Books and Documents

Debating Islam (13 Sep 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)

A Plea for Reaching A Common Understanding Of Islam To Counter The Ideology Of The Extremists

By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam

13 September 2017

I am throwing open my debate with Yunus Sb by summarising the discussion. It would be great if all the scholars supporting NAI can reach a consensus on the common understanding of Islam which is detailed at the end of the article which will go a long way in defeating the false ideology of the extremists. Please therefore debate with me with the intention of clarifying all your reservations before accepting what I have proposed. It would be a major milestone for NAI in its search for the true humanistic values of Islam and for reviving the rationalist approach to understanding the meaning of the Quran if we can reach a consensus on it with or without modifications.

Yunus Sb,

While your definition of kufr is correct, it is of little help in the correct understanding of the Quran and even misleading judging by the fact that you have judged all the Mushrikin of the Prophet’s times and his immediate audience as kafir and only revised this view after intense debate with me over the last two years.

Also, while you merely say that “for want of any appropriate English counterpart, Kafir have been rendered as disbelievers or deniers as appropriate”, what I say is that Kafir does not mean disbeliever even in a single verse of the Quran, and when the Quran intends to say “disbeliver” it uses “la yuminin”. The difference between the two positions is the same as the difference between cheese and chalk. All the translators of the Quran make the mistake of translating kafir as disbeliever rendering grotesque the meaning of the Book and highly misleading.


My definition of Kafir/kufr is based on the precise meaning the Quran gives to these words and therefore does not lead to any misinterpretations. My definition has led to the following insights:


Kufr in the temporal dimension.

These are crimes against humanity such as religious persecution, oppression and injustice in any form. It also includes violation of recognized rights of other people which is also a form of oppression. There are consequences for it and the ruler must fight against oppression until it ends and must establish justice and freedom of conscience for all. The faith professed by the perpetrator of wrong and the wronged are immaterial. Islam stands for secular justice in the temporal dimension. Who is a kafir and who is a momin is situational for kufr in the temporal dimension. The one who fights for the cause of right and justice is a momin and the oppressor is kafir.


Kufr in the spiritual dimension

Kufr by the believers: Ingratitude to Allah, disobedience of His commands, failing to uphold the truth. Any kufr by a believer in the temporal dimension is also kufr for him in the spiritual dimension. The ruler can punish for only kufr in the temporal dimension but not for kufr in the spiritual dimension. Apostasy and blasphemy being kufr in the spiritual dimension are therefore not punishable as per the shariat of the Quran.

Kufr by the disbelievers in the spiritual dimension.

When does rejection of the `Truth’ brought by the Messenger become kufr? Not until the truth of belief/disbelief becomes manifest to them in their innermost being and their own self becomes a witness against their rejection of belief. Only Allah knows who these people are and not even the Prophets knew until informed by Allah.


The law of Allah is however, that the kafaru among the disbelievers will not believe. Who is kafaru in the spiritual dimension can be known only after the fact – whether they eventually accepted belief or died rejecting belief. Since most of the Mushrikin of the Hejaz accepted belief and very few died rejecting belief while fighting the Muslims or otherwise, we can confidently assert that Allah did not consider the majority of the Mushrikin as kafir in either Surah Al-Kafirun which is addressed only to the kafir among the people or in Surah Taubah. This is apart from the fact that the text of the Quran simply does not consider all the Mushrikin of the Prophet’s immediate audience as kafir in any verse of the Quran and verses such as 98:1,6 etc., clearly speak of the kafaru among the Musrikin clearly implying that not all are considered kafir.


There can be  no punishment by a ruler to any person whether believer/disbeliver for kufr in the spiritual dimension and therefore no war can be waged against the disbelief of the disbelievers.



References to my articles:

What Is Kufr And Who Is A Kafir In The Quran? (Full and Revised Text of the New Age Islam Series on the Subject)

Who is a Muslim in the Quran?

Is Islam Secular?

The Much discussed and debated Medinian Verses Relating to Fighting

The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (Pbuh) In the Qu’ran (Part 4): The Medinian Period

The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Qu’ran (Concluding Part) Summary


According to the prevailing theology of all schools of thought including Deoband, Barelvi, Salafi etc, Kafir means non-Muslim, and according to them, the Prophet was fighting against disbelief to end disbelief as reflected in the translations and tafseer of the Quran by their leading lights. This view is what sustains the current extremism


Can we reach a common understanding on the following?


