jersey State roughly. 

    The early Muslims, on the other hand, were forced to leave Mecca because they had adopted a faith that was antagonistic to the faith currently in practice in Mecca. Interfaith harmony was not a popular practice at that time. The pagans had a right to do what they deemed was in the best interests of their own faith, just as the Muslims had to do what was best for them - and they did. Nobody is judging the right and wrong of that episode. One is only judging the righteousness of the act of evicting the original worshippers from their own house of worship and co-opting that place for their own exclusive purposes by the new faith, and to add insult to injury, claiming that this is what Allah wants. 

    You are free to commit your crimes. In human affairs, might seems to be right, fair or not. Just dont give these crimes an aura of righteousness by according them the status of a divine plan. 

    I hope you see the difference between the two issues. 
    By secularlogic - 8/8/2014 7:28:13 AM



  • Secular Logic,

     

    Mark Cohen's book, and what I quoted from it, covers the entire history of Jews under Muslim rule and not just Palestine.

     

    Before the Christian crusades, Palestine had the highest concentration of Jews anywhere in the World. If the Muslims rulers wanted to practice religious discrimination against the Jews as state policy, what better place could they have found than Palestine? If Palestine does not even find a mention in the two links that you gave, then this is proof that Muslims rulers never practiced religious discrimination as state policy.

     

    There was persecution of Jews in Yemen in the 12th century, but it never reached the levels of persecution in the Christian lands. You will find such isolated incidents in different places and different points in time. You may however search as much as you wish, but you will find it difficult to get any story of Muslim persecution in Palestine. Yes, it was under the Romans before the Muslims captured it after a siege, when the Romans surrendered. Not a drop of blood was shed and after the surrender, the administration was left untouched and the erstwhile Jewish administrators continued to function as before. It is not without reason, that what people call today "the myth of the interfaith utopia" in which medieval Muslims and Jews peacefully cohabited in Arab lands is of Jewish and not Muslim origin. The exacerbation of Arab-Israeli conflict at the time of the Six-Day War in 1967 gave birth in some quarters to a radical revision of Jewish-Arab history with a "countermyth of Islamic persecution, " suggesting that Jews fared not much better socially and politically under Islamic rule than they did under Christendom. The two links that you provided rely on the revisionist contermyth spun after 1967 and yet could not find anything to report in Palestine!

     

    The question was, are the Palestinians responsible for driving out the Jews from Palestine? The simple answer is “no, not all”. The question really was about your sense of fairness in holding the creation of Israel just by displacing and dispossessing Palestinians, but holding unjust, the barring of pagans from Kaba after their defeat in a war preceded by the persecution, driving out of the Muslims from their homes and several battles meant to finish them off, acts of treachery, barring them from entering Kaba, killing them inside kaba etc.  How secular and how logical and how fair is that?


    By Observer - 8/8/2014 6:59:36 AM



  • Mr Observer,

    Palestine was not an island by itself. It was a part of different empires at different times, including a part of Islamic empire. Some islamic rulers were implemented moderate policies towards the Jews, some persecuted them. During the periods of tolerance, the Jews prospered and lived reasonably tolerable lives; during the periods of persecution, they chose to migrate to relatively better climes. Why is THIS so difficult for you to accept? Going on and on about Palestine, Palestine, Palestine.... Of course the same conditions applied to Palestine too. Only a person who wants to pick nits will insist on the kind of proof you are demanding! 

    I am not saying I will not give due consideration to this scholar you recommend. I am only saying I will also refer to other sources. This joint reference will give me a truer picture than the rosy Muslim Jew bhai bhai one that you are painting. 
    By secularlogic - 8/8/2014 5:19:12 AM



  • Rational,
      
    Don't you find it strange that people  like yourself, who cannot understand a simple expression  correctly, do not hesitate to offer advice to God? The example of the simple expression is "enemies of Allah" which you took as all non-Muslims when not all non-Muslims are enemies of Allah and many of the Muslims (hypocrites) are.  Apparently, what you are doing now (offering advice to God) was done by the non-believers in the Prophet's time also, and there is a verse in the Quran which provides an answer to all such questions. Figure out which verse if you can but don't come back to me. How many questions you have asked and I have answered but to what purpose? You may be the Betaal on this website but I don't want to play Vikram.

    By Observer - 8/8/2014 4:54:11 AM



  • Sultan Shahin saheb
    today i landed on this site.

    http://ahlusunnahwaljamaah.com/2014/07/31/o-palestinians-victory-is-in-the-correct-aqeedah-o-hamas-correct-your-aqeedah-to-be-victorious-shaykh-muqbil/
    Certainly you will say it is salafi/wahabi site. But please let me know who is real ahle sunna wal jamah.
    this site may provide you extra ammunition against wahabis.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/8/2014 3:17:06 AM



  • Observer
    Why Allah chose Jerusalem as a base station to heanly journey of the prophet? Does allah live above the seventh heaven and sits on the throne?
    He could instruct his prophet on this planet. He could show him what is hidden right in his dream or in some sparkle like his companions saw the treasures of Faras and Roman.
    this journey opened the door to conflicts among the Christian, Jews and Muslims. It established the supremacy of Islam over other Abrahmic religions by claimng that the prophet led the prayer where all other prophets followed him? He didn't provided any proof of his journey.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/8/2014 2:57:22 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    It is confirmed that you did not find a thing relating to Palestine. Palestine is not Kanpur either.

    It is interesting that you will not accept the findings and conclusions of a Jew, who specializes on the specific subject of the history of Jews in the Middle Ages under Islam,  and is a Professor of an elite Ivy league university in the US because, it does not suit your purpose. You will instead look for some trash which pleases you! 

    By Observer - 8/8/2014 1:34:48 AM



  • Mr Observer,

    The persecution of Jews in Muslim lands was a general and widespread phenomenon. The dhimmi status is itself a form of persecution. Second grade citizenship is a form of persecution. Insofar as Palestine was governed by Muslim rulers, the same conditions applied to the Jews as elsewhere. We may not be able to pinpoint Palestine specific historical accounts because it was only a tiny part of a whole kingdom. It might be difficult to find documented proof of Aurangzeb's persecution of Hindus in, say, Kanpur. Any incident that is cited will look one off and trivial. But as a part of a larger pattern, it will fit in with various testimonies that proof Aurangzeb was a religious bigot and persecutor of Hindus. Similarly, the conditions that were thrust upon the Jews in Muslim lands were also definitely thrust upon the jews of Palestine. Whether they migrated because of these unpleasant conditions or not will be had to say because of the fact that they are all dead and cannot provide information. But one does know that persecution by subsequent regimes led to waves of displacement. The Jews reached India as refugees at the same time that Muslims were ruling their lands. I cannot say for sure whether they came from Palestine. Neither can you claim that they did not, I guess. I will consider Mark Cohen as one of the spokes persons on the matter. not the only one. I will listen to other voices also. 

    The incidents you mention were not persecution. They were riots, in most cases sparked by the muslims themselves. In fact, India must be the only country in the world where the majority community lives in dread of the minority. 
    By secularlogic - 8/8/2014 1:14:13 AM



  • SL,

    I have asked you to cut paste anything relating to Palestine. You have still not done that perhaps because there is nothing! The reason I asked you is because I found nothing.

    In any case, I have quoted an unimpeachable authority on the subject which should end all discussion on the subject.

    Will you also take incidents  of Mumbai, Gujarat, Muzzafarpur and other communal riots as proof of persecution of Muslims in India? If the answer is no, and if your standards are uniform, then you should accept the findings and conclusions of Professor Cohen. Looking for stray incidents, spread over a 1000 year history, as proof,  is to deliberately and willfully ignore  the woods for the trees!

    By Observer - 8/8/2014 12:49:17 AM



  • Rational'

    mr observer asks you to search for the proof himself, while he demands that I provide him everything on a platter. His rules dont apply to himself :)
    By secularlogic - 8/8/2014 12:36:24 AM



  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews


    http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/persecution.html

    http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/nationalism.html

    All this, of course, pales in comparison to what the Nazis did. But it was persecution, nonetheless. A spits at Jews, B kills the Jews. Therefore A did not persecute the Jews. Thats the logic you are using. 

    Of course, you still have your usual defence left - discrediting the source of this information. 
    By secularlogic - 8/8/2014 12:28:30 AM



  • observer
    sometime it is always easier to ask than doing it :)
    Thank you.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/7/2014 11:48:49 PM




  • Secular Logic,

    Mark R. Cohen, professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University, specializing in Jews in the Muslim world, and a leading scholar of the history of Jews in the Middle Ages under Islam, and himself a Jew, writes in his book "The Neo-Lachrymose Conception of Jewish-Arab History”

    Jews of Islam experienced less physical violence than Jews under Western Christendom. Isolated events of persecution did occur but this does not change the fact that Jewish people were treated adequately. Cohen also notes that many people have used the myth that Jews were mistreated under Muslim rule to bolster their political standpoints in response to propaganda.


    By Observer - 8/7/2014 11:45:57 PM



  • Rational,

    Can you not use the search function and find out on your own?
    The verse is 29:14
    By Observer - 8/7/2014 11:19:54 PM



  • Secular Logic,

    If you have found something relating specifically to Palestine, then cut and paste the relevant portions.  I am sure you have found nothing relating to Palestine. Don't quote some instance in Egypt or elsewhere.

    Have you missed the following in Wikipedia?

    During waves of persecution in Medieval Europe, many Jews found refuge in Muslim lands. For instance, Jews expelled from the Iberian Peninsula were invited to settle in various parts of the Ottoman Empire, where they would often form a prosperous model minority of merchants acting as intermediaries for their Muslim rulers.

    While you may find instances of ill treatment in some Arab country in the course of the 1000 year history, did you find any evidence that the Jews were driven out or forced to migrate or migrated on account of persecution?

    Ramesh,

    It is a pointless discussion since there are no pagan Arabs to defend themselves, so anything I say can be said to be a myth. Let us leave it at that.

    By Observer - 8/7/2014 11:08:58 PM



  • Dear Observer,
     For you pre islamic meccans used to go round the kaaba in a state of complete undress. I think it is an islamic invention to justify takeover of kaaba. I have read that pre islamic meccans were highly civilises and were effectiv trading community ,trading with distant lands.
    By ramesh - 8/7/2014 10:19:15 PM



  • Dear Observer,
     For you pre islamic meccans used to go round the kaaba in a state of complete undress. I think it is an islamic invention to justify takeover of kaaba. I have read that pre islamic meccans were highly civilises and were effectiv trading community ,trading with distant lands.
    By ramesh - 8/7/2014 10:18:54 PM



  • Mr Observer,

    You need to read history and politics with spectacles and not with blinkers to see that Muslims were equally culpable in displacing the Jews from Arabia.
    There were periods in which they prospered under certain Muslim regimes, and periods in which they were persecuted and chose to flee. Like the Christians in Iraq are doing today. You might find a full account on wikipedia on the periods of peace and the periods of misery for the Jews of Arabia.
    Both Palestine and Israel received money from the West. Both used it very differently. Like Pakistan diverts US aid to its anti-India military operations, Palestine diverts the money it receives towards building tunnels to terrorise Israel. Palestininans are no saints. After the two Intifadas, anybody would be paranoid about the Hamas.
    By secularlogic - 8/7/2014 9:49:58 PM



  • Ramesh,  I agree.

    One's conception of God is shaped by ones own evolution along the path of enlightenment. To someone with Mr Mohammad's background and limited exposure to philosophy and spirituality (it is widely believed that he was illiterate), God must have seemed like that. A divine, paranoid, narcissist, super controlling and micromanaging dictator who could stand no competition. 
    By secularlogic - 8/7/2014 9:35:09 PM



  • Observer - 8/7/2014 11:36:03 AM
    where does the Quran say Hz Noha preached for 950 years?
    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/7/2014 8:45:02 PM



  • Observer sb. says, "The ideal state according to the Quran is also monogamy in very clear terms." . . .


    This should be reflected in our shariat with a nonambiguous and unconditional simple laws such as, "Polygamy is not permitted," and, "Men and women are equal in the eyes of the law."

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/7/2014 2:11:29 PM



  • @Atif Jnu

    "only an agent of enemies can discredit institution of secondary source, hadith.......the writer seems be to shia or mutazila or kharijite or Israeli paid man. i m sure he is using muslim name for dividing muslims and making non-muslims like israel kill non-muslims as in palestine....he should fear god........."

    I don't reply to such things. But because you sound like a Pakistani, I'm doing.

    Muslims are divided and have always been divided. So are Christians, so are Hindus, so are others. Creating unity in the name of any religion has never been practicable and it has never happened.

    Muslims have fought amongst each other from the time of the great prophet.

    And most importantly, Muslims have killed more Muslims in the history of mankind than the loss done by all others combined.

    Forget history. Just look at today.
    By non muslim - 8/7/2014 11:38:01 AM



  • Rational,

    Yes, the figure 950 is from the Quran.

    I have no interest in numerology or number miracles.

    By Observer - 8/7/2014 11:36:03 AM



  • Observer
    do you believe the Quran has word count miracles too?  it is claimed by Muslims that the Quran has many numerical miracles.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/7/2014 11:10:00 AM



  • Dear ghulam Ghaus.
    Please refer the first hadith quoted by Shahul Hameed saheb and put your comment if you like to on.
    Do you think the quoted hadith is Sahi as per your standard? if yes:
    does Allah live above seventh heaven and sits on the throne?
    does Allah posses a body like described in the hadith?
    If it is not so why the prophet used such description of  Allah?
    doesn't the Quran says Allah is beyond our understanding then how the prophet is describing him?
    The quran and Hadith makes Allah a person like us because as per the quran he sits on the throne and according to Hadith he will descend like us and people will see him like a person.
    Why your clear book and assisting book is full of contradictions?
    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/7/2014 10:57:46 AM



  • Observer - 8/7/2014 4:38:29 AM
    does this figure 950  years come from the Quran?
    you claim you don't go beyond the Quran and your knowledge out side the Qur'an is almost zero.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/7/2014 10:43:12 AM



  • dear friends, the writer is the biggest jahil...
    only an agent of enemies can discredit institution of secondary source, hadith.......the writer seems be to shia or mutazila or kharijite or Israeli paid man. i m sure he is using muslim name for dividing muslims and making non-muslims like israel kill non-muslims as in palestine....he should fear god......... By Atif Jnu - 8/7/2014 8:45:04 AM



  • nobody would love to visit this New Age islam once he sees this article on the site. This article is against islam. this article really supports islamophobes' missions.   By Salim Javed - 8/7/2014 8:35:16 AM



  • Dear Accha,

    No, I haven't started. Once I get started, it will be done in two days. Haven't found enough time to make a start. Maybe by the week end I will do it.
    By Observer - 8/7/2014 7:51:40 AM



  • Rational says:

    "Allah communicates with economy of words....."
    It is not true. The Quran is full of repetition of themes  and stories. sometime it has nothing to do with the rest text.

    True. Noah (pbuh) preached for 950 years the same message. Had this been compiled into a Book, it would have been 50 times the size of the Quran, containing essentially the same message repeating.

    So what is repeating in the Quran? The repeating theme is the story of Prophets, the nature of their mission, their rejection, the arguments of the rejecters, the different signs of God that the Prophets showed, the demands made by people for particular signs to be shown and their disbelief even after such signs were revealed, followed by the saving of the believers and the utter destruction of the disbelievers. This is the story of Noah, Moses, Lut, Saleh, people of A'ad, Samud, Madyan etc etc.

    Now count the number of times this is repeated in varying detail in different surahs and you have proof that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has adequately, repeatedly and consistently warned the 'rejecters of truth' over the 22 year period of his mission, of their ultimate fate to come if they persisted in their disbelief.

    Reading the same today, also constitutes proof, that the reader has been adequately informed about his fate, should he continue to reject the message, except that his fate will only be decided in the hereafter, and not in this world anymore as no more Prophets will come. 

    By Observer - 8/7/2014 4:38:29 AM



  • GM Sb,

    The ideal state according to the Quran is also monogamy in very clear terms. So there is no conflict.

    Conditions which make polygyny desirable/necessary  are more likely than conditions that make polyandry necessary/desirable. Only the practice of female infanticide upsets this balance and obviously, the Quran cannot be expected to cater to such a contingency.

    In societies where .female infanticide has made polyandry necessary, the females dread the situation, as they become  sex slaves. Polyandry is not viewed with desire or longing by the females and does not represent "gender justice". 

    By Observer - 8/7/2014 4:16:59 AM



  • What does one do if there is a conflict between one's inner conviction and what the Quran says? This came up in a discussion of polygamy and two eminent writers were cited by Javed Anand as follows: . . .

    "On the gender justice issue, I find the radical views of South African Islamic scholar and an Imam, Farid Esack the most attractive, both ethically and intellectually. Here in brief is Esack who makes a very strong argument for a radical redefinition of gender relations. It goes something like this: If someone tells me that my argument for gender equality does 'violence to the Text' (meaning Quran), I would reply that I would rather do violence to the text than accept violence against human beings (meaning unjust, unequal gender relations). If I am then asked how I could continue being a believing, practising Muslim, I would reply: I see no contradiction because I believe in an Allah who is Most Compassionate, most merciful. If some of the Quranic text today seems problematic, I will look for the context of the revelations and the hermeneutic keys to unlock and resolve the seeming contradiction between a Most Compassionate God and the contextual Quranic text.

    Equally appealing is Aziza Hibri's simple formula: "If it is unjust, it has to be un-Islamic". Polygyny is not my idea of "just" unless we wish to look for specific contingencies in which polyandry and polygyny occupy the same moral plane.     

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/7/2014 4:02:47 AM



  • Dear Shahul Hameed, please tell me first what do you mean by the Hadith you quoted in your comment? Simply quoting Hadith without your own comment on that is not going to resolve your problem. Please explain the meaning that you get from the REFERENCED HADITH. 

    I also want to ask you a question if it is Hadith, the saying of the prophet, what would you do or believe then?  
    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/7/2014 3:53:58 AM



  • Dear SL,
     You ask why different prophets teach different things to their follower? The probable answer shall be that diffreent people at different times are at different stages of evolution .But your question why the same god shall teach hindus that prayers to different deities reach the one creator  and teach muslims that prayer to allah alone  is correct made me thinking.The probable answer shall be the two gods are different. For hindus god/creator is consciousness and pervades the created.  For prophet god is sitting in throne in heaven  administering heaven and hell( akin to Indra in hindu system of belief).I am constrained to believe that prophet did not have the concept of god,and hence highest thing islam could offer to its followers is heaven whereas for hindus it is temporary and not to be aspired.
    By ramesh - 8/7/2014 3:37:23 AM



  • Dear Shahul Hameed, please give me some time to read and analyze the Hadith that you quoted in your comment. 

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/7/2014 3:35:41 AM



  • Comment 11

    Abu Hurairah RA is a famous narrator of Hadith among the mainstream Muslims. Just as we cannot rule out the fact that some Ahadith have been falsely attributed to the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, so too we cannot deny this possibility that there could be fabricated Ahadith that are falsely attributed to Abu Hurairah RA.  

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/7/2014 3:32:02 AM



  • observer ji
    hope you've started [and finished!] the article you said you might do on the Quran and pluralism...also, please reflect in your article on the Quranic verse about God creating people into different nations and tribes so that they may know each other. I would love to learn from your reflections. juldee ji!
    By accha - 8/7/2014 3:20:14 AM



  • Comment 10

    Abu Hurairah learnt by heart 5,374 Hadiths from the holy prophet in about 1,000 days. But only a total of 1,034 Hadiths have been stated by Imam Bukhari in his Jame Al Saheeh, while Imam Muslim mentioned only 391 Hadiths in his Saheeh Muslim from Abu Hurairah RA. However, this does not mean that Imam Bukhari has narrated 1,034 different Ahadith from Abu Hurairah. Many Ahadiths in Hadith books have been repeated with slightly different differences in context or wordings. The example of which can be noticed in earlier comments of mine where the message of Hadith was one but narrated by Hazrat Abu Hurairah with slightly different wordings.

    According to Fathul Bari written by Allama Hajar Asqalani, there are no more than 446 Ahadiths from Abu Hurairah in Saheeh Bukhari and the rest are just repetitions. The matter is not restricted only to Saheeh Bukhari, but many of these Ahadith are repeated across various Hadith books. For example according to a count in Syar Alam Annobala written by Al-Dhahabi, if we count Ahadith from Abu Hurairah in Saheeh Muslim (ignoring the repeated Ahadiths), we will come up with the total figure not more than 98 Ahadiths that are different from those narrated in Saheeh Bukhari. So, the total number of Ahadiths from Abu Hurairah RA in Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim (ignoring the repeated Ahadiths) is no more than 544 Ahadiths (446+98). 

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/7/2014 3:18:13 AM



  • Can this hadith report narrated by Hazrat Abu Huraira (r.a) and reported by Imam Bukhari be attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)?:
    Read and think it over before you attribute divinity to the hadith texts: 
    "Narrated by Hazrat Abu Huraira (r.a):
    The people said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" He replied, "Do you have any doubt in seeing the full moon on a clear (not cloudy) night?" They replied, "No, O Allah's Apostle!" He said, "Do you have any doubt in seeing the sun when there are no clouds?" They replied in the negative. He said, "You will see Allah (your Lord) in the same way. On the Day of Resurrection, people will be gathered and He will order the people to follow what they used to worship. So some of them will follow the sun, some will follow the moon, and some will follow other deities; and only this nation (Muslims) will be left with its hypocrites. Allah will come to them and say, 'I am Your Lord.' They will say, 'We shall stay in this place till our Lord comes to us and when our Lord will come, we will recognize Him. Then Allah will come to them again and say, 'I am your Lord.' They will say, 'You are our Lord.' Allah will call them, and As-Sirat (a bridge) will be laid across Hell and I (Muhammad) shall be the first amongst the Apostles to cross it with my followers. Nobody except the Apostles will then be able to speak and they will be saying then, 'O Allah! Save us. O Allah Save us.'
    There will be hooks like the thorns of Sa'dan in Hell. Have you seen the thorns of Sa'dan?" The people said, "Yes." He said, "These hooks will be like the thorns of Sa'dan but nobody except Allah knows their greatness in size and these will entangle the people according to their deeds; some of them will fall and stay in Hell forever; others will receive punishment (torn into small pieces) and will get out of Hell, till when Allah intends mercy on whomever He likes amongst the people of Hell, He will order the angels to take out of Hell those who worshipped none but Him alone. The angels will take them out by recognizing them from the traces of prostrations, for Allah has forbidden the (Hell) fire to eat away those traces. So they will come out of the Fire, it will eat away from the whole of the human body except the marks of the prostrations. At that time they will come out of the Fire as mere skeletons. The Water of Life will be poured on them and as a result they will grow like the seeds growing on the bank of flowing water. Then when Allah had finished from the Judgments amongst his creations, one man will be left between Hell and Paradise and he will be the last man from the people of Hell to enter paradise. He will be facing Hell, and will say, 'O Allah! Turn my face from the fire as its wind has dried me and its steam has burnt me.' Allah will ask him, "Will you ask for anything more in case this favor is granted to you?' He will say, "No by Your (Honor) Power!" And he will give to his Lord (Allah) what he will of the pledges and the covenants. Allah will then turn his face from the Fire. When he will face Paradise and will see its charm, he will remain quiet as long as Allah will. He then will say, 'O my Lord! Let me go to the gate of Paradise.' Allah will ask him, 'Didn't you give pledges and make covenants (to the effect) that you would not ask for anything more than what you requested at first?' He will say, 'O my Lord! Do not make me the most wretched, amongst Your creatures.' Allah will say, 'If this request is granted, will you then ask for anything else?' He will say, 'No! By Your Power! I shall not ask for anything else.' Then he will give to his Lord what He will of the pledges and the covenants. Allah will then let him go to the gate of Paradise. On reaching then and seeing its life, charm, and pleasure, he will remain quiet as long as Allah wills and then will say, 'O my Lord ! Let me enter Paradise.' Allah will say, May Allah be merciful unto you, O son of Adam! How treacherous you are! Haven't you made covenants and given pledges that you will not ask for anything more that what you have been given?' He will say, 'O my Lord! Do not make me the most wretched amongst Your creatures.' So Allah will laugh and allow him to enter Paradise and will ask him to request as much as he likes. He will do so till all his desires have been fulfilled . Then Allah will say, 'Request more of such and such things.' Allah will remind him and when all his desires and wishes; have been fulfilled, Allah will say "All this is granted to you and a similar amount besides." Abu Said Al-Khudri, said to Abu Huraira, 'Allah's Apostle said, "Allah said, 'That is for you and ten times more like it.' "Abu Huraira said, "I do not remember from Allah's Apostle except (his saying), 'All this is granted to you and a similar amount besides." Abu Sahd said, "I heard him saying, 'That is for you and ten times more the like of it."
    (Bukhari Hadith 1:770)
    By Shahul Hameed - 8/7/2014 2:47:01 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    Palestinians have always been the original inhabitants of Palestine and they never persecuted the Jews nor drove them out. You can read Jewish authors on the subject.

    I am not against the creation of Israel. They could have settled by purchasing the land. After all, the US, the British and the Jews themselves, had the resources to do it in a more legitimate manner. 

    What has happened however, is that the Palestinians  have been dispossessed and driven out and made refugees in their own country. You also do not appear to be consistent with your standards in judging injustice.

    By Observer - 8/7/2014 2:40:15 AM



  • SL, You have your view point and I have mine. I have no quarrel with it. Your beliefs are unimportant to me as far as my relations with you are concerned. I am not even interested in discussing these, unless a question is raised. I never bring up these discussions on my own. By Observer - 8/7/2014 2:31:56 AM



  • The generations that drove out the Jews from Israel were different from the generations that stay in the land that previously was inhabited by Jews. In effect, the Jews were rendered homeless by different people. The romans, the christians, and the muslims. They have a claim on refugee status, consequent to continuous persecution right upto the second world war. They can only feel safe in a land that they can call their own. They had to be settled somewhere, and the logical choice was where the Jewish faith had taken root, developed, prospered, and where all its religious contexts lay. One injustice does not justify another, but is sometimes inevitable. In such cases, generosity of spirit and empathy are called for from the community that has to make way. It could have happened peacefully, if an effort had been made. 

    The son pays for the sins of the father. Whether it is fair or not. I think it is a story from Aesops fables. 
    By secularlogic - 8/7/2014 2:31:11 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    What you say is interesting. What is your opinion on the moral justification for the creation of Israel displacing Palestinians, who never drove them out nor ever persecuted them? 

    By Observer - 8/7/2014 2:23:44 AM



  • Mr Observer,

    Your second comment is too long to copy paste, so I will keep going back and forth....

    1.Every religion including Sikhism Christianity and Islam has drifted into mild forms of polytheism and idol worship going against their own scriptures. 

    First, only Muslims view polytheism and idol worship as a great sin. "Drifting" happens because man HAS a need for a physical representation of the abstract that he is worshipping. That is why Muslims need the Kaaba and the Koran. If Muslims were truly free of attachment to religious objects, people would not be killed for Quran desecration; there would be apprehensions about the Kaaba being destroyed; there would be no lamentation about the Prophet's birthplace being repurposed. Muslims are as attached to their version of "idols" as anybody else. It is a minor matter that these "idols" are not in human shape. 

    The point is, and I will speak only about Hinduism here, that what is universal is the need to worship a higher power, to attribute to him the workings of nature, to establish a moral order that gains its sanctity from something called "God". How you worship it, in which form you worship it, is immaterial. Hindus worship the creator, protector, destroyer; they worship the earth that nurtures us, the rivers that feed us, the trees and crops that sustain us, the education and wisdom that lead us to enlightenment, the wealth that leads to material comfort, the power that allows us to perform our daily deeds without hitch, etc etc. It is all a part of a whole. There is a verse which says "Just as several rivers go and meet the same ocean, prayers offered to different deities reach the same divine entity" It does not matter whether -metaphorically speaking - one chooses the river or the ocean to worship. So your claim that polytheism and idol worship are 'corruptions' of the original is wrong. We may worship one, we may worship many, we may not believe in God at all and just stick to "Dharma" -----and we can still remain good, practicing Hindus. 

    If the same God had sent all these different Prophets - BTW - most muslims commit the fallacy of calling Ram and Krishna prophets. They were not. They were God himself, as per this belief system; just like Jesus was the son of God as per the Christian belief system. Buddha and the Jain Tirthankaras would fit in the prophet mould. Anyway - where was I - OK. If the same god had sent these diffierent prophets, why did they all teach their people such spectacularly different and contradictory things? Why would they teach Hindus that all paths lead to the same God, and teach Muslims that only their Allah was God, and only their way was correct? Why would the prophets set out different codes of conduct for different people? It does not stand to reason. 

    Religion, you see, is a man-made construct. Nothing to do with God. Fair and unfair - you have a different set of standards than mine to decide these issues. I do not think the world is fair. In fact, it is very unfair. Religion is also a way to explain and rationalise with unverifiable theories this unfairness. Hindus explain it through Karma; Muslims explain it through a complicated set of having followed/ broken 7th century codes of conduct, and resultant vengence from a spiteful God. If that perfect God exists, he would be horrified to see the perversions we practice in his name.
    By secularlogic - 8/7/2014 2:13:51 AM



  • SL,

    To you the migration of the Prophet and the Muslims from Mecca to Medina  on account of unbearable persecution and killings is a myth. Observer says:

    The battle of the trench where the Meccans in very large numbers attacked Medina itself is also a myth. The barring of Muslims from entering Kaba for several years is also a myth. The violation of the sanctity of Kaba and killing Muslims in a state of worship is also a myth. The violations of treaties is a myth. So let us agree to disagree.

    Unquote.

    No. I am not saying they are myths. I am saying, the pagans had as much right to defend their own faith as the Muslims had to defend theirs. Since Islam positioned itself in opposition to existing beliefs, it naturally became an enemy to the Meccans, and treaties were bound to be fragile. Those who think they can crush opposition by breaking treaties are going to do so. In this case, the Meccans miscalculated and their tactic backfired. It is what Mr Muhammad did once he won Mecca that is the object of scrutiny. Was he benevolent? No. Was he vindictive? yes. Would his behavior have been condoned by modern standards? No. Was his behavior in keeping with practices that were current in the milieu of tribal warfare? Yes. One would not sit in judgment, unless someone started claiming this is what Allah wanted. No. A benevolent, all seeing, all knowing, all inclusive, fair God would not want to keep any believer from worshipping him in whatever way - Islamic or Pagan. He would not want anybody excluded from a house of worship. It is only because Mohammad said "My way or the highway, and only my cars will run on your highway also" that things came to this pass.

    There is nothing to disagree with here. 

    By secularlogic - 8/7/2014 1:50:35 AM



  • Comment 9

    It should be noted that Abu Hurayra RA is rarely recorded as saying “I heard the Messenger of Allah say...” more often he simply narrated Ahadiths indirectly that “the prophet said….” The very simple reason is that he never got all Ahadiths directly from the holy prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, but rather most of Ahadiths he narrated were reported through other companions who spent longer time with the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. So, Abu Hurairah RA learnt by heart Ahadiths not only directly from the holy prophet peace be upon him but also indirectly through the eminent companions.  

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/7/2014 1:37:48 AM



  • Secular Logic says:

    "if there were a God, he would be an embodiment of perfection. He would understand the need for idol worship, just as he would understand the reasons why idol worship is eschewed. He would be equally benevolent towards all his creations, and not single one out as a special pet and the rest as step-children, to be called dirty and unclean and pigs and donkeys. That is not God. Unless one is willing to admit that this assumed God can also sometimes say horrible things, and we must learn to ignore him at such times.

    To say God exists as a perfect entity and then to absolve him of the sin of the islamic classification of human beings can only be done by an individual who in his religious passion has lost all desire to see reason."

    Good point. But God is impartial. God has sent Prophets for the guidance of people to all nations. India appears to have enjoyed the most favoured status for a millennium or more. I can clearly see Lord Krishna and Rama as prophets. Did they worship idols or were they polytheists? Come to think of it, the Quran is a subset of the Vedas. Every verse and Surah has something very similar in the Vedas. The Vedas however contain a lot more that is antithetical to the Quran and therefore itself. 

    Every religion including Sikhism Christianity and Islam has drifted into mild forms of polytheism and idol worship going against their own scriptures. This tendency is universal and mentioned in the Quran. Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned as the last prophet, and there is an assurance that the Muslims will remain true to their faith in all important matters, meaning belief in a single God the creator, and in the hereafter. This assurance comes through the manner in which the importance of such a belief and the implications of polytheism are covered in the Quran, to prevent Muslims also drifting into polytheism and idol worship.

    Belief in a single God, the creator of all else, and the hereafter, is a necessary condition for following a moral code, without compromise. Those who compromise are lacking in belief and the Muslims are as numerous as non-Muslims as far as disbelief is concerned. Born Muslims, with a Muslim name, and profession of belief, does not make a believer.

    It pays to be moral, and we are punished for being immoral by the law of the land or by the society. A certain level of morality is therefore ensured in civilized society. As humans, we have a threshold for breaking the law, determined mainly by the likely gain, the risk of getting caught, and the likely loss if caught. Without exception, all of us break the law and the rules, if the conditions are favourable, except those who follow the law for its own sake, or out of reverence for the moral code or for the love of God. There is a very close link between achieving the highest level of morality and an uncompromising belief in a single God the creator, who misses nothing, watches over us, and will reward/punish us in the hereafter.

    There was a time, when a Brahmin was by deeds and not by birth. During this period, the Brahmins were high achievers, the like of which even the Jews of today may pale in comparison, and achieved positions that may have become the envy of Angels. Once birth and not deeds became the criteria, we see corruption setting in, and the Brahmins using their knowledge for exploitation, encouraging superstition, making the religion ritualistic so that their services become indispensable. I would credit them for being the original marketing gurus and for the super market concept where they created demand through innovation and introduced products based on demand. No matter what the consumers required, they had a ‘product’ to satisfy the demand. It is not surprising that they absorbed Buddhism, were prepared to absorb Islam, treat Sikhism as a part of Hinduism etc. etc.

    God has not been unjust. On the other hand, I do not see another nation that occupied a more favoured status than India and for a longer period. If people, do not remain true to the guidance, God replaces them with another people, and it is impossible to frustrate God and prevent the true message of God from prevailing. Even among the Hindus, the followers of Sanatana Dharma have maintained the purity of God’s message and such groups of people are found in every religion because every religion is based on divine inspiration and guidance. God has never been unjust.

    By Observer - 8/7/2014 1:29:46 AM



  • Dear Ramesh, When the rites of Abraham are corrupted, it does not mean that every rite was abandoned or changed. Many of the outer forms are bound to remain unchanged but get corrupted, for example, going around the Kaba but in a state of complete undress.
    SL, To you the migration of the Prophet and the Muslims from Mecca to Medina  on account of unbearable persecution and killings is a myth. The battle of the trench where the Meccans in very large numbers attacked Medina itself is also a myth. The barring of Muslims from entering Kaba for several years is also a myth. The violation of the sanctity of Kaba and killing Muslims in a state of worship is also a myth. The violations of treaties is a myth. So let us agree to disagree.
    By Observer - 8/7/2014 1:20:57 AM



  • Comment 8

    As earlier in one of my comments I said that the critics and accusers targeted Abu Hurairah RA, that too, by trusting Abu Hurairah RA himself and Imam Bukhari. The source of their information that Abu Hurairah told more narrations from the holy prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was following hadees itself without having trust on which it was beyond their imagination to know whether Abu Hurairah RA had more narrations from the prophet peace be upon him.

