Pakistan, Tribalism, Islam & Secularism

[rubPzai]

Salaam friends and hope you are ok and ready for what I am going to post under this thread. Please do help to spread the message of proper islam. I shall post shorter posts so that it is easy for readers of the posts. Hope you will be helpful and considerate.

Dear friends, we look at people like alama iqbal and jinnah sahib and feel proud. Let us see what kind of pakistan was in their mind. Please read, understand, discuss and share widely so that problems in pakistan could be solved.

No doubt iqbal was a great thinker but it would be interesting to see what was behind all this thinking. The circumstances and environment at the time shapes a person into what one may ultimately become.

Iqbal like any other thinking people kept on changing his views as he learned more and more ie life is for learning attitude. One needs to look at oneself, how one changes one's views as one grows up from the day one is born.

A person is born ignorant of all things and over life time one only knows what one experiences in one's life. None is born all knowing this is why we learn from each other and knowledge is our heritage that we must not lose or play hide and seek with. People who learn from the past generations and build on that are really entitled to be called human beings, all others are like animals ie no sense nor interested in having sense. Being born ignorant is no one's fault but staying ignorant despite having an opportunity for learning is nothing less than being utterly stupid and useless.

From people like alaama iqbal, m ali johr, abul kalam azad, m ali jinnah etc we should learn how despite our differences we can work together for the greater good of humanity.

Today pakistan is in big trouble thanks to leadership of such people who lacked vision for the nation after its founder.

If we want to solve problems in pakistan, we need to become thinking, active and realist people ie lively. Brain dead, lazy and superstitious people are useless whoever they may be and wherever they may be.

If we want to build pakistan into a great country, we must unite. The only way we can unite is by helping each other in thoughts and actions. Beside helping each other for basic survival our objective should be education for all.

How to achieve unity in main thoughts and actions?

By analysing differences and looking for mechanisms that help unite. In case of leadership, religious or political we need to know who we follow and why or how far.

Let me try and explain reasoning first. A human only has a brain and five senses and the rest is all information one gets to the brain which is a logical processing unit that makes decisions based on reasons.

So no matter whatever the information, it is impossible for the human brain not to process it the same way it does under its normal functionality. It is therefore bound to make decision on the decisions or information that it receives from some one else on the same matter. You are doing that right now ie you are judging whether what I am saying is right or wrong from your stand point. In short you are going to have an opinion on this writing that you are reading and you are going to use your own reason to say it is good or bad. My reasons are not therefore upon which you make your decisions rather you reason things for yourself for your own decisions, accepting or rejecting things as you see fit. Therefore though we call it blind following but in actual fact it is not.

Likewise when we read the quran and all that which others tell us about it we ourselves become the judge to see whether it makes sense or not. If we think that it is ok we accept it otherwise we reject it. So ultimately you will agree that it is our own very reasoning that we follow not what others say no matter how qualified persons they may be in any discipline or field. We only use information by other to see whether they make sense or not. So when we try to see they make sense or not we are actually using our own brains and reasoning.

So personal reasoning cannot be disputed nor can be over ridden no matter what. So ultimately we believe and do what we ourselves think is right not what others tell us is right. So as far as the brain is concerned no matter what all is mere information waiting for our decisions.

So whether we make our own decision from start to finish about something or gather information about decisions made by others, it is all just information on which we base our own decision by our own reasoning. So if we ultimately rest only and only on our own reasoning to base our decision on then how can anyone say thatpersonal decision making is wrong? It is only wrong if it could be proven wrong by evidence not because it is reasoned by oneself.

So if we take a point of discussion on the quran and interpret the quran ourselves then why will it be wrong just because we are reasoning it ourselves? The only reason is other better reasons against our reasoning of which we may not be aware at the time of decision making. But then no human being is all perfect, we all fall well short of knowing a lot of things in life and therefore can make mistakes.

So one can see, it is not wrong to offer personal opinions but to hold on to wrong opinion if you become aware of better reason. So long as there is no better reason than what you think is right then holding on to that is fine even if you happen to be wrong in actual fact.

As children people are told things like tooth fairy etc and children keep believing that till they find out that it was all a joke and not really true. So it is ok to believe and do what suits one till one has opportunity to knows better. So knowing better is important, not, not knowing or holding onto wrong things despite knowing otherwise.

So it is clear that people who think it is wrong to try and make sense of the quran all by themselves are wrong on two basis a)because the human brain makes its own decisions based on its own reasons and b)because such a rule defeats the first principle of interpretation of the quran by the quran. If you use other things to interpret the quran than your own brain then you have mixed the quranic information with the other information so what is the point of having the quran? Mixing the clear information with something that may not be clear is wrong in my view because it will not let you see what the quran means by itself.

So education is of vital importance but we do not necessarily need to have paid teachers and fee paying students but each of us can be a teacher for whoever is near to us who is willing to learn. The problem is definition of education ie what are we going to learn and teach each other? This definition is so important that it has never been realised ever before by ourleadership religious or political.

The country whose education is divisive is never going to produce generations that will ever unite. Education is not about being able to read and write or get a job but to build minds of people, their personalities and characters that serve the country and all its people and beyond.

Our education system and what is taught as education has been failing us very badly because it is not what it should be and it is not done the way it should be.

We must have same schools for all, same colleges for all and same universities for all ie not a school for the muslims and a school for the hindus etc. Not a school for the secularists and a school for the religious etc etc.

In them we must teach all the subjects necessary for living in the world today as a nation state, taking aboard concerns of all sections of our community. We must not divide or exclude our people on basis of their religions or sects. We must not divide our people on basis of their languages or geographical locations. We must not divide our people on basis of tribalism and feudalism. It will also be a serious mistake to divide our people on basis of race and gender etc etc.

The idea is to create a society that is at ease within itself. This cannot happen unless people are educated enough to see the very fact that each of us must be willing to compromise and cooperate to such a degree that our unity is not only possible but guaranteed for common good and our progress as a people or a nation state.

So long as we do not learn to accommodate each other we are never going to be anything worth the name.

Education is all about knowing each other so that we are no longer suspicious of each other. Ignorance of each other breeds suspicions and mistrust and distrust of each other which ends us in animosity towards each other. To eliminate misinformation and disinformation or conspiracies between us we must get to know each other better so that we could trust each other and be able to work with each other for our common good.

If our future generations are educated this way they will know each other better and will be able to see problems between themselves and also be able to solve them as well without pointing guns at each other.

Today there is infighting between us because we have been brought up that way through brain washing divisive education system and subjects that turned our generations against each other.

In our country, tribal people have been instilling their tribal values in their future generations, religious minded have been instilling that in their generations and likewise secular minded people have been instilling that in their children's minds and so did the feudals etc etc. One can clearly see why we are fighting today. If all of us have been learning each and everyone of these things together and discussing things thoroughly to see what was good or bad with each of these things then things would never have come to this today. Instead we would have been better aware of things and united having some good common purpose to aim for.

Pakistan is a nuclear power but what is the point if we are only going to fight with each other? The more weapons we invent or have are only going to hasten our own destruction instead of playing the necessary role for defence against outsiders. We do not need weapons to kill each other or anyone else but to have them as deterrent to keep peace through balance of power. The role of army is not to go and attack other countries but to police our borders just as we need police inside our country to keep public safe from crime.

People who are building army to wage offensive jihad for conquest of infidels have no sense what religion is about or what jihad is about. Had they any sense they would not commit acts of terrorism in the name of islam. This has ruined our reputation around the world because every time such things happen in the world, fingers are pointed at us as pakistanis and muslim at that.

The people whose religious and political leadership has failed us should be kicked out of the power seats of religion and politics because they have not been able to provide the kind of leadership that is necessary for pakistan to become a great nation.

Pakistan needs leaders with vision who can lead people from the front as well as drive them forward from behind. Why? Because only educated people can be led from the front, but, uneducated can only be driven from behind in the same direction. It is necessary till we have all our voting population sufficiently educated. So far all so called leaders have been moving the public at large in circular motion so we have been ending up back to square one.

If we want to do better, we must know where we are and where we want to go as well as how we are going to get their. The question is, have we got what it will take to do so? If we have it we will get there but if we do not then first we must get that before anything else. This is what education should be all about.


I wanted to explain what is politics all about, what is islam about, what is secularism is about.

Politics is knowledge about managing affairs of a state for the good of its people. Our religious and political leaders lack this knowledge and it is much more true about our public at large.



The point is that anyone who lacks general and specific knowledge about a field cannot carry out the task effectively. If one is has no knowledge about medical field, one cannot diagnose the illness nor prescribe useful or effective medicine or remedy.

Such lack of knowledge in public fails them bodily in understanding the problems the country is facing and also who they should select and trust to lead the way out of those troubles.

Pakistan cannot be taken in the right direction till we know the direction ourselves.

The country needs unity to start with and unity amongst people cannot occur unless they realise the importance of unity and its need. Once they do that then they need to set out goals for unity and devise mechanisms to achieve those goals that will help unity amongst all the members of the nation.

The basic points are education based upon wider fields of knowledge eg languages, maths, sciences, sociology and politics, economics, religions and belief systems, secularism, history, geography, arts, philosophy, design and technology etc etc. It should be free for all children up to matriculation at least.

The true pakistani is only and only that person who not only does not oppose education in the country for all male and female but also fully supports the idea by all means in one's power.

No corrupt religious leader or political leader will support this, because educatiuon is enemy of oppresion, injustice and unfairness. If education is allowed to take roots in the country the days of corrupt people are numbered. Why? Because educated people will become aware of things and it will not be easy for manipulators to use abuse them or to mislead them.

This means all wealth stolen by cheating public must be brought back if it has been taken out of the country by any corrupt person. Taxation must be progressive but fair for all. There should not only be income tax but also inheritance tax, capital gains tax and value added tax ie all income must be taxed appropriately regardless earned or unearned ie profit. Government must subsidise where necessary for the good of the country but things must be properly prioritised.

The other important point is land reform and wealth creation as well as wealth distribution. We must set limits not by making everyone same but ensuring that there is a definite minimum but reasonable living standard for all people in the country at least. There is no need for setting the ceiling because if things get better the best thing will be to raise the minimum living standard level instead. In other words bootstrap the economy by linking its top end to its bottom end, so that top pulls its bottom along with it. The capitalist or market economy is best for the country if it is linked to social responsibilities ie the idea is that people who profit from the society due to society providing them with peace and stability to do so must put something back into this community to keep it going. This will prevent boom and bust cycles.

For unity of people we must ensure they all have the necessities of life and fair chance of opportunities for progress and success based on merit not connections. If people at the top play their part right by keeping the people at the bottom happy there is little chance of trouble in the country.

To control terrorism in the country we must first find out whether it is internal or external. This we can do by talking to terrorists to find out why they are doing what they are doing. If people have taken up arms they must have some genuine reason for willing to die and killing others. Regardless public must be informed by political leadership of the country as to what terrorists want and they must be clearly explained whether their demands are reasonable or unreasonable. It is then up to the people to accept their demands or reject them. However if demands are reasonable then public must accept them without wasting a second. If they are unreasonable then they must reject them and be ready to get rid of these bad elements from within the society. People who love their country will not make unreasonable demands and will lay down their arms once their reasonable demands are met. Only externally based terrorists will try their best to continue their actions and if public in a country is united and sensible then outsiders cannot succeed.

The other important point is population control through effective planning. This is absolutely necessary because the land and the resources within the country depend totally and utterly upon ourselves to search out and explore resources, process things and distribute them. If we are not capable of looking after ten people in the family it will be stupid to produce ten more. So we must keep an eye on the population in our country and we must not allow it to increase faster than our means of sustaining it. We will need more resources of all kind to cope with more people eg we will need more land, more houses, more schools, more food, more clothing etc etc etc.

For nation building we need to plan things very sensibly this means government must control things directly or through regulatory measures so that market economic system does not destablise the country. Monitoring will be absolutely necessary so that goods reach public without delay or difficulty at reasonable price.

The country cannot be build without doing what a sensible family needs to do to start its own family business to make it a success. Think about it if you wanted to start a business of your own what you will need and will have to do. You will have to make up your mind, make a serious commitment to it and take all steps necessary from the start to its success. You will have to make a plan and take into account everything in the right order of priorities. To run the country successfully is much more harder than running one's own business. This shows what kind of mentality people need to develop so that they could shoulder the responsibility.

continues

 

[rubPzai]

Pakistan is a country that is seriously divided so how do we unite its people?

The answer is to raise the main question ie what sort of divisions people have?

The answers is, tribal, geographical, linguistic, religious, sectarian, ideological, political, social, cultural, economic etc etc. These divisions are so serious that they are as if people are very much separate from each other or as if we have independent countries within a country.

How do we unite these people? The best way is to educate people about benefits of working together for the good of each other, and clearly letting them know why and how damaging and destructive is to have such divisions.

Tribalism is necessary for cohesion of people but only to a level where it is beneficial for its own people and helpful for others. For example, a family working together to its success is the best way forward whereas a broken family is useless because it is never free of infighting. Good thing will be, tribes working hard for their own progress and prosperity thereby benefiting each other as well as other tribes and people in the country. The problem is master slave mentality and relationship within the people of same tribe. This is what need replacing and that it must be replaced by merit based system within the family and tribe that is transparent and democratic as if a tribe is a political party. Choosing its chief on merit not heritage. If a family produces the appropriate merit based leadership with which people are happy because these leader produce the results then there is nothing wrong with it. However it must be ensured that some people in the tribe are not stopping others in the tribe from rising up because oppression and suppression only has one outcome stagnation or even regression thereby damage and destruction because talent is lost and precious human resource is wasted. This will not only inflict serious damage on the tribe itself as a whole but also interest of all those other tribes and people linked to the tribe, therefore such people must be educated to realise this.

You see if you are ill, you want the best doctor to look after you not your father or mother or brother or sister. However, if you have a father or mother or brother or sister or son or daughter of this capability there is nothing wrong with letting them take care of you.

So a good tribal society is a best society but nothing is worse than a bad tribal society. It is upto people themselves to decide whether their tribe is a good tribe or a bad one and why? A good tribe will have success after success under its belt and the bad one will have failure after failure. The good tribe will be at peace within and be progressive and prosperous as well as capable of helping others and in contrast the bad one will never be free of infighting and troubles and poverty and destruction at least of some of its people at the bottom end of the scale. Good tribe will be based upon freedom for all its people male or female and cooperation for mutual benefits helping its people to develop to their full potential, the bad one will be controlling, oppressive and suppressive turning its people into mad animals.


It is therefore obvious from my explanation that our country must be free of personality cults in all walks of life and all fields of knowledge and practice. However we must give due respect to our common heritage and our good individuals who have gone out of their way to do good for the country and its people. There is no body 100% perfect or 100% defective ie we are all somewhere in the middle of this spectrum. So long as any of us is not doing any deliberate serious damage to our country and its people we must not be quick to condemn him/her but help one to do better. Only practise makes one perfect because we all learn through trial and error. Don't forget how many falls you have had before you learned to stand up and walk. Try and try we must till we are where we should be.

We need to become very scientific in our approach to things so that we are methodical and our knowledge is evidence based not on hearsay. If we think some one is doing something bad, we must gather evidence first and then accuse the person and show him/her the evidence of one's wrong doing. We must stop accusing each other on hearsay accounts because that may well be just hot air. We need to create a mindset in people of pakistan that brings about a society which in turn brings about a culture that in turn brings us peace, harmony, cooperation, progress and prosperity. This demands that we learn to discuss and debate things in a civilised manner to help each other see the points of views of each other about things or issues. This is the best way to help each other move up the ladder and since a country is made up of individuals like ourselves, if we make progress the country benefits because we are the country. So long as we have mindset for dragging each other down, we are not going to make progress and therefore never going to be prosperous.

I measure success by how happy we are as individuals. Happiness is all about fulfilment of your reasonable needs and desires. Our needs come before our desires because needs point to what is necessary for our survival and living as human beings. Once we are free of concerns for clean air to breath, clean water to drink, good food to eat and decent place to live then we also desire other things like having a good husband or wife and raising a good family. This list is by no means complete but just to give a sort of idea what I am talking about.

The question is, how can we achieve this?

The answer is, by having knowledge about things and using that knowledge to build lives instead of destroying them. This calls for developing or at least understanding of ideologies regarding politics, society, culture and economic systems, structures and practices. It calls for tolerance and cooperation and open mindedness.

The main thing is to choose our direction sensibly and follow it with all our heart. Whatever we do half heartedly, aimlessly is waste of effort, time and resources. We must organise ourselves and our goals and our efforts to get where we wish to be.

We need to create a pakistan that is based on social justice and fair play for all. All people of the country must be valued equally as human beings.

Besides tribalism we have divisions based on religion and secularism.

Let us see what secularism is all about.

Secularism is all about living a good life in this world. The question is what is a good life? A life that is reasonably happy as I already explained. You are not going to be happy if you cannot breath easily because the air is badly polluted. You are not going to be happy if you cannot find clean water to drink when you need a drink because you are thirsty. You are not going to be happy when you cannot find good food to eat when you are hungry. Likewise you are not going to be happy if you have no decent clothes to wear or have no decent place to live in.

Likewise you are not going to be happy if you have no one to share your life with or have no family, relatives and friends. If you need all these people then you need to learn to live with them as well and be prepared to share things with them and take care of them and let them be happy as well so that they in return could help you to be happy. You see you cannot be happy if your wife is sad, or your dad is mad at you because you did something to make him angry. Can you see how one thing leads to the other? This means there are a lots and lots of situations where we must tolerate each other and let other have there way as well. This is what secularism is all about ie live and let live. It is not only that others should live for you to help you be happy but also you must live for them as well ie it is give and take situation we are all human beings. You give back what you get or what goes round comes round.

So a country that is secularism based is a good country because it helps people understand the real situation in the real world and learn to live together in peace and cooperate ie work together for common good. If people do not learn to live together then mutual destruction is their fate regardless we like it or not. Many people in the world have learned this fact so they have been making efforts to secularise their countries so that they could make progress and prosper as a people or as a nation or society.

In my view pakistan too must move in the same direction if it has to remain part of rest of humanity. This is where religious minded people do not like the idea because according to many of them secularism is anti religion and particularly anti islam.

This means we must discuss islam as to what islam is and whether it can be incorporated in to secularism and democracy or not.

The question is, does islam stop us from having clean air and breathing it? My answer is no.

Does islam stop us from having and drinking clean water? No.

Does it stop us from having good food and eating it? No.

Does it stop us from having and wearing good clothes and from having a good place living in it? No.

Does it stop us from having a good family and raising it? No.

Does secularism stop us from believing in god or practicing the fundamentals of islam? No.

So where is the problem? The problem is with uneducated religious leaders. They have their own versions of islam that are not based on the quran and the hadith in the quranic context.


So where is the problem? The problem is with uneducated religious leaders. They have their own versions of islam that are not based on the quran and the hadith in the quranic context.

Let us see what is a context of the quranic islam.

The prophet used to live in a place where there were people of various religions eg jews, christians, pagans, sabians, majooses etc. He lived as a decent and concerned individual amongst this mixed community people for 53 years. That is even after his claim of prophethood.

Let us read the quranic early suras and ask what are they about? They are all fundamentally about social justice and fairness ie prophet wanted people to be caring and sharing. They are all about prophet telling all people in that society to be good to each other and live like a family. This shows what the prophet desired about all people of makkah not just muslims. The society at the time was divided between rich and poor and powerful and weak. Being a fair minded person he did not like people doing to each other what they were doing. He wanted it stopped, the sooner the better.

When he had done all he could to try and change society for the better by education of its people, some people started to trouble him just for being on the side of their victims. Who were the trouble makers? You got it chiefs of makkah. Why they troubled him? Because he was asking them to share their wealth and power with the rest for the benefit of all of them. They became so angry that they drove him out of their. They were stupid not to realise the consequences of what they did.

Mawlanas will tell you the prophet was driven out because he preached oneness of god. That is not true and cannot be true because there were people in within makkah who had similar beliefs ie jews and christians etc. The bible also says same thing about idols as the quran, so why pagans will become enemies of muhammad but not of jews and christians? The prophet's first wife khadija was a business woman and many of these pagans used to work for her and she believed in one god and she was a christian. It was not that the prophet created trouble in society on basis of religion but on social issues he tried to close the gap between people who have and those who have not. This is why he was supported by some of the people who suffered social injustices and unfairness and that is why he was not supported but was opposed very strongly by chiefs. So stongly that they decided to kill him.

If we read the quran it tells us stories of prophet after prophet and also what was the fight all about. Each and every prophet rose to reform society starting with concept of social justice and fair treatment of people by each other. There is no way anyone could mistake this context of the quran. I am not talking about just a verse of the quran but hundreds of verses.

This proves my point beyond a shadow of doubt as to what quranic islam stand for. Corrupt mullahs and corrupt politicians work together to make public fight over religion rather than real issues of daily concern for individuals. This they do to divert attention of public from real issues.

Let me take try to help people understand real islam that is quran based ie in the quranic context.

Many people will find the quran is a jumble of random verses without any sense. This is not the way to look at the quran. The quran is collection of individual lectures known as surahs 114 in total. Some lectures are just three verses long and other 286 verses long eg surah al kauser 108 and surah al baqrah 2.

These lectures were delivered by the prophet as and when he thought appropriate at any given time in a given place. Some lectures were broken down into instalments because they were far too long for one sitting.

It is just like we talk to our children ie some times we just say a coupe of things because so the situation demands but at other times we keep on talking because so that situation demands. For example, when children go about locally on daily basis we usually leave them to themselves but when they make a journey to a distance we give them some information and advice as the situation demands. Over a life time we tell children quite a lot of things and then some times we just remind them of the same by just a random word or list for the things of concern to which we want to draw their attention. Likewise the quran repeated things in each surah just as a short list or just as a short detail or both. In longer surahs the talks about more things in more detail.

This is why there is repetition in the quran about issues and things. In one place time is short so just an issue or so is mentions but in another sitting another lecture is delivered in which things are given more time and are explained in more details.

There are two fundamental rules for understanding these lectures. a)TAFSEERAL QURAN BIL QURAN and b)TAFSEERAL QURAN BIL HADITH ie the quran is interpreted by what it says itself about something in different places and where need be only related hadith may be used to clarify things further if need be.

