By Dr Muhammad Maroof Shah
08 Feb 2019
Is there any possibility for exit for all
and any hope for those who are condemned to it?
Hell is obviously a bad place or state to
find oneself in. But the story doesn’t end here. There arise many questions regarding it, that
cry for answers. One such important question is about God’s mercy if so many
people end up in hell. And is there any possibility for exit for all and any
consolation/hope/remedy for those who are condemned to it? How do we live lives
if such terrible future awaits most of us/fellow humans? How come we can sleep
well if it is the case that anytime anyone amongst us is going to be picked up
for ultimate concentration camp? I think most of these questions hinge on
understanding the nature of hell. Today we ponder on a few points to help us
approach these questions.
Peter Kreeft, an influential religious figure, has this to say in his
Three Philosophies of Life, on the nature of hell:
“The essence of Hell is not suffering but
vanity, not pain but purposelessness, not physical suffering but spiritual
suffering. .. Suffering is not the
essence of Hell, because suffering can be hopeful. It was for Job.”
"Does hell not contradict a loving and
omnipotent God? No, for hell is the consequence of free will. We freely choose
hell for ourselves; God does not cast anyone into hell against his will. If a
creature is really free to say yes or no to the Creator's offer of love and
spiritual marriage, then it must be possible for the creature to say no. And
that is what hell is, essentially. Free will, in turn, was created out of God's
love. Therefore hell is a result of God's love. Everything is.”
The point that we are punished by sins and not for sins if pondered over
resolves all the key difficulties many encounter in comprehending the doctrine
regarding hell and especially the fear that we might be punished for this or
that transgression/minor sin. Just keep in mind that any action that alienates
us from ourselves, that blocks sunshine of love, that puts ego before God and
neighbour has to be punished. If you are told that you will be punished for
this or that “sin” or failure to abide by particular fatwa ask yourself if it
leads to decrease in love of God and love of neighbour and apply the golden
test of the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) “Consult your heart. Righteousness is that
about which the soul feels at ease and the heart feels tranquil. And ithm (sin)
is that which wavers in the soul and causes unease in the breast, even though
people have repeatedly given you their legal opinion.”
The simple point to be noted is if heart
feels disease, it constitutes a punishment and if we wish to hide this disease
it doesn’t work. In posthumous life one has to encounter or own it and can’t
but feel sorry or torture that constitutes hell.
we fail to reciprocate love from a lover who is all the more adorable and
lovable and imagine we are not loved or we can’t submit to the rules of the
game of love, we can’t but be deprived of the joy of love or playing well the
game and when we realize we have missed a great joy, we taste hell. “The pain
of loss—the loss of God, who is the source of all joy—is infinitely more
horrible than any torture could ever be. All who know God and his joy
understand that. Saints do not need to be threatened with fire, only with
C. S. Lewis said, "All your life an unattainable ecstasy has
hovered just beyond the grasp of your consciousness. The day is coming when you
will wake to find, beyond all hope, that you have attained it—or else that it
was within your grasp and you have lost it forever" (C. S. Lewis).
God wants to help us but can’t help the proud as He can’t drag them
against their will – God is a shy guest who has to be welcomed or He leaves –
though He has devised humiliations and suffering of all kinds from diseases to
old age to ingratitude and badmouthing critics to make us yield to his
advances. Earlier or later all are granted entry to heaven except those who
don’t enter it thanks to pride as heaven is a space where ego or resistance to
love, to other, to being open can’t be.
What goes to hell, said C. S. Lewis, is
"not a man, but remains." A proud man is not a man but a deformed
creature who has chosen to hide in a crevice when there is an open sky and the
sun is shining. As Kreeft explains: “In
reality, the damned are in the same place as the saved—in reality! But they
hate it; it is their Hell. The saved love it, and it is their Heaven. It is
like two people sitting side by side at an opera or a rock concert: the very
thing that is Heaven to one is Hell to the other.
says, 'We are all in paradise, but we won’t see it'…Hell is not literally the
'wrath of God.' The love of God is an objective fact; the 'wrath of God' is a
human projection of our own wrath upon God, as the Lady Julian saw—a disastrous
misinterpretation of God’s love as wrath. God really says to all His creatures,
'I know you and I love you' but they hear Him saying, 'I never knew you; depart
from me.' It is like angry children misinterpreting their loving parents’
affectionate advances as threats. They project their own hate onto their
parents’ love and experience love as an enemy—which it is: an enemy to their
egotistic defences against joy…Since God is love, since love is the essence of
the divine life, the consequence of loss of this life is loss of love...Though
the damned do not love God, God loves them, and this is their torture. The very
fires of Hell are made of the love of God!”