    During the era of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and the eminent companions, Abu Hurairah was well known for his memorizing more hadeeses. No one criticized him nor did anyone accuse him of fabrication. Only emigrants and Ansar wondered at the memorizing ability of Hazrat Abu Hurairah RA. However, we also know that Abu hurairah RA already explained causes of this wonderful act of memorizing and telling more narrations as mentioned in the following Ahadiths:

    Narated by Abu Huraira: You people say that Abu Huraira tells many narrations from Allah's Apostle and you also wonder why the emigrants and Ansar do not narrate from Allah's Apostle as Abu Huraira does. My emigrant brothers were busy in the market while I used to stick to Allah's Apostle content with what fills my stomach; so I used to be present when they were absent and I used to remember when they used to forget, and my Ansari brothers used to be busy with their properties and I was one of the poor men of Suffa. I used to remember the narrations when they used to forget. No doubt, Allah's Apostle once said, "Whoever spreads his garment till I have finished my present speech and then gathers it to himself, will remember whatever I will say." So, I spread my coloured garment which I was wearing till Allah's Apostle had finished his saying, and then I gathered it to my chest. So, I did not forget any of those narrations. (Saheeh Bukhari- Volume 003, Book 034, Hadith Number 263)

    The same Hadith has been narrated by Abu Hurairah with slightly different wordings in another chain of transmission (SANAD):

    Narated By Abu Huraira: People say that I have narrated many Hadiths (The Prophet's narrations). Had it not been for two verses in the Qur'an, I would not have narrated a single Hadith, and the verses are:

    "Verily those who conceal the clear sign and the guidance which We have sent down . . . (up to) Most Merciful." (2:159-160). And no doubt our Muhajir (emigrant) brothers used to be busy in the market with their business (bargains) and our Ansari brothers used to be busy with their property (agriculture). But I (Abu Huraira) used to stick to Allah's Apostle contented with what will fill my stomach and I used to attend that which they used not to attend and I used to memorize that which they used not to memorize” (Saheeh Bukhari)

    About the unforgettable memory of Abu Hurairah RA one more hadees is mentioned in Saheeh Bukhari with a slight difference:

    Narated By Abu Huraira: I said, "O Allah's Apostle! I hear many narrations from you but I forget them." He said, "Spread your covering sheet." I spread my sheet and he moved both his hands as if scooping something and emptied them in the sheet and said, "Wrap it." I wrapped it round my body, and since then I have never forgotten a single Hadith. (Saheeh Bukhari Volume 004, Book 056, Hadith Number 841)

    Now there is no doubt that Abu Hurairah RA had already told causes of his narrating more hadeeses much before the accusers and critics were born. 

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/7/2014 1:02:54 AM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb. yes, he has the rights to express his opinions and that is how we know what he thinks. it gives us the reason why reform is next to impossible in Muslim society.
    that is how beliefs like the Sun ask permission on daily basis to rise and set are firmly rooted in the mionds of Muslims.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/7/2014 12:52:30 AM



  • "Allah communicates with economy of words....."
    It is not true. The Quran is full of repetition of themes  and stories. sometime it has nothing to do with the rest text.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/7/2014 12:48:21 AM



  • Obsever should agree that kaaba was the place of worship for the pagans even before the birth of prophet.Hence muslims who were followers of prophet had no right to demand entry right to kaaba .If prophet did it to the pagans at Kaaba, it is the prophet putras who have done it to hindus  at ayodhya, mathura and kashi as mentioned by SL.
        Observer says that prophet just restored abrahamic rites at kaaba. I disagree. Prophet just adopted the paganic practices like going round the kaaba, shaving the head, wearing white dress, running between the statues etc.After calling pagans names, and denying them entry to their place of worship,prophet just adopted their practces for reasons best  known to prophet and Allah. 
    By ramesh - 8/7/2014 12:42:27 AM



  • dear ramesh - 8/6/2014 11:42:11 AM
    Hindus can do but Muslims not. you know the reason and i agree with that.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/7/2014 12:42:15 AM



  • There was no injustice in barring the pagans entry either, since the pagans had barred entry to the Muslims for several years and when they attempted umrah, stopped them on the outskirts and entered into a one sided treaty for 10 years. The Muslims had to return and could perform umrah only the following year. They violated the treaty, killed Muslims  and brought about the conquest of Mecca, which was bloodless. These were also a people who had earlier driven out the Muslims from Mecca through persecution and killing.

    Nothing was done without justice. The pagan Arabs were schemers and plotters but the greatest planner is Allah as the Quran says. Reminds one of how Lord Krishna ensured the complete annihilation of adharma to establish dharma.

    Oh no no no... there is too much confusion here. So let us put things in order:

    1. There were pagan Arabs who had their own religion and a long tradition of practicing it at the Kaaba. It was a holy place of pilgrimage for them. Whether they changed Abrahamic practices or not is not relevant.

    2. The Muslim faith emerged later, its adherents being drawn from the same pagan pool. While the new faith was antithetical in every way to the pagan faith, the practitioners of the new faith still wanted to do the pilgrimage to the holy place of the old faith.

    3. Naturally, since the new faith preached against the old faith, the adherents of the old faith did not want them in their own holy of holies. If you have a new faith, build your own new shrines. How can you usurp the shrines of a faith that you denounce?

    4. People of all new faiths are persecuted. But this phenomenon is unique to Islam. Annexing the places of worship of other faiths.

    5. To campare the Mahabharata with what Muslims did to non-Muslims is to display one's total ignorance about the Mahabharata, and a sly attempt to equate the two to justify the atrocities of the Muslim regime. Non-Muslims were not Kauravas. The Kauravas got annihilated because they were evil/adharmi.(as per literature)Even though Islam and Allah do a blanket generalisation of non-Muslims as evil, your argument does not apply as this classification of evil is not acceptable in any age and time except to Muslims.
    By secularlogic - 8/7/2014 12:29:06 AM



  • Dear Observer,
     I believe that  Muslims have every right to deny entry to non muslims into their shrines.It is their prerogative. I have no disputes on that.But I have objection in calling me names by a person of the stature of prophet.
       
    By ramesh - 8/7/2014 12:09:55 AM



  • Secular Logic,

    Kaba was established by Abraham (AS) and his son Ismail (AS) as a place of worship and pilgrimage. The Abrahmic rites were restored and the corrupted practices were halted.

    There was no injustice in barring the pagans entry either, since the pagans had barred entry to the Muslims for several years and when they attempted umrah, stopped them on the outskirts and entered into a one sided treaty for 10 years. The Muslims had to return and could perform umrah only the following year. They violated the treaty, killed Muslims  and brought about the conquest of Mecca, which was bloodless. These were also a people who had earlier driven out the Muslims from Mecca through persecution and killing.

    Nothing was done without justice. The pagan Arabs were schemers and plotters but the greatest planner is Allah as the Quran says. Reminds one of how Lord Krishna ensured the complete annihilation of adharma to establish dharma.

    I have, as a matter of fact denied, that the verse has anything to do with spiritual or physical impurity, since  the pagans were not barred from any other mosque 

    By Observer - 8/6/2014 11:30:16 PM



  •  The verse therefore has to do with the practices of pagan Arabs at  Kaba  as that was a place of pilgrimage for them until then. It is this practice that was halted by disallowing them entry. - Observer.

    And this, Mr Observer, does not bother you?

    There was this set of Arabs who had a faith system long before Allah started whispering in Mr Mohammad's ears some random verses in fits and starts, and as per his convenience. They had a place of worship. Mr Mohammad, and his cohorts, usurped this place of worship and prohibited entrance to it to the original worshippers, and went on to annex it for the exclusive use of his own faith? This banditry does not bother you? 

    Is it any wonder that Babri Masjid, Kashi Vishwanath Mandir, Mathura Birthplace, Hagia Sophia church, all suffered the same fate? Mr Mohammad had set a precedent of denying other faiths their right to exist.

    Nobody wants to enter your religious places, with the attitudes you have. Just don't call others unclean of mind and body as justification, and give others the same respect you expect from them, is all that others ask.

    What a scourge this religion was! And continues to be! And its followers - intelligent, educated beings, all living by it without a single misgiving in their minds. Religiously programmed bots, all of you. 
    By secularlogic - 8/6/2014 10:14:26 PM



  • Rational says, "hope you are reading the comments of  Mr Ghulam Ghaus on Hadith and miracles associated with memory of Sahaba and collection of hadith." . . .


    He has  a right to his opinions. I can only express my opinion, which I did, as follows: "Upholding the Hadiths and the Sunnah is a form of Muhammed worship which the Prophet himself discouraged. Our need for authoritative guidance seems to be insatiable. Man should find his own solutions to most problems."

    Bringing rationality and inclusiveness into any religion is a slow process which should be measured in centuries, not in months or years.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/6/2014 2:21:46 PM



  • Rational,

    You ask: "Why Allah takes oath in the name of fig and , zaitoon ...."

    Allah communicates with economy of words some of the most beautiful messages. After explicit verses saying that Christians, Jews, Sabians and any who believe in Allah and do good deeds will be rewarded etc, I think this expands on 'any' and if the Buddhists are Agnostics but firm/religious followers of a moral code, they are included as well. You may ask why the same is not said directly. This may perhaps be because  following a moral code without belief in God and the hereafter is difficult and so Buddhism is a steep path. However, to me it appears that God has shown an alternative path through Buddha and very subtly confirmed the same in the Quran.

    (Allah knows best and I am no  scholar of the Quran either except a sincere seeker of knowledge through personal and unguided efforts)

    By Observer - 8/6/2014 12:37:50 PM



  • Dear Ramesh,

    The verse (9:28) does not prohibit the pagan Arabs from entering any other mosque - for example, the Prophet's mosque in Medina which is considered as the second holiest place. The verse therefore has to do with the practices of pagan Arabs at  Kaba  as that was a place of pilgrimage for them until then. It is this practice that was halted by disallowing them entry.
     
    A visitor today is just a visitor and is not going to indulge in any practice like the pagans of the Prophet's time. They can therefore be allowed just as they are allowed in any other mosque. 

    As far as purity is concerned, a menstruating woman does not perform salat when in her periods but can perform haj. So physical or spiritual purity is not what is implied in the verse but specifically their manner of performing their pilgrimage at Kaba.

    Also notice that a Christian or Jew is not implied in the verse since neither community had any religious connection with Kaba.

    I repeat, that I  consider it a good thing, if visitors are allowed during the 'off season'.


    By Observer - 8/6/2014 12:08:26 PM



  • Dear ratioal,
     I refer to your comment on hindus making jokes on rama and krishna.
     Recently i was attending a ram katha by a renowned katha master. near  the end of ramayana when ram asked sita to move over fire to prove her chastity, the katha master  severly criticised rama for doing so. hence hindus do have freedom to criticise even ram or krishna. If ram cannot be criticised and ram's sunna is to be followed ,then everyone who doubts his wife's chastity will make her move into fire to prove her chastity. Will be a barbarious today it will be.
     For hindus ram and krishna are avatara purushas ,inspite of that we have freedom to criticise. But muslim consider Hz mohamad as prophet only and hence I dont understand why prophet cannot be criticised for certain things not acceptable today.
     Any religion has to amend. if it is not possible to amend it will end.   
    By ramesh - 8/6/2014 11:42:11 AM



  • Source:http://islamawakened.com/quran/9/28/

    the part "this year" without other end makes the verses universal and this is the way these verses have been understood and implemented by Muslims.

    يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ فَلَا يَقْرَبُوا الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هَٰذَا وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ عَيْلَةً فَسَوْفَ يُغْنِيكُمُ اللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ إِن شَاءَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

    zoom

     

    Transliterationhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=8187385073

     

    Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo innama almushrikoona najasun fala yaqraboo almasjida alharama baAAda AAamihim hatha wa-in khiftum AAaylatan fasawfa yughneekumu Allahu min fadlihi in shaa inna Allaha AAaleemun hakeemun

    zoom

    Generally Accepted Translations of the Meaning

    Muhammad Asadhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1904510353

     

    O YOU who have attained to faith! Those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God are nothing but impure: and so they shall not approach the Inviolable House of Worship from this year onwards And should you fear poverty, then [know that] in time God will enrich you out of His bounty, if He so wills: for, verily, God is all-knowing, wise!

    zoom

    M. M. Pickthallhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=8187385073

     

    O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.

    zoom

    Shakirhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1615341285

     

    O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.

    zoom

    Yusuf Ali (Saudi Rev. 1985)http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1590080254

     

    O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

    zoom

    Yusuf Ali (Orig. 1938)http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0866855521

     

    O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will God enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for God is All-knowing, All-wise.

    zoom

    Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

     

    O those who believed! Truly, the ones who are polytheists are unclean, so let them come not near the Masjid al-Haram after this year. And if you feared being poverty-stricken, God will enrich you out of His grace if He willed. Truly, God is Knowing, Wise.

    zoom

    Wahiduddin Khanhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=B003M0OXAS

     

    Believers, know that the polytheists are impure,[16] so they should not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year onwards. If you should fear destitution, God will enrich you out of His bounty, if He so wishes. God is aware and wise.

    zoom

    T.B.Irving

     

    You who believe, associators are nothing but filthy, so they should not approach the Hallowed Mosque after this year that they still have. If you should fear destitution, God will enrich you out of His bounty if He so wishes. God is Aware, Wise.

    zoom

    [Al-Muntakhab]http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=5948240118

     

    O you who have conformed to Islam; the idolaters are impure spiritually and physically. Accordingly, they must not be allowed near the Sacrosanct Mosque after this year*. Should you fear scarcity as a result of breakage of commercial relations; Allah shall make His grace abound in you, if He will; He is indeed 'Alimun and Hakimun.

    zoom

    [The Monotheist Group] (2011 Edition)http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0979671523

     

    O you who believe, those who have set up partners are impure, so let them not approach the Restricted Temple after this calendar year of theirs; and if you fear poverty, then God will enrich you from His blessings if He wills. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.

    zoom

    Abdel Haleemhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=019957071X

     

    Believers, those who ascribe partners to God are truly unclean: do not let them come near the Sacred Mosque after this year. If you are afraid you may become poor, [bear in mind that] God will enrich you out of His bounty if He pleases: God is all knowing and wise.

    zoom

    Abdul Majid Daryabadihttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0860373606

     

    O Ye who believe! the associators are simply filthy; so let them not approach the Sacred Mosque after this their year; and if ye fear poverty, Allah shall presently enrich you out of His grace, if He will. Verily Allah is grace. Knowing, Wise.

    zoom

    Ahmed Alihttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0691074992

     

    O believers, the idolaters are unclean. So they should not approach the Holy Mosque after this year. In case you fear indigence (from the stoppage of business with them), then God will enrich you of His bounty if He will, for God is all-knowing and all-wise.

    zoom

    Aisha Bewleyhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1874216363

     

    You who have iman! the idolaters are unclean, so after this year they should not come near the Masjid al-Haram. If you fear impoverishment, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

    zoom

    Ali Ünalhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1597841447

     

    O you who believe! Those who associate partners with God are (nothing) but impure. So, after the expiry of this year, let them not approach the Sacred Mosque. And should you fear poverty (because of the possible reduction in your income due to their not coming to Makkah in the season of the Hajj), God will enrich you out of His bounty if He so wills. Surely, God is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

    zoom

    Ali Quli Qara'ihttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1904063179

     

    O you who have faith! The polytheists are indeed unclean: so let them not approach the Holy Mosque after this year. Should you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you out of His grace, if He wishes. Indeed Allah is all-knowing, all-wise.

    zoom

    Hamid S. Azizhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0195772806

     

    O you who believe! It is only the idolaters who are unclean; they shall not then approach the Sacred Mosque after this year. But if you fear poverty (from the loss of trade with them) then (know that) Allah will enrich you from His grace if He will; veril

    zoom

    Muhammad Mahmoud Ghalihttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=B000Q3EWP0

     

    O you who have believed, surely the associators (Those who associate others with Allah) are only an impurity; so they should not come near the Inviolable Mosque after this season (Literally: after this duration = (this year) of theirs. And if you fear want, then Allah will eventually enrich you of His Grace, in case He (so) decides; surely Allah is Ever-Knowing, Ever-Wise..

    zoom

    Muhammad Sarwarhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=B003FQ8558

     

    Believers, the pagans are filthy. Do not let them come near to the Sacred Mosque after this year. If you are afraid of poverty, He will make you rich if He wishes, by His favor. God is All-knowing and All-wise.

    zoom

    Muhammad Taqi Usmanihttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=9695640001

     

    O you who believe, the Mushriks are impure indeed, so let them not approach Al-Masjid-ul-Haram after this year. And if you apprehend poverty, then, Allah shall, if He wills, make you self-sufficient with His grace. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

    zoom

    Shabbir Ahmedhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0974787981

     

    O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! The idolaters have made their hearts unclean (and the Sacred Masjid of Makkah is the House of Pure Monotheism. Only those who believe in the Divine System can administer this Sacred House (9:18)). So let not the Idolaters come close to it after this year. If you fear scarcity of trade, Allah will enrich you with His Bounty. This is the Promise of Allah who is Knower, Wise.

    zoom

    Syed Vickar Ahamedhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0977300900

     

    O you who believe! Truly, the pagans are unclean (people); So after this year of theirs, do not let them come to the Sacred Mosque. And if you fear poverty (due to reduced trade), Allah will soon make you rich, if He wills, from His bounty; Indeed, Allah is All Knowing (Aleem), All Wise (Hakeem).

    zoom

    Umm Muhammad (Sahih International)http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=B001GO4GRW

     

    O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-iaram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.

    zoom

    Farook Malikhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=B000LEVRDY

     

    O believers! Know that pagans are unclean; therefore, do not let them come near the Masjid-al-Haram after this year's pilgrimage. If you fear poverty, soon Allah - if He so wills - will enrich you out of His bounty. Allah is All-Knowledgeable, All-Wise.

    zoom

    Dr. Munir Munshey

     

    Oh you believers, (remember)! those who ascribe partners to Allah are really unclean. Therefore, after (the pilgrimage) this year let them not come (anywhere) near the sacred mosque (in Makkah). If you fear poverty, Allah may soon enrich you as He wills. Indeed, Allah is the most Aware, the Wisest.

    zoom

    Dr. Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadrihttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=&l=as2&o=1&a=0955188806&camp=217145&creative=399349

     

    O believers! The polytheists are an embodiment of impurity, so let them not come closer to the Sacred Mosque after this year of theirs (i.e., after victory over Mecca in 9 AH). If you fear poverty (due to a decline in your trade), then (do not worry). Allah will soon enrich you from His bounty if He so wills. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, Most Wise.

    zoom

    Dr. Kamal Omar

     

    O you people who have Believed! Certainly it is that Mushrikun are Najasun. So they must not approach Al-Masjid-al-Haram after this year (i.e., this lunar year which is having this Hajj congregation in its closing month; and the year comes to a close three weeks after the Greater Day of Al-Hajj. Also see Ayaat 1st to 5th of this Surah to understand the end of the Al-Ashhurul-Hurum or the Protected Months). And if you apprehended decrease in revenue, then very soon Allah will make you rich out of His bounty if He thought proper. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

    zoom

    Talal A. Itani (new translation)

     

    O you who believe! The polytheists are polluted, so let them not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year of theirs. And if you fear poverty, God will enrich you from His grace, if He wills. God is Aware and Wise.

    zoom

    Bilal Muhammad (2013 Edition)

     

    O you who believe, truly the pagans are corrupt, so do not let them, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Masjid. And if you fear poverty, soon God will enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for God is All Knowing, All Wise. 

    zoom

    Maududihttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=&l=as2&o=1&a=0860375102&camp=217145&creative=399369

     

    Believers, those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity are unclean. So, after the expiry of this year, let them not even go near the Sacred Mosque. And should you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you out of His bounty, if He wills. Surely Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

    zoom

    [The Monotheist Group] (2013 Edition)http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0979671523

     

    O you who believe, the polytheists are impure, so let them not approach the Restricted Temple after this year of theirs; and if you fear poverty, then God will enrich you from His blessings if He wills. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.

    zoom


    Controversial, deprecated, or status undetermined works

    Bijan Moeinianhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1411625609

     

    O’ you who have chosen to believe, know that the disbelievers have a dirty nature. Therefore, from now on, do not let them to come close to Masjid-Al-Haram [the house that Abraham and Ishmael built for the purpose of worshiping the One and only One God.] If you are afraid of loosing your income [spent by disbelieving pilgrims], God promises to compensate you with His generosity, in accordance with His will. God is the Most Knowledgeable, the Most Wise.

    zoom

    Faridul Haque

     

    O People who Believe! The polytheists are utterly filthy *; so after this year do not let them come near the Sacred Mosque; and if you fear poverty **, then Allah will soon make you wealthy with His grace, if He wills; indeed Allah is All Knowing, Wise. (* Filthy in body and soul. **Due to loss of trade.)

    zoom

    Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah

     

    Believers, the idolaters are unclean. Do not let them approach the Sacred Mosque after this year. If you fear poverty, Allah, if He wills, will enrich you through His bounty. He is Knowing, Wise.

    zoom

    Maulana Muhammad Alihttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=091332101X

     

    O you who believe, the idolaters are surely unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year of theirs. And if you fear poverty, then Allah will enrich you out of His grace, if He please. Surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

    zoom

    Muhammad Ahmed - Samira

     

    You, you those who believed but/truly the sharers/takers of partners (with God are) impurity/contamination , so they do not approach/near the Mosque the Forbidden/Sacred after this their year, and if you feared need/necessity/poverty, so God will/shall enrich/suffice you from His grace/favour , if He willed/wanted, that God (is) knowledgeable, wise/judicious.

    zoom

    Sher Alihttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1853723142

     

    O ye who believe ! surely, the idolaters are unclean. So they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year of theirs. And if you fear poverty, ALLAH will enrich you out of HIS bounty, if HE pleases. Surely, ALLAH is All-Knowing, Wise.

    zoom

    Rashad Khalifahttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=B0006WA1P6

     

    O you who believe, the idol worshipers are polluted; they shall not be permitted to approach the Sacred Masjid after this year. If you fear loss of income, GOD will shower you with His provisions, in accordance with His will. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.

    zoom

    Ahmed Raza Khan (Barelvi)

     

    'O believers! The associators are altogether unclean, then let them not approach the sacred Mosque after this year. And if you fear poverty, then soon Allah shall enrich you of His bounty if He pleases. Verily, Allah is Knowing, Wise.

    zoom

    Amatul Rahman Omarhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0963206702

     

    O you who believe! the polytheists are (spiritually) altogether unclean, so they shall not come near the Holy Mosque after this year of theirs. And if you fear (this will spell) poverty (for you) then (rest contented) Allah will soon make you rich out of His bounty if He will. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

    zoom

    Muhsin Khan & Muhammad al-Hilalihttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=&l=as2&o=1&a=996074079X&camp=217145&creative=399349

     

    O you who believe (in Allahs Oneness and in His Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Verily, the Mushrikoon (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, and in the Message of Muhammad SAW) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah) after this year, and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you if He will, out of His Bounty. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

    zoom


    Non-Muslim and/or Orientalist works

    Arthur John Arberryhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0684825074

     

    O believers, the idolaters are indeed unclean; so let them not come near the Holy Mosque after this year of theirs. If you fear poverty, God shall surely enrich you of His bounty, if He will; God is All-knowing; All-wise.

    zoom

    Edward Henry Palmerhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1154396991

     

    O ye who believe! it is only the idolaters who are unclean; they shall not then approach the Sacred Mosque after this year. But if ye fear want then God will enrich you from His grace if He will; verily, God is knowing, wise!

    zoom

    George Salehttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1115643061

     

    O true believers, verily the idolaters are unclean; let them not therefore come near unto the holy temple after this year. And if ye fear want, by the cutting off trade and communication with them, God will enrich you of his abundance, if He pleaseth; for God is knowing and wise.

    zoom

    John Medows Rodwellhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=islamawakened-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0553587528

     

    O Believers! only they who join gods with God are unclean! Let them not, therefore, after this their year, come near the sacred Temple. And if ye fear want, God, if He please, will enrich you of His abundance: for God is Knowing, Wise.

    zoom

    N J Dawood (draft)

     

    Believers, know that the idolaters are unclean. Let them not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year is ended. If you fear poverty, God, if He pleases, will enrich you through His own bounty. God is all–knowing and wise.

    zoom


    New and/or Partial Translations, and works in progress

    Sayyid Qutb

     

    Believers, know that the idolaters are certainly impure. So, let them not come near to the Sacred Mosque after this year is ended. If you fear poverty, then in time God will enrich you with His own bounty, if He so wills. Truly, God is All-knowing, Wise.

    zoom

    Sayyed Abbas Sadr-Ameli

     

    O you who have Faith! The polytheists are indeed unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year, and if you fear poverty, then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He pleases; verily Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

    zoom

    Mohammad Shafi

     

    O you who believe! The polytheists are nothing but pollution. So they shall not approach the Sacred Place of Worship after this year. And if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowledgeable, Wise.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/6/2014 10:46:40 AM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb
    i hope you are reading the comments of  Mr Ghulam Ghaus on Hadith and miracles associated with memory of Sahaba and collection of hadith.
    If Abu Huraira didn't forget a single word how can the hadith be criticized. whatever he collected is authentic to your Sufi scholar.
    How is he different than a wahabi/salafi/devbandi? He follow the same Hanafi fiqah as Devbandis follow.
    I am sure Muslims will never ignore the problematic verses and ahadith  as the jews, chritians and Hindus have ignored. beside this those verses and ahadith are not problematic to majority of Muslims.
    i have heard Hindus making jokes and funny poetry even on Rama and krishna. forget the jokes Muslims don't tolerate anything against their prophet hence always keep demanding ban and punishment against blasphemy.
    you yourself has asked mr hahin to ban people like me because after all you are also a Muslim with a difference you cover yourself with the clock of moderation.
    I think i have been successful in creating severest reaction in the moderates. this shows why reform is almost impossible. Ban and demand of punishment will be in demand always.
    Moderates are covering the truth in a different way.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/6/2014 10:38:57 AM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb - 8/6/2014 3:32:48 AM
    instead of worrying about my digging the dirt (ancient verses) you must be worried about so called moderates like Ghulam ghaus and mr Lodhia. I don't believe non-Muslims are unclean physically or spiritually at their heart.
    these people read your comments and don't respond unless they are targeted to a certain sects.
    Upholding sunna is not worship of the prophet according to their beliefs rather it is their love(ishq) to the prophet.
    It is not me who is the hurdle in the path of moderation it is the people like mr ghulam ghaus and mr lodhia.
    although i respect your views but you are one of those who reacted harshly for my quotations which have not been concocted by me but the people you regard as Imams.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/6/2014 10:10:54 AM



  • Comment 7

    It is widely known among the scholars of Ahadith that Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) was very keen to seek knowledge. He was not literate, that was why all his knowledge depended on oral transmission and memorization. Once he told the Prophet: "I hear many Hadiths from you but I forget them." The Prophet said, "Spread your covering sheet." Abu Hurairah spread the sheet and the Prophet moved both his hands (as if scooping something) and emptied them in the sheet and said, "Wrap it." Abu Hurairah wrapped it around his body, and since then he never forgot a single Hadith." This was a miracle. And he retained more than 5,000 Hadiths word for word, throughout his life.

    Once upon a time Marwaan Ibn Al-Hakam tested Abu Hurairah's memorizing capacity. He invited him to sit with him and asked him to narrate Hadiths while a scribe who had already been told to write whatever Abu Hurairah RA said sat behind a screen. After a year, Marwaan invited Abu Hurairah again and asked him to narrate the same Hadiths that the scribe had written. It was confirmed that Abu Hurairah narrated the same hadiths and did not forget or miss a single word!

    Learning by heart 5,000 Hadiths during 3 years or about 1095 days is not a big issue. Per day only 5 Hadiths are required to be memorized. Our children in Madarsas learn by heart the whole Quran word to word during two to three years. They are easily able to retain it till the last breath of their life. Everyone can witness it during the Ramadhan Taraweeh. So, this was more possible for a great companion whose unforgettable and sharp memory was the result of the holy prophet’s prayers. His work was only to learn by heart and retained whatever the prophet peace be upon him would say. He was unlike many of the prominent companions who used to be busy in different pieces of work.     

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/6/2014 9:00:48 AM



  • Comment 6

    The question is as to how can Abu Hurairah (May Allah be please with him) who lived in the company of the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) just for three years (according to a narration by Abu Hurairah RA) learnt by heart more than 5000 Ahadith.

    Before answering this I need to draw the attention of readers towards the very fact that Abu Hurairah RA himself had told that he lived three years in the company of the holy prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. There is a hadith in Saheeh Bukhari:

    Abu Huraira (May Allah be please with him) narrates: “I enjoyed the company of Allah’s Apostle for three years, and during the other years of my life, never was I so anxious to understand the (Prophet’s) traditions as I was during those three years”.

    How have those who criticise and accuse Abu Hurairah RA of fabrication of Hadith got to know that Abu Hurairah lived with the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) just for three years? Have they applied their mind on their own or fabricated their own sayings? None of them can prove that they have come to know about it on their own or from other sources until they trust Imam Bukhari or Hazrat Abu Hurairah RA.

    The critics and accusers have known the years that Abu Hurairah RA lived in the company of Allah’s apostle by the narration of Abu Hurairah RA himself. It means even the critics and accusers trust the Hadeeses narrated by Abu Hurairah RA. But this they unfortunately realize not. Should I call them blind disbelievers or remain silent at their blind disbelief? No, I should not call them this way.

    But right now I cannot help requesting all those who do not trust Saheeh Bukhari and Abu Hurairah RA to leave this debate as they cannot make any question until they trust Imam Bukhari or Abu Hurairah (question as Abu Hurairah RA live in the company of the holy prophet Muhammad peace be upon him just for three years)    

    After all I have to remove all doubts point by point.

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/6/2014 3:40:03 AM



  • Comment 5

    There were some companions who used to pass their whole time, so to say, at the feet of the Holy Prophet Muhmmad peace be upon him. There was a raised platform namely “Suffa” near the Holy Prophet’s residential room and the mosque. I don’t know whether this “Suffa” still exists in Arab or has been demolished by Saudi government.  A group of students used to occupy this raised platform permanently. They are called people of Suffa (Ashabe Suffa). Their work was nothing but to learn by heart whatever they heard from the Holy Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. Abu Hurairah was one of those “people of Suffa”. He was endowed with a powerful memory by the prayer of the holy prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, remembered more than 5000 Ahadith and reported them.

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/6/2014 3:38:37 AM



  • Upholding the Hadiths and the Sunnah is a form of Muhammed worship which the Prophet himself discouraged. Our need for authoritative guidance seems to be insatiable. Man should find his own solutions to most problems. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 8/6/2014 3:32:48 AM



  • Comment 4

    The holy companions (Sahaba-e-Karam) preserved Hadeeses and Sunna of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, passing most of their time in the company of the holy prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. Their love for the beloved prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was so much that they used to memorise every reported speech, action or tacit approval (Taqreer- what was said or done by a companion in front of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon and the latter did not condemn it). The purpose of their life was only to achieve the pleasure of Allah Almighty and his blessed prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. 

    The holy companions were given different status in respect of guiding people in matters of religion and law. “The holy prophet peace be upon him called Abu Bakr as “the greatest person outside the category of prophets”. He said about Umar RA “If there had been a prophet after me, Umar had been that prophet”. He described Usman RA as “the most perfect in piety”. He said about Ali RA: “I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate”. Similarly the distinguished were: Hazrat Aisha, the beloved wife of the holy prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, Abdullah bin Umar, Abdullah bin Abbas and Abdullah bin Abbas etc. Obeying the divine advice: “Ask those who possesses the Message” If ye do not know” (the holy Quran 21:7), even the prominent preservers of Hadees (Huffaze Hadees) among the companions used to come to these distinguished personalities to resolve the religious and legal problems and thus would subject their own understanding and interpretation to the interpretation of the holy Quran and the Hadees given by them.

    “Abu Huraira (May Allah be pleased with him) was one of those eminent Companions who were distinguished in the line of preserving and reporting the Holy Prophet's Traditions, and this is borne out by the large number of Traditions reported by him and included in the books of Hadith. But it is a fact well-known to the students of the history of Companions, that whenever someone was confronted with any religious or legal problem, he would not approach Companions like Abu Huraira but those who were considered Fuqaha (i.e., men of grasp and understanding). It was this latter class whose verdict (fatwa) was relied upon and whatever interpretation they gave to the Sayings and Actions of the Holy Prophet (peace be with him) was accepted”. (“The history of the Codification of Islamic Law- chapter 4, “the preservers of Hadith and Scholars of Law Among the Companions” by Allama Abdul Aleem Siddiqui Al-Qadri RA)

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/6/2014 2:26:21 AM



  • Comment 3

    After accepting authoritativeness of Hadees, we should apply our minds whether the Hadees is authentic (Saheeh) or Weak (dhaif) or Fabricated.

    It should also be noted that whether Hadees is Saheeh (authentic) or weak (dhaif) is hadees in either case. No scholar (I can challenge everyone) during 1400 years has expelled weak narration out of hadees. The only difference between them is of preference only when both Saheeh and Weak narrations talk about the same thing in a binary way. At the time of practice we have to adopt Saheeh hadees and leave the weak narration.

    One should also know what legal values come out of saheeh hadees or weak hadees. The legal values coming out of saheeh hadees may be Mandatory (Farz) or Imperative (Wajib) or Mandatory Recommendation (Sunnat-e-Muakkadah). But the legal values coming out of weak hadees may not be like the mentioned ones but either directory recommendation (Sunnat-e- Ghair Muakkdah) or commendable (Mustahab) or improper (Mubah) where you have a choice either to follow or leave it.

    As far as fabricated hadees (Mauzu Hadees) is concerned, it is not a hadees in actual sense. The scholars of hadees say it only metaphorically. No scholar during 1400 years has believed it to be hadees. The scholars of hadees majorly divide hadees into two; Saheeh and Dhaif. They believe that fabricated one is not hadees. No one can show me any proof where our scholars of hadees during 1400 years have believed fabricated ones in the category of hadees. When we say hadees we mean the sayings of our beloved prophet and not the fabricated sayings made by enemies of Islam in order to create doubts into the hearts of believers regarding authoritativeness of Hadees. Thanks Allah Almighty for creating great Imams, Jurists, Scholars of Hadees who scrutinised hadeeses on the basis of Jarah wa Tadeel and expelled out fabricated sayings.      

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/6/2014 1:33:41 AM



  • Comment 2

    Let me clear it out to everyone that I was discussing and defending the authoritativeness (Hujjiyat) of Hadees, nor the authenticity of a particular hadees. Negation of authoritativeness of Hadees is negation of that Quran itself. There are scores of Quranic verses that unequivocally give authority to Hadeeses. If needed, I may quote them to prove the point.

    The depth study of the holy Quran tells us that Allah Almighty has ultimate sovereignty (Haqeeqi Hakmiyat) and He Almighty has given the prophet manifestative sovereignty (Niyabati Hakmiyat) in Islam. In other words, the holy Quran should be the first and Hadees second to deal with Islamic legal values. 

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/6/2014 1:28:18 AM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin sahib,

    I agree that we Muslims should add saying “maybe the Prophet (saw) said something like this” (او كما قال رسول الله) after quoting or narrating any hadith from the Sihah-e-Sitta or any other books of hadith. This is what almost all our holy Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to do to exhibit utmost caution and meticulous narration of the hadiths.

    For instance, Imam Dhahabi writes in his book “Siyaru A'lam al-Nubala” (4:263) that  Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla met 500 Companions. When he visited a place, people would say: "The man who met 500 Companions has come to our town." He had a great influence on Abu Hanifa and Imam Abu Yusuf. He reports: "I was personally familiar with 120 Companions. Sometimes all of them were in the same mosque. When they were asked about something, each would wait for the other to answer. If they were asked to narrate a Tradition, no one would dare to. Finally, one of them would place his trust in God and begin to narrate. He would always add: 'The Messenger said this, or something like this, or something more or less like this. (او كما قال رسول الله)'".

    But I can’t understand why should we discredit all the authentic hadiths that have been scrutinised by the rigorous and strict rules of hadith verification (jarh wa tadeel). I think you should elaborate it further.

    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 8/5/2014 9:33:17 AM



  • Comment 1.

    It was narrated that al-Mugheerah ibn Shu’bah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Telling a lie against me is not like telling a lie against anyone else. Whoever tells a lie against me deliberately let him take his place in Hell.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1229; Muslim, 4.

    The above mentioned hadees is the most narrated hadees. This hadees is Mutawatira Mashhurah. This was known to all companions of the holy prophet including Abu Hurairah RA, Tabieen and all great Imams like Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim. As they were great lovers of Allah Almighty, the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, the biographical sketches of their life tell us so. (sometimes we should also highlight their lives)   

    There is no doubt that whatever a man can do in this push button age can never go over the position of holy companions. The holy companions were greater lover of the holy prophet Muhammad peace be upon than even one man like us can imagine today.

    When we Muslims apply our minds we find that those holy companions and great Imams are more the matter of trust than others including those who have written against even authentic hadeeses in the 21st centuries. Who is a blind believer? The one who is taking hadees from a holy companion Abu Hurairah RA or the one who has written a book against Abu Hurairah RA in the 21st century or 1400 years after the demise of our holy prophet Muhammad peace be upon him?

         

     

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/5/2014 9:21:19 AM



  • That is why Shahul Hameed,  you should not trust ahadees. They mean nothing. They promote vile customs. They promote violence. They promote lewdness. They engage in character assassination of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

    Ahadees also give you good lessons. So choose what you like and say: maybe the Prophet (saw) said something like this. Never say these are the sayings of the Prophet. This cannot be said about any one hadees.