There seem many contradictions in the quran but if rule one is applied they disappear eg the quran forbids muslims from being friends with jews and christians etc in some of the verses but says you are not stopped from dealing with them if they do not fight you and drive you out of your homes. So the idea is to put contradictory verses side by side and then think out the reason that can solve the contradictions. Do not listen to mawlanas who bring in theory of abrogation everywhere to solve these contradictions. This only shows how much they really know about their religious book. It is these mawlanas who say that makkan verses are abrogated and madinan verses are to be taken as their replacement. This is how they claim the verses like no compulsion in religion are abrogated. By saying this they declare islam is all about conquering the word and killing off infidels. Their these like interpretations are ruining mindsets of our youth and the result is they are blowing up their own people. The verses of the quran are not abrogated at all. The verses like 2/106, 16/101 have nothing to do with abrogation the mawlanas are promoting rather they are talking about transmigration of verses from old revelation to the newer ie what was said in old books same verses have been revealed again in the quran if they were still relevant or new verses have been added into the quran as compared to old revelations because they better suit situations from then on. The mistake occurred because word NASKH has various meanings including cancellation and copying. This is why people of book accused the prophet of forgery again and again because he was reading out to them a lot of what they already had ie they accused him for copying quran from their books. The question is, why this meaning is right and others are wrong? Because when we have a worn out book we just copy over the information from that we still need and add to it any more that comes along for future use. The revelation is not better or worse from author's point of view but from a user's point of view. So allah does not change revelation but let only those things remain with people which are useful for them from the old and adds with them what will be useful for them in future.

It is because it makes no sense that allah will change his mind so quickly within 23 years of revelation. It is not right to think that allah was forced by changing circumstances to change his words in such a short time. The other reason is that if circumstances changed so much in 23 years that the quran needed changing then what about gap of 1400 years by today? This will mean the quran is useless for today because there has been so much more change in the world than 23 years in 7th century makkah and madinah. This means traditional interpretation of verses like 2/106 is clearly wrong and cannot be proven right at all in light of logical facts.

Anyway it is clear from the quran in its own context that muslims are not stopped from being friends with other people ie nonmuslims but if they become enemy then muslims need to be careful or be on their guard. The quran clearly tells us that there is no compulsion in religion or that for you your religion and for me mine ie lets agree to disagree in a civilised and friendly manner. Why? Because believing is matter of being convinced in mind and mind is never under control of any one. One cannot force one to change one's mind as regard what one believes to be true regarding something by simply putting a gun to one's head.

So one can see that islam does not stop muslims from being part of other people. Even the prophet when he came to madina and created a city state in there, he got all involved together on equal footing. Divisive mullahs will tell us that that is because the situation at the time demanded that but so the situation demands today, does it not? Each time there is more than one community of people religion or sect wise in a place, the same situation occurs of working together. If you do not then there is going to be fight between them and result will be mutual damage and destruction and this is not what quranic islam wants.


I think I have proven my point from the quran that muslim are not forbidden by the quranic islam in quranic context from living with nonmuslims on equal footing or power sharing and working together for the good of whole soceity. This will become clearer as we get into the detail discussion of these like things in light of the quran ie verses which tell children to be kind and respectful to your kafir parents even if the tell you to become kafir like themselves, and that allah has not stopped you from living with kafirs with mutual respect and kindness who do not show animosity to you by taking your thing away from you etc. This means that there is no such thing as war over religion or beliefs.

This raises another point ie what is the concept of jihad in islam if it is not about killing kufar or if it is not about forcing them to convert into islam.

As I already explained that islam is religion of social justice and fairness so it follows from that that islam should not allow upheaval and chaos or anarchy and civil strife in its name and it does not. Why not? Because infighting leads to damage and destruction of whole society and social justice and fairness cannot be establish if there is unwinnable war and so destruction continues. You need peace and cooperation of all people in a place to be able to create a just and fair society. You cannot repair something by damaging it further making it beyond repair.

If we read the quran, we are told killing a single human bing regardless a muslim or a nonmuslim is like killing whole of human race. The quran only allows taking of human life in two things. When someone tries to create trouble within the society such that it is for destruction of society and if let go will do the same thing again or when a person become a probelms for the society because he deliberately takes lives of other innocent human beings without any regret or remorse. This punishment is not for any such person who might have killed someone in rage but really regets it. For that compensation is sufficient.

These like things in the quran tell us clearly that taking up arms for muslims in any society muslim or nonmuslims is not allowed by the quran. The life ofthe prophet in makkah is also a good example ie despite having nearly 200 followers and having been made to suffer in makkah he did not take up arms to create terrorism in society to make it submit to him to do things he wanted them to do rather he wanted to convince them to it . So any muslim who tries to trouble people through his terrorist activities must be made to think about it. The best way forward is to get sympathy and support of people at large and raise the issues of concern peacefully by way of peaceful protests. Once sufficient public support is there, people concerned in authority will have to give in to public pressure. Also the money people spend on arms for terrorism to destroy their own society could well be spend on setting such people up so that they could make their lives worth living using this help. The more the destruction in the society the more society is going to suffer so where is solution for problems in terrorism? So, aimless terrorism is useless and destructive for all involved.

As one can see religion v secularism is an issue raised by corrupt mullas and politicains not by religious people who want to live a good life according to their religious teachings.​

 

[rubPzai]

Secular means something to do with this world and secularism means the ideology that goes beyond tribal and religious ties to unite people on common ground in a piece of land under a single government. If you want me to acknowledge other meanings then I do but those meanings are nonsense in my view because they make no sense whatsoever. The reason is because secularism is needed for cooperation between people regardless what they believe or to which tribe they belong.

Look at it this way, humans are not independent beings because they did not come to this world on their own. They are then brought up by their parents and extended family and tribe or tribes and within an already existing belief system eg parents are already muslims, hindus, atheists, jews, Christians, humanists etc etc. As we all live in mixed communities in various pieces of land or countries so there arises the need to live with each other and cooperate with each out side the normal relationships that we are used to. Therefore different people come together on basis of common worldly goals or interests. This idea of unity is called secularism ie uniting humanity for worldly needs under one banner or platform.

This is not new rather if we look back in makkah prophet came from hashmi branch of quraishi tribe. He was protected by them as their member when he started his mission. This was purely on the basis of kith and kin relationship. Then the message of the prophet was accepted by people belonging to different tribes so there came about unity on basis of religion. Now there were two kinds of relationships between people thatbound them or united them ie tribal as well as religious. However when the prophet moved to madinah. There were people of other tribes as well as of other religions so to form a unity of people some idea had to be adopted. Hence came about what is called pact of madinah. This unitedor bound all people of madinah regardless of their tribes and religions on basis of some common grounds. So it is obvious that secularism helps a society be pluralist as regard worldly matters of common interest. In other words now people have three bounds between them family/tribal bound, religious bound and finally sharing of the land and its resources under agreed rules of coexistence. Under this arrangement the main law is decided on basis of common good ie no law is accepted against that of religious or tribal sort because that will nullify the unity of people if any of the people tried to impose their own laws or customs on the rest of them. Likewise religious laws had higher authority than tribal customs or laws so no individual tribe could impose their customs on all the rest of the tribes or the unity based upon religion will break down. This shows relationship between legal frameworks as to how they are fitted with each other so that they could work. The main point one must remember is that the prophet accepted this arrangement and was part of it, so no muslim worth the name can disagree. Some may make excuse that the situation dictated at the time but what is different today?
Because likewise we have situation today in all countries in the world that we have people of various tribes and of various beliefs all living in the same piece of land under the very same government. This is secularism and this is what pluralistic societies are or can be. The idea that secularism is anti religion is not a valid explanation of the term in my view though that is the dictionary definition but it seems senseless to me. Usa and france are both based on separation between church and state idea but are known as secular yet there are many religious people living in them practicing their religions freely. So where is the problem?

Of course, if one wants to disagree that is one’s right and if one has any other sensible explanation that may also be valid because terms many a time have various definitions and uses so does word secularism. I think muslims are themselves to blame for a lot of things that others do not like about them. They have twisted islam quite a lot. The main reason is because people who teach islam do not teach it properly and as a result they restrict themselves far too much than necessary and then they blame others for not accommodating them. It is time people learned islam the way it should be learned. let me try and explain the problem. The problem is that we learn islam from mullahs, who have no idea about anything else other than what they were taught by their teachers who also had no idea what they were taught as islam by their teachers.

We first take an issue then look for the fatwa about it, then we try and find some base for that fatwa in the hadith and the quran. This is not islam at all rather this is opinion of mullahs and they try to back an issue that they see as important. In history all religions have been used and abused as political tool by rulers to further their agendas through corrupt and manipulating religious leaders. The quran is also clear about this see story of moses about pharaoh for example. it was duty of his priests to fight moses on his behalf. This is very important point to note. So learning religion through others on face value is wrong because you do not know who to trust and who not to trust.

The best way to learn religion is by having good general education that is based on wider subjects. The other important point is having ability to look at what you are learning critically to see if it makes sense or not in the wider context of the worldly life or ground reality. In other words religions are for living in this world so get to know this world because this is the way to understand religion. If some one gives you instructions about a car and you have never seen a car then you are not going to be able to make proper sense of instructions. Likewise without knowing how the world works it is not possible to figure out what the quran is talking about. If we know that we have various relationships with each other in this world then we can work out the sense in which any particular verses may be talking about. As to examining any scripture you are the judge and the religious book you are learning is the case that you need to judge for yourself for its worth and use.

In case of islam the quran is the book a muslim must be able to examine properly for its worth and use. You must not judge the quran on hearsay. Learn rules of its interpretation.

The rules are; it must be interpreted by itself without contradictions and whatever interpretations make sense must not be against self evident facts. For example, some verses say kill kafirs but others forbid it, some say don't be friends with kafirs but others say be friends with kafirs. When we look at these verses we find they are actually about war and peace situations between people and have nothing to do with peoples' beliefs religion wise. So mullahs who want to justify killing of innocent kafirs to take away their things just quote us half truths to get what they want. This is selective quoting of the quran based on their dishonesty. This is why knowing these rules is very, very , important.

One must always remember that hadith is not for interpretation of the quran rather after interpreting the quran by itself the matter can be further clarified by only and only related hadith and if need be through fiqh and further through ulema of the day. This is proper way of learning the quran.

People who raise questions and go to mullahs for answers are mostly wrong because mullahs are most likely to tell them their version of islam which they will try and back up with some fatwas from past mullahs. If need be they will pull out some ahadith to try and back up the fatwas and if need be they will get some verses from the quran out of their proper contexts to back the ahadith with them to show that what they started with was authentic islam. This is how they doop muslims at large.

The problem of beard for example is nothing different. I have explained in my other posts what real islam is ie it is mainly and fundamentally in the quran. The quran does not require a muslim to live like the prophet in the 7th century arabian way of life. The prophet like beard is also part of that kind of life style nothing more. In those days, men mostly had beards, that was the culture or way of life.

The problem is not with having a beard today but taking it as an essential part of islam and condemning all other muslims who do not have beard or that they do not have exactly the kind of beard as the prophet had. This shows that mullahs have their own islam that has little to do with islam the prophet preached in the quran. This is why having a collection of some ahadith telling us about the way the prophet lived is ok for information about him but such ahdith are not part of essentials of islam. Important bits of islam are only those we find in the quran and it is only those important bits for which ahadith are important for their detail. One needs to imagine that if the prophet came today instead of back then, would he still be living the way he used to? I am reasonably sure that he would not rather he would have lived like good people of today. So insisting on silly little things only ruins community relations everywhere for muslims. So no wonder people are fed up with muslims everywhere.

The main thing for muslims is to stick to their religion and not behave like babies everywhere. It is time for muslims to get educated and think before running after hot air.

One is free to disagree but if it is evidence based at least it gives us something to think about.

As you will agree most of the world all over the globe is religious eg there are nearly one and half billion muslims, a billion or more hindus, nearly two billion christians and likewise there are budhists in great numbers. Of course many people belong to many other religions and even cults or atheism.

So it is very wrong for people of any religion to follow religion in such a way that causes deliberate confrontations between people. We should not work for destruction of humanity but its survival and betterment.

This is why we all not only religious but nonreligious as well must learn to live together and work together as a single family.

As for issue of beard or burqa etc. In any free society like usa etc beard and burqa is not an issue at all but the connotations are. The us constitution is based on separation between church and state. So anything people do in their private life is up to themselves so long as they do not break the law and thereby make it a public concern.

So having a beard or wearing a burqa is ok, but under the circumstances it is better to avoid somethings for a while till things settle. The law of necessity based on circumstances kicks in even in islam. If some thing or action starts causing trouble or helps it grow in the society then you leave that thing or action till circumstances change for the better. For example, if we start having muslim females with burqas blowing up places then it is only reasonable that other muslim females do not wear burqas any more for a while so that society does not suffer as a result. When circumstances turn normal one is free to go back to one’s normal way of life.

However, my point here is different. I am trying to explain that, is it true that beard is religious necessity in islam? The answer is no, it is not. If you think it is then please provide the proof with full explanation so that people here could learn including myself. What I am saying is, it is lawful to have a beard just like it is lawful to get married or drive but if you do not drive or get married that is not against the law, so where is the problem? You want to grow a beard fine why should anyone have problem with it? But if I do not then that too should be fine with you .

Likewise there are two ways to look at burqa a)Is it necessary for a muslim woman to wear buqa because of religion? This needs very clear proof not just conjectures. The reason is that duty in islam is only that which is imposed by islam as it is in the quran in its own context. If some thing is not clearly imposed by islam then it is not a religious duty. Likewise, is burqa banned in islam? No, it is not banned in islam and this means it is lawful to wear burqa as far as religion is concerned. However one must remember here the law of exception to each and every law or rule. All islamic laws are based on situations, circumstances, time andplace or reasons and are bound to rule of exception hence there is no need for abrogation of laws in islam. The law of exception is such a law that humanity cannot escape it no matter whatever the country and no matter whatever the law. All laws we make they can only and only be for a time or a place or for a set of circumstances or a purpose. When time, place, reason or circumstance upon which a law is based is no longer there, the law does not apply. For example, laws regarding marriage only apply to you if you are married just like laws about driving only apply if you are a driver. Likewise laws of usa do not apply in pakistan or vice versa. Or that the laws that were for olden times do not apply today and likewise laws made for today may not apply in the future. I am making here very important points.

However islam and state are two different things ie islam is a reliigion and state is the governing body of a country. It is therefore possible that there could arise conflict between islamic law and the state law. How does islam solve this problem? Islam solves this problem by rule of exception ie where muslims are not allowed to live by islamic law they must live by the law of the land for as long as muslims need to live there because their circumstances do not allow them to move elsewhere or that the international regulations do not let them do that. Muslims are not allowed to take up arms and start fighting the state for not allowing them to practice their law. It is for this reason islam forbids muslims from leaving the land where they are allowed to practice their own religion. Under such circumstances, muslims are allowed to have a piece of land of their own where they can practice their religion freely. Again muslims are not allowed to fight to gain a piece of land to create such a state. Rather they should peacefully campaign if allowed to do so and try to get public support for their demand. Not only that but they should continue their campaign till the objective is achieved. However, if muslims are allowed to practice their religion in a state then there is no conflict of interests and so there is no reason for muslims to not to fully participate in that state ie integrate as much as is practically possible. This means muslim should participate in all things lawful. The lawful things as I already explained are all those that are not forbidden in islam. The most important point to remember is that there has to be a clear undisputable proof about something to be proven that it is forbidden in islam mere hearsay is not good. Just to remind the rule again, in islam if something or action is not a duty and is not forbidden then it is lawful ie it is entirely upto people to do as they like or as the need dictates.

The point about lawful things is that they are up to individual or the society to do them or not to do them for their own reasons and circumstances in a place at a time. As for islamic law there are two parts of it a)personal and b)social. Personal laws are for personal behaviour or conduct and social laws are for social behaviour or conduct or interaction. There is also divide between civil laws and criminal laws. However, these are matters for states. If a state is majority muslims state then it is up to muslims to apply islamic laws and if the state is majority nonmuslims state then islamic laws can only apply if state allows it for muslims to do so. The vital point to remember is that muslims are not allowed by islam to take up arms in a nonmuslim state as a minority to fight for implementation of islamic laws by force. Muslims are also not allowed to implement islamic laws even in the majority muslim state if the circumstances are such that they do not allow their implementation. The reason, to do things that cause harm rather than good are not allowed in islam. The purpose of islamic laws is to benefit society and to prevent harm to it. This is foundational law of islam, if islamic laws are not based on this principle then they are not islamic at all. Islam is all about removing the causes for troubles or crimes ie remove poverty and then cut off hands of thieves if they steal otherwise incapacitated will put more burden on their families and more people will be forced to steal and so the society as a whole will become cripple.

It is also necessary that society uses such measures sparingly, why? Because by making harsher and harsher things a common place changes people psychologically and they become mentally accustomed to new equilibrium ie they start accepting those things as normal way of life and so the deterrent value in such harsher punishments is lost altogether. This is not the purpose of islamic law at all. You cannot stop people from doing criminal things by laws alone rather ensure that have no need to do them either. People only take laws in their own hands when state fails to provide them what is needed or is essential. For example, if state does nothing when people are murdered then their relatives will start taking revenge and state will become irrelevant. If there is no organised way to get what people need in a country as a society then they will get it as they can because the need must be met even if by putting one’s life at risk.

The other point is that by merely punishing people into submission without addressing their genuine concerns only and only has one outcome and that is destruction of society as whole and altogether. Why? Because thirsty will die anyway if not given the water, hungry will die anyway if not given the food and this death will be very painful because it will mean suffering over a period of time so is it not better to pick up arms and fight back? So it is very dangerous to force people into corners without any good reason that is acceptable on basis of fair play and justice. In islam forbidden things become lawful when situations get this bad. People are then allowed to eat anything and drink anything ie human flesh and human blood. This is why no country should make unjust and unfair laws that protect rich and powerful and destroy poor and weak. Otherwise there is no point in complaining when people who suffer because of such discrimination give back what they get.

Just as religious cannot justifiably blame their own stupidity on secularists so secularists cannot justifiable blame their own stupidity on the religious. They both must wake up and do what is acceptable ie fair and just for both of them if we must live in peace and harmony like a single family. So people must avoid unnecessary family feuds because they are very dangerous. When you love you love and when you hate you hate. This is why people must not make religion what it is not and likewise they must not make secularism what it is not. So that we all have more and more common ground for sharing.
008.058 YUSUFALI: If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous.

008.059 YUSUFALI: Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate (them).

008.060 YUSUFALI: Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

008.061 YUSUFALI: But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).

To understand any of the verses one needs to know how the quran is structured. The quran is a set of 114 suras. Each sura is a lecture by the prophet to his followers as a message from god just like lectures one gets in a school or college or the like. There are shortest as well as longest lectures which cannot be delivered in one sitting eg see the difference in the length of al kausar and al baqra ie suras 2 & 108.

It is self evident that you cannot put too many things in short lectures as many as you can put in the longest lecture. Through out the quran one will see repetitions ie what is said in one lecture is also repeated elsewhere in another lecture. It is also obvious that when a lecture is repeated like this it means that the lecturer wants to say something more about that thing in some respect.

This means that similar information is related through out the quran regardless the quran says it is related or not. So when one reads the quran things make sense only and only in this context and hence the rule of tafseer of the quran by the quran.

The 2nd rule is tafseer of the quran by hadith. This is the rule which has been misused and has caused so much problem.

What it means is interpreting the quran first and if then need be for an outside source the hadith may be used. Not to challenge what the quran says but to explain it further along the same line.

What mullahs did was they started to quote hadith after hadith instead of interpreting the quran by itself first ie they replaced the first rule by the 2nd. The result is obvious that people have divided into many sects.

One can open up any tafseer of the quran and one will see what I am talking about. The real tafseer is very little in any of the tafaseer books.

Here is what they were supposed to do. They were supposed to collect all the related verses of the quran in one place regarding the same point then explain them away without any contradiction between them. This would have been the proper tafseer of the quran by the quran.

However here is what they did. In almost all major tafaseer they just took a verse of the quran and then started to search for the ahadith related to the topic and started to interpret the quran according to those ahadith on the basis of their isnaad leaving the context of the quran aside and so they messed up the muslim minds that way. To me this looks more like a deliberate effort to mislead people about the quran. I say deliberate because such a thing is so obvious from the quran that a true scholar of quran could not miss it. It seems these mufassiroon were as if hired by the rulers of the time to justify their ambitions and desire from the quran so that they could take muslims masses under their control to use them as they pleased to further their own ends.

In other tafaseer they simply took a verses and started to explain meanings of the words and what the verse meant in their sense without supporting evidences from the quranic verses ie without first interpreting the quran by itself and then expressing what sense it gave them.

This one can verify for oneself by reading any tafseer one can get one's hands on.

(links to tafaseer removed as explained already.)

I would not call these works tafaseer of the quran because they do not place the related verses side by side to explain them, which is supposed to be primary purpose of a tafseer . This is how some of them invented abrogation theory ie when they saw any contradicting verses in the quran they just came up with the brilliant ideas of one verse cancelling the other sort of thing. All a big nonsense so obvious when one looks at the quran as a whole topic by topic or issue by issue or point by point.

This is why under heading of qitaal ie war or fighting for example, one can see all the verses that talk about various senerios and situations.

So the verse 8/60 is explained by verses like 022.040 YUSUFALI: (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).

So the idea is of deterrent, not of terrorising just anyone, and balance of power so that war does not occur. It is like cold war days the way russia and america kept peace by way of deterrents

This power is not for conquests as is obvious from the context of the verses. otherwise once war started their will not be peace till one side is completely finished. Especially when other side asks for peace because you know they have lost it.

There is no verse in the quran that orders muslims to kill nonmuslims just for being nonmuslims. Sura 8 and 9 are very famous for war talk but only in context of defensive wars. The people who were attacked by the prophet were those who did not keep their word and were looking for getting him and his follower any way they could because his success put fear in the heads of those who were unjust and unfair powerful and wealthy elite ie they feared his movement based on social justice and fair play is going to come their way. This is the context of those verses. When one is a ruler of a state, one has to do what is needed to ensure its safety and survival.