“The fires of hell may be made of the very love of God, experienced as
torture by those who hate him: the very light of God's truth, hated and fled
from in vain by those who love darkness. Imagine a man in hell—no, a
ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly
behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he
Hell can’t be understood except in reference to paradise. Sheikh ‘Īsā
Nūr ad-Dīn Ahmad writes in this regard: “What is paradise? It is the inward
nature of pure Existence; to be in conformity with that nature is to be carried
by the wave of becoming toward beatitude. To be in conformity with Existence is
to submit; to submit ourselves to the celestial law, to conform to our own
essence, the essence by which we exist and which is the innermost nature of
things. Without Existence we would not be; how can we reasonably revolt against
it and set ourselves against that by which we are, that, which makes us to be
ourselves? The essence of Existence is blissful; opposition to that essence –
the idolatry of contents or of accidents-leads us away from Beatitude and
encloses us in the blind alley of our own contingency and in the measureless
hell of our own absurdity.”
Auden’s following remarks illuminate another dimension of the question:
“The gates of Hell are always standing wide open. The lost are perfectly free
to leave whenever they like, but to do so would mean admitting that the gates
were open, that is to say that there was another life outside. This they are
afraid to admit, not because they get any pleasure from their present
existence, but simply because the life outside would be different, and if they
admitted its existence they would have to lead it. They know all this. They
know that they could leave and they know why they don’t. Their knowledge is the
flame of Hell”.
This recalls Ibn Arabi’s emphasis on the point that denizens of hell
will be hooked or attracted to hell for its compensatory graces and will not
part with blocks of fire they are living with. From Milton to Ghalib to Auden
we find clear recognition of the point that we can preview hell just by looking
around or within and are all the time facing judgment or negotiating the
“straight bridge.” “For the Divine Law,
whatever its nature, operates here and now. As Kafka says: “Only our concept of
Time makes it possible for us to speak of the Day of Judgement by that name; in
reality it is a summary court in perpetual session.’”
Hell’s connection with mercy becomes evident if we understand its
purifying function of which the scriptures inform us. Muhammad Ali has noted in
this connection that hell is described in the Qur’an as being the ‘friend’ (Mawla) of the sinners (Q.
57:15), as well as their ‘mother’ (umm) (Q. 101:9). Furthermore, he notes, that
“the term Fitnah is used in the Qur’an to refer to the ‘trials’
experienced by both Believers in this life and ‘evil-doers’ in Hell. After all,
the term Fitnah in its original usage denoted the casting of gold into
fire for the purpose of purifying it."
Ibn Qayyim has argued that “…As for those who remain in Hell, if we
consider the natural disposition (fitrah) established in humans by God, and the
likelihood that punishment in Hell would eventually rectify all, once Hell’s
purification is complete, there will be no need for further punishment.
Accordingly, the punishment in Hell and the pain accompanying it is actually a
mercy from God – as is the case with the pain experienced in the punishments of
this life (such as the Hudūd).”
Indeed we are told in a hadith that “God created Mercy as one hundred
units of mercy, and the Unbeliever who comes to learn of the extent of God’s
mercy, will never lose hope of one day entering Heaven.”
Despite disagreements with Ibn Arabī’s vision of Hell becoming a place
of felicity, Ibn Qayyim’s conclusion is almost Akbarian in effect as all –
Pharaoh, the people of Thamūd, and Abū Lahab – will eventually go to Heaven
after becoming purified.
Ashraf Ali Thanwi has remarked that for believers hell is like a bath in
rather hot water that helps to remove tightly adhered dirt. Isn’t it remarkable
that the root word for Azab means a sweet thing?