    By Sultan Shahin - 8/5/2014 8:36:33 AM



  • I think the misinterpretation of the Quranic verse (2:230) should also be retorted here so that the readers could know the real application of the verse:

    “So if a husband divorces his wife (for a third time), he cannot, after that remarry her until after she has married another husband and he has divorced her. In that case, there is no blame on either of them if they re-unite, provided they can keep the limits ordained by Allah. Such are the limits ordained by Allah which He makes plain to those who know”. (2:230).

    The writer of the cited article explains:

    "Actually, Halala is not a means of remarrying a wife after uttering divorce. When a man permanently divorces his wife by uttering three Talaqs (divorce) he cannot remarry her at any cost. If only the woman decides to have a second marriage to spend the rest of her life peacefully and for the sake of the future of her children (if any) and at any point of time if the second husband also divorces her on his own accord as a matter of coincidence and if, in case the woman also wants to get back to her first husband, she can remarry her first husband. And this process will be called Halala."
    By Simab Akhtar - 8/5/2014 8:34:20 AM



  • Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) was not (Maazallah) fabricator of Hadees. He was a companion of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. Every companion has a great reverence in Islam as even Muslims (Thank Allah Almighty) pay great respect to all companions.

    I left this debate just due to some commentators who use derogatory words sometimes for the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and sometimes for our holy companions.

    Now I am again ready to remove all false accusations and allegations regarding Islam, our holy prophets and even the pious companions of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. But I request all the commentators to be the part of this debate in a just manner and not the manner based on hatred and prejudice.

    I hope this debate will continue in a very peaceful manner.  

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/5/2014 8:31:17 AM




  • Dear Ashraf Ahmad, pray with me that New Age Islam is able to manage this. At the moment we are on the verge of closure. No financial support is coming despite all efforts. I am determined to keep it going even on a smaller scale for some months. Unfortunately translations into Arabic, French, Hindi will have to stop. Urdu may continue to a certain extent. However, given the resources, we would certainly want to get the Hadees books translated into English and other languages, if indeed, present translations are deliberate distortions. We also have several other projects lined up but nothing moves without funding. This is partly my fault. I do not find it easy to beg. Borrow I cannot do, as you have to return, and must know that you will be able to. Steal, of course is out of question. Not my cup of tea.

    By Sultan Shahin - 8/5/2014 8:20:05 AM



  • No Muslim puts the institution of the holy Hadeeses higher than even Quran. Every Muslim simply believes that hadees is Islamic scripture and must be followed by himself.  

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 8/5/2014 8:19:40 AM



  • Some years ago, I read an article on this site by Mr. Sohail Arshad, New Age Islam titled as “Halala: The Most Vile Custom in Islam”.

    He rightly points out this vile custom prevailing among Muslims:

    “If a man divorces his loving wife in a fit of rage someday and then after coming to his senses he realises his mistake and wants to take her back in his life, the mullah of his town tells him of the only option that is Halala that can make her ex-wife lawful for him.  He explains to the young man that to remarry his wife, first he will have to allow her to get married to another man who will consummate the marriage as her lawful husband. If the man divorces her only then he can remarry her after she spends the three-month iddat period.”

     

    He says that the custom is the result of the misinterpretation of the Quranic verse: (2:230).

    Whatever the case may be, I have found an authentic (sahih) hadith in the book of Bukhari that provides legality to this custom. Here it is:

    Volume 7, Book 63, Number 190:

    Narrated 'Aisha:

    A man divorced his wife and she married another man who proved to be impotent and divorced her. She could not get her satisfaction from him, and after a while he divorced her. Then she came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! My first husband divorced me and then I married another man who entered upon me to consummate his marriage but he proved to be impotent and did not approach me except once during which he benefited nothing from me. Can I remarry my first husband in this case?" Allah's Apostle said, "It is unlawful to marry your first husband till the other husband consummates his marriage with you."


    By Shahul Hameed - 8/5/2014 8:07:45 AM



  • Dear Shahul Hameed,  There is no need to bring back the lewd hadees again. We have found that this hadees exists. A little discrepancy in the translation does not matter. We are not researching hadeeses here and discrepancies in different translations. I don't see why Wahhabis will distort the hadees in translation knowingly. Of course, in translations some inconsistency, some difference always occurs. But that is not our subject.

     Our job is merely to fight blind faith in ahadees. The well-known compilers of Hadees like Imam Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Nasa'i, ibn Majah, Imam Malik, etc. have already rescued us from something like six hundred thousand ahadees. They have left around four or five thousand ahadees from which we have to rescue ourselves.

    Even those ahadees that appear to be quite in consonance with the Prophet's character and spirit of Quran and Islam may be concocted. We already know some very pious Muslims too, including a judge of impeccable character otherwise, concocted ahadees. Their intention was to do good and serve Islam but they did not see anything wrong in attributing their own good thoughts to the Prophet. Imam Bukhari and Muslim also discovered these good ahadees and eliminated them from their collections.

    However, these imams had their own criteria and worked accordingly. Judging the content was not part of their criteria, so they have left many ahadees which simply cannot be characterised as sayings of the Prophet.

    From all that we know about the Prophet and the most reliable of this knowledge comes from Quran, he was not stupid, irrational or sex-crazed, as the remaining ahadees in these compilations portray him in many places.

     Imam Bukhari, Muslims and others will be pleased with us if we carry their work forward. These were great people who spent a lifetime in their mission at great cost to themselves, even starving if they had to, travelling long distances in the Arab heat, some with meagre resources, some spent all their worldly wealth in this pursuit. We should be grateful to them and carry their work forward.

    We are trying to demonstrate that many hadeeses do not confirm to our idea of the pious Prophet's character and the spirit of Islam. We need not present hadeeses of pornographic nature to prove this.

    As I wrote before, while ahadees with lewd or lustful content may abound, there is no need to focus on them while seeking to make a point on the irrationality or stupidity of statements attributed to the Prophet (saw).

    Many of the ahadees were veritable character assassination attempts of the Prophet, and apparently deliberate, for reasons that are not difficult to see. There are so many ahadees, several can be found in the over 5,000 narrations of just one person, the famous fabricator Abu Huraira himself, that can prove the point.

    Also, ahadees that were concocted in the pursuit of particular political and other worldly goals can also be cited to make the point. It's important to cite these examples to tell Muslims that blind faith in ahadees as a divine scripture is not tenable. 

    By Sultan Shahin - 8/5/2014 7:57:38 AM



  • Then, NAI should get the Quran and Hadeeth books translated into English by Ghulam Ghaus and Ghulam Rasool Delhavi. This will be a pious work benefiting all Human beings and remove all misguiding meanings often taken out of context.     By Ashraf Ahmad - 8/5/2014 7:46:57 AM



  • Dear Shahul Hameed,

    Although I have found the hadiths on fasting quoted by Mr. rational in the original book of Bukhari Shareef too, by and large in the similar fashion, they are out of context. Once they are put into their proper place, the issue will be resolved. I need a little time to explain the matter.   

    Thank you for your comment.

    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 8/5/2014 7:06:52 AM



  • Dear GRD, do you also find this discrepancy between the hadits on fasting quoted by Mr. rational and what is in the original book of Bukhari?

    Since Mr. Rational has already given the reference, I think the Editor will allow me to quote the full hadith texts, again after they were deleted from the comment section when posted without reference. 

    By Shahul Hameed - 8/5/2014 6:50:57 AM



  • Ok Mr. Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi, if you think the Wahabi English translations of the hadith books are not reliable. Then obviously the moderate and even the mainstream Muslims of the world are misled following the wahabi extremist ideologies by reading their translations. I concluded it because you have said that “No English translation of even Sahih Bukhari, let alone other books of hadith (from among Sihah-e-Sitta) by any moderate Islamic scholar has yet been produced. In the face of this dilemma, How can we rely upon the English translations of the hadith books?”

    By Shahul Hameed - 8/5/2014 6:38:03 AM



  • Dear readers, I find discrepancy between many English  hadith translations rendered by Wahabi scholars and the original books of hadith. I doubt the exactness of wording in the translations of hadees books by Wahabis. Only Wahabi translations are available and are being used by us all on internet. No English translation of even Sahih Bukhari, let alone other books of hadith (from among Sihah-e-Sitta) by any moderate Islamic scholar has yet been produced. In the face of this dilemma, How can we rely upon the English translations of the hadith books?


    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 8/5/2014 6:14:00 AM



  • When talking of moderate or enlightened Islam we should not forget two important writers on the subject, Gamal al-Banna and Mahmoud Taha.


    The liberal Muslim scholar Gamal al-Banna was the antithesis of his older brother Hassan, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

    For Gamal anything that contradicted justice, freedom, and tolerance was not Islamic. He argued that the Quran neither obliges women to wear the hijab nor denies them the right to run for the highest posts, including the presidency. He disagreed with mainstream scholars who hold that the Sword verses about jihad and war against non-Muslims overrule others promoting tolerance. He perceived the apparent contradiction  as a sign of the Quran’s flexibility and adaptability to different situations. He wrote: “The circumstances in one society may differ from those in another, and one epoch may differ from a previous one ...”

    While his brother spent his life seeking to establish a utopian religious state, Banna’s book “Islam is a Religion and an Ummah, not a Religion and a State,” refutes classical Islamist claims about the indispensability of an Islamic state. For Islamists, Muslims have a religious obligation to establish an Islamic state where God’s Sharia shall be implemented.

    Banna challenged such an obligation by arguing that Islam could spread in Mecca during the Prophet’s time while there was still no Islamic state and when the majority of Muslims were persecuted by non-believers.

    He went on to contend that mixing religion with power threatens the faith itself. 

    Sudanese scholar Mahmoud Taha had very similar views. He greatly favored the Mecca Qur'an as opposed to Sharia laws which are the essence of Medina Qur'an. While the Medina Qur'an was appropriate at its time to be the essence of Sharia, it is now time to bring the Mecca Quran to legislate. Taha opposed Sharia law as applied in Sudan as non-Islamic and preached that the Sudanese constitution needed to be reformed to reconcile "the individual's need for absolute freedom with the community's need for total social justice."

    He believed that Islam "in its original, uncorrupted form", which is in the Mecca Qur'an, accorded women and non-Muslims equal status. As can be expected, he was executed by the government of Sudan.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/26/2014 6:20:47 PM



    1. However, if the woman commits a bigger crime, the husband can beat her not in vengeance but with the intention of reforming her and as a warning.  While beating, he should take care that she should not be hurt seriously. The Books of Fiqhah have mentioned that the husband can punish his wife for four things:

      1. If the husband orders his wife to decorate herself with ornaments and legitimate make-up but she disobeys and remains dirty.
      2. If the husband invites her to bed and she refuses without any legitimate reason.       
      3. If she does not take bath to purify herself after menses.
      4. If she abstain from performing Salaah without a legitimate reason

      source:http://www.nooremadinah.net/Documents/IslamicSisters/WomenAfterMarriage_P4/WomenAfterMarriage_P4.asp

    is it a wahabi teaching or Sufi teaching?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/25/2014 3:55:44 AM



  • Mr Sultan Shahin
    please go through following link.

    http://www.nooremadinah.net/Documents/VariousIslamicTopics/04%29ValentinesDay/ValentinesDay.asp
    "Valentine's Day, Father's Day, Mother's Day"
    Can you tell me how it is different from wahabism?
    don't you see the contempt for the kuffar in this Brailvi article.
    how do you think it can be used to live peacefully with kuffar. Is it Wahabi venom or Islamic?

    it is a matter of time every hadith is valid and applicable for every Brailvi/Sufi.
    Brailvis bear the non-Muslims on their mazars for monetary gain not because they respect them as human beings.
    you might have heard "kaam pyara ya chaam" just change it to " daam piyara ya chaam".
    i hope you have got my point.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/25/2014 3:52:15 AM



  • Mr Sultan Shahin - 7/25/2014 2:40:32 AM
    what if something i produce from Brailvi sites? you just can't blame Wahabis alone?
    as i have said earlier that i don't belong to any sect now, but i certainly want to show the real faces of other sexually impotent sects of the Islam(Sufism)?
    can you wash your hands just throwing your all venom on wahabis.
    you have no answer why Muslims turn to Wahabism. there may be petrodollar behind the contruction of mosques and madarsa but how can you convert Brailvis by giving them money. i  saw whole areas were converted to wahabism who were staunch Brailvis  at sometime.
    they didn't achieve it by giveing them petrodollars. it was in the name of removal of shirk and bidat.
    i can't buy your theory of petrodollar because i have never seen any body getting converted to wahabism by money.
    you can contruct mosques, madarsas by Saudi fund but you can't simply convert if wahabism is not attractive to them.
    Zakir naik may be wahabi agent, but how can he convince millions including non-Muslims if the wahabism is empty.
    your Brailvism/Sufism is not paak saaf.period. All Hadith material equally rest on the paddle higher than the Quran for Brailvis.
    Mr Ghulam Ghaus a staunch Sufi clearly put the Hadith on high pedestal. if he believes the Quran can't be understood without hadith, it simply means the hadith is more important because you are not able to decode the divine message.
    Mr Ghulam ghaus is not a lone person. whole Ummah stands by him. 

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/25/2014 3:33:43 AM



  • Thanks, Mohd Younus Rational,  

    My demand for the Islamicity url was just to illustrate that ahadees of all sorts are acceptable and available everywhere. Wahhabism is considered by many in the Muslim world and the West, a puritan  sect of Islam. But clearly the most lascivious of ahadees are reproduced by them too, and not to question their authenticity but approvingly.

    I was told by a friend that though these ahadees exist, Muslims are not supposed to read or discuss them and they are not taught in madrasas. Maybe so. But clearly they can be and, I suppose they have to be, reproduced on even a 'puritan' Wahhabi website, if they are found in Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 31: Fasting. However, many fasting people do not like reading Hadees on Fasting in Bukhari Shareef, which they also consider, next to, if not superior to Quran at the same time.

    However, what I have been trying to tell you is that while ahadees with lewd or lustful content may abound, there is no need to focus on them while seeking to make a point on the irrationality or stupidity of statements attributed to the Prophet (saw). Many of the ahadees were veritable character assassination attempts of the Prophet. There are so many ahadees, several can be found in the over 5,000 narrations of just one person, the famous Abu Huraira himself, that can prove the point. Also, ahadees that were concocted in the pursuit of particular political and other worldly goals can also be cited to make the point. It's important to cite these examples to tell Muslims that blind faith in ahadees as a divine scripture is not tenable.  

    By Sultan Shahin - 7/25/2014 2:40:32 AM



  • Mr Sultan Shahin
    here is one URL
    http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/sunnah/bukhari/031.sbt.html
    Volume 3, Book 31, Number 149: Narrated 'Aisha: .....

         Volume 3, Book 31, Number 151: Narrated Zainab:
    if i didn't give url, it doesn't mean it is not there.

    [There is no need to go into details. Interested people can check this site. Some readers who are on fast now are ashamed of and will get provoked by some ahadees in the chapter on Fasting in Bukhari Shareef, though some others will explain and justify them in elaborate detail. So I have deleted the details-- Editor]

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/25/2014 1:20:19 AM



  • My Dear Fellow Muslims,

     

    As-Salaam Alay-Kum

     

    My first question to all of you “The Readers” is, “Did any one of you know how many people are reading blogs?” Another question that comes to my mind is, “Does anyone have any idea as to how many posts are being published every single month?”The correct answers as provided by “WordPress.com” are as follows:

     

    Over 409 million people view more than 14.4 billion pages each month.

     

    Over 42.6 million new posts approximately 51.6 million comments are posted each month.

     

    My second question is, “How many Muslims are reading out of these posts and/or comments out of 409 million people?” Of course, the preference of the Muslims is to read more of the negative news, suffer irritation and indulge into verbal abuses. Such a trend in our thinking process has now become more of a routine with those who willingly participate in any debate in the Islamic forums out in the cyberspace. It is truly sad, but such is the state of affairs due to our minds being always inclined to entertain negative thoughts most of the time which has crippled our ability to focus upon the positive and spiritual message of Islam.  

                      

    My third question is, “Did any one of you bother to realize how we the Muslims have converted our religion into a “Ritualistic Mode” and turned far away from the “Spiritual Message” of our Holy Quran?” Why should we care, as we have long surrendered our “Right of Intellectual Thinking” to our so-called Ulamas who are busy interpreting the verses of Holy Quran in a flat, literalist, isolationist, manner disregarding its holistic message and mitigating verses. This has contributed to their teaching notions such as religious bigotry, supremacism, sectarianism, triumphalism, violence and intolerance which are antithetical to the Quranic message. Furthermore, their Friday sermons and religious narratives, draw on Islam’s medieval discourses and fail to activate the Muslim youth to any forward-thinking, intellect-building or excelling in their respective lawful pursuits such as attainment of knowledge or accomplishment in the various areas of life as implicit in the Quranic message. 

     

    To be brutally honest, I have long been forewarning that if the “Moderate Muslims” do not engage in any honest and healthy debate about our current crisis in the Islamic countries, then there is no hope for the Islamic civilization to survive for long. Thinking that our fellow humans will sit ideal and accept the immoral and ruthless behavior of our deadly “Jihadists” is nothing but a wishful thinking. I have always maintained that the “Islamophobe” industry is the sole creation of our negligence in not portraying the true message of the Quranic verses to the world at large. Why lay the blame on those who do not follow Islam?     

     

    In my blog www.whythesilence.com I have dedicated one section The Wisdom of our Holy Quranto the writings of one Hashim Amir Ali (May Almighty Allah rest his soul in peace). In this blog “http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com I have not only allocated Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s, one of the greatest Islamic scholars (May Almighty Allah rest his soul in peace) pragmatic thoughts on four most important subjects, which are: “Forgiveness, “Righteousness, “The Straight Path” and “The Unity of Man, but I went even further and requested Muhammad Yunus, a dedicated Islamic scholar to generously share his inner thoughts into the Quranic message, as expounded in a recently published authenticated work, Essential Message of Islam which he co-authored with a distinguished Islamic scholar, Ashfaque Ullah Syed.

     

    On reading Yunus Saheb’s articles, I was very much impressed with his vast knowledge of Islam, and more so about his in-depth study of the Holy Quran. On appreciating the tag line which I chose for the blog, that is, QAD A'FLAHA MAN TAZAKKA ~ But he will prosper – Who purifies himself, Yunus Saheb went one step ahead and honestly elaborated his wholehearted belief in the following Quranic verses:

     

    wa nafsin wa ma sawwaha

         

    fa alhamahuma fujuraha wa taqwaha.

     

    "God has intricately balanced (sawwaha) human ego (nafs) and imbued it with both moral depravity and moral uprightness (taqwa)

          

    Surah: Al-Shams (The Sun) ~ Chapter: 91 – Verse: 7 & 8

     

    Enlightened minds of Muslims, though far and few, must take serious note of such Quranic verses and try to comprehend its impact on the human minds. Unfortunately, our Ulamas concentration has been far more on the ritual deeds and far less on the spiritual bliss which our Holy Quran continuously and persistently reminds Muslims to acquire. Sadly today, the Islamic world is in the state of turmoil owing mainly to Muslims who have stopped practicing the art of “Reading” and understanding our own “Divine BookAlif, Laam MimZa_likal kita_bu la_ raiba fihi hudal lilmuttaqin.” as revealed to our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) during the blessed month of Ramadhan. Simply put, WE THE MODERATE MUSLIMS must wake up before it is too late.

     

                       

     

    “This is the book; there is no doubt in it. It is a guide for those who  are mindful of God.”                

         

    Surah: Al-Baqarah (The Heifer) ~ Chapter: 2 – Verse: 2

     

    Yunus Saheb and I do not need any compliments. Our earnest request to all of you during this Holy Month of Ramadhan is to take out some of your valuable time from your busy schedule to glance at the blog. Surely, all “The Readers” will agree that any “Moderate Muslims” belonging to a decent family will not appreciate negative comments. Therefore, while passing on your comments to the email which we have assigned:


    human@wethemoderatemuslims.com,


    try your best to convey positive as well as enlightening messages only. From our personal experience, Yunus Saheb and I have come to learn that there are quite a number of our fellow Muslims turned “Ex-Muslim,who enjoy assaulting our religion of Islam in any way they can.

     

    Truthfully speaking, being caught in the midst of “Illiterate Brutes” who are on the killing spree, it is high time that we the Muslims from all walks of life make serious efforts to understand the humanistic and pluralistic dimensions of the Quranic message and its emphasis on, among other things, peace, justice, forgiveness and positive interaction with the ‘others’ so that we can prevent our children from radicalization by terrorist ideologues, and from apostasy, blasphemy and retrogressive arguments. No doubt, we are acutely aware that there are indeed a handful of “Intellectual Bigots,who are always fully prepared to scorn the real, spiritual message of our Holy Quran. Knowing such a ground reality, we must now seriously think of putting forth our concerted and wholehearted efforts to spread the “Spiritual Message” of Islam coupled with the correct translations of the Quranic verses. In short, the sole purpose of this blog is to rectify the distorted image of Islam, and as such, every sane and educated Muslim is encouraged to participate in this mission.

     

    All in all, it is imperative that we speak with one voice against all the mayhem caused by the “Muslim Terrorists” in the name of Islam as the Quran does not allow any retaliatory killing of innocent people or any other form of terrorism against common civilians. With this, I do humbly welcome you to my just inaugurated blog/website which is devoted to appeal to the minds of “Moderate Muslims” who seem to stay aloof and have lost sight of the vital Qur’anic doctrine which explicitly states, “al-amr bi 'l-maʿruf wa 'n-nahy ʿan al-munkar - Enjoin the good (ma’aruf); forbid the evil (munkar.) I, therefore, invite you to browse through the blog, read its articles and better yet, listen attentively to the recitation of some of the most spiritually enriching Suras of the Quran by the world’s most famous reciter of the Holy Quran, Qari Abdul Basit 'Abd us-Samad (May Almighty Allah rest his soul in peace).

     

    Wishing all of our Muslim brothers and sisters to have a blessed remaining days of Ramadhan. May Almighty Allah bless each and every Muslim family around the world during these difficult times for all of us.

     

    Compassionately yours,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/19/2014 4:30:35 PM



  • Lodhia the .......- 7/17/2014 3:45:27 AM

    [Mr. Mohd Younus Rational, since you have still not given the url of the page in Islamicity that you claimed had ahadees that you quoted, nor have apologised to Islamicity for having dragged their name unnecessarily, we are unable to post ahadees given by you. In any case your posts do not appear to be meant to promote discussion, but just to provoke readers. There are plenty of ahadees in the sahih books that can be cited as examples of oversight by the authorities who collected and authorised them as authentic. But your purpose clearly is just to make fun of Muslims who believe in all ahadees blindly and even give baseless sources. -- Editor]


    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/17/2014 5:00:50 AM



  • Ex-Tablighi,

     

    You are one perfect example of a “Madrassa Educated Muslim. One should expect such answers from you.

     

    In fact, I am not at all surprised. I know your kind in and out. Western teachers were not responsible for messing up your brains. It was the “Bearded Buffoons” who were entirely responsible.

     

    I have nothing else to add. You can spit out your hatred against Islam as that is all you can do. The reason being that while you were learning all the hatred from the Mullahs, now you are spreading your hate towards those readers who are decent Muslims.

     

    Carry on, Ex-Tablighi. You have all the freedom and so does your counterpart who is another die-hard “Tablighi. You are nothing but a sore loser.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia    

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/17/2014 3:45:27 AM



  • lodhia
    here is a hadith.

    say me thanks as it can multiply your thawab many times.
    for reference, take some pain. keeping fast means not to sit idle.

    [Mr. Mohd Younus Rational, since you have still not given the url of the page in Islamicity that you claimed had ahadees that you quoted, nor have apologised to Islamicity for having dragged their name unnecessarily, we are unable to post ahadees given by you. In any case your posts do not appear to be meant to promote discussion, but just to provoke readers. There are plenty of ahadees in the sahih books that can be cited as examples of oversight by the authorities who collected and authorised them as authentic. But your purpose clearly is just to make fun of Muslims who believe in all ahadees blindly and even give baseless sources. -- Editor]

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/17/2014 3:37:46 AM



  • lodhia
    are you not the product of this very sex you are very disturbed with? why don't you castrate yourself? what is wrong if your prophet had with Maria Qibtiya after he sent his wife to his father by telling a lie. and all these acts were sanctioned by the Allah.



    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/17/2014 3:04:32 AM



  •  

    Respected Readers,

     

    “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.”

     

    Then Naseer Ahmed Saheb goes on by writing:

     

    I would recommend them to read books by the team of …… let’s say western authors ……

     

    Well, what perfect example of “A First Class Muslim Hypocrite” can one show to the world?

     

    Welcome to the “Dark Age Islam” folks.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/17/2014 2:53:58 AM



  • Respected Readers,

     

    Sultan Shahin Saheb wrote on July 17, 2014 as follows:

     

    “It would help if we brought a notch down our self-righteousness, arrogance and our show of sentimentality about our love for the Prophet, at least for the month of Ramazan.”

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia wrote on July 1, 2014 as follows:

     

    Sultan Shahin –  Editor & Moderator of New Age Islam

     

    I personally plead with you to put a full stop to THE RAMBLINGS OF AN INSANE ISLAMIC SCHOLAR.

     

    Does Naseer Ahmed Saheb realize that Muslim women are also reading his comments? Why do you continue to think that the readers on your forum are learning from this so-called “Observer”? Such a preposterous assumption about the life of Prophet of Islam is not appreciated at all, Sultan Saheb.         

     

    For Almighty Allah’s sake and for the sake of our beloved Prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him), do us all a big favor by censoring the discussion of this very topic during this Holy Month of Ramadhan.

     

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia  - 7/1/2014 7:12:10 PM

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/17/2014 2:29:36 AM



  • Mr Shahin, I had written this comment several days ago but did not post it. I am posting it now in view of Rational’s preceding comment. Let me first put the record straight. I have chided Rational in very clear words for the dirty manner in which he asked the questions with intention to offend. Pornography is very much in intent, manner and frame of mind and his allusions were pornographic and continue to be so.

    Having said that, I also invite attention to the comment of Mr Yunus (By muhammad yunus - 7/9/2014 3:35:18 AM) addressed to a lady which is equally disgusting and dirty which he ends with “unless your sexual morality is no different from stray dogs who play their sexual act on public places”. Maybe it is his age factor and he is losing control over his senses but he is addressing the lady while telling her that! This comment also deserves to be deleted as dirty and offensive to not only the lady, but for quoting Dante to tell Rational in the most graphic and disgusting detail, what fate awaits him in the hereafter. A Muslim is always fearful of warning another person of what God will do to them as such presumption is disliked by God and the chances are that God may make the same, the fate of the one who dares to presume for God.

    I have shown that the hadiths that were cited can be discussed in a matter of fact and mature way and it had its effect and Rational was quiet until Mr Yunus and you joined issue. While people do show excellent knowledge of pornography, they do not appear to have read any serious stuff on the subject. I would recommend them to read books by the team of Masters and Johnson. The Masters and Johnson research team, composed of William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, pioneered research into the nature of human sexual response and the diagnosis and treatment of sexual disorders and dysfunctions from 1957 until the 1990s. Keeping in mind the negative effects of treating the subject as dirty and unmentionable, and the debilitating effects of the Christian Sexual Ethics (which permeated all cultures thanks to colonialism) which considered the act as sinful except for procreation in missionary position only, and required their clergy to be celibates, the value of some of the hadiths stand out, as far ahead of their time in promoting a healthy attitude towards sex. Daniel Kahneman gives a simple formula for the success of marriages as (Frequency of Lovemaking minus frequency of quarrels). If this number is negative, then the couple is heading for divorce and if it is positive, the marriage is going well. To keep the frequency of love making high, the couple must find the act enjoyable. The importance of foreplay and after play, passionate kissing, grooming, being made to feel wanted and desired etc. are well documented by serious academic research. If the Muslims have by and large maintained a healthy attitude towards sex unlike the Christians for example, who have swung from one extreme to another, from guilt laden frigidity to gay abandon, it may in no small measure be to the ahadith.

    What is dirty is the manner in which Dr Shabbir Ahmed discusses these in his book/articles and the manner in which others have used the same in their several comments. What needs to be removed therefore are:

    1.     Remove the link to the book “The Criminals of Islam” by Dr Shabbir Ahmed.

    2.     Remove the article Wrongs From The “Right” Bukhari By Dr. Shabbir Ahmed

    3.     Remove the comments of several commentators who have extensively quoted the hadiths to run down the imams and their collection of hadiths not only recently, but also in the past in a manner that is pornographic.

     People like Rational can only denigrate Islam because of the way certain people respond to him. They are two sides of the same coin.

    By Observer - 7/17/2014 2:17:27 AM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin
    "Now a word about the pornographic or near-pornographic portrayal of the Prophet as a sex maniac by Mohd Younus Rational, quoting hadeeses as he first claimed from a Wahhabi website Islamicity, then when he could not give the url, and his quotes were deleted, again quoting from Sunan Abu Dawood something similar, though still without a url. But since classical Islamic scholars have not questioned these ahadees being a part of Sunan Abu Dawood, I have left  them on the site for now."

    i deliberately didn't give the exact url of Islamicty.com. i have given some references in later comments. you could find and verify if you had taken some pain to prove me wrong.

    my argument has been always that the imams who collected, recorded the material you call pornographic are revered by all Muslims. why then they should not be called blasphemers. why they should not be condemned?
    if i give you url of Islamicity.com, you will just reject by saying that the site is extremely wahabi.
    Don't Brailvis have all those insulting hadiths in their books?
    All Ahadith books are valid including all insulting Hadiths for major group(Brailvis according to you) and wahabi group. Has ever any Brailvi objected to those accounts? Have any Brailvi Alaim separated insulting material from the good one.
    Sec-maniacs were your Imams not me. Have some honesty left in you?
    i now see how blind you too are?.

    i send Laanat for such people. Let the prophet do in his grave what he has done in his life according to authentic records prepared by non other than Muslims. After all according to your sect he is alive in his grave.
    Muslims take pride in the sexual prowess of the prophet and you call it pervertedness. who is the sex-manic one who is limited to one wife of one who had many wives and many concubines.
    Sucking of tongue is not objectionable  but quoting here is. what a non-sense!
    Don't say Observer is only the person who think it is alright for a prophet to do all....
    i have nothing more to say. i see how moderates are equally blind to justice. period
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/17/2014 2:13:27 AM



  • Respected Readers,

     

    Such a statement from Naseer Ahmed / Observer can only come from the one who is a die-hard “Tablighi.

     

    “The anti-religious slant in western education affects all those who pursue it and therefore we find even Muslims who have received western education drifting away from religion. These strata of 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.”

     

    Can anyone ask “The Anointed One” what the hell is he talking about? Hell, what about this particular “Tablighi”? What kind of education did he acquired to write most of the rubbish?

     

    Your guess is as good as mine!

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/17/2014 2:07:51 AM



  • Lodhia - 7/16/2014 8:52:19 PM
    kabhi kaam ki baat bhi kiya karo. you have nothing to say or reply except complaining.
    if your imams could write insulting Hadith in the Ramzan why we cant discuss it.
    Doesn't the Quran and Hadith permit sex after the fast is over and before the next fast begins?
    nobody is concocting ahadith now. it is part and parcel of your religion Islam.
    There is enough sex in the Quran and Ahadith. you must be reciting it in the travih includding the verses of Surah Rahman describing the enjoyment momineen like you will have like hoor o ghilman.
    Hadith describes when the Ghusl becomes obligatory? if you don't believe in Hadith how do you attain the purity necessary to perform the namaz. or you stand before the Allah in Haalat e junub.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/17/2014 1:41:08 AM



  • Mr Shahin,

    We do not tax and overload our thinking on each every matter. If we were to do that, we would never be able to do anything worthwhile. Most of what we do and how we react is a conditioned response. The conditioning is the way we were brought up, the way our environment shapes us etc. Most of it is therefore unthinking imitation which serves us very well. As social beings, we conform to be accepted by the rest. Our table manners therefore conform to the ways of the people we eat with, the use of common facilities to the expectation of others on how to keep them clean and in order, the use of the road to the traffic rules etc. Much of our life or more than 90% of what we do is an automatic response based on our conditioning and if this was not so and if we tried to think out everything, we would not be able to accomplish anything useful and fret over small matters. Showing our individuality in matters that matter very little would be a waste of our talents.

    The use of the left hand for cleaning/washing/wiping after defecating and the right hand for eating is not without meaning either. The ahadiths cover many important matters such as treatment of guests, neighbours, domestic help, wives, children, wayfarers, strangers etc. What makes conformance to such excellent values easier is that we are following the sunnat of the prophet. Any amount of exhortations without associating these with the practice of the Prophet would not have the same effect. The ahadiths teach us the right values in a far more effective way than any other form of teaching.

    As a matter of fact, the Muslim way of living is influenced by the ahadiths and we follow these without even knowing that we are following the ahadith.  If you google on the hadith regarding the urine of an infant, you will find many discussions and comments and opinions of scholars but none of them have given the reasons I have given. I was also surprised that Ghaus Sb initially feigned ignorance about the hadith. The fact is that every Muslim I know is aware of the difference whether rich or poor without knowing that there is a hadith on the subject. I also wasn’t aware that there was a hadith on the subject until Alam brought it up. If a male infant soils the clothes, they will say "don't worry too much, after all it is a breast fed boy". If it is a girl, they will advise you to wash it off. I have heard even servants say this.

    If you check on the reasons that I gave, you can easily confirm that each of them is true but you will not get the reasons by inquiring on what the difference between a male/female urine is. So how did I get the reasons? I vaguely remembered my wife talking about it some 30 years ago based on what she learned from her mother. The precise medical reasons are therefore also known to people like my mother in law, my wife and many others. Perhaps the women know the exact reasons better than the men but don’t talk about it and therefore the men are mostly unaware of the reasons. Muslims are therefore not exactly unthinking when they follow the ahadith nor unaware of the underlying reasons.

    The fact therefore is that most of what we do is by way of imitation and while imitating peers and people in our immediate environment or our colleagues in our offices is not questioned, I find it surprising that taking instruction from the ahadith on matters that have very much to do with our practice of Islam in the matter of maintaining the minimum standard for being considered clean for performing our prayers is being discouraged! Yes, most of us maintain a standard higher than the minimum required but we should be aware of the minimum standard just in case there are constraints which prevent us on some occasion from maintaining our normal standards.

    This discomfort with religion is clearly the effect of western education which has a very pronounced slant against all religions which may be mainly attributed to the antagonistic attitude the Church took to science, the persecution of many scientists for holding their scientific views and its inflexible stand on many issues as listed below which is changing only lately:

    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.

    6.  Inhuman punishments in the medieval period (burning at the stakes, execution after torture including emasculation) in which the Church played a key role.

    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.

    The anti-religious slant in western education affects all those who pursue it and therefore we find even Muslims who have received western education drifting away from religion. These strata of 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.

    The anti-religion slant in western education is a reaction to the excesses of the Church and understandable but the same rubs off on all those who pursue it even though their religion may be free from the same excesses. This is precisely because we are unthinking imitators and those who have received western education conform to the values and viewpoints of others who have received a similar education which means that they are by and large against religion. This unthinking imitation while opposing religion is not different from the unthinking acceptance which you accuse Ghaus Sb of. The unthinking opposition is reflected in the way this debate is framed as a wholesale attack on all ahadith rather than as an exhortation to use reason and reject the many ahadith that are clearly concocted and unreasonable. What we need is cleaning up on what is antithetical to the message of the Quran and not in keeping with what we know of the Prophet (pbuh) and many others that contradict each other. There are many good ahadith and selections of these are available keeping out the doubtful ones which serve a very useful purpose.

    What this debate has clearly demonstrated is that no one is willing to consider the hadith on scientific facts including Ghaus Sb. The politics of the question is more important to the people than the merits of the case. In order to wean people away from their unthinking acceptance of the many doubtful ahadith, what do we have to propose to them as an alternative? If we cannot reject/accept even a single hadith based on scientific facts, we have really nothing to offer as an alternative except empty rhetoric! 

    By Observer - 7/17/2014 1:29:21 AM



  • Dear Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia Saheb, thanks for your kind comment. But, unfortunately, it's not possible for me to ban Quran and Hadees from being published in an Islamic website.

    However, any one fabricates verses from Quran and quotes from Hadees, he or she is surely going to be banned from the site and the fabrication deleted. You may have noticed that I have deleted  Mohammad Younus Rational's quotes from Quran - though they are most likely not newly forged by him - because he could not furnish the url of Islamicity page from where he had claimed to have found them.