As I explained already islam is fundamentally about social justice and fair play and wars always happen because of divide between those who have and those who have not, the power and the wealth. Since prophets come to reform their societies they are obviously in conflict with the rich and powerful amongst a people who use and abuse other people so loyalties get divided under such circumstances even in the close family or tribe or religion or society as a whole.
As for criticism of islam, muslims or scriptures and other sources of islam, there are rules. Some people think the hadith is no use but a huge majority of muslims do not deny authenticity of ahadith as the secondary source of information on islam. However unlike the quran the hadith collections have three stages to pass.

1)They must have isnaad ie chains of narrators or reporters ie who is reporting from who or on whose authority. This was ensured by the collectors of the hadith themselves ie bukhari or muslim etc etc.

2)These narrators must be known and must be siqqa/thiqqa ie there should not be any proof against them that they were ever caught lying and deceiving or were prone to unfairness or forgetfulness or were of bad character. This is where ulema of ismaa alrijaal come into it who wrote various books on this subject.

3)The final test is of matan ie the text of the report. This is again an independent field of knowledge called aljira waltadeel= scrutiny or cross examination of the text.
Just as people who collected hadith are called muhaddisoon the ulema of aljira wal tadeel are called naqidoon.

Just as there are rules for tafseer/interpretation of the quran for acceptance of tafseer so there are rules for hadith for acceptance of any particular hadith.

Links to islamic awareness removed as I do not have enough posts to have the fecility

1)The most important is the first rule ie interpretation of the quran by the quran. This means being able to read the quranic text properly knowing the words and their various meanings as well knowing the use of phrases (eg like proverbial in every developed culture) in cultural context of the time when the quran was read and written down.

2)Once the quran has been satisfactorily interpreted by collecting all related verses regarding a subject matter without any contradiction then if need be related authentic ahadith can be used to further clarify things as the need may dictate.

The mistake most people make is, they ignore the collection of all of the related verses in the quran about a subject matter in one place and instead take a verse or two and start throwing in so called ahadith and opinions of so many past people that the actual meaning becomes buried underneath everything piled up on them.

Many mufassiroon/interpreters of the quran have made this serious mistake ie it is as if universal. This is what led to sectarianism amongst muslims right from the beginning and the result was the event that took place in karbala, iraq ie the killing of the prophet's family. Killing of muslims by muslims started with death of uthman the 3rd caliph of islam who was murdered.

So almost all muslim scholars of tafseer ignored the proper way of interpretation of the quran and today, we mostly have tafaseer that were written without due care and the purpose of proper understanding of islam as it is in the quran. Lots of so called ahadith were not only invented by hypocrites from amongst jews who turned muslims to mislead muslims to destroy the movement but also many ahadith were forged by muslims themselves to legitimise rule of the ruling elite amongst muslims ie tribal warfare started once more over political power play amongst muslims and so religion was used as a tool by some against the others to legitimise their position in the muslim ummah.

This forgery is so abvious in form of not reporting from those who were most likely the source of religious information or they exaggerated the position of those whom they wanted to gain control or power. For example, in sunni hadith books the contribution of ahlal bait or household of the prophet is not much at all despite the fact that household of the prophet knew the prophet the most. If a person is known properly to anyone it is his own family. Yet most of the hadith are narrated by people like abu huraira, who in comparison to ali, fatima, hassan and husain is not as knowledgeable person because he only spent much less than a few years with the prophet. He was also lashed by umar the2nd caliph for his inappropriate conduct when he was appointed as a government administrator over department of treasury or bait almaal.

These like things raise suspicions regarding hadith collection by sunnies. Also hadith books are collected by nonarabs eg bukhari from Bukhara, Persia etc.

This is why sunni ahadith are not that trustable that people could take them as if they are same as the quran and likewise is the case regarding shia ahadith collections. However many of the ahadith are agreed upon as well between them ie they are found in both sides of the divide.

This made situation difficult but rules do help to try and minimise forgeries and therefore when one uses hadith for detailing of the quran one needs to be very careful. It is better to rely much more on the quran and commonsense when one tries to test ahadith for their truth value regarding a subject matter. Just as no such interpretation is accepted valid as introduces contradictions within the quran so no ahadith are valid that contradict the quran no matter how authentic they may be due to their chains of narrators, the text must conform to the quranic text in the quranic context. Likewise any interpretation of the quran is invalid that contradict self evident facts or causes contradictions within the quranic text itself.

Muslims scholars also made a serious mistake in accepting a rule that tafseer bil rai=personal opinion based interpretation is invalid. This contradicts the rule of interpretation of the quran by the quran. Becauase whenever there appear contradictions between the verses of the quran, the personal opinion is the only way one has to try and show how the verses may fit together ie one needs a personal explanation that goes in between to bridge the gap to show there is no contradiction. What they should have said was that personal opinions are only valid if they remove the apparent contradictions because the personal opinions are then backed by their satisfactory end result as proof of correct interpretation.

Likewise many made the mistake of accepting the rule that the quran must be understood through the ahadith the while they accepted the rule that no hadith is valid that is against the quran. It is possible that some did this deliberately to please their pay masters ie the ruling elite etc and the rest followed them blindly thinking they are godly people so they cannot be wrong ie they took them fopr granted on their face value. We have same problem today in front of our eyes that many people seem to respect their so called ulema more than god and prophet. No wonder that quran tells us this is what jews and christians used to do. It is sad to see people not gaining knowledge themselves nor using their brains. Nonetheless truth cannot be concealed no matter what.

As for criticise islam or muslims then this is against the quran. It is absolutely vital to reach the truth. The quran and the hadith strongly encourage it because who who take things for granted lose importance of knowledge and learning. The quran is full of criticism of all people and their beliefs and practices if they were based on social injustice and unfairness. This is what always led people in to wars against each other. So to have proper or purposeful sense of things critical study is must. Those who stop this process are the one’s who are enemies of humanity because they want people to remain ignorant and baby mind so that they could use and abuse them like animals.

So please read the stories of the prophets in the quran and see how they debated over religion and daily living with those who were not of their religion. The prophets criticised other beliefs systems and they were told to seek evidences where possible or necessary. Why they did this? It was because those people used their religious beliefs to justify their atrocities against each other just like our mullahs are doing today.

009.034 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! there are indeed many among the priests and anchorites, who in Falsehood devour the substance of men and hinder (them) from the way of Allah. And there are those who bury gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah: announce unto them a most grievous penalty-

The quran commands muslims to have a group among them that is educated sufficiently in religion to educate others as to what religion is all about. This is done so that people cannot use and abuse religion by their wrong interpretations of it and thereby messing up lives of people.

The quran tells muslims to debate religion amongst themselves as well as with people of other religions, why? So that true religious teaching remains alive in its real spirit. This is a very good things because this keeps people of all religions in check against each other as to what real purpose of religions is ie to guide people towards human friendly existence.

You see if you keep an eye on me to keep me right so that I do not try to harm you and I keep my eye on you so that you do not try and harm me then we both remain alert as each other and never end up fighting. This keeping an eye on each other also helps us see if we need help of each other in worldly matters. If you are ill I will know it and if I am following my religious teachings I will bring medicine for you. You will do the same if you are following your religious teachings.

The purpose of religious debates and discussion is to find minimum common ground and build on that.​

 

[rubPzai]

003.104 YUSUFALI: Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is (for common) good, enjoining what is right (in that context), and forbidding what is wrong (in that context): They are the ones to attain felicity.


These like verses do not mean muslims imposing their religion or its rules of conduct on others but to look for things that are for common good and things that are damaging for all in the same land under same government and set up laws that way. These verses are not about individuals taking laws in their own hands against the state, muslim or nonmuslim.

016.125 YUSUFALI: Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.

025.063 YUSUFALI: And the servants of (Allah) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, "Peace!";

029.046 YUSUFALI: And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."

031.019 YUSUFALI: "And be moderate in thy pace, and lower thy voice; for the harshest of sounds without doubt is the braying of the ***."

041.034 YUSUFALI: Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!

003.064 YUSUFALI: Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).

Islam is setting people up against each other like governments and oppositions so that both keep each other in check and thereby right, in peace or in war situations or circumstances.

022.008 YUSUFALI: Yet there is among men such a one as disputes about Allah, without Knowledge, without Guidance, and without a Book of Enlightenment,-

022.040 YUSUFALI: (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).

022.041 YUSUFALI: (They are) those who, if We establish them in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong: with Allah rests the end (and decision) of (all) affairs.

It is very clear in verses like these that men of faith and good will towards humanity, if they ever have power in their hands they do good things for every body on earth. They establish freedom for all to practice good things in their religions like keeping god in their minds and helping in worldly needs of each other. There is no mention of killing of kafirs to finish them off from the face of the earth or to strangle them in other ways to kill them off.

048.028 YUSUFALI: It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion: and enough is Allah for a Witness.

048.029 YUSUFALI: Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward.

The struggle of islam is against injustice and unfairness so people who try to establish injustice and unfairness on the earth musliims must stand up to such people without fear or favour.

Allah sent his DEEN so that it is made known against all other DEENS so that the best way of life becomes known to all people on the earth then if they chose to take it on, it is for their own good and if they do not then that is to their own loss and destruction. Today we can see the world is slowly but surely moving towards Islamic ideal. The international laws are ensuring that we move innthe right direction ie towards a just and fair world where in people care for each other by sharing whatever they can offer each other. If anything it is the muslim nations that are backward and holding things back thanks to our national religious armies ie mullahs.

The quran does not tell us to create any such state so called khilafa or an islamic state where only muslim are the rulers and only muslims are the citizens and beneficiaries. Islam cares for whole of humanity as a single family. If some people do not believe in god then that is for god to do whatever he likes to them in hereafter. As for this world, the quran makes it very clear that so long as there is just and fair rule as basis for all, there is no reason for war between people. If a government is based on principle of justice and fair play, it is an islamic government even if the rulers are nonmuslims. Requirement for rule is rule by rule of law that is fair and just for all, no discrimination. This means if we have a majority muslim country and it is ruled by muslims yet it is based on injustices and unfairness then that is an anti islam government and an inhumane government.

The quran also tells us the rule must be by peoples’ choice not forced upon them. This is democracy ie rule by the people for the good of the people. The prophet became the ruler in madinah by agreement and support of the majority of the people in madinah. The first caliph of isalm was chosen by the same principle though may be by a trick. He nominated the second caliph which was accepted by the rest save ahlul bait=household of the prophet but dispute was resolved though not very nicely. The suppression of ahlul bait by tricks of their opponents, led to tensions between muslims. This became apparent when death of uthman the 3rd caliph occurred and then ali became the caliph but muslims became divided already under ali and muaavia ibn sufyaan and then the wife of the prophet also became involved.
The dispute ended after ali was killed by muslims and his son Hassan decided to let muaavia be the ruler. Things again took wrong turn when Hassan was poisoned by his political rivals through one of his wives and muaavia also died leaving his son yazeed to rule the ummah. The younger son of ali refused to accept him as legitimate ruler of muslims, yazeed and his allies tricked hussain ibn ali and so murdered almost all of them in karbala save his son zainul aabideen etc. Regardless the disputes became more and more as islam the religion was put on back burner in favour of imperial islam by ruling elite thanks to mullahs of the time who sided with them and later to their ilk as we see them around the world murdering people due to their own stupidity, focused on the day when they will rule the world without kafirs.

03.026 YUSUFALI: Say: "O Allah! Lord of Power (And Rule), Thou givest power to whom Thou pleasest, and Thou strippest off power from whom Thou pleasest: Thou enduest with honour whom Thou pleasest, and Thou bringest low whom Thou pleasest: In Thy hand is all good. Verily, over all things Thou hast power.

Word Islam means peace as well as submission, word DEEN means decision, judgement or religion as in phrase MALIKI YAUMIDDEEN=owner of day of judgement.

Let me explain this muslim kafir coexistence. A father from a village sends his children to a city to buy some stuff for the family telling them do not dispute on the way and even if you end up in dispute remain fair minded in standing for what you believe is right till you come back to me then I will tell you who was right and who was wrong. On the way back children disagree over things and start fighting with each other and some even murder others . Now how happy will the father be and good these children will be who take the judgement or decision making in their own hands from their father? Something like is situation today between muslims and kafirs. Muslims rather not wait for decision of allah so the situation cannot be good for either of them. That is because innocent kafirs will suffer at the hands of muslims and innocent muslims will suffer because of kafirs fighting back. Not only that but punishment of god will fall these muslims because they took on the role of allah by making decision on his behalf without being given then authority by him to do so and in fact after clear warning that they should not take this decision in their hands that rests entirely with allah.

So those muslims who think islam is about killing kufar they are taking on role of god ie they are making a decision on behalf of god about which god did not authorise them. Is this respecting god or the prophet? NO, because, respecting god and prophet means accepting their decision and not replacing it by our own because we think it is upto us that we decide on a matter for which god keeps decision for himself. So no one should try to be god. It is good enough for poeple to be good human beings.

Even amongst muslims there are many sects, each declaring others kafir, so who is muslims? If we merely started killing each other on grounds of right and wrong beliefs then no one will be left on the earth alive. So where is sense in all this? I hope this explains the problem between mullahs and muslims and kafirs. Also you can see why blasphemy law is anti islam. Let people swear and abuse islam as much as they like to their hearts contend, when they run out of steam and sit in calm they will come to know that it was all a big mistake. Ignorant people do anything the ignorant way, why should you expect them to act sensible way when they can't? If we want people to act sensibly we need to educate them not kill them by being worse stupid than them. The most serious offense against god according to the quran is people attributing partners to him and telling that he has a son. Yet allah does not tell anyone to go and kill these people because of their this most serious blasphemy. If one is a muslim and his parents are pagans or christians etc etc, he is still told to look at them as his parents with all due respect. All this because ultimate decision rests with allah himself not with any follower of islam and his/her emotions. Islam is all about following what allah says and not what people themselves think is right by taking law in to their own hands. So killing people because of their blasphemy is taking law of allah into one's own hands. This is very important point to note. It is like someone kills your brother and you go and kill him yourself rather than letting the law of the land take its course. If people did this then what is the point for allah giving them rules as to how to decide things or how to do them or how to live a sensible life?

The quran is very clear as to law for this world and the law for the next world. A muslims is therefore obliged to live by that rule. It is therefore wrong to impose punishments on people for their wrong religious beliefs. Only if people do things that harm society, that society can make laws to punish them as is better for the society. As I see it blasphemy law is not a good thing and as far as islam is concerned it does not have any law against blasphemy in the quran and it does not need any such law. Why not? The very fact that islam stands for social justice and fair play, the very objective of the prophet of islam leaves no room for such laws. The man who stands for the good of humanity why does he need law to protect him? If muhammad was really as great as muslims assume him to be and they can prove that to humanity then that is more than sufficient to earn him respect instead of condemnation. If I am out to help people then why do I need protection from the very people I am out to help? If I need protection from them then how can I be helpful to them?

Any laws that create or keep divisions alive amongst people of pakistan regardless of their tribes and religions are not good for the country and blasphemy law is one of such laws because it is divisive. As for people bringing in stories where it seems that prophet has been bad to some one, they are all false and have been invented by people who wanted to justify their own desires in the name of islam or in the name of the prophet of islam.

For example, paedophiles have been inventing stories that prophet had a child bride. The quran is clear that he did not. The quran tells muslims to not to marry anyone by force or before the age of marriage. Besides minimum age of marriage there are other conditions. The people marrying need to know what it is all about and be able to raise a good family under normal conditions.

004.006 YUSUFALI: Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them, release their property to them; but consume it not wastefully, nor in haste against their growing up. If the guardian is well-off, Let him claim no remuneration, but if he is poor, let him have for himself what is just and reasonable. When ye release their property to them, take witnesses in their presence: But all-sufficient is Allah in taking account.

004.019 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.

Yet mullahs actively promoted child marriages and forced marriages against the teaching of the quran. So misinformation and disinformation is a big business. Stoning to death is also against islam but people have been doing it in the name of islam. So if we want to change things the better way is to inform muslims of pakistan to leave mullahs because they have been misguiding them. To do this poeple need to study the quran for themselves and then challenge mullahs to debate and watch them run away with tails between their legs.

Mullahs are only powerful because they have respect of people and people respect them because they think these are good people who are guiding them about their religion properly. To break this spell we need to pick up the quran and tell them what it says on various matters and what mullahs are telling them and let them verify for themselves as to who is telling them the truth and what islam really is. The reason we lose against mullahs is because we attack religion of people without knowing what it really says in its own books. Take case of child brides, in islam marriage is not god imposed duty rather it is left up to people to get married or not, or to get married at whatever age they want, or who they want to get married to. Yet people dare attribute forced marriages to islam, child marriages to islam, does it make sense? No. Yet people attack islam rather than muslims for all these wrong doings. There are therefore at least two parallel islams a)islam in the quran and b)islam of corrupt mullahs and corrupt muslim rulers.

The quran is against killing of kufar in the name of islam unless they start it. Even then if they stop them muslims must also stop.

031.014 YUSUFALI: And We have enjoined on man (to be good) to his parents: in travail upon travail did his mother bear him, and in years twain was his weaning: (hear the command), "Show gratitude to Me and to thy parents: to Me is (thy final) Goal.

031.015 YUSUFALI: "But if they strive to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration), and follow the way of those who turn to me (in love): in the end the return of you all is to Me, and I will tell you the truth (and meaning) of all that ye did."

060.008 YUSUFALI: Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

060.009 YUSUFALI: Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.


005.082 YUSUFALI: Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.
005.087 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! make not unlawful the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, but commit no excess: for Allah loveth not those given to excess.


The quran is very clear that there is no problem due to religion, for muslims must lookafter their kafir parents nicely even if they ask them to renounce islam. So animosity is not due to religion but due to social injustices and unfairness between people be they blood related. If one treats his brother badly, he too will be forced to return the favour. It is simple as that. Jewish animosity is in sense of jewish chiefs who are anti social justice and anti fairness not all jews, for quran makes distinction between people not on basis of religion but on basis of what they do to each other and the wider community or humanity.

So those who believe in killing innocent kafirs believe so against the very teachings of islam. To get muslims in the right frame of mind we must get them out of mullah control who just use them and abuse them in the very name of their religion against the very teachings of the quran. Once people are free there is no going to be blasphemy law any more. There are no going to be child marriages nor stoning to death of people. This is not a divisive struggle but a common struggle. May be media should take on these issues to educate the nation or rather the nations.

As far as I can think, we humans are bound by our individual circumstances eg you will agree that in case of beliefs, we follow our parents to begin with and then as wider a society as is within our reach or experience. Therefore in most cases it is wrong to blame anyone for whatever results from that. However blame is right if we have some opportunity to be better yet we fail to take advantage of it. For example, we are born ignorant knowing nothing about life in this world. It is wrong in my view to blame anyone for that because it is a natural situation ie we cannot do anything to change this situation. However, after we are born we still depend on others to raise us. This again is not in our control as to how people responsible for us raise us eg parents, relatives and wider society. We are born into an already existing system of life or an environment wherein our parents etc are all bound to some degree by their circumstances and their situations. This is why we usually follow our parents religion as well as profession for earning our living. This is because we find it easier to do things that we have learned from our family and relatives and friends than to learn something completely new.

Therefore a muslim child is a muslim and a hindu child is a hindu or a child of farmer is also a farmer and the child of a doctor is likely to be a doctor because this is what is learned within the family as we grow. To change from one to another needs a lot more effort on one's part because one has to learn a lot of new things. In real world most people have little spare time to be able to do all that and as a result the change is very slow.

Likewise some time humanity suffers quite a lot because of itself eg wars of conquests ruined world many times over creating setbacks in human civilisation. So if life itself is full of problems as it is and then people also add to them by doing stupid things due to their shortsightedness and undue greed and arrogance then things really slow down human progress and prosperity for too much.

Likewise in recent history world war one and two destroyed our world quite a lot and set us centuries back. Under such circumstances peoples' very survival was at stake than thinking about progress of humanity. You see education as not a priority when choice is only between death and survival. All planning only comes after we survive and stabilise our food chan and to some degree shelter. This means as people began to settle down a bit they started building up their societies again and that is when education was thought about. Since people had little means for it they just taught each other whatever they could or whatever little they knew.

In case of pakistan, we need to look at history of muslims in india. India was a great place under rajput rule when muslims began attacking it and gradually made in roads and finally took over india. Then there came in fighting between muslims and finally mughal king jalal uddeen m akbar managed to bring india back to its former glory and beyond but later even his descendents also fell into dispute and the country was set on conflicting course by aurangzeb alamgeer due to his creation of religious divide amongst people. He was an ignorant mullah if you like who thought islam was all about treating nonmuslims bad.

Once you make the mistake of setting up a poeple to have civil wars then it is not possible to save the land from devastation. This is why battles between hindus and muslims started and continued till british tookover india in 1857. There is a lesson in all this for us today not to make the same mistakes. Muslims were on top of the world when they were open minded but always at the bottom whenever they became narrow minded bigots.

Regardless india was finally partitioned by the british and again it was mainly because of the prevailing circumstances at the time ie the hindus and muslims were not sensible enough to find the ways to be able to live together on equal footing on basis of fairness and social justice for all. Suspicion, mistrust and distrust settled in and so things went bad to worse. Partition was not a good thing nor it was done in a sensible way by the british because 14 million people greatly suffered during that time. Such a thing never happened before this in human history. Kashmir is still a thorny issue and now both sides of the divide are nuclear powers. In both countries poverty is at its maximum and poor and weak are totally crushed under the weight of out of control inflation and lack of education and job opportunities etc etc. Above all this the corruption in each of our countries is devastating lives.

So there is natural situation as well as manmade due to which we have the situation in pakistan. As for importing of islamic ideology from saudia, it is a small part of it but major part is people not understanding the real issues and religion in that context.

When we look at islam there are three islams a)islam in the quran in its own context b)islam of sectarians in their own context and c)islam of political elite in their own context.

I have explained real islam in my posts and that islam is not a problem because reason does not need guns ie it is powerful enough on its own to force one to accept it.

The sectarian islam is obvious to all of us eg shia, sunni, deobandi, brelavi, wahabi etc etc etc. These good muslims are beating up each other and even blowing up each other, isn't that great? Do I need say anything more?

The political elite islam is obvious from this very thread where weak and poor and minorites are legally persecuted and prosecuted in the name of islam, not only in paksitan but other muslim countries as well eg Afghanistan, Egypt, iran, Bangladesh etc etc . This is the best form of islam, don't you agree? Muslims are famous people around the world, aren't they?