All forbidden things are sweet and this
sweetness is not lasting but nevertheless lures us. Al-Jili has recounted
certain ways in which people in hell would be comforted. For instance, he notes
that scratching a clot on a wound gives a pleasure. Ibn Arabi’s central thesis
regarding the presence of mercy in hell that ultimately cools it or makes it a
place if felicity is closely argued from the Quran and traditions which insist
both on unending stay in hell for disbelievers and omnipresence/privileging of
Manazir Ahsan Gilani, that formidable
scholar of Deoband and illustrious student of Allama Kashmiri, has in his much
ignored classic Maqalat-i Ihsani discussed the thesis maintained by some Muslim
scholars that believers (Mu’mineen) will not stay in hell but just presented to
it or have a brush with it. The Quran is
clear that hell has been prepared for disbelievers. And if we think more
closely who is the disbeliever we would readily appreciate why it should be so.
It is not believers in other religions who are threatened by hell; it is those
who reject faith as such and are characterized by morally reprehensible things
like ingratitude, haughtiness and refusal to acknowledge the truth.
You are pathetic GM sb! You are ashamed even to copy my question
on 4:34 and post your response below it because that exposes you as a fool.
You are the one who has been stalking me and not the other way around.
It is my unassailable presentation of Islam as fundamentally and literally a religion
of peace, justice, inclusiveness and reason that upsets your nefarious plans to
destroy it by pretending to be a friend of Islam and questioning a major part
of the Quran. Your efforts do not hurt Islam. They only strengthen Islam. For
example, take the discussion on verses 33:36-38. I have stuck to the literal
meaning of the verses and answered all your questions which I can see is a
super-set of the questions that Rational and Hamza asked on the subject besides
your own. You cannot find a flaw in my answers. There isn’t a part of any verse
that I haven’t explained or any part of your question that I haven’t
answered. You are only a
disbeliever in the revelation by Allah of the verses. Now, what explains the
inability of others to come-up with an equally clear explanation of the verses?
Why are the verses that are crystal clear to me “ambiguous” to others? This is
because a veil covers either fully or partially, the eyes, ears and hearts of the people. The flaw is with the reader and not with the Quran. The Book is Kitabum
Mubeen and there are no “ambiguous” verses for those who have their ears, eyes
and heart for it. For others, it makes as much sense as their ears, eyes and heart
are open to it. It is not Allah who seals their hearts – the people do it to
themselves. Take your own example, you are a disbeliever by choice even though I
showed you how this incident is similar to Ibrahim’s (AS) “sacrifice” and the
departure from the norm in addressing the Prophet rather than the Believers on
a verse legislating the divorce process. Allah uses the prophets to teach by
By your excellent example, you have helped people
who had difficulty understanding the meaning of “those who will not believe”
understand it. Allah uses both you and me for His purpose. Your poison is
neutralized and the truth advances. The clarity to the understanding of the verses
would not have come but for your questioning. I have therefore patiently
answered all the questions of Rational before and I do so for your questions
also. I see no difference between the two except that one was honest and the
other a hypocrite. You both have the same way of arguing and running away
without closure when you know that you have lost the argument.
comment below betrays the truth. If you had thought that you were in any
position to win the ongoing discussion on 4:34, 24:2, 33:36,37 and other
verses, these would have been a significant achievement for you and not
“nothing of value”. When you have lost the discussions only then it becomes
“nothing of value”. Your bluff and bluster now do not fool anyone.
“By the way, flooding of
NAI's "COMMENTS" section with comments lifted from Facebook and
written by people who never visit NAI, has resulted in the disappearance of
threads that were carrying ongoing discussions between Naseer sb. and me.
Come to think of it,
nothing of value has been lost!”
Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/9/2019 1:46:47 PM
“Your explanation of the Zainab verse is not satisfactory to me because it does
not question the timing and the circumstances of the revelation.”
That is a ridiculous thing to say! My explanation
explains both the timing and circumstances of the revelation, but you fail to
understand because you have made yourself “deaf, dumb and blind”.
The verse says very clearly
that this was not an ordinary marriage, but a marriage performed by Allah “We
joined her in marriage to thee”. The Prophet merely followed what was indicated
as a duty by Allah to him 33:38. This he could do only after Zaid divorced
Zainab and the observance of all necessary formalities. The Prophet was
trying to prevent Zaid divorcing Zainab because he didn’t want to marry Zainab
and he feared the reaction of the people to such a marriage. Allah therefore
says that He has a greater right to be feared than the people. Allah also gives
the reason for making the Prophet marry the divorced wife of his adopted son.
