Books and Documents

Islamic Society (22 May 2014 NewAgeIslam.Com)

Muslims Must Be Honest About Qur’an



By Tarek Fatah

MAY 20, 2014

In the aftermath of Islamic jihadis — the Boko Haram — enslaving Christian school girls in Nigeria, the Muslim intelligentsia, instead of doing some serious introspection, has chosen to exercise damage control.

Columns by my co-religionists have appeared in newspapers ranging from the Toronto Star to The Independent in London and on CNN.com, where they avoid any reference to Sharia laws that permit Muslims to take non-Muslim female prisoners of war as sex slaves.

The fact is Muslim armies throughout history have been permitted under Islamic law to make sex slaves of non-Muslim prisoners.

Here is chapter 33, verse 50 of the Qur’an:

“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.”

When asked for a clarification, A Saudi cleric issued a fatwa permitting sex slavery.

He said: “Praise be to Allah. Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married … Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) also did that, as did the Sahabah (his companions), the righteous and the scholars.”

In the eighth century, when Arab armies invaded India, they took thousands of Hindu POWs as slaves back to the Caliph Walid in Damascus, who distributed the women as gifts to the newly emerging Arab nobility.

The ninth-century Persian historian al-Baladhuri writes in his book The Origins of the Islamic State that when the Arab general Muhammad bin Qasim invaded India in the year 711AD, the non-Muslim prisoners taken were given a choice of death or slavery.

Sixty thousand captives were made slaves in the city of Rur, among whom were “thirty ladies of royal blood.” One-fifth of the slaves and booty were set apart for the caliph’s treasury and dispatched to Damascus, while the rest were scattered among the “army of Islam.”

The nineteenth century Indian Islamic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali, whose translation of the Qur’an is considered the most authentic, had the courage to be honest when he put a footnote to the Quranic verse mentioned above: “The point does not now arise as the whole conditions and incidents of war have been altered and slavery has been abolished by international agreement.”

But courage to face facts is rare among many Muslims today. I asked the writers of the Toronto Star and The Independent columns why they had not addressed the passages of the Qur’an that permit Muslims to take slaves. They did not answer.

I wrote to a woman who told Christiane Amanpour of CNN that “Boko Haram does not understand Islam.” I asked her why she had not addressed Sharia law that permits taking non-Muslim females as POWs. She too, did not respond.

We Muslims are caught in a conundrum. If the Arab general bin Qasim is our hero for enslaving non-Muslim women in India in the eighth century, how could Boko Haram be judged wrong for doing exactly the same in Nigeria today?

All we Muslims need do today is to echo Abdullah Yusuf Ali by saying, “what was permitted in the seventh century, is no longer applicable in the twenty-first.” But alas, neither honesty nor courage comes easy.

Source: http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/20/muslims-must-be-honest-about-quran

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/tarek-fatah/muslims-must-be-honest-about-qur’an/d/87136



  • All the commentators are requested to know that this is the fatwa of Tarek Saheb. 
    How much are you honest about quran?

    By Ravi Kumar - 5/29/2014 7:56:48 AM

  • Dr Shabbir's response to Tarek's column:



    [My salutes to Sufi and Mullah. For telling us the message of Allah. But at their expositions remain stunned. Allah and Jibraeel and Mustafa]

    Dear  brother,

    This is one example why I call our clergy (ancient or contemporary) as criminals of Islam.

    Babaji Allama Parwez is the singular example who has done the laborious task of going to 'Arabi Mubeen (the language of revelation of the Qur'an).

    Without looking at his work at this time, I can assure you that his MAFHOOM saves Muslims of much intellectual gripes.

    Yousuf Ali, may Allah reward him for his painstaking efforts, could not break free of the Imamist shackles.

    Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Allama Mashriqi did a fine job but their translations are very incomplete and the authors wander and skip over the text. Years ago I could find them in Delhi, India but nowhere in Pakistan.