Looking at saudi version of islam, saudia is an absolute monarchy and it suits best the absolute monarchy to have an interpretation of islam that secures it and if possible to make it an imperial power. Their version of islam looks after them and so they look after that version because it helps them survive and may be expand.

The question is, why saudies are spreading their version of islam around the globe? Because it makes a good political, social and business sense for them. Being king in a land that is respected by so many people around the world means a lot if one could realise ie it is a huge political advantage over whole islamic ummah ie they are ruling all muslims so to speak. Also it is great social previlage without spending a dime ie it gives them status in muslim society. So many people turning up on hajj and umrah each and every year, brings them loads of money to spend as they like.

One will see mullahs preaching ritualism of islam after aqaaid rather than socialism of islam which is its right priority order in quranic islamic context. It is because building of a good society is more important than merely practicing ritualism of islam. Rich muslims go on hajj and umrah as if they are going on holidays the while a lot more important things are not given any attention at all. People will do all they can to build a masjid but never a good school or hospital or other social infrastructures to help people have education and be able to earn their livelihood. This shows how people have their priorities wrong way round in the name of religion.

So there is urgent need for us to get our attention focused on things that are more important. We must target our already very limited ways and means and resources towards more beneficial things rather than on things that have no return. Because if we spent whatever little we have on things that give us no return then we have nothing more to invest in our future. Does anyone run his business like that? Investing in our proper education is absolutely vital if our children are going to have any future. This is a must as far as islam is concerned. When the prophet moved to madinah he first built the mosque ie a centre for people to gether and discuss and take care of issues of daily concern.

Prayer in masjid is not about praying but allowing people the opportunity for gathering so that they remain alert about what is going on within the society and outside. The ritual of hajj or friday gathering served the same purpose but for wider community. The spirit of brotherhood is as if gone from muslim minds. Religion has become a mere spiritless exercise. Rather than caring and sharing, muslims have become killers of each other instead in the name of their religion. This is a very sad state of affairs indeed.

So if we want to turn things around, we need to work at it by reintroducing the religion to the people in its proper context that helps people be better human beings by serving humanity. This means we start bringing down political elites' islam and sectarian islam by showing clearly to people what real islam is all about. So that we could get muslims to join the rest of people of pakistan to built it in to a great nation that we all could be proud of.

We should start turning majids into proper educational centres the way masjid was used in time of the prophet. We have gone downwards rather than building on that idea. Is there any point in building such a huge structure and then using it only for several minutes each day for prayers? This is irresponsible waste of resources at grand scale the while our kids use tents for schools.

People build huge structures on graves of saints etc yet do not provide for the children that are our future and that this is our religious duty as well as legal and emotional responsibility. Why have we turned islamic teaching on their head? Who benefits from that and who loses as a result?

It is a huge issue so it cannot be dealt with in one go but we should keep on asking the right questions and hopefully we will get the answers as we continue discussing things of concern.​

 

[rubPzai]

013.011 YUSUFALI: .......... Allah does not change a people's lot unless they change what is in their hearts. But when (once) Allah willeth a people's punishment, there can be no turning it back, nor will they find, besides Him, any to protect.

006.159 YUSUFALI: As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did.

010.057 YUSUFALI: O mankind! there hath come to you a direction from your Lord and a healing for the (diseases) in your hearts,- and for those who believe, a guidance and a Mercy.


Anyone who takes each and every word of other than allah as law and attributes it to allah is attributing to allah what is not from allah.

Anyone who takes each and every word of other than that of the prophet as law and attributes it to the prophet is attributing to the prophet something that is not from the prophet.

What is wrong with doing that?

It is very important to realise that god is perfect in every way, free of all faults as far as the quran is concerned, therefore if anyone attributes anything to god that is not perfect in any way then one is in serious trouble. Also it clearly shows that that the person is lying. So people need to become alert about such things. Let me try and explain. A person knows his father is a normal human being but some one comes along and tells him that his father is blind or has no leg or arms then that person can be caught lying straightaway.

Likewise if god is perfect and some one through some scripture or belief tells us something that does not go with what god is than that is clearly a lie. According to all religious books, there have been many imposters so people need to be very careful as to who they follow and why. The best protection against this is to arm oneself with knowledge that helps know the truth.

When it comes to useful information, in some situations it is not important to know who the utterance is attributed to but what it says. If the saying is good then it is authentic but if the saying is not good then it does not matter who said it, just don’t act on what it says. So a good thing is good no matter what it is or where it comes from but a bad thing is bad no matter where that comes from eg talebani islam is not the correct islam, so don’t follow it. Why not? Not because I say so but kindly read the book of islam ie the quran the way it is supposed to be read as I have explained it here.

The taleban are a backward people who think islam is all about living like the prophet of islam as he used to live in his own time in his own place Arabia according to his circumstances and situations. So you will see all muslims who are of this mindset trying to do exactly that ie they try to sit like prophet, stand like prophet, eat like prophet, sleep like prophet, travel like prophet, communicate like prophet etc etc etc.

Their reason is mainly a verses in the quran which tells that in the life of the prophet is the best example to follow ie 33/21.

033.021 YUSUFALI: Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.

003.031 YUSUFALI: Say: "If ye do love Allah, Follow me: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

The question is, do these like verses in the quran tell followers of the prophet to live exactly like the prophet used to? My answer is no, they don't as per talebanic understanding and their practice of it.

Reasons;

1)No two people are 100% similar not even the identical twins.
2)It is not humanly possible for anyone to have 100% information about anyone that is 100% accurate or true.
3)It is not humanly possible for anyone to be like anyone else 100%


4)The quran also tells muslims to follow all the prophets including abraham and his followers using exactly the same words eg 60/4 etc. This tells us that there is something in common between all the prophets that we must follow if we are proper muslims. The only common thing between the prophet is the way of living for all human beings muslims or nonmuslims with which they are sent for establishing and accomplishing it and maintaining it. It is away of life that is based on some main principles that are common between all human beings ie social justice, fair play, peace, cooperation, progress and prosperity of mankind. The prophets were not sent and they did not come to divide people on basis of different beliefs but to unite people on basis of common grounds between them as human beings.

It is for this reason fighting over beard and burqa between muslims is wrong because it is in serive of the cause that a prophet needs following not in how he dresses up or how many hair he had in his beard. Imagine a king leading his army into a battlefield for fighting the war and his followers instead start looking at him and doing irrelevant things eg start looking at his beard or dress etc etc. If they did this the war will be lost. Likewise the prophets have been sent with a purpose and the true follower of the prophets is only he who helps them fulfil their mission. The mission is establishing the way of allah for the good of whole of humanity.

5)The quran states that adam and his wife wore leaves to cover their bodies.

020.121 YUSUFALI: In the result, they both ate of the tree, and so their nakedness appeared to them: they began to sew together, for their covering, leaves from the Garden: thus did Adam disobey his Lord, and allow himself to be seduced.

The verses like these and many other verses which tell us stories of the prophet clearly show us that each of the prophets lived the way his people used to live. If the people lived in caves, the prophets also used to live in caves. If people lived in houses the prophets also lived in houses. They ate whatever others ate and drank whatever others drank, they travelled like people of their times and communicated like the rest of the people. What they did not do was from which allah stopped them and they certainly did what allah imposed upon them as a their duty. This is vitally important point to remember.

Fron the above explanation, it is clear that the later prophets did not live like their forefathers or prophets before them eglater prophets did not live like adam eg noah, abraham, david, Solomon, moses or jesus etc etc. The stories of david and solomon tell us how they lived. If sunnah meant that later people must live like ealier prophets then prophet ought to show this by their examples because the religion islam is same of all prophets and therefore sunnah can only mean the way of the prophets ie the way they responded to what allah demanded of them. So allah did not demand of any people to follow the prophets in the way they lived but the way they followed will of allah ie what they stood for and how they fulfilled it.

This shows very clearly that following the prophet of islam does not mean living like him exactly as he lived in his own time and place but living in one's own time and doing things the way situation and circumstances demand in the sense that if the prophet was here today what would he make of the quranic message today.

In short other than doing clearly unlawful or forbidden things or doing the things that are binding as aduty, one is free to live as one likes the way it best suits time and place. That is the way all the prophets lived.

This shows very clearly that islam is progressive not backward like taleban want us to believe. They are simply put ignorant people giving bad name to islam. They make their own unislamic laws and attribute them to islam.

Islam is based on principle of social justice and fair play in all walks of life. Now justice and fair play is not possible where a society is such as cannot meet its lawful needs and desires.

Allah says in the quran;


05.087 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! make not unlawful the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, but commit no excess: for Allah loveth not those given to excess.


006.138 YUSUFALI: And they say that such and such cattle and crops are taboo, and none should eat of them except those whom - so they say - We wish; further, there are cattle forbidden to yoke or burden, and cattle on which, (at slaughter), the name of Allah is not pronounced; - inventions against Allah's name: soon will He requite them for their inventions.
006.140 YUSUFALI: Lost are those who slay their children, from folly, without knowledge, and forbid food which Allah hath provided for them, inventing (lies) against Allah. They have indeed gone astray and heeded no guidance.
006.145 YUSUFALI: Say: "I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine,- for it is an abomination - or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than Allah's". But (even so), if a person is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- thy Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
006.146 YUSUFALI: For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with undivided hoof, and We forbade them that fat of the ox and the sheep, except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone: this in recompense for their wilful disobedience: for We are true (in Our ordinances).
006.150 YUSUFALI: Say: "Bring forward your witnesses to prove that Allah did forbid so and so." If they bring such witnesses, be not thou amongst them: Nor follow thou the vain desires of such as treat our signs as falsehoods, and such as believe not in the Hereafter: for they hold others as equal with their Guardian-Lord.
007.031 YUSUFALI: O Children of Adam! wear your beautiful apparel at every time and place of prayer: eat and drink: But waste not by excess, for Allah loveth not the wasters.

007.032 YUSUFALI: Say: Who hath forbidden the beautiful (gifts) of Allah, which He hath produced for His servants, and the things, clean and pure, (which He hath provided) for sustenance? Say: They are, in the life of this world, for those who believe, (and) purely for them on the Day of Judgment. Thus do We explain the signs in detail for those who understand.

In fact the quran teaches muslims to pray for having good things in this life and in hereafter.

007.033 YUSUFALI: Say: the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are: shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason; assigning of partners to Allah, for which He hath given no authority; and saying things about Allah of which ye have no knowledge.
002.201 YUSUFALI: And there are men who say: "Our Lord! Give us good in this world and good in the Hereafter, and defend us from the torment of the Fire!"

003.148 YUSUFALI: And Allah gave them a reward in this world, and the excellent reward of the Hereafter. For Allah Loveth those who do good.

016.030 YUSUFALI: To the righteous (when) it is said, "What is it that your Lord has revealed?" they say, "All that is good." To those who do good, there is good in this world, and the Home of the Hereafter is even better and excellent indeed is the Home of the righteous,-

016.041 YUSUFALI: To those who leave their homes in the cause of Allah, after suffering oppression,- We will assuredly give a goodly home in this world; but truly the reward of the Hereafter will be greater. If they only realised (this)!

016.122 YUSUFALI: And We gave him Good in this world, and he will be, in the Hereafter, in the ranks of the Righteous.

From all this one should be able to see very clearly indeed that islam in the quranic context is nowhere near talebanic islam. The talebanic islam is all about taking us back in time whereas the quranic islam is all about progress and prosperity of humanity. No wonder then that all progressive nations in the world are enemies of such muslims because they do not want to live like them ie self destructive way oe self imposed strangulation a suicidal mission .

Talebanic islam is full of bad practices that turns people backward and useless for themselves and for others. Not being able to meet even their own needs and lawful desires never mind doing anything thing better for other human beings, for that you need to do more than what you need for yourself ie produce surplus in economic language.

I think muslims who understand islam better should confront taleban with these like undisputable facts to bring them to their senses. They are just being silly in the extreme.

I mean look at how many people they have stoned to death and how many child marriages they have conducted against the very clear instruction of the quran as already explained or how they led their people into poverty and thereby pain suffering and death, how can they compensate them and how can they live with that is beyond me.


As for sharing thoughts with each other, it is a very educational process. Any nation that does not discuss and debate things or does not allow it is most definitely a dead nation. Only lively people help our world to be a better place.

To help pakistan become a better nation there is dire need for education so we could see the problems that face pakistan and try and diagnose the causes behind them and see how we can get rid of those causes and thereby problems.

The country is seriously divided on various grounds and therefore the need for such education that helps us unite. I have explained how we can remain tribal but we must have purposeful freedom within tribes for individuals so that people could have peace between them so that they could cooperate with each other to make progress towards prosperity of all so that all could have the opportunity to have a reasonably happy life. It is not tribalism or religion or secularism or democracy that is bad rather it is people who are ignorant who do not know what these things means and they work together to give humanity the best future people can have.


Any system will work that is based on justice and fair play and any system will fail where there is injustice and unfairness. All should take this to heart no ifs and buts. There is most certainly no need for people to kill each other or make each other suffer rather we all need to help each other rise up the ladder of success as human beings not push and pull each other off the ladder of success and thereby derail the humanity from its right path.

As for secularism v religion, as I have explained that islam can fit into secularism and secularism can fit islam within it as shown by the example of the prophet named as pact of madinah, why? Because as I explained secularism is all about living a good life in this world and islam does not oppose people from living a good life in this world so there is no conflict. This is why muslims and nonmuslims can live together as one people as the prophet used to live with majority nonmuslims both in makkah and madinah and as nonmuslims used to live with majority muslims.

If we read the quran all the prophet who came to any people were from amongst them and were in minority to begin with. None of them opposed living with nonmuslims but spoke out against unfairness and injustices within their societies and were driven out by the powerful people in leading positions in their societies. They did not leave their societies saying to the people, look! We are muslims so we do not want to live with you because you are nonmuslims so we are leaving.

It is a constant thread in almost all stories in the quran so any muslim who tries to divide people on basis of religion is not exactly following the quran. No prophet divided people on basis of religious beliefs, all divisions were based on social concerns and were caused by corrupt religious and political leaders. How, because they used to use and abuse their people and prophets acted as reformers and in defence of those people and the struggles started. Even today that struggle is on because people with concern for humanity do not sit idle. No prophet forced anyone to accept the religion of the prophet other than by putting forth arguments in favour of their mission. However, because people saw that these people were doing good for them so they started following the prophets. We do that even today that if we like an idea or a person we are just convinced and start supporting it/him/her. So religion must not be thought of in isolation but on ground reality.

However there are no guaranties that followers really follow the leaders faithfully, likewise the followers of prophets were just people and so people needed to be careful not to give their support to leaders from amongst them without due care and investigation. Supporting anyone is a trust and a huge responsibility of the individual on behalf of the rest of the society, so do not help choose such people as your leaders as are not reliable people because they cannot deliver the goods. Democracy is not about throwing your vote in the bin, it is about choosing a person who can best represents you and the country wherever s/he goes. Would you like to be known by some bad reputation? Of course not, so why would you be so silly to choose someone to represent you who brings you and your country bad name and condemnation?

Get to know about people as much as you can and what they stand for before you vote for them. You should be sensible enough to see what you really want from your leader under the circumstances at the time and whether the leader is capable of delivering it. Once you have chosen a leader monitor the progress towards the goal to see if you are getting what you voted for or else change your leader.

Since we cannot know everyone personally we must have ways set up whereby we can get reasonable and reliable information about people who wish to be our leaders. These ways must not be trusted on their face value but monitoring ways must also be set up so that any misinformation and disinformation and conspiracies could be filtered out. Lies and more lies are very much possible and so there should be serious legal consequences for such people as try to mislead public. If these people are let off the hook, it will only encourage more and more leaders to be like that. Prevention is better than cure but cure also has its place, so disease must be dealt with effectively.

What I am talking about is media. There should be party based media so that each political party could state its case free of other peoples' interference straight and clear. This way parties can put forth their own points of views freely as well as criticise other parties involved as they like eg government, other political parties or individuals etc etc. There should be state based media as well, this should keep an eye on all citizens to ensure that all are working for the good of the country as well as it should be free to inform public what the government is up to and how it is progressing. There should be public based media that ensures the public interest and monitors that the government is working properly to serve them and political parties are working mainly in the public interest. Finally there should be independent media that should keep all in check against each other.

My point here is that unless an individual has proper information one cannot make a proper decision. All remain in the dark and so cunning people can get in to power and ruin things for everyone. If we have checks and balances in place, bad things will still happen but not at massive scales. Media is best form of our senses ie it can be our eyes and ears. It is the best defence against corruption, abuse, error and negligence etc by anyone ie political parties, government , public, individual etc.

Parties fighting it out against each other is another very good defence against bad things happening in society.

These like things help us prevent bad things from happening in the society and even if any do they can be brought to light straight away so that the situation could be rectified without delay. Each side will keep all others on their toes.

We also need independent judiciary worth the name. It should be there not only for criminal matters but civil matters as well. Justice must be justice ie fair, quick and affordable for all who need it. Justice department should take notice of all maters in the public interest where no other party is involved as accuser or accused. People should be appointed as judges by the public not government or political parties and their performance must be monitored by the public.

As for making laws, the parliament must debate whatever the proposed laws may be regarding anything. The public, the political parties, the government or any individual citizen should be able to propose any law they wish and it should become law only and only if it is agreed that it is beneficial for the country as whole or is not damaging to the country in any way at least. No law should be passed that is clearly seen damaging for the country or its citizens. Any law that has been passed its effects must be monitored and if found clearly not for the public good it must be repealed, the sooner the better.

Even though pakistan is a majority muslim country yet no such law should be passed as is unfair and unjust for any citizen of Pakistan or discriminatory on basis of beliefs, religions, sects, gender, race, ethnic origin etc etc. It is absolutely vital that the quranic laws are properly understood in their proper context as explained. In my personal view the quranic laws are as good as any other laws for the same thing if not better. I am utterly against theocracy and mullaism or khilafah etc. They are in my view unislamic as per my own understanding of the quran and hadith but that is my personal view and I do not mind discussing these things in great delail for the benefit of the people.

Secular democracy is the best form of government that I can think of in the light of the quran but people are may be not ready for it yet because they do not know what it is. So it is better we educate our public any way we can. This whole thing needs a lot of time and effort. If people really understood quranic islam I do not think they would want anything other than that outline or framework as a political system, structure and practice.

I have already explained that islam is just a set of some directives ie a loose frame work within which we must do all by ourselves the best we can come up with for the benefit of all of us. This is quranic islam and it is not a straight jacket as mullahs want for us. It is like you have a fence around a field for protection of those inside the fence and within that huge field you are free to do as you please regardless you are a muslim or a kafir. As far as islam is concern you are all brothers and sister a one big family. This is true Islamic brother hood not the one mullahs tell us, because of their baby minds.

031.014 YUSUFALI: And We have enjoined on man (to be good) to his parents: in travail upon travail did his mother bear him, and in years twain was his weaning: (hear the command), "Show gratitude to Me and to thy parents: to Me is (thy final) Goal.

031.015 YUSUFALI: "But if they strive to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration), and follow the way of those who turn to me (in love): in the end the return of you all is to Me, and I will tell you the truth (and meaning) of all that ye did."

017.023 YUSUFALI: Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honour.

060.008 YUSUFALI: Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

029.008 YUSUFALI: We have enjoined on man kindness to parents: but if they (either of them) strive (to force) thee to join with Me (in worship) anything of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not. Ye have (all) to return to me, and I will tell you (the truth) of all that ye did.

046.015 YUSUFALI: We have enjoined on man kindness to his parents: In pain did his mother bear him, and in pain did she give him birth. The carrying of the (child) to his weaning is (a period of) thirty months. At length, when he reaches the age of full strength and attains forty years, he says, "O my Lord! Grant me that I may be grateful for Thy favour which Thou has bestowed upon me, and upon both my parents, and that I may work righteousness such as Thou mayest approve; and be gracious to me in my issue. Truly have I turned to Thee and truly do I bow (to Thee) in Islam."

Can anyone here see allah telling muslims to kill kafirs just because they are kafirs? No. It tells us even if parent tell you to be a kafir don't disrespect them and treat them as a child should. The only time muslims are allowed to fight with relatives is when war becomes inevitable. That is only in war not when there is peace. The war is only there when unjust parents and relatives impose it on muslim relatives and leave them no choice but to fight back. The question is, is this wrong? If one cannot live with kafirs then how can there be such relationship between parent and children as the quran advises? This again causes contradictions within the quran if people must not be allowed to live with each other like a single family. These like verses clearly tell us that social relationships between human beings are respected in the quran regardless of their religious beliefs. All this proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Islam is tribalism, islam is religionism and islam is secularism ie all in one. The common principle is freedom for all, social justice and fair play for all within tribe, religion and secularism. This is recipe for peace and harmony between all people so that they cooperate for progress and prosperity of each other and thereby eliminate ignorance, poverty and disease from the face of the earth.




Let me try and put things in context again so that my stand point becomes clear. I think it is wrong to think people are individuals to start with because it is not true. People are interdependent individuals ie they are not here all by themselves but due to others ie parents. Not only that but also we all need others at one time or another so our individuality is just a little part of this whole thing and that is all. As soon as we are born parents take care of us and very soon we too end up as parents so there is no much individuality for us in reality. We only have our own space for a very short while when we become independent of our parents financially but soon we get others into our space ie wives and children. This is why we have politics because we humans have societies which totally independent individuals do not need because they do not need anyone else ever. It is misleading to think we are gods. It is because we are interdependent individuals that we need political setups as societies so that as societies we could create cultures that suit us for various reasons for catering for our different needs and desires, mental and physical.



There are many discussions and debates about religions, philosophies, politics, behaviours, ideologies, practices, attitudes etc etc. All we are trying to do is to see how we can live a good life. In this picture we stand on removing ills from the human society without destroying people or their society.

The question is what are those ills we wish to remove from our societies? They are what we consider bad things or practices and actions for the societies because they hold us back from purposeful freedom, freedom for peaceful coexistence, coexistence with harmony for unity, unity for cooperation, cooperation for progress, progress for prosperity. All these are necessary for our happiness to some degree as our end goal which cannot be achieved unless people follow these things.

In the explained context atheists think atheism is good because the idea of god is making people fight over religions. However if god is taken out of the equation, are people not going to fight? The answer is that they will still fight because of the things we must have, to be able to have a chance of a happy life. So we need to remove not only such gods as are troublesome but all other such things as well that are obstacle in the way of our happiness ie anti freedom things, anti peace things, anti harmony things, anti cooperation things, anti progress things and anti prosperity things.