    Now if you discover that the references of Sunan Abu Daud that he gave recently are wrong, I will not only delete them but ban him from the website.

    But, I am sorry, I cannot ban Sunan Abu Daud. Abu Daud was a great muhaddis, spent a lifetime researching and collecting ahadees. We may disagree with some of his ahadees, ask Muslims to disregard them, not consider them sayings of the Prophet (saw), but we cannot ban him.

    It would help if we brought a notch down our self-righteousness, arrogance and our show of sentimentality about our love for the Prophet, at least for the month of Ramazan.

    By Sultan Shahin - 7/17/2014 1:27:40 AM



  • Good Morning Sultan Shahin Saheb,

     

    Three days lapsed by and you are back again responding to two notorious commentators who are always busy trying to share their out of the ordinary comments as usual. I can now perfectly relate as to why they are considered as the vital contributors to “New Age Islam” forum. In the sales arena, it is called “Sizzle Sells,” and on the Islamic forums, it should be rightly named as “Insults Pays.”

     

    You wrote, “Intellectual and philosophers, even self-styled ones, should feel ashamed of themselves advocating that Muslims remain abound to such medieval norms.” What is more shocking is that the selected commentators on the “Islamic Forum, do not feel ashamed at all during this holy month of Ramadhan discussing about one “Hadith” that has been taken out of context. Sadly, even as a “Moderator” of the forum, you are further elaborating and encouraging for more answers. You know what the reaction will be, but I guess that does not matter as long as the readers are enjoying the forum.  

     

    Sultan Saheb, you can be rest assured that the two, that is, “Tablighi & Ex-Tablighi” are going to shamelessly continue with their assaults and will not even spare the Prophet of Islam. I am afraid there is nothing one reader like me can do, given that it is your forum and free for all to indulge in assassinating the character of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him).

     

    Carry on, Sultan Shahin Saheb. Bear in mind that now with the addition of readership from the country of Pakistan, you might just want to reconsider some of your very liberal rules and regulations of your very forum. For a conservative Muslim like me and many others, I sense that the “New Age Islam” is not truly helping the crucial discussions, but rather the forum itself is getting way too polluted with vulgar words and snotty remarks from a handful of commentators.

     

    Have a blessed remaining ten days of Ramadhan to you, your beloved family members and all the dedicated team of NAI.

     

    Very respectfully yours,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/16/2014 8:52:19 PM



  • Sultan Shahin sb. says, "That Muslims should even be looking for answers to many such questions is scandalous. Use your mind and let others too use theirs." . . .

    Very true! It seems we have fallen into the habit of needing and seeking answers for everything from "authoritative" sources, as if we can't think for ourselves. We do not have to do everything "by the rule." I am sure God never intended us to be be robots. What the Prophet said to a mother about why he did not have to wash his garment soiled by her  male baby's urine did not need to be noted or analyzed. 

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/16/2014 2:16:23 PM



  • Dear Naseer Saheb (Observer), Sorry about the delay in my response. As I have written before, "when Syed Manzoor Alam Saheb brought out the urine-related hadees, to challenge Mr. Ghulam Ghouse's blind faith in hadees, he was not focusing on that particular hadees but the unreliability, absurdness of many so-called authentic (sahih) hadeeses. When some people arguing against blind belief in hadees quote pornographic material, their intention is not to either discuss that particular pornographic content, or even to disabuse us of the very institution of hadees but to attack the blind faith in hadees, putting it on a pedestal even above the holy Quran, as Tablighi Jamaat and ahl-e-hadees people and generally nearly all Muslims do."

     

    You probably got entangled in this hadees as this was the first hadees you had come across. The only book you read is Quran. But your approach is correct. Many of us may not agree with the outcome of that research, or may not consider that relevant any more, but the methodology of looking at the content of hadees and deciding for oneself whether it appeals to us as authentic is the right one. However, what is authentic for you may not be authentic for me, and this status should be acceptable to both of us.  

     

    What should not be acceptable, and I expect your support in this, is not only to accept all ahadees blindly, without thinking, as authentic, but also to be determined never to think, never to change one's opinion in life.  Ghulam Ghaus Saheb says: "As for me I have faith in Quran and Hadees. Some of you may disagree with me on my having faith in hadees. I will never go against this faith; rather, I will support, favour, and base my points on both Quran and Hadith. In any case, if you have problem with my idea, you can prevent me from writing comments, articles on this website."

     

    It was this determination to never think in life, which is, to be fair to Ghaus Saheb, representative of general Muslim mindset, that Mr. Alam had found disturbing and I had found shocking.

     

    Despite all your exertions Naseer Saheb, Ghulam Ghaus Saheb is still not saying that he accepts this urine-related hadees because he goes by your well-researched thesis, and accepts your science. He apparently sees no point in all this research. He accepts it because it is hadees and therefore not open to question.  

     

    Now a word about the pornographic or near-pornographic portrayal of the Prophet as a sex maniac by Mohd Younus Rational, quoting hadeeses as he first claimed from a Wahhabi website Islamicity, then when he could not give the url, and his quotes were deleted, again quoting from Sunan Abu Dawood something similar, though still without a url. But since classical Islamic scholars have not questioned these ahadees being a part of Sunan Abu Dawood, I have left  them on the site for now.

     

     I cannot possibly censor Quran and Hadees on this Islamic website and I cannot blame anyone for quoting authentic ahadees, as long he is not making them up himself and gives correct references from Islamic sources. Your view has been that since we are all products of a sexual process, it's okay for the prophet (saw) to have been a sex maniac, having sexual intercourse with all his 13 wives at row without having a bath or sucking the tongue of his wives, etc. You say that ugliness is in the eyes of the beholder, not in the sexual acts of the prophet themselves as narrated copiously, repeatedly and with relish in Hadees books.

     

    Fine, I can still accept that, as, after all, you are thinking about the content and then accepting them. You are not a blind follower of Hadees as common unthinking Muslims represented by Ghulam Ghaus Saheb in this thread. I may not agree with you but that is another matter. My assessment of the prophet's personality is not that of a lascivious sex-maniac as represented in ahadees. But that is another matter. I still accept you as a thinking Muslim. The only thing I do not understand is why did you come up in defence of Ghulam Ghaus Saheb when Syed Manzoor Alam expressed his horror at his expression of determination to remain a blind believer all his life, before I could, as I was still in shock.

     

    Finally, no useful purpose is served in telling people how to take bath or how to give bath to a dead body or which foot to use first while entering a toilet. Can't you do all this and more yourself and how does it matter. Don't you know how to take bath? This is just shackling Muslim mind into a medieval Mullah prison. Intellectuals and philosophers, even self-styled ones, should feel ashamed of themselves advocating that Muslims remain bound to such medieval norms. That Muslims should even be looking for answers to many such questions is scandalous. Use your mind and let others too use theirs.  

    By Sultan Shahin - 7/16/2014 1:06:13 PM



  • So Rational Saheb, Wahhabi sites are not using fake pornographic ahadees. In that case we should not worry too much about them. Most Sunnis have developed a Wahhabi mindset anyway.

    Who visits Sufi-Barailvi websites, even if such rubbish ahadees are there. So they can't do much damage. We must however check from our sources if this is true and Wahhabi sites do not carry such ahadees, we cannot completely trust Md.Yunus Rational in the matter. He is known to be a Wahhabi-supporter. 

    As for most Sunnis developing a Wahhabi mindset,  Note the way Sunnis accept ISIS as a Sunni organisation. No one says it is a purely Wahhabi organisation. Sunnis have no problem in this Wahhabi outfit being considered a Sunni sectarian war-machine and khilafat by the entire world media. No protest from any one we could consider non-Wahhabi Sunni. Perhaps ther aren't any left. .

    So we should not worry about these ahadees anymore, I suppose, as they are not being used by Wahhabi websites, as Rational Md Yunus Sb had claimed earlier.

    However, we do need to worry about claims made by Md Yunus Sb Rational. Should always take them with a pinch of salt. He should at least apologise to Islamicity for pointing fingers at them without any basis for carrying forged pornographic ahadees .

    By Sultan Shahin - 7/13/2014 10:49:19 AM



  • Dear rational,
       You say that quran does not classify filth. But does quran say that human urine,cow urine etc  are nejaasat( filth)?
     what is breaking of Wudhu?
    By ramesh - 7/13/2014 10:23:37 AM



  • Dear Ramesh
    Hindus revere Gangajal Muslims Aab e zamzam. both claim unverified benefits of these waters. Muslims though drink Gangajal as jal(water) but they don't have thoughts and sentiments of Hindus. For Hindus Aab e zamzam has no attraction though some Hindus drink if their friends are Hajis.
    Muslims and Christians don't share the Hindu sentiments and thoughts about the cow. for them cow is a useful animal like all other animals fit for the consumption for its meat and milk.
    it is our upbringing in religious and cultural bias that separate us that crosses the limits of tolerance.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/13/2014 2:00:19 AM



  • Dear Ramesh
    I worship none. I think worship has limited benefit. i can't promote any worship, and hence no question of support of worship of cow or any other thing.
    Muslims can't drink cow urine because it comes under "nejasat e khafifa (minor filth)".
    there is no question of drinking it when it can't be tolerated even on cloths or body.
    Urine of Halal animals is nejasat e khafifa and cow is halal animal.
    I don't promote beef because it becomes the cause of tension in the society in many parts of the country.

    Najaasat(filth) is of two types. 

    1. Haqeeqi – which can be seen 
    a. Ghaliza – heavy type 
    b. Khafifa – light type 

    2. Hukmi – which cannot be seen e.g. breaking of Wudhu or a need of a bath. 

    Najaasat Haqeeqi: Uncleanliness or filth that can be seen e.g. urine, stool, blood and wine. 
    Najaasat Ghaliza: Dense (heavy) types of Najaasat e.g. Urine and stool of human beings. 
    Najaasat Khafifa: Lighter types of Najaasat e.g. Urine of Halaal animals. 
    Makruh: Disliked or something which is against the conduct of Islam. 
    Makruhe Tahreemee: Close to Haraam. 
    Haraam: Illegal or forbidden. 

    The Quran talk about cleanliness. it doesn't classify the filth. above categorization comes from fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). All practicing Muslims generally practice it.
    Source:
    http://www.inter-islam.org/Actions/Part2.html
    I personally don't follow above in ditto. If i follow it is because all my belonging persons are Muslims of varying degree of practice.

    People generally don't follow the practices of other religions even if useful due to religious and cultural biases.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/13/2014 1:46:51 AM



  • Dear Rational,
      Thank you for your response on urine therapy. Another wonder medicine is cow's urine. It is an wonderful bio enhancer. Taken regularly it rejuvenates health.That is why in india cow is worshipped and not killed for food. Anything worshipped is protected. Pl advise whether cow's urine is haram for muslims.
     What is meant by nejasat e ghaliza?
    By ramesh - 7/12/2014 12:15:54 PM



  • Observer - 7/12/2014 1:48:28 AM
    i see many poor women, who don't know this hadith. they simply wash the portion with water.
    remaining  don't bother about it. i never saw them discussing and practicing this hadith.

    there is deafening silence from mr ghulam ghaus. you are proving "muddai sust, gawah chust". it is becoming quite boring. i have given new task, please flow your knowledge as much you want.
    i don't see any debate ended with a conclusion.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/12/2014 5:11:15 AM



  • Mr Sultan Shahin,

    You have initiated this debate and made certain comments which require a response:

    <I I have not taken any position on the hadith. Since the allegation of Alam against Ghaus Sb  is of blind belief, I have only shown a way to settle the issue on the basis of facts that can be established by science. It is for the readers of NAI and Alam to take the discussion forward and conclude it. From the looks of it, the discussion is going nowhere. The conclusion by default would therefore be that the readers of NAI are unable to either validate or invalidate the hadith based on scientific facts and therefore Ghaus Sb cannot be accused of blind belief without accusing those who reject it also of blind disbelief.

    YYou do not appear to have read the hadith and therefore opined on it based on your presumptions. The hadith has nothing to do with Hazrat Khadija (RA) and it pertains to the Medinian period. It may perhaps have a connection with the Prophet’s (pbuh) grandsons as Hazrat Ali is one of the narrators the other being his wife Umm Qays bint Mihsan who apparently had an infant from her previous marriage when she married the Prophet.

    <!While you are right in saying that I am against blind belief, I am equally against presumptions and blind disbelief. I have no political stake in either supporting or attacking the hadiths wholesale and can only deal with one hadith at a time on merits.

    <!There are countless hadiths which have served a useful purpose and continue to do so and provide us with practical guidance in our day to day affairs. I am sure, if the matter was about how to give ghusl to a dead person, you would go by the book rather than debate on the subject. Following the book also gives people the mental satisfaction that they did everything right.  

     

    By Observer - 7/12/2014 2:28:30 AM



  • Rational,

    One hadith at a time. We are unable to conclude on a single hadith after 256 comments and you want to discuss more hadiths! 

    We do have science to day to reject the hadiths that  go against facts that can be established by science. How does it matter on what basis these were enunciated in the first place? We may presume that they used the best means possible then, if not revelation.

    How can you decide on the practical value of a hadith for all Mulsims? I think it has immense practical value for millions of poor nursing mothers who are practicing Muslims and require to maintain the bare minimum standard of cleanliness for them to perform a valid Wudhu and perform their salat and  who cannot afford diapers for their babies.


    By Observer - 7/12/2014 1:48:28 AM



  • Observer, Ghulam Ghaus and Ghulam Rasool sahebaan.
    why the blood (for example due to injury) is nejasat e ghaliza?
    Why spirit(alcohol) is nijasat e ghaliza? why these two things are put in the same category of nijasat e ghaliza?
    Alcohol is a great germicide and cleaning agent.
    why i cant use alcohol if water is not able to remove the filth?
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/12/2014 1:04:52 AM



  • Dear Ramesh
    Muslims can't drink from their own fountain even if it rejuvenate their life. they can think drinking camel urine for obvious reasons  Muslim researcher  has told them.
    According to Ahadith " Naapak/haram things can't cure, hence Muslims should not use any haram thing for treatment.
    but this is absolutely bogus claim of Hadith. many ailments are cured by Haram thingd which can be scientifically demonstrated.. those things are in full use as curing agents. 
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/12/2014 12:55:27 AM



  • Observer.
    there is nothing like science in the Hadith. there is nothing very great in the quoted Hadith. in those days there was no such thing called Scientific method. if we go back Aristotle said women has fewer teeth than the men. he never bothered to check it. still nobody ignores his contribution in other fields.
    there is no harm in rejecting this hadith as it is not useful even for practicing Muslims. Just wash and forget.
    if you insist , you should also drink your tea or milk with dipped fly. you can also find some science in it as many muslims do. you may find some Muslim scientist who can give you  proof of disease in one wing and cure in another.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/12/2014 12:48:14 AM



  • Mr Syed Manzoor Alam,

    Since you brought up this hadith in the first place and accused Ghaus Sb of blind belief, you now tell us how we should, without blind belief or disbelief, accept or reject the hadith based on scientific facts. 

    It is appropriate that you should wind up the discussion that you launched, keeping in mind to base it entirely on scientific facts, which I suppose is what you mean by the opposite of blind belief.  


    By Observer - 7/11/2014 5:40:31 PM



  • Rational,

    There is no harm in completely washing the clothes, dry cleaning them or having a bath yourself with change of clothes etc.

    For obvious reasons, the hadiths talk about the bare minimum required to be considered clean for prayer etc. Beyond that, it is your choice and preference.
    By Observer - 7/11/2014 2:07:23 PM



  • Mr Manzoor Alam,

    The less you talk about logic the better because logic is a stranger to you. In logic you don't start off with your conclusions and stop there. A person who is logical ends his argument with a conclusion. The arguments consists of relevant facts which logically lead to the conclusion.

    Why does every one have to mention another's name and not speak for himself? Because he has nothing to speak for himself! Let Mr Ghulam Mohyiddin speak for himself if he wishes to. Why are you trying to drag him into  your nonsense?

    By Observer - 7/11/2014 1:53:08 PM



  • So much posts on urination but no useful information so far.Hence I thought of sharing some useful information. urine of an individual (male or female ) is useful for himself/herself. Individual can drink own urine  afresh after urination. Collect the morning first urine leaving the first and the last portion and drink the rest. This will improve your health. You can expriment . But this information is not found in the quran.  By ramesh - 7/11/2014 12:09:35 PM



  • Dear hats off,
         You have said well that it does not need a revelation to decide whether a clothe is to washed after urination by a child. 
    By ramesh - 7/11/2014 12:03:53 PM



  • Islam kiska, syaed kaa
    islam kiska , shaikh kaa
    islam kiska, pathaan kaa
    islam men inhi logon ne aish kiye hain baaqi logon ne to tax hi tax bhara hai aur arzal kahlaye hain.



    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/11/2014 11:33:07 AM



  • Syed Manzoor Alam saheb- 7/11/2014 10:26:09 AM
    it is better you don't take my name. it shows some problems associated with you. you may be suffering with some superiority complex Muslims generally suffer with. you may be believing that you are superior compared to this napaak nastik. i believe none is paak saaf from every evil.
     i need no certificate from anybody. chor chor mausere bhai. kiya farq padta hai ki aap wahabi hain ya sufi, shia hain ya sunni, ahle haddthi ho yaa munkireen e hadith. some common virus thrives in all Muslims.
    i am not here to do thunder clapping for greatness of Islam which is already forced down the throats in one or another way.
    in nutshell almost every Muslim is set to sing the songs of glory of Islam and its history and wants thunder clapping for bogus claims.

    No wonder moderate Muslims believe in innamal mushrikeena nejasun "Non-Muslims are nejus". The Quran call Mushriks and kafir donkey, apes, pigs and lowest beasts.
    i am better away from the praises of such belivers.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/11/2014 11:21:01 AM



  • would i wash my clothes off the urine if an infant urinated in my lap? it would all depend. it would depend upon a place, time and a context. nothing definitive or injunctional about it. perchance there may be unfortunate circumstances, such as in syria and iraq, where it would be the very last of my problems. in more stable societies there are any number of excellent absorbing napkins that make the whole thing a breeze.

    depends upon so many things. if i am at a restaurant what i would do is entirely different from what i would do if i was giving the child a bath. like i said it all depends. and it would immensely depend upon whether i pray with an infant on my lap. it is a rare instance when a person is enjoined to pray irrespective of an infant at breast.

    but if this god so demands an absolute slavery to his prayer routine again depends upon what you ascribe to god, or what you imagine your god to demand, or what your prophet ascribed to god. then again either the matter is is trivial or it is a matter of immense importance, depending on the scale of your conspicuous piety.

    the issue here is the inability to make conditional statements on account of a faith that can be very strongly held but only weakly defended. the issue here is to prove that a particular corpus of text related to a particular prophet is divine and hence there can be nothing the matter with it especially its prescience regarding the development of a human embryo, or the differences in urine depending upon sex, the fresh water salt water separation in the sea (an observation that was definitely pre-slamic for the polynesian island were populated by boat faring people and it would be impossible for them to be navigating the heck out of atlantic or pacific without ever noticing the salinity gradients) or many other so called scientific miracles of the koran.

    the issue here is to offer a so-called scientific evidence of a so-called divine element to certain so-called revelation. no matter how inconsequential or trivial it is.

    the issue is not what a person would do if an infant decided to evacuate its bladder on to his clothes. to a god who created this whole jing bang, urinating onto an adult's clothing ought to be a rather trivial matter. congenital heart defects or the birth of children with ambiguous genitalia should be more in god's consciousness and botheration imho. not whether breastfeeding, weaning and prayer or a combination of these can be the criteria to ask if you ought to wash off some infant urine.

    you simply need to go ahead and wash it off. if some innocent asked this question, then he was truly confused, not convinced. he does not need religion. he needs some common sense. he needs some worldly knowledge not revelation.
    By hats off! - 7/11/2014 11:19:32 AM



  • It brings me great pleasure (and fear!) to say that Mr Observer has an ego problem and attitude problem, logic problem, language problem, in short he is the problem that cannot be solved, it can only be ignored, just like another fellow- he knows whom I am talking about as I don't waste my time in taking his name. 
    Sometimes Mr Observer says good things, no doubt; but if someone dares to oppose his ideas then the person is ridiculed and maligned to the core- not even Ghulam Mohiyuddin Sb, as far as I can remember, has been safe from his vitriolic words that are deliberately intended to prick the person and to taunt the person. 
    By Syed Manzoor Alam - 7/11/2014 10:26:09 AM



  • observer
    what is the harm if the cloths spoiled by any type of urine is washed with water. does sprinkling of water washes out the dirt?
    Is there any difference between the stools of male and female child if they are breast fed? why it can't be applied to stool also?
    the reasons you give clearly promote misogyny?
    there is no real benefit in application of this hadith. there is plent of water except very few places. in modern time clothes are washed on daily basis.
    Saving of water from sprinkling is hardly of any significance when compared to wastage in the mosques  and homes.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/11/2014 8:45:36 AM



  • Whose reason? Your reason? God save those who take your rubbish.

    Like I said, Islam needs savings from scholars like you.

    I don't know what Mr. Shahin's policies are. But I don't understand why he lets comment sections to turn into terrible gutter-talks. I understand he wants open discussion, but I don't see any good coming from such rubbish.
    By non muslim - 7/11/2014 7:06:08 AM



  • The complete idiot that you are who can describe the raison d'etre of the hadith as a non-sequitur deserves to be ignored as a fool beyond redemption.

    By Observer - 7/11/2014 6:31:28 AM



  • "You are a complete idiot to get into a discussion about a hadith you have apparently not read or unable to comprehend even if you have read it. Why do you think sprinkling water for male infant's urine and washing off completely for a female infant's urine is advised? And why no distinction is made for babies who are weaned? Also there is nothing new that I have brought in now that has not already been discussed."

    I will tell you what, no one is more arrogant on the comment sections here than you are. Also your lack of logic and your convoluted theories is staggering.

    And you are an Islamic Scholar?! Allah save Islam from such scholars.

    I did not get into a discussion on Hadees. I asked you to stop your nonsense that is making this comment section look like dustbin.

    Also, again you are extending your nonsense here.

    Stop making this section stink like a toilet.

    By non muslim - 7/11/2014 6:22:26 AM



  • "One written by you with a condescending, almost arrogant tone: "The non believers should be happy with the God of the Quran. He promises them everything in this world itself!"

    Now learn from me how you could have phrased it logically and with more meaning: "YOU should be happy with the God of the Quran. He promises NON BELIEVERS everything in this world itself!"”

    Technically he is right. I should have addressed Hats Off to whom I was responding with ‘You’ rather than `non-believers’.
     
     "
     
    It's not a question of who you are addressing. It's about the arrogance and bile you have in your hollow brain.

    To write something as arrogant as above, no matter who you were adressing, shows what kind of an imbecile you are who cannot write a simple comment to make sense.

    You did not make a mistake. You had only spewed your venom and idocy for which you had to apologize. No matter how your phrased it.

    By non muslim - 7/11/2014 6:20:42 AM



  • Non Muslim,

    You are a complete idiot to get into a discussion about a hadith you have apparently not read or unable to comprehend even if you have read it. Why do you think sprinkling water for male infant's urine and washing off completely for a female infant's urine is advised? And why no distinction is made for babies who are weaned? Also there is nothing new that I have brought in now that has not already been discussed.

    About the Aploogy

    Non Muslim made an issue of a simple non-offensive sentence of mine as follows:

    “@Observer

    Read the following sentences. 

    One written by you with a condescending, almost arrogant tone: "The non believers should be happy with the God of the Quran. He promises them everything in this world itself!"

    Now learn from me how you could have phrased it logically and with more meaning: "YOU should be happy with the God of the Quran. He promises NON BELIEVERS everything in this world itself!"”

    Technically he is right. I should have addressed Hats Off to whom I was responding with ‘You’ rather than `non-believers’. Even so, what I said was hardly offensive to the non-believers. Since Non-Muslim was apparently taking offense, I apologized if my sentence offended him which he should have had the grace to acknowledge and perhaps show equal good behavior by apologizing for his own rudeness in the exchange. Non Muslim however lacks grace. On the contrary, the lout and the boor that he is, he is using the apology as a weapon! The churlishness of this low bred mongrel!

     

    By Observer - 7/11/2014 5:41:39 AM



  • Last time I checked it was one Mr. Observer who apologized like an idiot for his inability to make sense, arrogance and stupidity.

    Keep that in your mind all the time and how rubbish most of your writing is before you end up apologizing again and again.

    And here comes another of your non sequitur: "The hadith covers a practical issue faced by all nursing mothers who are practicing Muslims and have to maintain the required level of cleanliness for them to perform their prayers etc on how to treat their clothes soiled by an infant's urine. The problem is faced by the Males also who handle infants."

    That maybe so. But that is not what you are discussing and that was never relevant to begin with.

    With your peanut brain and the intelligence of a sparrow, as you always do, give unbelievable, laughable, nonsensical twists.

    Look in the mirror when you have to know who is maligning Islam.
    By non muslim - 7/11/2014 5:03:03 AM



  • The non sense of non Muslim with weak comprehension is back! 

    The hadith covers a practical issue faced by all nursing mothers who are practicing Muslims and have to maintain the required level of cleanliness for them to perform their prayers etc on how to treat their clothes soiled by an infant's urine. The problem is faced by the Males also who handle infants.

    There is no difference in the treatment for infants who have been weaned or are fed milk powder.  

    Why does Non Muslim translate this to inferiority of females?

    Hats Off,

    Let us take the argument further. Would you wash off your clothes if an infant soils them  with urine? I suppose you would. Would you also wash off your clothes if someone sprays your clothes   with perfume? I suppose you would not. What makes you think that the treatment should be different? This is an extreme example but I hope you get the drift.

    If you don't, then here is another example. Can you distinguish between good food and food that has putrefied without the help of analysis in the lab?

    The primary distinction is made between an infant who is breast fed and one who is weaned or fed on milk powder. The urine of an infant who has been weaned is more odorous than the urine of  breast fed infant.  

    By Observer - 7/11/2014 4:52:11 AM



  • The nonsense of urine is back.

    Why is no one is asking the fundamental question, that is, even if a woman's urine is found out to be impure, what does it matter?

    Has god or any scientist decreed that impure urine means inferior being in anyway?

    I don't know what the Hadees says. But unless one is trying to discredit the Hadees, even such thoughts should not be entertained.

    If I may say so, it is such talks that makes the entire Muslim community look like regressive and Islam ugly.

    The next time Muslims ask the question who is maligning Islam, all they need to do is look in the mirror.

    And for god's sakes stop this urine discussion.
    By non muslim - 7/11/2014 2:37:51 AM



  • i doubt if any doctor (except perhaps for dr. maurice bucaille or dr adnan okhtar or mr hamza tzortis) will be able to scientifically adjudicate on the matter of the relative (im)purity of female and male urine. they can tell us about the ph, the cells, the salts and the pigments and also if the specimen is from a pregnant woman. and many more things but they will most likely balk at any measurement of the "purity" quotient.

    on second thoughts, may be there are doctors who can. saidi arabia is a good place to see if there are doctors who will give us some leads.

    i say because one doctor in saudi arabia said that he has conducted a scientific study which he says proves that in women, driving causes the ovaries to shrink and then result in relative sterility. there was also a female saudi scientist who conducted a study of camel urine and found that it can cure "cancer". you can't be making these things up. i am quoting them from actual news items. dr adnan okhtar has a huge book with glossy photographs which completely disprove the theory of evolution. he even gives out free copies to the christian creationists. that is a sterling example of inter-faith. he has also many explanations for why god decided to bake pompei along with its in hot volcanic ash.

    god works in mysterious ways.
    By hats off! - 7/11/2014 1:53:20 AM



  • Also, the first part of the comment, clearly offers the reasons as a lay person and not as an expert:

    "·        Mr Alam, Mr Ghaus can only confirm whether the Hadith is saheeh or not. In the meantime, why don't you find out and tell us what is the difference between the urine of a baby boy and baby girl as regards the constituents? From my lay person's knowledge what I know is that:"

    My comment is an object lesson on how to go about either confirming or trashing a hadith based on scientific basis. It is for the readers to take it forward and trash it or accept it based on sound reasoning. It is for the doctors among the readers to give the final word.

    By Observer - 7/11/2014 12:59:16 AM



  • The abusive Sadaf Shahbaz is back! The idiot is blind to the second part of the comment.

    1. Urine tests can confirm gender of the person (presence of hormones)

    2. Females are more prone to UTI

    3. A baby girl has vaginal discharge for a few days to several months.

    Any of these reasons may render her urine more napak than that of a boy's.

    I think GM Sb is a medical doctor and he can tell us more.

    If there is no significant difference, then you can tell Ghaus Sb that Hadeeths are unreliable. There is no point badgering the gentleman unnecessarily without full knowledge that the hadith is actually ridiculous or not

    By Observer - 6/24/2014 11:05:00 AM


    What is offered are 3 reasons to establish that  there is a  difference asking Alam to enquire further whether the differences pointed out makes a material difference or not and if that does not make a material difference  then say that the hadith is without any scientific/medical basis. There are doctors among the readers of NAI who are asked to take it further.


    I doubt whether Sadaf has read the complete hadith or not. This hadith applies only to babies who are breast fed. After the babies are weaned, their urine requires complete washing off irrespective of whether it is a boy or a girl.


      

    By Observer - 7/11/2014 12:40:12 AM



  • 1. Urine tests can confirm gender of the person (presence of hormones)

    2. Females are more prone to UTI

    3. A baby girl has vaginal discharge for a few days to several months.

    Any of these reasons may render her urine more napak than that of a boy's. - Hazrat Naseer Saheb


    What Huzoor-e-ala Hazrat Naseer Saheb says ki katbahsi (tongue wrestling) as one can always question why these reasons may render a girls urine 'more napak' than that of boys. Presence of harmores or being prone to UTI or vaginal discharge, why should these be considered 'more napak' than the urine itself? 

    This was the man jo ek zamane mein khoob Kanitian Philosophy bhaanj raha tha. I suspected his intelligence then and there only when I noticed that he can stoop down to any level to prove that only his dash is red.

    By sadaf - 7/10/2014 11:18:06 PM



  • dear ramesh - 7/10/2014 11:47:17 AM
    hadith was quoted with reference to show the absurdity Muslims believe in.
    however there is no prohibition of sex in the night. Clearly hadith is not supported by any medical evidence which can be applied to Ramzan.
    my observation is over eating, expenses exceed the budget and oversleeping for most of the common Muslim community.
    Castration is possible in the fast some companions started to observe and the prophet warned them for excess in rituals.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/10/2014 8:32:28 PM



  • Dear Rational,
     Thank you for clarification. Regarding " continuous fasting can castrate completely" - is there is any medical confirmation on this point? Anyway muslims actually do not fast fully. Fast in the day and take food in the evening/night. Hence this  continuous fasting clause may not apply.
    By ramesh - 7/10/2014 11:47:17 AM



  • dear ramesh - 7/10/2014 11:22:09 AM
    "Can an ordinary muslim do this?" is the comment of Dr Shabbir Ahmed, the author of " criminal of Islam" beside the Hadith.
    "(beware of Ramzan fasting. continous fasting can castrate completely) " is mine in response to effect of the fasting.
     
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/10/2014 11:39:12 AM



  • Dear Rational,
     In one of your posts you have asked "Can an ordinary muslim do this?". I believe an ordinary Indian muslim cannot do this but that may be part of Arabian culture . The reason is that in  the veins of indian muslims blood of ancient maharishis flow and not arabian blood.(That is why so many opposition to your  authentic quotes). But the indian muslims have forgotten their true inheritance /roots  and hence are guided by arabian muslims in their suicidal path. The need of the hour is the realisation of indian muslims of their true identity.   
    By ramesh - 7/10/2014 11:22:09 AM



  • the portion from "the criminals of Islam" i quoted has some my personal comments beside the Ahadith. By rational mohammed yunus - 7/10/2014 10:46:55 AM



  • dear hats off
    here is a hadith for your .....
    The Holy Prophet said: “The angels of mercy do not enter a house in which there is an image, a dog or a person in a state of greater impurity (Janabah)." (Abu Dawood).

    this is picked up from a Brailvi site.
    mr sultan shahin took the shelter behind Wahabiat as if his own sect is free from absurdities.
    Source:
    http://www.alahazrat.net/islam/the-book-of-prayer-chapter-2.php
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/10/2014 10:37:09 AM



  • dear hats off! - 7/10/2014 10:15:49 AM
    you told the truth.
    however it is not the question of anger. i would have said good bye long ago if i have taken it to my heart.  my anger is for a moment. i have posted to my satisfaction. by these provocative comments i dive into their minds and hearts. then they start showing their true colors. many such moments came and went. Honesty is not the virtue of religion blind scholars.
    i thank you for timely comment.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/10/2014 10:28:58 AM



  • dear mr rational,
    anger does not suit you at all!

    nor does the sense of hurt! by now after so long on this forum, you must be immune! or if not you should be! you have been through this before. they have been through this same before! so tackle it without getting provoked!

    remember that the measure of a person is known by the strength of his enemies. if powerful people resent you, it implies glad tidings!

    grace is everything.

    please do keep an even head. sanity is everything when you are in the very eye of the very storm.

    regards.
    By hats off! - 7/10/2014 10:15:49 AM



  • dear Sultan Shahin - 7/9/2014 2:30:32 PM
    "Then we will discuss why would a Wahhabi website supported by millions of petrodollars publish such ahadees that the entire community would consider dirty."
    let me search if the non-wahabi sites don't have these Ahadith and entire community consider them dirty.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/10/2014 10:09:49 AM



  • mohammed yunus
    this is my last comment to you:
    Is it the fault of stray dogs who copulative in the streets? Is it the fault of a pig if he enjoys the filth? Is it the fault of a rabbit if it eats its own excrement.
    according to your belief they are Muslims unwillingly. right? you are insulting the God's creation and hence the God.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/10/2014 10:02:49 AM



  • mohammed yunus
    "Bottom Line: If you apologize for what you wrote that got deleted and commit to desist from any attempt to demonize the Prophet and ridicule the Qur’anic diction without having any knowledge of Arabic, I can cleanse your filth with a clean towel."

    kindly curse your muhadditheen who were sexually perverts. they were more knowledgeable than you in Arabic as it was their mother tongue. 
    you are a liar and twister of the truth. i too don't wish any communication with  a person like you.
    i reject your towel of dishonesty.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/10/2014 9:50:46 AM



  • dear sultan shahin and
    to all mature commentators of this site with an apology to minors, immature people and mohtarmas (ladies):
    copy: mohammed Yunus
    here are ahadith with graphic details( for Shahin Saheb and mohammed yunus Pornographic) with references.
    Abu Hurairah reported, "When tips of the genitalia meet, and the man sits between the woman's legs and pushes, a bath becomes obligatory” (Bukhari 1:95, chapter 201).

    Aisha said, "The Prophet used to place a pillow in my lap even though I would be menstruating, and then he would recite the Qur'an" (Bukhari, Book of Bath). Can even an ordinary Muslim, do this?!
    If the Prophet wanted to have intercourse with a menstruating wife, he ordered her to tie a loincloth even though the menstruation would be at its peak. Then he had intercourse. Aisha said, "No one of you has as much control over his desire as the Prophet had!" (The Book on Menstruation 1:98, chapter 207).

    Fasting castrates (Bukhari 1:685). (beware of Ramzan fasting. continous fasting can castrate completely)

    Aisha relates, “The Prophet used to have intercourse with us and kissed us while he was fasting.” Then she shied away smiling (Bukhari 2:691).
    Khola bint Hakeem presented herself to the Prophet. Aisha exclaimed, “The woman does not feel ashamed of saying this!” However, the Prophet started receiving a revelation and Aisha complained, “O’ Messenger of Allah! I see that your Lord rushes to fulfill your desires” (Bukhari, Kitabun Nikah p.67).

    courtesy: the criminals of the Islam by dr Shabbir Ahmed. He has given permission to quote freely without any violation of intellectual rights of the author.

     if it is not enough more examples will be provided.
    I understand your difficulty in the matter of security. you can pay my bills of psychological consultancy and treatment but can't afford security on your system. I know that is daunting responsibility.
    thanks for your clarification. i stand responsible for myself.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/10/2014 9:41:55 AM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin - 7/9/2014 2:30:32 PM
    if i give you url  from non-wahabi Islamic site, what will you do?
    if your people are sensitive what are you doing to minimize the sensitivity of  them which causes riots in the street when something comes as blasphemy against  the prophet?
    in a great haste to please your some commentators you are just ignoring the references. Intentionally i didn't give url of islamcity.com. i only mentioned its name.
    Have you personally checked Sunan Abu Daood for the reference given in the reply to mr observer?
    i am sad to say you are playing dangerous game by running your site.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/10/2014 4:19:13 AM



  • mohammed yunus
    first stop using 'dear' for me. i am not your dear. you are displaying your hypocrisy by addressing me as dear.
    you are accusing me for the Sins/crimes of your imams. if you are feeling insulted ask Dr Shabbir  why he used title "Criminal" for Muhaditheen? you can curse him to your fill.
    Has he concocted all po**** Ahadith not your imams.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/10/2014 4:13:47 AM



  • Mr Shahin says:

    Please don't get too excited by Naseer Saheb's comment (I am paraphrasing from memory) that ugliness or pornography lies in the eyes of the beholder. 