    The Qur'an was the first ever Word against all kinds of slavery when all religions and philosophies thought of it as an integral part of the human society. Muslim emperors transgressed the Divine Injunctions because they had at their disposal Imam Tabari's conjecture based tafsir or its copies by different oncoming authors.

    What if non-Muslims started applying the "Islamic" principle to Muslim women? Mullahs are inherently disabled from thinking.

    17:70 Surely, We have conferred dignity on children of Adam (as a birth right, regardless of where the child is born), and provided them with transport on land and sea and given them decent things of life. We have favored them over very many of those whom We have created.

    All captives must be free as soon as the battle has ended.


    47:4 If you meet the disbelievers in battle, strike at their command centers, until you have subdued them, then, bind them firmly. And thereafter, there must be an act of kindness or ransom when the battle lays down its weapons. If God willed, He could punish them Himself, but that He may let you be tested by means of one another (as to which people remains vigilant and steadfast.) As for those who are slain in the way of God, He does not render their actions vain.

    [Free the captives as an act of kindness or ransom, such as in exchange for your men in their captivity. There is no third option. Fadharb ar-riqaab is usually rendered as ‘smite their necks.’ A little contemplation, however, makes it plain that in a battle of swords and arrows no commander would order his soldiers to aim for the necks alone. Therefore, the term has been used idiomatically, indicating knocking out the command centers. It is interesting to note that even in today’s encounters with high technology this principle is given a top priority. This verse halted slavery since the source of slaves and concubines used to be battles and raids. 8:67, 90:13]

    33:50 O Prophet! We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due share of property, and those women who have sought asylum with you and signed the marital contract (60:10). Also lawful for you in marriage were daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts who had migrated with you. And lawful is a believing woman who wishes to marry the Prophet, forfeiting her due share and the Prophet is willing to marry her. This forfeiting of dowry applies to you only, and not to other believers. We have already decreed their rights regarding their wives and women who have sought asylum in their homes. This arrangement is designed to ease any social difficulties on you (as Head of the State). God is Absolver of imperfections, Clement.

    23:5 Those who guard their chastity, [17:32]

    Ma Malakat Ayemaanahum 
    23:6 Holding off their carnal desires except for their spouses who are rightfully theirs through wedlock. They are then, free of all blame. [4:3, 24, 25. 24:32] 
    [The very common rendition of this verse is extremely misleading. The ancient and modern scholars, to my knowledge, with the solitary exception of Muhammad Asad in his ‘The Message Of The Qur’an, think that slave girls are being mentioned here. But, Ma Malakat Ayemaanahum is common gender. Could the translators have said that it was right for a bondman to have sex with his ‘owner’ woman, and that too, when she was married? The translators and exponents confined it to the females alone since in the second century after the exalted Prophet, Muslims, under the influence of corrupted kings and Imams, had begun reverting to the old ways of Jaahilyah. Some verses foretell these conspiracies: 6:112-113, 22:52-55, 25:31, 42:13-14, 45:16-18. The word AW in 23:6 is explanatory. AW = Or - That is - Namely - Call it - In other words. AW appears in this format instead of 'or' in many places in the Qur’an such as 23:5-7, 24:3, 25:62. Please also see 70:30. Ma malakat ayimaanukum = Literally, those whom your right hands already possess = Those who are rightfully yours through wedlock]


    Maududi’s ‘Brilliance’: Let us examine some brilliance of Maududi through his famous Six Volume Tafseer, Tafhimul Quran (Urdu), by Idara Tarjumanul Quran, Lahore, November, 1982. We will turn to his other writings from time to time, with due reference given.

    The Captive Women: 1:340 means Vol 1 Pg 340. The summary and conclusion of his discussion on war captives, Vol 1 Pg 340: Even today, the government must distribute the women war captives among Muslim soldiers and the soldiers should “use” them. This rule will apply to women regardless of whether they belong to the People of the Book, or any other religion. How would the Mullahs feel if Muslims, getting thrashed all around the world today, had their women treated by the ‘infidels’ in this abominable fashion?