The timing of the verse coincides with Allah marrying the Prophet to Zainab.
What is the ceremony of Nikah except the mutual acceptance of the other as
spouse and an announcement to the society of the marriage? How else can a
marriage performed by Allah become an announcement without a revelation? When
else should this verse have been revealed except after the marriage? You refuse
to understand the simple, straightforward meaning of the verses because of your
Harsh punishments have been a feature of the
Divine Law through the ages. Why this is so, is explained in my article:Understanding
the Religion of Allah through the Ages.So, when I ask you on
what source book are you relying on to say what you say about 100 lashes etc.,
it is because there is no Scripture without harsh punishments for crimes and
there is a good reason for corporal punishment. It has worked very well in
civilizing us otherwise we would have been no different from any animal. If you
think your reason/common sense is superior to the “perfect and complete
religion” then you do not need the religion. From where is your common sense derived
except from the liberal political philosophy that values individualism over the
collective? Religions are for maximizing the collective good. There is no
compulsion in religion, so if you are for individualism and therefore for tolerance
of an individual’s “right” to have sex with any consenting adult and “right” to
use his/her sexuality for social and economic gain, then leave religion and
espouse your political philosophy.
Your advocacy for decriminalizing adultery in
Islam and tolerating women " go in public places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts
or other body parts being insufficiently hidden” is a
recipe for turning Islamic society into an openly adulterous one and we know
from empirical evidence that 87% of such women openly admit that they use their
“erotic potential” for social and economic gain. That makes them sluts and
their men pimps. It is your choice to become a part of such society but
when you are trying to drag all Muslims to your level of degeneracy, then you
need to be exposed as a dangerous apostate bent on mischief mongering.
The difference between Rational and
you is that he was not a hypocrite but you are the very epitome of hypocrisy.
You are far more dangerous than Rational. You are the snake in the grass.
The difference between Rational and
you is that he was not a hypocrite but you are the very epitome of hypocrisy.
You say 24:2 is not from Allah, and
religion should have nothing to do with crimes and punishment for them
including adultery, and you also argue that adultery is not a crime against
society, but it could be violation of a civil contract if sex is with a partner
married to another. You do not therefore even accept the definition of adultery
in Islam which is sex between partners not married to each other and covers
even those who may be unmarried and do not violate any civil contract. You
reject the Islamic position that adultery is a punishable crime against society,
since an act that leaves behind four eye witnesses, corrupts the society. And
yet, you also want to say at the same time that you are not for decriminalizing
adultery in Islam. What a hypocritical lie!
You say you are not accusing the Prophet of
"falsehood" but saying "He could have mistaken his own
honest thoughts for revelation". How can thoughts that are falsely attributed
to Allah be honest? If he did that, these would have been immediately
expunged through a revelation. Why do you think that Allah would quietly watch
his Messenger insert his own thoughts as from Allah and fail to punish as
threatened by “severing the artery of his heart” (69:46)?
You say you are not accusing the Prophet of
"falsehood" but saying "
Do you have any straight answers?
Instead of running away, why don’t
you copy my question in full and give your non-answer/non-solution below and we
close the discussion on 4:34? If at all you bring this up again as you have
done after 6 years, we can start where we left off rather than repeat ourselves
all over again.
Are you saying that you are OK
with verse 24:2 and adultery remaining a punishable crime in Islam and not for
its decriminalisation in Islam?
You say “Regarding the Zainab episode, I know what the Quran says. If all
you can tell me is what the Quran says, you are wasting your time and my time.”
What else did you expect other than a
full explanation of what and why the Quran says what it has said on the
subject? Did you want like Rational to
discuss outside of the Quran and bring in the Seerah and the Ahadith and the
Islamophobic version of it? Perhaps a discussion of how the video “Innocence of
the Muslims” deals with it?
If you think the truth is outside the verses
and the verses are a falsehood inserted by the Prophet (nauzobillah), then I
wonder how you can even believe in such a prophet. Are you not then an apostate?
