FOLLOW US:

Books and Documents
Islam and Human Rights (06 Jan 2014 NewAgeIslam.Com)
Abolition of Slavery, Including Sex Slavery in Islam (The Qur’an)

 

 

By Muhammad Yunus, New Age Islam

January 06, 2014

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

The Advent/ Setting of the Qur’anic Revelation

The Qur’an was revealed at a time, the early seventh century of the Christian era, when the world at large was in a state of Jahiliya - an Arabic word that denotes a state of darkness and gloom (Zulumat) when the notion of universal justice had not evolved, punishments were arbitrary, the common man was bullied, oppressed and exploited, slavery was normative and, women were treated like chattel and brutalized, to cite the major vices of the era. The Qur’an came to bring humanity out of darkness into light (2:257, 14:1, 57:9), and to lift the burden that was on them from before (7:157). Since slavery was at the root of many of societal evils, it had to be eradicated to pave the way for its quantum reforms.

As social customs remain entrenched in the various tiers of a society and any attempt to ban them abruptly can hardly succeed, the Qur’an had to introduce its reforms in a phased manner. It therefore introduced its injunctions against slavery concomitantly with its social and moral reforms. Thus, it gives clear directives to freeing the slaves (Riqab, Pl. Raqabah) in the following passages:

•        90:13-16. The Qur’an combines its exhortation on “the freeing of a slave” (90:13), with “feeding during famine (14) an orphaned relative (15), or the needy (lying) in the dust” (90:16).

•        4:92 commands the freeing of a believing slave and paying compensation for any accidental killing of a believer.

•        5:89 lists the freeing of a slave as an option to expiate a false oath taken in the earnest.

•        2:177 includes the freeing of slaves among the virtues of the truly pious.

•        9:60 includes slaves regardless of faith in the category of people entitled to receive charity.

•        58:3 requires the freeing of a slave as expiation for breaking an oath called Zihar, which absolved a man of all conjugal responsibilities to his wife, but did not give her the freedom of divorce:

 Since slavery and prostitution went hand in hand, the Qur’an aimed at eradicating slavery by rehabilitating the male and female slaves through the institution of marriage. Thus, the Qur’an exhorts men to marry from among the bondmaids under their lawful trust (4:25), marry off the unmarried ones among their male and female slaves (24:32) and free their slaves against reasonable contract, allowing them to pay later for their freedom (24:33).

And any of you who cannot afford to marry (Yankiha) chaste believing woman (should marry) from believing bondmaids under your lawful trust (Ma Malakat Aiman) and God knows best your faith. Some of you have (ties) with others of them. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their dowers reasonably as (meriting) chaste women, and do not prostitute them nor take them as mistresses….” (4:25). 

Marry off the unmarried ones among you and those among your slaves (‘Abd) and bondmaids that are ready for marriage. If they are needy, God will enrich them of His bounty. (Remember,) God is Boundless (in mercy) and All-Knowing (24:32). Yet those who have no (financial) means to marry should wait until God enriches them of His bounty. And as for those under your lawful trust who seek a contract (for freedom), draw it up for them if you know any good in them, and give them out of the riches God has given you. And do not coerce your bondmaids into prostitution seeking the gains of this world, when they want to be chaste - seeking the pleasure of worldly life. But should anyone coerce them (sexually), God will be Merciful (to them) after they have been so coerced” (24:33).

Qur’anic Positive Phrase for Slaves and Bondmaids   

While the Qur’an uses the words Fatat, Riqab, ‘Abd, to denote a slave, bondmaid in the historical sense, it also employs a dignified expression, Ma Malakat Ayman to denote slaves, bondmaids, and for that matter, anyone who is under one’s lawful trust. Most scholars render this phrase literally as: ‘what the right hand possesses’, and connote it restrictively with slaves, bondmaids, captives, and prisoners of war in the feminine gender. Such an interpretation is misleading. The closest literal translation of this expression would be: ‘those possessed by (or under trust to) the right hand.’ However, the Qur'an uses the word ‘right hand’ figuratively to denote a positive lawful status, such as the companions of the ‘right hand’, and God's ‘right hand’. Therefore, the phrase could be best rendered as “those under one’s lawful trust.” Thus, through its ingenious vocabulary, the Qur’an gives a new ennobling status to the slaves and bondmaids who were historically relegated to the lowest rung of the social hierarchy – hated, despised, brutalized and segmented from the freeborn by impervious boundaries lasting down the generations.   