    The Quran, verse 47:4 states that the captives of war must be freed either for ransom (e.g. exchange of POWs) or as an act of kindness as soon as the battle ends. There is no third option. When an eminent scholar differed with him and showed how the Quran has closed the door of slavery forever, Maududi responded, “The error of this man lies in that he relies on the Quran to form his opinion.” (Tafhimat 2:292)

    Slavery: Maududi further alleges that:

     A slave owner can sell his slave whenever and to whomever he pleases. 
     The act of kindness means that the captives be made slaves and given into the ownership of (Muslim) individuals. 
     A bondwoman given to any man by the rulers is as legal and binding a process as Nikah (marriage). 
     A captive of war will remain a slave even if he or she embraces Islam. 
     If a slave tries to escape or create mischief, the master has the right to kill him/her. 
     While the Shari’ah (religious law made up by Mullahs) has limited the number of wives to four, it places NO LIMIT to the number of concubines a man can possess. He can have sexual relations with them freely. There is no reason for any man to feel bad about having sex with these (captured) concubines. (Tafhimul Quran 1:340 onwards, and 5:14 onwards)

    By Mubashir - 5/25/2014 10:47:21 AM

  • I have come across Zakir Naik's lectures a couple of times on youtube. I don't like him one bit.

    However, I am astounded as to how thousands of followers listen to his obscurantist garbage which sound illogical and vile to anyone with a little bit of brain.

    Such people are a threat to Muslim community. He won't kill them but he won't let them live happily.

    By non muslim - 5/24/2014 8:05:45 PM

  • Another point to consider (besides a mistranslation of a verse from the Quran) is how can the Quran allow female/male captives when it asks the believers to release prisoners of war?

    By Mubashir - 5/24/2014 5:56:32 PM

  • To get a proper understanding of this topic, one has to rely on the Quran first and foremost. Any good Muffassir (Quranic exegetic) takes this approach whether modern or classical.

      The common interpretation of the term ‘those that your right hands possess’ as captive girls (with whom one can have free sex) is not warranted by the Quran.

     To enable a truer understanding of the Quranic position, one must be willing to divorce themselves from the plethora of extra-Quranic material which not only poses theological problems but also at times stands contradictory to the Quran itself.

      Firstly, the term ‘ma malakat aymanukum’ (Literally: What your right hands possesses) is not gender specific and as an idiomatic expression, applies to ‘those that one keeps in protection and honour’. This can include captives, slave girls, maidens, servants  (fatayatikum 4:25) etc. Please note that the ‘right hand’ has a somewhat glorified meaning in the Quran which is apparent from its usage in different contexts (e.g. those on the right hand in heaven; books of one’s deeds given to the right hand etc).

      It is also apt to note that affluent women would have also most likely to have possessed men slaves. This is confirmed by the usage of the idiomatic expression 'ma malakat aymanuhunna' when used in reference to women's possession. It would be inconceivable to conclude on the basis of this expression, the permissibility of women to engage in ‘free sex’ with their male slaves or captives.


     ‘Malakat aymanukum’ which can literally be rendered as ‘right hands possess’, appears many times in the Quran and in a variety of contexts.

     Ma malakat aymanukum                       

    What your  right hands possess  (2nd person masculine plural)  *

    (4:25; 4:36; 24:33)

     Ma malakat yaminuka                                   

    What your right hands possess (2nd person masculine single)

    (33:50; 33:52)

     Alazeena malakat ayymanukum      

    Those whom your right hands possess *  (2nd person masculine plural)


     Ma malakat aymanuhum                            

    What their right hands possess *  (3rd person masculine plural)

    (16:71; 23:6)

       Ma malakat aymanuhunna                             

    What their right hands possess (3rd person feminine plural)

    (24:31; 33:55)

     * Please take note that masculine plurals can also be a reference to a group of both males and females. Therefore, restricting the interpretation of the term to just ‘females’ is unwarranted from the Quranic Arabic.