Your bringing up verse 33:36,37
out of the blue is proof that you had lost all other debates on verse 2:282,
24:2, 4:34 etc and in sheer desperation, you threw 33:36,37 at me because:
I had never discussed
In a previous
discussion Yunus sb gave a very unsatisfactory response that did not answer
anything. He did not even explain the verses
because to him these are “ambiguous”
You therefore thought that this topic
would leave me without answers, and you will taste a measure of some victory at
last. Alas! This was not to be and will never be.
The questions that you have raised
now with me, must have arisen in your mind even then, but you did not raise these.
On the contrary, you castigated Rational for defaming the Prophet with his questions,
going outside of the Quran and relying on the Ahadith and Seerah. Today, you stand
exactly where Rational stood before, and what you said to him applies to you. Let
me quote you on how you castigated Rational.
He (Rational) says, "Mr GM is
helping Mr Yunus in cursing tournament."
Showing up a liar and a
hypocrite like you is not cursing.
He adds, "Perhaps Mr
Yunus has hired a full time badmouth. A noble job that should be carried on to
give a proof how a good Muslim behaves in critical situation."
There is nothing noble
about your apostatic activity in this forum, so stop whining.
He asks, "why do you expect
elixir (amrit) from me?"
Nobody expects anything but snake
venom from you.
He says, "I can promise to
stop it immediately if GM saheb agrees to it. It is up to him."
Let me see you stop your
malicious and vicious activity first.
He says, " NewAgeIslam
nowhere put a condition that we should not criticize."
That's why I am criticizing you.
He says, "Only condition is
to remain within civility."
Mocking people and their beliefs
under the guise of asking questions is rude. ' By Ghulam
Mohiyuddin - 10/11/2012 2:47:27 PM
Rational says, "my questions are
Please don't exalt yourself by saying
that your questions are "difficult". They are stupid and
must be ignored. Someone who has left Islam should not pretend that he is
seeking answers to some questions. You are an apostate. Act like one. You have
every right to be an apostate. Join the company of other apostates and have a
good time. Your forays in this forum have had the sole purpose of being
disruptive, derisive and rude. That's why you were called "a wolf in
the garb of a sheep, a snake in the sleeve, or more".
Ghulam Mohiyuddin -
10/10/2012 2:10:27 PM
Rational says, "Ab to dhamkiyon par baat
The worst dhamki comes from you
when you announce that you will continue spreading your foul stink in this
forum as if it is your birthright! I see that you are trying to form an
alliance with the Hindus on this forum as if you have some well thought out
battle plans to defeat moderate/progressive Muslims. Why don't you
take your mono-maniacal fight to some mullah site since the
obscure Hadiths that you quote are probably the same ones that are
dear to mullahs.
Ghulam Mohiyuddin -
10/7/2012 1:58:49 PM
Rational sayws, " You know my
If you deny your intention to insult the prophet
with your own words or with maliciously selected quotes, it shows what a
shameless liar you are.
You say, " You don't like even Karen."
I have not criticized Karen. Why do you lie so
much? Don't you have any shame?
By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/7/2012 3:48:24 AM
Rational, in his usual pesky way asks, "Are
not they inviting anti-blasphemy laws to this site?"
You have full rights to commit blasphemy. We do not
want you hanged for your blasphemy. There are hundreds of sites where you can
commit your blasphemy. This is a gathering of people interested in promotion of
moderate and progressive Islam. For you to come here and interrupt our converstion,
make fun of serious discussants and insult our Prophet either with your words
or words selectively and maliciously picked from other sources just shows
rudeness and lack of civility. It is intolerable behavior. No religious
site would tolerate such despicable behavior.
You asked, "Why don't Muslims think we critics
are test from Allah?"
You can keep such school boyish questions to
You also asked, "It seems Allah was not clear
If you think that is a smart question, I have to wonder
about your I.Q.
Ghulam Mohiyuddin -
10/7/2012 2:37:39 AM
Rational says that he, "quoted from the Sirah
and Ahadith."Like most pesky apostates you are a liar. Your intent clearly
was to insult the Prophet on an Islamic website. Why don't you take your hate
and animus to an apostate website?
Ghulam Mohiyuddin -
10/7/2012 1:28:34 AM
Regarding the Zainab episode, you again
repeat the argument that because the verse says so it must be so. If you do not
have a better argument to offer, stop extending this thread unnecessarily."