    Mr Shahin you are quoting Mr Yunus and not me. Please take the trouble of copy pasting exact words when you are attributing anything to others. Your lack of concern for accuracy is a sign of dirty journalism.
    By Observer - 7/9/2014 6:15:49 PM



  • "Mr Sultan Shahin is responsible for the security of the commentators on this site."
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/8/2014 11:59:09 PM

     

    No Mr. Rational, I am not responsible for the security of the commentators on this site. Any commentators. I don't run a security system and my commentators are global, some of whom not only hide their identities but also give false email IDs, which means even I cannot reach them when my own or website's security is endangered due to their writings.

     

    But you in particular. You endanger yourself, me and the site in particular, by playing with the sentiments of a very sentimental people. And unnecessarily. You want to prove that Hadees is rubbish. I agree, to the extent, that some of the hadees is rubbish. But why do you have to go to pornographic rubbish, which some of my friends who have read hadees thoroughly tell me does not exist in hadees books and is a concoction of islamophobes like you and are only found on islamophobic sites.

     

    Let me explain why I said unnecessarily. It is unnecessary because there is so much irrationality attributed in the hadeeses to the prophet, that if you want to give examples of rubbish in hadees for the sake of argument, there is no dearth of it. But you concoct pornographic statements and Naseer Saheb then explains why the hadees can be correct and why it may be considered authentic.

     

    You recently wrote:

    in my entire span of association with this site nobody has proved my quotations wrong. i give references. when mr observer charged me for quoting from islamophobic sites, i gave references from the Islamic site for the same Ahadith. Before the advent of INTERNET in knew all. Internet made easy to quote.
    I challenge you to prove me wrong.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/9/2014 4:16:11 AM

     

    However, as far as I can recall (correct me, if I am wrong) you have not given references. When challenged, you just said they are from islamicity.com, a pucca Wahhabi website, so of course, unchallengeable. But how does one find that when you don't give the url. Apparently, these things you are saying, no chain of narration, no isnad, no url, are taken as figments of your imagination. How can anyone prove you wrong if you don't give the url. Islamicity has thousands of pages. Where are these hadeeses you are quoting. And, of course, every one would believe, that you can go to any extent to defame Islam, its prophet and scriptures. And then you want me to be responsible for your security! What about my security and that of the website.

     

    I have no option but to delete your latest fabrications too unless you come up with the url of the islamicity page that gives these pornographic ahadees. In any case what is the point of quoting such pornographic material from ahadees, even if true. There is a lot of other incredible rubbish in Hadees that you can quote and please always give Islamicity's page url. Please don't get too excited by Naseer Saheb's comment (I am paraphrasing from memory) that ugliness or pornography lies in the eyes of the beholder. No decent person appreciates your pornographic imagination. (I will consider it imagination until you give the islamicity url giving these so-called ahadees. Then we will discuss why would a Wahhabi website supported by millions of petrodollars publish such ahadees that the entire community would consider dirty.) By Sultan Shahin - 7/9/2014 2:30:32 PM



  • “A cask by losing centre-piece or cant"

    Means exactly what it says. A wine cask is a hollow cylindrical container,  made of wooden staves bound by metal hoops and held together by the pressure of fluid inside which push the staves outwards and the metallic bands on the outside which keep the staves together. Remove the metal band and the cask will come apart with the staves flying  apart due to the pressure of the fluid.

    Dante has pictured the condemned being torn apart in a similar manner.
    By Observer - 7/9/2014 4:48:26 AM



  • Dear Rational Muhammad Yunus.

    On one hand you describe the Prophet in a pornographic scene with his wife obviously by quoting from an Islamophobic site and on the other you table this question:

    Is guidance a blessing of God or it must be acquired by an individual?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/9/2014 3:26:06 AM

    Do you not think you are acting as a die-hard hypocrite. And that is how I assessed you for long and advised you several times. Now that you have crossed all limits and put the Prophet (whom as Muslims we are supposed to love more than our fathers) and his wives (our mothers) in pornographic postures, I find you mentally sick. I only hope you do not discuss what you write with your adult children (son, daughter), adult sister, father or mother unless pornography means nothing offensive or objectionable to them.

    Put what you wrote side by side with my above comment and be assured that my love for my Prophet and his wives is no lesser than your love for your parents – you will certainly be very happy that that you are still one-up on me.

    Bottom Line: If you apologize for what you wrote that got deleted and commit to desist from any attempt to demonize the Prophet and ridicule the Qur’anic diction without having any knowledge of Arabic, I can cleanse your filth with a clean towel.  


    For heaven sake don’t tell me that there is no such thing as ‘filth’ and “ugliness lies only in the eyes of the beholder” – the pet cry of the intellectuals. Leave your home with your mother and grown up daughter in the way you all were born and you know what ugliness means the moment any eye falls on you. I hope with this final imagery we almost quit and I don’t have to trouble you to fancy what could happen if you all started behaving like stray dogs in their sensuous orgy. By muhammad yunus - 7/9/2014 4:21:48 AM



  • mohammed yunus
    in my entire span of association with this site nobody has proved my quotations wrong. i give references. when mr observer charged me for quoting from islamophobic sites, i gave references from the Islamic site for the same Ahadith. Before the advent of INTERNET in knew all. Internet made easy to quote.
    I challenge you to prove me wrong.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/9/2014 4:16:11 AM



  • muhammad yunus the hypocrite- 7/9/2014 3:35:18 AM
    the poem you quoted belong to a right person. why Dante wrote it? what was his problem? why he wanted the rahmatul lil alimeen in that place.
    i have done no such thing so that some Dante will write about me. your hero has done in Dante's view.
    what are you hiding? doesn't Quran has gory details of Jahannum and punishment there? what other punishments you want for the people like me?
    as i have said, you are a hypocrite because you condemn me for quoting here but revere the Imams who wrote it all?
    why are you so much hypocrite mr mohammed yunus?
    by your logic your imams and their children were busy in making pornographic because they have recorded such pornographic details in the holy books, your Muslim brothers revere more than the Quran and think them essential in understanding of the Quran.

    if you have honesty even equal to mustard's seed, prove i have quoted wrong in the span of my association with this site.
    i know you can raise hue and cry but will fail to point out one.

    Is this lesson you learn from your Quran mr hypo?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/9/2014 4:05:19 AM



  • Dear Rational,
    Thank you for clarifying on the meaning of ghusl.
    By ramesh - 7/9/2014 4:00:10 AM



  •  Dear Lod1a saab,
       When I quote from the Quran, you say iam disrectful. Is quoting quran disrectful? You also say that I have to be decent. Is quoting quran an indecent act? Then what about people who read quran daily? 
      You are getting angry because I put a difficult question for any muslim to answer. But you and anyone on this site  are yet to answer my question .
       My point is ,if this verse is a true revelation then prophet is a very sexy person as indicated by hadith references given by Rational. If the Prophet is a  true spiritual seeker then this very verse cannot be revelation of god.
     
    By ramesh - 7/9/2014 3:58:48 AM



  • Dear Sheetal Sonika,

    I think you wrote this comment (but name is not important any way):

    Rational muhammad yunus, u r liar, apostate, abuser, hate-monger. people like you are the worst of its kind i have ever seen on any forum,

    Since he bears a Muslim name, in my article referenced in Comment-3 below, I have established a parallel between the likes of Rational Yunus who are bent on guttering the Qur’an and the hypocrites and desert Arabs among the Prophet’s followers who were intense in kufr. Muhammad, if he were the author of the Qur’an has outclassed you in exposing their mind.  Thus, the Qur’an refers to the hypocrites as rijz (spiritually unclean) (9:95), hurls divine curse on them (9:68, 33:73), calls them liars (9:42, 9:107, 58:18, 63:1] and deviants (fasiqun) (9:96, 9:67). It charges some of the believing nomadic Arabs to being intense in kufr and hypocrisy (9:97, 9:101), condemns them as the most despised among the Prophet’s followers, singles them out as the comrades of Satan (58:19/20) and relegates them to the lowest depths of the hellfire (4:145).

    The Qur’an does not give any graphic detail of the punishment that is possibly (God knows) inflicted in the lowest pit of hell. Here is an imagery of such punishment drawn by the famous 14th century poet Dante Alghieri:

    “A cask by losing centre-piece or cant (old unintelligible expression probably implying a criminal who lost his head or bearing)
    Was never shattered so, as I saw one
    Torn from the chin to where one breaks the wind.

    Between their legs were hanging down their entrails;
    Their hearts were visible, and the dismal holes
    That make excrement of what is eaten.

    While I was all absorbed in seeing them,
    They looked at me, and opened with their hands
    Their bosoms, saying: "See now how ugly we look;

    How mutilated, see, are we;
    In front of them do their leaders weeping go,
    Cleft in the face from forelock unto chin;

    And all the others whom thou here behold,
    Disseminators of hatred and of schism
    In their lifetimes, and therefore are cleft thus

    Torn by wild pigs and dragons, stung by snakes and scorpions- In the lowest pit of hell.”

    - Dante's Inferno, Canto 28, slightly paraphrased and modified for easy reading     

    If you are a lady, you are lucky that the Editor has deleted the pornographic comments Rational had posted possibly on account of spending long hours on hard pornographic site. But he made it more ugly by putting the Prophet and his wives as the characters. He reminded me of people he can force their opposite sex sibling or parents to act with them in XX/XXX films to make some money or satiate their unfulfilled sexual urge. It is good that Editor took heed of my warning and removed that most obnoxious stuff that would have rendered your fast (makrooh) if you are Muslim or made you leave your site unless your sexual morality is no different from stray dogs who play their sexual act on public places.

    By muhammad yunus - 7/9/2014 3:35:18 AM



  • mohammed yunus
    Is guidance a blessing of God or it must be acquired by an individual?
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/9/2014 3:26:06 AM



  • dearest mr rational,
    i love that "kisi ko mukammal...." song! i am trying to pick up urdu from hindi lyrics. but its a hard lesson that is without a teacher.

    all the best and may you enjoy a long healthy life full of laughter and deep thoughts.

    with many regards
    By hats off! - 7/9/2014 3:11:33 AM



  • muhammad yunus - 7/9/2014 12:53:57 AM
    the Quran is clear on who will get guidance from it. it is clear in the beginning of the book. if somebody start to question the unseen how can he be guided from the Quran?
    your advise of reading with open mind is in other way is with close mind. only close minds who believe in unseen can be guided by the Quran. once start believing, there is nothing to question. all is fine.  
    even those who believe in it are extremely divided calling each other gumrah.  
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/9/2014 3:05:57 AM



  • Lodhia
    the cockroach has very tough life cycle. you may kill one or two. but in entire history cockroaches have survived and will continue to do so. cockroach will update their DNA to make sure you remain busy in killing the cockroaches. but alas! you will not be able to get rid off them. 
    cockroaches produced as a result of Islam and its followers die hard.   
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/9/2014 2:46:54 AM



  • Lodhia - 7/9/2014 12:15:46 AM
    you can pour out your frustration by calling me whatever you like. many like you came and went . i am here. 
    let me remind you. you are violating the command of the Quran. Just guess what is that. more you call me names more quotation from your holy scripture will be quoted. there is no dearth of such quotations in your holy books.
     
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/9/2014 2:28:11 AM



  • Yunus sb., . . .

    Thanks for your balanced comment. You wisely summed it up with, "As for those who the Qur’an confuses, they should probe the verses that are clear and unambiguous, approach it with a pure heart, probe into its verses, and seek the best meaning in it."  That is excellent advice.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/9/2014 1:06:26 AM



  • Com-6 continued from my previous comments.. What about various confusing aspects of the Qur’an that the Radical Intellectuals cherry pick from time to time in a repetitive manner.

    Many of such questions are answered as follows in my article referenced below:

     Article: Challenging, and Shed of Its Literary Glory in Translation, the Qur'an Offers Clear Clues to Exploring Its Core Commandments - Now Obscured, Corrupted and Distorted By Secondary Theological Sources

    http://www.newageislam.com/ijtihad,-rethinking-islam/challenging,-and-shed-of-its-literary-glory-in-translation,-the-qur-an-offers-clear-clues-to-exploring-its-core-commandments---now-obscured,-corrupted-and-distorted-by-secondary-theological-sources/d/9039

    Commentary extracted from above in blue:

    Islamic scholarship is virtually dedicated to a category of issues that virtually sidetrack the core message of the Qur’an. The most commonplace issues are:

    i)                    Speculations about entities that are beyond the categories of human mind, such as angels, jin, hur, ruh (divine spirit), nafs (soul), paradise, hell, ‘lohe mahfuz,’ the true nature of the Prophet’s ‘Night Journey’ to the ‘distant mosque’ and subsequent ascension (mi‘raj) to heaven – whether it was of a physical or mystical nature (17:1), the polarity between freewill and predestination (qadr) for example. The Qur’an forbids any attempt to probe their essence.

    ii)                  Interpretation of the Qur’anic verse 2:106 that clarifies the doubts of the contemporaneous Christians and Jews as to why God should send a succession of revelations. The verse declares: “We never abrogate or consign to oblivion any message (ayat) unless We bring one better than it, or similar to it.” Many early theologians took a restrictive meaning of the word ‘ayah’ (plural, ayat) as a “verse of the Qur’an” to suggest that a few verses of the Qur’an have been abrogated. This is simply untenable [8] as it will purport to imply that God Almighty, like a human being, changed his mind with the changing context of the revelation.

    iii)                The identification of the addressee of a given command – whether it is addressed to the present day reader or to the immediate audience of the Prophet.

    iv)                Isolationist interpretation of a Qur’anic verse. Thus the verse 3:85, “If anyone seeks other than Islam as a din (religion/moral law), it will not be accepted of him...” is interpreted in isolation from its preceding verses (3:83/84) to claim the exclusivity of Islamic faith. The verse 9:5, “But when the sacred months [9] are past, kill the pagans wherever you find them, and capture them, surround them, and watch for them in every lookout;...” is interpreted in isolation from its preceding and succeeding verses (9:4, 9:6) that grant peace and security to all non-hostile pagans.

    v)                  The traditional literalist translation of Qur’anic idioms and similes can be confusing, as typified by these examples (in bold) showing the conceivable textual meanings in brackets: Seal up the heart (block the mind) (2:7); Sickness in the heart (to waver in faith) (2:10); Deaf, dumb and blind (Stubbornly defiant) (2:18), kill (mortify) yourselves...’” (2:54), ‘Be apes despised (disgraced)’” (2:65), ‘We (God) raised Mount Sinai high above you’ (had Mount Sinai towering behind you)…” (2:63), throw behind one’s back (to disregard or renounce) (2:101), Face of God (Presence of God) (2:114), throne of God (Almightiness of God) (2:255), ‘swallow a fire into bellies’ (commit grave sin) (4:10), obliterate faces and turn them about their backs (to inflict severe torment); camel passing through the eye of a needle (an impossibility) (7:40).

    vi)                As part of its rhetoric, the Qur’an occasionally personifies non-living objects:

    “there are rocks that fall down for fear of God” (2:74), “all that are in the heavens and the earth submit to God willingly or unwillingly” (3:83), “prostrate before God willingly or unwillingly, as do their shadows mornings and evenings” (13:15).

    vii)              The verses relating to the physical paradigms of the contemporaneous civilization, such as the physical mode of punishment, travelling, hunting of birds for food, weighing of goods etc. must be regarded as era specific and not of literal eternal applicability as the Qur’anic message espouses the principle of minhaj (dynamism in the code of life within the limits of divine guidelines - 5:48).

    viii)            Fighting Verses: In addition to offering guidance and illustrations, the Qur’an also guided the Prophet in defending against his powerful Arab enemies… Therefore, all those verses that relate to defending against the pagans were specific to the era. Recorded in full light of history they also attest to the defensive character of the Prophetic mission, the agony and trauma that he and his followers lived in on a day to day, and at times moment to moment basis fearing annihilation at hands of their attackers, and under the ominous shadow of the conspiracies of the hypocrites of Medina and the native Jewish tribes who eagerly awaited their destruction.

    By muhammad yunus - 7/9/2014 12:57:04 AM



  • Com-5 continued from my previous comments. What is the Qur’an’s final take on the rewards of paradise that it graphically describes across it text – albeit in a gender neutral:

    This is what the Qur’an says:

    “A likeness of the garden which the heedful (muttaqun) are promised (is that) streams run below it, its food and its shade are everlasting...” (13:35).

    “No soul knows what delights* are kept secret for them as a reward for what they did” (32:17). *[Lit., ‘delights of the eye’.]  

    “A likeness of the garden which the heedful (muttaqun) are promised (is that) in it there are streams of water never brackish, and streams of milk, whose taste never changes, and streams of wine – delicious to those who drink, and streams of honey, pure and clear...” (47:15).

    [Ch. 6.4. Essential Message of Islam]

    By muhammad yunus - 7/9/2014 12:53:57 AM



  • Com-4, continued from my previous comments….seemingly sexually provocative material in barely few verses of the translated Qur’an??

    Traditional rendition of a few Qur’anic words/ expressions in a sexually tainted diction only reflects the imagination of the translator and does not represent the correct gender neutral rendition. This is clarified in my jt. authenticated publications as follows:

    a.    hurun aynun: appears in 44:54 and 52:20: Since the epithet ayn means ‘large eyed ones”, the  Classical interpreters associate this term with a female being - a woman, of fair complexion and large eyes and add sexual charm to it. Such an interpretation has no Qur’anic basis, and is merely speculative, as the Qur’an promises paradise to the members of both the sexes (9:72). Besides, if there were any grain of sexual provocation in the Qur’an, its immediate audience would have never turned away from it like frightened donkeys fleeing a lion (74:49-51). As the Qur’an testifies, the Arabs brought all kinds of charges against the Qur’an and the Prophet but there is not a word or hint of the Prophet or the Qur’an attracting the Arabs by a sexually provocative diction.     

    b.    qasirat at tarf in 37:48, 38:52, 55:56; literally, ‘such as restrain their gaze.’   

    c.    atrab  in 38:52, 56:37, 78:33; most commentators have connoted it with ‘well matched’ or ‘equal in age.’ 

    d.    khayratun hisan in 55:70. The expression combines two Qur’anic words on shades or categories of goodness: khayrah and hasanah (Note 24/Preface) and is thus suggestive of the noblest form of goodness.

    As in the case of hur, the classical commentators have given the body of a woman to these allegorical expressions

    Traditionally, some Muslim scholars have supported feminist personification of Qur’anic expressions on the ground that Qur’an refers to them in the feminine gender form. But this is not tenable. As with French, Arabic is grammatically gendered, and the Qur’an employs this grammatical nuance to create an evocative personification that leaves even the Arab readers puzzled, and simply cannot be captured in a foreign rendition; example: ‘the earth grammatically feminine giving birth to its secrets.’ Those interested may consult Michael Sells work referred to and quoted above.  

    [Extracted from Notes, Ch. 6, Essential Message of Islam] By muhammad yunus - 7/9/2014 12:49:58 AM



  • Com-3. Continued from previous comment

    Article: The Radical Intelligentsia of Islam and Its Orthodox Ulema Are the ‘Hypocrites’ and ‘Nomadic Arabs Intense In Kufr’ Of This Era: They Are Its Twin Internal Enemies, and Must Be Resisted

    http://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/the-radical-intelligentsia-of-islam-and-its-orthodox-ulema-are-the-‘hypocrites’-and-‘nomadic-arabs-intense-in-kufr’-of-this-era--they-are-its-twin-internal-enemies,-and-must-be-resisted/d/34621

    Conclusive Remark:

    Finally, a parting message is due to the Muslim intellectual front of the modern counterparts of the hypocrites and believing nomadic Arabs, intense in Kufr, of the Prophet’s era. They must understand, it is too late in history to dislodge Islam from its spiritual bastion. As there is no compulsion in religion all those sceptical of the divinity of the Qur’an must feel free to exit Islam, rather than create division and disorder within its ranks or conspire against it with the non-Muslims bent on trivializing the Qur’an and maligning the Prophet. No wonder the Qur’an referred to them as Rijz (abomination) (9:95) like the pagan Arabs (9:28), and the Prophet readily agreed to exempt them from taking part in both the Uhud battle (3:167) and Tabuk expedition (9:47).

    By muhammad yunus - 7/9/2014 12:47:11 AM



  • Anyone heard Naseeruddin Shah’s dialogue in the movie “Wednesday”?

     

    “Aap Ka Ghar Ma Cockaroach Aata Hai To Aap Kiya Karta Hain, Rathor Saheb?

     

    Aap Us Ko Paalta Nahin Marta Hain

     

    Ya Charo Cockaroach Mera Ghar Ghanda Kar Raha Tha

     

    Aur Aaj Main Apna Ghar Saaf Karna Chahta Hoon.”

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snhgW2vtuuI&t=3m4s

     

    Well think about it and pass on your comments.  

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/9/2014 12:44:39 AM



  • Com-2. Continued from last comment on defense of the Qur’an against the charges brought by radical Muslims keen to trash it.

    Article:

    Challenging, and Shed of Its Literary Glory in Translation, the Qur'an Offers Clear Clues to Exploring Its Core Commandments - Now Obscured, Corrupted and Distorted By Secondary Theological Sources

    http://www.newageislam.com/ijtihad,-rethinking-islam/challenging,-and-shed-of-its-literary-glory-in-translation,-the-qur-an-offers-clear-clues-to-exploring-its-core-commandments---now-obscured,-corrupted-and-distorted-by-secondary-theological-sources/d/9039

    Key remarks:

    1.      Fast forward to this era, a section of educated youth – mostly the rich elite, business tycoons and those seeking to free themselves from religious bondage, as well as the atavistic among the Ulama and radicalized elements (a small minority though) ready to blow themselves up in public place and terrorize humanity or condone such acts have unwittingly joined ranks to propagate the weakest accounts (ahadith) and the most grotesque rulings of the Classical Sharia to justify their blatantly anti-Qur’anic views.  These insiders (the liberal, rationalist hypocrites and the fanatic and misguided Ulama) thus demonize their Prophet, scandalise his wives (their own mothers in the spirit of the Qur’anic verse 33:6), poison interfaith relations and reduce Islam into a voluptuous and barbaric cult. In historical perspective this is the most dangerous development in Islam, even more dangerous than the recent anti-terror wars on the Muslim lands or the Crusades and the Mongol attacks some eight hundred years ago. These inside demonizers of Islam are unwittingly projecting their faith and fellow Muslims as a heavy and unbearable burden on human civilization and setting the stage for a deadly backlash from the powerful enemies of Islam – the Islamophobic think-tank and military industrial complex - than what the world has seen in the past decade. Therefore, it is absolutely imperative to install the Qur’an in its rightful place as an independent, completed and perfected fount of guidance as it claims and this article aims at.

    2.      Note of Caution to Islamic Scholarship: The Islamic scholarship may do better to allocating minimal time on probing what the Qur’an forbids it to probe – its ambiguous (mutashabihat) verses, and to actively probe and appropriate its definitive (muhkamat) commandments (3:7) – its social, moral and ethical paradigms, its functional and interpersonal tenets – good deeds, sharing of wealth with the poor, good neighborly and inter-faith relations, charity, generosity, justice and equity; mercy, compassion, patience and tolerance; peaceful conflict resolution, vying with each other in goodness and lawful pursuits, use of reason and discernment, repelling all negative thoughts, unremitting effort for improvement - to cite a broad cross section of the Qur’an’s definitive tenets.   

    3.      Those who discuss those aspects of the Qur’an that it commands the believers not to probe and supplement their discussions with the Islamic theological sources have virtually swapped the definitive commandments of the Qur’an – the core of its book (ummul kitab) for the obscurantist aspects of its message. As the Qur’an put it, “there is perversity in their hearts and they only seek fitna (confusion, sedition, chaos)” (3:7), and they keep Muslims and Islam stagnated in the track of civilization and its scholarship imprisoned in a closed medieval domain.

    By muhammad yunus - 7/9/2014 12:44:15 AM



  • Dear Gholam Mohiuddin Sahab,

    This is in response to your following comment:

    The two apostates in this forum, Rational and Hats-off, are having a field day trashing the Quran, something that is very easy to do with the scriptures of any religion. The ferocity and hatefulness of their attacks  smacks paradoxically of a Wahhabi kind of  fanaticism...
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/8/2014 1:02:44 PM
    My Comments:
    Since some radical Muslims come back with the same set of objections to the Qur'an and the Prophet (though I have not read their recent comments) I have done a number of articles objectively defending the position of the Qur'an as a divine book and also attempting to expose the mindset of those radical Muslims who want to trash it - unless their questions or doubts were aimed at provoking or broadening Islamic thoughts - God knows best: Here are the extracts (in blue) followed by Article References - which stand on their own and reassure me and may be equally convincing to the other Muslim readers (God Willing) that the Qur'an is indeed divine speech. This is not in response to any of the comments that anyone may have posted against the Qur'an for I already spent some two years on the site responding to comments charging the integrity of the Qur'an and the Prophet and don't want to block myself in a circular debate. So I copy paste from my articles to respond to your above comment.
    I have divided my comments under 8 separate units to avoid loading a reader with a very long comment covering diverse aspects of a very challenging theme under debate. Here is my first comment: 

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

    http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-sharia-laws/the-qur’an-was-never-edited-and-any-effort-to-edit-the-qur’an-will-be-self-contradictory-/d/6316

    Its conclusion reads: 

    As the foregoing tiers of arguments demonstrate, any editing of the Qur’an post the revelation would have inevitably:

                         Compromised the acclaimed infallibility of its text as a Divine Speech (1 above), and led to massive exit from the faith of Islam as Muhammad’s companions and the common Arabs with their mastery in Arabic language would have seen Muhammad as a mere imposter, a charlatan.

                         Refuted its claim of textual integrity (2 above) with the same consequences as in i) above,

                         Created confusion among the huffaz (memorizers) and scribes who preserved the text in their breast and available writing materials (3 above) and created many versions of the Qur’an, and raised serious questions about its infallibility / divine character.

                         Terrified the whole Arab community and warned them of an imminent doom given the awe and dread the Qur’an inspired among them (4 above).

                         Projected Muhammad as an astute politician, a military genius, a chivalrous warrior, an invincible conqueror, a liquidator of the Jews and the pagans, a merciless avenger, an admirer of the opposite sex, a seeker of worldly treasures, pleasure, glory and fame to set an ominously promising precedence for later dynastic rulers (5.1).

                         Credited Muhammad for the greatest achievements of his mission or for being the greatest among the Prophets (5.2above),

                         Included the names of the Prophet’s close relatives and companions in the Qur’an(5.2 above)

                         Punctuated the Qur’an with and references to the traumatic and most melancholy moments of his mission. (5.3)

                         Removed the passages venerating of the Prophets Jesus and Virgin Mary.

     

    It is simply impossible to explain why none of these listed alterations occurred – that any cursory reader of the Qur’an can readily verify. It was probably this complete absence of self falsification of the Qur’an that led such illustrious scholars as Geoffrey Parrinder and John Burton to make the following observations:

    “Concepts of prophesy, inspiration and revelation must be re-examined in view of the undoubted revelation of God in Muhammad and the Qur’an.” [4]

    “The text which has come down to us in the form in which it was organized and approved by the Prophet ….What we have today in our hands, is the mushaf (manuscript) of Muhammad.” [5].

     

    For the seekers of truth, the debate should end here. The Qur’an as we have in our hands is the exact copy of the mashaf (manuscript) that the Prophet approved and that during its advent (610-632) was simply impossible to edit, and once Uthman’s authenticated version was issued some 20 years after the Prophet’s death, any scope for any alteration / editing was closed for ever. Any possibility of tampering during those 20 years was ruled out by the fact that as a lyrically harmonious litany that was recited every day as the most sacred reading, any attempt at tampering would have been immediately spotted and quashed. Only those half baked in the knowledge regarding its collection and preservation can suspect of it being edited in that transitional period or suggest to editing it. The truth is any attempt at editing will falsify the Qur’an and open a floodgate of editing options and create thousands if not hundreds of its version throwing Islam into a sacramental morass from which there will be no coming out and the Word of God will be gone with the wind – and that cannot happen – for indeed the Qur’an is a Word of God. As for those who the Qur’an confuses, they should probe the verses that are clear and unambiguous (3:7) approach it with a pure heart (56:79), probe into its verses (38:29, 47:24), and seek the best meaning in it (39:18, 39:55). 

    By muhammad yunus - 7/9/2014 12:40:40 AM



  • Ex-Tablighi,

     

    You are just a cyber space “Jihadist” who keeps busy with verbal assaults of all kinds. You could care less if you words are being read by men or women. It makes no difference to you.

     

    You take cover under your fake name, whereas, the bloody “Jihadists” cover their faces in the battlefield.   

     

    Now what is common between you and the deadly ones. Both of your groups are “Madrassa” educated and lost have all of your senses. Need I say more?  

     

    Imagine how many of your kind are roaming around in the Islamic world. Look at you! What have you contributed so far on this forum? Nothing at all, except that you find it a joy to smear the name of Islam and the Prophet every single day. You are one mentally sick man, Ex-Tablighi.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/9/2014 12:15:46 AM



  • dear Hats Off
    before i am co-accused again, i appreciate and enjoy your comments. keep it up. long absence is not good. you pour fun into this site where moderate mullahs are running like oxen in mill.
    i love your English very much. i wish only i could write like you.
    but i console myself " kisi ko mukammal jahaan nahi milta, kaheen zamin to kaheen aasmaan nahi milta". i hope you will excuse me for throwing another urdu sher at urdu illiterate.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/9/2014 12:09:23 AM



  • Sheetal solanki - 7/8/2014 10:48:41 PM
    thanks for your comment. i enjoy when people like you go berserk.

    are you issuing threats to me? what is difference between a jehadi and you? what will you do if you get my true identity?

    Mr Sultan Shahin is responsible for the security of the commentators on this site.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/8/2014 11:59:09 PM



  • Secular Logic,

     

    Demolishing what? One should not dwell in demolishing the spirit of humans. Hats Off with all his gift coupled with your witty remarks can sometimes spoil the show.  

     

    I kept telling you and Hats Off that we Muslims got major issue, but even after hearing all the pleas, you both simply come out and keep slashing away with your comments.

     

    Granted that many things pointed are worthy to be comprehended by the readers. Nonetheless, going overboard is not advisable, period.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia   

         

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/8/2014 11:55:49 PM



  • Sigh!

    Your own comments are so full of positivity and radiate such warmth and bon homie, Mr Lodhia, that all our negativity dims before the radiance of your own cheer and goodwill. You should not worry about our pathetic attempts at demolishing Islam. :)

    As you say, have a good day Sir.
    By secularlogic - 7/8/2014 11:30:33 PM



  • Mr Lodhia,

     

    That's not fair. The only comment I have made today has been a positive one.

     

    May be it is not fair. Just one positive comments! You ought to do better next time around whenever you come across this so-called Islamic forum.

     

    Hats off is a stylish writer and his observations and comments are cuttingly accurate. His sense of irony, sarcasm, wit and the polite demolition of the other party are all very British in flavour, and make him a pleasure to read. I have been at the receiving end sometimes, but still it is fun to cross swords with one so skilled.

     

    Yes, I agree with you 110%. It is a sheer delight reading his comments. He is a brilliant man and so is his dual personality, “Non (?)”. The man is so brilliant that he manages to keep a perfect balance between the two identities. After all, his name is Mr. S. Jeelani. Hats Off to a Muslim who truly knows how to use the British English.  

     

    What's your problem with a compliment?

     

    Nothing wrong with extending a warm compliment. I am sure Mr. S. Jeelani appreciate your kind and touching words.    

     

    Sorry, hats off, I know you are squirming due to an unwelcome and unsolicited certificate of appreciation. But this Lodhia guy is unbelievable...

     

    Why is that you find me to be unbelievable? You sure do recollect that many times you have skilfully dodged my questions. You know one cannot continue to act like “Intellectual Bigots” and think that Muslims are all stupid. No, we are not, Sir!  

     

    By secularlogic  - 7/8/2014 11:07:20 PM

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/8/2014 11:21:41 PM



  • Sheetal Solanki 

     

    Gee! That’s one tough statement. Yes, the respected editor knows all too well, but his own rules is very simple, that is, “Chalta Hai, Chalna Do.

     

    Sultan Shahin Saheb’s firm belief is that most of the readers on his forum are learning from those who are insulting Islam and the Prophet every single day.

     

    That’s insanity so to speak. What can I say? Trust me, the “Ex-Tablighi” will be around for a long long time to come. He thrives on insulting his ex-religion. He is a near perfect example of what happens to young minds that gets brainwashed by the perverted Mullahs.

     

    Jihadists and Tablighis are out to destabilize the entire human civilization. Yet, we will continue to allow them space to insult our Holy Quran and Prophet of Islam.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia  

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/8/2014 11:13:39 PM



  • Mr Lodhia, 

    That's not fair. The only comment I have made today has been a positive one. 

    Hats off is a stylish writer and his observations and comments are cuttingly accurate. His sense of irony, sarcasm, wit and the polite demolition of the other party are all very British in flavour, and make him a pleasure to read. I have been at the receiving end sometimes, but still it is fun to cross swords with one so skilled. 

    What's your problem with a compliment?

    Sorry, hats off, I know you are squirming due to an unwelcome and unsolicited certificate of appreciation. But this Lodhia guy is unbelievable...
    By secularlogic - 7/8/2014 11:07:20 PM



  • Secular Logic & Hats Off,

     

    You two gentlemen are just great human personalities. Are you sure you wake up and eat two eggs with sunny side up?

     

    It seems like no matter what, you both come on this forum eating two eggs with sunny side down.

     

    Criticizing is one thing, but over doing is another. What amazes me is that there is an on-going assault as if you all are conducting your own “Jihad” which no one cares to listen to.

     

    Sure they like to read all the negative stuff, but what else can they do? I even hardly read anything positive from either of you. Same old, same old. It’s just another day of negativity out on this forum.

     

    Ya know something! At times it gets to be despicable the way you all continue with mocking everything. Shame on you, gentlemen (?). Now that is a question mark so to speak.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia    

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/8/2014 10:56:04 PM



  • Rational muhammad yunus, u r liar, apostate, abuser, hate-monger. people like you are the worst of its kind i have ever seen on any forum, i can trace your identity through internet, you are not the man who appears with this name. one man using different names! 
    The respected editor knows well. No need to bring it to highlight.
    By Sheetal solanki - 7/8/2014 10:48:41 PM



  • " flexing the interpretation muscles until they are sore" - Hats Off


    That made me grin. I wish I had that way with words, Hats Off. Would have put me at the top of my tribe. And would have allowed me to argue my cases more stylishly. :) 
    By secularlogic - 7/8/2014 10:41:57 PM



  • Observer
    according to you anything done by the prophet is halal. Questionable themes are covered by wa ma malakat aimanukum.
    if a Muslim soldier capture women of the enemy, he can keep her like "malakat aimanukum", can have sexual relation? it will be considered mercy to those women. where is the question of haram and halal if haram thing is made halal by special permission?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/8/2014 10:38:18 PM



  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/8/2014 1:02:44 PM
    this apostate has not killed one bird/insect but the cloaks of your believers brothers in the primary and secondary holy sources are soaked in blood of innocent people throughout the history.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/8/2014 10:33:09 PM



  • The most inclusive verses are towards the end. The Meccan period was a period of struggle of a very weak minority. This is the period when fighting was prohibited. Fighting was permitted only in 13th year of the Prophethood. The next 7 years or so was of armed struggle against a vastly superior enemy in terms of numbers and wealth. The verses in this period are legislative as the Prophet was now a ruler and also  guidance on the armed struggle. After the fall of Mecca the Prophet lived only for about 2 years or so. The most inclusive verses are in the very last  period.