The Qur’anic phrase Malakat Ayman (sing. milk al-Yamin) is no camouflage or mere euphemism. In the Prophet's days, captives from armed conflicts were distributed among the Medinite Muslims for their safe custody. Those captives, whether male or female, were virtually ‘slaves’ but were regarded as Malakat Ayman; and accordingly their custodians treated them with sympathy and consideration. William Muir, one of the most hostile of the Prophet's biographers offers this quotation from a prisoner: “the men of Medina made us ride, while they themselves walked, they gave us wheaten bread to eat when there was a little of it, contenting themselves with dates” [1].

In a different plane, unlike the legal codes that preceded it, and succeeded it for over a millennium, the Qur’an does not enact any separate civil law or code for the slaves or the ma Malakat Ayman class. The Qur’an does, however, refer to slavery in the context of the past or even prevalent traditions, but its civil, commercial, inheritance and family laws are for all believers, without any reference to their being freeborn or slaves.

In sum, Qur’anic repeated rejoinders on freeing slaves, its clear dictates to looking after them, to setting them free and to marrying them off, its specific ennobling vocabulary for slaves, bondmaids and captives, and its avoidance of any distinction between slaves and freeborn in all its social and civil laws, amply demonstrate that the Qur’an aimed at rooting out the institution of slavery. Accordingly Caliph Umar abolished slavery among the native inhabitants of Arabia. He also gave a clear instruction to his generals, on the strength of the Qur’an, not to turn the civilian population of conquered nations into slaves [2]. However, he met with stiff resistance from many of his generals, and his policy was discontinued with the establishment of the first Islamic dynasty (AH 40), less than two decades after his death (AH 24). Thus slavery re-established itself in the Islamic world, barely thirty years after the Prophet’s death, and was vigorously followed by slave traders and those with vested interests, for many centuries to come.   

The Qur’anic ideal of a slave free society was realized more than twelve hundred years after the death of the Prophet – but not in the Islamic world. Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States (1861-1865) legislated the abolition of slavery by the Emancipation Proclamation (Jan.1 1863). Ironically, the classical Islamic Shari‘a that had its birth more than a hundred years after the Prophet’s demise, entertained slavery; and slaves, bondmaids, and concubines formed an integral part of the social hierarchy of Islamic civilization in many Muslim lands. Some radical Muslim intellectuals and Muftis who may be paralleled with the hypocrites and believing desert Arabs of the Prophet’s era who were intense in kufr [3] advocate lawfulness of this pre-Islamic practice but that is a reaction to the Qur’anic message.  This, however, needs a gender neutral interpretation of a Qur’anic pronouncement that appears in two of its paired verses (23:5/6, 70:29/30) as expounded below:

Gender Neutral Interpretation of the Paired Verses 23:5/6, 70:29/30

 These paired of verses, which appear in the Qur’an as identical statements inserted in the passages 23:1-11 and 70:19-35 are rendered by Yususf Ali as follows :

“(Believers) abstain from sex (23:5) except with those joined to them in the marriage, or (the captives) whom their ‘right hands possess’, - for in their case, they are free from blame (23:6).

“(Those regular in prayer and socially responsible among humans) guard their chastity except with their wives (70:29), and (the captives) whom their ‘right hands possess’, - for in their case, they are free from blame (70:30).

The opening bracketed remarks qualify the statement and are drawn from the preceding part of the passages.

Given that each of the Qur’anic expressions for ‘believers’ (Muminun), ‘human’ (insaan), Azwaj (rendered as ‘wives’ in 70:29 and ‘joined in marriage’ in 23:6, are of common gender, the Qur’anic pronouncement of the paired verses can be more accurately translated as follows:

“and who preserve their private parts /abstain from sex (23:5/ 70:29) - except from their spouses (Azwaj) (23:6/70:30), that is (awe*) those under their lawful trust (Ma Malakat Ayman), and then (they are) not blame worthy (30).” [*the rendition, ‘that is’ is consistent with the usage of the particle awe in the verse 25:62]

The truth is, the traditional gendered rendering is patently flawed on the following grounds:

•        The passages date from the early Meccan period when Muslims were ‘just a few in number, weak and helpless in the land, and were afraid that their enemies might oppress and kidnap them’ (8:26). Accordingly, the Meccan Suras are full of exhortations for patience and self-restraint and it is least likely that the Qur’an would grant a sexual license at this stage except to mandate what was prevalent at that point in time – when marriage laws were a decade away. 