So are you asking me to disregard what the verses of the Quran say and pay credence to the canards that are spread by the Islamophobes? Thank God! You at least agree that what I say is exactly what the Quran says.
I not only say that if the verse says so it must be so, but also say that this is not an affair of the Prophet at all, but what Allah arranged to put an end to a strong social taboo in Arab society against marrying non biologically related people we may have called father/mother, aunt/uncle, brother/sister.
For a comparison, take Ibrahim (AS) sacrifice of his son. Allah has not required such proof from any other prophet nor did he need it from Ibrahim. This event was only to demonstrate in a dramatic manner that Allah does not require such a sacrifice even from his Prophets, putting an end to child sacrifice prevalent in the society. Islamohobes however pick on this story also to malign Allah and the religion.
You are lying GM sb. You brought up discussion on verse 24:2
which is about the punishment for adultery. You lost the argument when I showed
you how stupid your prescription is which does not prevent adultery but
encourages practicing it openly as is happening in the West with everyone
knowing who is screwing whom as they have seen them in the act in the office,
at a party, in the car or in the park. Islam discourages adultery that leaves
witnesses and has put the stringent requirement of 4 eye-witnesses and
discourages the witnesses with punishment of 80 stripes if the crime is not
established with 4 witnesses. Islam also does not encourage self-confession.
Those bent upon adultery are therefore not prevented if they are discreet and
do not do so openly that can be witnessed by 4 persons.
Your prescription to decriminalize adultery will however corrupt
the society as it has corrupted the western society. With the act being
performed without a care about being discovered, the disease will spread and
finally engulf the entire society. Every Muslim will then become guilty of the
second most heinous crime/sin in Islam
and be punished for it in the Hereafter.
So, what have you achieved by decriminalizing it? You have
succeeded in making everyone an adulterer destined to Hell Fire! Although, the
law is not in force in many countries, a Muslim knows that it is the law for
them and prevents them from engaging in it. Your argument is for decriminalizing
it in the Book itself!
Having been shown how stupid your argument was, you extended
it to all criminal laws and began arguing that religions should have nothing to
do with crimes in general and punishment for them. Who are you to say that?
Islam is what it is. You want to end the argument with denying what you yourself
have argued and said. We have exchanged more than a hundred comments
specifically on 24:2 which is about adultery across two threads.
It is quite revealing that you picked up punishment for adultery
for discussion and not punishment for any other crime. Other crimes do not
concern you except as an after-thought after losing the argument, but adultery
does. Also, why verse 4:34 bothers you is because it is a prescription for how
to deal with wives who " go in public
places dressed seductively, e.g. with her breasts or other body parts
being insufficiently hidden” and
you want to allow such behaviour. The words in quotes are yours. The words in
the verse are “those who fail to guard their chastity/modesty in the absence of
You have argued with me on verse 4:34 six years back and
lost the argument. This time you brought it up in a different context arguing
with me that the Quran asks us to take the best meaning of any verse while I
was saying that every verse has only one meaning and the best refers to how we
practice what the verse commands. In this context, you started off the argument
by saying that the best meaning of wa-iḍ'ribūhunna in 4:34 is not “beat” but several other alternate
meanings. After discussion you agreed with me that those who translate wa-iḍ'ribūhunna
as “beat” cannot be faulted as the Quran unmistakably uses the same word to
mean “strike” in several other verses. This being an advisory verse, people are free
to take a different meaning but those who take it to mean “beat’ cannot be
faulted. You then switched to the argument “Can God Almighty ever ask us to
beat under any circumstance and therefore the verse is not from God!” God
almighty who has prescribed 100 stripes for adultery can certainly ask us to
beat as a curative for shameful behaviour that leads to adultery.
You have lost this argument a long time back unable to
answer my question but have not only kept going, but spread the argument to half
a dozen threads. I repeat the question below that has left you without an
answer ages ago but you refuse to give up.
GM sb had lost the argument 6 years back on verse 4:34
On Verse 4:34, GM sb simply does not have an answer to the following
question but keeps arguing ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The same argument was used
six years back when he debated with me on the same subject and has remained unchanged
What if the woman does not want a
divorce, but promises to change her ways of immodest dressing (“seductively exposing her breasts and
other body parts”as described by GM sb himself), but does not do anything about it even after
repeated discussions and admonishments which only end in making another false
promise, and is apparently only testing him on far he will go to assert
Empirical evidence of Common Couple Violence in all cultures shows that minor
domestic violence works very well in resolving conflicts during the early years
of marriage of young couples.