    It is not difficult to understand the Quran at all. The early Muslims practiced it for a 1000 years. Islamic society was the most tolerant society of its times and Jews migrated to Egypt and other countries to escape persecution elsewhere. The conquest of the Muslims was also greatly helped by local populations.

    The Arabs gave up war at the height of their military might after their limited objective was accomplished  in about 100 years and were never aggressors for the remaining 900 years or so.

    The Quran is both the easiest to understand as well as the most difficult. It is like maths -either you have a talent for it or you don't. In the case of the Quran, the talent has more to do with the heart. I know neo-converts who have absolutely no problem understanding it and those born  Muslim who have great difficulty understanding it.
     
    Now you cannot expect legislative verses in the Meccan period when the Prophet had no political authority to make laws. Also, you can understand why Jesus did not bring a single new law because the Jews were under Roman occupation.We have the famous quote from Jesus appropriate for those conditions "Render unto Caesar  what is Caesar's and unto God what is  God's"

    The laws came under Moses because he was similarly a ruler.

    The early part of Muhammad's (pbuh) life were like that of Jesus (pbuh) and the later part like that of Moses (pbuh). The revelations differ accordingly.

    I haven't read about Taha but what he said appears to have been what the early Muslims understood and practiced.

    By Observer - 7/8/2014 6:31:24 PM



  • The two apostates in this forum, Rational and Hats-off, are having a field day trashing the Quran, something that is very easy to do with the scriptures of any religion. The ferocity and hatefulness of their attacks  smacks paradoxically of a Wahhabi kind of  fanaticism. The task of reforming and modernizing any religion is difficult enough and it is made even more difficult by these thoughtless purveyors of hate.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/8/2014 1:02:44 PM



  • if a corpus of text asserts a proposition in one context and includes its negation in another, the evidentiary value of such a text is open to question.

    in so far as much of the koran was "revealed" during an active opposition to itself, and that the predominant "opposing" religions were paganism, christianity and judaism, it is very easy to understand the context of the koranic verses as reflecting a struggle for space and survival of a new fangled religion in competition with well established ones. within this darwinian religious milieu, the pre-existing religions were understandably opposed to any "innovation", as islam was perceived to be at that time. the islamic injunction against innovation in religion can be understood as a hangover from this rebellious aspect of its past.

    jews who had the longest pre-existing tradition were (understandably) the staunchest opponents of the nascent islam (just like the muslims are/were dead against the bahais and ahmedias).

    the prophet immortalized the jewish antogonism to his own brand of theosophy by having them banished forever from the hejaz.

    so in result, while many verses of peace reconciliation and accommodation can be pointed out, most of them arise from the period before which the prophet became more of a ruler than a prophet. this is old knowledge. that the difference between the meccan and medinan verses are substantial is something conservatives are unwilling to acknowledge and reluctant to broach.

    those who sought to put the koranic text in line with common sense and logic had to pay a very heavy price. such as mr taha. if one followed the method of these stalwarts, none of the current interpretational legerdemain is needed to reclaim islam from those who are willing to kill in defense of it or murder those who would opt out of it.

    but once yoked to a plough of perfection, there is nothing to do but keep defending every indefensible thing. not because it is perfect, but because you have presumed it to be so.
    By hats off! - 7/8/2014 11:39:51 AM



  • Hats Off,

    On the contrary the Quran says:

    (5:5) This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).
    (2:285) The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His messengers. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His messengers." And they say: "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys."

    The Muslims follow the Sunnat of all the previous Prophets as well.

    With such commonality between the religions, on matters where Islam differed from their practices, these practices were established in very clear terms and in a demonstrable manner linking it to the practice of the Prophet.

    By Observer - 7/8/2014 8:08:34 AM



  • i daresay islam is much much more christianophobic, judeophobic, idolophobic, and kuffarophobic.

    the hate and the vilification of idol worshippers, polytheists, jews and christians in the koran can only be glossed over by flexing the interpretation muscles until they are sore.

    the koran is an unmitigated disaster as far as idol worship and jews and christians are concerned. now then to be always whining about islamophobia without addressing the inherent jew hatred in koran is pretty daft, but dishonest.
    By hats off! - 7/8/2014 6:50:53 AM



  • Observer - 7/8/2014 5:26:46 AM
    your comment belong more to others than me.

    when i quoted the same in past, scholars on this site called it pornographic and declared me munafiq and internal witness against the Islam.
    your comment on islamophobic site is not entirely true. you just ignore this fact whenever i bring it into discussion.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/8/2014 6:36:32 AM



  • Rational,

    Kissing one's  wife while fasting is permissible to those who have control over themselves and impermissible to those who lack control and when kissing can lead to sex. Those who give in to their urge have to fast for 60 continuous days in expiation, and therefore .kissing is not advised for the young.

    That is the rule.

    There appear to be hadiths regarding menstruation which clarify that a woman menstruating:

    1. Can recite the Quran
    2. Perform haj
    3. Cook food
    4. Touch people including intimate touch with spouse without indulging in sex.

    Just look into Christian/Jewish literature or the literature of other religions where a menstruating woman was treated as a pariah and untouchable. Islam did away with all taboos except having sex with a menstruating wife.

    The kiss involving the tongues while fasting is clearly doubtful and I am sure would be flagged as such and also not find a place in the compilations of others.

    Why do you find anything dirty in these things? The manner in which you mentioned these things was very offensive and also meant to offend.

    I think you need to grow up and discuss the subject if at all you wish to do so, with some maturity and in a matter of fact way and not in a dirty way.

    Compared with Christianity etc., Islam does promote a more liberated attitude towards sex and makes it permissible in all positions (not just the missionary position), for enjoyment also and not just for procreation, and foreplay and after play with spouse can be indulged in without guilt as there is no sin in it. 

    The Quran beautifully sums it up be describing the relationship as   "They are your garments and ye are their garments". There is no shame with your garment and the garment or spouse is what protects our shame from others.

    So guard what is shameful from others except your spouse with whom you may enjoy as you please.
      
    By Observer - 7/8/2014 5:26:46 AM



  • Observer
    "The Quran uses the most nuanced language while dealing with the subject of sex."
    is your mother tongue Arabic? doesn't the translation alter the effect of original language?
    why didn't you quote the details of the paradise in the Quran?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/8/2014 5:18:33 AM



  • dear ramesh - 7/8/2014 12:22:42 AM
    i hope you have got the answer.

    but where is the answer from lodhia the imbecile to your question? if sex talk is dirty in the month of ramzan, what about the sex after the fast is over.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/8/2014 4:31:42 AM



  • Observer
    you can verify following references on http://www.islamicity.com
    -- [Which Page? URL?]

    [ I am deleting the pornographic "ahadees" you have quoted as you have not given the url of the page from which you have quoted the following. In any case what is the point of quoting such pornographic material from ahadees, even if true. There is a lot of other incredible rubbish in Hadees that you can quote and please always give Islamicity's page url.. -- Editor]


    Volume 3, Book 31, Number 149: --[Of Which Book? -- Editor]

    Narrated 'Aisha:

    The Prophet used to ....


    Volume 3, Book 31, Number 150: --[Of Which Book? -- Editor]

    Narrated Hisham's father:

    Aisha said, "Allah's Apostle used to .....


    Volume 3, Book 31, Number 151: --[Of Which Book? -- Editor]

    Narrated Zainab:

    (daughter of Um Salama) that her mother said, "While I was....

    If you still insist, i will give more. i hope you don't consider islamicity.com an  islamophobic site.  [Which Page? URL?]

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/8/2014 4:22:31 AM



  • lodhia
    you are idiosyncratic with me. it is just fine. you must be. but what about Naseer Saheb aka Observer?
    Is he not a Muslim of your like? or he speaks against the Islam?

    if Observer continue, you will commit suicide one day.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/8/2014 3:57:54 AM



  • dear ramesh - 7/5/2014 1:58:54 AM
    this is also called ghusl e junub. bathing to attain physical and ritual cleanliness after the intercourse or ejection of semen from penis or fluid from vagina for example by erotic dreams or by other means.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/8/2014 3:52:48 AM



  • Observer
    you are partially right. but what if references are valid? I knew it from Islamic sources published by Muslims. you can read the comment of Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi on erotic nature of Islamic sources.
    you have claimed that you confine yourself to the Quran only. So forget about it. if you are interested search hadith books.
    i knew you will join hands with mr yunus in this matter.
    i write neither for you nor for mohammed yunus. you can prove me wrong by giving right references.
    Islamophobic sites may alter meanings but i don't think they will give wrong references.
    all Ahadith i quoted can be found in Islamic sources.
    you can't reject my comments just accusing me of pervert mind.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/8/2014 3:42:11 AM



  • Muhammad used to .  [What is the point of quoting pornographic specimens from Hadees? There is a lot of other incredible rubbish in Hadees that you can quote and please always give Islamicity's page url so it can be verified. -- Editor]

     - .....(Sunaan Abu Dawud 13.2380)

    Sunaan Abu Dawud, Book 13, Number 2380:

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/8/2014 3:03:20 AM



  • Rational,

    Your sources are clearly the Islamophobic websites. I have shown time and again that these sites are unreliable even when they are supposedly quoting a verse from the Quran. Invariably, they do not mention the translator, change key words, and quote only a part of the verse, which conveys a  different sense from the whole verse.

    The fact that you continue to rely on such sites even after clear proof was provided shows your perversity.

    If you want to provide the proof, provide acceptable proof pointing to a genuine Islamic website or scanned copy from the original which I am sure you cannot.

    The Quran uses the most nuanced language while dealing with the subject of sex. There is nothing gross about its language whether it is concerning homosexuality, lesbianism or the permission to cohabit with spouse after the end of fast. 

    (187) Permitted to you, on the night of the fasts, is the approach to your wives. They are your garments and ye are their garments. Allah knoweth what ye used to do secretly among yourselves; but He turned to you and forgave you; so now associate with them, and seek what Allah Hath ordained for you, and eat and drink, until the white thread of dawn appear to you distinct from its black thread; then complete your fast Till the night appears; but do not associate with your wives while ye are in retreat in the mosques. Those are Limits (set by) Allah: Approach not nigh thereto. Thus doth Allah make clear His Signs to men: that they may learn self-restraint.
     
    By Observer - 7/8/2014 3:01:56 AM



  • Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

    [What is the point of quoting pornographic specimens from Hadees? There is a lot of other incredible rubbish in Hadees that you can quote and please always give Islamicity's page url.. Editor]

     (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 1, Number 0270)


    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/8/2014 2:58:28 AM



  • lodhia
    what about swelling breasts in the Quran?.
    Is sex Haram in Ramzan? if not how it is forbidden to talk about it?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/8/2014 2:54:54 AM



  • mr mohamme yunus
    you are just a hypocrite of first order in the matter of hadith.
    Shall i post the reference too? who is sexually pervert me or your imams?
    you must clear your stand. why don't you say a single word about those who wrote all this x-rated material.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/8/2014 2:40:22 AM



  • Lodhia - 7/7/2014 10:52:50 PM
    i have written what you desrve for. period.
    who am i, is none of your business.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/8/2014 2:34:30 AM



  • Ramesh Ji,

     

    Did your religion and your parents taught you to be “Disrespectful” of others? You know, whenever I go on any sales trip with my north Indian and south Indian friends who visit America, I do not even dare think of eating beef in front of them.  

     

    Now what does this example tell you about a Muslim character? You on the other hand simply want to insult everything about my religion. What makes your mind think that way?

     

    You should know that there are bad people in all religions of the world. No, you and your comrade, “Ex-Tablighi” and few others on this forum are all in the same boat. Well then, show some human decency, please!

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia     

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/8/2014 1:23:02 AM



  • Sultan Shahin Saheb,

     

    Observe the “Observer. He will take all the readers into a slippery slope where he wants to continue to argue his point until hell freezes over.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/8/2014 1:14:46 AM



  • Mr yunus says:

    “To me what he wrote was so immensely vulgar about our Prophet that it stands out as a glaring proof that it was concocted by a most sexually perverted and morally profane mind and could never come from God. Period.”

    I agree with the above.

    He also says:

     “Kindly retain what you have deleted to show those who claim that the hadith are divinely revealed”.

    My question is simply, how can what is concocted by a most sexually perverted and morally profane mind become acceptable as proof? Is Mr Yunus unconcerned about the standard for proof or is he a firm believer in ‘the end justifies the means’? This simply points to a lack of concern for facts, truth and authenticity when trying to prove a point.

    By Observer - 7/8/2014 12:30:56 AM



  • In this forum it is desired that in the month of Ramzan sex matters shall not be discussed. I agree. But what about  a verse in the Quran which commands believers  that  in the month of Ramzan shall after breaking fast in the evening  go into their wives and have intercourse with them?  Can anyone enlighten on this verse? By ramesh - 7/8/2014 12:22:42 AM



  • Dear Observor,

    To me what he wrote was so immensely vulgar about our Prophet that it stands out as a glaring proof that it was concocted by a most sexually perverted and morally profane mind and could never come from God. Period.

    You can ask Sultan Shahin Sahab's view on it.

    Besides, that is only my advise.

    What problem you have dear Observor in my advising anything to the Chief Editor of this site.   

    If he has any disagreement, he can always voice it.

    By muhammad yunus - 7/8/2014 12:10:44 AM



  •  

    Sultan Shahin Saheb,

     

    One this particular thread, you wrote, “Indeed, he is making good points. Now wait till you find out what kind to good points Naseer Ahmed Saheb (aka Observer) will be making.

     

    You have two notorious commentator on the loose and you keep on insisting that there is plenty to learn from the two.

     

    Well then, we shall soon find out, Sultan Shahin.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia  

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/8/2014 12:09:06 AM



  • Mr Muhammad Yunus,

    You say “Kindly retain what you have deleted to show those who claim that the hadith are divinely revealed”.

    How does  what is obviously and demonstrably false become acceptable as proof for you? 

    By Observer - 7/7/2014 11:46:12 PM



  • @Ex-Tablighi,

     

    That’s the right screen name for you. The reason being that you are in fact an “Ex-Muslim.” You are “Irrational,” therefore, there is no point in addressing you as “Rational.”

     

    Why don’t you join the “Ex-Muslim” forum and have all the fun out there? “New Age Islam” is dominated by you and another “Tablighi Maulvi” who simply love to throw tantrums whenever he feels like it.

     

    You are a living proof that “Madrassa” education is bad. Look what the “Mullahs” have done to your brains? They scrambled it so bad that you have completely lose your human senses.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

     
       

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/7/2014 10:52:50 PM



  • mr mohammed yunus
    if the Quran can have x-rated details of paradise and Ahadith can have x-rated biography of the prophet and still is revered as speech of god your objection is void and idiotic.
    So you are not aware of such Ahadith? Have Muslims stopped revering Ahadith? you feel uncomfortable and therefore changed the meanings of the verses of the Quran.
    your stand on Ahadith is hollow and shallow. you revere the same Muhadithhen who recorded these accounts which you consider x-rated.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/7/2014 10:34:55 PM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin Sahab,

     

    Thanks for deleting the openly erotic stuff posted by a commentator with a Muslim name on this Ramadan day.

     

    Anyone can say most sexually provocative things even about their mother (the Prophet's wives are like our mothers) without quoting any site and if you publish that, no lady or decent person will enter your site. 

    Kindly retain what you have deleted to show those who claim that the hadith are divinely revealed. I don't know the fellow who quoted (XX/XXX rating stuff) just tried to bring his own fancies into religion or is himself a sexual pervert or browses hard porn sites on the ramathan rendering makruh the fast of those who read it. As the comment was immensly objectionable, no less sexually erotic, I am constrained to put this rejoinder. In my wildest imagination I could not think of a Muslim or any descent person posting openly erotic material into the website without being sued or at least strongly reprimanded.

     

    This is no freedom of speech that one graphically describes the most animal form of sexual act that you see among the stray dogs involving his own mother (assuming the commentator is a Muslim) in the name of Islam - I suggest you ask him to quote sources or else give him a notice and suspend him from the website (for its is not a porno site) until he clarifies where he got the most vulgar stuff that you discreetly deleted.

    By Muhammed Yunus - 7/7/2014 8:02:32 AM



  • Dear Yunus Saheb, Thanks for directing my attention to this offensive comment. I have deleted the offending comment with the following remark:

    [Pornographic material ostensibly from Hadees and Quran has been deleted as it does not give references. We cannot ban or censor from an Islamic website Qur'anic verses and statements of the Prophet from Hadees (particularly Bukhari and Muslim) that most Muslims consider another form of revelation (wahi), but cannot publish any controversial statement without proper references.  - Editor]

    By Sultan Shahin - 7/7/2014 7:14:14 AM



  • Dear Rational Mohammed Yunus,

    Ref your last comment, I am sure you are spending at least some time in these long days of ramadan on some very hard pornographic site and giving this site a porn texture. Any woman or decent person who reads your comment will never re-enter this site .

    Who are you working for??
    By muhammad yunus - 7/7/2014 5:37:39 AM



  • Dear Rational,
     You have not answered my post dt 5th july in this thread  seeking clarification .
    By ramesh - 7/7/2014 5:15:08 AM



  •  rational mohammed yunus you are the biggest apostate........... By rj - 7/7/2014 2:55:13 AM



  • The meaning of a word changes when it is used in relation with God and when used in  relation with man. For example Allah is ash-Shakoor, which we can translate as the Most Appreciative since God rewards any virtuous deed many-fold. The one who rewards a good deed many-fold is said to be grateful for that deed. If you consider the multiplication factor in reward, only God—great and glorious—is absolutely grateful because His multiplication of the reward is unrestricted and unlimited; for there is no end to the happiness of Paradise.” 

    Man also does Shukran Allah which means thanks Allah for the favours of Allah. Can man ever match Allah in His Qulaity of ash-shakoor? The degree in difference makes for a difference in the meaning itself. Man is merely a thanks giver whereas God is the most appreciative who shows His appreciation by rewarding multifold.

    Likewise yusalli in 33:43 means “sends his blessings” whereas salat used for the created becomes `prayer’ which may perhaps be also translated as fulfilling of our obligation to God. Looking at it another way, God is fulfilling His obligation by sending his blessings and man his obligations by performing salat. The form of salat and tasbeeh of the birds would obviously differ from that of man and even the streams, and mountains are said to perform tasbeeh.

    The meaning of salat used for man is beyond debate as Mr Yunus has said. There are more than a hundred verses on the subject. I have covered the subject of what is salat in a previous comment citing relevant verses from which it should be absolutely clear what salat means.

    My explanation is a little speculative as my knowledge of  Arabic is limited.

    By Observer - 7/7/2014 2:17:44 AM



  • lodhia
    "For instance, take a look at “Ex-Tablighi” who is constantly prowling around on the “New Age Islam” forum even after giving up the religion of Islam. What does the man got to do with the religion which he gave up? Let’s face it, the teachings of hate which was received at the “Madrassa” comes into play all the time. The man is certainly not at peace with himself and want to abuse everything that relates to Islam and Muslims."
    only an idiot like you believe what have you written about ex-tablighi.
    your Sultan Shahin is blind by one eye. He sees others insults but not yours.

    [Pornographic material ostensibly from Hadees and Quran has been deleted as it does not give references. We cannot ban or censor from an Islamic website Qur'anic verses and statements of the Prophet from Hadees (particularly Bukhari and Muslim) that most Muslims consider another form of revelation (wahi), but cannot publish any controversial statement without proper references.  - Editor]


    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/7/2014 2:09:31 AM



  • I was waiting for Akbar Ali to respond to the comment @ 7/6/2014 6:59:15 AM. Knowing that he is a busy person, it might go unanswered for a long time and lose its impact.

    So just the quote from the comment “…..the exact meaning of which is known to God alone” is interesting and often used to indicate false modesty.

    So I ask---If God alone knows the exact meaning of whatever instructions He has given to His Messenger to transmit further down, then whose fault it is in He not being able to “communicate” the intent and substance of the instruction?

    The multilayered “liturgical” meanings, throws the whole authority of the Instructor in jeopardy and so His qualification to be in that position becomes suspect; which to say the least, must be frightening to those who are being instructed!

    Is it therefore a case of “attitude” taken by the recruits to the instructions?

    By rs - 7/7/2014 1:00:39 AM



  • Dear Mubashir Saheb,

     

    As-Salaam Alay-Kum

     

    Vow! I am impressed that for the past 39 years you have successfully managed a convincing “Checkmate” while doing your comparative studies between Holy Quran and Hadiths. 

      

    Good to know that searching for appropriate “Hadiths” made your job easier. Though, I am not a “Hadith” student, therefore, I politely request you to give an honest answer on the following Hadiths:

     

    A Verse from Holy Quran

     

    Quran 4:89 They would have you become Kafirs like them so you will all be the same. Therefore, do not take any of them as friends until they have abandoned their homes to fight for Allah's cause [jihad]. But if they turn back, find them and kill them wherever they are.

     

    Hadiths compiled by Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim

     

    "The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him." (Sahih Muslim, 41:6985; see also 41:6981-84 and Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:176,177 and 4:56:791)”

     

    “[Bukhari 4,52,142] Mohammed: "To battle kafirs in jihad for even one day is greater than the entire earth and everything on it." 

     

    “Mohammad: "I have been ordered to wage war against mankind until they accept that there is no god but Allah and that they believe that I am His prophet and accept all revelations spoken through me. When they do these things I will protect their lives and property unless otherwise justified by Sharia, in which case their fate lies in Allah's hands." (Muslim 001, 0031)”

     

    “[Muslim 0010031] Mohammed: "I have been ordered to wage war against mankind until they accept that there is no god but Allah."

     

    Well, the reason I am asking you is that your comment gave me a clue that you are probably a right person to give me a clear-cut explanation. The truth of the matter is, someone has to confront those who throw such “Hadiths” at us. Those who have mastered the “Science of Hadiths” should be able to provide an intelligent answer. Agreed! 

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/6/2014 9:31:26 PM



  • GM Sb,

    There is plenty of scope for spontaneity. Regarding charity, I never refuse it all through the year and never keep count. Make no distinction between people who ask or their religion. Treat a genuine request/demand as a godsend.

    Regarding prayer, tahajjud is meant to be offered alone and voluntarily besides dhikr which could be in any form - names of Allah, prayer, recitation of the Quran.

    Regarding food also, one has to develop taste for what is healthy and distaste for what is unhealthy. One also chooses to have a lifestyle that is healthy - regular sleep, exercise, work etc. Voluntarily, we do make our lives regular but we don't call it regimentation/rule bound. It is the same in the matter of religion. Once we accept something, the rest is easy. And once the Quran begins to speak to you, reading it is then never a chore nor prayer.
     
    By Observer - 7/6/2014 6:31:18 PM



  • [Sharing a comment from Facebook]
    "...One the best way to open peoples eyes is to convince people to read at least Bukhàri And Isool Ul Kafi which are the prototype of two major sects.Other way is to show them those so called Hadith which provide proof that verses of Quran are outside of Q
    uran.Then ask them are they still going to believe these books.I had a lot do success in this manner.It is not good to beat around the bush.The best way is go to the jugular.

    I shows people the Hadith about RAJAM which claims that it used be the verse of Quran So far I had 100/100 success and I have been doing it for 39 years .I am to convince through this Hadith even the Imams of mosques.It gives a convincing checkmate.

    And so much so those who wrote commentary on this so called Hadith made my Job even easier..."
    By Mubashir - 7/6/2014 5:15:16 PM



  • Observer sb. says, "There is the very clear message of the Quran regarding Salat, Zakat etc." . . .


    People who resent too many rules and regulations and too much ritualization and regimentation would prefer that both prayers and charity come from the heart and be spontaneous. Hence I appreciated your remark, "God also gives man autonomy to make his choices freely."

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/6/2014 1:36:39 PM



  • Observer sb., . . .

    While supplementation and clarification of what is in the Quran are necessary, are the Hadiths and Sunnah the only ways to achieve them? What about our God-given common sense and group consensus? The latter method would assure contemporaneity, consonance with modern thought and ethos and weeding out of what is obsolete.

    You would say that the Quran mandates the first method. Since the way the Quran was compiled leaves the question of possible overinclusiveness unresolved, it is incumbent upon us to ask whether the way we interpret a particular verse is the only way to interpret it.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/6/2014 1:27:01 PM



  • Dear Syed Akbar Ali,

    While I agree with the different range of meanings of the word Salat, its most common meaning in the Qur'an is the namaz that the Muslims perform and the Prophet too performed. I believe this is above debate.

    I have translated the verse 33:43/56 as follows and will be grateful to know how would you translate it.

    “God is the One Who blesses (yusal’li) you (O believers*) as do His angels, that He may bring you from darkness into Light; and He is full of Mercy to the believers (mu’minin)” (33:43). *[The bracketed qualification draws on the preceding verses 33:41/42.].

    “Indeed God and His angels bless the Prophet. You who believe, invoke blessings (sal’lu) on him and submit (to his guidance) wholeheartedly” (33:56).

    The literal interpretation of these verses can raise complex doctrinal questions, and the best thing is to regard them as part of the divine liturgy, the exact meaning of which is known to God alone.  



     
    By muhammad yunus - 7/6/2014 6:59:15 AM



  • GM Sb,
    There is the very clear message of the Quran regarding Salat, Zakat etc.
    God also gives man autonomy to make his choices freely.
    Congregational prayer is preferred but not obligatory. My preference is also for praying at home when I am at home except on Fridays or when I am outside.
    By Observer - 7/6/2014 3:58:19 AM



  • GM Sb says: “When we question the value of the Hadiths or the Sunnah what we are really saying is that Man must take the responsibility and assume the authority to keep Islam the progressive and cutting-edge religion that it once was

    The discussion was confined to whether the Quran directs Muslims to follow the Prophet’s (pbuh) sunnat (practice), which are part of his hadith  (what was transmitted on the authority of the Prophet, his deeds, sayings, tacit approval). The answer is clearly yes since the Quran asks us to follow the Prophet, it is incumbent upon us to follow what constitute his instruction. The instructions are regarding matters that are made obligatory in the Quran such as Salat and Zakat. These are therefore binding. In every other case, since they do not concern what is made obligatory by the Quran, we may take these as the preferred thing to do and not as obligatory. Not every sunnat is part of his hadith either; for example, his preferences regarding food, but these also find a place in the books of hadith. We should therefore distinguish what are merely biographical details from what is his hadith.

    There are hadiths that are clearly fabricated, antithetical to the message of the Quran, not in conformity with the way the early Muslims behaved and promote strife. These must be excised.

    When you speak about the outrageous fatwas, these have little to do with the Quran or the hadiths. These outrageous fatwas by single muftis were not supported by others either. I fail to see why such examples are even cited since they prove nothing. Do we cite outrageous judgments to discredit the entire judicial system or even the frequent atrocities to discredit the police or the rampant corruption to discredit democracy?

    Most of the hadiths expound on the Quran to promote good behavior. Rather than attack all hadiths, specific hadiths that are antithetical to the message of the Quran should be highlighted and excised using criteria that is transparent. For example, `fighting until there is no more disbelief in the world’. This flies in the face of the Prophet’s own behavior, the clear message of the Quran and the clear conduct of the early Muslims. The fighting was only against those `who fight you, or those who have driven you out of your homes, or against those who oppress others’. It is therefore clearly a later date addition which gave birth to political Islam. This is clearly rejected by most Muslims. It is easier to deal with specific hadiths and declare such hadiths as false. A person who follows them therefore follows satan.

     

    By Observer - 7/6/2014 3:41:40 AM



  • WHAT IS SALAT IN THE QURAN?

    Salat does not mean prayer. There is no such thing in the Quran. Salat means a link, tie, bond, obligation. A door hinge that holds the door to the doorframe is also called a salat. Salat is a link that binds one thing to another.

    Allahuma solli alaikum means 'Allah obliges Himself upon you'. 

    If you say salat means prayer, then how can  'Allah performs prayer/salat upon you'? That is nonsensical.

    Here is another one :

    Huwallazi yusolli alaikum wa malaaikatuhu liyuhrijakum minal zulumaati ilan noor (33:43) which means 'He obliges Himself upon you, and so do the malaaikah, to brig you from the darkness to the light'.

    This is correct. Allah makes it an obligation to bring us out of the darkness. But we must believe and listen to His teachings which is the Quran. 

    If you say salat means prayer, then it becomes :  "He prays salat upon you, and so do the malaaikah, to brig you from the darkness to the light". Again this is nonsensical.

    Salat means obligations.  What are our obligations? The Quran says,

    Even the birds know their salat / obligations.

    24:41 Do you not realize that everyone in the heavens and the earth glorifies Allah, even the birds as they fly in a column? Each knows its obligations/salat and its glorification. Allah is fully aware of everything they do.

    Even the bird brain knows its obligations. Huma beings also know their obligations.

    Syed Akbar Ali
    By Syed Akbar Ali - 7/6/2014 3:14:53 AM



  • Observer sb, . . .


    In any case, wouldn't prayers in one's own home be better than running to the mosque five times a day which would be disruptive to family life or to office work. Instead of prayers being obligatory, shouldn't all prayers be voluntary, freely offered from one's heart. After all we pray to make us feel good in ourselves, not to please God who is too great to want our praise  or to see us bow to Him. Don't you think we are too rules-driven?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/6/2014 2:56:34 AM



  •  ·         How much is the Jizyah that the People of the Book have to pay?


    There is no such thing as jizya payments by the People of the Book in the Quran. The word jizya is mentioned in the Quran but it refers war reparations. The Geneva Convention on the conduct of war has details on war reparations. Germany paid jizya or war reparations after the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Iraq also paid jizya or war reparations ater the Gulf War.  There is no such thing as a permanent jizya tax on non Muslims. There is no such thing in the Quran.


     ·         Is it permissible for a man to look at a naked man?


    I cannot answer your personal fantasies and fetishes. But just curious, before they became Sunnah wal Jamaah, did your ancestors find it worthwhile to look at naked men? 


     ·         Can I pray Salaah naked?


    May I ask some questions first?

    1. Who would you pray to?
    2. Would you feel more comfortable this way?
    3. Should you check the weather and temperature before you pray naked?
    4. Was this practised by any of your ancestors before they became sunnah wal jamaah? Just curious.

    Syed Akbar Ali.
    By Syed Akbar Ali - 7/6/2014 2:56:10 AM



  • To continue :

     ·         Hadn't the Quran been reached to us from the same sources we received our authentic hadith?


    No this is a fake teaching. The hadith came hundreds of years after the Prophet. There is no evidence that Bukhari even wrote the Sahih Bukhari. We dont know who was Zayd bin Thabit (the sahaba who is supposed to have collected the Quran). The reports are contradictory. The shiahs do not accept the sunni hadith and vice versa. So we dont know. What we know is that there are completed copies of the Quran in museums in Cairo, Istanbul, Baghdad etc that go back 1000 years or more. There is no change to the Quran script. The Quran was written by the prophet himself. 


    Surah 25:5  They also said, "Tales from the past that he has written down; they were dictated to him day and night."


    "Waqaloo asateeru al-awwaleena iktatabaha fahiya tumla  alayhi bukratan wa'aseelan"


    The disbelievers say that the rasul wrote down the Quran. However they refused to believe what he was writing down. They said he was writing down fairy tales. 


    So the Quran was writen down by the rasul.


     ·   Why would Allah preserve the Quran and not preserve the meaning?


    This is a fairy tale. No mullah can tell you which verse of the Quran CANNOT be understood at all without the hadith. Please ask the mullah nearst to you. Can you show us one verse in the Quran that cannot be understood without a hadith? Also please refer Sahih Bukhari Volume 6 Tafseer Quran. There are 28 surahs of the Quran where Sahih Bukhari book says 'There are no hadith to explain the verses here'. So there are not enough hadith to explain the Quran. 


    Continued.


    Syed Akbar Ali

    By Syed Akbar Ali - 7/6/2014 2:49:38 AM



  • To continue :

     ·         Hadn't the Quran been reached to us from the same sources we received our authentic hadith?


    No this is a fake teaching. The hadith came hundreds of years after the Prophet. There is no evidence that Bukhari even wrote the Sahih Bukhari. We dont know who was Zayd bin Thabit (the sahaba who is supposed to have collected the Quran). The reports are contradictory. The shiahs do not accept the sunni hadith and vice versa. So we dont know. What we know is that there are completed copies of the Quran in museums in Cairo, Istanbul, Baghdad etc that go back 1000 years or more. There is no change to the Quran script. The Quran was written by the prophet himself. 


    Surah 25:5  They also said, "Tales from the past that he has written down; they were dictated to him day and night."


    "Waqaloo asateeru al-awwaleena iktatabaha fahiya tumla  alayhi bukratan wa'aseelan"


    The disbelievers say that the rasul wrote down the Quran. However they refused to believe what he was writing down. They said he was writing down fairy tales. 


    So the Quran was writen down by the rasul.


     ·   Why would Allah preserve the Quran and not preserve the meaning?


    This is a fairy tale. No mullah can tell you which verse of the Quran CANNOT be understood at all without the hadith. Please ask the mullah nearst to you. Can you show us one verse in the Quran that cannot be understood without a hadith? Also please refer Sahih Bukhari Volume 6 Tafseer Quran. There are 28 surahs of the Quran where Sahih Bukhari book says 'There are no hadith to explain the verses here'. So there are not enough hadith to explain the Quran. 


    Continued.


    Syed Akbar Ali

    By Syed Akbar Ali - 7/6/2014 2:49:10 AM



  • Salamun Alaikum. Here are the rest of the questions that were asked.

    ·         How do you know how to pray using the Quran alone?


    There is absolutely no such thing as prayer in the Quran. Salat does not mean prayer. Please ask your nearest mullah. The Quran has absolutely no mention about the adhaan or call to prayer. The Quran has no mention about how many rakaat in Fajar, Zuhur, Asr prayer etc. The mullah will confirm this for you. You cannot find even one verse in the Quran where Allah says 'Pray Salat to me'. None whatsoever.


    There is only "fasolli lirabbika" which means 'uphold your salat / obligations FOR Allah'.  It does not say 'salat TO Allah'.


    So there is no such thing as salat as prayer in the Quran. This is 100% truth from the Quran. Namaz can only be performed refering to non Quranic hadith.


     ·         How do you know how much Zakaah to pay using the Quran alone? 


    You dont PAY zakat. Zakat means to purify. This is the literal meaning of zakah not only in the Quran but in the arabic language.  Please confirm this with your nearest mullah. There is no such thing as 2 1/2 % zakat in the Quran. 


    The Quran asks us to pay sadaqah and nafkah which are both detailed in the Quran.  How much charity to give? From your surplus, says the Quran. You decide. 2 1/2 % cannot even buy one chapatti for the poor. Who gets charity? Parents, family, near of kin, orphans, transients are all mentioned in the Quran. When? Anytime. Give openly or give secretly. There is no such thing as obligatory zakat in the Quran. 


    Like the "Asalamu Alaikum" that is a christian and jewish teaching the obligatory zakat is also a christian teaching. It is not from the Rasul and Allah. 


    Will continue.


    Syed Akbar Ali

    By Syed Akbar Ali - 7/6/2014 2:38:09 AM



  • GM Sb,

    The verses that say “bow down with those who bow down” do not even remotely have the context of the battlefield.

    (2:43) And be steadfast in prayer; practise regular charity; and bow down your heads with those who bow down (in worship).

    (3:43) "O Mary! worship Thy Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down."

    Besides, there are verses relating to Friday and the prayer is  clearly meant to be in congregation.

    Regarding the requirement of adherence to prayer and their timings:

    (2:238) Guard strictly your (habit of) prayers, especially the Middle Prayer; and stand before Allah in a devout (frame of mind).

    (11:114) And establish regular prayers at the two ends of the day and at the approaches of the night: For those things, that are good remove those that are evil: Be that the word of remembrance to those who remember (their Lord):

    (17:78) Establish regular prayers - at the sun´s decline till the darkness of the night, and the morning prayer and reading: for the prayer and reading in the morning carry their testimony.

    (30:17) So (give) glory to Allah, when ye reach eventide and when ye rise in the morning;

    (18) Yea, to Him be praise, in the heavens and on earth; and in the late afternoon and when the day begins to decline.

    The Tahajud prayer is non-obligatory but the best time for prayer. Although the Quran recognizes that during the day we are preoccupied with ordinary duties, and therefore distracted, the times for obligatory prayers are during these hours also (zuhar, asr and perhaps maghrib). Prayer is to remind us even while we are preoccupied with ordinary duties that the goal of all our endeavors is to gain the approval of Allah. This should make us better perform our ordinary duties with diligence and honesty.