       The following points must be noted with regards to 'those that your right hands possess' from the Quran.

      (1)          Be good to them as you are with your parents, orphans, needy, neighbours and free them if you can

    (2)          Do no compel them to whoredom or force them

    (3)          You can only have sex with them through marriage / wedlock

     (1) BE GOOD TO THEM 


    And serve God and do not associate anything with Him and be good to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the neighbour of (your) kin and neighbour who is not of kin, and the companion in a journey and the wayfarer and those whom your right hands possess; surely God does not love him who is proud, boastful



    "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing, give them such a deed if you know any good in them and give them from the wealth of God which He has given you. But force not your slave girls (Arabic: fatayatikum) to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them)"

      Note: Those that cannot marry need to stay chaste, attempt to free those that their right hands possess and certainly not force them to sex or prostitution. However, if the poor unfortunate slave girls are forced, they will still find mercy from God, bounties which extend to all His creatures.



    “If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And God has full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

     It was better if one practiced self restraint. But if one couldn't marry free believing women, then the directive was given to marry from what their right hands possessed. Not for prostitution, not for lust, but for wedlock.

    • Notice here that although one can ‘marry’ a woman from one's right hands possess, her status is not that of a ‘Free believing woman’ (as can be seen from the half punishment she can potentially exact for the same sin). This is the reason why women that form part of those whom your right hands possess are referred to as a separate category. However, they do not form an exception to the marital rule in terms of who is lawful for sex. See 23:6 & 70:30. In other words, they still have to be married.

    • One logical question bears asking keeping in view any appetite for carnal desires. If one has wives along with many hand maidens with whom one could potentially have free sex, then what kind of sexual predator and maniac does one have to be to still commit adultery? The Quran imparts a consistent message with regards abstention from any unrighteous lust. What is the purpose of having sex with captives if it is not for lust?

    Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess"

      ·       From this verse, it is clear that one can marry women who are already married if they constitute those from what your right hands possess (taken captive). Again, focus is on marriage, not sex for lust and they have to believing captives (Not pagans). See 4.25 above.

      (Continued 004.024) "...Thus has God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers as prescribed (Arabic: faatuhunna ujurahunna faridatan); but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree mutually, there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise"

      This verse makes it clear that all married women are forbidden apart from a specific exception.


      Those women who are married but have come to be captured or possessed (Ma Malakat Amanakum) are lawful are in marriage. Note this exception. But the question still remains - lawful to one in what way?

      The rest of the verse clearly states that all women (including the exception - Right hands possess) have to be married (in wedlock). The legality being wedlock. Note the Arabic term: faatuhunna ujurahunna faridatan (give them their bridal due as obligation).

     It is clear therefore that the intention is of wedlock not of fornication, or lust.

      This seals the fate of sex with women from the category of 'right hands possess' outside marriage. These women are only lawful to one in marriage.


    "If you fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice"

      ·       Marry one if you cannot deal justly or from what your right hands possess, but still take those whom your right hands possess in marriage.


    "And marry those (Arabic: wa-ankihu) among you who are single and those who are righteous among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, God will make them free from want out of His grace; and God is Ample-giving, Knowing"

    "And those who guard their chastity"

    "Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess (in wedlock), for (then) they are not to be blamed"


     Women who are from the category of ‘right hands possess’ are not ‘free’ women in the same sense. They are either slaves or captures. When one takes them in marriage, all the rules of responsibility of wedlock on part of the male applies to the one he marries. However, this spouse still has reduced answerability such as her punishment in the case of ‘Fahisha’ (lewdness)

    There remains a crucial difference between a marriage based on complete freedom of choice exacted by a 'free believer' without circumstantial influence and one based on compromises, incentives such as freedom, status and financial stability gained through a compromise marriage.  These differences in choices based on free and non-free parties are clearly recognized. Hence the noted difference in answerability as well.