My insights lead to taking up the following very bold and categorical position which demolish the ideology of the traditionalists and the extremists:


1.    Kafir does not mean disbeliever even in one verse of the Quran. The closest English word that describes ‘Kafir’ is ‘Sinner’ and ‘Kufr’ is ‘Sin’. Kufr is possible by person of any faith. The word Kafir has been used in the Quran to mean a die-hard Sinner not amenable to change his ways or repent. The disbelievers who are kafir will therefore not believe. Not all the disbelievers are kafir and they will believe once they realize the true nature of belief/disbelief. Who among the disbelievers is a kafir from the perspective of his beliefs can be known only after the fact – whether he became a believer or died rejecting belief. Rejection from certain knowledge is the criteria and not mere non-acceptance from lack of knowledge or conviction. There is not even one verse in the Quran that considered all the Mushrikin of Mecca as kafir and the verses only refer to the kafaru among the Mushrikin clearly implying that not all are kafir.


2.    The Quran also speaks of the kafaru among the believers and among the People of the Book. Not all the believers who commit kufr are kafir if they repent their transgressions. Those who do not repent on committing what they know to be a sin, may get inured to even the feelings of guilt, and become die-hard sinners or kafir. The kafir among the believers who are such unrepentant sinners, will be in hell-fire prepared for the kafirin.


3.    The most odious form of kufr is injustice and oppression. So much so, that those who will not desist from oppression are Kafir, who must be resisted or fought against until they agree to mend their ways and give up on their oppressive ways. Oppression is the only form of Kufr, against which the permission to fight is given in the Quran. The faith professed by the oppressor/oppressed are not a consideration


4.    Specifically, there is no permission to fight against the kufr of deliberate disbelief. Only peaceful preaching with gracious speech is permissible.


5.    The Quran affirms that the freedom of conscience in Islam is absolute and without any restraints. “Let there be no compulsion in religion” and “To the peaceful disbeliever be his way and to me mine” are fundamental principles. These principles were never compromised by the Prophet in his battles against the religious persecutors. The Prophet was fighting not the disbelievers and disbelief, but the Religious persecutors and oppression to establish the Deen of Allah, in which there can be no oppression or injustice and people are free to practice any religion.


I urge all scholars supporting NAI to endorse the above with or without modification after discussions, so that NAI can boldly and officially project it as its firm belief of what Islam is, and effectively work for reforming the ideology of the Muslims reaching out to all sections of them.


Naseer Ahmed is an Engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur and is an independent IT consultant after having served in both the Public and Private sector in responsible positions for over three decades. He is a frequent contributor to http://www.NewAgeIslam.com


URL: http://newageislam.com/debating-islam/naseer-ahmed/a-plea-for-reaching-a-common-understanding-of-islam-to-counter-the-ideology-of-the-extremists/d/112511

New Age IslamIslam OnlineIslamic WebsiteAfrican Muslim NewsArab World NewsSouth Asia NewsIndian Muslim NewsWorld Muslim NewsWomen in IslamIslamic FeminismArab WomenWomen In ArabIslamophobia in AmericaMuslim Women in WestIslam Women and Feminism


  • Is killing is form of punishment by the creator Allah ( so defined by Muslims in Islam and so on other relgion) for not worshiping him after he creates Humans.

    I think Allah was declaring himslef through Mohmmad paigamber thorough out his life, is in't wright.

    I am very well aware one of article writers here on this website said that while mission was going to fail so Sura Touba came, I can name his name but I did not want to show him how how his so called God became impatient at the end.

    That is the reason I gave analogy of rape, that no good father can do this, so how can God can give Sura Tuba to kill humans and established himself/herself/????? as God.

    Now of you scholars have answers leave it.

    I just wanted the readers to think rationally.

    The people who make you belive absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    By Aayina - 10/21/2017 6:03:23 PM

  • Is rape a form of punishment? Which religion teaches that?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/20/2017 11:55:29 PM

  • GM Sb may read the article: .

    to understand why Javed Ghamidi's advocacy can have no impact.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/20/2017 11:05:58 PM

  • To
    Mouhmmad Yunus & All other Muslim Scholars

    I am not intrested in Debat raised by Mr Nasser Ahmed, yes I will be intrested as it is related to us as non-muslim( A Muslim decoratory word used to condem other faiths)

    But I have other Question arises looking your debate, you people glorify so much God, so here is the Question.