So, why forsake what
is known to work very well and especially if the woman is refusing the divorce
option even when warned about the possibility of a beating if she repeats her
behavior? There is a chance that once she gets a
beating for repeated transgressions, she may mend her ways and if she doesn’t,
she should be divorced without repeating the beating. What is wrong with it? Why should the husband proceed with divorce
which the woman does not want?
On what source book do
you rely to say that beating is wrong under any circumstances? On what
empirical evidence do you rely to say such a thing when the empirical evidence
shows that CCV is both common and effective in conflict resolution in the early
years of marriage? Is it not simply your whim and another political slogan? You
must submit to Islam or leave it. Verse 4:34 has all the attributes of
revelation from Allah.
You say: “Would
He produce a revelation to address an extremely
rare occurrence (a man marrying the ex-wife of his adopted son-in-law), and
that too at a time when his Prophet had come under criticism for undertaking
just such a marriage. What more is there to say on the subject?”
What you are saying in effect is that
the Prophet married the divorced wife of his adopted son because he desired to
do so and came under intense criticism for the marriage as it violated a strong
taboo of Arab society, and therefore the revelation of the verses to bail out
the Prophet(pbuh) from the tricky situation is “dubious” especially because of
its timing. You are not saying this is added 20 years later but by the Prophet to
You are therefore also doubting the
following verses because if these are true, then Allah should have cut off the
artery of the Prophet’s heart for claiming in Allah’s name his own invention:
69:44) And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name,
(45) We should certainly seize him by his right hand,
(46) And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart:
You are charging the Prophet with falsehood on
multiple accounts which makes the Quran to be a Book of falsehood and Allah as
helpless to prevent a false prophet to say anything in His name and get away
with it. Maybe you think there is no Allah. What is it then that makes you a
believer and a Muslim? Aren’t you an apostate?
And you debated with me on taking the best meaning
of any verse while this is not even the meaning. The meaning that comes out clearly
and directly from the verses is as I have explained. Calling people not
biologically related mother/father, uncle/aunt, brother/sister is not rare nor
the taboo on marriage based on such “relationships”. However, to be fair to
you, it is not the meaning that you are debating, but doubting that these
verses are revealed by Allah. When it is not the meaning which is in doubt but
whether these are from Allah or not, how can discussion with any Aalim help?
You have been losing all your debates and in
desperation, you lashed out with these verses because, I have never discussed
them before, and based upon the unsatisfactory response Yunus sb gave to Rational
on these verses and closed the discussion refusing to say anything more, you
felt this would be easy to debate. Your readings on the internet also did not prepare
you for my very simple and straightforward answer fitting perfectly the verses.
You will never get from any Aalim anything close to
what I say on any subject but that is precisely what you want. You do not want the
truth. You want the village Mullah’s viewpoint because that reinforces your own
view. You think at the village Mullah level. The difference is that the Mullah
is a believer and you are not.
You are once again trying to throw dust in people’s
eyes when your argument is clearly for decriminalizing adultery in Islam. Why
did you bring verse 24:2 at all when the question is not even relevant in the
US and India? Your argument had nothing to do with the law of any country but
the Islamic law in the Quran.
Not only do you go on and on ad infinitum ad nauseum, but across multiple threads. You are the one who has brought up 4:34 in at least six different threads!What a liar you are blaming the other for what you do!
Any argument that you lose, you can end by saying "your explanation is lame, unsatisfactory, mendacious .........or whatever" which is why this forum needs an impartial moderator preferably a non-Muslim retired judge to bring discussions to a close with a fair summarizing of what was discussed.
GM sb, on his own initiative,
brought into discussion verse 24:2 which prescribes the punishment of 100
stripes for the adulterers. I hope he understands that he was discussing a
criminal law in Islam and the punishment for it. He argued for its abolishment.
He also argued that adultery can only be a civil offence but not a criminal
one. Does that not amount to an argument for decriminalizing adultery in Islam?
Why is he trying to throw dust in our eyes?