•        The passages 70:21-35 and 23:1-11 which incorporate the noted verses spell out some of the attributes of true believers. If this included extramarital sex with captive or slave women, the Qur'an would have accommodated the latter or their offspring in its inheritance laws, which cover all forms of relationships (4:33). There is no mention of Ma Malakat Ae-Man, or of their offspring as inheritors of property.

•        If the Prophet or the Qur'an were to give any extra institutional sexual license to men, the pagan Arabs would have unquestionably charged him for this. They called him an impostor (30:58), insane (44:1, 68:51), and an insane poet (37:36). They charged him with forging lies and witchcraft (34:43, 38:4), forging lies against God, forgery and making up tales (11:13, 32:3, 38:7, 46:8), witchcraft (21:3, 43:30, 74:24), obvious witchcraft that was bewildering (10:2, 37:15, 46:7) and of being bewitched or possessed by a Jinn (17:47, 23:70, 34:8).They also found the revelation strange and unbelievable (38:5, 50:2), and condemned it as the legends of the ancients (6:25, 23:83, 27:68, 46:17, 68:15, 83:13). But not one single word did they utter that pointed, even remotely, to his sanctioning of any form of sexual license.

•        The traditional interpretation of Ma Malakat Ae’man invoking an institution of slavery in the biblical or historical sense is totally misleading as expounded in the main body of this article.

•        The Qur'an sanctions similar ‘rights and duties’ to men and women in many areas and just and balanced ‘rights and duties’ on conjugal matters with monogamy as a social norm [3]. 

It will be therefore be a gross mistake to interpret the verses 23:5/6, 70:29/30 in a gendered manner to sanction unlimited sexual freedom to men-folk with female captives, slaves and their like. Moreover, the Qur’an fully clarifies itself with the progress of the revelation. Thus, as Muhammad Asad observes, quoting al-Razi and al-Tabari, the Qur’an prohibits sexual relation with any woman other than one’ lawful wife [4]

Hence, any notion of slavery and sexual slavery are antithetic to the Qur’anic message.

Notes

1.       Rafiq Zakaria, Muhammad and the Qur’an, London 1992, p. 408.

2.       Shibli Noumani, al-Faruq, Delhi 1898, Karachi reprint 1991, p. 258.

3.       The Qur’an Prescribes Monogamy Is The Social Norm For Humanity

http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-sharia-laws/the-qur’an-prescribes-monogamy,-the-social-norm-for-humanity/d/6172

5.       Muhammad Asad, Message of the Qur’an, Gibraltar, 1980, Chap. 4, Note 26.

Muhammad Yunus, a Chemical Engineering graduate from Indian Institute of Technology, and a retired corporate executive has been engaged in an in-depth study of the Qur’an since early 90’s, focusing on its core message. He has co-authored the referred exegetic work, which received the approval of al-Azhar al-Sharif, Cairo in 2002, and following restructuring and refinement was endorsed and authenticated by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl of UCLA, and published by Amana Publications, Maryland, USA, 2009.

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-human-rights/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/abolition-of-slavery,-including-sex-slavery-in-islam-(the-qur’an)/d/35148

 



TOTAL COMMENTS:-   676
  • Rational,

    All that you need to understand are the several simple statements that you misunderstood, The statements were clear. You can find all the reasons why people misunderstand by focusing on your own misunderstandings.