    Question1( This will give link for question 2)What if my father rapes me after my creation from him, how should I treat him. I am sure even though I am became last category of notorious he will not do that if he is good dad and punish me like that.

    Question2: Do you think God is killings humans by the help of other humans through his message, Account of Moses is full of that, it is so magical that this single God is intrested in killing of humans from centuries and seems not to stop through his disciples.

    God enjoys the creations and than punishes later after that giving his books.

    Remember the analogy of rape of daughter by his father, it is easy to understand recent couple of 1000 years God who has given the message through his messangers. 

    By Aayina - 10/20/2017 2:41:09 PM

  • Naseer sab fails to mention that Javed Ghamidi's advocacy of inclusiveness is not based on any claim on his part of making an original discovery of the true meaning of the word 'kafir' nor does he say that the factors he mentions are the only causes of extremism. Most of present day extremism is in fact political and geopolitical. Even Talibanism, which Ghamidi knows best, was set in motion  first by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and then by brutal American bombings.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/20/2017 1:17:12 PM

  • Is Javed Ghamidi also delusional? Or Is Ghulam Mohiyuudin sb a determined obstructer of the truth?  

    According to Javed Ghamidi, the following are the reasons for extremism

    The belief that it is the rightful duty of all Muslims to mete out the punishment of death to all the Kafir – polytheists, disbelievers and the apostates.

    The belief that no one except the Muslims have a right to rule the world and the Muslims are therefore religiously bound to wage war to bring all non-Muslim countries under their rule. There should be only one government in the entire world and that should be the Islamic caliphate. The modern states are an embodiment of Kufr (disbelief), and therefore can have no place in Islam.

     His reasons are also based on the meaning of Kafir and the reasons for fighting which is based on the belief that the kafir/disbelievers  must be fought against to subjugate them or make them accept Islam. He gives the same reasons for extremism but differently worded.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/20/2017 2:56:23 AM

  • Muslims are not as pre-occupied with kufr as Naseer sb. thinks. Muslims hate Shias, Sunnis and Ahmadis a lot more than they hate kafirs. More and more Muslims accept the fact that the Quran was referring only to the complicitous deniers and that too only of the Prophets time and not to all disbelievers.

    No wars have been started in living memory to end disbelief. Wars are fought to gain or regain territory, especially if that territory has oil. Even the so-called Islamic State is fighting to re-establish caliphate over Muslim lands and to drive Western powers from those lands.

    Extremism does not arise as a result of antipathy to kufr. The causes of extremism are political and geopolitical.

    Naseer sb. suggests that since I do not accept his cockamamie theories, I shall go to hell. Only God or a Prophet of God can make such pronouncements. True scholars are modest, not coercive and not supremely confident of themselves.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/18/2017 1:38:06 PM

  • GM Sb says: “His claim that he is dealing a deadly blow to the extremist ideology is not only grossly exaggerated but is delusional

    The definition of kafir in the theology of every sect is based on belief alone and Kafir has come to mean a disbeliever. This is supported by the false belief of all the scholars that all the disbelievers of the Prophet’s times were Kafir. Recognizing that the Quran never considered all the disbelievers as Kafir leads to rejection of the definition of kafir based on belief alone. The second part is recognizing that the only justifiable reason for war can be to end oppression and not to end disbelief. In the tafseers of Ibn Kathir and others and the opinions of the leading lights of every sect however, the justification for war is erroneously made out to be to end disbelief. These two falsehoods on the meaning of kafir and the justifiable reason for war are what provide ideological support to extremism. If the Prophet was fighting battles against the kafir/disbelievers to end kufr/disbelief, then it is the duty of the Muslims to keep on waging war against the disbelievers until there is no more disbelief is the ideology that feeds the extremists. Can GM sb or anyone else cite any other belief that provides ideological support to extremism? 

      GM Sb can continue to throw mud over the truth that I have brought out and try to bury it. That by the way is the literal meaning of Kafir. If it is God’s will that he should go into his grave vehemently and relentlessly rejecting and opposing the truth, then no one can help him. He appears to belong to the category of “those who will not accept the truth” and therefore, this is my last comment to him.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/18/2017 1:34:06 AM

  • As is typical of him, Naseer sb again resorts to abuse and insults.

    The fact remains that he has been trying to make a huge point out of what amounts to nothing. Wahiduddin Khan, Javed Ghamidi and Yusuf sahib have all explicitly and/or implicitly stated that kafir does not just mean disbeliever, but has the specific meaning of someone who has been told the truth and yet denies the truth and the word applies only to those who had turned againt the Prophet and so applies only to his contemporaries.