He asks “. My question
is whether God, the most gracious and the most merciful, would ask husbands to
beat their wives under any circumstances.”
His question can also
be whether “God, the most gracious and the most merciful” would create Hell
which is also answered by me. There is no end to such questions. My question to
him is “what is the source book that he is relying on to judge the Quran?” If
such a book exists which supersedes the Quran, then we should know about
As regards the certificate for apostate, GM sb has earned it. He does not have questions about some verses on which he is seeking clarification but he is trying to spread the canard or fitna that much of the Quran is unreliable and contains not the word of Allah but insertions of man. He pays a deaf ear, turns a blind eye and his heart is sealed to all proper and correct explanation. Kafir means one who denies or rejects and by denying a considerable portion of the Quran, he has become a very open Kafir. He is trying to create his own "designer god" based on what he thinks a god should/would/shouldn't/wouldn't do and install it as The God whom we should all worship rather than the Allah of the Quran. He is not only an apostate but inciting all to apostatise.
GM sb is the one who is stalking me and has initiated all these discussions. When he loses the argument he runs away without proper closure so that he can continue to spread the same canard in another thread or at a later date. He is a mischief mongering apostate.
GM sb, What is your source book to judge the Quran by? On what basis do you say
that God should not legislate to break an existing taboo in society?
It is not as you think the rarest of rare cases. The taboo extended to
marrying those whom you have called brother/sister, uncle/aunt when they are
not biologically related. The legislation removes all these taboos. This
is a problem in other communities even today and the boys hide on Rakhi day to
avoid a Rakhi being tied on their wrist by girls who are not their sisters.
Taboos are not easy to break with simple legislation. Many of the legislative
verses are misinterpreted to continue practices that are against the clear
Message of the Quran, for example, verses relating to divorce. God in his infinite
Wisdom chooses the right method to legislate. If he chose to legislate and
create a legal precedent with the Prophet’s Sunnat, I can see why He chose to
The legislation also addresses the question of inheritance of an adopted
child. It does not inherit by default but can through a Will. The claim that
Islam is a complete religion would have been false if this important legislation
was missing. The manner in which Allah chose to legislate by simultaneously
creating a legal precedent with the Prophet marrying the divorced wife of his
adopted son, shows great wisdom.
The same wisdom we see in other verses also. For example, all the
legislative verses are addressed to “The Believers” but the verse regarding divorce
is addressed to the Prophet when the Prophet never divorced any of his wives.
The simple reason for doing so as I see it, is to prevent divorce becoming a
taboo, simply because the Prophet never divorced any of his wives. By addressing
this verse to the Prophet, Allah is saying that it would have been alright,
even if the Prophet had divorced, and there is no taboo on it.
You ask : Isn't there a simpler way to look at this whole
episode that does not involve our believing everything that we are asked to
You provide the answer and let us know what is your simple
way to look at this whole episode other than what I explained.
You ask: Isn't there a difference between, "Unless I proclaim what I receive from Allah and His
Messages," and "when a matter has been decided by Allah and His
What is the difference between "when
a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger” and people being said
they have no choice but to say "We hear and we obey" to the Messenger (24:51) and that those who resist him will be among
the most humiliated (58:20)? All these verses mean:
A decision of Allah is the Messenger’s decision. The Messenger only
conveys Allah’s decision.
A Summon by the Prophet is a summon by Allah. The Messenger is only
acting on Allah’s behalf
Any resistance to the Prophet is resistance to Allah. The Messenger is
only acting on Allah’s behalf
You say: I am not
putting the blame on anyone except those who compiled the Book some 20 years
after the Prophet's death.
GM sb is trying to throw dust in everyone’s eyes. How could anyone
have added verses that were not there in the Prophet’s times relating to his marriage
with Zainab and get away with it? The religion of Islam would have collapsed
with such falsehood. The people would have simply revolted. He is therefore blaming
the Prophet himself but acting coy under pressure.
You say: What I am saying is very clear. Do you think by
repeating your lame answer again and again, you will throw dust in people's
Show me what is lame? Show it by your very robust account of
what you think happened. Remove the dust from people’s eyes and make them see
the truth. Don’t run away like a coward having failed in your attempt to create
a fitna by throwing dirt on the Prophet’s
character, Allah and the Quran. This topic must be taken to proper closure.