If we cannot think this far then all arguments and stand points are useless till we achieve such knowledge. It then matters not whether there is any god or no god. The argument for and against god/s is only worthy of our time if it is beneficial and is a way to a final goal, which is same as goal of all religions including humanism ie peace and happiness for humanity.

This explanation seemed necessary to me so there we have it. I am not here to destroy people but to help them educate themselves and thereby myself towards the goal of better world. In this context I would like people to help each other spot bad things within us and our societies and then do things to let others know about them so that together little by little we can succeed in removing them in order to improve our societies.

This is why there is no need to destroy any religion or people wholesale but whatever is wrong with them. You do not need to throw away the whole human being if one gets just a limb infected badly. You try and save the life by cutting off the bad part and throwing it away so that it does not causes more damage to the individual or spreads the disease to other individuals.

This brings us to next question, what should we remove from societies first why and how? For example, is it of utmost importance that we first of all remove idea of gods from this picture or atheism or should we go for something else or just carry on with whatever we can?

So people who have some silly notion of arguing for sake of argument without any sensible end goal to share with others are really silly and they are not making the contribution they need to.

As one can see from my explanations, Islam in its quranic context is not a bad thing but surely muslims are making it look really evil. I invite people to study islam in quranic context and then study muslims as well and see where the real problem is. Islam may not be the best religion in one’s view but I am certain that many muslims are worst of all the people. Why? Because they are trying to make islam what it is not, in a really bad way frightening away the whole human race from islam.

Our objective should be to see ills for ourselves, point out those ills to each other and cooperate to remove them from between us. The same should be done by people of all other religions and beliefs so that we all end up united and happy.

Let me give you an example, everyone is aware that muslims claim the prophet married his wife ayesha when she was six and consumated his marriage with her when she was 9 years old. This they do on the basis of some so called ahadith in the most authentic sunni books of hadith called siha sitta, meaning the set of six most authentic hadith collections eg bukhari, muslim, tirmizi, ibn maja, abu dwud and nisai.

Here is what the quran tells us as law in islam.

004.006 YUSUFALI: Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them, release their property to them; but consume it not wastefully, nor in haste against their growing up. If the guardian is well-off, Let him claim no remuneration, but if he is poor, let him have for himself what is just and reasonable. When ye release their property to them, take witnesses in their presence: But all-sufficient is Allah in taking account.

004.019 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.

The quran is very clear that there is an age for marriage and that forced marriage is haraam/unlawful. The age of marriage is when two people are able to produce kids and have needed sense to raise a family by being able to take care of the family. One can see when adam, abraham and david and solomon got married and when moses got married. They did not marry child brides. There is no child marriage in the quran.

Marriage is not a duty in islam let alone child marriage. Why would anyone want to marry a baby or not so old person who hardly can lookafter oneself?

Now I ask, a man who gave us the quran and told us this himself, how could he go against this himself? Would people (particularly his enemies) not ask him, wait a minute man, what the hell is this you think you are doing marrying a child?

I think these are invented hadith may be by people with such tendencies to justify their lust for kids in the name of religion or even in the name the prophet of islam.

This has nothing to do with quranic islam in quranic context. The problem does not remain to the hadith rather tafseer books are full of this kind of stuff so we need to be very careful what we take as islam and why?

Taleban have been practicing this kind of islam, so I leave it to people to decide whether taleban are real muslims or not.

Coming to ahadith, it is clear that people with various objectives have been inventing ahadith to create loopholes in islam for their own ends. Some decided to stone people to death for some other revenge and others invented hadith to justify paedophilia and yet others other socially unacceptable things because they are bad.

These people thought they could get away with it because people will look at who said it not what is said. They have been very successful because muslims have been dooped in a great majority. All because people did not educate themselves or failed to scrutinize things properly.

It is good idea not to continue things that way if we wish to make pakistan free of bad things in the name of islam.
The issues so far discussed are for example to encourage people to put some effort in to knowing Islamic stand on other things as well and to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that silly mullahs really have us in wrong place ie between the rock and the hard place. If we want to defeat ignorant mullahs, we must defeat them with truth from the quran and likewise if we want to defeat ignorant secularists, we must defeat them with the truth from the very same quran.
We cannot do this unless we study the quran and discuss it in as much detail as is absolutely necessary to get our point across.

There is no way one can fight ignorance with ignorance or by killing innocent people. Pakistan must not kill its own people with guns and bombs, if they are doing bad things because of their stupidity, the best way is to give them education. After all they are human beings who have brains so bombard them with information like this and see the results for yourselves, in very near future. This like information will start discussion in each and every household and people who promote wrong versions of islam will be dumb founded. This is the proper way to kill wrong versions of islam in our peoples’ heads ie replace them with proper islam.


Regards and all the best.

 

[rubPzai]

There are basically only and two ideas in the world that under pin any ruling system that ever existed or is going to exist a)master slave relationship between people that give rise to rivalries and the rest of things that go with those rivalries and b)brotherhood amongst human beings to live as a single family trying to live for each other.

Which one is in the quran? Well I do not need to repeat the answer it is so obvious.

There is no distinction in the quran what we call the system eg MALOOKIYAT=monarchy or khilaafah=caliph-ship. What is important is whether it is accordng to principles of islam and acceptable to humanity or not.

The main princples of islam are freedom, justice, fairness, peace, progress and prosperity for all in this world. Islam is not only about how you live yourself but also what exactly it is that you are doing good for others eg humans and animals etc.

No fair minded person can therefore reject this idea because it make perfect sense. Whether we are able to put this idea across effectively is another things. If we succeed in turning people into sensible human beings who want to do good for others then they will unite and this ruling system therefore can become a reality but if we put across ideas that are acceptable to some but not others due to their divisive nature then we fail because only an unjust and unfair regressive ruling system can do that.

Islamic ruling system is all about finding and managing resoucres so that all human bing can live in peace. Because governments can only distribute what we have and what we have we need to get it ourselves as large human family. Working harder for the good of each other is not same as working harder against each other.

002.246 YUSUFALI: Hast thou not Turned thy vision to the Chiefs of the Children of Israel after (the time of) Moses? they said to a prophet (That was) among them: "Appoint for us a king, that we May fight in the cause of Allah." He said: "Is it not possible, if ye were commanded to fight, that that ye will not fight?" They said: "How could we refuse to fight in the cause of Allah, seeing that we were turned out of our homes and our families?" but when they were commanded to fight, they turned back, except a small band among them. But Allah Has full knowledge of those who do wrong.

002.247 YUSUFALI: Their Prophet said to them: "Allah hath appointed Talut as king over you." They said: "How can he exercise authority over us when we are better fitted than he to exercise authority, and he is not even gifted, with wealth in abundance?" He said: "Allah hath Chosen him above you, and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: Allah Granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth. Allah careth for all, and He knoweth all things."

038.026 YUSUFALI: O David! We did indeed make thee a vicegerent on earth: so judge thou between men in truth (and justice): Nor follow thou the lusts (of thy heart), for they will mislead thee from the Path of Allah: for those who wander astray from the Path of Allah, is a Penalty Grievous, for that they forget the Day of Account.

022.040 YUSUFALI: (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).

022.041 YUSUFALI: (They are) those who, if We establish them in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong: with Allah rests the end (and decision) of (all) affairs.

As for as the quran is concerned one point is very clear, the quran is not against any kind of ruling system so long as the end result is social justice, fair play, peace, progress and prosperity of all people in the land regardless of their beliefs, race or gender etc etc. This is proper rule of law where laws are made for the benefit of the people and not for breaking them for controlling them.

What the quran opposes is any kind of ruling system that is unjust and unfair because it leaves no room for peace between people and so damage and destruction is the result. Laws in such systems of ruling are made for controliing people and breaking them so that they cannot oppose the rulers or ruling elite or people in positions of power.

The quran is happy with popular MALUKIYAT=monarchy as well as popular KHILAAFAT. In the verses of the quran it is the people who are asking for the king to be appointed. MALOOKIYAT is ok because it is up to allah whomever he gives the MULK=kingdom. The only thing is that king shares the land with people and rules with their consent according to the laws that benefit people with which people are happy.

003:026 SHAKIR: Say: O Allah, Master of the Kingdom! Thou givest the kingdom to whomsoever Thou pleasest and takest away the kingdom from whomsoever Thou pleasest, and Thou exaltest whom Thou pleasest and abasest whom Thou pleasest in Thine hand is the good; surety, Thou hast power over all things.

The quran does not distinction betwen monarchy or khilaafat etc but it does between just and unjust, fair and unfair, benficial and harmful ruling systems, structures and practices.

It is very important according to the quran to keep each other in check so that things do not go wrong in the first place but also there should be feed back and correction measures to correct things back to normal if something does go wrong due to negligence or human error etc.

I am very much against mullah rule or theocracy ie I do not like talebanic system of government nor any other inhumane system be it western because it is not only the head of state or government but also the governing system, the governing structure and the governing practice that will save the day if we at all wish to understand things and try and bring them about.

Paying attention to humanity based worldly needs and lawful desires is secularism that islam endorses. People have the right to choose the heads of the state and the government based on merit, this is the kind of democracy that islam endorces ie the official servants must have peoples' backing. The government in islamic ideology is an organisation for serving people in the society or country. The head is top most servant of the people due to maximum responsibilities for each and everything within the land or jurisdiction.

People who want to rule others must be kicked out and those who want to serve others get them in but on merit.

Accountability must be in place in sense of monitoring, feedback and correction measures. Checks and balances must be in place so that wrong happening could be prevented right from the on set. If something bad does happen the correction mechanisms must be triggered without delay to correct things.

The quran is very clear about these things. So long as we bypass the quranic ideas and use it just for khatam drood, we will remain in troubles in every which way.

We need to get right ideas in, right system in, and right people in if we really wish to be successful in both the worlds.

In short we need to make money work for people and not that people work for money. A human friendly economic system is needed not the replacement of old human master slave relationship with economic master slave system.

We need to change mindset from working against each other to working for the good of each other. Let us suppose there is wealth up high and we all want to get to it. Will it make sense if we started pulling each other down so that I have it and you do not? Or would it be better if we worked together and supported each other to get it? One way it is highly possible that none of us will get it but the other way we are very likely to get it. So which way is better? Cooperation is positive competition but working each for himself is negative competition.

I am open for ideas that are good for human beings in this world first and then for the hereafter as well. If islam could be seen to be working people will come to love it but as things stand there is need for hard work to get people to understand islam properly. It will be then easy for them to come together and implemant islam to serve humanity so that all then thank allah for his kindness.

It all comes down to how knowledgeable or how ignorant people are or how wide is their awareness of the world in which they live.

We all have stages of development and so we change our views about things with time and place due to changing situations and circumstances, times and places.

Depending upon our own stage of development we interpret the message of the quran. Likewise, views of iqbal and jinnah changed because we all interact in our own environments with whatever and whoever is there. But the fundamental principle remains the same how to handle the facing situation and circumstance at any given time and place.

The message of the quran is constant because it is all about good for individuals as well as humanity as a whole. It covers the full spectrum but we as individuals take time to reach that stage and some may never so we see the quranic message from the point in the spectrum where we ourselves are.

Otherwise individual, family, tribe, country and the world is all piece of the very same string. It is not islam that divides people but it is people themselves that divide along various ideas that if thought through will be found problematic because they are not based on principles equally acceptable to all for the good of all in any circle regardless how small or how large the circle is.


The prophet was the best of human beings and the quran is the witness to his greatness. The same cannot be said of his companions because they were ordinary human beings who did make odd wrong decisions in their lives. But over all they too were good that is why if they did any wrong they were forgiven. I believe only prophets are sinless not the rest of the people.

I also have reservations about such peoples' understanding of the quran who are divided into sects. The quran first of all stops human beings from divisions and even if some how they become divided yet allah sent many prophets and reformers to get people back together again as a family. There are many verses in the quran on this topic alone.

Likewise understanding of pact of umar is totally wrong. This led to mistreatment of many nonmuslims within the muslim state ie nonmuslims were treated as 2nd and 3rd class citizens of the state. The problem was caused by misuinderstanding of ahlul dhima in the defintion of the term. They are such people who had there own state but were a threat to the muslim state and were brought under its protection after suurrundering. They were not the people living amongst muslims in muslim lands under muslim government but were free to live as they please in their own land. It is like muslims were acting as a fence around them leaving the them to live as they used to live. Theyt had freedom to travel between lands including settling within the muslim state but they needed to display their dhimmi status in that case so that they are known as foreigners in the land. This little misunderstadning did cause a big problem.

Likewise there were some disputes between some companions of the prophet and the household of the prophet, other than such things I do not find much problem with the ruling of sohaba of the prophet. They were a good people. Regardless we need to worry about our own time than worry about the past. We cannot change the past but learn lessons and make future better.

This is month of muharram al haraam which reminds us of battle at karbala. I believe that imaam hussain fought against oppression of yazeed because he tried to stop ahlal bait and ashab of rasool from expressing their proper religious view. This battle had nothing to do to with ruling of state or religious beliefs of the ruler. So I do not accept either wahabi or shia view of the battle and its objective as understood by some of the people amongst them.

Wahabies think that imaam was a rebel, I disagree and condemn this view because imaam did not wanted to rule the state so why would he rebel against it? Imaam was not out to condemn yazeed for his personal beliefs either so why would yazeed want him out of his picture? This was purely a battle for freedom of expression which all tyrants hate. This is why yazeed in my view decieved him and killed him so that proper understanding of islam disappears. People who want to make others slaves they are stopped by those who do not like the idea so they try and finish them off using all ways possible.

In the sacrifice of imaam hussain are remembered all who went before along the same rout and this is not the end, it is just another landmark on the road to freedom of expression. The imaam did not die for khilafat nor for condeming personal beliefs of yazeed rather he was killed by deception because the opressors always try to gag the truth speaker. It is because truth always destroys falsehood in peoples' minds. The spread of message of truth is very dangerous indeed and such message carriers live on the edge if you like because they are target as soon as they start telling the truth to people. Islam when properly understood is enemy of oppressers and persecutors regardless muslims or nonmuslim. It wants believers in the message or its prinicples to establish a just and fair human society ie a better world. However those who dream about enslaving and ruling others are forced in to action as a result. So many prophets have been murdered in cold blood by these people. Hussain is just one more victim of their tyranny.

Ki muhammad se wafa toone to ham tere hen
yeh jahan cheez hai kia loh qalam tere hen

It is vital that those who love freedom of expression, justice and fairness must keep this flame alight as reminder till such a way of life estabilshes here on the earth. Rememberance of this kind of events is not sectarianism but a fitting tribute to such great people who died so that other may live to see freedom, peace, progress and prosperity.

It was a similar struggle that prophet had against makkans but he survived the assesination attempts. This is a typical situation ie that is how villains try to get the hero.

The problem is that bad people in positions of power always try and stop those who try to do good for others. This struggle will continue for as long as there is injustice and unfairness in our world. Such people will conitnue rising up against this carry on and one day people will wake up to this reality when education is wide spread and religion is understood properly by them.

However we should continue the pariticipation for as long as we are alive. Having sights on noble objective is great reason for living and pushing ahead as much as we can individually as well as groups.

The first step for any muslims is to understand the quran properly and then deliver the right message to others. We can see what wrong message in the name of the quran has been doing to the very people it meant to help.

The struggle for freedom, justice and fairness is not a one man show. It is a consistent and persisitent campaign that started as a reaction to disunity between children of adam. Please read dozens of verses in the quran. To start with adam was given the guidance as to how to live a good life in this world so that he be rewarded in hereafter as well. Soon his children fell in dispute and then allah kept sending prophets and reformers to bring back the black sheep to their senses and the campagin continues.

This campaign demands that such events be remembered as they deserve. Of course we should not agree with everything people do in the name of islam but that does not mean we stop our campaigm because some people behave in a way that is not befitting this great movement.

This movement is all about unity not sectarianism in its true spirit. The quran is clear that people must not divide. It is also clear that those who have left the movement must rethink and join in again because there is no other way to live as a family ie caring and sharing with each other as regard ups and downs in life. Our good and bad is one and the same but some of us think otherwise and it is they who are not helpful. They are rebelling against their family, their tribes, their societies by doing things that are harmful to themselves and the others.

As I explained earlier the idea that hussain was a rebel is not right one because it does not make sense in the context of islam and the quran. One has to ask then were all prophets rebels against their chiefs? Did they get what they deserved?

It is the very same question for people today ie who is rebel and who is true campaigner? Hussain did not pick up sword first. It is common sense that if there is oppression first only then people rise against it in reaction the way that is open for them. Hussain was out to get support of people just like the prophet and his opponents tricked him and finished him off.

If one fails to see what islam is all about then there is no point in talking about karbala rather we must decide on what the quran is all about. The life of the prophet is before us as I explained in my posts above ie he was a missionary for freedom, peace, justice, fairness etc etc. This is where his family followed him ie in his mission. That is all. Kindly try and realise the bigger picture.

FANOOS BAN KE JIS KI HIFAAZAT HAWA KERE
WOH SHAMA KIA BUJHE JISSE ROSHAN KHUDA KERE




TYPES OF SUNNI AHADEETH COLLECTIONS AND AHADEETH CLASSIFICATIONS

1) Sahifah:

Sahifah is a collection of Ahadeeth of Sayyidina Muhammad as written down by one of his companions. Collection of Abdullah bin Al-Aas known as Sadiqah is an example.

2) Musannaf:

It is a large collection of Ahadeeth in which Ahadeeth relating to different topics are put together and arranged in chapters dealing with a particular topic. Muwatta of Imam Malik, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are examples of this kind.

3) Musnad:

The word Musnad (supported) was originally used for Ahadeeth which were supported by a complete uninterrupted chain of narrators going back to a companion who related it from Sayyidina Muhammad. But later on the term came to used in a more general sense of reliable and authoritative Ahadeeth. In this sense the term is also used for all reliable works of Hadeeth literature, and the works like Sunan of al-Darimi and Sunan of Al-Bukhari may be called Musnads. But technically, it is used only for those collections of Ahadeeth in which they are arranged in accordance to the names of the final authorities by whom they are related irrespective of their subject matter.

4) Sunan:

Sunan are collections of Ahadeeth relating to Al-Ahkam (legal injunctions). The collection prepared by Imam Abu Dau?d (RA), Imam Nasa?i (RA), and others are known as Sunan works.

5) Mu?jam:

The term Mu?jam is commonly applied to such works on various subjects which are arranged in alphabetical order. The collections which are arranged under the names of the companions in alphabetical order are also known as Mu?jam al-Sahaba. But according to the authorities of the science of Hadeeth the term is technically used for such collections of Ahadeeth which in fact have been arranged according to the Muhadditheen from whom the compiler himself received them. Collections belonging to this class are Tabrani, Ibn al-Qani.

6) Ijzah:

The ijzah are collections of Ahadeeth that have been handed down on the authority of one single individual whether he be a Sahabi (companion) or a Taba?ee (successor).

7) Rasa?il:

These are collection of Ahadeeth which deal with one particular topic out of the following eight topics into which the contents of the Jam?i books of Ahadeeth may be classified:

a) Aqaaid (Beliefs).
b) Ahkam (Laws).
c) Ruqaq (Peity, Asceticism, Mysticism etc.)
d) Aadaab (etiquettes in eating, drinking, travelling etc.)
e) Tafsir (commentary of the Holy Qur?an).
f) Tarikh or Siyar (historical or biographical matters which include cosmology, ancient history, life of Sayyidina Muhammad companions and successors.
g) Fitan (trials and tribulations).
h) Appreciation and denunciation of persons and places.
The Rasa?il are also called Kutub (Books). The works of Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and Jalaluddin Suyuti belong to this category.

8 ) Mustadrak:

These are collections of Ahadeeth in which the complier has accepted the conditions laid down by previous compilers, and adds Ahadeeth left by the original compilers for some reason. Mustadrak of Hakim belongs to this category who increased the Ahadeeth in the works of Bukhari and Muslim which were originally not included by them in their Sahihs.

9) Mustakhraj:

Mustakhraj are those collections of Ahadeeth in which a later compiler adds fresh Isnads (chains of narrators) to the traditions already collected by previous compilers. Abu Nu?aym Isfahani wrote a Mustakhraj on the Sahih of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim by adding fresh chains of narrators for some of the traditions which were already included by them in their Sahihs.

10) Jami?:

Jami? are those collection of Ahadeeth which contain Ahadeeth relating to various subject matters mentioned under Rasa?il. Sahih Bukhari and Tirmidhi are examples of this category.

11) Arba?eenat:

Arba?eenat as the name suggests are the collections of forty Ahadeeth relating to one or more subjects which may have appeared of special interest to the compiler.

The Arba?een of Imam Nawawi (RA) is an example of this kind.

This is in obedience to the Hadeeth of Sayyidina Muhammad:

?Whosoever of my ummah commits to memory Forty Ahadeeth regarding religious matters, he will be raised with the Jurists and religious scholars on The Day of Judegement?




CLASSIFICATION OF HADEETH:

Ahadeeth have been divided into three main categories on the basis of reliability of the narrators and the degree of authenticity of the text:

1) Al-Sahih (Sound):

A Hadeeth that has come down through the virtuous and pious men of age and whose integrity is beyond doubt and therefore the chain of transmission (Al-Isnad) and the text (Al-Matn) are sound, furthermore its text doesn?t contradict any established facts, quran or belief of Islam. They have grades:

a) Those given by Bukhari and Muslim.
b) Those given by Bukhari alone.
c) Those given by Muslim alone.
d) Those not given by either, but fulfil their shuroot (conditions set by them).
e) Those which fulfil Bukhari?s Shuroot (conditions set by Imam Bukhari).
f) Traditions sound in the opinion of other authorities.
2) Al-Hasan (Good):
A Hadeeth which is not considered quite as strong as a Sahih Hadeeth because of the fact that some of its narrators have been found to have a weaker memory in comparison to the narrators of a Sahih Hadeeth. They are however sufficient for establishing points of law.

3) Al-Da?eef or Al-Saqeem (infirm):

The moral excellence of narrators of this category of Ahadeeth is questionable. These types of Ahadeeth have various degrees keeping in view the defects in their reporters or the texts. Allowance is made for using weak Ahadeeth in dealing with advise, stories, and good behaviour. Weak Ahadeeth should not be used in dealings with matters of law, i.e. Halal and Haram.