    But Naseer sb wants to continue his useless rant. His claim that he is dealing a deadly blow to the extremist ideology is not only grossly exaggerated but is delusional. His main purpose is becoming obvious. He wants to be recognized as the first one to discover some truth or other in the Quran that he claims  everyone else had missed. Using the Quran for such egotistical purposes may be a sin in itself.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/17/2017 12:47:20 PM

  • What Wahiduddin Khan, Javed Ghamidi and Muhammad Yunus have been saying is what Yunus sb said in his article “Hindus are Not the Mushrikin Mentioned in the Quran”. If I have been saying the same thing as what these people have been saying, then why is Yunus sb debating the same with me for the last two years and conceded only recently? Is GM Sb severely challenged mentally not to understand this? Or is he simply a lying hypocrite trying to spread confusion? Or is he Mullah Ghulam Mohiyuddin supporting the traditionalist Ulema? Or is he just envious about my being the first to say that ‘Kafir does not mean disbeliever in the Quran because the Quran never considered all the Mushrikin of Hejaz of the Prophet’s times as kafir’? If yes, then he has reason to be envious about all my articles and he is.

     What could be more important than dealing a deadly blow to the extremist ideology? What could be more important than clearly establishing the peaceful foundational concepts of Islam and refuting the false ones? Which article that argues that Islam is a religion of peace or refutes the ideology of the extremists can still stand if 1. Kafir means disbeliever in the Quran and 2. The Prophet was fighting the disbelievers to end disbelief are not rejected/refuted first?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/17/2017 12:55:50 AM

  • Naseersaab's rant that other scholars consider all the mushrikins of the Prophet's time to be kafir is just a ruse to create false divisions in order to show himself to be the first truth-speaker on the subject! What I said about the positions of Wahiduddin Khan and Javed Ghamidi is all that needs to be said on the subject and further elaborations and constant dwelling on the subject serves no purpose except giving Naseersab an opportunity to gain further undeserved publicity. Rushing to the defense of the mushrikins of the Prophet's time is just theatrics when we have far more important issues to deal with.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/16/2017 10:54:21 AM

  • Shahin Sb,

    GM Sb only confirms what I have said several times before. That for a few scholars such as Javed Ghamidi, Wahiduddin Khan and Muhammad Yunus, non-Muslims today are not necessarily Kafir but all the Mushrikin of the Prophet’s times in Hejaz were kafir. Why is he then repeating what I said? What is he trying to achieve by quoting Wahiduddin Khan who says the same thing? He could have as well quoted Yubus Sb’s article on why the Hindus of today are not kafir. Is that what is being debated? Is he not deliberately trying to create confusion?

     If all the Mushrikin in the Prophet’s times were kafir according to these scholars, then by what reason are they not kafir today? They argue that because it was the Prophet himself who invited the Mushrikin of his times to accept Islam, their rejection made them kafir, but in today’s world, there is no prophet inviting the Mushrikin to accept Islam and therefore they are not kafir. This argument is a bit of a stretch and an innovative interpretation which is why there are only a handful who argue thus, and the rest consider all the Mushrikin, and some even the People of the Book as kafir.

     What I have been arguing is entirely different. If the Mushrikin to whom the Prophet preached directly were not considered Kafir in the Quran, there is no way the disbelievers today can be considered Kafir and my arguments are  based entirely on a textual analysis of the Quranic verses which can be easily refuted or accepted. And yet, the scholars on this website shy away, run away or otherwise go back and forth.

     It is truly amazing, that Yunus Sb can be flexible in considering the Mushrikin of today as not Kafir, although his argument is a bit of a stretch, and simply an innovative interpretation, and GM Sb, who cares very little for the meaning of the Quran, and is for a complete “re interpretation” should both keep arguing endlessly to prevent accepting that “Kafir does not mean disbeliever in the Quran” after having accepted “I agree with you that the Qur'an does not treat all muhsrikin as kafirin” By muhammd yunus - 8/8/2017 9:01:11 PM, and “You are right in calling kuffaru a faith-neutral term. I stand corrected.”By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/18/2016 3:14:40 PM!

     What is the motivation of these so-called progressives in stalling progress? Their reasons are purely personal.