    “And whoso is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. God knows best (concerning) your faith. Ye (proceed) one from another; so wed them by permission of their folk, and give to them their portions in kindness, they being honest, not debauched nor of loose conduct. And if when they are honourably married they commit lewdness they shall incur the half of the punishment (prescribed) for free women (in that case). This is for him among you who fears to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you. God is Forgiving, Merciful” 


    Scripture has never permitted men to engage in sex outside the institution of marriage whether this is from the category of free believing women, or from the category of 'right hands possess'.

    [to read the short article, please visit]


    By Mubashir, Canada - 5/24/2014 5:06:39 PM

  • The last sentence in my last comment:

    " what is needed is a rewrite using modern means of editing and compilation, and modern linguistic usage".

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/24/2014 1:44:10 PM

  • Sultan Shahin sahib,

    Islam needs to be saved from the fundamentalists. Since Zakir Naik and the veiled woman base their abhorrent preaching on literalist readings of he Quran, we need to recognize that the Quran that is handed down to us is a compilation of not only divine messages, but customs and practices of  7th century Arabia that should be anathema today. We can keep on explicating and contextualizing the Quran till doomsday when what is needed is a rewrite using modern means of editing and compilation, and

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/24/2014 1:40:47 PM

  • Mr Sultan Shahin says:

    "Zakir Naik explains why Allah in his wisdom has made halal for muslims, sex with young male slaves and women captured in war".

    Young males? Where does he say that? Mr Shahin cannot resist lying. It has become second nature for him.

    While Sultan Shahin takes the trouble of pointing out that Zakir Naik is ahle-hadeeth, why does he not check up what the Barelvis have to say on the same topic. He could  look up Ala Hazrat's tafseer on the same verses and tell us what Imam Raza Ahmad Khan Barelvi has to say on the same topic.

    By Observer - 5/24/2014 2:30:57 AM

  • Rashid (2) - 5/23/2014 4:48:35 AM
    they may not be the Muftis of sultan saheb but they are Muftis of millions across the world. i have heard Hindus praising zakir naik, forget Muslims. people are mesmerized. He is successful more than any moderate in his goal.
    i personally don't watch any Islamic zakiri or tahiri channel. i sometime listen to debates on other channels. i abhors ridiculous scientific explanations of religious practices.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/23/2014 11:09:02 PM

  • Sultan Shahin saheb - 5/23/2014 3:50:02 AM
    when the Quran nd Sunna clearly make slabvery lawful and you don't see any condemnation from any sect, on what ground you condemn the Boko Haramis.
    every group of Muslim claim presenting true Islam quoting from the Qurannd and Sunna. This the problem with the Qur'an and Sunna not of any group. Groups as usual .will continue to promote what is best for their agendas. 
    well for your companion mr ghulam ghaus and your critic mr observer there is nothing wrong with Islam, 99.9% are peaceful mainstream Muslims, Islam can't be bracketed with terrorism, you must close reporting worst of Islamic world. shutdown your site go in slumber. So far even the root of the problem is under question when will be the solution. oh forget the solution when there is no problem.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/23/2014 11:00:11 PM

  • Moderator, Please check.

    @ " By Rashid - 5/23/2014 4:48:35 AM

    This Rashid is not me!

    Mr Rashid, please sign in differently, although I have no monopoly on the name!!

    By Rashid - 5/23/2014 7:46:05 PM

  • Are Zakir Nayak and his like minded persons are the Muftis of mr sultan shahin? if not then why he mentions them so and so. they should be called kufti. true Muftis are very few.

    By Rashid (2) - 5/23/2014 4:48:35 AM

  • Dear Ghulam Mohiyuddin Saheb, you seem to have very high hopes from muiftis and alims and heads of different Islamic sects. You say:"We need simple, direct and authoritative exhortations such as, "Sex with female prisoners is forbidden. Taking women as prisoners for purposes of fornication or sale is a crime". Such rulings should come from the highest mufti or imam for each sect, or from an ecumenical council if we had one."