    (73:6) Truly the rising by night is most potent for governing (the soul), and most suitable for (framing) the Word (of Prayer and Praise). (7) True, there is for thee by day prolonged occupation with ordinary duties:

    Regarding the modern day constraints that you speak of, the Quran speaks of those who are constrained but does not exempt them from regular prayer:

    73:20 He knoweth that there may be (some) among you in ill-health; others travelling through the land, seeking of Allah´s bounty; yet others fighting in Allah´s Cause, read ye, therefore, as much of the Qur´an as may be easy (for you); and establish regular Prayer and give regular Charity; and loan to Allah a Beautiful Loan. And whatever good ye send forth for your souls ye shall find it in Allah´s Presence,- yea, better and greater, in Reward and seek ye the Grace of Allah: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

     

    It would appear that the absence of prayer and charity will lead a person to hell fire.

     (74:41) And (ask) of the Sinners:

    (42) "What led you into Hell Fire?"

    (43) They will say: "We were not of those who prayed;

    (44) "Nor were we of those who fed the indigent;

    (45) "But we used to talk vanities with vain talkers;

    46) "And we used to deny the Day of Judgment,

    (47) "Until there came to us (the Hour) that is certain."

    (48) Then will no intercession of (any) intercessors profit them.

    (49) Then what is the matter with them that they turn away from admonition?-

    (50) As if they were affrighted asses,

    (51) Fleeing from a lion!

    (52) Forsooth, each one of them wants to be given scrolls (of revelation) spread out!

    (53) By no means! But they fear not the Hereafter,

    (54) Nay, this surely is an admonition:

    (55) Let any who will, keep it in remembrance!

    (56) But none will keep it in remembrance except as Allah wills: He is the Lord of Righteousness, and the Lord of Forgiveness.

    Requirement for assuredly inheriting Paradise

    (2:2) This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;(3) Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;(4) And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.(5) They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.

     

    (23:1) The believers must (eventually) win through,-(2) Those who humble themselves in their prayers;(3) Who avoid vain talk;(4) Who are active in deeds of charity;(5&6) Who abstain from illicit sex (8) Those who faithfully observe their trusts and their covenants;(9) And who (strictly) guard their prayers;-(10) These will be the heirs,(11) Who will inherit Paradise: they will dwell therein (for ever).

     

    (70:19) Truly man was created very impatient;-(20) Fretful when evil touches him;(21) And niggardly when good reaches him;-(22) Not so those devoted to Prayer;-(23) Those who remain steadfast to their prayer; (24) And those in whose wealth is a recognised right.(25) For the (needy) who asks and him who is prevented (for some reason from asking);(26) And those who hold to the truth of the Day of Judgment;(27) And those who fear the displeasure of their Lord,-(28) For their Lord´s displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquillity;-(29) And those who guard their chastity,(30) Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,(31) But those who trespass beyond this are transgressors;-(32) And those who respect their trusts and covenants;(33) And those who stand firm in their testimonies;(34) And those who guard (the sacredness) of their worship;-(35) Such will be the honoured ones in the Gardens (of Bliss).

     

    What does Prayer achieve among other things?

    (29:45) Recite what is sent of the Book by inspiration to thee, and establish regular Prayer: for Prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deeds; and remembrance of Allah is the greatest (thing in life) without doubt. And Allah knows the (deeds) that ye do.

    What are the characteristics of a person who performs regular prayer?

    (24:37) By men whom neither traffic nor merchandise can divert from the Remembrance of Allah, nor from regular Prayer, nor from the practice of regular Charity: Their (only) fear is for the Day when hearts and eyes will be transformed (in a world wholly new),-

    (2:45) Nay, seek (Allah´s) help with patient perseverance and prayer: It is indeed hard, except to those who bring a lowly spirit,-

    Under what circumstances can we neglect regular prayer? None!

    (4:101) When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.

    (2:239) If ye fear (an enemy), pray on foot, or riding, (as may be most convenient), but when ye are in security, celebrate Allah´s praises in the manner He has taught you, which ye knew not (before).

    (4:102) When thou (O Messenger) art with them, and standest to lead them in prayer, Let one party of them stand up (in prayer) with thee, Taking their arms with them: When they finish their prostrations, let them Take their position in the rear. And let the other party come up which hath not yet prayed - and let them pray with thee, Taking all precaution, and bearing arms: the Unbelievers wish, if ye were negligent of your arms and your baggage, to assault you in a single rush. But there is no blame on you if ye put away your arms because of the inconvenience of rain or because ye are ill; but take (every) precaution for yourselves. For the Unbelievers Allah hath prepared a humiliating punishment.

    (4:103) When ye pass (Congregational) prayers, celebrate Allah´s praises, standing, sitting down, or lying down on your sides; but when ye are free from danger, set up Regular Prayers: For such prayers are enjoined on believers at stated times.

    What will happen to the community of Muslims if they abandon prayer?

    (19:59) But after them there followed a posterity who missed prayers and followed after lusts soon, then, will they face Destruction,-

     

    By Observer - 7/6/2014 2:24:13 AM



  • Salamun Alaikum to all. What happened to Ahmad who was discussing about Salamun Alaikum versus the Jewish Assalamu Alaikum / Wa alaikum salam?

    Anyway I just saw someone had asked these questions. 

    Some Questions to Ask the Quran Only People

     ·         How do you know how to pray using the Quran alone?

     ·         How do you know how much Zakaah to pay using the Quran alone? 

     ·         Hadn't the Quran been reached to us from the same sources we received our authentic hadith?

     ·         Why would Allah preserve the Quran and not preserve the meaning?

     ·         How much is the Jizyah that the People of the Book have to pay?

     ·         Is it permissible for a man to look at a naked man?

     ·         Can I pray Salaah naked?


    First of all there is no such thing as Quran only people. Allah swt has named us Muslims. The Quran says 'huwa samma kumu muslimeen' which means 'He has named you Muslims'.


    Allah does not recognise shiah, sunnah wal jamaah, tablighi, soofy, hanafi, shafiee, maliki etc. Either you are a Muslim or you are not. The people who believe and uphold Allah's revelations ie the Quran should be Muslims. Insya Allah. 


    I will answer the other questions soon.


    Syed Akbar Ali

    By Syed Akbar Ali - 7/6/2014 2:24:06 AM



  • Non Muslim,

    I apologize if my wording has hurt you in anyway. The response usually gets framed by the offense felt by the original post not realizing that there are others reading besides the person one is responding to. 

    By Observer - 7/5/2014 1:56:20 PM



  • @Observer

    Read the following sentences.

    One written by you with a condescending, almost arrogant tone: "The non believers should be happy with the God of the Quran. He promises them everything in this world itself!"

    Now learn from me how you could have phrased it logically and with more meaning: "YOU should be happy with the God of the Quran. He promises NON BELIEVERS everything in this world itself!"

    Do you understand the sea of difference in both the meaning and the tone?

    But, I don't think that was a mistake out of your inability to write meaningful things. That was out of your arrogance, as you have done on several times.
    By non muslim - 7/5/2014 8:03:58 AM



  • Non Muslim,

    I didn't think that I would have to also explain what 'too' means in this context. After having taught you the meaning of comprehension, I had to teach the meaning of logic too.

    Convoluted? Did I not say that my comment was in response to Hats Off right in the beginning? Are you incapable of even seeing for yourself how it was appropriate for Hats Off comment?

    Hats Off does not have a problem with it but you do. Does that not tell you something about yourself and your slow wit?
    By Observer - 7/5/2014 6:35:52 AM



  • Hats Off,

    You will never find the answer to the current problems in religion or ideology. You are more likely to find it in social psychology.

    What I clearly see is that after the first 100 years of war exclusively waged to defeat the imperial wars of the day viz the Persians and the Byzantines, the Arabs gave up war at the height of their military power and lived peacefully for 600 years until the Mongols attacked them. They seem to have forgotten the art of war and were easily defeated. It was the Mamluks who eventually defeated the Mongols. The Arabs lived peacefully with their own Shias  the Iranians and the Iraqis. The Arabs even left Iran for the Iranians to rule themselves. So how do you blame the Koran or Islam?

    The detractors of Islam however see an opportunity to malign Islam in the current scenario and they have set up a constant refrain against the religion. Constant repetition of the lie apparently is having some effect with some Muslims also believing in the same lie. 


    By Observer - 7/5/2014 6:27:16 AM



  • @Observer

    "You need lessons in logic too.

    Why should a non believer bother if the God of Koran hates the non believer?"

    1) By using 'too', you are agreeing that you need a lesson in logic. Unless you don't understand the meaning of the word too.

    But I can assure you, I don't need it as much as you do.

    2) I agree with you 100% on the second point.

    It doesn't bother non believers what god says because non believers don't believe in the god of Quran. Because we also know that those words were said in a certain context.

    That should have been your argument from the beginning. Instead, as always, you took a convoluted path with your slow thinking.

    As an aside, however, I will tell you what bothers non believers. What bothers us is the misuse of those words by people to justify violence.

    Otherwise, peaceful Muslims are our brothers from other mothers. Why should they bother us?
    By non muslim - 7/5/2014 6:23:02 AM



  • Non Muslim,

    You need lessons in logic too.

    Why should a non believer bother if the God of Koran hates the non believer?

    When it does bother a non believer to say that the God of Koran hates non believers , it is then appropriate to tell him that  the God of Koran does not hate  them, and  promises them all the wealth and comfort in this world.

    I am not sure, with your poor comprehension, you will ever get it.

    Why do you get into a discussion that does not concern you or with which you cannot relate and will never be able to relate because of your obvious disabilities?
     
    You are becoming progressively  obnoxious loosing your composure and making a fool of yourself.

    By Observer - 7/5/2014 6:12:02 AM



  • to persist in repeating that the koran should be understood in its "true and correct" way is to close our eyes to the devastation all around.

    every one, (bar none - the whole spectrum from the suicide bombers to their stupid victims) claim that their own way is the hypothetical "true and correct" way.

    so who is being "true and correct"?

    who is to actually adjudicate on the matter? al azhar? tariq ramadan? qaradhawi? erdogan? mahathir? who?

    the interpretation of any given verse by a gun wielding scholar is logically very strong and almost irrefutable. it is fool proof. that is - only a fool would argue with such a one.

    whereas an interpretation by a hapless turkish truck driver in iraq doesn't count for schmuck. so naturally the kalashnikov religious scholar beats the bare handed layman any sweet old time.

    so right now a man caught in the cross fire can best save his life only if he follows the kalashnikov algorithm. this consists of giving more weight to words uttered by those that are capable of inordinate violence. such as for instance one who interprets a verse and is ready to back it up with violence.

    maybe during more civilized times one can at leaisure and length argue what actually is the true and correct interpretation of a so-and-a-so verse. but times being what they are, we desperately need to get a move on. the time for fancy interpretations has long gone.
    By hats off! - 7/5/2014 3:21:13 AM



  • When we question the value of the Hadiths or the Sunnah what we are really saying is that Man must take the responsibility and assume the authority to keep Islam the progressive and cutting-edge religion that it once was. For over 1000 years Islam has been on auto-pilot, depending almost wholly on scriptures with an unquestioning attitude. We pay lip service to the concept that man is God's Vice-regent on earth, but we have almost totally given up on ijtihad. Our community is in the mean time slipping back educationally and economically, while following outdated Sharia laws and issuing ridiculous fatwas. We need to put man in the driver's seat and we need to create councils and seminaries bold enough to make our faith capable of meeting the needs and aspirations of modern Muslims. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/5/2014 3:18:36 AM



  • Observer,

    When a person writes "The non believers should be happy with the God of the Quran. He promises them everything in this world itself!"...

    That person is referring to all non believers. And only a desperate fool or an extremist can ask a non-believer to be happy with a god he doesn't believe in.

    So, now that you understood the stupidity (in other words a lack of logic) in your nonsense.

    Tell me please...

    What are you? An fool or an extremist?

    My guess is, you are both: an fool and an extremist.

    By the way, you remind me of extremism RIGHT HERE IN THIS COUNTRY.
    By non muslim - 7/5/2014 2:22:28 AM



  • To the writer, Mr Shahin,

    By Khalid al-Khazraji, Muhammad Ghoniem & M S M Saifullah

    Assalamu-`alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

     1. Introduction

    Over the years, Christian missionaries have solidified their reputation for embracing zealous new recruits. One fresh addition to this delegation of holy servicemen is the neophyte, Andrew Vargo. More often than not, the missionaries have overlooked the academic backgrounds of these fresh recruits, apparently intoxicated by their impassioned hatred for Islam. Mr. Vargo has recently tried his hand as a student of comparative religion, introducing some of the most fantastic ideas yet to the discourse. Among these ideas is a rather boastful claim concerning the collection of ahadith by the great Muslim scholar, Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH). The highlight of Vargo's claim lies in the following:

     In fact, it is difficult, in spite of the Muslim "science" of Hadith to know which traditions are strong or weak! For example, Bukhari collected over 600,000 reports, but kept only 7,397 as true!

     This is one of the most popular claims concerning the vast collection of ahadith of al-Bukhari in the Christian missionary literature and comes with fanciful explanations. For example, Anis Shorrosh, a well-known Arab missionary, says:

     ... Bukhari, collected twenty thousand of them, of which he rejected ten thousand, accounting them untrue. Of the remaining ten thousand he accepted only 7,275, declaring the rest to be untrustworthy. Abu Da'ud accepted as authentic only 4,800 rules out 50,000.[1]

     Similarly we find Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb claiming that:

     ...Bukhari, considered to be the most reliable collector, admitted that of the 300,000 hadith he collected, he considered only 100,000 might be true. He then narrowed this number down to 7,275, many of which are repetitions so that the total number is in fact near 3,000. That means that even he admitted there were errors in over 295,000 of them![2]

     Nearly a similar statement is repeated by Geisler in his Baker Encyclopedia Of Christian Apologetics to cast doubts on the miracles performed by the Prophet Muhammad.[3] Abdiyah Akbar Abdul-Haqq, on the other hand, labels what al-Bukhari did not include in his collection as "apocryphal".

     As to the abundance of the apocryphal traditions, we learn that the famous authority al-Bukhari choose only 7,000 out of a host of 600,000 traditions that were current in his on time.[4]

     Similar statements were made by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, who quoted a "Muslim scholar".[5]

     Not surprising is the case of Rand Corporation, who have published an interesting report on Islam entitled "Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies". The report has two fold agenda: firstly, to try to create a version of Islam that suits the post-9/11 Western agenda and secondly encouraging creation of divisions in the Muslim society at home and abroad. The Rand Report's recipe to achieve this aim is to encourage and promote the so-called modernist Muslims and play one section of the society against another to split the Muslim society. A small example of it can be seen when the report uses the material from the hadith-rejectors (not surprisingly!) to claim "objectively" that:

     Even if that were not the case, objectively speaking, there is little doubt that hadith is at best a dubious, flawed instrument. Consider that Al-Bukhari is the compiler of what is generally considered to be the most authoritative and reliable collections of hadith. He collected 600,000 hadith, examined them for their authenticity, eliminated all but 7,600 of them, deleted some for redundancy, and was left with a collection of about 4,000.[6]

     As we shall see, feisty statements such as the above only prove to be self-defeating in the end. This article intends to examine missionaries' thesis in light of the scholarship of Imam al-Bukhari, and thereby ascertain the actual worth of their claim.

     To appreciate the broader perspective, we will also include a discussion of Imam Muslim's ahadith collection, insha'allah.

     2. Imam Bukhari & The Nature Of His Collection

    Vargo, Shorrosh, Geisler, Abdul Saleeb, Abdul-Haqq and Benard have practically begged the question for us already - where exactly did Imam al-Bukhari mention that among the 600,000 ahadith in his collection, only 7,397 are to be accepted as 'true'? They maintains the missionary tradition of conveniently omitting any references that would not support their thesis; the mark of a true academicians, indeed! Once again, it is left to the Muslims to enlighten the ill-informed missionaries on this matter.

     Imam al-Bukhari's actual words have been reproduced below:

     * The two sahih collections did not gather the totality of the authentic ahadith as proved by al-Bukhari's testimony: "I have not included in my book al-Jami` but what is authentic, and I left out among the authentic for fear of [excessive] length.(Footnote 2)"

     Footnote 2 says:

     He [al-Bukhari] meant that he did not mention all the turuq [parallel chains of transmission] for each and every hadith.[7]

     To reiterate this in elementary English, Imam al-Bukhari selected only a few authentic ahadith from his vast collection. However, he left out certain traditions, despite their authenticity, simply to avoid excessive length and repetition in his Al-Jami` (a discussion about which is given below). If anything, the privilege to make such a gesture is highly complimentary to the authenticity of the Islamic traditions. In another tradition, Imam al-Bukhari is also reported to have said:

     He said, I heard as-Sa`dani say, I heard some of our companions say, Muhammad Ibn Isma`il said: I selected/published [the content of] this book - meaning the Sahih book - from about 600,000 hadiths/reports. Abu Sa`d al-Malini informed us that `Abdullah Ibn `Udayy informed us: I heard al-Hasan Ibn al-Husayn al-Bukhari say: "I have not included in my book al-Jami` but what is authentic, and I left out among the authentic what I could not get hold of."[8]

     The above quotation reflects Imam al-Bukhari's gallant honesty to admit that he was not able to collect each and every authentic tradition that existed in his day. Rather, his Al-Jami` is only a partial collection of authentic traditions, despite its massive volume. Furthermore, it should be clarified for the missionaries that the notion of a partial collection of authentic material is quite different from the notion of a partially authentic collection of material. However, it is not our aim to offer a course on propositional reasoning. Thus, we leave the point with the hope that they will eventually comprehend this piece of preschool logic.

     Professor Mustafa al-Azami, who offered a devastating critique of Joseph Schacht's work, again clarifies the misunderstanding of many orientalists on this issue:

     Al-Bukhari did not claim that what he left out were the spurious, nor that there were no authentic traditions outside his collection. On the contrary he said, "I only included in my book al-Jami` those that were authentic, and I left out many more authentic traditions than this to avoid unnecessary length." He had no intention of collecting all the authentic traditions. He only wanted to compile a manual of hadith, according to the wishes of his Shaikh Ishaq b. Rahwaih, and his function is quite clear from the title of his book al-Jami` al-Musnad al-Sahih al-Mukhtasar min umur Rasul Allah wa Sunanhi wa ayyamih. The word al-Mukhtasar, 'epitome', itself explains that al-Bukhari did not make any attempt at a comprehensive collection.[9]

     Yet, the missionaries seem to be living under the delusion that the 600,000 ahadith of Imam al-Bukhari's collection somehow means 600,000 separate narrations or bodies of text. His sloppy study of this issue becomes clear when one learns that a hadith is comprised of both a text (matn) and a chain of transmission (isnad). In the science of hadith, the same text with ten chains of transmission is regarded not as one hadith but rather as ten hadiths, despite the fact that the text attached to each chain is the same in every case.

     Professor Mustafa al-Azami adds:

     Now it is clear that when traditionalists give enormous numbers for the traditions, they mean channels and sources of their transmission, and do not mean real numbers of hadith.[10]

     Nabia Abbott, a prominent orientalist who conducted an extensive study on hadith literature, observed that the phenomenal growth of the corpus of this literature is not due to growth in content but due to progressive increase in the parallel and multiple chains of transmission, i.e., isnads:

     ... the traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and their Successors were, as a rule, scrupulously scrutinised at each step of the transmission, and that the so called phenomenal growth of Tradition in the second and third centuries of Islam was not primarily growth of content, so far as the hadith of Muhammad and the hadith of the Companions are concerned, but represents largely the progressive increase in parallel and multiple chains of transmission.[11]

     Take a highly simplified example of one Companion narrating a single hadith from the Prophet to two students: these students themselves teaching that narration again to two pupils each and so on until we reach the time of al-Bukhari and his contemporaries. We will find that in al-Bukhari's generation at least 16 individuals will be hearing the hadith from their respective teachers. Because each individual chain of transmission counts as a separate hadith, what started out as a single narration transmitted by one Companion only, has evolved within a short period of time to 16 ahadith; an increase of 1600%. The true nature of affairs, however, being far greater, with a far greater number of Companions transmitting a far greater number of narrations to a far greater number of students. This then is the form in which proliferation took place, the dispersion of narrators and chains of transmission. Using the mathematical application of geometric progression, Nabia Abbott concludes:

     ... using geometric progression, we find that one to two thousand Companions and senior Successors transmitting two to five traditions each would bring us well within the range of the total number of traditions credited to the exhaustive collections of the third century. Once it is realised that the isnad did, indeed, initiate a chain reaction that resulted in an explosive increase in the number of traditions, the huge numbers that are credited to Ibn Hanbal, Muslim and Bukhari seem not so fantastic after all.[12]

     The implications of explosive increase in of the isnad is dealt with here.

     3. Imam Muslim & The Nature Of His Collection

    Imam Muslim along the similar lines to that of Imam al-Bukhari , is reported to have said:

     The translation of which is:

     [...]. Imam Muslim said: "I have not included in my present book any thing but with proof [regarding authenticity] , and I have not left out anything but with proof". He also said: I did not include everything that I judge authentic/Sahih, I only included what received a unanimous agreement, i.e., what fulfilled all the criteria of authenticity agreed upon [by the scholars].

     And Muslim has presented [his collection] to the scholars of his time, like Imam Abu Zar`ah, and retained what was void of defect, and left out what had some defect.[13]

     From the above quotation, it is clear that Imam Muslim's collection is also a partial collection of authentic material and not a partially authentic collection of material. He followed a certain set of criteria that demanded a proof for the inclusion of each and every hadith in his collection.

     4. Conclusions

    Imam al-Bukhari's collection of ahadith was maintained to be authentic on account of his authority, and it has been maintained as authentic ever since. The missionaries' assertion, that Imam al-Bukhari regarded almost 99% of his own collection as spurious, is among the most rash and foolhardy statements ever dared by Christian missionaries. On the contrary, the 7,397 refers to the number of hadiths that Imam al-Bukhari chose to include in his Al-Jami` and left out many authentic narrations from his vast collection for the fear of excessive length.

     Again, according to the Vargo:

     In fact, it is difficult, in spite of the Muslim "science" of Hadith to know which traditions are strong or weak!

     We should wonder whether the neophyte is as quick to demonstrate the same puerile enthusiasm over the question of his own religious texts. Regardless, we will quote the famous trial of Imam al-Bukhari to show how maqlub[14] (changed, reversed) ahadith can be identified with ease by a scholar of hadith:

     The famous trial of al-Bukhari by the scholars of Baghdad provides a good example of a Maqlub isnad. The traditionists, in order to test their visitor, al-Bukhari, appointed ten men, each with ten ahadith. Now, each hadith (text) of these ten people was prefixed with the isnad of another. Imam al-Bukhari listened to each of the ten men as they narrated their ahadith and denied the correctness of every hadith. When they had finished narrating these ahadith, he addressed each person in turn and recounted to him each of his ahadith with its correct isnad. This trial earned him great honour among the scholars of Baghdad.[15]

     Finally, it is worth citing a significant trend in modern Western scholarship of the Prophetic traditions of Islam. For the past several decades, criticism of these traditions has been the Orientalist's whipping post, an opportunity to invalidate the traditions of Islam, which culminated in the work of Joseph Schacht, mentioned earlier. However, this position has practically been reversed in recent times, with the advent of academic honesty on the part of Western scholars. Professor John Esposito of Georgetown University has made the following counter-criticism of Schacht's traditional position:

     Accepting Schacht's conclusion regarding the many traditions he did examine does not warrant its automatic extension to all the traditions. To consider all Prophetic traditions apocryphal until proven otherwise is to reverse the burden of proof. Moreover, even where differences of opinion exist regarding the authenticity of the chain of narrators, they need not detract from the authenticity of a tradition's content and common acceptance of the importance of tradition literature as a record of the early history and development of Islamic belief and practice.[16]

     The position of Esposito perhaps reflects the growing attitude among Western educational institutions that entertain any study of Islam and its traditions. This is simply evidenced by the fact that Professor Esposito has become one of the reigning authorities on Islam in the West, whose textbooks are considered university standards for courses on Islam.

     Considering the missionaries' abuse of hadiths to denigrate the Prophet(P) of Islam, it would be too generous to assume that Vargo, Shorrosh, Geisler and Abdul Saleeb "misunderstood" the nature of the collection of Imam al-Bukhari. As for the Rand Corporation's report, their "objectivity" lies in the unverified use of source material. An honest misunderstanding entails at least some understanding of the issue, which doesn't even seem to be their case. Perhaps the Christian missionaries might consider beginning a genuine study of the science of hadith before they embarrasses themselves further.

     Acknowledgements

    We would like to thank Abu Hudhayfah for providing us necessary help and allowing us to use his material.

     And Allah knows best!

     References

    [1] Dr. A. A. Shorrosh, Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab's View Of Islam, 1988, Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, p. 22.

     [2] N. L. Geisler & A. Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent In The Light Of The Cross, 1993, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 165.

     [3] "Muhammad, Alleged Miracles Of", in N. L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia Of Christian Apologetics, 2002, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 512.

     [4] A. A. Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith With A Muslim, 1980, Bethany House Publications: Minneapolis, p. 45.

     [5] J. Ankerberg & J. Weldon, Fast Facts On Islam, 2001, Harvest House Publishers: Eugene (OR), pp. 50-51.

     [6] C. Benard, "Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies", 2003, Rand Corporation, p. 67.

     [7] Muhammad Ajaj al-Khatib, Al-Mukhtasar al-Wajiz fi `Ulum al-Hadith, 1991, Mu'assasat al-Risalah, p. 135.

     [8] Abi Bakr Ahmad Ibn `Ali al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad Aw Madinah as-Salam, 1931 (1349 AH), Volume II, Maktabat al-Khanji, Cairo & Al-Maktabah al-`Arabiyyah, Baghdad and Matba'at as-S'adah near the State Department, Cairo, pp. 8-9.

     [9] M. M. al-Azami, Studies In Early Hadith Literature, 1992, American Trust Publications: Indianapolis (USA), pp. 305-306.

     [10] ibid., p. 306.

     [11] N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri, Volume II [Qur'anic Commentary & Tradition], 1967, University Of Chicago Press: Chicago (USA), p. 2.

     [12] ibid., p. 72.

     [13] Al-Imam Muhyee ad-Din Abi Zakariyya Yahya bin Sharaf al-Nawawi, Sahih Muslim Bi Sharh al-Imam al-Nawawi, Volume I, 1994/1414, Dar al-Khair, p. 1.

     [14] A hadith is known as maqlub (changed, reversed) when its isnad is grafted to a different text or vice versa, or if a reporter happens to reverse the order of a sentence in the text.

     [15] S. Hasan, An Introduction To The Science Of Hadith, 1995, Darussalam Publishers: Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) available online, quote taken from here.

     [16] J. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, 1998, Oxford University Press, p. 81.

    By Shahid Raza - 7/5/2014 2:01:35 AM



  • Dear rational,

      What is meant by "ghusl after intercourse""? You have mentioned this in one of your posts.

     

    By ramesh - 7/5/2014 1:58:54 AM



  • Non Muslim,

    Not surprising that you still don't get it that the basis of my comment is the comment of Hats Off! The extent to which you are incapable of understanding!

    Now how did logic get into the discussion? Do I have to explain to you what logic also means?

    And extremism?!!!

    Non Muslim, you remind of the environment prevailing in Pakistan where an opponent is accused of blasphemy and then all hell is let loose. If you were in Pakistan, you would have accused many of  blasphemy.  Here you do with its equivalent. The mind set is the same. You are in August company on this site since many share your weakness. That is what makes you bold. In Pakistan also, nobody would accuse anyone of blasphemy without support. You are  a cowardly opponent.

    By Observer - 7/5/2014 1:57:10 AM



  • This is also helpful for the writer, Mr Shahin 

    By M S M Saifullah & Imtiaz Damiel

    Assalamu-`alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

     1. Introduction

    It is frequently claimed by the Christian missionaries that there are no hadith collections from the first century of hijra. According to them the first hadith collections were written around 250 years after hijra.

     We will show the evidence of existence of hadith collections from first century of hijra.

     2. Examples Of First Century Hadith Collections

    The Sahifa Of Hammam bin Munabbih: This is perhaps one of the earliest known hadith collections. Hammam bin Munabbih was a student of Abu Hurrairah and well-known among the scholars of the hadith to be trustworthy. According to the book Arabic Literature To The End of Ummayyad Periodt:

     An example is the Sahifah of Hammam bin Munabbih, (d. 110/719), a Yemenite follower and a disciple of companion Abu Hurrayrah, (d. 58/677), from whom Hammam wrote this Sahifah, which comprises 138 hadith and is believed to have been written around the mid-first AH/seventh century.[1]

     The author went on to say:

     It is significant that Hammam introduces his text with the words: "Abu Hurrayrah told us in the course of what he related from the Prophet", thus giving the source of his information in the manner which became known as "sanad" or "isnad", i.e., the teacher of chain of teachers through whom an author reaches the Prophet, a practice invariably and systematically followed in Hadith compilations.[2]

     We can see that of the 138 narrations in the Sahifa, 98 of them are faithfully witnessed in the later collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim, both through narrations of Abu Hurrairah and witnessing narrations from other Companions.

     We also see that all but two of the narrations are found in one section of the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, again witnessing the preservation of hadith and that earlier works were faithfully rendered in later documents.[3]

     Using the first century Sahifa of Hammam bin Munabbih as a "control group" Marston Speight compared it (i.e., the Sahifa) with about the 1500 variant readings of the same ahadith found in the collections of Ibn Hanbal (Musnad), al-Bukhari (Sahih) and Muslim (Sahih); the last three collections date from 3rd/9th century. Speight says:

     ... the texts in Hammam and those recorded in Ibn Hanbal, Bukhari and Muslim with the same isnad show almost complete identity, except for a few omissions and interpolations which do not affect the sense of the reports. On the other hand, the same ahadith as told by other transmitters in the three collections studied show a rich variety of wording, again without changing the meaning of the reports.[4]

     Further he comments about the reports of Hammam found in the later compilations of Ibn Hanbal, al-Bukhari and Muslim by saying that:

     ... I have found practically no sign of careless or deceptive practices in the variant texts common to the Sahifa of Hammam bin Munabbih.[5]

     In other words, it shows the meticuluous nature of hadith transmission as well as high moral and upright characters of the transmitters as well as collectors of the hadith; a fact that Islamic traditions had always asserted and now the western scholarship endorses it.

     The Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzaq al-San`ani:[6] An article by Harald Motzki appeared in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies that mentioned about the the Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzaq al-San`ani as a source of authentic ahadith of the first century AH. Since the article is quite huge (21 pages), we will deal with only the conclusions of the author.

     While studying the Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzaq, I came to the conclusion that the theory championed by Goldziher, Schacht, and in their footsteps, many others - myself included - which in general, reject hadith literature as a historically reliable sources for the first century AH, deprives the historical study of early Islam of an important and a useful type of source.[7]

     Some important hadith collections from second century of hijra are the following:[8]

     The Muwatta' of Malik bin Anas: Malik bin Anas (d. 179/795) was the founder of Maliki school of jurisprudence. The Muwatta' of Malik was compiled in mid-second century AH. It is not a corpus of hadith in a true sense but a collection of practices of people of Madinah.

     Musannaf of Ibn Jurayj (d. 150 AH)

     Musannaf of Ma`mar bin Rashid (d. 153 AH)

     A detailed report on hadith can be seen at `Abdur Rahim Green's Debate Material.

     And Allah knows best!

     References

    [1] A. F. L. Beeston, T. M. Johnstone, R. B. Serjeant and G. R. Smith (Ed.), Arabic Literature To The End of Ummayyad Period, 1983, Cambridge University Press, p. 272.

     [2] ibid.

     [3] More information can be obtained from the book Sahifa Hammam bin Munabbih: The Earliest Extant Work On The Hadith, 1979, M. Hamidullah, Centre Cultural Islamique.

     [4] R. M. Speight, "A Look At Variant Readings In The Hadith", Der Islam, 2000, Band 77, Heft 1, p. 170.

     [5] ibid., p. 175.

     [6] `Abd al-Razzaq b. Hammam al-San`ani (ed. Habib al-Rahman al-A`zami), Al-Musannaf, 1970-72, 11 Volumes, Beirut.

     [7] H. Motzki, "The Musannaf Of `Abd al-Razzaq Al-San`ani As A Source of Authentic Ahadith of The First Century A.H.", Journal Of Near Eastern Studies, 1991, Volume 50, p. 21.

     [8] Beeston et al., Arabic Literature To The End of Ummayyad Period, op.cit, pp. 272-273.

     

    By Shahid Raza - 7/5/2014 1:56:35 AM



  • Dear Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia Saheb, Maybe my mind is not working well this Ramazan but I do not see anything wrong in what you quote here. Indeed, he is making good points:

    Naseer Saheb (aka Observer) goes out and opines as follows:

     

    Point No. 1. - I don't even claim to know what is in the hadiths of Bukhari etc . I therefore deal with only one hadith at a time based on the specifics and avoid generalities.

     

    Point No. 2 – Without knowledge of hadiths and without any fondness for the hadiths, you can see how I can deal with any hadith based on the specifics. I can very rationally either accept or reject any hadith without a problem.

     

    Point No. 3 - A Muslim is free to pick and choose or discard using the Quran as furqan and his own good sense. There is no sin in discarding what he finds unacceptable based  on criteria that he can defend.

    ---

    As for you request that I ask him not to ignore your questions and reply to them, as I understand, you must realise that it is entirely a reader's choice whether or not to entertain any one's queries. Plus you know how arrogant Naseer Saheb is. In fact I have never known a knowledgeable person also being arrogant to this degree. Indeed, I have only known genuine scholars who are humble. In my mind, knowledge and humility go together.

     

    This is also my first experience of seeing genuine scholarship, original ideas and arrogance go together. As you know, like everybody else, he considers me too a liar, cheat, fraud, and all that. You get the picture. So you should not expect my appeal or recommendation to make any difference to Naseer Saheb's decision to ignore your questions, observations.

     

    However, do keep posting your questions and observations. I always learn from them, and I imagine, some other readers do so too.

    By Sultan Shahin - 7/5/2014 1:55:00 AM



  • List of Quranic verses that Could Be Helpful

    2:129, 2:239 (this shows that Allah taught the Muslims how to pray), 

    2:151; 3:31; 3:32; 3:132, 3:31-32

     3:164 (messengers are sent to teach the scripture and al hikma could be the Sunna as well)

     4:13-14; 4:42

     4:59 (shows that Allah and Muhammad are separate to obey)

     4:61; 4:64; 4:69; 4:80

     4:113 God sent the wisdom

     5:92 (the Prophet has to deliver the message clearly, what is the point if he just shows it to them)

     7:157 (the Prophet will make things halal and haram for the people, why if they can just read the Quran?)

     7:158

     14:4 (messenger should make Quran clear)

     16:44; 16:64, these verses show that Muhammad was sent to explain the Quran. It doesn’t just mean to proclaim. To proclaim is to ‘baligh’ like in 5:67.

     24:54 (the Prophet has to deliver the message clearly, what is the point if he just shows it to them)

     24:56 (why keep obeying the Prophet? What else does the Prophet have to say for us to obey him? Why can’t God just say to obey him?)

     33:21 (he is an example for us to follow, eg. how to pray etc.)

     33:36 (if Allah OR Muhammad made an order it should be obeyed. Clear distinction)

     33:66 (why not just say obey Allah, isn’t that enough?)

     62:2 (messengers are sent to teach the scripture as well)

     64:12 (the Prophet has to deliver the message clearly, what is the point if he just shows it to them)

    By Shahid Raza - 7/5/2014 1:52:46 AM



  • Observer,

    I get your point very well. I also get you very well. You go berserk when someone exposes how baseless and illogical your comments are.

    The reason is you lack tolerance, a good brain for logical analysis and also you are a perfect example for extremism.
    By non muslim - 7/5/2014 1:24:12 AM



  • Mr. Sultan shaheen, Mr yunus, Mr Ghulam Mohiyuddin, Mr observer

    By Bassam Zawadi

    It is very unfortunate that the Muslim Ummah has split. You have one side that says that the hadith are on the same exact level of the Quran and you have people who say that you shouldn't follow any hadith at all! It is indeed very sad and illogical for someone to reject the hadith of the Glorious Prophet. I am not intending to write a lengthy article on the subject. I have done extensive research throughout the internet and visited several websites to gather the best arguments against the Quran Only Muslims and combined them together.  What I am simply presenting are the links to those sites and some little additional information from my self. This is for Muslims who are debating with the Quran Only sect. You would find the information provided in this article to be very helpful and useful Inshallah.