WITH REFERENCE TO THE NUMBER OF TRANSMITTERS:

1) Mutawatir (continuous):

A Hadeeth reported by a large number of people at different times, which makes it impossible for any falsehood to enter it. This condition must be met in the entire chain from its source to its end.

2) Mashoor (popular):

These are Ahadeeth which were originally narrated in the first generation by two to four narrators. Later (on their authority) these were narrated by several narrators.

3) Aziz (rare):

A Hadeeth that has been transmitted by not less then two persons from not less then two.

4) Ghareeb (poor or strange):

A Hadeeth that is narrated from only one companion or from a single person at a later stage. It may apply to the chain of transmission (Al-Isnad) or the text (Al-Matn) or both. With a little difference it is also known as Fard with only one transmitter at each stage or which is transmitted by people of only one particular area and if it differs from what others report then this type of Hadeeth is known as Shaaz. If it differs from what people of greater authority transmit or if its transmitter is not of sufficient reliability to have his unsupported tradition accepted, it is rejected.

WITH REFERENCE TO THE NATURE OF CHAIN OF TRANSMISSION (AL-ISNAD):

1) Muttasil (connected):

A Hadeeth with an unbroken chain traced back to the source. This has two kinds:

a) Muttasil Marfoo:

Chain goes back to Sayyidina Muhammad.

b) Muttasil Mauqooq (restricted):

Chain goes back to a Sahabi (companion).

2) Maqtu? (intersected):

A Hadeeth going back to a Tabi?ee (successor). Some experts have used it in the sense of Munqati (disconnected) which has been used for a Hadeeth that has a chain including unspecified people or one later then a Tabi?ee, who claims to have heard it from someone having defective hearing. It is also used for one later then a Tabi?ee quoting directly from a Sahabi (companion); but commonly this term is used when there is a break in the chain of authority at any stage later then a Tai?ee.

3) Munfasil (separated):

It is applied to a Hadeeth with several breaks in the chain.

4) Mu?allaq (suspended):

When one or more names are omitted at the beginning of the isnad or when the whole chain is omitted it is called Mu?allaq.

5) Mursal (dropped):

A Hadeeth in which a Tabi?ee directly quotes from Sayyidina Muhammad, dropping the Sahabi (companion) from the chain.

6) Mu?allal or Ma?lool:

A Hadeeth that has some fault in the chain of transmission (Al-Isnad) or the text (Al-Matn).

WITH REFERENCE TO SPECIAL FEATURES OF THE TEXT (AL-MATN) OR THE CHAIN OF TRANSMISSION (AL-ISNAD):

1) Musalsal:

A Hadeeth where the transmitters in an isnad use the same words or are of the same type or come from the same place. This types has two kinds:

a) Musalsal al-half:

If in the chain of transmitters every one swears an oath regarding the authenticity of the text (Al-Matn).

b) Musalsal al-yad:

If in the chain of transmitters each of the transmitters gives his hand to whom he transmits the Hadeeth.

2) Mudallas:

A Hadeeth having a concealed defect in the isnad due to different reasons. Different classification of this kind are as follows :

a) Tadless-ul-Isnad:

This defect may be pretending to hear a Hadeeth from a contemporary while it may not be the case.

b) Tadless-ul-Shuyukh:

The authority quoted bears an unfamiliar name instead of the original and known name.

c) Tadlees-ul-Taswiyah:

To omit a weak transmitter between sound ones.

3) Mubham (obscure):

When a transmitter is named vaguely such as rajul (man) or ibn fulan (son of so and so) particularly when a father is not well known.

4) Maqbul (transposed):

A Hadeeth that is attributed to someone other then the real authority to make it acceptable Ghareeb Hadeeth.

5) Mudhtarib (contradictory or confused):

It is used when two or more persons disagree with one another in their version of the Hadeeth; they being people of equal status in piety, learning etc. The difference may affect the chain of transmission (Al-Isnad) or the text (Al-Matn). This nature of defect makes a Hadeeth weak. When a man becomes knows as Mudhtarib-ul-Hadeeth, it means his traditions are confused.

WITH REFERENCE TO ACCEPTABLE TRADITIONS:

1) Ma?roof (acknowledged):

It is applied to a weak Hadeeth confirmed by another weak one, or it is a Hadeeth superior in the text (Al-Matn) or chain of transmission (Al-Isnad) to a Hadeeth known as Munkar (ignored). It is also applied to a Muhaddith (tradionist) who is reported by more then one transmitter, otherwise he is majhul i.e. unknown either as a person or his reliability.

2) Maqbul (accepted):

It is Hadeeth that fulfils the requirements and it is either Sahih (sound) or Hasan (good).

3) Mahfuz (protected):

It applies to a Hadeeth which, when compared to Shaaz is considered of a greater weight and value.

WITH REFERENCE TO REJECTED TRADITIONS:

1) Munkar (ignored):

A Hadeeth whose transmission is alone and differs from one who is reliable or is one who has not the standing to be accepted when alone.

2) Mardud (rejected):

It is opposite of Maqbul. More particular, it is a Hadeeth from a single transmitter contradicting the authorities on the same material.

3) Matruk (abandoned):

It is a Hadeeth reported by such a transmitter suspected of falsehood or is openly wicked in speech and action or is guilty of carelessness or frequent wrong notions.

4) Mawdu? (fictitious):

This is the worst type of all, as the entire contents of it are fabricated having no truth in it.

As far as the Matn is concerned, the following principles of criticism of the Hadith are also in use.

(1) The Hadith should not be contrary to the text or the teaching of the Qur'an or the accepted basic principles of Islam.

(2) The Hadith should not be against the dictates of reason or laws of nature and common experience.

(3) The Hadith should not be contrary to the Traditions which have already been accepted by authorities as reliable and authentic by applying all principles.

(4) The Hadith which sings the praises and excellence of any tribe, place or persons should be generally rejected

(5) The Hadith that contains the dates and minute details of the future events should be rejected.

(6) The Hadith that contains some remarks of the Prophet which are not in keeping with the Islamic belief of Prophethood and the position of the Holy Prophet or such expressions as may not be suitable to him, should be rejected.



NOTE:- similar information can be found in sharah of mishkaat by mufti ahmad yaar khan naeemi. He was disciple of Maulana Naeem ud Din Muradabadi the disciple of ahmad raza khan of roy breli, india as well as on the following site​

 

[rubPzai]

An Introduction to the Science of Tafseer

by Mufti Shafi Uthmani.


The literal meaning of tafseer in the Arabic language is to open or to explain, interpret or comment. Technically, the science of tafseer is a branch of knowledge in which the meanings of the Quran are explained and its injunctions and wisdoms are described openly and clearly. (al-Burham) Addressing the Holy Prophet, the Glorious Qur'an says:
We revealed the Qur'an to you so that you explain to the people what has been sent down to them (16:44).

The Holy Qur'an also says:
Surely, Allah did a great favour to Muslims when He sent a Messenger to them from among them who would recite His verses before them and purify them and teach them the Book and the Wisdom (3:164).
Keeping this in view, it should be noted that the Holy Prophet did not only teach the words of the Quran, but he also explained these in details. This is why, on some occasions, the revered Companions had to devote years together in learning a single Surah; details will, insha-Allah, appear later on.

Until such time that the Holy Prophet graced the mortal world with his presence, seeking the explanation of any verse was not much of a problem. When the Companions faced any difficulty, they would turn to him and get a satisfying answer. But, later on after him, it became necessary that the tafseer of Qu'ran be preserved as a permanent branch of knowledge so that, along with the words of the noble Qur'an, its correct meaning as well strands were protected and conserved for the Muslim Ummah, and heretics and deviationists could find no room for distortion of its meanings. So, with the grace and tawfeeq of Allah Almighty, this Ummah accomplished this wonderful mission with such efficiency that today we can say without any doubt or fear of rejection that not only are the words of this last Book of Allah protected but also stands protected that correct tafseer and explanation which has reached us through the Holy Prophet and his Companions who were ever-prepared to sacrifice their lives for him.

In what ways did the Muslim Ummah protect and preserve the 'ilm? What extreme hardships they faced in this pursuit? How many stages did this struggle have to go through? All this has a long and fascinating history which cannot be taken up in the present context. The intention here is to state briefly as to what are the sources of Qur'anic exegesis and how these sources have been utilized in explaining the noble Qur'an by all those countless books on 'Ilm al-Tafseer available in every language. These sources are six in number:

1. The Glorious Qur'an:

The first source of the knowledge of tafseer is the Holy Qur'an itself. Accordingly, it happens very often that a certain point which is brief and requires explanation is invariably clarified by some other verse of the Qur'an itself. For instance, there appears that sentence of prayer in the Surah al-Fatihah:
'Guide us in the straight path - the path of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace...'
Now it is not clear here as to who are those whom Allah Almighty has blessed. But, in another verse, they have been identified very clearly where it is said:
So, these are the people whom Allah Almighty has blessed, being the prophets, their true followers, the martyrs (in the way of Allah) and the righteous. (4:69)
Therefore, when respected commentators explain some verse, they first check to see if a tafseer of this verse is already there elsewhere in the noble Qur'an itself. If it is there, they elect to go by it as their first choice.

2. The Hadeeth:

The words and the deeds of the Holy Prophet called Hadeeth, and as it has been stated earlier, Allah Almighty had sent him with the Qur'an solely for the purpose of explaining to people, openly and explicitly, the correct meanings of the noble Qur'an. Consequently, he discharged this duty with grace and excellence both by his words and deeds. In fact his whole blessed life is, after all, a practical tafseer of Qur'an. It is for this reason that respected commentators, in order to understand the Qur'an, have laid the greatest emphasis on Hadeeth as the second source, and it is in the light of ahadeeth that they have determined the meanings of the Book of Allah. However, because all sorts of narrations - sound, weak, and fabricated - are included in Hadeeth, research-oriented commentators do not accept a narration as trustworthy until it withstands the principles used in the scrutiny of Hadeeth narrations. Hence, finding a hadeeth report somewhere, looking at it, and then employing it to determine a certain tafseer is not correct, because that report could be weak, even contrary to other stronger reports. This is really a very delicate matter, and venturing therein is the exclusive prerogative of those who have spent their years in mastering this field of knowledge.

3. The Reports from the Sahabah:

The noble Sahabah (RA) (Companions), may Allah be pleased with them all, had received their education directly from the Holy Prophet . In addition to that, they were personally present on the scene when Wahy came, and they had themselves witnessed all circumstances and backgrounds of the revelation of the Qur'an. Therefore, naturally, the recorded statements of these blessed souls are far more authentic and trustworthy in explaining the noble Qur'an; the later people cannot take that place. Hence, in the case of verses the explanation of which is not found in the Qur'an or Hadeeth, statements recorded from the noble Companions (RA) are given the highest priority. Consequently, if there is a consensus of Companions on the explanation of a certain verse, the commentators follow just that, and explaining it in any way, other than that, is not permissible. By the way, if the statements of Companions (RA) differ in the interpretation (tafseer) of a certain verse, then the commentators who come later examine them in the light of arguments and determine as to which interpretation or explanation can be given preference. In order to handle this situation, there is an important corpus of rules and regulations already codified under the sciences of Usul al-Hadeeth and Usul al-Tafseer a detailed discussion of which is not appropriate here.

4. The Reports from the Tabi'in or Successors:

After Companions (RA) (Sahabah) come the Successors (Tabi'in). The later are those who have learnt the tafseer of Qur'an from the Companions (RA). Therefore, their statements too have great importance in the science of tafseer, although there exists a difference among scholars whether or not the statements of the tabi'in are decisive in tafseer (al-ltqan, 2/179) but their importance is something which cannot be denied.

5. The Arabic Language:

Since the noble Qur'an was revealed in the Arabic language, therefore, in order to explain the Qur'an, it is necessary to have a complete mastery over the language. There are several verses of the noble Qur'an in the background of which there happen to be just no attending circumstances of revelations, or any juristic or scholastic question, therefore, in their tafseer or explanation, the sayings of the Holy Prophet , or the statements of the sahabah and tabi'in are not reported. For that reason, the only means through which these can be explained is that of the Arabic language, and it is on the basis of language alone that they are elucidated. Besides that, should there be some difference in the tafseer of a certain verse, then, in that case too, the science of linguistics is used to run a test of veracity between varying opinions.

6. Deliberation and Deduction:

The last source of tafseer consists of deliberation and deduction. The subtleties and mysteries of the noble Qur'an are an ocean with no shore, no end. Therefore, the more a person, who has been blessed with insight into the Islamic sciences by Allah Almighty, deliberates in it, the more he discovers ever-new mysteries and subtleties. As a result of this, commentators do present the outcomes of their respective deliberations as well, but mysteries and subtleties so described are found acceptable only when they do not go against the five sources mentioned above. So, should a person, while explaining the Qur'an, come out with a subtle point or independent judgment which is contrary to the Qur'an and Sunnah, Consensus (Ijm-a'), Language, or the statements of Companions and Successors, or stands in conflict with another principle of Shari'ah, that will then have no credence. Some mystics (RH) had started describing such mysteries and subtleties in tafseer, but investigative scholars of the ummah did not consider these trustworthy because the personal opinion of any person against the basic principles of the Qur'an, Sunnah and Shariah has obviously no weight. (al-ltqan, 2/184)

The rules relating to Israelite reports:

Judaica or Isra'iliyya-t are narratives which have reached us through Jews and Christians. It may be noted that early commentators used to write down all sorts of narration's which reached them from an identified source. Many of these narration's were straight Judaica. Therefore, it is equally necessary to know what they really are. The reality is that some noble Companions and their Successors first belonged to the religion of the people of the Book, later on when they became Muslims and learnt the Qur'an, they came across several events relating to past communities in the Qur'an and which they had also read in the books of their previous religion. Therefore, while referring to the events mentioned in the Qur'an they would describe other details before Muslims which they had seen in the books of their old religion. These very details have entered into the books of tafseer under the name of 'Isra'iliyyat'. Hafiz ibn Kathir, who is one of the authentic research scholars, has written that there are three kinds of 'Isra-liyya-t':

1. Narrations, the truth of which is proved from other evidences of 'the Qur'an and Sunnah, for instance, the drowning of Pharoah and the ascent of Sayyidna Musa (AS) onto Mount Tur (Sinai).

2. Narrations the falsity of which is proved from other evidences of the Qur'an and Sunnah, for instance, it appears in Judaic narration's that Sayyidna Sulayman (AS) had become (God forbid) an apostate in his later years. Its refutation is proved from the Qur'an. It is said there:
'It was not Sulayman who became an infidel, but the devils did become infidels' (2:102).
To cite yet another example, it finds mention in Judaic narration's that (God forbid) Sayyidna Dawud (AS) (David) committed adultery with the wife of his general (Uriah), or, having him killed through all sorts of contrivances, ended up marrying his wife. This too is a blatant lie, and taking such narration's to be false is imperative.

3. Narration's regarding which the Qur'an, the Sunnah and the Shariah are silent, such as the injunctions of Torah etc., are subjects about which silence is to be observed as taught by the Holy Prophet neither confirm, nor falsify. There is, however, a difference of opinion among scholars whether or not reporting such narrations is permissible. Hafiz ibn Kathir has given the decisive word by saying that reporting these is permissible all right but doing so is useless because they cannot be taken as authentic.(Muqaddamah Tafseer ibn Kathir)


Misconceptions about Tafseer

Hopefully, details given above have made it clear that the tafseer (exegesis or interpretation) of the noble Qur'an is an extremely delicate and difficult undertaking for which getting to know the Arabic language alone is not enough. In fact, it is necessary to have expertise in all related branches of knowledge. Therefore, scholars say that a mufassir or commentator of the Qur'an must have vast and deep knowledge of the syntax, etymology, rhetoric, and literature of the Arabic language, as well as, that of prophetic Traditions, principles governing jurisprudence and exegesis, doctrinal articles of belief and scholastics. The reason is that one cannot arrive at correct conclusions while explaining the Qur'an unless there be that adequacy in these fields of knowledge.

It is regrettable that a dangerous epidemic has overtaken Muslims lately whereby many people have started taking the sole reading ability of Arabic sufficient for the tafseer (interpretation) of the Qur'an. As a result, anyone who gets to read ordinary Arabic starts passing out opinions in the domain of Qur'anic exegesis. Rather, it has been noticed on occasions that people having just passable familiarity with the Arabic language, and who have yet to master their Arabic to perfection, take it upon themselves to engage in explaining the Qur'an following their whims, even going to the limit of finding faults with classical commentators. Bad come to worse, there are some subtle tyrants who would, by simply reading the translation, imagine that they have become scholars of the Qur'an, not even feeling shy of criticizing commentators of great stature.

It should be understood very clearly that this is a highly dangerous pattern of behaviour which, in matters of religion, leads to fatal straying. As regards secular arts and sciences, everyone can claim to understand that should a person simply learn the English language and go on to study books of medical science, he would not be acknowledged as a physician by any reasonable person any where in the world, and certainly not trustworthy enough to take care of somebody's life unless he has been educated and trained in a medical college. Therefore, having learnt English is not all one needs to become a doctor.

Similarly, should anyone knowing English hope to become an engineer just by reading through engineering books, it is clear that no sane person in this world would accept him as an engineer. The reason is that this technical expertise cannot be acquired simply by learning the English language. It would, rather, need a formal training in the discipline under the supervision and guidance of expert teachers. When these stringent requirements are inevitable in order to become a doctor or engineer, how can the learning of Arabic language alone become sufficient in matters relating to the Qur'an and Hadeeth? In every department of life, everyone knows and acts upon the principle that every art or science has its own particular method of learning and its own peculiar conditions. Unless these are fulfilled, the learner's opinion in given, arts and sciences will not be considered trustworthy. If that is so, how can the Qur'an and the Sunnah become so unclaimed a field of inquiry that there be no need to acquire any art or science in order to explain them, and anyone who so wishes starts passing out opinions in this matter?

Some people say that the Qur'an has itself stated that:: 'And surely We have made the Qur'an easy for the sake of good counsel.' And since the noble Qur'an is a simple book, its explanation hardly needs much of a support from any art or science. But this argument is terribly fallacious, which is, in itself, based on lack of intellect and plenty of superficiality. The fact is that the verses of the Qur'an are of two kinds. Firstly, there are the verses that offer general good counsel, relate lesson-oriented events and introduce subjects dealing with taking of warning and acting on sound advice. Examples of this are the mortality of the world, the accounts of Paradise and Hell, the discourses likely to create the fear of God and the concern for the Hereafter, and other very simple realities of life. Verses of this kind are undoubtedly easy and anyone who knows the Arabic language can benefit from their good counsel by understanding them.

It is in relation to teachings of this kind that, in the verse cited above, it was said that 'We have made them easy'. Hence, the word (for the sake of good counsel) in the verse itself is pointing out towards this meaning.
Contrary to this, the other kind consists of verses which include injunctions, laws, articles of faith and intellectual subjects, Understanding verses of this kind as they should be rightfully understood and deducing and formulating injunctions and rulings from them cannot be done by just any person unless one has the insight and permeating reach into the Islamic areas of knowledge. This is why the noble Companions, whose mother-tongue was Arabic and they did not have to go anywhere to get trained into understanding Arabic, used to spend long periods of time in learning the Qur'an from the Holy Prophet . 'Allamah al-Suyuti has reported from Im-am Abu 'Abd al-Rahman Sulami that the Companions, who formally learned the Qur'an from the Holy Prophet , such as Sayyidna 'Uthman ibn 'Affan (RA) and 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (RA) and others, have told us that, after having learnt ten verses of the Qur'an from the Holy Prophet , they would not proceed on to the next verses until such time that they had covered all that was intellectually and practically involved in the light of these verses. They used to say:
We have learnt the Qur'an, knowledge and action all in one. (al-ltqan 2/176)

Consequently, as reported in Mu'atta of Imam Malik, Sayyidna 'Abdullah ibn Umar (RA) spent full eight years memorizing Surah al-Baqarah alone and, as in the Musnad of Ahmad, Sayyidna Anas' (RA), says that 'one of us who would learn Surah al-Baqarah and Surah al-Imran had his status enormously raised among us.'(Ibid)

Worth noticing is the fact that these noble Companions whose mother-tongue was Arabic, who had the highest degree of expertise in poetry and letters and who would have no difficulty in having very long qasidah poems perfectly committed to their memories with the least of effort, why would they need, just to memorize the Qur'an and understand its meanings, as long a time as eight years, and that too, for mastering one Surah? The only reason for this was that proficiency in the Arabic language was not enough to have a learning of the noble Qur'an and areas of knowledge bearing on it. In order to do that, it was also necessary to seek the benefit of the teaching and the company of the Holy Prophet . Now this is so obvious that the noble Companions inspite of having an expertise in the Arabic language and notwithstanding their being direct witnesses to the revelation, still needed the process of going through formal education at the feet of the blessed master in order to become the 'alims of the Qur'an, how then, after all these hundreds of years following the revelation of the Qur'an, just by cultivating an elementary familiarity with Arabic, or by simply looking at translations, can anyone claim to having become a commentator of the Qur'an? What a monsterous audacity and what a tragic joke with knowledge and religion! People who opt for such audacity should remember well that the

Holy Prophet has said:

Whoever says anything about the Qur'an without knowledge, then he should make his abode in Hell. (Abu Dawud, as in al-ltqan, 2/179)

The Holy Prophet has also said:

Whoever talks about the Qur'an on the basis of his opinion, and even if says something true in it, still he made a mistake. (Abu Daw'ud, Nasa'i)


Famous Commentaries of the Qur'an

Countless commentaries of the Glorious Qur'an have been written since the blessed period of the Prophethood. In fact, no other book of the world has been served as much as the noble Qur'an. Introducing all these commentaries is not possible even in some detailed book, much less in a brief introduction such as this. But, what we wish to do here is to introduce very briefly the major commentaries that have served as particular sources of Ma'ariful Qur'an and which have been cited there time and again. Although, during the period the above commentary was being written, many commentaries and hundreds of books were constantly referred to, but here, the purpose is to limit the introduction to commentaries the references to which will appear repeatedly.