    By Observer - 3/17/2014 10:15:52 AM
  • Observer - 3/17/2014 7:16:49 AM
    same thing i can return to you. you might be highly qualified but you hold some silly beliefs like jizia was mercy.
    now you are talking about relative QoS of transmitter and receiver. we are talking about transmitters and receivers. Some time transmitter goes faulty despite all preventing measures so the transmission breaks. Some time link (for example cable TV) cable gets damaged. so every time you need not to tune your receiver. Fault may be in transmission also. it is your belief that is preventing you from accepting the obvious mistake.
    these are man made systems prone to malfunction.
    if only once transmitter (God) fails it is a question on its reliability. let me accept that receivers are more prone to malfunctioning, it only means that Islam has produced countless faulty receivers not only badly tuned receivers.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 3/17/2014 9:56:53 AM
  • Rational,

    You may be a communications engineer but surely you have never been in the business of broadcasting. If you were, then you would realize that the reputation of a broadcaster depends upon the reliability and quality of its broadcasts. Let me ask you a simple question. How often did you experience the failure of any radio or TV broadcasting station? 

    Surely, it is the relative reliability of a broadcasting station over the reliability of a receiving set that is being talked about and not the absolute infallibility of the broadcasting station. Otherwise, can there be any analogy to the infallibility of God? Comparing God with God would be pointless wouldn't it? 

    By Observer - 3/17/2014 7:16:49 AM
  • Observer
    perhaps i have found your source of your faulty analogy of transmitter and receiver with reference to the Quran and its reader. i am giving you the benefit of doubt by using word  'perhaps'.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 3/17/2014 6:02:24 AM
  • The wahabi is unable to digest that wahabism is biddat. and rational is not anything else but a wahabi. He is just a frustrated one who has issues with sufis. If he had been anything wlse, he should have issues with wahabis as well. He is very much within the system except that he is biddati and tries to forcefit his ideas unto others in truely wahabi ways.
    By sadaf - 2/22/2014 7:08:59 PM
  • Rafiq Lodhia

    Ibn Arabi wrote many books among them is Fusus al-Hikam, he said in the introduction of this book that..he got that book from the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). In the same book he accused Prophet Noah (alaihis salaamof being ignorant of the proper way to conveying the message. He said ..bani israil did not committed Shirk by worshiping the golden calf in the absence of Musa (alaihis salaam) as according to Ibn Arabi, Allaah manifested Himself in the form of the Calf. Further, He declared pharaoh to be a believer (Muslim).

    don't your head bow in shame for having  Sufis as your guides?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/20/2014 8:21:04 PM
  • Rafiq Lodhia
    "Some Sufis claim that the Messenger neither reached their status, nor did he acquire the knowledge that the Sufis have acquired, as Al-Bustami has stated, "We went into a sea which the Prophets could only reach its shores!!!"
    is it insult or not. or it is ok for a sufi to belive above the prophets.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/20/2014 7:49:26 PM
  • Naseer Ahmed Saheb,

     

    May I humbly ask, “What cheap points and revenge are you talking about?” My only objective is to extract the “Truth. If anyone talks cheap about Islam and the Prophet of Islam, then I have all the right in the world to speak my mind.

     

    I could care less if you team up with Pseudo Rational to respond to me about the subject matter “Tablighi Jamaat. All I have asked you for is, “Did you read ‘Faizail-e-Amal’ in its entirety?”

     

    This is a relatively simple question and it can easily be answered in “yes” or “no.”  How else can I behave like a decent human being? You tell me, Naseer Saheb, as I am all ears.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

        

     

    Naseer Ahmed Saheb,

     

    You wrote, “The writer of Fazail-e-Amal, Moulana Zakariyah is the son-in-law of Moulana Ilyas (founder of TJ).”

     

    My question to you is, “Did you read this book in its entirety?” Let me know so that I can understand as to what extent you have studied it.

     

    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia  - 2/20/2014 7:02:21 AM


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/20/2014 1:20:32 PM
  • Since you claim to be apostate, you put words as if you are apostate. How do we believe that? How do we believe that you are genuine and not fake? There is a very prominent streak of you being a kitman, a taqqiya practicing, Wahabi, dear Mr. Rational. And let me tell you I have no issues of you being an apostate, but I have issues of you being a Wahabi and that too taqqiya practicing one, because that is being a fake person. You speak the opposite of what you mean.
    By sadaf - 2/20/2014 9:58:47 AM
  • Naseer Ahmed Saheb,

     

    You wrote, “The writer of Fazail-e-Amal, Moulana Zakariyah is the son-in-law of Moulana Ilyas (founder of TJ).”