     Shahin Sb, take any article that builds an edifice of “Islam is a religion of peace” and simply ask the author of those articles the two key questions:

    1.    Do you agree that Kafir does not mean disbeliever in the Quran?

    2.    Do you agree that the Prophet was fighting battles against the religious persecutors to end religious persecution and not against the disbelievers to end disbelief?

    And if he cannot agree to the above two questions, his edifice can simply be toppled. The above two are foundational questions and if the response is in the negative to either of them, then the edifice that he has built is simply without a foundation and can be toppled easily, although the superstructure may be perfect in all respects. People may have used fine arguments in refuting Jihadist fatwas, but if the kafir are the disbelievers and if the Prophet was fighting battles against the disbelievers to end disbelief, then no matter what they say, the Jihadist ideology prevails over anything they may say.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/16/2017 12:36:16 AM

  • It is very difficult to get anything through to Naseer sb. He again says, "Kafir does not mean disbeliever in the Quran".  That may be true for him and a few others, but for most of the ulema over the past 1400 years it is not true.

    Wahiduddin Khan says, "The word Kafir has never been used in the Quran to mean either a non-Muslim or an infidel. In fact, this term was applied solely to contemporaries of the Prophet. Kafir were those people who had completely understood the true message of Islam and only refused to believe in it out of their own stubbornness. The Prophet peacefully conveyed to them the divine message over a long period of time, but they refused to follow the truth of his words. God, therefore, declared those people, the contemporaries of the Prophet as Kafirs that is, the deniers. The use of the word Kafir for anyone other than the contemporaries of the Prophet is not permissible."

    Jave Ghamidi says that kafir is one who in spite of being told the truth and in spite of knowing the truth denies it. He adds that no one but God can say who is a kafir.

    Neither of them says non-believers or infidels are kafirs.

    But for Naseer sb. anyone who does not accept his definition is a "troll". Naseer sb. should be ashamed to fall to such a low level of discourse. Is he the right person to advise NAI on how to find  true Isalmic leadership when he himself abuses and disdains those who do not agree with him, is not able to see any point of view other than his own, is hungry to be recognized as an original discoverer of insights hitherto unknown to others and proposes such dubious hypotheses such as there is no soul in Islam, that man is not capable of developing moral precepts and nobody before him understood that the Quranic use of the word kafir meant something other than disbeliever?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/14/2017 2:52:41 PM

  • Shahin Sb,

     GM Sb is back to what Kafir means in the dictionary and what it has meant to generations of ulema. Have I not myself said that all the translators, without exception, translate Kafir as disbeliever? Is that the point of discussion at all? Would I have written my article on what kafir means otherwise? Would Yunus Sb have debated for two years before accepting that not all the Mushrikin of the Prophet’s times are considered Kafir in the Quran?  Maulana Wahiduddin Khan is categorical in considering all the Mushrikin of Mecca as Kafir and so also is Javed Ghamidi. Let GM sb quote anyone who has said otherwise if he isn’t lying.

     He says "(1) Any categorical statement ascribing one and only one meaning to the word 'kafir' is false." That is again beside the point. What is being categorically stated is that "Kafir does not mean disbeliever in the Quran". That is not ascribing a meaning but saying what it does not mean.

     Shahin Sb, if you recall, this is what Yunus sb said two years back and ran away from the debate on verse 98:6.

     In the Qur’anic epistemology, all the polytheists among its direct audience stood as kafirin in God’s sight.

    Naseer Sahab, to be frank with you, I really fail to understand how can you split the polytheists of the Prophets era into two categories (kafir and not kafir) by pure scholasticism.

    By muhammad yunus - 5/11/2015 8:20:30 AM

    View Article

    The current discussion began with Yunus Sb’s reversal of his previous position on the subject.

     In a comment under the article: The Meaning of the Quran Resonates With the Aims of Progressive Islam

    Yunus Sb accepted that from verses 9:4, it is clear that even among the very last verses of the Quran, it did not consider all the Mushrikin as Kafir. This what he said:

     “I agree with you that the Qur'an does not treat all muhsrikin as kafirin.

    By muhammd yunus - 8/8/2017 9:01:11 PM

     To my surprise however, he did a flip in his comment under the article :

    Islam and Mysticism: Is ‘Nafs’ Soul? (Part - 1)

    in which he went back to his earlier position and said the following!

     I believe Surah al-kafirun is addressed to the 'mushrikin' among the Prophet's immediate audience who were witnesses to the Qur'anic revelation and were adamantly dismissing it and were just committing kufr. But the same 'kafirun' eventually entered Islam.