Tafseer ibn Jarir: The real name of this tafseer is Jami' al-Bayan and it was compiled by Allamah Aba Ja'far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (died 310 Hijrah). Allamah Tabari is a highly rated commentator, Muhaddith (hadeeth expert) and historian. It is said that he kept writing for forty years continuously and used to write forty pages every day (al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, v. 11, p. 145). There are charges of being Shi'ah against him, but researchers have refuted this charge and the truth of the matter is that he is a highly regarded scholar of the followers of the Sunnah, rather one of the Shi'ite scholars.

Being in thirty volumes, his tafseer enjoys the status of a basic source for later commentaries. In his explanation of the verses, he quotes different scholars and then goes on to prove the position which, according to him, is weightier, of course, with arguments and proof. It must, however, be admitted that narration's of all sorts, sound and weak, have found a place in his commentary. Because of this, not every narration presented by him can be relied upon. In reality, he was aiming through his commentary to collect and compile all narration's that could become available to him, so that this collected material could be put to use later on. Conceded is the fact that he has given the chain of reporters along with each narration so that whoever wishes to investigate into the chain of narrators could do so and decide for himself if the narration's are true or false.

Tafseer ibn Kathir: Hafiz 'Imad al-din Abu al-Fida' Isma'il ibn Kathir al-Dimashqi al-Shafi'i (died 774 Hijrah), a distinguished research scholar of the eighth century, is the author of this commentary. It has been published in four volumes. Here emphasis has been laid on explanatory narration's. A special feature is his criticism as hadeeth expert on different narration's, and from this point of view, this book holds a distinct place among all books of tafseer.

Tafseer Al-Qurtubi: Its full name is Al-Jami li-Ahkam al-Qur'an. It was written by the famous learned writer and research scholar of Andalusia (Spain), Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ahmad Abi Bakr ibn Farah al-Qurtubi (died 671 Hijrah). He was a follower of the Maliki school of fiqh and was known all over for his 'ibadah and piety. The fact is that the basic objective of this book was to deduce juristic injunctions and rulings from the Qur'an yet, while doing so, he has also provided the explanation of verses, research into difficult words, discussion of diacritical marks and elegance of style and composition, and related Traditions and Reports in his tafseer, and quite ably so. This book is in twelve volumes and has been published repeatedly.

Al-Tafseer al-Kabir: This is the work of Imam Fakhr al-din al-Razi (died 606 Hijrah). Its real name is Mafatih al-Ghayb, but is popularly known as Tafseer Kabir'. Imam Razi is an imam of the theology of Islam, therefore, great emphasis has been laid in his tafseer on rational and scholastic debates and on the refutation of false sects'. But, the truth is that this tafseer is, in its own way, a unique key to the Qur'an as well.

Furthermore, the pleasing way in which the meanings of the Qur'an have been clarified and the mutual link of the Qur'anic verses established, is all too praise-worthy. Most likely, Imam Razi himself wrote down his tafseer as far as Surah al-Fath. Onwards from there, he could not complete. So, the remaining part of the tafseer, from Surah al-Fatiha to the end, was completed by Qadi Shihab al-Din ibn Khalil al-Khawli al-Dimashqi (died 639 Hijrah) or Shaykh Najm al-Din Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Qamuli (died 777 Hijrah). (Kashaf al-Zunun v. 2, p. 477)

Imam Razi has particularly emphasised scholastic debates and the refutation of false sects in accordance with the dictates of his time, and while doing so, his discussions have become too lengthy at several places, therefore, some people have made the following comment on his tafseer: 'There is everything in this (book) except the tafseer.' But this comment is a terrible injustice to Tafseer Kabir. That which is the truth has already been stated above, namely, that this tafseer enjoys a high rating as far as the resolution of the meanings of the Qur'an is concerned. But, there are places where he has explained verses of the Qur'an while moving away from the consensus of the ummah, however, such places are very thinly spread out in this book that goes on to eight volumes.

Tafseer al-Bahr al-Muhit: This was written by 'Allamah Abu Hayyan al-Gharnati al-Andalusi (died 754 Hijrah) who was a master of syntax and rhetoric in addition to other Islamic fields of learning. As a result of this, his own tafseer is soaked in syntax and rhetoric. He places special stress on investigating into the words of every verse, the difference in structures and on points of eloquence.

Ahkam al-Quran by al-Jassas: This was written by Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas al-Razi (died 370 Hijrah) who occupies a distinguished place among Hanafi jurists. The deduction of juristic injunctions and rulings from the noble Qur'an is the subject of this book. Instead of explaining verses in serial continuity, he has taken up the juristic details as called for by verses which consist of juristic injunctions. Several other books have also been written on this subject, but this book enjoys a prominent place among those.

Tafseer al-Durr al-Manthur: This was written by 'Allamah Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (died 910 Hijrah). Its full name is 'al-Durr al-Manth-ur fi al-Tafseer bi I'Ma'thur.' Here 'Allamah al-Suyuti has tried to collect all narration's about the tafseer of Qur'an he was able to find. Several hadeeth scholars such as Hafiz ibn Jarir, Imam Baghawi, Ibn Marduwayh, Ibn Hibban and Ibn Majah and others had already worked in this area on their own. 'Allamah al-Suyuti has assembled narration's presented by all of them in this book. But, rather than refer to complete chain of authorities along with narration's, he has found it sufficient to simply name the particular author who has presented that narration under his authority so that, if needed, one could go back to the work and investigate into the ultimate authority. Since his purpose was to put together a mass of narration's, as a result of which, all sorts of narration's, sound and weak, have found their way into his book. Hence, every narration allowed entry by him cannot be considered reliable without investigation into its authority. There are occasions when Allamah al-Suyuti does indicate with each narration the degree of its authority as well. But, as he is known to be fairly easy-going in respect of hadeeth critique, it is still difficult to fully rely on that too.

Al-Tafseer al-Mazhari: This was written by Qadi Thanaullah Panipati (died 1225 Hijrah). He has named this tafseer as 'Al-Tafseer al-Mazhari, after the name of his spiritual master, Mirza Mazhar Jan-e-Janan Dehlavi. This tafseer of his is very simple and clear, and extremely useful to locate brief explanations of Qur'anic verses. Along with the elucidation of Qur'anic words, he has also taken up related narration's in ample details, and in doing so, he has made an effort to accept narration's after much more scrutiny as compared with other commentaries.

Ruh al-Ma'ani: The full name of this tafseer is 'Ruh al-Ma'ani fi Tafseer al-Quran al-'Azim wa al-Sab al-Mathani' and it was written by 'Allamah Mahmud al-Alusi (died 1270 Hijrah), the famous scholar of the last Period of Baghdad, and comprises of thirty volumes. He has made his best possible effort to make this tafseer comprehensive. There are exhaustive discussions on language, syntax, letters, style, and on jurisprudence, articles of faith, scholastics, philosophy, astronomy, mysticism and related narratives of Traditions. He has made an attempt to leave no intellectual aspect pertaining to a verse unexplained. In the case of hadeeth narratives as well, the author of this work has been more cautious as compared to other commentators. From this angle, this is a very comprehensive commentary, and no future venture in connection with the tafseer of the Qur'an can now n afford to ignore its help.​

 

[rubPzai]

CONCEP OF PROOF AND PROVING

I think, before we start examining religion we need to know why we need to do so and how we may do so. We also need to understand some terms normally used and their proper context and perhaps a bit of explanation as regard logic that we think we are using.

We need to examine religion because in one sense or another it is a major and fundamental cause of conflict in the world. The conflict is not between countries, cities and villages only but even between the members of the very same family eg if some members of family hold one religion or sect true the others hold a different religion or sect true and battles are fought over it. All this because we have not understood religion as to what it really is and what it stands for and how it came about. I hope together we are going to help each other clarify this situation for the good of our own very selves.

Before we actually talk about religion, we need to understand what the truth is? What a theory is, what a hypothesis is, what is meant by evidence, logic, axiom, fact, proof, the way of proving and actual proving. We will explain things as we go along because they are far too many to be talked about in one place.

Theory means an assumed best explanation of a given set of facts or assumptions. If the explanation is the best available and is based upon facts and works, it proves the theory is valid otherwise it is proven invalid ie it just remains an assumed explanation or mere hypothetical explanation of a set of hypothesis or self evident facts that does not work. This is the reason the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That is the pudding is cooked for the purpose of eating but unless all its necessary ingredients are used and are used properly and the cooking is also done properly, it would not be enjoyed by those who are supposed to eat it. Instead it would be thrown out and so it would prove it was not a good pudding. On the other hand, if it all turns out alright then it would end up something that people would enjoy eating and thus it would have served its purpose and proven its worth.

Before the pudding is actually cooked one needs to know the theory and the related facts ie one needs to know how the pudding is made and what things are involved in it. The theory is merely an assumption till it is used to produce the result in practice. Thus the theory would now be known as a fact because it has passed the practical=logical test. Let us explain it in another way, if a person claims to be a good cook, how can he prove that he really is a good cook or how can we know that he is really what he says? The answer is, either he or we come up with a testing method and if the claimant passes that test, we accept the claim. For example, in this case we devise a cooking test and allow the person to show his cooking skills. If he cooks things as he claims, he proves himself to us. If he messes up things instead, his claim of being a good cook falls apart ie it is disproven.

Hypothesis also means an assumption or guess but this time we are not guessing an explanation of self evident facts but merely guessing a new fact for verification in addition to already known facts. For example, I want to meet my next door neighbour but I do not know whether he is in or away out. I see that lights are on in his house and can hear that music is playing etc etc, so based upon this evidence I assume=guess, he is at home. In order to verify my this assumption I may go and knock at his door to see if he is really inside the house. So I go and knock at his door and he comes and opens the door thus my assumption proves true or correct ie my interpretation of the available evidence is proven right. Had he not been at home, my guess would have proven wrong. Not all situations and circumstances in life are that simple rather a lot of times we just walk along and clues keep us proving or disproving about our ultimate assumptions or conjectures. It is because some processes take longer than we live to complete. The ancient man living in cave could assume we will one day reach moon but he would have to live this long and see how it all happened over the ages. What I am explaining is the situation that some processes complete in a very short time and others in a very long time and yet others may take for ever and beyond. In a short journey we come quickly to end result so we can see we were right or wrong but when it comes to any very long journey, we just look at landmarks or clues along the way to see if we are still on the right road or have we gone off the track at some point in our journey towards our goal.

Many a time we suggest each other, let us be logical but the question is, what is logic? Logic simply put is a statement, a thought, a fact, a step or a link with a definite place in sequence or combination of things that work as a set or unit that has a purpose to fulfil. In other words, logic is a mechanism whereby objects, thoughts or actions are interconnected so that they function properly in order to achieve a set out purpose or bring about the end product. If the end product is achievable or is achieved the logic is sound otherwise not.

Mechanism eg leavers, links, wheels, gears, pulleys, belts, chains, shafts etc etc are interconnected in such a way as to serve a purpose. Take a bike as an example. The mechanism is designed for a set purpose eg for a person to travel from one place to another a bit faster and easier than walking or running. However, force that is used by a person to move it needs to be transferred from the rider of the bike to the bike wheels in a desired way. So the person must be linked to the bike wheels by a set of mechanical linkages. If all links are properly connected to each other for this purpose ie for transfer of force the bike will work otherwise it would not. This is logic at work in two respects a ) in the sense that things are connected together ie they are combined to work as one unit or a single mechanism b ) they are connected in a proper order or sequence ie each thing is in its place. If any two things in this chain of mechanism were not linked together at all or properly, the force that rider applies will not find its way to turn the wheels and the bike would not work thereby proving inconsistency or fault in this mechanism. The other example that comes to my mind is that suppose, you want to take water from the tap to the plants in your garden by using a hose then this hose needs to be sound for this purpose. If it is cut off at any place from the tap to the garden, the water will fail to flow through it to the point you want it to and thus it will fail to fulfil its desired purpose.

Our thoughts and actions also need to be interconnected in a similar manner to show that there is no flaw in our reasoning of things. Just as any mechanical part of the bike connected wrongly, missing or damaged would not allow the bike to function nor would any flaw in our reasoning or logic prove our point. So logic is merely the linkage which could be linking things or their thoughts and actions for a set purpose eg to prove a claim or to make a point. Logic is only and only combinational or sequential ie it is about putting things together as a single functioning unit and about putting things in their proper order that works. If some things are left out or put in wrong order of sequence then they will not work and so the purpose that was set out for the exercise will not be achieved.

Another important term often used by us is, proof. We ask each other, what is your proof for your claim or prove this or that etc etc but we do not give a thought to, what the proof actually is, so the question is what is proof? The answer, a proof is called a proof because it is evident and is complete, perfect or consistent with the allegedly claimed purpose ie it has no holes, imperfections, faults or missing bits in it and is obvious therefore it fulfils the claimed or stated purpose. For example, when we say something is fireproof, what do we mean by it? We mean, it does not catch fire. It is perfect for the purpose of not burning when exposed to fire or that fire cannot find any holes in it to get to it or through it. Word waterproof likewise means that water cannot penetrate the thing that is said to be waterproof, if it does then the thing is not waterproof, for it is damaged or flawed. A claim is only a word, a statement or an assertion and proof is the logical connection between the claim and the allegedly supporting evidence which if found consistent then proves the claim otherwise the claim remains an unproven claim. For example, if one claims to be a plumber then that is only his word but if he could show his claimed plumbing skills in practice then that would prove his claim. However, if he fails to show his claimed skills in practice then that would prove his claim unproven and therefore false or incorrect.

A proof is a reliable testimony of a witness=certified or approved evidence after thorough examination. It is a testimony that has been found free of all faults and flaws, having no contradictions within and with respect to self evident related facts and is perfect for the purpose of showing the connection between the claim and the supporting evidence ie it backs the claim. A qualified plumber will be given a certificate by a qualified teacher or authority stating that this person fulfils the requirements of being a competent plumber because this fact has been witnessed by the attester. However, the plumber will be tested for his plumbing skills again and again wherever he goes for a job, just to make sure he has not forged the certificate himself or that he has not forgotten the skill etc etc. He will be given and kept on a job only and only if he keeps on proving himself to the employer and the customer or consumer he is serving, or as soon as employer or customer sees him lacking in what is required of him, he will be told to go home.

The question now is, how do we use logic to prove a claim? Let us take for an example a witness, who claims that he saw a man who took out his gun from his pocket and shot another man twice in the head killing him instantly. The question is, is this witness telling us the truth? Well we need to test his sequential logic against itself as well as against his own combinational logic. What do I mean by that? By that I mean that we will see whether the sequences of events in the incident as told by this witness are actually possible or not? If the sequence of events is correct, the claim passes the first hurdle or else not. If the sequence did not make sense to begin with, we will know straightaway that the witness is mistaken or is lying, for he has failed the very first hurdle. What I mean by sequence is that suppose one has to go from a place called A to a place called B but this involves ten breaks in the journey. Some part of journey is may be by air, some by train, some by bus and some by ship etc etc. Now one needs to make sure that one is on time for each part of one's journey or missing any linked journey will result the person not being able to reach the destination that one set out to reach on time. Earlier I explained how force must get from one point to the other by means of mechanical linkages in case of a bike or water from a tap to the garden by means of a hose or pipe. The whole idea is to ensure that the chain of events is complete or the story would not make the sense the way it is supposed to according to its claimed purpose.

Next we look for things involved in the incident eg the killer, the victim, the murder weapon etc etc etc. If we find all these things then we check them out eg examine the dead body for bullet holes, take out bullets and match them with the gun (the murder weapon) and check out the gun for the fingerprints of the user for example. Once we have all these things, we lay them out together in an orderly manner to show the connection between them eg the killer will be connected to the gun by way of clues like fingerprints. The gun will be connected to the bullets (we recovered from the victim's body) by way of ballistics tests and so one will be able to see clearly that the witness is telling the truth and thus case will be proven against the accused. On the other hand, if our evidence was patchy with a bit missing from here and a bit missing from there or was contradictory, we will not be able to prove the reliability of the witness ie the logical sequence or combination would have in it some steps or bits missing or contradicting each other, making little or no sense at all. Evidence is called evidence because it is obvious mentally as rationally clear thing or physically as linkages connected together properly, hence one cannot call just anything evidence, it truly has to be evident. Likewise proof is called a proof because all the logical links in it are complete ie nothing is missing. Proving is all about showing logical connection between the claim and the allegedly supporting evidences as claimed by a witness of an incidence or is about explaining the available circumstantial evidences in a way that they cannot be refuted or falsified by an alternative explanation.

It is also important to realise at this stage that if there exists no way to prove a claim, then claim will not be treated as proven even if the claim may be true as a possibility. It is because as far as we are concerned, if there is no way of doing something then it cannot be done. If something can be done then there has to be a way to do it. However, the burden of proof, the way of proving and actual proving rests with the claimant. It is for others to examine whether the way of proving put forth works or not and whether the evidence put forth as a proof is reliable or not and so the claim has been proven or not. One thing is important though that judgement must be impartial or fair ie according to the presented evidence. It is impossible to twist the reliable evidence hence those who would decide against the presented reliable evidence and its only explanation will be providing evidence against themselves for being partial and unfair. Moreover, today it may be somebody else who you are judging but tomorrow it could be you who is being judged by somebody else, so better have a system that you would feel comfortable with when things go wrong for you.

I had to explain all this because most of the time it seems that we have problems with the definition of terms like absolute truth, proven truth, probable truth, possible truth, theory, hypothesis, axiom, philosophy, assumption, logic, fact, evidence and proof etc etc as well as with the interrelation between them. This is exactly what leads us to confusion about things when it comes to judging the issues for their truth. For example, the truth is categorised into four different categories a) absolute truth, b) proven truth, c) probable truth and d) possible truth. The absolute truth is called an axiom, which is self evident and self explanatory therefore is common experience or if you like universal. In other words that is how far we can be sure of something or an event or a phenomenon etc etc. For example, it is absolutely true that there is such a thing called the sun in the sky. It is also absolutely true that the sun is a globe and that it is hot and that it is at a distance from the earth. It is not possible for anyone to deny these facts because all this is a universal experience and universally accepted fact not an individual’s personal experience. One person therefore cannot accuse another of any wrong doing eg that you must be imagining things or biased etc etc. This is why an axiom is the foundation against which all the rest has to be tested and proved or approved or even disproved or disapproved. Things that cannot be called universal experience or universally accepted cannot be called axioms or absolute truths. To put it in another way, how does one know that what one is sensing through one’s senses is truly out there and not just an imagination in one’s own mind? The answer is simple that one must have others as independent witnesses to the very same thing. If others also observe what one claims to observe then one is definitely not imagining things but that they really do exist or happen out there. That is so because we cannot see each others imaginations in each others minds. If a person claims to see a tree and others also observe the same phenomenon then existence of the tree is an indisputable reality external to one’s own mind. On the other and if only the claimant sees things and the others cannot then things do not necessarily have existence in reality rather they may exist in that person’s mind only. Thus it is possible to establish that something really exists or not in the real world. A point to note is that It is not always possible to prove even the things that really do exist never mind proving the things that are said to be non-physical ie that are not even physically evident or detectable directly or through means of technology. This is why we need some thing more than that fulfils our this need ie witness based proof.

The next category of truth is that which is weaker than axiom but is stronger than any other form of knowledge and that is called the proven truth. The problem here is that just as axiom is a universal experience the proven truth is not. The proven truth is experience of some people that others only accept because it is proven to them beyond any reasonable doubt by way of a proof. The absolute proof is that which is witnessed by the testifier and the testimony proves to be true and reliable under test or cross examination. Again such a truth cannot be explained any other way nor denied, because the person who was absent from the event under question cannot contradict the person who allges to be present there and we have no way of disproving or falsifying that. The only thing that can prove the present person wrong is his own self conflicting statement or if it contradicts the related self evident facts, logic, axioms or things that are considered absolutely true beyond question. This is why we must and we do look for faults in the statements of a person who claims to be the first hand witness to a fact or an event or a phenomenon.

The next category of truth is probable truth. This form of truth is not self evident nor there is any reliable witness to it. What one does in this case is, gathers as much as is possible the related clues or evidences and assumes as best an explanation as possible for them that one can come up with and accepts this truth on that basis. However, in this case, the best explanation is that which is not self contradictory nor contradicts proven or absolute facts and is well detailed but simple or easier to understand. This is the weakest form of proof hence it does not stand against proven truth nor against absolute truth. This is the mode of proof that is cited by the scientific community most of the time and is also called circumstantial evidence. I will say yet more about it but a bit later on.

The next category of truth is, possible truth ie we cannot be sure about the truth of a matter one way or the other. Hence there is nothing to compel us to go one way or the other. In other words we could come across situations where the clues and explanations are equally valid or for that matter invalid hence we are free to believe or not to believe in the truth of the matter under consideration. So anything that does not fit the categorised truth is absolutely doubtful at least or even false at most.

Word theory means an explanation and an explanation is about things or situations or events and phenomena, which is only needed where things could be misunderstood or may not even be understood at all in the absence of the absolute truth or the proven truth. Things that are clear to us do not need any explanation whatsoever eg we see a person die after being hit by a car. Since explanation is given in the absence of an actual experience or reliable first hand witness therefore it is bound to be an assumption ie it is circumstantial based rather than experience based or reliable first hand witness based. For example, if I saw a murder taking place right in front of me, I need no proof or explanation as to how it happened, because I know it. However, if I found a dead body and clues around it but no witness then I need to think out what might have happened here all by myself. I could be right as well as wrong, for this will be my assumption or if you like my guess or theory, not an actual or proven fact.

So why a theory may end up as an acceptable or even accepted probable fact is, because it is the best possible explanation around for explaining the situation or the available evidences. Whatever explanation I assume about the dead body, I put it in front of everyone else along with the supporting evidences I gathered and they cross examine it. If they find nothing wrong with it or anything equally reliable against it, they would have no choice but to approve it, perhaps with further supporting evidences. The theory will stand for as long as it cannot be refuted, disproved or falsified. Hence to treat an accepted theory as mere an assumption is incorrect and a very serious mistake. Science is all about finding out about things or their aspects that are unknown to us. Maths is best example of that eg a=lb ie area of a rectangle equals length of its longer side multiplied by the length of its shorter side. So those who dismiss science are far from being called knowledgeable people. Anyway this is what makes the accepted theory different from a mere hypothesis or just a guess. It is because just a guess is not as good as a guess that is the best explanation of the available circumstantial evidences.