     There might be some arguments that Quran Only Muslims give that you might not be able to answer. However, if you have any trouble what so ever in dealing with them then email me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com

     Some Questions to Ask the Quran Only People

     ·         How do you know how to pray using the Quran alone?

     ·         How do you know how much Zakaah to pay using the Quran alone? 

     ·         Hadn't the Quran been reached to us from the same sources we received our authentic hadith?

     ·         Why would Allah preserve the Quran and not preserve the meaning?

     ·         How much is the Jizyah that the People of the Book have to pay?

     ·         Is it permissible for a man to look at a naked man?

     ·         Can I pray Salaah naked?

     How do we know the order of the alcohol revelations? Maybe the first of the Quranic revelations said it was haram and then the later ones came saying that is was okay except during prayer times. How do you know the order of its revelations by using the Quran alone?

     It says in the Quran to shorten the prayer when you travel. How long do you have to travel? How short to cut the prayer?

     In Surah 66:3, the Prophet told his wives that he knew because Allah had informed him about it. Show me a Quranic verse where Allah had informed the Prophet about it. You cannot. Does this not prove that there are revelations to Prophet Muhammad besides the Quran?

     Surah 2:173 shows that Allah (swt) gave an order for the Muslims to change their Qibla from (Bayt Al Maqdis in Jerusalem) to the Kabah in Mecca. However, there is no Quranic verse that shows the first order that Allah gave to make the Qibla towards Jerusalem. Does this not prove that there are revelations to Prophet Muhammad besides the Quran?

     The Quran is passed on to us by Mutawattir narrations. Mutawattir narrations are narrations by so many people that it is just impossible for all of them to get together and plot and lie. However, we have so many Mutawattir hadith List of Mutawatir hadith http://hadith.al-islam.com/bayan/Index.asp?Lang=ENG&Type=3 that teach things that are not in the Quran. How can you reject their authenticity with no objective evidence?

    By Shahid Raza - 7/5/2014 1:22:40 AM



  • The Comments of Dr. Maurice Bucaille

    Dr. Maurice Bucaille earned the admiration of many Muslims because of his study of some scientific phenomena mentioned in the Qur'an and his testimony based on that study that Qur'an must be the Book of Allah. However he is not a hadith scholar and it is unfair to drag him into this discussion. His account of history of hadith compilation contains many errors, for example the claim that the first gathering of hadith was performed roughly forty years after Hijra or that no instructions were given regarding hadith collection. He questions about a dozen or so entries in Bukhari that he thinks deal with scientific matters. Even if all that criticism were valid, would it be sufficient ground to throw away the 9082 total entries (2602 unique ahadith) in Bukhari? He himself does not think so, for he writes: "The truth of hadith, from a religious point of view, is beyond question."

    Back to Top



    The Hadith Regarding the Sun

    But even his criticism is of questionable value. Consider the hadith about the sun: "At sunset the sun prostrates itself underneath the Throne and takes permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then a time will come when it will be about to prostrate itself... it will seek permission to go on its course... it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the West." His criticism: "This implies the notion of a course the sun runs in relation to the Earth." Bucaille fails to understand the real message of this hadith. It was not meant to teach astronomy. Its clear message is that sun is a slave of Allah, moving always through His Will. The hadith brings out that message very powerfully so that even the most illiterate bedouin would understand it fully. Moreover Bucaille should know better than to criticize the implied notion of sun's rotation around earth. Even today the astronomers, when calculating the time of sunrise and sunset, use a mathematical model in which the sun revolves around the earth. If that is acceptable for scientific work as it makes calculations easier, why is it questionable, when it makes communication easier?

    Also there are other ahadith which clearly demonstrate a scientific fact beyond the knowledge of the times but Bucaille has failed to take notice. For example the hadith about solar eclipse: "The sun and moon are two signs of Allah. They are not eclipsed on account of anyone's death or on account of anyone's birth." (Muslim, hadith #1966]. The eclipse had coincided with the death of Prophet's son. A false prophet would have tried to exploit the occasion. A fabricated hadith would require scientific knowledge that did not exist then.

    The munkareen-e-hadith think that their beliefs are built on solid rock. Well, it is as solid as wax: The religion based on this idea can be fitted into any mold. For some hadith rejecters that was the motivation. For everyone, that is the inevitable result. But the good news is that their arguments are the same way. On the surface they appear to be solid. But faced with the light of truth, they melt away like wax. 
     
    By Shahid Raza - 7/5/2014 1:02:51 AM



  • To Mr. Sultan Shaheeen, Muhammad yunus, Observer, Ghulam Mohiyuddin, 

    "If anyone disobeys Allah and His Messenger he is indeed on a clearly wrong path." [Al-Ahzab, 33:36]

    "He that obeys Allah and His Messenger has already attained the great victory." [Al-Ahzab, 33:71].

     For the past fourteen centuries Qur'an and Sunnah have been the twin undisputed sources of Guidance for Muslims. In every generation, the Muslims devoted the best of their minds and talents to their study. They learned both the words and meanings of the Qur'an through the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, and made an unprecedented effort in preserving them for the next generation. The result: The development of the marvelous -- and unparalleled -- science of hadith, one of the brightest aspects of Muslim history.

     What does it mean to believe in a Prophet except to pledge to follow him? And so the teachings of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, have always guided this Ummah. No body, in his right mind, could or did question this practice. Then something happened. During the colonial period, when most of the Muslim world came under the subjugation of the West, some "scholars" arose in places like Egypt (Taha Hussein), India (Abdullah Chakralawi and Ghulam Ahmed Pervaiz), and Turkey (Zia Gogelup), who began questioning the authenticity and relevance of hadith. It was not that some genius had found flaws in the hadith study that had eluded the entire ummah for thirteen centuries. It was simply that the pressures from the dominant Western civilization to conform were too strong for them to withstand. They buckled. Prophetic teachings and life example -- Hadith -- was the obstacle in this process and so it became the target.

     Another factor helped them. Today most Muslims, including the vast majority of the western-educated Muslims, have meager knowledge of hadith, having spent no time in studying even the fundamentals of this vast subject. How many know the difference between Sahih and Hasan, or between Maudau and Dhaif? The certification process used in hadith transmission? Names of any hadith book produced in the first century of Hijrah, or the number of such books? A majority probably would not be able to name even the six principal hadith books (Sihah Sitta) or know anything about the history of their compilation. Obviously such atmosphere provides a fertile ground for sowing suspicions and doubts.

     They call themselves as ahle-Qur'an or Quranists. This is misleading. For their distinction is not in affirming the Qur'an, but in rejecting the Hadith. The ideas of munkareen-e-hadith evolve into three mutually contradictory strains. The first holds that the job of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, was only to deliver the Qur'an. We are to follow only the Qur'an and nothing else, as were the Companions. Further, hadith is not needed to understand the Qur'an, which is sufficient for providing guidance. The second group holds that the Companions were required to follow the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, but we are not. The third holds that, in theory, we also have to follow the hadith but we did not receive ahadith through authentic sources and therefore we have to reject all ahadith collections!

     Internal contradictions are a hallmark of false ideologies. How can anyone hold the first position yet profess belief in Qur'an while it says: "And We have sent down unto You the Message so that you may explain clearly to men what is sent for them." [An-Nahal, 16:44]. And this: "Allah did confer a great favor on the Believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs (Verses) of Allah, purifying them, instructing them in Scripture, and teaching them Wisdom. While before that they were in manifest error." [A'ale Imran 3:164].

     How can anyone hold the second position (limiting the Prophethood to 23 years) yet profess belief in Qur'an, while it says: "We did not send you except as Mercy for all creatures." [Al-Anbia, 21:107] And, "We have not sent you except as a Messenger to all mankind, giving them glad tidings and warning them against sin." [Saba, 34:28]

     The third position seems to have avoided these obvious pitfalls, yet in reality it is no different. Consider statements 1, 4, and 7 in the summary of hadith rejecters' claims. So hadith undermines Qur'an's exclusivity, yet would have been followed blindly at the time of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Ahadith cannot be followed because they are not reliable, yet can be followed for ritual prayers.

     Salah And Hadith Rejecters

     But we don't need a favor for hadith about salah (coming from the same books and the same narrators who are declared as unreliable). We need an answer to this question: If the Qur'an is the only authentic source of Guidance, why did it never explain how to offer salah, although it repeatedly talks about its importance, associating it with eternal success and failure? What would we think of a communication that repeatedly emphasizes a certain act but never explains how to perform it? There are only two possibilities. Either it is a terrible omission (and in that case it cannot be from God) or another source for the how-to information is provided and it is a terrible mistake for any recipient to ignore that.

     (Recently some hadith rejecters have realized the difficulty of their position on salah. But they have made a claim that is even more ludicrous, namely that the Qur'an gives details on how to offer salah. "A careful reading of the Koran reveals that we are to get our Salaah from the Masjid-el Haraam [the continuous practice at Mecca since the time of Abraham]," says one proponent, "specifically the 'place of Abraham (moqaam e Ibraheem).'" Let us leave aside all the practical questions about such a fluid answer. Whose Salah? When? Are we to follow anyone and everyone we find praying at Muqame Ibrahim? How are those offering salah there are to determine proper way of offering Salah? How do you resolve their differences? In his enthusiasm in proposing this innovative solution, this proponent even forgot that the Qur'an says the following about the salah of mushrikeen at the Masjid-el Haraam: "Their prayer at the House of Allah is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands. (Its only answer can be), 'Taste the chastisement because you blasphemed.'" [Al-Anfal 8:35] )

     

    The Reliability of Resources

     To accept one and reject the other source on the basis of reliability (statement #2) also defies reason, unless we received the Qur'an directly from Allah. But we have received both Qur'an and Hadith through the same channels. Same people transmitted this as the Word of Allah, that as the word of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi was sallam. Even the verse claiming that Qur'an will be protected came to us through the same people. Through what logic can anyone declare that the channels are reliable for Qur'an and unreliable for Hadith? On the contrary the Quranic promise of protection must apply to Hadith as well for there is no point in protecting the words but not the meanings of the Qur'an.

     Protection of Qur'an

     To say that Allah promised to protect only Qur'an but not Islam (#6) is being as ridiculous as one can get. Let's ignore the obvious question regarding the point of this Heavenly act. The question is if Islam has been corrupted and its true teachings have been lost, how can anyone claim to be its follower? Moreover, Qur'an says "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost" [A'al-e-Imran, 3:85]. How are we to follow the religion acceptable to Allah if it was not to be protected?

     Were Ahadith Written Down for the First Time in the Third Century of Hijra?

     The above proves that ahadith must have been protected. Were they? The very existence of a huge library of hadith -- the only one of its kind among the religions of the world -- answers the question in the affirmative. To dismiss all that as later day fabrication (#1A, #2) requires lots of guts -- and equal parts ignorance. Were ahadith written down for the first time in the third century of Hijra? Not at all. Actually hadith recording and collection started at the time of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Abd-Allah ibn Amr ibn al-'As, Radi-Allahu unhu, sought and was given the permission to write everything he heard from the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa Sallam, who said: "By the One in Whose Hands is my life! Whatever proceeds from here [pointing to his mouth] is the truth." He produced Sahifa Sadiqa, which contained more than six thousand ahadith. Anas ibn Malik, Radi-Allahu unhu, who spent ten years in Prophet's household, not only recorded the ahadith but also presented them to the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, and got corrections. Abu Hurairah, Radi-Allahu unhu, had many volumes of his collections and even produced smaller compilations for his students. Prominent Hadith scholar Dr. Mustafa Azami has shown in his doctoral thesis that in the first century of Hijra many hundred booklets of hadith were in circulation. By the end of the second century, "by the most conservative estimate there were many thousands."

     Of course most of these books do not exist today. They were simply absorbed into the encyclopedic collections that emerged in the third century. One manuscript from the first century was discovered in this century and published by Dr. Hamidullah. It is Sahifa Hammam ibn Munabbah, who was a disciple of Abu Hurairah, Radi-Allahu unhu. It contains 138 ahadith. Muhaddithin knew that the ahadith of this Sahifa had been absorbed into Musnad Ahmed and Muslim collections, which have been published continuously since their third century debut. After the discovery of the original manuscript it was naturally compared with the ahadith in Muslim and Musnad Ahmed that were thought to have come from that Sahifa. And what did they find? There was not an iota of difference between the two. Similarly Mussanaf of Abd al-Razzaq is extant and has been published. As has been Mu'ammar ibn Rashid's al-Jami. These recently discovered original manuscripts bear out the Sihah Sitta. The recent appearance of these original manuscripts should bring the most skeptical into the fold of believers.

     Saheeh and the Gospels

     Regarding comparison of Saheeh with Gospels (#2), let's listen to Dr. Hamidullah. "The compilation of the Gospels, their preservation and transmission from one generation to the other, has not taken place in the way which governed the books of Hadith... We do not know who wrote them, who translated them, and who transmitted them. How were they transferred from the original Aramaic to Greek? Did the scribes make arrangements for a faithful reproduction of the original? The four Gospels are mentioned, for the first time, three hundred years after Christ. Should we rely on such an unauthentic book in preference to that of Bukhari who prefaces every statement of two lines with three to nine references?"

    By Shahid Raza - 7/5/2014 12:57:52 AM



  • Non Muslim,

    You still don't get it that my comment is based on what Hats Off said.

    It is not baseless.

    A person with powers to comprehend simple statements would understand that.

    But yo don't.

    You therefore lack comprehension.

    You will not get such a clear exposition of what lack of comprehension means from google.

    I have therefore provided it for your benefit.

    In your arrogance however, instead of thanking you will curse me.

    So it is you who is arrogant and lacks comprehension.

    By Observer - 7/5/2014 12:54:00 AM



  • If you, observer, do not understand the meaning of the word comprehension which you indiscriminately use in your illogical rants, I suggest you learn a tool called google.

    Also, this is an open forum that does not require membership or someone's approval. If you don't like me exposing your baseless (sometimes arrogant) utterances, then just make a request and I will leave you to your propaganda and distortions.

    Otherwise, you need to bear with everyone.
    By non muslim - 7/5/2014 12:44:15 AM



  • Ghulam Mohyiddin Sb,

    God has given us the freedom to disregard anything that we wish to disregard.

    My conversation with Mr Yunus is on what is in the Quran and what that means. When we discuss the Quran, it should reflect the true meaning of the Quran. Else, we become a source of misguidance and responsible for all those who have been misguided on our account. Once having correctly understood the meaning of the Quran, the people are free to consciously choose to do it their own way. Why do people need others to interpret the Quran in a way that suits them rather than convey the true and correct meaning?

    By Observer - 7/5/2014 12:42:03 AM



  • "The often-leveled charge by the obscure Qur'an-only sects that "Sunni's and Shi'ite's are following a deviant form of Islam by introducing these man-made books," is laughable and the epitome of hypocrisy, considering most of the narrators of hadith are the very same people who passed down the Qur'an itself. The first Muslims (Sahabah- companions of Muhammad, which include all four Rightly Guided Caliphs) who partook in the Hijra to Medina, were not Qur'an-only Muslims. The generation of Muslims that followed the death of Muhammad (the Tabi'un) were not Qur'an-only Muslims. And the generation of Muslims that followed them (Tabi' al-Tabi'un) were not Qur'an-only Muslims. Recording and sorting through these narrations in written form was little more than codifying and clarifying already existing beliefs. To suggest that adhering to Muhammad's sunnah constitutes a deviation from pure Islam is ludicrous.

    These Qur'an only "Muslims" reject the Hadith, a fundamental aspect of Islam, simply due to it highlighting the immoral truths of Muhammad, early Islam and its numerous laws. They may deny this as the reason behind their rejection of Hadith, but this fact is proven by many Qur'anists who alternatively accept Hadith as a historical source but dismiss it as a religious one. Furthermore they reject anything about Muhammad which they claim "contradicts the Qur'anic description of him". This approach is intellectually dishonest and logically unfeasible. "
    By Shahid Raza - 7/5/2014 12:39:08 AM



  • why does Non Muslim not have the common sense to keep out of a discussion which is not with him?

    Maybe the fault is mine. My comment is in response to the comment of Hats Off that the God of the Quran hates the non believer.

    The least a person with good sense can do is to try to connect a comment with what preceded it rather than shoot his mouth off. Non Muslim however continuously shows a lack of both good sense and comprehension.
    By Observer - 7/5/2014 12:35:32 AM



  • "The Qur’an also commands Muslims to follow the Messenger’s example, yet the only place this example is established is in the Sunnah. Without the Hadith, you cannot know Muhammad. Without knowing Muhammad, there is no Uswa Hasana. If you doubt the Hadith you are doubting the entirety of Islam. If you reject the hadiths, then you are in-turn rejecting Islam by going against the orders of the Qur'an and are therefore apostate/murtad/kafir (whichever may apply). Ultimately, to remain faithful to Allah and the Qur'an, the hadiths cannot be rejected.

    Islam means submission (contrary to popular belief that it means peace), and more specifically it means submission to the will of Allah. What is the will of Allah, one may ask. Qur'an-only Muslims would have us believe that the Qur'an clearly defines what exactly Allah's will is. But this is not the case.

    For one thing, the Qur'an is full of contradictory verses and commands; sometimes commanding believers to seek out and kill pagans (Qur'an 9:5), other times commanding Muslims to leave pagans to practice their polytheistic religions in peace (Qur'an 109:1-6). Without the Hadith there would be no Abrogation, the Qur'an can then be interpreted in multiple ways. The pacifist can decide to take from it a peaceful message by deliberately ignoring or twisting violent verses whereas the sadist can easily interpret a violent message by focusing on such verses as are found in Surah 9. Both Muslims could be selectively justified by the Qur'an because of its contradictory messages from Muhammad-in-Mecca versus Muhammad-in-Medina.

    To be a Qur'anist requires a good deal of faith and a considerable lack of theological common sense. If one rejects the Hadith (ie. Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud), the Tafsir (ie. Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas, al-Jalalayn, Maududi), and the History (ie. al-Tabari, Ibn Sa'd, al-Waqidi, Ibn Ishaq), then the entire historical context of the Qur'an, along with any proof of Muhammad's existence, is lost. It simply becomes an ancient Arabic document of rambling, repetitive, and often-times confusing, statements and commands. The reader is left with such questions as "Who wrote this and why?" and "Who is Abu Lahab, and why are he and his wife going to be tortured?" and "Why don't these stories match the ones found in the Bible?" and "Who is 'Isa?"
    By Shahid Raza - 7/5/2014 12:35:16 AM



  • ALsharq Alawsat asked many Sheikhs of AL-Azhar whether there are proofs from the holy Quran that Sunna is a revelation from God (and since it should be considered as obligatory as the holy Quran)? Alsharq Alawsat asked as well whether these Quranists are really Muslims or not, and whether there are justifications for their call to rely on the wholly Quran alone and ignore the Sunna?

    Dr. Mohamed Said Tantawy, the Sheikh of AL-Azhar, replied saying that those who call for relying only on the wholly Quran are ignorant, lairs, and do not know religious rules because the ideas in the Sunna came from God, but it was put into words by the prophet (Peace be upon him). Moreover, Sunna explains and clarify the rules mention as in the wholly Quran.

    Dr. Ahmed Eltayeb, the former Moftie (Official Fatwas Issuer), and the current president of AL-Azhar University, commented saying that such calls to separate between the Quran and Sunna are as old as Islam itself, implying that the prophet himself predicted such calls. Finally, Dr. Eltayeb added that without the Sunna, most of this religion would have been lost, and Islam would have been a religion of generalities without an identity.

    As for Dr. Abdelhakim ELsayedi, a professor at Al-Azhar University, He relied on the Hadith that says "I came with the Quran and a similar book," to prove that the Sunna is Godly. Not to mention that the holy Quran does not explain how should Muslims pray, pay charity, fast, or perform the pilgrimage.

    Dr. Yousef Elbadry, a member of the Higher Assembly of Islamic Affairs, accuses the Quranists of having a strange logic because relying on the wholly Quran only; while the Quran itself -as he claims- is in need for the Sunna,. Dr. ELbadry wonders what the Quranists say about verses like, "He who obeys the messenger obeys God?" Dr. Elbadry added that these Quranists went astray and should be considered apostates.

    Dr. Mohamed Abdelmonem Elberry, a professor at the School of Hadith and Explanation, Al-Azhar University, stressed the point that most Muslims have always agreed on validity of the Sunna, whether it is the verbal of practical Sunna. "The wholly Quran ordered us to obey the Messenger, and since this who do not are not true believers," He added.

    Dr. Mahmoud Ashour, a member of the Committee of Islamic Research, that the Sunna is indeed a source of the Islamic Sharia, and that those who deny it are illogical because it is impossible to understand Islam with the Sunna. Dr. Ashour stresses that denying the Sunna costs the Quranists to lose their faith. He then called to protect Islam against those Quranists who plan to destroy Islam and pose the greatest threat on Islam and Muslims. He finally accused the Quranists to be spies and agents for other forces to aim at destroying Islam from Inside, but God will protect his religion as he promised.

    By Shahid Raza - 7/5/2014 12:25:27 AM



  • Observer sb., . . .

    We need to loosen up a bit on medieval ritual protocols. “Bow down with those who bow down," may be referring to prayers on the battlefield. In the hectic modern world, one may favor prayers in the privacy of one's home. Instead of reciting words that one cannot understand, one should express one's own words coming from one's heart thanking God for His bounty, or asking Him to show us the right path, or seeking his forgiveness for our trespasses. Prayers should be brief and offered one or more times a day depending upon how much time one has for an unhurried prayer. I know that this will be very objectionable to you so I shall not pursue it further.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/4/2014 9:09:55 PM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin Saheb,

     

    As-Salaam Alay-Kum

     

    Respecting your role as an “Editor & Moderator,” and also, being acutely aware of your guidelines to let the commentators be allowed to fully express what they desire, I must say that you have indeed accomplished your mission with flying colors.

     

    Surely, you must be reading certain convoluted comments about the Prophet of Islam. I reckon in “New Age Islam” it is alright even if certain uncalled for as well as disrespectful sentences are posted during the Holy Month of Ramadhan. Two of the “Spin Masters, namely, Naseer Ahmed Saheb and “Ex-Tablighi” have been relentless in trying to convey their understanding of the “Hadiths” without even thinking about the sensitivity of the readers on your forum.

     

    Naseer Saheb (aka Observer) goes out and opines as follows:

     

    Point No. 1. - I don't even claim to know what is in the hadiths of Bukhari etc . I therefore deal with only one hadith at a time based on the specifics and avoid generalities.

     

    Point No. 2 – Without knowledge of hadiths and without any fondness for the hadiths, you can see how I can deal with any hadith based on the specifics. I can very rationally either accept or reject any hadith without a problem.

     

    Point No. 3 - A Muslim is free to pick and choose or discard using the Quran as furqan and his own good sense. There is no sin in discarding what he finds unacceptable based  on criteria that he can defend.

     

    Sultan Saheb, do you for once realize the impact of selected usage of words and sentences that can create a wrong impression in the minds of the readers? Only an Islamic scholar lacking in the basic common sense will continue to indirectly give a wrong messages across the board. Worst of all the scenarios which I have seen is that Naseer Ahmed’s rebuttal at many times are based strictly on “Vengeance” or to settle the score with another respected Islamic scholar, Muhammad Yunus. It was Yunus Saheb who has accurately summed up his understanding of the Holy Quran as follows:

     

    “The truth is, the Qur'an does not connect its message with the Sunnah of the Prophet. That is to say, there is not one verse in the Arabic Qur'an that asks the Muslims to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet.”

     

    Surprisingly, those shallow minded Islamic scholars with “Madrassa” education somehow cannot come to grip with the fact that it was Almighty Allah who instructed the way of prayers (Namaaz) to Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) in the following verse (5:6), “O ye Muslims! When you have to perform your prayer, wash your hands up to the elbows and wipe your heads and (wash) your feet up to the ankles.” “Salat is to be performed in a manner Allah or Jibrail (AS) taught the Prophet. We however, do not get the detailed instructions from the Quran but from the Prophet,” reminded Naseer Ahmed Saheb. We all know that, but that does not mean one should constantly keep on harping the same thing countless number of times to get the point across, and in process dilute the “Divine Commandments” of our Holy Quran. Unfortunately, this is what has been happening ever since Muslims started believing in the parallel book of sayings of Prophet written by various Imams. Such a pattern of thinking got them to slowly but gradually be heavily absorbed in learning the “Science of Hadiths” rather than to comprehend the true meaning of Holy Quran. Sadly, Naseer Ahmed Saheb openly states that he does not claim to know anything about the Hadiths of Imam Bukhari (May Almighty Allah rest his soul in peace), yet he will be at the forefront to defend almost all of the Hadiths. Never mind if they are against the Holy Quran.

     

    Companions of the Prophet (May Almighty Allah rest their souls in peace) took direct lessons from the Prophet and the tradition of prayers continued for more than 200 years before the invention of “Hadiths.” Common sense should dictate to ordinary Muslims that most of the Islamic rituals were already in place well before Imam Bukhari was born. As a Muslim, I respect the authenticated Hadiths, but remain suspicious of many owing to the possible distortions which have been pointed out by the righteous Islamic scholars. In short, I am a staunch follower of Holy Quran, period. I do hope that the younger generation of Muslims will become a student of Holy Quran first so that they can correct all the wrongs which have resulted from the invented sayings of the Prophet of Islam. 


    Reflecting upon the “Hadiths” which was written more than two centuries later, does scholars like Naseer Ahmed Saheb ever question to himself, “How did early Muslims followed the standards set forth by the Prophet of Islam without referring to Imam Bukhari?” Do you recall when he explicitly stated, “As I said earlier, the earlier Muslims had little problem understanding the meaning of the Quran since the language and context was theirs and the Prophet had lived among them setting an example.” It is mind boggling to even conceive that all of a sudden in one fine morning after 200 plus years, the example set forth by the Prophet took a drastic turn. No, it did not. The Islamic rituals, be it prayers, fasting, Haj or what not, were practiced by every Muslims during the living years of Imam Bukhari. What is even more baffling is that, here we are loaded with what Yunus Saheb rightly stated, “Imam al-Bukhari’s compilation [3] is spread over 9 volumes, divided into a total of 93 sections (or books) and 3,981 chapters.”

     

    From reading 114 chapters of the Holy Quran, the Muslim minds were stretched to read 3,981 chapters, thereby, the invention of “Hadiths” began, only to be diligently followed by so many students of Islam mastering the “Science of Hadiths” up until this day. The tragic part is that there are more defenders of “Hadiths” today and less defenders of our Holy Quran. One does not have to look far, but try hard to reflect upon this very thread. Little wonder that it is Muslims who have managed to turn our great religion of Islam in a massively complicated one by relying on thousands and thousands of “Hadith” literature that grossly undermines the “Divine Book – Holy Quran” revealed by Almighty Allah to our beloved Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him).   

       

    Given that Naseer Ahmed Saheb has already proclaimed to me that “Expect Me To Ignore You, hence, his answering to any of my questions will never occur. I must tell you that it is one of the most frustrating experiences when one Muslim does not respond to another without taking into account the Holy Quran verses that says:

     

    (The Prophet) Frowned and turned away,

     

    Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting)

     

    But what could tell thee

    That percentage he might grow (In spiritual understanding?)

     

    Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him?

     

    Holy Quran - 80:1-4

     

    "DO NOT FROWN" when a fellow Muslim ask for a simple reply. Why not try to follow the footsteps of our Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)? Better yet, this is the commandment of Almighty Allah as explicitly stated in the Holy Quran. A good and wise Islamic scholar must be respectful of those who ask him specific questions and answer them in a polite manner to Muslims and also to any fellow humans hailing from other religions. Perhaps, it is high time for scholars like Naseer Ahmed Saheb to ponder over “Surah: Al-Qalam – The Pen” as follows:

     

    Chapter (68:4) Sūrat Al-Qalam (The Pen)

    http://www.everyayah.com/data/images_png/68_4.png

    Sahih International: And indeed, you are of a great moral character.

     

    Pickthall: And lo! thou art of a tremendous nature.

     

    Yusuf Ali: And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character.

     

    Shakir: And most surely you conform (yourself) to sublime morality.


    Muhammad Sarwar: You have attained a high moral standard.

     

    Mohsin Khan: And verily, you (O Muhammad SAW) are on an exalted standard of character.

     

    Arberry: Surely thou art upon a mighty morality.

     

    T. B. Irving: You have been formed with tremendous character.

     

    Maulana Wahiddudin Khan: For you are truly of a sublime character.  

     

    Oh well, Sultan Shahin Saheb, come to think of it, “Non-Practicing Muslims” like me are far better capable to grasp the meaning of the Holy Quran than the “Madrassa” scholars who always seem to think that they have all the right answers. Nay, they don’t, and that is exactly why they keep on deliberately dodging the questions. Whatever happened to the “Sunnah of the Prophet” which they keep reminding Muslims about all day long?

     

    By the way, can you please be kind to ask Naseer Saheb, “What is the meaning of normative behavior?” At one given point in his rebuttal, he wrote, “Moreover, I don't think people mean and follow his normative ways which have become anachronistic, when they talk about following his sunnat.” May be you can enlighten all your readers given that you have repeatedly reminded that we all can truly learn from Naseer Saheb and “Ex-Tablighi.” As always, your kind response will be sincerely appreciated.

     

    Very respectfully yours,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 7/4/2014 8:50:16 PM



  • Why is it that many of those who call themselves as Scholars of religion (in every religion and especially Islam) suffer from a dire gap in common sense?

    If a non believer does not believe in your god, why should he be happy with your god for anything?

    A non believer becomes one by not believing in your god!

    And only a serious fanatic can make a condescending statement like that.

    You want to see the face of extremism in India, at least I will show you the words of extremism in India right here on this forum.
    By non muslim - 7/4/2014 7:52:05 PM



  • The non believers should be happy with the God of the Quran. He promises them everything in this world itself!

    (43:33) And were it not that (all) men might become of one (evil) way of life, We would provide, for everyone that blasphemes against (Allah) Most Gracious, silver roofs for their houses and (silver) stair-ways on which to go up,
    (34) And (silver) doors to their houses, and thrones (of silver) on which they could recline,
    (35) And also adornments of gold. But all this were nothing but conveniences of the present life: The Hereafter, in the sight of thy Lord is for the Righteous.

    What did you expect any scripture to be in except the language of humans? In some divine language? 
    By Observer - 7/4/2014 6:25:34 PM



  • GM Sb,

    I anticipated your kind of response and covered it. So let me repeat what I have said:

    Salat is performed facing Kabaa (2:149 and 150), celebrating “Allah´s praises in the manner Allah has taught you, which ye knew not before” (2:239). 

    Congregational prayer is implied in most verses “bow down with those who bow down in worship” besides verses in which God instructs that it may be performed in two groups when fearing an attack from an enemy so that one group stands guard while the other group is performing salat.  Obligatory prayers are to be performed at stated time (4:103). The prayer timings for regular prayers which are obligatory are contained in verses 2:238, 11:114, 17:78, 30:17,18. Wudhu need to be performed in the manner described in verse 5:6 or Tayamum in 4:43

    While 2:239 merely says that Salat should be performed in the manner Allah has taught you, we learn the proper manner only through the Sunnat of the Prophet and not through the Quran. The form of prayer, Azan are all part of the Prophet’s sunna. Prayer in Jamat is impossible without detailing the manner in which it is to be performed which we get only from the Sunna of the Prophet and which is a necessary part of the religion. 


    So apparently, Salat is to be performed in a manner Allah or Jibrail (AS) taught the Prophet. We however, do not get the detailed instructions from the Quran but from the Prophet.
    By Observer - 7/4/2014 5:49:22 PM



  • if it is the very mr god that is speaking through the prophet, each grunt, groan, sneeze, cough and word would be totally unconditional, forever and without any proof of being wrong. no ifs, buts and what ifs. any conditionality simply emasculates the god.

    if it is not, then it is entirely questionable if this god indeed is its vicarious author, or granting that (s)he is, how come he is so limited by space, time and culture, language, diet and dress?

    it appears that this arabian god is merely the national deity of the arabians, instead of the universal god he claims himself to be. for he hates the polytheists whom he created by himself unasked and unsolicited for. and then he has the childish gall to hate the very polytheists he created. like a peevish child kicking his own sand castle down. not very exalted.

    anyone praying to such morally challenged gods will surely develop an intolerant, supremacist, exclusive, mysogynistic and parochial attitude bolstered by his sense of of imaginary perfection of his imaginary religion.
    By hats off! - 7/4/2014 1:16:48 PM



  • Observer says, "The Quran, clearly by omitting the details of performance of salat and manner of calculating zakat, has made the ummah dependent upon the Prophet’s Sunnat and hadith..." . . .

    Alternatively one can say that the Quran omitted the details of performance of salat and the manner of calculating zakat in order to let us decide those issues ourselves using our judgement, with due consideration of the times and the place we live in.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/4/2014 12:53:07 PM



  • Rational,

    Show me an unqualified verse on violence in the Quran.

    As far as what goes as hadiths in the compilations of Bukhari etc, are concerned, I have already answered that as an individual, a Muslim is free to pick and choose or discard using the Quran as furqan and his own good sense. There is no sin in discarding what he finds unacceptable based  on criteria that he can defend.

    Unqualified support is to what is truly the hadith of the Prophet and not to what is recorded as a hadith but is questionable.

    By Observer - 7/4/2014 6:11:10 AM



  • Dilshan, you are right. Mr Yunus changed the meaning of Sunnat to mean the most trivial and inconsequential aspects of his practices which have nothing to do with even what we may call normative behaviour, since even his prayers and worship and preaching and leading were very much part of his normative behaviour. By Observer - 7/4/2014 5:57:48 AM



  • Observer - 7/3/2014 6:11:38 PM
    "The message of the Quran is very clear on the subject that the Sunnat of the prophets is part of our religion."
    what if the violent verses of the Quran are supported by Ahadith?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 7/4/2014 5:53:04 AM



  • Rational,

    I don't even claim to know what is in the hadiths of Bukhari etc . I therefore deal with only one hadith at a time based on the specifics and avoid generalities.

    The discussion is not on any particular compilation of hadith whether of Bukhari or Muslim or whoever but Mr Yunus statement that the Quran does not connect to the Sunnah of the Prophet.

    And let us stick to the definitions which are:

    1.       Sunnat – practice, 2. hadith - 'what was transmitted on the authority of the Prophet, his deeds, sayings, tacit approval 3. taba – obey, follow

    anWe are not concerned in this discussion with any compilation of hadiths and the defects in these works. We are concerned only with the question whether the Prophet’s sunnat and hadith form an important and integral part of our religion or not. The answer very simply is that it does. If the hadiths have defects, then very clearly we have to deal with these with circumspection. Ultimately the Quran is the furqan or the criteria to judge everything. Without knowledge of hadiths and without any fondness for the hadiths, you can see how I can deal with any hadith based on the specifics. I can very rationally either accept or reject any hadith without a problem. With Quran as the furqan and using my sense and judgment, it is possible for me to accept and follow any hadith or reject the others without feeling the slightest discomfort. There is no blind belief here nor blind acceptance.

    By Observer - 7/4/2014 5:49:08 AM



  • mr muhammad yunus is wrong when he translated sunnah as 'normative ways'.  By Dilshan - 7/4/2014 5:48:18 AM



  • Definitions:
    Sunnat – practice, 2. hadith - 'what was transmitted on the authority of the Prophet, his deeds, sayings, tacit approval 3. taba – obey, follow
    Mr Yunus is unlikely to respond as clearly, the following are the Prophet’s sunnat/hadeeth and meant to be followed.
    1. Prophet's Duas or masnun duas
    2. Method of ghusl, namaze janaza etc
    3. Sporting a beard
    4. His sayings on good neighbourliness,  on treating dhimmis fairly and with justice and other sayings promoting good behavior.
    None of the above would however rank on par with what is in the Quran except the method of salat and manner in which zakat is calculated which is also part of his sunnat (practice) as well as hadith requiring `taba’.
    The Quran, clearly by omitting the details of performance of salat and manner of calculating zakat, has made the ummah dependent upon the Prophet’s Sunnat and hadith on the subject for following (taba)  of the Quranic injunctions on the subject.
    Mr Yunus following comment is therefore far from the truth:
    Comment 3. Putting words into the Qur’anThere is a general misconception that the Qur'an has asked the Muslims to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet. The truth is, the Qur'an does not connect its message with the Sunnah of the Prophet. That is to say, there is not one verse in the Arabic Qur'an that asks the Muslims to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet. By Observer - 7/4/2014 5:32:05 AM



  • Observer - 7/4/2014 4:12:54 AM