    I give you two examples among hundreds available of present-day Muslim preachers. One is a doctor, MBBS, the most popular televangelist among Muslims around the world. The tv channel of this ahl-e-hadeesi preacher is bankrolled by Saudi Arabia. The other is a veiled woman politician, journalist from Kuwait, again very popular at least among Arab Muslims.  And, of course, all these preachers quote the holy Quran and no grand mufti of any sect is condemning or even opposing their interpretations. Do you really think these muftis and imams will give clear-cut fatwas like "Sex with female prisoners is forbidden. Taking women as prisoners for purposes of fornication or sale is a crime" in the prevailing atmosphere that you can judge from here. 


    SEX with women captured in war - Halal (Islam) Dr. Zakir Naik

    Published on Apr 10, 2014


    About this video, the post says: "Zakir Naik explains why Allah in his wisdom has made halal for muslims, sex with young male slaves and women captured in war. (Shariah Law) Naik says that this seemingly "outdated" practise is still far superiour to the way inmates are treated at the Guantanamo Bay. Note that sex with women distributed from the spoils of war did NOT count as one of the four wives permissible under Islamic shariah law." 

    "Quran (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee"


    "Quran (23:5-6) - "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..."


    "Quran (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."


    "All Zakir Naik is saying is that Women captured during wartime regardless of whether they are soldiers or civilians can be RAPED at your own discretion as permitted by Muslim Shariah Law. Being Raped is far superior to the harsh treatment received at Guantanamo.

     "Naik is basically repeating from the holy Quran that it is OK for Muslims to have Sex with what your right hand possesses ."

    --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAZg2lHktXU


    Men should be allowed sex slaves and female prisoners could do the job - and all this from a WOMAN politician from Kuwait


    UPDATED: 15:38 GMT, 7 June 2011

    A Kuwaiti woman who once ran for parliament has called for sex slavery to be legalised - and suggested that non-Muslim prisoners from war-torn countries would make suitable concubines.

    Salwa al Mutairi argued buying a sex-slave would protect decent, devout and 'virile' Kuwaiti men from adultery because buying an imported sex partner would be tantamount to marriage.

    And she even had an idea of where to 'purchase' these sex-salves - browsing through female prisoners of war in other countries.

    The political activist and TV host even suggested that it would be a better life for women in warring countries as they might die of starvation.

    Mutairi claimed: 'There was no shame in it and it is not haram' (forbidden) under Islamic Sharia law.'

    For More: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2000292/Men-allowed-sex-slaves-female-prisoners-job--WOMAN-politician-Kuwait.html

    By Sultan Shahin - 5/23/2014 3:50:02 AM

  • If Boko Harams do not read and understand the Quran, we have to devise simple and uncomplicated messages for them that can be taught by their local imams. A few days ago I saw some pictures of an overcrowded madrasa being taught by an imam in a small town in Nigeria close to where Boko Harams are hiding. Perhaps some of them attended the same madrasa when they were kids. I wondered what kind of learning that imam imparted to his pupils. What kind of education should these imams receive so that they can rise above literalistic and perverse readings of the Quran?

    I do not wish to underestimate factors like poverty and unemployment besides ignorance that afflict these people and also the brutality with which the government of Nigeria has been dealing with them for the past few years.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 5/23/2014 1:11:44 AM

  • What is needed are more Muslims who read understand and follow the Quran. Tarek Fatah who asks Muslims to be honest about Quran misquotes the Quran all the time. Looking at Muslims such as Tarek Fatah, one can understand why the Boko Haramis are against western education. If Muslims with a good education had become leaders of Muslims, there would perhaps not  been movements such as Boko Haram. However, that can happen only if Muslims with an education also show an understanding of the Quran and their religion and not if they take blind pot shots at the Quran based on their defective understanding. Such Muslims only become  examples on which movements such as Boko Haram thrive.

    By Observer - 5/22/2014 11:24:21 PM

Compose Your Comments here:
Email (Not to be published)
Fill the 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.