Most of the time word theory is used in sense of an explanation but at times it is used in its proper sense ie the best available explanation. It is best because it cannot be rivalled, refuted or falsified. If it could be rivalled or refuted then it would not be the best, would it? Thus a theory even though a hypothesis differs from hypothesis because hypothesis is merely a guess that may or may not be true whereas an accepted theory is held true and it remains true for as long as we do not have anything to refute or replace it with. Many a time people use terms like absolute, proven and probable interchangeably when it comes to expressing truth about something but that is a serious mistake in technical terms but those who already have knowledge about these things they know what one is talking about, because probable truth is not as true as the absolute truth or proven truth. Likewise the weaker evidence is not good enough to refute the stronger evidence.​

 

[rubPzai]

Dear brothers and sisters,

Please remember one thing very clearly, islam is against division and strife amongst people on basis of any stupidity whatsoever

003.102 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Fear Allah as He should be feared, and die not except in a state of Islam=peace.

003.103 YUSUFALI: And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah's favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you: That ye may be guided.

013.011 YUSUFALI: .......... Allah does not change a people's lot unless they change what is in their hearts. But when (once) Allah willeth a people's punishment, there can be no turning it back, nor will they find, besides Him, any to protect.

006.159 YUSUFALI: As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did.

010.057 YUSUFALI: O mankind! there hath come to you a direction from your Lord and a healing for the (diseases) in your hearts,- and for those who believe, a guidance and a Mercy.

These like verses in the quran leave us no room to be sectarians.

As for discussing matters relating religion or anything else for that matter. The first thing you all must realise is that you yourself are the judge or decision maker of whatever you believe or do.

Let me try and explain it a little. A human being is just a brain and senses. The brain gets all its information fropm its senses and senses get information from the environment within which we interact. The brain is just a logical processing unit that under normal functionality makes decision based on information it gets on the basis of the best reason it has to arrive at the decision.

No mawlana can force you to believe one thing or the other it is you who decide all the time. Other peoples' decisions are their own just like your decision is your own. All that happens is that you look at what others say and then form an opinion yourself based on your own reasoning as to which side in your opinion is right or wrong.

We have the first or fundamental rule of tafseer based on this principle ie the quran must be interpreted by itself first and foremost. Just think about it what it means.

It means that you read the quran, you understand the quran in sense of its words and meaning and then set verses on the same topic or issue or point through out the quran together and see that there is no contradiction in them. If there is a contradiction then you need to go back and use other meanings of the words in the verses and see if that removes any contradiction. If that does then your understadning of the quran is perfect ie it cannot be challenged.

Remember, the quran is a clear and a relaible text so don't try to understand it through less reliable or unreliable sources as the first thing.

The quran wants you to look at it yourself, why? because others can lead you in the direction against the quran. So one must educate one self reasonably so that one could judge the quran for oneself.

Tafseer of the quran by the quran is about understanding the quran youself, if you try and understand the quran through others then that is not going to be as relaible because the quran has warned us that there are bad people out there who claim to be mullahs who mislead others for their own ends. Jewish and christian bad mullahs are talked about in the quran.

Only if one understands the quran properly that ahadith will make sense. Remember tafseer by way hadith is only subordinate to the quranic tafseer by the quran.


Once we know that then talaaq and halaalah will make sense in its own context as the quran puts it.

Islam divides peoples' beliefs and practices into various parts in various contexts.

For example, some beliefs and practices are social (ie they involve or effect others beyond oneself) others personal (that do not concern others or effect others). However, there are also beliefs and actions that are both ie some beliefs and actions in some respect are social the while in other respects they are private. This is vitally important point to remember. To see whether a belief or practice or action is really private or social, we can see if it only effects ourselves or others as well beyond ourselves. Where effect is limited to ourselves that is private or personal but where effects is also on others in any way in that way that matter is social or governmental.

The other point to remember is that there are laws in any society to keep people organised because a society is an organisation of people workind together as a unit. The laws are there to keep the society running smoothly and people must know the laws so that they know what their duties are and what is unlawful so that they do not do illegal things because that will damage the society or totally destroy it. If there is no society, there is no law. The law is only there because some people want to live as a unit ie a family, a tribe, a country etc hence the need for local national and international regulations and laws etc. When people live as a unit there have to be some rules so that each and every person in that unit lives by them so that the society or unit continues its existence smoothly.

Likewise there are laws regarding marriage and divorce. These laws are very important part of a society. Islam tells us for state purposes how to get marriage and how to divorce, why? Because the state has to ensure that each person is given the rights and responsibilities or duties for proper interaction so that there is no trouble between people and if there is then there is some way of dealing with it so that society does not fall apart.

It will be a very disorganised way of life if any man ran arround with any woman. The children result from that will have no proper parenting as no one will be responsible for them and so humans will be living like animals and suffer unnecessary. In order to prevent such things happening laws became necessary and so people are held responsible for each other. The law of marriage and divorce is related to inheritence or legacy, child custody etc etc.

This is why unless a person has the knowledge of these things it will not make sense to him what the law of marriage and divorce is all about.

The quran is very clear about marriage.

1)The age of marriage.

004.006 YUSUFALI: Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them, release their property to them; but consume it not wastefully, nor in haste against their growing up. If the guardian is well-off, Let him claim no remuneration, but if he is poor, let him have for himself what is just and reasonable. When ye release their property to them, take witnesses in their presence: But all-sufficient is Allah in taking account.

This verse tells us that there is definite the age of marriage ie just like age when you can drive a car. Also there are conditions that people getting married must have sense of responsibiltiy and have the circumstances that they can raise a good family under normal circumstances and situations. Just as you can have your driving licence at an age you get the marriage licence but you must learn all that is related to marriage before you get married so that you do not end up killing each other.

004.019 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.

This verse forbids marriage against will ie in islam child marriages are not allowed and nor are forced mariiages as far as the quran is concerned.

I explained the proper way to understand the quran before I started this because others wise people may have jumped to wrong conclusions about islam the way the quran explains it.

Here I have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that all the ahadith reports are false that tell us that the prophet married ayesha when she was 6 years old. Mullahs are to blame for bad reputation of islam but I shall leave that just now. Just accept the fact that not everything mullahs tell us as islam is in fact islam. This is why there are so many sects because we have been very irresponsible ourselves for getting our islam from others without thinking it through properly in light of the quran.

There is not a thing that is islam and it is not clarified fully by the quran. Even though mullahs tell us various thing even regarding marriage and divorce the quran is very clear to those who understand the context of the quran and the reality of the situation in this regard in the real world.

002.229 YUSUFALI: A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold Together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (Men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah; so do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (Themselves as well as others).


Let us see the context of divorce. It is very damaging if any society allowed anyone to marry and divorce at will. The society will become totally disorganised and a jungle. It is very important to register marriage with the state authorites, local , national or international. Why? So that others know you are man and wife and so you know your rights and responsibilities with respect each other and with respect to others parties eg people or governments etc and their rights and responsibilities with respect to you as man and wife. If you have any kids, relevant people also need to know that as well for the same reasons. If your son goes missing or your wife goes missing the only way you will be given attention is if you have a claim as a related person. If your brother is killed by some one, others will recognise your rights and responsibilty and you will know theirs. This is why human relationships must be known in the eyes of the law and its enforcers if anything is related in any way to others or effects others.

If we do not organise our soicieties according to some sort of rules then people will do as they please because there is no agreed way of life between them to stop them from doing anything for any reason. Likewise as people must inform authorities about their marriages they must do the same regarding their divorce. But they must not make marriage and divorce a child's play because this will totally destroy family structure which makes people a tribe that is necessary for living a reasonably good life. If poeple organise and work together they can achieve a lot whereas disorganised people cannot be free of infights over each and everything, having no time to make progress and so the only way is destruction or life worse than animals in the jungle. As men will try and take women and properties of others there will be a lot of killing for example. This shows not only you need to have laws but also the laws you have must be implemented properly.

To stop all damaging or destructive things islam shows people the way to do things in a civilised way. According to the quran a man is only allowed to divorce his same wife twice in his life time and he is also allowed to remarry her if she so wishes. The question is, why islam allows divorce? Islam allows divorce because a human can make mistakes and so one is given two chances to be able to make oneself sensible, so if one fails then one is not likely to be sensible in future either, so the permanent separation is ordered before these people do each other and the wider society some serious damage that all regret.

The point is, the quran first of all tells people, don't marry till you know what is involved in this and only marry if you think that you can be good husband and wife ie you have what it takes to be a good married couple. So if the people involvbed took this first step right then it is unlikely that they will ever go for divorce. However life is full of surprises and wisdom some times fails even the very wise, so divorce is a way out for people who may have become unhappy with each other for whatever the reasons. It is therefore better that they separate sensibly than live in misery. Once people separate wisely they may never need to get back together again but again separation may work on them and they may feel that their decision for divorce was not the wise one so they have two such chances to go with whatever they think is right for them.

If they change their mind within the idda then there is no need for remarriage but if they go beyond the time limit then they can remarry to be together again at any later time. This idda period is for two reasons. One that if woman is pregnant then she becomes known for that so that child responsibility could become clear for the father of that child and the state and two, so that the state is informed of this divorce but ssupends it till it is clear that people are really divorcing. Once divorce becomes permanent then state must be informed and the same needs to be done for birth of any child.

The state needs to know these things because the state has to issue licences, confirmations and verifications for the people so that wherever they may be, they do not have any problems. People travelling from one place to another need papers to prove things eg they are man and wife or the children with them are their own or the things they have are their own etc etc etc. So mullahs who have no sense how things work in the real world have messed up islam as much as they could and so there is no point people fighting over it but see if we can make sense of all this and sort it out.

The divorce with words has nothing to do with islam, it is about real process of divorce under the state law just like marriage and birth registration, divorce also needs to be properly witnessed and registered and people must carry the proof with them so that if need to be they could produce it. If a man and woman are travelling with each other and people catch them and accuse them of illegal sexual relationship what will be their way out? Or if a man and a woman are found together and they tell us they are married couple, how can we prove that they are not? If a woman marries a man, how do we know she is not already married? If she divorced, how do we know that if she has nothing to prove it with so that she could marry again? So one can see marriage and divorce is not a private matter and it cannot be. Any one taking it that way is out of his mind. This is why the need for witnesses for marriage and divorce or the official papers which could prove their relationship etc etc. You need proof to prove something belongs to you, your word is not enough under some circumstances.


002.282 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (For evidence). Disdain not to reduce to writing (your contract) for a future period, whether it be small or big: it is juster in the sight of Allah.........

As for mullahs, many of them are paid by their masters to issue fatwas according to wishes of their pay masters. So a powerful and wealthy person who has paedophilic tendencies, can make such mullahs to justify paedophilia and so ignorant from then on think that is islam and so on.

This argument proves that the mawlanas in the videos are right to some degree but not totally. They too failed to realise the proper legal and social context of divorce. Disregarding state in legal matters is silly and wrong because islam does not override state laws and social conventions or tribal customs rather it reinforces them provided they are just and fair and are for the benefit of the unit of humanity.

Halaala mullahs need to educate themselves so that they could see their own mistake. Their whole understanding of islam in this regards is totally cut off from the reality. They are only and only thinking about *ex as an issue, which it is not. This is issue of social unit ie family. How this unit should come into existence and how it should continue and if unfortunately it cannot then how to limit the damage to people involved and the wider society is the point.

Just as mullahs are wrong about paedophilia and call it islam so they are wrong about purpose of halaala ie if a woman married some one else properly legally after proper legal divorce and then he divorces her again properly legally and then if exhusband and exwife come togther again proper legal way then that mariage is fine.

The quran forbidds lusting ie any man running after just any woman. This is in fact sign of sexually suppressed society where people are forcefully made to do things against their will for whatever reason. If you do not like anyone to force you to breath in things you do not like to breath in, if you do like anyone to force you to drink things you do not like to drink, if you do not like anyone to force you to eat things you do not like to eat then why should poeple let anyone force them to marry anyone against their will? What you do not like you do not like and no one can force anyone to like something because this is a natural process. So muslims must learn and know what is wrong and fight against ills in the name of islam in their societies so that the muslim world becomes a better world.

The ignorant mullahs are opening the door for protitution in the name of islam by way of halaala ie a bad man can agree with a like minded woman that we will work together as man and wife to make money. I will sell you to different men in the name of halaala this way we will not be caught for the offence of protitution. This could prove very damaging for society if not destructive. Also mullah halaala forces women to develop taste for *ex with different men and that in itself is very dangerous for family unit. Having a well thought out marriage and divorce is different from mullahs sense of marriage and divorce. It is not fault of woman if man divorces her the mullah way so why put her through something that is not even her fault?

WATCH THE FOLLOWING SERIES OF VIDEOS FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF ISLAM

YouTube - Zaid Hamid: Youm-e-Iqbal Special Ep 2 Pt 1 (Complete Version)
YouTube - Zaid Hamid: Youm-e-Iqbal Special Ep 2 Pt 2 (Complete Version)
YouTube - Zaid Hamid: Youm-e-Iqbal Special Ep 2 Pt 3 (Complete Version)
YouTube - Zaid Hamid: Youm-e-Iqbal Special Ep 2 Pt 4 (Complete Version)

YouTube - Zaid Hamid & Dr. Israr: Youm-e-Iqbal Special Ep 1 Pt 1
YouTube - Zaid Hamid & Dr. Israr: Youm-e-Iqbal Special Ep 1 Pt 2
YouTube - Zaid Hamid & Dr. Israr: Youm-e-Iqbal Special Ep 1 Pt 3


YouTube - Islamic System - Dr israr Vs Javed Ahmed Ghamidi Part 1/8
YouTube - Islamic System - Dr israr Vs Javed Ahmed Ghamidi Part 2/8
YouTube - Islamic System - Dr israr Vs Javed Ahmed Ghamidi Part 3/8


YouTube - Ghamidi - Imamat in Islam - 1


YouTube - 5.Politics and Concept of Imamat in Islam: Muslim Demographics The Islamic Tidal Wave

YouTube - 1.Dr. Zakir Naik, Shahrukh Khan, Soha Ali Khan on NDTV with Barkha Dutt

YouTube - 2.Dr. Zakir Naik, Shahrukh Khan, Soha Ali Khan on NDTV with Barkha Dutt

YouTube - Maulana Ishaq - Shia and Sunni Unity *MUST WATCH* 1/5
YouTube - IZHAR-E-HAQEEQAT????? ????? (Episode01) part 01 to 11 HIDAYAT TV 23-09-10 (ALI SHAH ABIDI)
YouTube - Ghamidi - Status of Hadeeth 01
YouTube - Javed Ghamidi-- Hudud Ordinance & Rajem ke saza - 1
YouTube - Ghamidi - Taqleed (1)
YouTube - Alif - Islam main Qanoon-e-Talaq (1 of 8)
YouTube - Pakistan 6 Halala Nikah's of a Mosque Imam's wife
YouTube - Teen Talaaq aur Halala part 1
YouTube - SHIA VS SUNNI MUNAZRA 1
YouTube - MUNAZRA SHIA VS SUNNI 1
YouTube - Munazra : Sunni vs Deobandi. 1 / 20 ''Qabar par Azan''.

regards and all the best.​

 

[rubPzai]

Is wife beating against the quran?

Before I answer this question, here is the verse that raises the issue of wife beating;

004.034YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

004.035 YUSUFALI: If ye fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family, and the other from hers; if they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation: For Allah hath full knowledge, and is acquainted with all things.

004.128 YUSUFALI: If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.

There are a few things that I need to clarify before the answer makes any sense. As explained elsewhere already.

Please note first that islam is a way of life based on principles of freedom of thought and expression therefore it is anti oppression and suppression. It is based on social justice therefore anti injustice. It is based on fairness therefore anti unfairness. It is based on peace therefore anti disturbance and instability or terrorism or chaos. It is based on principle of cooperation between human being hence anti noncooperation. It is based on principle of progess therefore anti stagnation or regression. It is based on principle of prosperity therefore anti poverty. It is based on principle of knowledge therefore anti illiteracy and ignorance.

IT IS BASED ON PRINCIPLE OF HUMANITY AND BROTHERHOOD therefore it is anti slavery and exploitation, use or abuse.

Islam teaches human beings to live for each other not against each other as a good family. As for verses above, arabic wording is same in the verses 34 and 128 in surah 4 showing clearly the quran has been mistranslated. It may be taken as desertion or dislike ie no longer in love with each other etc etc. This may be guidance towards finding out the exact position where man and wife stand regarding each other ie do they still weant ot be together or want ot go their separate ways.

1)Islam is founded on principles of social justice and fair play.

2)Islamic laws are for benefit of humanity and are there to protect people from themselves and others eg suicide is as unlawful as killing anyone else. The quran is clear that Allah only made such things and actions unlawful as could prove more harmful than good. The quran also clear as to lawful is all that which has more benefits than harm. It is because things or actions are not free of their good or bad side effects or nock on effects.

3)Islam does not allow people to take laws in their own hands because that will destroy law and order in the society.

4)When laws and order is an issue then we are talking about safety of individuals and society as well as justice, crime detection rate, true conviction rate, false accusation rate, false conviction rate, standard of evidence, support for victims etc etc. We need to ensure that criminals do not walking away free and that falsely accused do not suffer injustice as far as it is humanly possible. One can see how difficult this balancing act really is.

Over all the idea is to keep crime rate as low as possible so that society can live with it, because crime free state is not possible. Not only because of difficulty in formation of laws because laws need to be well thought out but also in implementation of those laws and their enforcement etc. In other words human error and neglect is impossible to rule out at various stages of the process.

Coming to the concerned verses, by now it should be very clear that the verses of the quran are mistranslated and misinterpreted because the people involved in their translations etc may not have full grasp of how things work in real world. The quran is clear that no one has any authority over anyone else other than what is needed for organisational purposes. Islamic concept of government is not about controlling people but to organise people to help them live peacefully with help of each other and the society.

The other point to remember is that all orders in the quran are based on reasons ie situations and circumstances as they suit time and place or occasions. Therefore responsibility some times is with men and some times with women ie whoever suits the situation or circumstances best. In other words applications of laws change with change of situations. So men are given authority under some situations and women under other situations ie best person for the job. If a woman is better able to do a job then she is to do it and if man is better at it then man has to do it. No matter what one or the other must do it otherwise the job will remain undone.

The next point is meanings of the words used in the quran. For example, word daraba has many different meanings eg beat, hit, strike, multiply, separate, leave, let go, push away, trial, test, similar etc etc.

The next thing we need to look at is context of the verses in the quran eg look at verses like 4/6,19 etc. In the quran we are told that marriage is not a child’s play rather people who want to get married must be grown up both biologically as well as psychologically and be in full agreement ie they must be compatible. Now if marriage was a sensible well thought out step to begin with then it is unlikely that it will end up in disrepute and divorce. However if marriage does fall through due to unforeseen situations and circumstances then people have two chances for divorce and getting back together again. However, if they fail the third time then divorce is final ie the couple can no longer marry each other again except that after the marriage if the woman becomes divorced again under normal situation and circumstances then the first man can marry her again if that is what she also wants.

Now let us look at these verses. It is told that first step is mutual talk between husband and wife. If it works the situation is sorted so that is the end of the matter. If first step fails then next step is to sleep on separate beds ie give the anger time to die down. If it works then again the problem is solved and no further action is needed. However if the second step fails then it is time for the third step.

The question is what is third step? According to most translators and the interpreters of the quran it is for husband to start beating up the wife till she submits and if she does then that is the end of problem. How sad that scholars made this serious accusation against the quran? It is because in the next verse we are told that people from both families must get involved to help them get back together again. This point, with commandment for not taking law into one’s own hand and the law that one must be just and fair etc make it very clear that the quran is not ordering man to beat up his wife. It is just giving another suggestion and after that telling families and relatives of the parties to get involved in getting them back together again.

The quran is telling man and wife to make their separation public as a third step ie send the wife back to her parents or relatives etc. This step can also help man and wife get back together again because people will start talking about them. When this separation becomes known to others, may be others will want to marry these people so if these two want to get back then they must or they could lose the chance if man or wife marries some one else. The relative also become concerned so they get involved as a forth and final say. If this solves the problem fine otherwise legal steps become necessary towards reconciliation, or separation or divorce.

Beat is wrong also that if a wife is really not happy with her man then she will do what she wants to do behind his back. So this advice is only for a wife who is not this kind of wife but a god loving wife who herself knows wrong and right and just for some reason made a mistake. A one of mistake. Also this whole thing could be about man and wife loosing interest in each other for some reason, so they are advised to try separating and see if you still desire each other or not. In this is daraboo is used in sense of trial or test the relationship may be by man sending his wife to her parents house etc. In that case word NUSHOOZ will mean man or wife standing up against this relationship ie man or wife think one had enough of this relationship. So it is possible to interpret the verses in various ways. Beating no matter what is not the purpose in this verse at all because the quran was sent to make people reasonable and friends not violent and enemies. Even kufaar are not supposed to be fought against iuf they incline towards peace so how can a mna be allowed to go overboard and beat his wife? You cannot create love or desire for each other in between people if you tell one to beat up the other.

The other thing to remeber is that women have similar rights against men as well. It is balance of power that man and wife keep each other in check in the name of god and humanity. This is not about one side beating the hell out of the other. You will not have the family atmosphere that way. This works like government and opposition but for the good of the family and country or humanity.


As we can see the translations are based on the way the society at the time used to deal with situations like this rather than understanding and following the quran ie people already had a culture in which quran was revealed so it takes time for things to change for the better. The wife beating, the child abuse, the force marriage, the stoning to death etc etc are part of societies that had or have master slave mentality. The idea is to keep powerless and weak people frighten and terrorised by the people in authority. Even today authoritarian governments use the very same idea of law ie they form laws to break and control their people and the result is backward countries, tribes and families that results in human suffering at a massive scale.


So people who attack islam, attack it because they know if people understood islam it is not a good news for them because islam opposes master slave relationships between people. It is also possible that the quran has been deliberately mistranslated so that it suits the paymasters of such so called religious scholars. It is a way of keeping people side tracked from the objectivity by keeping them ignorant of the real objective of the quran so that people fight over aimless things and remain divided so that they could enslave them one by one. Because once one is put on the wrong path and told it is the right path then it takes much more effort to get back to the right path and so even very sincere people remain ignorant of the purpose of the message.​