     

    My question to you is, “Did you read this book in its entirety?” Let me know so that I can understand as to what extent you have studied it.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/20/2014 7:02:21 AM
  • Rafiq Lodhia
    "No, I do not think we should drop this subject. The reason being that Pseudo Rational claimed that it was his time spent at “Tablighi Jamaat” that turned him into an apostate. You know it is all in black and white now. Obviously, something went wrong somewhere"

    i would love if you catch the subject.
    may i ask your majesty why Abdullah bin Abi sarah turned apostate? Let me introduce you to him. He was one of the scriber of Revelation(Wahi). later he truned apostate.
    Tablighi Jamat consists of ordinary people with varying understanding. it has attracted many educated people across the globe. Tablighi jamat could not satisfy me beacuse they don't engage in scholarly or sectarian issues. as Observer has said they invite people to some basic points known as chheh baten.
    1. IMAAN yani KALIMA " La ilaha illal lahu muhammadur RasulAllah"
    2. NAMAZ
    3. ILM aur ZIkR
    4. IKRAM-e-MUSLIM
    5. IKHLASE NIYAT
    6. DAWAT o TABLIGH

    Now tell me what is wrong with these points? What is harm if taught to ordinary Muslims for spiritual purpose. Will they understand intricacies of your mental masturbation.
    if you want to say some of them go and act against jamat's teachings, there is no dearth of Sufis/Sufi followers/Mazar attendants who are bloats on the Islam.
    Since Jamat could not satisfy me intellectually(if you are not offended and don't rush to Editor), Jamat only helped me in my apostasy. Sooner or later i was going to be an apostate. so when i said i turned apostate in the company of TJ it simply means that TJ didn't help me to right path(if Islam is). Despite being a jamati i turned apostate. I am not against the Jamat because of what they teach and practice, it is my questions on Iman that led me to apostasy.
    Do you understand it know?
    you thought Rational has provided you a reason to applaud your deviant sect, just forget it.
    if you think your deviate sect can bring me back it is a dream of shaikh chilli. 

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/20/2014 3:11:06 AM
  • Rafiq Lodhia - 2/20/2014 1:13:05 AM
    i say a lot and think a lot about moderates. you are not a fit person to share. you will become crazy.
    mr observer and i have some common understanding on Tablighi Jamat. if you want to criticize it we have no objection. Write an article critical to Jamat we will respond to you. i am using 'we' because i don't think mr observer will have any problem in it. if he doesn't feel like to do so, i am enough for you. when i read something i read passionately otherwise not.
    please go ahead. i am waiting..... do something man.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/20/2014 2:42:52 AM
  • rafiq lodhia
    Let me tell you one thing clear. i am not here to polish the Islam and its history. i can criticize any ideology. if an ideology can't bear criticism(in your perverted mind hate) it is not worth following.
    i am critical to TJ as well as Sufism. my passion is to attack beliefs not Muslims. Beliefs include Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Marxism and many others. i can take any good from any ideology. For me Islam is one ideology like all others. it suffers with what other ideologies suffer. i believe in practice. I save water, electricity and other natural resources. i don't waste food. this i learned from Islam specially from Devbandi/TJ school of thought.
    there may be many ways to Truth if there is some truth, i learned from Hinduism. No ideology can have monopoly on Truth so the Islam.  whatever you hear about the truth from others is second hand experience. it can be truth for you if you have experienced it by yourself. rest is blind following. this i learned from Jiddu Murthy. Don't believe in anything just something  said by some divine book, holy man. i learned it from Buddhism. Secular philosophy i like most. Love and hate are nothing but different perspectives.
    the same thing can be love for one and hate for other. jehadis call their murdering love of Allah. you call it hate/intolerance towards others. i am calling my stand criticism you are calling hate.
    why don't you write an article on Tablighi Jamat. Ham bhi to dekhen kitne jaddi Alim ho.
    i know my limitations and accept them(this i also learn from Tablighi Jamat). you are an American then Republican then Sufi then Liberal!! i am an apostate of my religion i was born in.
    Let me remind you. you were exhausted and about to leave this forum. who called you back.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 2/20/2014 2:33:48 AM
  • Mr Lodhia,

    If my posts have not helped you understand anything, my article will not help you either. Any reasonable person, would recognize greatness when he come across greatness and you do not have that ability which even those who are not well disposed towards the Jamat display.