    By muhammd yunus - 9/1/2017 7:55:58 PM

     Very clearly, he is considering all the Mushrikin as kafirin when he says that the same kafirun eventually entered Islam.

    He endorsed the above with the following comment:

    As I understand and also put in my exeg work, there is no category of people called 'kafirin.' I believe the Qur'an regarded the mushrikin in its immediate audience as kafir because they witnessed the truth of Qur'anic revelation unfolding before their eyes but dismissed it. Thus the kfirin in the opening verse of Sura 109 were the inveterate denier of the Qur'anic revelation among the mushrikin.

    By muhammd yunus - 9/4/2017 7:31:29 AM

     When I accused him of being a hypocrite for the surprising reversal, he once again corrected himself by lamely conceding:

    Naseer Sb,

    Since you called me “a lying hypocrite” in your last mail, let me defend my position by posting my comment in blue ink over your following comment dated 9/9/2017 1:21:51 PM:

    In a recent comment in a different thread you agreed with me and said "I agree with you that the Qur'an does not treat all muhsrikin as kafirin. (9:4)."

    But this is precisely what I said in my last comment to you, copied below:

    “I believe Surah al-kafirun is addressed to the 'mushrikin' among the Prophet's immediate audience who were witnesses to the Qur'anic revelation and were adamantly dismissing it and were just committing kufr.” This obviously implies that those mushrikin who were not “adamantly dismissing it” may not have been regarded as kafir.

    By muhammd yunus - 9/9/2017 8:27:20 PM

    From a categorical acceptance “I agree with you that the Qur'an does not treat all muhsrikin as kafirin.” It has grudgingly changed to “may not have been regarded as kafir”

    Shahin sb, the importance of this topic is obvious. As long as people hold onto:

    1.    Kafir means disbeliever and 2. The Prophet was fighting battles against the disbelievers to end kufr (disbelief)

    there can be no concept of Islam being a religion of peace and the above two points will continue to provide ideological support to the extremists. You can see how Ghulam Ghaus has gone silent on his article The Sixteen Quranic Verses That Counter Violent-Extremism and Terrorism

    not being able to refute/reject the above two and accept that:

    1.    Kafir does not mean disbeliever in the Quran 2. The Prophet was fighting the religious persecutors to end persecution and not the disbelievers to end disbelief.

    This article was written to take the debate out into the open rather than allow it to remain buried among the comments. Yunus Sb expectedely ran away. GM Sb helped him by saying

    When Naseersaab says with such confidence, "Kafir does not mean disbeliever even in one verse of the Quran," he is going against all the previous translators and ulema of the past 1400 years. Or, as the Americans would say, "He is going out on a limb"! You are wise to dissociate yourself from his project.

     By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/14/2017 12:37:02 PM

    And then he went on with his circus of flip flops. His objective was clearly to scuttle any meaningful discussion, debate and consensus building. He has become a troll on this website.

    Shahin sb, if you wish to guide NAI into providing thought leadership on finding the true Islamic ideology of the religion of peace it is, you will have to find a way to deal with the trolls and the insincere scholars. Yunus Sb will not budge from the gross errors in his book and will scuttle any attempt that goes against anything that he has said in his book or in anything in which he cannot become a part because of what he has said in his exegetic work. Since he has not said “Kafir does not mean disbeliever” in his exegetic work, he will never openly support this view.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/14/2017 12:36:49 AM

  • Naseersaab again  shows  poor comprehension of what others are saying. If he makes a categorical statement, "Kafir does not mean disbeliever”, he is going out on a limb. The reality is that Kafir does mean disbeliever to generations of ulema and in most dictionaries, but it also means a treacherous person  or a willful denier according to some modern Islamic writers (Abdullah Andalusi, Maulana Wahiduddid Khan, Asghar Ali Engineer).

    Is that too complex for Naseer sab to handle? If so, let me make it simple for him. (1) Any categorical statement ascribing one and only one meaning to the word 'kafir' is false. (2) Naseersab's claim that he is the first one to say that 'kafir' does not mean unbeliever is false.

    Having said that, let me repeat that this whole discussion is futile and anachronistic. The word kafir has no contemporary relevance and we must not use it. Naseersab is exerting his efforts on a topic which deserves our deliberate inattention.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/13/2017 10:41:03 AM

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.