    Now can you behave like a decent human being and stop picking on Rational just because you think that you have a grip on his weakness? That is the viciousness that I was alluding to which you display in ample measure. You have no concern for Rational when you say that you want to understand him. Your only objective is revenge and some cheap points you wish to score  on the TJ

    The summary from your posts on TJ is reproduced below: 

    As far as the importance of religion and rituals is concerned, we have a proven case of the Tablighi Jamat which has maintained its pacifist nature through the turbulent times that we have gone through. What comes out through the eyes of its critics is as brought out in my last post in a different thread that I am reproducing here.

    ThThe antecedents of the Jamat are undeniably sufi. The writer of Fazail-e-Amal, Moulana Zakariyah is the son-in-law of Moulana Ilyas (founder of TJ) . He was a Sufi and was given the Khilafah of all the four Sufi Tareeqahs by Moulana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri. The book is exclusively followed by the TJ and has been heavily criticized by many scholars for its `Sufi' teachings. One scholar has thoroughly `exposed' the teachings as conforming to the concept of waḥdat al-wujūd.   Mr Sultan Shahin has said that the concept of waḥdat al-wujūd is what makes a Sufi inclusive, since if God is in every person and in everything, then the creed is to love all people and things. That puts paid to the baseless allegation that they are Wahabis who believe in hating all mankind except their own kind.

     2.     I also quote from Lodhia’s posts "Their misinterpretation of some Qur’aanic verses in a manner that was not intended by Allah. For example they interpret the verses on jihad as referring to “going out for da’wah”. The verses which mentioned the word khurooj (going out) etc. are interpreted by them as meaning going out for da’wah."

     I agree. That is the way the TJ and Sufis interpret the verse.

     3.      Again, I quote from Lodhia’s post: “Examples of people making the jump from TJ to radical Islam are the two leading members of the cell responsible for the July 7, 2005, London bombings -- Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shahzad Tanweer. Both had life-changing experiences through their exposure to TJ, though by 2001 the men had left the Tablighi mosque they had been attending in the British city of Beeston, because they found it to be too apolitical. They apparently were frustrated by the mosque's elders, who forbid the discussion of politics in the mosque."

     The apolitical nature of the TJ and active discouragement to any politics in their mosques comes out very clearly in the above. Many of Lodhia’s other posts are of a similar nature. The US government, although apprehensive of the Jamat on account of its large following, has however found the Jamat to be  legitimate.

     “TJ not only ostracizes any members who join jihadist groups but also its privatization of faith (apolitical nature) makes it compatible with modernity. TJ preaches jihad as “personal purification,” not holy war; many radical Islamic groups openly criticize TJ for its apolitical and non-violent teachings; and Wahhabi online fatwas include TJ in a list of heretical groups, in the same category as Shias” (Timothy R Furnish writing in the journal of International Security Affairs).

    A Sufi/Barelvi site Noore Madinah, also criticise the TJ for eschewing violent Jihad and for cooperating with every “Kafir” government across the world.

     “And there’s no arguing with TJ’s success. The Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations may castigate the organization for its disengagement from politics and for its lack of popular welfare and education programs, but one could argue that Tabligh is better than its detractors at keeping its eye on the real prize: renewing piety among Muslims and indoctrinating them with a strong sense of Islamic community that is global in scope.” Timothy R Furnish


    It’s apolitical and pacifist nature is beyond doubt and it has a history of 84 years to prove it. One may not like it or join it, but opposing the TJ is tantamount to opposing what it stands for viz,  “renewing piety among Muslims and indoctrinating them with a strong sense of Islamic community that is global in scope.”


    By Observer - 2/20/2014 1:47:41 AM
  •  

    Pseudo Rational,

     

    Do you think that we the “Moderate Muslims” are stupid? We know when you write:

     

    we are not here to clap for Islam.

     

    You are just here to feel good about yourself as you are still clinging on to the good name of “Mohammed. Why not confront the truth? You are just one confused Muslim who have been totally brainwashed by the Mullahs.  

     

    More importantly, I have requested Naseer Ahmed Saheb to write a final essay on the practices of “Tablighi Jamaat.This way I can try to figure out what is stored in your head and what made you to hate Islam?

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia 

      


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/20/2014 1:13:05 AM

Compose Your Comments here:

Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the below text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.